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.