Skip to main content
Table of Contents

DISSENTING OPINION ON
THE NATIONAL MARINE STRATEGY BY
THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS MEMBERS ON
THE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION

"We the Official Opposition Members of Parliament on the Transport Committee oppose many of the recommendations in the Committee's report. Although we do not reject all of the recommendations, we have fundamental objections to a number of parts of the report. We deplore the lack of flexibility displayed by the Liberal majority on the Committee, who did not express any real desire to reach a compromise with the Official Opposition. We consider an attitude of this kind in an area so fundamental to the economy of Quebec and of Canada very disturbing. It is a bad omen for the prospects of greater involvement by local communities in administering their marine infrastructures. We believe that flexibility, co-operation and local involvement are the key to establishing a modern and efficient marine system. At all costs we must avoid a marine system that is disconnected from the realities of the communities it serves."

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Transport Committee disagree in particular with the following points in the Committee's report:

(1) The ports system:

Recommendation 1: Federal responsibility for the ports system

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee do not object on principle to this recommendation. As long as Quebec remains within the Canadian federation, the federal government has exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over marine transport. However, it would have been preferable if the Committee had agreed to include in this recommendation a proviso that the government, while exercising its responsibility in the port sector, should try to involve local and marine stakeholders to the greatest possible extent in the administration of their port infrastructures. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that only maximum involvement of local and marine stakeholders can give us an efficient, modern, competitive and reasonably priced port sector.

The statement in paragraph 1.26 of the Committee's report gives a clear indication of how the Liberal majority really sees the situation. They regard the involvement of local and marine stakeholders as an opportunity for the federal government to off-load all the money-losing port infrastructures and keep the profitable ones. For them, involving local and marine stakeholders is just a chance for the federal government to dump its bills on someone else. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee believe that profitable port infrastructures should also be taken over by local and marine stakeholders.

Recommendation 3: Structure of a new national commercial ports system

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee do not consider that the new structure proposed in recommendation 3 provides the flexibility needed by port administrations if they are to compete successfully against foreign ports (definitely not in the case of our main ports of entry: Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Vancouver, etc.). The Canada Ports Corporation is being replaced with a ports desk or secretariat in Transport Canada. Even if this secretariat's mandate is less onerous for port administrations than the Corporation has been, it will still be reviewing and approving the administrations' budgets, corporate plans and audit reports and approving any extraordinary investments.

A commercialization formula similar to that introduced in the airport sector would have been preferable to what is being recommended by the Committee. The taking over of ports by local non-profit organizations would have given port administrations all the flexibility they needed while at the same time maximizing local involvement. It should be noted that the witnesses who were least enthusiastic about this formula were the Local Port Corporations (LPCs), whose directors and employees want to remain employees of the state and are apprehensive about being transferred to the private sector. The arguments put forward by the LPCs to preserve their government status were not convincing: keeping the Canadian flag on their business cards smooths relations with foreign clients and having the government as a loan guarantor enables them to borrow at a lower cost. Under the structure proposed by the Committee, port administrations would no longer have the benefit of the government as guarantor.

In any event, the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee believe that deciding whether to take over port infrastructures should lie primarily with local and marine stakeholders. They are in the best position to assess their own ability and interest in this area.

Recommendation 4: Dividends to be paid by the ports

For the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee, it is important that any profits made by a port must remain with that port, to finance infrastructure improvements and ensure its ongoing competitiveness. The Members deplore the fact that this principle has not been incorporated into the recommendation. If ports were transferred to local non-profit authorities the question would not arise, since they would be paying rent to the government. In the case of airports, revenues from national airports are being used to finance safer infrastructures for regional airports, but the relationship between national and regional airports is much more clearly defined than that between national and other ports. In the case of ports, such revenues should be used to cover some of the Coast Guard's costs. In no case should revenues from the ports system be used to pay down the federal deficit. The government must not use its responsibility in the marine sector as a way to generate revenue, but rather as a way to offer the best possible service to Canadians and generate the greatest possible economic spin-offs for Quebec and for Canada.

Recommendation 6A: Property taxes on port infrastructure

Ports must be viewed as corporate citizens of the municipalities in which they are located. Like all good corporate citizens, ports (just as any federal government agency for that matter) should pay municipal taxes. It is not up to the municipalities to agree to lower tax revenues simply to allow ports to generate larger profits which can then be directed to the federal Consolidated Revenue Fund. The federal government already off-loads too many of its debts onto the provinces without having to turn to them once more for help in reducing the federal deficit. If the majority on the Committee is so concerned about the financing of port infrastructure and the future competitiveness of ports, it should have accepted the amendments to recommendation 4 proposed by the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee. This recommendation is a potential source of conflict between municipalities and port administrations. Clearly, if the ports were administered by local non-profit corporations, it would be much easier for the municipalities to agree to tax reductions since they would have the assurance that the money would remain in the community and be used for development purposes.

