June 7, 1993

?

Hon. Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport

Mr. Speaker, as indicated at second reading we on this side of the House see some merit in this bill. At the same time we see that it has some very serious shortcomings.

Government Orders

I am indebted to my colleague for Ottawa South for the opportunity to investigate this matter in greater depth with him and to express the following reservations on behalf of both of us in our party.

We see improvements in the form of the training of personnel, the reform of navigation practices, surveillance, pilotage practices and in particular in relation to the procedures to be adopted when it comes to the escort of tankers through dangerous passages.

What is missing from this bill is a very important measure that would have gone a long way toward improving the safety and the preventative aspect of tanker travel in future. I am referring in particular to the missing proposal by the Brander-Smith review panel of a $2 per tonne levy that would be used for the construction of double hulls.

This measure would have meant a minimal increase in the already very low price of gasoline at the retail level. It would have been in the range, I am told, of less than .03 cents but it would have allowed the formation of a fund of significance in the years ahead for the construction of tankers equipped with a double hull.

I am told from knowledgeable sources that the increase in the construction of a double hulled vessel would cost only 17 per cent more than the present practice of constructing single hulled vessels.

If we consider for a moment how strong the impact is of a spillage of oil on the environment and on the income of the fishermen and the industry affected, we can realize that a $2 per tonne levy is more than justified. It is a very desirable initiative that one would consider a main feature of this bill and unfortunately it is not contained therein.

Such a fund with a $2 per tonne levy would over 10 years permit reaching a fund of some $800 million. That fund I am told would be a good start toward the renewal of fleets in the future so that they would be equipped with the desired double hull.

In addition to that I am told it would be desirable to make allocations outside the scope of this bill of some $150 million so as to improve the equipment available at present to the Coast Guard. Another $150 million would be required for improving research and development in

related fields and another $100 million for the development of an electronic chart that would also enhance the degree of safety in the waters used by oil tankers.

Under the proposed $2 per tonne fund I am told that the shipowners would receive 20 per cent of the cost to build such a double hulled vessel. Recalling my earlier reference to a 17 per cent higher cost for the construction of double hulled tankers we can see that here we have actually a veiy reasonable arrangement and a very good incentive, if you like, for builders of double hulled vessels to include this additional safety feature.

In investigating this matter and also casting back memories to the hearings of the excellent commission headed by Mr. Brander-Smith, it is important to put on record certain findings. This is namely the desirability of maintaining the inspection of the fleets of non-Canadian owned tankers.

In addition to that it wanted to ensure that all tankers be inspected not just the first time when they enter Canadian waters, as it is the practice right now, but also to continue that practice and not to let it drop to 25 per cent of the fleet as is the practice right now.

In light of these observations we consider this bill only an initial step on the road toward a satisfactory policy of prevention and cure. In the next Parliament we would like to see measures introduced that would strengthen and address specifically every possible preventative initiative.

There is one that we cannot underline enough, although in the process it becomes repetitive, the significance, desirability and urgency of introducing this $2 per tonne levy which this bill does not have but future bills should.

Part of human nature is the tendency to rush to a problem when disaster happens and then gradually lose sight of it and then become somewhat disrespectful in this respect. This is the case of the safety of tankers. The prevention of oil spills is a classic example.

We should not forget the spills that have occurred as a result of the accident of the Exxon Valdez as well as those in the Atlantic and in European waters and the like over the last 30 to 40 years.

June 7, 1993

We have reached such excellent technological levels in aviation that there is no excuse for us not to aim at equally safe and high standards in the field of maritime travel. It is incumbent upon us to do that.

It is obvious that if we proclaim ourselves in support of sustainable development practices that a measure that would introduce double hulls for oil tankers would be an elementary step that really cries for attention. It has already for some time.

I urge the minister in her intervention today to give us an indication as to the intention of the government to pursue the matter of double hulls and the creation of this special fund that would be made possible by the $2 per tonne levy.

In other words, it would be most desirable if the minister could give an indication of how she and her department intend to practice the preaching of sustainable development when it comes to the very practical and daily challenge posed by the oil tankers that travel through Canadian and international waters.

We are very supportive of the excellent final report dated September 1990 by the Public Review Panel on Tanker Safety and Marine Spills Response Capability. It was an excellent effort. We congratulate the government for having launched it but we do not want to go overboard in doing so. It is not feasible from an opposition bench. However we certainly see merits in having done so.

