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.