Debates of March 16th, 1994

Canadian Foreign Policy

[The Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Speaker]

It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Saint Lawrence Seaway

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

moved

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary measures to ensure that the St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round basis, namely through a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in eastern Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence River and the Seaway are a major asset for Canada and Quebec. Historically, this huge river and its network of tributaries has been a major route of penetration into North America.

Not surprisingly, the first towns were founded on its shores and their prosperity came from their shipping activities. This is the case for Montreal which developed mainly because of its port facilities.

Today, the St. Lawrence Seaway, with an operating budget of $78 million and almost 900 employees, has an annual volume of more than 30 million tonnes. More than 5,000 ships go through the system every year. It provides a major transport infrastructure, not only for Canada and Quebec, but also for the whole of North America.

Today as in the past, the river remains the main corridor for the transportation of goods into the interior of the continent.

The motion I introduced today asks the government to provide for measures that will ensure the St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round basis, namely through a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in eastern Canada.

The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for navigation on the St. Lawrence. It has enough ships, ice breakers, helicopters and communications equipment to carry out that mission.

However, last winter, ice jams paralysed traffic on the river. During 29 days in February and early March, some 40 ships were held up for various periods of time. A dozen ships had to be sent to St. John harbour, in New Brunswick because they could not moor in Montreal. The Coast Guard had simply not installed the booms that control freeze-up and ice flow, thus preventing ice jams.

Needless to say that the losses resulting from this incident were catastrophic and enormous. Of the 560 longshoremen who normally work in Montreal harbour during the winter, barely 200 were called in sporadically during that period and those who did not work were not paid because this was an act of God.

The port of Montreal alone incurred losses estimated to $1.5 million during those few weeks.

Substantial losses were also incurred by road and rail carriers awaiting delivery of merchandise on board the immobilized cargo ships and consignees suffered inventory and production problems.

As for ship owners, water carriers and insurers, according to Frank Nicol, the president of the Shipping Federation of Canada, their losses totalled tens of millions of dollars. And that does not include the losses due to flooding incurred by individuals, particularly along the shore, where the ice jams occurred.

Aside from these immediate, short-term losses, the port of Montreal now finds itself under the obligation to defend its reputation as a port open on a year-round basis in front of potential users who may well decide to land their cargo elsewhere, and this at a time when transportation infrastructures and communications are playing a major strategic role in the positioning of regions. It was a terrible blow for the entire east side of Montreal, which has already been hard hit by unemployment and job losses.

I will remind this House that, based on a document prepared by the greater Montreal mayors' convention, forty or so shipping lines connect the port of Montreal to over 200 ports around the world. It creates tens of thousands of direct jobs, and more than 20 million tonnes of goods, or 40 per cent of the total volume for Montreal, transit through the port".

The Coast Guard blamed the ice jam phenomenon on climatic conditions, and Mr. Frank Nichol added: "We were hit hard by the weather and we were not ready".

Yet, it is not the first time that the Coast Guard is blamed. In 1980, the commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the collision of the Athanasia Comninos with the railway and roadway bridge in Quebec City said this: "If federal authorities want the St. Lawrence River to remain navigable in winter, it is unacceptable on their part to tolerate at any time that ship captains be faced with ice jams such as the one which the pilot of the Comninos had to dealt with. The solution calls for the river to remain free of ice and, seemingly, this implies a greater use of the ice breakers in operation''. Again, this report goes back to 1980.

In 1982, another commission, this time on the Hudson Transport tragedy in the St. Lawrence River, headed by Judge James K. Hugessen, was even more critical of the Coast Guard. It said: Obviously, the Coast Guard attaches a low priority to its search and rescue responsibilities. The Coast Guard is certainly renowned, but not because of its role in this particular case'.' Following part of the testimony given by the then regional director of the Coast Guard, Judge Hugessen added this:His admiration fills us with deep contempt. It is symptomatic of the need for a fundamental review of priorities and attitudes in the management of the Coast Guard''.

The report concluded with those comments: "Winter navigation in the river and the gulf has now reached a level such that it can no longer be considered an exceptional occurrence. Hundreds of men and thousands of tons of goods use this waterway, which is dangerous in the best of circumstances, and particularly so in winter. We assume that Canada reaps an important economic advantage of winter navigation in the St. Lawrence. Otherwise, this waterway should be closed in the wintertime. If the seaway is to remain open, Canada must arrange for adequate search and rescue services". And this involves icebreakers.