It would have been better perhaps if this bill had seen the light of day sooner. Nevertheless, as I said on other occasions and again at second reading we see this as only half a loaf. It is a measure in the bill that is definitely necessary but it is incomplete, particularly for the reasons I gave in relation to the $2 per tonne levy.

In conclusion I would ask the minister to comment on the important missing aspects of this bill and I thank you for your attention.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
NDP

James Ross Fulton

New Democratic Party

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister is not going to speak, which I find unusual, on a piece of legislation that he did not speak on at second reading either.

I think a brief review of the history of the reasons for this legislation is in order. I find it somewhat unusual in

Government Orders

my experience here-and this is perhaps the last speech I will give in this place-to not have a government minister or anyone from the government side speak about a piece of legislation that is very important for all coasts of this country. It has implications for the Arctic particularly in terms of an advisory council, but also for the Pacific, Atlantic, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence basin areas.

The last time we had legislation similar to this was following the 1970 Arrow disaster. This House finally came forward with the Maritime pollution claims fund three years later. It set up and established a 15 cent per tonne levy on crude oil coming into Canada and on oil shipped within Canadian waters between various locations including to sites in the United States across the Great Lakes.

It was amended in 1989 to become the ship source oil pollution fund which grew to about $200 million, where it stands today. In the last few years that fund has been drilled by the existing Minister of Finance and the $200 million has been taken from the pollution claims fund. Regrettably since 1973 almost no one who has been affected by an oil spill has been able to get any compensation from the fund. It has really been a ridiculous misnomer that there was a claims fund available for dealing with oil pollution damage.

There is a positive aspect of this piece of legislation and those who are interested will find that on page 18 there is a new claims section called clause 710.1 will read it into the record because I think it is one of the most important new aspects confirmed by the Coast Guard as to how the public can deal with contamination problems that occur on beaches that are near them on water, fish, boats, nets or whatever.

It is a reverse onus clause which states that the public or those who clean up the spill will be able to submit their actual costs. They will then be paid without having to go to court, making a capital case or coming to Parliament. Then the administrator will collect from the polluter. The polluter will have to pay. It states:

710.(1) In addition to any right against the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund under section 709, a person, other than one described in subparagraphs 677(l)(b)(ii) and (iv), who has suffered loss or damage or incurred costs or expenses referred to in subsection 677(1) in respect of actual or anticipated oil pollution damage may file a claim with the administrator for the loss, damage, costs or expenses.

Government Orders

It is a very important new principle. The point I am making and registering again today as I did at second reading and in committee is that it is regrettable that the Minister of Finance attacked that fund, took out every dollar of the $200 million and spent it on other things.

Now when the administrator needs funds he has to go to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and get money from general revenue. That is a much harder process because then the argument will come forward that it is going to mean an increase in the deficit and debt. It is not what Parliament intended and in many countries of the world that kind of pilfering of funds that have been set up and paid for by users simply could not occur.

Like other members I want to thank David Brander-Smith and other members of the panel who were appointed on June 9, 1989 following the Nestucca disaster on Vancouver Island and following hard on the heels of the Exxon Valdez. I think most people know now that more than $2 billion has been spent trying to clean up the devastation in Prince William Sound and only 8 per cent of the oil from that terrible spill has been cleaned up. Response time and response capacity are important but they have not proven to be terribly successful. Prevention is what all of us have to preach and try to bring about.

The Brander-Smith panel reported on October 24, 1990 and we have waited until today for a response to the 107 recommendations that were made. That is unfortunate. In Latin terminology this bill is de minimus. It is as little as the government could possibly do to respond to the really serious risks and dangers we face from oil. Canada is now the largest country in the world. With one of the longest and highest energy coastlines, it is facing a considerable amount of oil spill risk.

The Brander-Smith panel heard 700 groups and witnesses and made a number of very important recommendations. I would like to cover them quickly.

highest quality and level of preventive measures and clean-up response were available.

The other two recommendations that Brander-Smith made are also critical to this debate and for Canadians to understand what this legislation is about and why some deficiencies have carried on. One is in terms of double hulling.

I think it is worthy to look at the Canadian tanker fleet of which there are precisely 50. Brander-Smith recommended a seven year phase-in schedule to get rid of all single hulled tankers in the Canadian fleet. This is not an unreasonable period of time and would have provided long-term work for all the shipyards in this country to go the double hulling route.

