Debates of Oct. 8th, 2009

Search and Rescue Helicopter

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Canada is an expansive and geographically complex nation, and if members would just listen, it might actually make some sense.

Our search and rescue system is second to none. Nevertheless, our resources are limited. That is the reality. The motion ignores the complex considerations that go into determining the basing and deployment of these finite search and rescue resources.

Let me begin by assuring the House that search and rescue is a priority mission for the Canadian Forces. It is what they call a no fail mission. They are not allowed to fail, and they do not. The crews and equipment are absolutely dedicated to this, and their record stands second to none.

Our men and women in uniform, in cooperation with other government departments, including the RCMP and the Coast Guard, as well as the provinces and territories are on duty 24/7, 365 days a year. I do not think my hon. colleague understands what 24/7 means. It does not mean that there is no response time. It takes time to get into an airplane. It takes time to get there. They are on 30 minute standby during the week. They are on two hour standby on the weekends. That is what 24/7 means.

They are prepared and ready to respond to incidents of distress wherever and whenever they occur in Canada and our territorial waters, and they have saved countless lives. This has not happened by chance.

Canadian Forces search and rescue squadrons have been strategically located throughout the country.

A close look at the historic distribution of distress incidents has enabled us to choose the best locations for our limited resources. Our goal has always been to respond as quickly and effectively as possible to the greatest possible number of search and rescue calls.

Regardless of whether the incident takes place on a mountainside in British Columbia or on the blustery sea off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, trained men and women equipped for search and rescue are ready to help. To cover Newfoundland and Labrador, we have stationed Cormorant search and rescue helicopters in Gander.

Why not St. John's, the airport nearest the offshore oil activity in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because Gander offers optimal coverage to the demands of the entire region, not just the demands of the offshore petroleum industry.

Two separate studies, one in 2003 and another in 2005, support the decision to locate our search and rescue assets at Gander; studies, by the way, carried out by the former government. Yes, the positioning of Canadian Forces helicopters at St. John's may improve the Canadian Forces response time for a subset of incidents occurring near or en route to the oil fields, but doing so would result in slower response times to incidents in other parts of the region.

Today's motion proposes an overly simplified solution to a complex problem. Search and rescue operations are often very complex, demanding excellent coordination of land, air and sea resources. There is more to it than just deploying a Canadian Forces search and rescue helicopter to St. John's.

What if the machine needs maintenance or its crew needs training or even just a little rest?

The Gander search and rescue squadron has specialized search and rescue helicopters, crew and infrastructure, as well as sufficient base workers and maintenance staff to ensure that there is always at least one helicopter ready to respond immediately.

Furthermore, we cannot simply relocate a resource as important as a helicopter without considering how other resources will be used. If we try to put the pieces of such a complex puzzle together from scratch, some areas may well be left out.

Where would she take the resources from and who would she deem to be unworthy of SAR coverage?

She talks about additional resources and that is a fair suggestion; however, to duplicate what we have in Gander and St. John's requires three Cormorant helicopters, six and a half aircrew, fifty-three Canadian Forces personnel for flying and maintaining the airplanes and the administration, thirty-five contract maintenance personnel, infrastructure including a hangar, several years to establish, and approximately $2 billion over twenty years for all of that to happen.

She says money is not a factor. The reality is that money is a factor.

There are also other elements at play here and the weather is a big one. Critical weather conditions tend to occur more frequently in St. John's. A 2003 study conducted by Defence Research and Development Canada by the previous government examined weather conditions in the years 1995 through 1999. It found that in Gander, the weather would have adversely affected Cormorant operations about 7% of the time, but in St. John's that number jumped to 17%. That means a much higher likelihood that Cormorants could not take off from St. John's than Gander.

There are three times as many fog days in St. John's than there are in Gander. It does not matter how close the aircraft is based to potential distress locations if the weather keeps it on the ground.

I want to emphasize once more that a great deal of effort, study and consideration goes into a decision on where to base our assets and no decision is taken in isolation.

In 1986 the royal commission on the tragic Ocean Ranger marine disaster recommended that either government or industry maintain a full-time helicopter for the purposes of search and rescue at the airport nearest offshore drilling operations.

