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.