Recommendation 6B: Review of municipal tax assessment practices

The comments pertaining to recommendation 6A apply here as well. However, the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee believe that municipal taxation comes under exclusive provincial jurisdiction and that, therefore, the federal government should have no say in any future review of assessment and taxation practices for port infrastructure.

Recommendation 7: Appointment of members to boards of directors

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee are especially disappointed with this recommendation. Transport Canada has consistently taken the position that closer ties must be developed with local communities and users. Yet, the Liberal Members on the Committee did not see the wisdom of recommending that the majority of the members of port Boards be appointed by local stakeholders. Short of permitting local, non-profit authorities to take over the ports, which would be the best solution, the appointment to the port boards of a majority of members from the locality would have encouraged optimum involvement on the part of local and marine stakeholders. This recommendation clearly demonstrates that the Liberal Party of Canada is not a proponent of decentralization and does not view community cooperation and involvement as factors critical to the success of our ports. The Liberals prefer to hold stubbornly to the federal government's traditional approach: Ottawa gives the orders and the provinces obey.

Recommendation 9: Ports secretariat mandate to classify ports

Based on the numerous testimonies heard, it seems clear that the Canadian ports system must be rationalized as there are too many infrastructures. Before making cuts blindly, the activities of each port must, of course, be classified. However, when the government is contemplating closing a port, it is important that it examine alternate modes of transportation and the possibility of moving goods from one region to other port facilities. A comprehensive analysis of the impact of a port closure on the region it serves should be done in order to get as much information as possible. This information would facilitate the transition process and ease the negative economic impact on the targeted region. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee would have liked to see this recommendation contain a reference to the government support required to lessen the negative economic impact of a port closure on a particular region.

Recommendation 10: Transition period and assistance to non-commercial ports with the potential to enter the commercial class

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee agree with this recommendation, but deplore the fact that no mention is made of measures which would diminish the negative economic impact of port closures on the communities affected.

Recommendation 12: Federal responsibility for port facilities in the event of closure

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee agree with this recommendation. However, we would have liked to see the recommendation stipulate that the federal government has a responsibility to decontaminate soil in cases where contamination has occurred.

Recommendation 13: Introduction of legislation on the port system and referral to Committee

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee certainly invite the minister to introduce legislation as rapidly as possible to address the sorry state of our port network. To facilitate and speed passage of this bill, they urge the Minister to seek a broad consensus with the Opposition and not to act unilaterally, as he is so often in the habit of doing, particularly as this issue is of major importance to all Quebeckers and Canadians. Since the opposition parties do not agree with the Committee's report, we invite the Minister to carefully read the dissenting opinion of the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee and to act in accordance with recommendations put forward.

(2) Labour-Management Relations:

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee, this section of the report reflects the true anti-labour face of the Liberal Members on the Committee and their support for the management position. Paragraph 1.54 states: - "The collective bargaining process does not appear to be working as the issues never get resolved because of back-to-work legislation. Outdated and rigid labour practices increase costs and make it difficult to improve competitiveness and adapt to change. Wages are high and excessive overtime (...) is said to be the norm rather than the exception". Comments such as these are misplaced and reflect an obvious anti-labour bias which is unacceptable in a committee report. After delivering a blow to the unemployed and the least fortunate members of society, the Liberals attacked rail workers and now they are turning on the marine sector.

It is very disturbing. The Liberal Members on the Committee are prepared to call into question the entire bargaining process between labour and management, a process which over a period of 20 years has resulted in only 27 strike or lockout days in more than 7,000 working days at the Port of Montreal. In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee, the Committee is making a serious mistake in qualifying the state of labour-management relations throughout the ports system in Canada as poor on the basis of the two recent labour disputes at the ports of Montreal and Vancouver. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

It is apparent from a reading of the majority report that the anti-labour sentiments expressed by the Minister during the rail dispute have rubbed off on the Liberal Members on the Committee. This is unfortunate. Furthermore, paragraph 1.56 of the Committee's report which calls for the elimination of the Maritime Employers Association is, in the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, tantamount to calling for a return to the 1960s when strikes in the port sector were a frequent occurrence.

