Debates of Oct. 27th, 1997

Newfoundland School System

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my satisfaction and great delight with the Reform Party whip for this motion for a free vote, which I think is quite in order for this magnitude of a decision in respect to the amendment and the main motion.

I wonder if the whip on the government side would be open to the suggestion of a free vote. I hope others on this side would too. I think it would be fair and in the best interests of Canadians if they pushed the matter of a free vote on the amendment and the main motion.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the whip for the government does not stand up and answer the question. It is a perfectly simple question yet he is sitting in his seat.

The whip for the Reform Party has asked for a free vote on this matter. He said it is a matter that people should vote on their conscience. There are some differences here. It is a critical issue, a constitutional matter, and people should know where their MPs stand on it. I think we should expect the same of the government party.

On this critical issue there should be a free vote and members should be able to vote as they wish.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to engage in debate with my colleagues opposite on the matter of a free vote. I believe that question arose during question period and the matter was ably addressed by the government House leader. They can refer to Hansard and get an adequate response.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to the order made earlier the question on the amendment by Mr. Manning is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until tomorrow at the end of government orders.

(Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In that same spirit of co-operation, I believe you would find consent to see the clock as 6.30 p.m., which would allow the House to proceed to the proceedings on the adjournment motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock as 6.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want clarification from the whip. Perhaps he could assure me that the people who are on the late show are here to both answer the questions and ask them.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that all those participating in the adjournment motion are present and ready to proceed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair would ask the chief government whip to reintroduce the request.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to see the clock as being 6.30 p.m. and moving on to the proceedings of the adjournment motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago I asked a question in this House of the Minister of Transport with regard to what are commonly referred to as the curfew hours operating at Pearson international airport.

My question was can the minister confirm that there are guidelines restricting the hours of operating at Lester Pearson international airport and can the minister assure the citizens of Mississauga that the government will not allow the GTAA to unilaterally change these hours. I would like to point out the fundamental reason for asking that question.

This past summer, there were some tests conducted by the GTAA that were referred to in the media as secret tests. They were tests of planes flying in the hours that would generally be considered restricted hours, say between the hours of 12.00 am and 6 a.m.

These tests were conducted without any prior notification of the residents, the city or myself or anyone else. The purpose of the tests was to see if the noise actually did bother people at that hour of the night. I can say that it did. The results were quite conclusive and the people were upset that tests were done in what was seen as somewhat of a clandestine fashion, a secretive way.

The reason that I asked the minister the question, to the parliamentary secretary who is here to respond to this concern, is that the citizens of Mississauga have had a longstanding relationship obviously with Pearson international airport.

The concerns about increased traffic, increased noise, the lack of proper hush kitting on some of the older jets that are coming in, the concerns around the increased traffic in the area of cargo are very real for the citizens.

While I clearly recognize the significance of Pearson international airport as an economic engine within the GTAA, an employer, a taxpayer, a job creator, there is no question that it is a significant facility within the GTAA and within the city of Mississauga.

There must also be recognition by the people at the GTAA, by Mr. Turpen, by the entire staff and the board that there has to be some way to live in harmony with the citizens who reside within the boundaries of the city of Mississauga, particularly in the area around the airport.

My reason for asking the question and my concern is to ensure that the citizens can live with some reasonable assurance that there will not be an increase in night flights and that the curfew area or the restricted operating area will be respected by this government.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can also address the concern of the expanded cargo coming into Pearson with some reference to the usage of the Hamilton airport and other facilities around the GTAA to ensure that we do have an economic infrastructure that works solidly within the community, to the benefit of the business community, but at the same time allows the citizens to have a reasonable night's sleep during those hours.

I believe you are motioning that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to respond with particular emphasis, if he could, on the area of the increase in—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my short answer to the hon. member for Mississauga West would be yes. The constituents in his riding, in Mississauga and the greater Toronto area, can rest comfortably. There will be no unilateral changes to the night flight hours.

May I give some detail to the hon. member. The government has been taking positive steps to bring Canada's transportation system in line with our nation's needs as we move into the 21st century. These actions have been designed to promote safety, efficiency, affordability, service integration, innovation and commercialization.