In keeping with that recommendation and in compliance with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board safety guidelines, the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador currently has a contract with Cougar Helicopters. This company, which has experience from a reputable core of former Canadian Forces SAR personnel, provides a first-response helicopter and crew to support offshore oil industry operations based out of St. John's 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Further, an informal arrangement exists between the Canadian Forces and Cougar Helicopters to assist in responding to emergencies. In fact, following a March 12 crash of one of its own helicopters, Cougar Helicopters was among the first responders. It was their response helicopter that rescued the sole survivor in what was deemed to be a non-survivable impact. Arguably, they were in a position to rescue more had this tragic incident yielded more survivors.

I submit that this is exactly what was intended by the royal commission recommendation.

The Canadian Forces response included an Aurora aircraft that happened to be on nearby patrol, followed by Canadian Forces SAR assets including a Hercules aircraft and Cormorant helicopter. There was no delay in response to this tragic accident and there was nothing more that anyone could have done to alter its unfortunate outcome. Indeed, this is a good example of how the Canadian Forces works closely with its search and rescue partners from both government and industry to ensure the most effective and efficient search and rescue service to Canadians across the country.

In effect, the intent of this motion has already been satisfied for over two decades.

The logic here is really straightforward. Our goal is to provide Canadians with an effective search and rescue system. Resources are finite and the territory it must serve is immense. This is not an easy challenge to contend with, so we have strategically placed our assets according to the historical distribution of incidents across the country.

There are several aspects of Atlantic Canada's geography, its climate and the increased risk of incidents related to resource extraction that make this challenge even more daunting. The situation in Atlantic Canada has been extensively studied. These studies have concluded that Gander is the optimal base from which the CF can respond to all of the search and rescue demands in that region, not simply demands related to the offshore petroleum industry.

For three reasons we cannot support this understandably emotional but impractical and unnecessary motion: the best use of finite resources; the incredibly high cost, which is reality and still a factor; and the fact that we are already covering a requirement for the offshore oil industry, and have been doing so under the terms of the report that came out over two decades ago.

This government does care, obviously, about the welfare of all Canadians. The Canadian Forces search and rescue assets, the search and rescue people and equipment, do a tremendous job for Canadians and for other non-Canadians who are in our waters and on land.

However, for the reasons I have outlined, we simply must oppose this motion.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Motion M-346 proposed by the Newfoundland member from Random—Burin—St. George's.

Motion M-346 states that “it is imperative the government move expeditiously to allocate the necessary resources to put in place a full-time dedicated helicopter fully equipped to search and rescue standards at the airport nearest to offshore oil activity and that it be available on a 24-hour basis with a crew trained in all aspects of search and rescue.”

The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of increasing security for those working at sea. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government must carry out its mandate of providing a search and rescue service for marine industries and the general public.

Let us not forget the tragic case of the Ocean Ranger, the semi-submersible mobile drilling platform that sank off the coast of Newfoundland on February 15, 1982. It was exploring the ocean floor in the Grand Banks area, 267 kilometres from St. John's, Newfoundland. All 84 crew members on board lost their lives.

Following this catastrophe, a royal commission was established, chaired by Justice Alex Hickman. After two years, it submitted its findings and recommendations, which included:

That there be required a full-time search and rescue dedicated helicopter, provided by either government or industry, fully equipped to search and rescue standards, at the airport nearest to the ongoing offshore drilling operations, and that it be readily available with a trained crew able to perform all aspects of the rescue.

Government or industry should provide a full-time search and rescue dedicated helicopter that is fully equipped and based at the airport nearest the drilling platforms. For reasons that are unknown, that recommendation was not implemented.

Look at the tragedy that ensued during the Cougar helicopter accident. On March 12, 2009, a Sikorsky S-92 helicopter with 18 crew members on board, crashed into the ocean following a technical problem. That helicopter shuttled workers between land and various oil platforms off the coast of Newfoundland. Only one passenger survived. Following that tragedy, Tom Hann, a St. John's city councillor, introduced a motion calling on the federal government to review its search and rescue services, to base a Cormorant helicopter in St. John's, Newfoundland, and to provide Goose Bay and Gander with a search and rescue unit.

Another sad accident comes to mind, the one involving Robert Keough. During the weekend of September 12, 2009, less than a month ago, a 58-year-old fisherman, Robert Keough, died when the boat he was working on sank. This tragedy occurred roughly 120 kilometres from St. John's, Newfoundland.

The boat owner said that this tragedy could have been avoided if there had been a rescue helicopter based in St. John's, Newfoundland, closer than the one that came from Gander.