Under the circumstances, and because of the false arguments tainted with anti-labour sentiment put forward by the Committee in the case of recommendation 14, the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee vehemently oppose this recommendation which imperils the labour-management bargaining process which, although imperfect, has been thoroughly tested in the past 25 years.

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee recognize, however, that certain ports in the system suffer from endemic labour relations problems. They urge the government to resolve in a fair and equitable manner the problems that exist at these ports, in particular the Port of Vancouver, and to do everything in its power to restore a healthy climate of labour-management relations.

(3) Pilotage:

On the basis of the testimony heard by the Committee and the summary of the situation in the majority report, the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee have identified three main problems with the pilotage system. First, Canadian shipowners whose vessels sail the St. Lawrence Seaway regularly consider that their rights have been infringed by the existing system, and wish to be exempted from compulsory pilotage. Second, the pilotage authorities are incapable of becoming financially self-sufficient because of the cumbersome administrative process imposed on them by the government for approving tariff increases. And third, Canadian and foreign shipowners want a final offer selection mechanism, similar to the one established by the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, to avoid labour conflicts in this sensitive area.

It is possible to respond to these concerns within the framework of the existing Pilotage Act of 1972. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that the Committee's majority report is using what are minor problems as a pretext for centralizing the pilotage system in a huge bureaucracy in Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee are also critical of the value judgements and prejudices that are applied to the pilots, who are professionals in their field, throughout this section of the report. The majority members of the Committee have gone so far as to impute dubious motives to the pilotage authorities, which are after all federal Crown corporations.

Recommendation 15: Repeal of the Pilotage Act

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee formally oppose any repeal of the Pilotage Act and replacement of the pilotage authorities with a central agency like the ports secretariat (for which the government is already trying to find a purpose). For a number of reasons -- including the centralizing bent of the majority on the Committee -- the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee oppose recommendation 15. First, there are various considerations linked to safe navigation that must be studied. The bureaucrats in a pilotage secretariat centralized in Ottawa will not have enough local knowledge to define terms and conditions for pilotage in each region and set up a safe pilotage system. Repealing the Pilotage Act would undermine the requirement that pilots navigating on the St. Lawrence must be able to communicate in French. It should be borne in mind that the Desjardins inquiry recommended that it be compulsory for pilots navigating on the St. Lawrence to be able to communicate in French because of the large number of pleasure boats and other types of craft whose captains are unilingual francophones. Repealing the Act is put forward by the Committee as a way of relaxing the strict safety criteria that currently apply to pilotage on the St. Lawrence.

The existing pilotage system was introduced in the 1970s by the Liberal government of the day in response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry chaired by Mr Justice Bernier, an inquiry that lasted almost 10 years. Moreover, the size of vessels on the St. Lawrence has increased markedly. While the biggest ships to ply the St. Lawrence in the early 1970s had a deadweight of 30,000 tons, such ships today are considered only average.

Furthermore, repealing the Pilotage Act, far from solving the problem of the red tape that currently undermines the ability of the pilotage authorities to finance themselves, would in fact aggravate the problem by adding all the administrative restraints that a big federal bureaucracy can generate. It is remarkable that the majority on the Committee did not choose to follow the recommendations of the main users of the pilotage service, foreign shipowners, who pay nearly 100 per cent of pilotage fees in the West and 80 per cent in the East. These shipowners asked for minor changes to the Pilotage Act, not a radical overhaul of the whole system.

The Committee accuses the pilots of taking advantage of their monopoly to charge excessive fees. But the increase in pilotage fees over the past 20 years has been lower than the increase in the cost of living, nor has there been a strike on the Lower St. Lawrence since 1971.

Recommendation 16: Commercialization of pilotage services

In reality, the main pilotage associations in Canada are already commercialized. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee regard the idea of introducing competition among pilots as a threat to safe navigation. Certain pilots might be ready to take risks to get clients away from their competitors. When it comes to safety, the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that there can be no compromise with purely financial interests.

If we take paragraph 1.77 of the Committee's report at face value, Canada may become the first country in the world not to require vessels flying foreign flags to use compulsory pilotage. This prospect has been denounced not only by the pilots but also by a number of Canadian shipowners, and the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider it foolhardy. The pilots are professionals, used to sailing in difficult waters with crews composed of sailors from various national backgrounds, between whom there exist serious linguistic barriers, ofter under minimally acceptable conditions. Their presence is therefore essential to ensure that ships flying foreign flags arrive safely in port. Even foreign ship-owners want to retain the present piloting system.