The effectiveness of the Coast Guard in Quebec and in eastern Canada, notably as regards the allocation of vessels and land personnel, leaves something to be desired. Of the 19 icebreakers operated by the Canadian Coast Guard, 11, or roughly 60 per cent of the fleet, are based in the Maritimes. This figure includes the only three heavy icebreakers operated by the Coast Guard.

Yet, ice jams virtually never occur in this region and we fail to understand why the majority of our icebreakers-including all of our heavy icebreakers-are based hundreds of kilometres away from the locations where the ice jams occur, either because the seaway is too narrow or the water flows more slowly, as is the case in the Montreal area. Only two medium icebreakers and three light icebreakers are based on the St. Lawrence. They account for only 25 per cent of the Canadian Coast Guard's fleet of icebreaking vessels.

When an icebreaker moored in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, is deployed to break up an ice jam on Lac St. Pierre, it should come as no surprise if the damage intensifies before the vessel manages to arrive on the scene.

Mr. Speaker, the port of Montreal should have been better protected last winter. We really did not need to have these problems.

This glitch, which could have been avoided, only adds to the problems already encountered by the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Since 1977, the overall tonnage of goods shipped has steadily decreased. In fact, tonnage declined from 57.5 million tonnes to 31.4 million tonnes in 1992, an especially catastrophic year, primarily because of a marked decline in wheat shipments.

We know that, in the last two years, Ottawa has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on direct and indirect subsidies to Western rail carriers for the transportation of grain to West Coast ports under the Crow's Nest Pass agreements and that a direct effect of this has been a considerable reduction of activities in the port of Montreal.

We also know that the maritime industry as a whole is in decline and that, at a time when the MIL Davie shipyard in Lauzon is in its death throes, Canada is still wondering whether it will ask this shipyard to build the Magdalen Islands ferry or buy a ship from a foreign supplier.

The Japanese would never do such a thing. They would build the ship themselves and provide work for their own citizens rather than putting them on unemployment. In this day and age, Canada would be well advised to follow the Japanese example.

In 1945, Japan was a third world country. It is much smaller than Canada, with five times the population, few natural resources and no energy sources; it is very far from its markets and yet, in a 40-year span, it became one of the world's major economic powers.

In contrast, Canada, with its huge territory, abundant natural resources, nearly inexhaustible energy sources and the world's biggest market on its doorstep, managed to accumulate a $500 billion debt and to kill the job market.

The only certainty in the government's recent budget is that the debt will reach $600 billion in three years and that the unemployment rate will remain high. Under these circumstances, it is important to go ahead and make the changes that can be made right away.

Under these circumstances, it is imperative to maintain maritime activity in the St. Lawrence on a year-round basis and to have the Coast Guard simply do its job. That is why we are recommending to the government to ensure a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in the St. Lawrence, specially in February and March, to avoid these preventable events in the future.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies for raising this motion.

Let me begin by informing the House, as the previous member has, that the St. Lawrence seaway is truly a national treasure. He pointed out that it is one of the transportation corridors and an important link in the economic well-being of all of Canada.

The hon. member indicated, and should understand, that the 2,000 miles of the waterway extend from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to Thunder Bay, which is located at the head of the Great Lakes. Aside from the lakes and rivers of the system, ships traverse 6 canals and 15 locks, of which 13 locks are Canadian and 2 locks are American, before they reach the end of the seaway.

Since the St. Lawrence seaway opened in 1959, Canada has not stood still in advancing navigation in the seaway.

Indeed, we have been able to take advantage of much new technology that has been developed to combat ice formation in locks and canals. This technology has allowed the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to add a number of days to the shipping season. The navigation season on the waterway from Thunder Bay to Montreal now extends from late March to late December.

Current technology, however, does not permit us to keep every lock and the canal system open to navigation throughout the entire year. In order to sail the seaway in winter we would need to keep the locks and canals ice free, have buoys in place year round, as well as have many additional icebreakers to escort vessels and keep the broken ice moving throughout the system.

It is quite simply impossible for an icebreaker, and the member should understand that his motion is faulty in this respect, or any other vessel to enter a lock filled with ice without causing extensive damage to the lock infrastructure.

Therefore escorting vessels above the first lock at St. Lambert would be next to impossible, even with extensive retrofitting of the lock and canal structures.

As my hon. friend may be aware, the federal government has a primary mandate to provide flood control services on the upper St. Lawrence River. The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for providing these services and has done so since 1904.