As we have heard, maritime trades are very dangerous. The men and women who risk their lives every day to earn a living are tied to their ships, their platforms, or worse, become trapped in them when they founder. They cannot escape as easily as they could on land. That is clear.

This is why response times are even more important at sea. It makes sense to try to make these jobs safer, so it makes sense to move rescue services closer to the areas where they will, unfortunately, be called upon to respond.

It is also important that the new helicopters remain in good condition. We must be careful not to spread resources too thin, and to ensure that they are being used to optimum effect. Thus, we must consider the comments of the mayor of Gander, who said that before sending new helicopters elsewhere in Newfoundland, we should be upgrading the ones in his city.

Furthermore, this new service must not be an excuse for the oil companies to shirk their own obligations to see to the safety of their employees.

For all of those lost at sea, and to act on the recommendations of the royal commission chaired by Justice Alex Hickman in the mid-1980s, the House of Commons must approve this motion.

Helicopters must be available year-round to perform search and rescue operations at sea. They must be provided by either government or industry, equipped with the latest in lifesaving technology, stationed at an airport close to offshore drilling platforms, and ready to respond to all distress calls with a crew trained to rescue persons in distress.

We hope that Motion M-346 will be adopted and acted upon without delay.

Thanks to technology, we have been able to orbit the earth and put astronauts on the moon for 40 years. It does not make sense that we cannot save lives at sea with helicopters right here on the surface of the planet. Out of respect for those lost off the coast of Newfoundland, and to ensure that their tragic disappearances are not in vain, let us act to prevent similar losses of human lives. Let us vote for Motion M-346.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to rise in support of this very important motion brought by my colleague in the House, the member for Random—Burin—St. George's. This is an extremely important issue in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for many, many reasons. It has to do with our history and our attachment to the sea and our way of life and also to the many tragedies that we have suffered over the last centuries, really, when it comes to fishing, but even in the offshore, we have seen two significant tragedies that were mentioned by the member for Random—Burin—St. George's, that of the Ocean Ranger and recently the Cougar Helicopter crash in March of this year.

I fully support this recommendation. I would like to put on the record the fact that I also have a motion before the House with respect to search and rescue, on the order paper, and I will read it into the record:

That, in the opinion of the House, given both the increasing air and marine traffic and increased industrial activity off the east coast of Newfoundland, as well as previous recommendations by independent investigations of Search and Rescue (SAR), the Department of National Defense should upgrade Search and Rescue capabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador by providing for at least one fully equipped and fully staffed SAR helicopter at St. John's in addition to the existing SAR capability at Gander and Goose Bay and further that the Gander SAR crewing should be increased to permit 24-hour per day on-duty coverage and thereby provide improved response times.

The improved response time is really what this is all about. The Ocean Ranger recommendation that has been referred to by my colleague and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence reads as follows:

That there be required a full-time search and rescue dedicated helicopter, provided by either government or industry, fully equipped to search and rescue standards, at the airport nearest to the ongoing offshore drilling operations, and that it be readily available with a trained crew able to perform all aspects of rescue.

The parliamentary secretary asserted to the House that this was in fact in place. Anyone who has looked closely at this knows that this is not the case. When the Cougar Helicopter went down in March of this year and the Cougar base in St. John's was notified, before they could respond to the crash, the first thing they had to do after they mustered their crew was to take the seats out of the helicopter and then try to put equipment on-board before they could even take off. That is not a search and rescue-dedicated helicopter fully equipped to search and rescue standards. In fact one of the criticisms of the Cougar ability or Cougar industry-provided standards is that it is not fully equipped. They do not have the same level of search and rescue capability as our DND SAR techs.

I join with the parliamentary secretary in praising the work of our SAR techs. They are magnificent men and women who are extremely dedicated and well trained, and they do a great job. I do not think anyone who has spoken in favour of this has anything to take away from them. They are terrific at their job. In fact, according to DND statistics, they are active across the country in some 8,000 missions per year and save on average 1,200 lives per year. We are very proud of them and proud of the work that they do.

We are so proud of them in fact that we want to see this work being done closer to where the greatest risk is present in Newfoundland and Labrador, off our east coast where at any one time there are 600-plus workers living more than 100 miles offshore, 24 hours a day, working 12-hour shifts on three-week rotations. They are there day and night doing the work that it takes to produce offshore oil and gas for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the benefit of Canada and as my colleague said, to the benefit of the treasury of the Government of Canada.