The national airports policy is a major initiative that has shifted the federal government's role in airports from owner and operator to landlord and regulator. Among the responsibilities transferred to the new airport authorities is the responsibility for the management of noise in the vicinity of the airport and to provide a forum for consultation with the local community on matters of aircraft noise within the community.

The federal government maintains an oversight role in noise issues by keeping the final approval authority for the mandatory noise operating restrictions and noise abatement procedures published in the Canada Air Pilot .

These regulations and procedures are not guidelines but are mandatory and have the force of law. Airport authorities including the Greater Toronto Airport Authority cannot unilaterally change the published night flight restrictions, but they do have the authority to grant exemptions and extensions on the same basis as was practised by the department prior to the transfer of responsibility to the GTAA. The department does not intend to change these restrictions at this time.

With respect to exemptions and exceptions, as owner and operator of the airport Transport Canada previously managed a regulatory regime which permitted exemptions to normal hours of operations. This was to allow for the unforeseen circumstances such as weather delays, air traffic control delays, some delays as a result of mechanical problems and emergencies, and for some operational or other reasons when quieter aircraft were used.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, next Saturday, November 1, LAB Chrysotile, a limited partnership led by Jean Dupéré, will close the 110 year old BC asbestos mine in Black Lake.

Three hundred workers will lose their jobs; 82% of them are over 50 years old, and 36% are over 55. These 300 workers have an average of 27 years of experience at the mine.

This mine closure is catastrophic for the Thetford and Black Lake area and for the whole MRC. It must be understood that 300 layoffs in Thetford and Black Lake is the equivalent of 7,000 layoffs in Montreal.

Three weeks ago, the BC mine workers committee met with the assistant deputy minister of human resources development for the province of Quebec, André Gladu. On behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development, he proposed three active measures to the committee, namely targeted wage subsidies, training courses and what was formerly known as self-employment assistance.

You have to admit, as I do, that these three measures are definitely not enough to help our workers. It is not realistic considering the age of these workers. It is not realistic also because of the current economic context in the asbestos industry.

The objective of the economic recovery committee, the objective of the federal member is to provide for, to plan an improved POWA, a program that the human resources development minister himself abolished on March 31, 1997. In May, for five weeks, the community of Thetford Mines saw no less that nine ministers and the Prime Minister. They did not really come to visit the region as tourists. They came very regularly, so often in fact that their limousine drivers became familiar with all the short cuts to the asbestos region.

It is strange; the human resources development minister has been as silent as the grave since we have needed him on the issue of asbestos. Consequently, I wish to inform him officially that on Wednesday, two days from now, about a hundred mine workers will be here, in the House. If the minister cannot go to Thetford, the Thetford workers will come to him. But it is still quite surprising that, during the election campaign, he found time on two different occasions to come and beg for their votes.

We are not asking for active measures for our mine workers, but for an acceptable preretirement package since—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has the floor.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been working to assist the affected workers of the British Canadian mining plant for quite a while.

When the mine temporarily shut down in 1995, representatives of HRDC did everything possible to help affected workers, including becoming involved in the implementation of a joint reclassification committee.

At the time, approximately 50 workers took advantage of this work stoppage to start their own company and to avail themselves of training opportunities, thus improving their employability. These workers have not returned to work at the mine.

Even though the plant closure is imminent, representatives from the department have been working to address this for a long time now and are meeting the needs of affected workers.

This government appreciates that losing one's job is not easy, especially when someone has held their position for decades, as is the case for most of the British Canadian Mining plant workers. However the Government of Canada wants to assure them that everything will be done to help them get through this difficult time.

To prove this, an important meeting between representatives of HRDC and those of the company and the union was held at the end of September to clarify what we intended to do. Particularly, HRDC has assured concerned mine workers that it would show flexibility in the delivery of the following active employment measures.

One is using targeted wage subsidies. Thanks to self-employment, employment insurance eligible participants who have a viable idea to start their own business can be eligible for financial assistance, planning assistance and for continued support while they set up their business. The mesures uniques de formation consolidates all the training purchase measures, including the fee payer component.

As members can see, the Government of Canada has not let the British Canadian mine workers down. For example between 1990 and 1992 HRDC provided funding assistance of almost $3 million to help maintain employment at this mine.