Icebreakers operate in the river throughout the winter to keep a channel open as far as Montreal for the unobstructed movement of broken ice downstream. This activity prevents ice jams from forming and also permits the passage of ships except for the periods, and I am sure that the member would recognize this, when there have been abnormally severe weather and ice conditions.

The river has been kept open year-round since the late 1950s.

Flood control is not a by-product of keeping the port of Montreal open, as some would have us believe. The opposite is the case.

I think it is very important that people understand that icebreakers are in the St. Lawrence to prevent potentially devastating floods.

By ensuring that the St. Lawrence River remains navigable year-round as far as the port of Montreal, the Canadian Coast Guard does support the maritime commerce and consequent industry and port employment along the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay River.

There is also a need, then, to keep the maritime traffic moving through the Gulf of St. Lawrence to allow vessels access to the St. Lawrence River.

In the motion presented before this House my hon. friend refers to the effective allocation of the icebreakers in operation in eastern Canada.

I am happy to report to the House that a fleet resources review study was undertaken by the Canadian Coast Guard in 1990 to respond effectively to broad responsibilities in high priority areas of safety and environmental protection while improving efficiency and reducing costs.

Following this study, a fleet restructuring plan was enacted. The plan was phased over a three year period and involved increasing multi-tasking and double crewing which is known in the trade as lay-day system.

To improve our resource utilization the coast guard removed 10 ships from active service and reallocated fleet units between the regions. The reallocations were based on achieving the best match of operational requirements and equipment capability in each region to ensure multi-tasking capability nationwide.

The Canadian Coast Guard has retained the ability to redeploy icebreaking resources where and when needed as the situations dictate while it has trimmed excess capacity.

For example, last year from February 3 to March 5 two powerful icebreakers were redeployed in the maritime region to assist three icebreakers and one air cushion vehicle from the Laurentian region to break up the ice jams in the Lac St. Pierre region which were causing extensive flooding along the river between Montreal and Trois Rivieres.

The east coast icebreaking fleet consists of one heavy icebreaker, one heavy icebreaking supply tug, four medium icebreakers, 13 light icebreakers and one icebreaker hovercraft. Of these, eight are based in the maritime region of the coast guard, six are based in the Laurentian region, four are located in the Newfoundland region, and two are located in the Great Lakes region.

All of these icebreakers are in full operation at this time in eastern Canada, preventing flooding and escorting ships on the St. Lawrence River.

Historically problematic ice conditions begin in the upper St. Lawrence River and progress through the season eastward to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as the hon. member would know. Heavy ice conditions can simultaneously occur in different areas such as the east coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence depending on the influence of weather systems.

As a result of the ice jams experienced during the winter of 1993, the Canadian Coast Guard developed an action plan to implement short and long term solutions to try to prevent a similar occurrence, Mother Nature's abilities to surprise notwithstanding.

Several studies of the St. Lawrence River and Lac St. Pierre were done to evaluate methods of increasing water currents and ice evaluation in problem areas, constructing and placing more efficient steel booms and repairing man-made islands to help maintain a solid ice coverage outside the main shipping channel and analyzing the links between snow and ice coverage, river currents, water levels, wind and tide in the developments of ice jams.

The Canadian Coast Guard is absolutely committed to the provision of icebreaking services on the St. Lawrence River up to Montreal in support of year-round accessibility for shipping and in order to provide the necessary flood control measures for the safety of the local population along the St. Lawrence River.

There are no plans at this time to change the number or capacity of Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers in eastern Canada. As my hon. friend can see, we are actively addressing the most important aspects of service delivery to Canadians.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that some of the things I have to say were already mentioned by the hon. member. He gave a very good speech indeed.

I rise to speak to the motion that the government take measures to ensure that St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round basis by reallocating icebreakers in operation in eastern Canada.

Before we get too excited about such an idea, it is necessary to determine the future of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system. We also have to look at the cost impact of such a move and whether once again we redirect much needed resources from the maritimes to Quebec and Ontario.

An essential part of the Great Lakes seaway system is the St. Lawrence Seaway proper. This was a joint venture of Canada and the United States which was opened in 1959. It extends from Montreal to Lake Erie and is composed of a system of 15 locks and canals divided into two sections, the Montreal-Lake Ontario section consisting of five Canadian and two U.S. locks, and the Welland Canal with eight Canadian locks.