If the ship source oil pollution fund had stayed in place and started at 15 cents a tonne in 1973, by today it would be just above 35 cents per tonne. The $2 per tonne sounds like an enormous levy but it would have provided $1.5 billion over 10 years for the double hulling costs for the whole of the Canadian fleet, if consumers want that kind of protection.

Brander-Smith discovered while he was undertaking hearings on our behalf that 85 per cent of double hulled tankers world-wide that have been involved in accidents or have grounded have not spilled one drop. The majority of single hulled tankers that are in accidents or groundings do have spills. It is an enormous benefit to double hull ships. As my colleague who spoke a moment ago pointed out, the actual incremental costs to produce double hulls is not that much greater than the production of single hulled tankers.

Let us look at what the schedule of Bill C-121 will mean to Canadians on all of our coasts and Canadians should listen with care. There are 28 tankers under 5,000 tonnes gross. The C.S. Service was built in 1923 and will be kept in service until 2015. That tanker will be just shy of 100 years old hauling oil anywhere it pleases in the internal waters of Canada.

It is not alone. The Genia was built in 1926.

The first one is that there be a $2 per tonne levy. That is one-tenth of one cent per pound or less than one cent per gallon which could have been flowed through to consumers of fossil fuel products in this country. I doubt if one could find a Canadian who would not be prepared to pay less than one cent a gallon more to make sure the

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare)

Progressive Conservative

Mrs. Sparrow:

They are inspected every year.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
NDP

James Ross Fulton

New Democratic Party

Mr. Fulton:

My friend from Alberta says they are inspected every year. The problem is that the statistics speak for themselves. When single hulled tankers run aground there is a spill in 60 per cent of those cases and

June 7, 1993

in some cases there are very large spills from single hulled tankers.

During committee I proposed a phase-out of those tankers under 5,000 tonnes which will be approaching a century in age by the time they are taken out, the 20 tankers between 5,000 and 15,000 tonnes and the two tankers in excess of 20,000 tonnes.

Regrettably the government voted those amendments down. I used the same schedule as Brander-Smith, a seven-year phase-out so the whole of the Canadian tanker fleet could go to double hulls. I regret to say that the Coast Guard admitted before committee that it never did a single cost profitability study or cost benefit study for any one of the 50 Canadian tankers to see the level of affordability at which they should have gone double hulled, double bottomed, diaphragmed or double walled. There are many techniques to improve safety. The ship owners, in terms of the tanker fleet, want everything from this government. They want no phaseout until 2015 for tankers built in the 1920s which I find absolutely incredible as did Mr. Brander-Smith.

What about response capacity? We always hear the endless call from the government side for the private sector to do everything. In many cases I have no problem with it if it can demonstrate a comparable level of safety and enforcement. But what was found with the Exxon Valdez incident in one of the most searching and probing analyses that there has ever been? The study found a level of incestuous activity never before imagined among the U.S. Coast Guard, the enforcement agencies and the private sector responsible for the transportation of oil.

There was no safety equipment. There was no response plan. There was no one in charge. One of the most critical recommendations made during our hearings was to have oversight committees with serious powers to report to the minister and committees of this House. Fortunately the government did bend and we at least now have some powers for the advisory committees.

With regard to response capacity the government regrettably again voted down amendments that would have gotten rid of what I describe as the shadow. It is now three years since Brander-Smith reported to this Parliament. The government has had plenty of time to

Government Orders

develop a response scenario. The Coast Guard has $60 million worth of aging oil response capacity in terms of floatable booms, skimmers and so on. It has that equipment. There is a growing level of equipment available to the private sector from on-land response contractors. But as we heard from the Coast Guard, it will take about $100 million for it to step up to the minimal requirements of this legislation which is a 10,000 tonne regional capacity so we will have that on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin, the Pacific and the Atlantic. The Coast Guard will maintain responsibility in the Arctic.

Even the proposals in here for the cascading 25,000 tonne capacity so the regional depots must have a back-up transportation regime to get that extra 15,000 tonnes of capacity into place within a certain number of hours and days of a spill is not what Brander-Smith was driving at. Clearly his 107 recommendations were designed to get the best available bang for the buck at the most reasonable cost to the Canadian consumer and ship owners.

When we look at the tonnage of the vessels that have been exempted by this legislation, and I am sincere about this, the very intelligent approach is making the Coast Guard the lead agency. We have to pick somebody and have targets and timetables. David Brander-Smith said if we have a dream and a timetable then we have a plan.