The request was that there be a dedicated service in St. John's, although the member did not say St. John's but that is obviously the closest to where the action is required.

Response times have been mentioned here. We need to put on the record that response times out of Gander on a 24 hour basis differ considerably. During regular hours, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., the standard is 30 minutes. The response team is in the air 30 minutes after being tasked with the job.

Some documentation says that during quiet hours and on statutory holidays, the response time is standby two hours. What makes any time after 4 o'clock in the afternoon or a statutory holiday any different from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. during business hours? The sea does not calm down at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The risk of danger at sea does not disappear because it is a statutory holiday.

The Sea Gypsy sank in July of this year on a Saturday morning at 11 o'clock. The people on the boat did not say that the boat will not sink and a fast response will not be needed because it was 11 o'clock on a Saturday morning. The times have not been given out accurately yet. We have reports that a mayday was sent out at 11 o'clock. People were being rescued at 4:30 in the afternoon. This is obviously not a serious rescue time. If a helicopter had been stationed in St. John's, it could have been there in 45 minutes to an hour. One of the individuals on board that ship was lost and could not be found even though he was wearing a survival suit. There are a number of details which are too numerous to mention in the short time I have available.

A series of tragedies at sea have happened in Newfoundland over the last several years that raise the question of whether more lives could have been saved if the response time in Gander had been better. That is not the fault of the individuals. That is a question of crewing.

My resolution is a little more broad but it encompasses the resolution of my colleague from Random—Burin—St. George's, and I commend her for bringing it forward to the House.

There is one other matter that should be put on the record in terms of response times. It deals with the SAR operations out of Gander.

The Hibernia, Sea Rose and White Rose platforms are located in that part of the ocean. Supply boats go back and forth all the time. Fishermen work in that part of the ocean. International traffic goes back and forth all the time in the sea lanes. International fishing boats are out in that part of the ocean, 200 miles from the St. John's area out on the Grand Banks.

When a search and rescue aircraft leaves Gander to head in that direction to go out to sea, the first thing it has to do before it leaves for the eastern part of the waters is land in St. John's and refuel. Why is that? There are standards that if a search and rescue helicopter is going to be leaving land to go out to sea, it has to have enough fuel to get where it is going. For operational reasons that helicopter has to be able to hover for a period of up to an hour to be able to conduct any rescue operations or anything it has to do, and then get back to land.

Gander is about 200 miles by road and 100 miles or so by air from St. John's, so additional time is required for the helicopter to get to where it has to be. This is extremely important. A map is available on the Internet under the Department of National Defence which shows the vast area of ocean for which the Gander operations is responsible. I invite members to look at that map.

I am delighted to hear that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this motion. The Bloc members understand the problems fishermen face at sea and obviously appreciate the dangers and the need for fast response times. I am glad that the Bloc is supporting this motion, as are the New Democrats.

We in the NDP believe this motion is timely. The cost really has not been assessed. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence has given it justice by suggesting that we would have to duplicate the cost from Gander. There are ways of doing it.

We would like this motion to be taken seriously and I hope the House will fully support it.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, the topic of this debate is an issue which is very close to the hearts of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians. For hundreds of years people from my province have worked the dangerous waters off our coast. It has shaped our character and our connection to the sea has had a profound influence in the development of our literature and music.

One such example is a poem by the renowned poet from Newfoundland and Labrador, E.J. Pratt:

It took the seas a thousand years,
A thousand years to trace
The granite features of this cliff,
In crag and scarp and base.
It took the sea an hour one night,
An hour of storm to place
The sculpture of these granite seams
Upon a woman's face.

It is because this connection with the sea runs so deep in our province that we feel so strongly about these issues. There are many tragedies which have left a mark on our culture. The sealing disaster, for example, as told by Cassie Brown in the novel “Death on the Ice” is just another example.

The Ocean Ranger disaster on Valentine's Day in 1982 saw 84 people lost to the sea, yet another reminder of the power of the ocean. It was Canada's worst tragedy at sea since the second world war.

In March of this year, 15 offshore workers and two crew members were lost when a Cougar helicopter crashed into the ocean. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador were shocked not just with the crash but also with the fact that the search and rescue aircraft that responded to the crash had to be dispatched from Nova Scotia because no local crews were available.