I want to assure the House and all others that the government is and will remain sensitive to the needs of the workers.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after advocating and working hard for years, Canada was one of the first nations to sign the law of the sea in 1982 yet we still have to ratify it. Meanwhile fish stocks all over the world, including cod on our east coast and salmon on the west coast, have been decimated by overfishing.

The government has committed in the red book to ratify. The joint committee reviewing Canadian foreign policy recommended ratification in its 1994 report. In 1994 and 1995 the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the House that ratification was imminent. But on April 29, 1996 the Minister of Foreign Affairs linked the ratification of the law of the sea convention to the precondition of ratifying another agreement on highly migratory and straddling fish stocks.

It seems to me that this tactic is flawed because the ratification of the law of the sea is the necessary first step to restore Canada's credibility. Once our credibility is restored, the straddling stock agreement may gather the momentum it is lacking now.

Here are the reasons in favour of ratifying the law of the sea first:

One, the law of the sea contains strong provisions for marine and fishery conservation that are far reaching, including provisions that set the stage for our efforts to conserve straddling stocks.

Two, the law of the sea contains sustainability principles and their application to oceans, such as the precautionary principle; the polluter pays principle; the principle of adjacency, which is the one that communities closest to the resource have not only a right to the resource, but also an obligation to nurture it.

Three, at present because we have not yet ratified the law of the sea, Canada is left out of important organizations and talks related to fisheries management and conservation.

We all know there are two major threats to marine ecosystems. One is overfishing and the other is the impact of human activities such as oil spills, destruction of estuaries and coastal zones, industrial air pollution, and the production of nutrients, pesticides and other materials that run off the land and pollute the oceans. The law of the sea deals with these problems whereas the agreement on straddling stocks deals with them only incidentally.

In addition, article 66 of the law of the sea sets out the state of origin concept for anadromous species, which Canada effectively argued in the recent west coast dispute. Interestingly, Alaska is now complaining about Russian interception of Alaska bound salmon using the same argument. This opens new avenues for Canada to generate the support of other nations also worried about interception and honouring quotas.

To conclude, it is worth mentioning that at the recent summit of the sea conference in St. John's, Newfoundland, participants drafted the summit of the sea challenge which included, as one may guess, a call on the Government of Canada to ratify the law of the sea.

On October 1, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when Canada will ratify the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Unfortunately he did not have time to complete his answer. Tonight I hope it is a positive one. The time has come for Canada finally to ratify the law of the sea, considering the fact that 1998 is the international year of the ocean.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has worked so hard on the law of the sea and environmental issues.

The timing of Canada's ratification of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea must be placed in the context of Canada's broader policy regarding high seas fishing. The Canadian government remains committed to the ratification of the convention. Canada has signed the convention and as such is committed to respect its object and purpose. Before ratifying the convention however we need to ensure that an effective international high seas fisheries enforcement regime is in place to protect fish stocks which straddle Canada's 200-mile fishing zone and the adjacent high seas.

Canada is currently engaged in a number of initiatives aimed at putting such a regime in place, the most important of which is early Canadian ratification and entry into force of the UN agreement on straddling and highly migratory fish stocks. This agreement fills gaps left in the law of the sea convention relating to high seas fisheries management. It considerably strengthens the convention's provisions on the conservation and sound management of straddling fish stocks. Canada played a leading role in the negotiation of this agreement and its ratification is our immediate priority.

The Canadian government is also continuing its relentless efforts to reform and strengthen the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO. We are determined to prevent any future abuse of the NAFO objection procedure which led to overfishing of NAFO quotas. We are also developing a strategy to ensure the construction of a comprehensive enforcement regime in the NAFO regulatory area beyond 1998. This is essential to the viability and sustainability of the many important groundfish stocks in the northwest Atlantic.

We are also examining the usefulness and feasibility on the one hand of negotiating bilateral fisheries enforcement agreements with flag of convenience states and on the other of seeking provisional application of the straddling stocks agreement prior to its entry into legal force, on a reciprocal basis with like-minded countries.

Although Canada has not yet ratified the law of the sea convention, we continue to play a very active role in multilateral fora dealing with law of the sea issues.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)