What do we have with this legislation? We have a dream, there is no doubt about that. The Tories are widely known to be dreamers but what about a timetable or targets? For a least the next two years-and I stand to be challenged by anyone in this House because this is what we heard from the Coast Guard-we will have a shadow where there will be inadequate response capacity for spills within the near shore of Canada. This is three years after the report came to this House following the Exxon Valdez, the Braer accident off the Shetland Islands, the Kurdistan and the Arrow. What about the Irving Whale sitting on the ocean floor in Canada's own maritimes? How can the government just sort of fiddle and fudge its way along? People in this country are prepared to pay. One-tenth of a cent per pound levy? The Tories say: "Oh no, that is too much". Less than a penny a gallon to be passed on so that we can have double hulls and adequate response capability.

Government Orders

Of the three largest recommendations that were made by the Brander-Smith panel this government ducked every single one. While that was going on, the Minister of Finance pilfered the $200 million that was in the emergency response fund. I think the government has a lot to answer for in that field.

The Coast Guard has done some good things during the intervening years. It should be commended, and not only for what it did for us as members of the committee. It did an excellent job in providing us materials we requested. It has also dramatically increased the checking of vessels coming in and out of Canadian waters. It is important to note that our largest crude movements are not in areas where a lot of Canadians might think. In fact Saint John, New Brunswick is the largest with 11 million tonnes, Halifax at 9 million tonnes, Quebec City at 8 million tonnes, and Come-By-Chance at 8 million tonnes.

In previous years we have had a very low level of analysis of those tankers coming into and going out of Canada. The Coast Guard has stepped that up and it is now checking 38 per cent of vessels coming into our waters. Regrettably the level of compliance with recommended steps to repair defects has not been great. I think it is particularly regrettable that almost a quarter of those vessels that are being boarded by the Canadian Coast Guard are found to be defective. That means we have all kinds of time bombs floating off our coast. This legislation will apply to about 10,000 vessels that are defined as ships in the definition section of this piece of legislation.

A fee will be applied to each of them. We heard from witnesses who came before the committee that the fee will be in the neighbourhood of $300 per vessel. Then of course there will be a tariff. Should a vessel be involved in an accident that involves substantial clean-up costs, there will be a tariff applied as well.

We heard a lot from the industry during this whole process. We regrettably did not hear the amount that I think we should have from those who are concerned, what I would describe more broadly in terms of the public interest, particularly environmental organizations. They simply could not afford to attend a lot of the working sessions as Bill C-121 was being developed.

That is something that this Parliament cannot continue to allow to occur. We are not like other countries where there is substantial public donation to environmental organizations to attend and participate in legislative functions. In the British parliamentary tradition I think we should be much more alert to providing funds to make sure that those who need to be heard are heard, whether they live on the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence or in Atlantic Canada, in Pacific Canada or in the Arctic.

This legislation has dire future ramifications. As we know now, the existing tanker fleet will remain status quo. The tanker owners want it all. The Minister of Finance took $200 million and ran off with that. We receive no guaranteed provisions until past the turn of the century on double hulling; none. In terms of the response capacity, we have another two year shadow before we are going to have full response capacity up and ready to roll. I think that demonstrates a degree of incompetence and uncaring that is entirely unacceptable.

We heard witnesses last week. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we had a very compressed time schedule. I believe we had second reading debate on May 12. We managed to get all the way through witnesses and the committee process and reporting back to this House in a very short period of time. We did have a witness from the Save Georgia Strait Alliance, a very large alliance representing about 200,000 British Columbians. I suppose the combination of the Nestucca which was a tug-barge accident, and the Exxon Valdez which was a giant crude carrier has brought us on the Pacific coast to be very alert about how terrifying the impacts of a crude oil spill, particularly in the marine environment, can be.

We should take a look for a moment at the advisory council because it is critical. I think it is from the debate in this House that the Coast Guard should take a good chunk of interpretation of what the amendments to section 660 in fact mean. We made some changes in there that I think are very important. If properly utilized by the ministry of transport and by the commissioner of the Coast Guard it will bring long-term benefits not only to the administration of this piece of legislation but to the prevention of oil spills and the greater protection of our environment.

June 7, 1993

Those who are interested will find that the amendments in 660 include that the commissioner shall establish at least one advisory council in respect of each geographic area: the Pacific, the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence basin, the Atlantic and the Arctic. There will be seven members on each of these advisory councils.