The helicopter crews normally stationed at 9 Wing Gander in central Newfoundland and Labrador were in Cape Breton on a training mission. Search and rescue officials estimate that the fact the choppers were sent from Nova Scotia added over an hour to the response time. The circumstances around this incident demonstrate the types of problems which can occur. It demonstrates the need for increased resources in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Throughout our history there have been many tragedies at sea, many of them small boats with crews of four or five people such as the Sea Gypsy, which was lost off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador less than a month ago. These were people working hard in dangerous conditions to make a living for themselves and their families.

Like most families in our province, mine has also been touched by tragedy at sea. The issue is very personal to me. My father-in-law was lost to the sea while on a fishing vessel in 1994. I know the anguish individuals and families experience when a tragedy occurs.

These disasters have not only shown us the power of the sea but they have also led us to changes in the way our society regulates those who work offshore. For example, the Ocean Ranger inquiry led to a series of recommendations related to those who work in the offshore oil industry in our country but, sadly, some of the recommended changes have not yet occurred.

One of the recommendations of the royal commission that studied the sinking of the Ocean Ranger was to put a search and rescue team in St. John's that would provide 24 hour coverage. Yet, here we are some 27 years later and we are debating a motion that calls for the very same thing.

I and other members from Newfoundland and Labrador have raised this issue in the House of Commons in the past and will continue to do so until our voices are heard and action is taken. The tragedy of the Sea Gypsy just weeks ago emphasizes the importance of getting swift action from the government, but the response from the Minister of National Defence up to this point has been very disappointing and is far from what is required.

In my question recently, I asked the minister if he would conduct a total review of search and rescue services in the province given the concerns that were raised with the response time to the tragedy. In his response, the minister would make no commitment to conduct such a review and only said:

This particular issue around the placement of search and rescue assets has been one that has required a great deal of attention.

He went on to say:

I assure the member opposite that one Hercules aircraft is on standby in Sydney now.

That is Sydney, Nova Scotia

I am not sure if the minister really realizes how inadequate his answer was to that question. To say resources are available in Nova Scotia, hundreds of miles away, is a solution that is just not good enough. We need increased search and rescue resources in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am very disappointed with the minister's response and have been very disappointed in the way this issue has been dealt with.

Another reason I have been disappointed has been the attempt by some to confuse the issue and to play one region of the province off against another. The claim is that if additional resources are allocated to St. John's or surrounding area, then resources will be taken away from Gander. This is not the request which we have, on this side of the House, been requesting. We recognize the need to have a solid presence in Gander. We realize the huge area that is covered by that station.

Let me make this clear. Our request of additional resources for our province does not take anything away from Gander.

Also, there have been outrageous claims about how much it would cost to expand and put in place a 24-hour service in St. John's. I want to challenge the government to provide detailed information on the costs involved in expanding the service.

Another point that I would like to make clear is that our comments are in no way an attack on the hard work and good work of those involved in search and rescue. Nothing could be further from the truth. We recognize the professionalism and bravery of the people who work in this field and we applaud their efforts. We also recognize and applaud the efforts of the volunteers of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. We know how they risk their lives to save others in very difficult circumstances.

What we are saying is that we need to give these professionals, these trained and highly dedicated individuals, those people who are responsible for our health and our safety when we are on the ocean, more resources to do this very difficult job.

I am not under any delusions of how easy it is to provide search and rescue services in a country such as Canada. The size of our country is a major factor. We know we have a huge land mass. We know that we have coastal waters off the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Arctic oceans. We know the Canadian armed forces have been in charge of coordinating search and rescue since 1947. It is often assisted by the Coast Guard, the RCMP, local police, and civilian volunteers who help coordinate efforts, depending on the details of the rescue.

In outlining these difficulties in providing the service, I certainly want to highlight the important role played by volunteers and volunteer associations.

I earlier mentioned the Coast Guard Auxiliary. However, to illustrate the role of these volunteers, I want to make mention of a group that I met with recently in my riding: the Rovers Search and Rescue. It is a volunteer, not for profit organization that has been active in the northeast Avalon area of our province since 1972. The team is comprised of 65 volunteer men and women who, in the year 2008, contributed over 7,500 hours of service in our local community. The group provides auxiliary support to authorities in emergency situations and is very active in our community. It does a lot of profiling and activities such as promotions for safe boating, for example.

There are organizations such as these all across our country, working hard to provide an important service to this country. The Search and Rescue Volunteer Association of Canada has a national voice.