Since the early eighties there has been growing concern and considerable debate over the future of the seaway. This has occurred for several reasons. One of the reasons is a significant decline in grain and iron ore traffic because of persistently weak and changing market conditions for grain and steel exports. Another reason is the fragile financial state of the lake carrier industry, and finally the continuing requirement on the part of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the pilotage authorities and ports to be financially self-sufficient.

Many a study has been undertaken on the future of the seaway and the redirecting of our east coast icebreaker fleet has little to do with the issue of demand for the ports along the waterway.

The motion before us suggests that the way to stimulate more traffic in the seaway would be through a significant extension of the system's shipping season beyond the current eight and a half to nine month operating period.

Many reports have pointed out that it is technically possible to do this even in heavy ice and poor weather conditions. However, it is acknowledged that there would be an increased cost to keep the system open. This is a cost which will be borne by the Canadian taxpayer once again.

Do we need an already overburdened taxpayer paying more for a cause that is somewhat dubious at best? Should we not clarify the future of the waterway before making costly adjustments to the way it is being managed?

The federal government, the provincial governments and the municipal governments have entered into an infrastructure program which will cost us $6 billion.

They are committed to a child care program that will cost us $1.5 billion. They are overspending their annual budget by $40 billion. I ask again whether one needs to give this government a licence to spend more money.

Since the seaway opened there has been an extension to the shipping season of four weeks on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section and two weeks on the Welland. In addition, cost benefit studies have been done which indicate that an extension of the season cannot be justified on economic grounds alone.

It simply makes no economic sense for the seaway system to remain in operation during the period of cold weather and heavy ice. There is not sufficient icebreaking capacity to do the job and because of the narrow channels it is very difficult to keep them open as the ice closes in behind the icebreaker very quickly.

Furthermore, there are large questions regarding the required flow of water for hydroelectric plants during the winter season in periods of heavy ice. Broken ice is also a serious problem as it can damage hydroelectric generators. Ice booms are placed across the seaway under the control of the power authority to ensure that ice does not damage its generators.

Therefore the seaway is not opened until March 28 for that reason. What the authority is concentrating on doing is providing at least eight and a half months of safe, trouble free and efficient navigation while giving at the same time consideration to gradual incremental extensions of any season based upon the weather, facilities, costs and the amount of business.

This common sense approach to business is more practical and economical than launching a major effort to provide a longer winter navigational season. There would be considerable extra cost and it is by no means clear that a sufficient amount of extra traffic would be generated to justify the greater cost and effort.

Let us look for a moment at the two main responsibilities that the Canadian Coast Guard has. The first responsibility is to provide route assistance by escorting vessels through the ice on the St. Lawrence. The second responsibility is flood control on the upper St. Lawrence.

Flood control is necessary because when the ice gets thick it acts as a dam. It backs up the water and floods over the banks. Therefore it is necessary for the icebreakers to get through, open it up and release the pressure on the head of the ice.

Escorting costs $7.9 million each year. Out of a total of about 3,000 hours dedicated to escorts, 566 hours were attributed to vessels running into Montreal. The flood control costs are about $10 million a year.

There are various types of Canadian Coast Guard ships. Six types are classified as icebreakers providing year-round operations or heavy ice control. The others are used for small and medium vessel escort in light ice or shallow water conditions or

they are used for life boat class for all-weather operations in semi-sheltered waters.

Let us look at the actual number of ships and their locations. The hon. member from the opposite side mentioned similar numbers and I got mine from the coast guard this afternoon. The difference between the numbers from one speaker to the next is actually as fast as those ships are redeployed in different areas.

In the maritimes there are 26 vessels but many of those vessels are for shallow water or cannot really break ice. They are used for other operations. Six of those vessels are classified as icebreaking ships.

The maritime region is classified by the coast guard as the area around Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and some of New Brunswick. The Newfoundland region has 13 vessels, four of which are of icebreaking capability.

The west coast has 27 ships with only two icebreakers. In that climate icebreakers are not that necessary. The Laurentian region has 23 vessels and five icebreakers and the central region has 24 vessels and two icebreakers. That is a total of 83 vessels broken down into those various classes.

I want to emphasize some critical points in this discussion. The icebreaking fleet on our eastern seaboard totals 17. Of that total, seven are in central Canada and the others are in Newfoundland and the Halifax area. The ice is so dynamic where it shows up, and because of weather patterns and so on, the fleet is based in four places for ease of getting to the problem. The economy of these four bases is affected by redeployment.

Why do we have a motion before us that will have a negative effect on the maritimes to the benefit of the area located around the St. Lawrence, which is Quebec and parts of Ontario? The economy is not good in the maritimes and I do not think we should be trying to present a proposal that would harm the maritime economy.