I am pleased that several of the principles that I moved as amendments were in fact adopted, such as the capacity for the commissioner to pay those who sit on these so that those who give up their time, whether they are a deck hand on a tug or an environmentalist with particular knowledge of some kind of marine life on the back side of Flores Island or whether they have particular knowledge of the breeding capacity and habits of the beluga whales in the St. Lawrence. There are bits and pieces of information that are held by many disparate and separate groups all over this country that will feed best into an advisory council that has some independent spirits. Thankfully one of our amendments allows for those individuals who are appointed to be there on good behaviour.

They are not just there and can be kicked off at the pleasure of the commissioner or the minister. If they have the will to sit on the council they can be paid. They can stand up on their hind legs and tell the media and the public about the ineptitude or inadequacy or incompetence of someone in the government or someone in the private sector who has a responsibility that they are not carrying out to protect us from oil spills.

It is good that the advisory councils have some powers and some teeth, not the least of which was another amendment that I moved that thankfully has been included. That is that the advisory councils can report not only to the commissioner but they can report to the Standing Committee on Transport or the Standing Committee on Environment or to the Minister of Transport. There is a shall clause and that is that they shall get a response back.

One of the things I think a lot of the advisory councils have regretted when they came to particularly tough issues was they reported to the minister or to the House and then nothing ever happened. At least in this case within 30 days or within 14 sitting days of the House there shall be a report.

I see there are only a couple of minutes until Question Period time, so let me just give a bit of a summation and I will carry on after Question Period.

We have a tendency to respond following crises. Following the 1970 sinking of the Arrow we passed legislation in 1973. Since the Exxon Valdez and the Nestucca we have had almost four years waiting time while the government has prepared Bill C-121. It has obvious inadequacies. Just as I say to the Coast Guard: "You are going to have to be very firm and very vigilant with this private sector concept". I also say to the ship owners, all 10,000 of whom will come under the rubric of this legislation, that: "You had better make sure that the response capability and capacity that your onshore contractor has is in fact state of the art, is in fact the best available technology".

Mr. Brander-Smith discovered that the Coast Guard was totally inadequately prepared when he was appointed in 1990 and it has admitted that it is still totally inadequately prepared now.

As a nation we stand without private sector response that is adequate, without Coast Guard response that is adequate and a piece of legislation where, because the government would not buy into a statutory requirement that I moved to make sure that the 10,000 tonne capacity and the 25,000 tonne capacity were in place by next January, there is an unknown period of time within which we will not have adequate response capacity.

Therefore there are tankers that could be dangerous out there and we have an inadequate capability to deal with them and with others should an accident regrettably occur.

I look forward to continuing following Question Period.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink
PC

Andrée Champagne (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Madam Deputy Speaker:

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO AMEND
Permalink

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31

PC

Guy St-Julien

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):

Madam Speaker, contrary to the allegations made by Jean-Luc Mongrain during the Operation Enfants-Soleil telethon on TVA yesterday that the federal government has done nothing for AIDS victims, we have played a leading role in the fight against AIDS. Our goal is to prevent transmission of the HIV virus and provide the necessary support for

June 7, 1993

people who are HIV-positive, their families and care givers.

In 1986 we launched a five-year, $39 million initiative to fight AIDS. In 1988 we invested an additional $129 million, also spread over five years. In 1989 we paid out $120,000 in compensation to every person who contracted the AIDS virus through blood transfusions. In 1991 the Federal Centre for AIDS designed a quick and inexpensive way to detect HIV in babies of infected mothers. This test will improve the chances of survival of newborn infants.

May Jean-Luc Mongrain be forgiven for what he said.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Sub-subtopic:   FIGHT AGAINST AIDS
Permalink

EARTH SUMMIT

?

Hon. Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport

Madam Speaker, this week we celebrate the anniversary of the earth summit held in Rio de Janeiro. The earth summit produced a number of agreements on the environment and development so as to achieve development that can be sustained without harming the environment.

However, no hard commitments were made at the earth summit in Rio. In the words of Dr. Jim MacNeill: "Our leaders left almost nothing unsaid and almost everything undone". The Government of Canada signed the climate convention yet it still has no plans on how to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions.

The government signed a bio-diversity convention. Yet not a word has been said about clear cutting Clayoquot Sound. The government promised in agenda 21 to increase foreign aid to developing countries but instead it has cut aid.