It would certainly be possible to accommodate the Canadian shipowners within the framework of the Pilotage Act. The Act already allows for awarding limited pilotage certificates, which, without being full pilot licences, qualify a captain to dispense with compulsory pilotage. Obviously the Laurentian Pilotage Authority requires candidates to have sufficient knowledge of French, an essential element safe navigation on the St. Lawrence. The government should review in detail the process of awarding such certificates, so that it can identify any problems and suggest appropriate remedies, with its primary concern the preservation of safe navigation. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that an acceptable compromise could be reached between pilots and Canadian shipowners within the framework of the Pilotage Act without any need for repealing the Act.

Recommendation 17: Review of compulsory pilotage areas

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee are not in favour of this recommendation. They consider that the entire question of compulsory pilotage areas and compulsory pilotage has already been the subject of many inquiries. The worldwide trend in this area is toward an expansion of compulsory pilotage areas. Alaska has been expanding its compulsory areas ever since the Exxon Valdes disaster: the Americans learned the hard way how vitally important pilotage is to marine safety. The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee want at all costs to avert a similar catastrophe in Quebec and in Canada.

(4) St. Lawrence Seaway

Recommendation 20: Labour-management dispute resolution mechanism

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee are opposed to this recommendation. They deplore the fact that the Liberal majority is attacking, once more, one of our society's fundamental rights, namely, a person's right to freely negotiate his or her working conditions. The majority on the Committee acknowledge in paragraph 1.92 that Seaway labour-management relations have been stable for some time (read "a long time"). The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee cannot understand why the Liberal Party is so determined to restrict the rights of workers to freely negotiate their collective agreements. The Bloc Québécois Members have always considered the right to bargain collectively as a fundamental right of citizens. We do not easily accept a move by the government to restrict this right. Moreover, the blatantly anti-labour tone of this report will do nothing to reassure employees of the St. Lawrence Seaway that in their case, arbitration will be a fair and equitable process. The government has a rather pitiful track record in this area, particularly when one considers its recent attitude towards rail workers.

Recommendation 21: Commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and development of a proposal to create a binational administration agency

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee support the commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway. They believe that a non-profit corporation composed of local officials, marine stakeholders and shippers is an ideal way to maximize the Seaway's efficiency.

The eventual creation of a binational agency to operate the St. Lawrence Seaway elicits a number of comments and demands on the part of the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee. The fact is that most of the St. Lawrence Seaway flows within the borders of Quebec and Canada. Canadians are primarily the ones who covered, through their tax dollars, the cost of building the Seaway. This is one of their major achievements in which they take pride and one which benefits the entire North American economy. Our American partner, on the other hand, reaps economic benefits from the Seaway that are roughly equal to those reaped by Canada, although in relative terms it pays a smaller share of the operating costs. Quebeckers and Canadians would probably be willing to accept a bilateral body to manage the St. Lawrence Seaway, provided they received compensation for Seaway construction and maintenance costs that was proportional to the economic spinoffs generated for each country.

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee feel that the Committee lacked inspiration when the time came to make recommendations concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway. It would have liked to see two additional recommendations included in the report.

Firstly, the Committee should recommend that the Minister enter into negotiations with the United States to facilitate navigation in the Seaway. Mutual recognition of each country's administrative agency could be considered to avoid duplication of administrative procedures for navigation. It is not absolutely necessary for the Seaway to be under the authority of a binational agency in order to start eliminating some of the administrative formalities.

Secondly, the Bloc Québécois Members are of the opinion that Transport Canada should toughen its criteria for allowing foreign flag ships to navigate in Canadian waters. Since the Great Lakes are bodies of water shared by both Canada and the United States, we believe that the Minister should enter into negotiations with the United States to explore the possibilities of allowing both Canadian and American flag ships to navigate freely in these waters. The Great Lakes could be declared an open waters zone between Canada and the United States. Canada probably stands to gain more from an easing of navigation restrictions in the Great Lakes. However, the Americans should be made to realize that they pay only a mere fraction of the St. Lawrence Seaway's operating costs even though they benefit substantially from this waterway.

Recommendation 22: Government support for the construction of Seaway-size ships

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee are pleased to note that the majority of members agreed with this proposed recommendation. They fervently hope that the Minister will consider it as it is vitally important to the future of the St. Lawrence Seaway and to shipyards in Quebec and in Canada.