The coast guard must have the say on temporary redeployment as the need arises, not the government. We should stay out of that business. It knows best where to redeploy its fleet. Perhaps if we concentrated on paying our bills, reducing our debt and eliminating our deficit we could expand the coast guard to look after such a problem and allow our young people the opportunities to restore the maritimes to its proud heritage as guardian of our seas.

I think the coast guard knows best. That is about all I have to say, except that I would not be in favour of this motion.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this very important motion brought forward by my friend from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies that the government should take the necessary measures to ensure the St. Lawrence seaway remain navigable on a yearly basis and doing this through a more effective allocation of the icebreakers and their operation in eastern Canada.

I was interested in the comments just made by my friend from the Reform Party. He is interested in the costs of keeping the St. Lawrence open on a year round basis, the effect it would have on the coast guard and the impetus the coast guard could bring to this very important issue of icebreaking, not only along the St. Lawrence River but on the Great Lakes and their additional duties in the Arctic. If one considers the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence system, Canada is really a country that is water bound on three sides and on the southern perimeter by half the length of Canada. Therefore, we are from sea to sea to sea to sea and therefore a maritime nation.

I was particularly interested in the remarks of my friend from Quebec who mentioned the unfair subsidies that create an artificial freight rate with respect to grain and oil seeds. This is generated because of sections in the Western Grain Transportation Act which create an artificiality in the movement of grains whether they are to the ports of Prince Rupert, the port of Vancouver or the port of Thunder Bay and eventually from the port of Thunder Bay to the downriver ports in which he has an extreme interest.

Our side has yet to make a decision about what we are going to do in the future, whether we continue to pay the shippers, in this case the Canadian Pacific Railways and the Canadian National Railway, or whether we pay the producer so that we can maximize the return to the farming community. More important, by withdrawing support of the subsidy paid directly to the railways in this country we can then create a level playing field for all transportation loads. We let the farmer, as we let the manufacturer of automobiles, furniture or any other commodities, make the ultimate decision on how to ship their product to market. If we take away that artificial subsidy that is creating distortion in our freight system now in Canada, we then allow the farmer to maximize his or her return and choose the most effective way to ship his or her product to market.

As my friend knows, at certain points in Canada we will find that it is more effective-and I think that point goes beyond the western boundary of Manitoba, to go beyond that point-to ship and use the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway in order to transport those products of grain, oil seeds, potash and coal than by using other ports.

I respect that comment. It is one of the issues that we will be addressing in the very near future.

The issue that we are really talking about when we discuss the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway for a full 12 months is whether the St. Lawrence seaway-Great Lakes system is still a viable transportation route in Canada. It is an infrastructure that we have built and paid for, to answer my friend's question. It is a transportation route that was approved in 1954 and 1956 and completed in 1959. It was paid for through the Government of Canada. There was some support from the United States for the two locks that it owns and still operates.

In the last seven years there has been a complete refurbishing of the Great Lakes locks especially around the Welland canal in the amount $175,000. It has just been completed. The system in itself today is very viable and in good shape.

Your colleague in the front row who is going to speak after me is part of the subcommittee that we on this side of the House have formed to analyse whether the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence is a viable transportation route in this country. If it is not viable we want to know what we have to do as a government to make it a viable transportation route and what changes are needed that are presently obstructing the use of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system and the down river ports that create so much employment in Montreal, Quebec City, Baie Comeau, Sept-Iles and all of the other areas in the province of Quebec. There is an ability there to recreate those jobs that were lost because of the flow of grain going to other centres.

I look forward to your support on the subcommittee that has been formed on the viability of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway. Your colleague and our colleague from the Reform Party form part of committee that will be bringing all of these considerations together. We will be studying them. We will be visiting your area hopefully in the near future. We would very much like to discuss in depth all of the pros and cons to the motion you bring before this House today which is: Is it possible to maintain the St. Lawrence River on a 12-month basis.

We will be very interested to hear the proposals that will be forthcoming. I would like to continue this discussion at another time after we have had the opportunity to review all of the information and facts that are so necessary in order to make those vital decisions to ensure the stability of our maritime transportation system in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make those comments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe the member used the expression "you" a number of times. He was no doubt referring to the Speaker.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies, submitted to the House a motion asking this Chamber to demand that the government take the necessary measures to ensure that the St. Lawrence Seaway remains navigable on a year-round basis, through a more effective allocation of the ice breakers in operation in Eastern Canada.