This government makes big promises abroad but lacks the political will to keep them at home. What a sham.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EARTH SUMMIT
Permalink

CANADIAN HIGHWAYS

PC

John Williston (Bud) Bird

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):

Madam Speaker, it has been revealed that almost 40 per cent of Canada's national highway system is currently below minimum standards and almost 25 per cent of the bridges on that system are in major need of repair.

The total estimated cost to put all of Canada's national highway system in good shape is more than $14 billion. To its credit the government has made a small start through the strategic capital investment initiative, through which about $500 million will be spent over the next five years. However our highway system desperately needs more than that. It is rapidly becoming a national emergency.

I urge the federal-provincial ministers of finance and transportation to target the highway system as the first priority in their new approach to collaborative planning and budgeting. Major infrastructure investments must not be deferred indefinitely. Perhaps highway construction offers the best potential of all to stimulate economic growth and employment and to reduce government costs for unemployment and welfare.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HIGHWAYS
Permalink

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

LIB

Réginald Bélair

Liberal

Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):

Madam Speaker, last week mayors, citizens and myself strongly argued against the CNR's intention to cancel the North-lander train from North Bay to Toronto.

We have emphatically pointed out that the CNR should not victimize the citizens of northern Ontario by cutting off a transportation service that was affordable to seniors, students, the handicapped and those who have to travel to Toronto for specialized medical attention.

The northern travel grant covers only one-half of their travel costs which are prohibitive to most. While bus transportation is available it is most uncomfortable during the 15 hours it takes to get to Toronto.

The CNR's mandate is to ensure isolated regions of this country are linked to urban centres where special-

June 7, 1993

ized services are offered. The need to subsidize the Northlander run will always exist and senior governments have the moral obligation to continue this vital rail transportation service for us.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Permalink

FOSSIL CENTRE

PC

William D. (Bill) Casey

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):

Madam Speaker, along the shoreline near Joggins, Nova Scotia, a small community in my riding located at the head of the Bay of Fundy, there are high cliffs which are continually washing away. As the cliffs wash away a treasure in fossils is being released. For decades one man has been there collecting this scarce evidence of our past. That man is Mr. Don Reid.

This weekend he opened the new fossil centre in Joggins where he will share one of the most unique collections of fossils in the world with people from all over the world. The centre was built through the co-operative efforts of the community, the province and the federal government and, of course, Mr. Don Reid. The committee in charge of the project was successfully led by John Reid from Joggins.

I congratulate Don, John and the community for their involvement in the Joggins fossil centre. If anyone wants to see Don he will still be down showing others where the fossils are and explaining exactly what they mean.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   FOSSIL CENTRE
Permalink

ORGAN DONATION

NDP

Steve Butland

New Democratic Party

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):

Madam Speaker, the issue of organ donation is obviously one of life and death. We should all do what we can to make people aware of the urgency of considering signing an organ donor card and of discussing this most sensitive issue with their family.

As Dr. Calvin Stiller from University Hospital in London, Ontario has said:

For an individual dying because a donor is not available, it is the cruelest of lotteries; the sicker you get, the closer to the front of the waiting list you get, but also the likelier you are to die before the door of a transplant opens for you.

There are over 4,000 transplants performed each year in Canada. The success rate is 80 per cent for kidney and

heart transplants, 70 per cent for liver transplants and 90 per cent for corneal transplants.

These operations are no longer experimental but there must be guidelines in place. I encourage the federal government to respond to the eight recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, one of which proposes a criminal code for the sale of human organs.

I encourage all MPs to join the member for Crowfoot and the member for London East in support of this important initiative.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   ORGAN DONATION
Permalink

WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT

PC

Kenneth David Atkinson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):

Madam Speaker, I welcome the announcement on Friday that the Western Grain Transportation Act is to be reformed.

From a transportation viewpoint the change will result in a more efficient and cost effective system. I am pleased that the government has recognized the directional bias that this act creates against the St. Lawrence seaway and that steps will be taken to deal with the problem.

However as the reforms are to be phased in over a period of time it will be necessary to provide interim relief to the seaway in order to ensure that there will be ships available at the end of this process.

I would urge the government to adopt the subcommittee's recommendations to freeze tolls and pilotage fees on the seaway until the reforms are completed in order that the viability of the seaway may be maintained.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Permalink

POVERTY

June 7, 1993