I appreciate that, Wayne, and I know that with your background in agriculture you know the domino effect on the agricultural sector.
That is all to say that at the end of July, the American company that owns the port and the rail line basically said that they were shutting things down for the season with respect to the port in particular. This meant that about 70 people didn't have a job in a community of 800 people, so you can imagine that's devastating in and of itself. The various other spinoffs are the number of farmers who were expecting to ship their grain through Churchill and all of a sudden had no other option.
Obviously this has put the entire community's local business in a tailspin and it reverberates throughout the Hudson Bay line, and I appreciate the reference to the Bay line as well. Basically it's a major source of insecurity but also pessimism because people are wondering how to move forward from this.
What I will add finally is that many people have said, and I think we've heard it here as well, that there is a very significant role for the federal government to play. This used to be owned by the federal government. The for-profit model for a port like Churchill has not worked. In fact, it's been an epic failure.
Last week Minister Bains made an announcement in the short term but as has been indicated, much more is needed in the long term. This is the only deep-water Arctic seaport we have in our country. It's integral to the diversification of the Manitoban economy and particularly to the development in the far north as well.
I appreciate that reference from you, Mr. Davidson.
All signs point to the need for the federal government to be at the table to find a long-term solution for Churchill and also for Canada.