(5) The Canadian Coast Guard

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee recognize that the Coast Guard plays an essential role in our marine system. It ensures services in the national interest that benefit not only marine navigation but also the entire population (search and rescue, icebreaking services). The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that it would be virtually impossible to identify all direct users of Coast Guard services fairly and equitably. We also wonder about the cost of a fee-for-service approach, which is in fact referred to in paragraph 1.121 of the majority report.

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee do not oppose a certain degree of cost recovery for Coast Guard services, but they consider that the most efficient and fairest solution is set out in paragraph 1.121. Like the majority on the Committee, they consider that both commercial shipping and pleasure craft should contribute toward the cost of Coast Guard services. As far as commercial shipping is concerned, the majority report's suggestion of a national levy on all marine traffic has some merit. At the same time, the economic activity of our ports is partly the result of Coast Guard services, and the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that revenue collected by the government in the form of dividends and rents paid by the ports system should be allocated to Coast Guard cost recovery, thereby reducing the burden on commercial shipping.

Recommendation 24: Merger of the Coast Guard and Fisheries and Oceans fleets

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee approve of this recommendation and earnestly hope that the anticipated gains in productivity for the two fleets will be achieved. However, they consider that the Committee could have gone further and suggested that the government look into the possibility of including in the amalgamation the Environment Canada fleet and even the Navy, as recommended by the Standing Committee on National Defence in 1990. They are also of the opinion that, as suggested by the Auditor General, the government should investigate all possibilities for increasing the productivity of its materiel and equipment.

Recommendations 25 and 27: Reducing the number of aids to navigation and vessel traffic services

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee are concerned about the speed with which this recommendation might be implemented. It must be clearly understood that only a minority of the ships on the St. Lawrence are equipped with the new technology. It is true that Canadian shipowners are moving ahead rapidly in this area, but still, a large proportion of the traffic consists of foreign vessels. Obviously the Committee does not wish to close our doors to foreign vessels that may not be equipped with the new technology, and so aids to navigation can only be removed gradually. In addition, because the technology is still relatively new, care will have to be taken to ensure that it works perfectly before many aids are removed.

In any event, the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that the Coast Guard could start charging fees to vessels that do not have this equipment and thus make it necessary to use Coast Guard resources maintaining aids to navigation that serve no other purpose.

Recommendation 26: Dredging

Dredging should be seen as analogous to road maintenance. Municipal streets are maintained by the municipality while provincial roads and highways are maintained by the province. Accordingly, the Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider that the dredging of ports should be the responsibility of the port administrations, while dredging of channels should be the responsibility of the Coast Guard and regarded as an essential public service (just as highway maintenance is), for which no costs are specifically recovered.

Recommendation 28: Cost recovery for icebreaking

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee consider icebreaking to be an essential service in the public interest, one that should not be subject to cost recovery. For many communities along the St. Lawrence and in the Maritimes, icebreaking is an essential operation that prevents the formation of ice jams that cause flooding. Icebreaking protects lives and property along the banks of the St. Lawrence and makes navigation possible in winter, thereby generating economic benefits for all of Canada. How are we to know if the ships that use the Port of Montreal during the winter months would use another Canadian port if the St. Lawrence were to close in winter? Perhaps they would use an American port instead, a move which would result in job and revenue losses for Quebec and for Canada.

Recommendation 29: Consideration of the ice-strength classification of ships when levying charges against vessels poorly equipped for ice navigation.

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee believe that ships poorly equipped for ice navigation should be made to pay a penalty equal to the additional costs incurred by the Coast Guard for search and rescue services.

Recommendation 31: Consultation on the implementation of a national cost recovery program for Coast Guard services

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee welcome the desire of the Liberal majority to undertake a broad consultation with stakeholders on the implementation of a national cost recovery program. We do, however, have some concerns about regional representation on the Marine Advisory Board, given that only two Quebeckers sit on the Board. If the government wants to initiate a truly equitable consultation process, it must hold consultations with a body that fairly represents the interests of all maritime regions in Canada.

Recommendation 33: National licensing system for recreational boats

The Bloc Québécois Members on the Committee agree that a modern licensing system should be introduced for recreational boats and that the administration of the system should be on a full cost recovery basis. Furthermore, we feel that the licensing system for recreational boats is also the ideal mechanism for the government to use to ensure that recreational boaters assume an equitable share of the costs associated with Coast Guard services.

Ottawa, May 3, 1995

Michel Guimond, MP Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans

Paul Mercier, MP Blainville-Deux-Montagnes

;