As the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, I wish to inform the House that I support this motion and that my Party as well as my constituents of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans also support it. I will not repeat my colleague's arguments, I will only say that I endorse them, because they are sound, they are based on a reality we have faced year after year and that we have been denouncing since March 1993.

My riding borders on the majestic St. Lawrence river. Our ancestors were navigators and boat builders. Many people still are. That means that anything relating to the Seaway is of great interest to my constituents and they are concerned when problems arise.

My Party made me the official opposition critic for Transport. The St. Lawrence Seaway and the ice breakers allocated to this waterway are essential to the Canadian transportation industry.

On March 10 of this year, the Minister of Transport took the floor to support the budget presented by his colleague, the Minister of Finance, on February 22, and he said: "it is the government's intention to spend $619 million on the Canadian Coast Guard". It is precisely to the Coast Guard that I wish to draw the attention of the House, and not so much to the amount which will be spent on it, but on the way it will be spent.

The commissioner responsible for the Coast Guard mentioned several times that there were only two ways to go if we wanted to make the Coast Guard profitable: it must either become a government agency and receive grants or impose a user fee. The first option could be discussed if the government decides to present it to the House. It is not the status of the Coast Guard which is important, but its mandate and its budget. My party and myself do not wish to modify the Coast Guard's present status and we would very much like to be consulted if ever the government intends to change it.

As for the second solution, that is a user fee, it would be a national suicide. Canada is a northern country where winter is often rough and long. An important part of the country has no access to the Atlantic or the Pacific. Commercial and economic centres are inland and waterways leading to them are ice-bound in winter. The main role of the Coast Guard is to guard waterways that are open to traffic year-round so that ships can pass freely and respect delivery deadlines and shipowners can be competitive.

Year after year we have seen major problems and the number of ships assigned to those routes is quickly dropping. At the beginning of the eighties, 125 ships were assigned to transporta-

tion on the St. Lawrence; now, there are only 79 left. Just think for a minute about what the effect of a user fee would be. It would kill all activity in the ports of Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Montreal and in those of the Great Lakes, including Thunder Bay.

It was mentioned that this fee could be based on the distance covered in Canadian waters. What do you think the shipowners would do? They would go to Halifax, Boston, New York maybe but certainly not to Quebec City, Montreal and Thunder Bay. The problem is a serious one. We must revive the St. Lawrence and assign to it all the ice-breakers that are required to keep it open. If we are to achieve that, the present government must take three main steps. First, it must distribute the ice-breakers equitably and reassure all employees of the Coast Guard about their future. Second, adopt a maritime policy for Canada; and third, examine the possibility of allowing shipowners to get a second registration.

The allocation will be fair ifas it allows free movement from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to the Great Lakes. If ice-breakers have to be built, we are able to do it: we have shipyards, human resources and iron. When I have the time to do so, I will explain to my colleagues in this House the present allocation and composition of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet as well as its needs.

Montreal harbour should never again be closed, as happened between February 4 and March 2, 1993, which entailed astronomical losses. The Canadian Coast Guard is reputed to be the best in the world, so whose fault was it?

Canada does not have a real maritime policy like the United States which require that 60 per cent of the ships served by American ports be U.S. registered.

What are the conditions required to sail our waterways? What are the environmental protection requirements? All those answers should be put together in framework legislation; that is what is lacking in Canada.

Several countries, like England and Norway, allow shipowners to get a second registration for their ships. Why would Canada not do the same thing in allowing Canadian shipowners to serve ports other than ours, without having to pay tax? Among the benefits of such a policy, more than 300 unemployed deck officers, representing more than 50 per cent of our trained and qualified officers, could be put back to work. These workers would be able to feed their families and would spend their money in Canada.

In conclusion, it is not the time to think about changing the status of the Coast Guard and the ice-breakers. It is not the time to impose user fees, but rather to provide the ships needed by the Coast Guard to maintain movement all year long in the navigable waters of the St. Lawrence River.

Until Quebec becomes sovereign and takes back what it gave under contract to the federal government at the time of Confederation in 1867, we demand that the present government adopt a consistent transportation policy that will allow Quebecers to see ships from all over the world move freely on the St. Lawrence River 365 days a year and that will ensure the economic development of our cities, which badly need it in these times of recession.

[The Deputy Chairman]

Since no other member wishes to speak, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 86(1), the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 7.20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.19 p.m.)