The parliamentary secretary rose earlier and mentioned that we were asking to replicate the services that are currently in Gander. Again, I emphasis that is not the case. We are asking for a 24-hour/7-day-a-week service to ensure safety and security. He also noted that search and rescue is a no-fail mission. I agree with him. It is a no-fail. The trained professionals and brave men and women do not want to fail.

However, the government fails when we do not provide adequate and substantial resources to ensure the safety of the men and women who make their living on the sea. I am very pleased to hear the New Democratic Party offer its support and the Bloc Québécois offer its support.

However, I am asking all members of this House to recognize the importance of this issue, to recognize that we can provide better search and rescue services to the people who work in very dangerous waters off the coast. I ask for their support. I ask for additional resources to be allocated to ensure 24/7 search and rescue service.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, tonight I participate in this adjournment debate to raise issues relating back to a question regarding the value of research which I asked the government during the spring session.

At the time, true to form, the minister denied that his government cut funds to research and tried to pass off infrastructure money as investments in technology.

I would like to take us back to that time, but first I want to highlight a major breakthrough made by Canadian researchers this week in British Columbia which may finally help the government see the value of investing in research.

Today's announcement details major new findings from the landmark study about the way cancer spreads. Using next generation technology to decode the genetic sequence of mutations made by cancer cells as cancer cells reappear, these scientists have been able to pinpoint the specific changes occurring in an individual's battle with cancer. These findings will serve as the building blocks of an encyclopedia of breast cancer research, compiling knowledge that will point scientists in the right direction to further breakthroughs, understanding, treatment and ultimately prevention.

Let us keep in mind the possibilities brought on by this new understanding as we go back to May 2009 when I raised the subject with the government. Just a few weeks earlier, 2,000 Canadian scientists wrote a letter to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about cuts to basic research in this country.

The granting councils, Canada's major funders of discovery and basic research, were forced to cut over $145 million from their budgets. Then, the following week, the lack of government commitment and investment in basic research in this country caused us to lose one of the world's leading human immunologists, along with several highly trained, talented members of his research team to a fully funded, highly competitive lab in the United States.

A month before that, extensive cuts to the National Research Council were laid out by the government as part of its strategic review of the NRC, which has led to a greater than 50% reduction to the budget of Canada's national science library, the CISTI.

Government money here in Canada, when it is directed to science and research at all, continues to overlook vital areas. A Conservative budget provided $2 billion to Canadian universities to improve aging infrastructure, a good initiative, but neglected to provide any additional money to fund the scientists and researchers to work in those spaces. Add to that the budget cuts to CIHR, to NSERC, and the lack of inclusion of Genome Canada in the government's budget, and we get a pretty clear picture of the refusal of the government to recognize the importance of science.

The Liberals understand the importance and the value of science and research, and so do Canadians. Recent polling data from the national study commissioned by BIOTECanada indicated 9 out of 10 Canadians saw biotech as important to Canada's future economic prosperity. The majority of Canadians, over two-thirds, were also concerned about Canada's global competitiveness in science and technology, and four out of five Canadians were concerned about the loss of emerging biotech companies to Canada.

Clearly, Canadians see the value of investing in science and technology, health research and the knowledge economy. It is equally clear that the government does not. I will ask the minister again, does everyone else understand the value of science except the government?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member wants to ask the minister but, unfortunately, today she has me, the lowly parliamentary secretary.

As the hon. member indicated, Canada continues to be a world leader in terms of its support for post-secondary research. We rank first in the G7 and second after Sweden among the 30 OECD countries in terms of higher education R and D expenditures as a percentage of GDP.

Last year, the granting councils underwent strategic review, which is an ongoing, important tool used by government to ensure that all spending is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. As part of the review process, the granting council presidents identified a number of areas where funding from what they determined to be low performing programs could be reallocated to higher priorities.

It is also important to put the review in context. The overall budget for the three granting councils is about $2.5 billion per year, so the cut of $150 million over three years through strategic review represents a very small part of their budget.

In addition, through the federal S and T strategy announced by the Prime Minister on May 17, 2007, the government has continued to demonstrate a strong commitment to S and T. Specifically, through the last three budgets, the government has invested over $7 billion in additional new S and T funding.

From budgets 2006 to 2009, this government provided significant increases in funding to the granting councils, including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, for their core programming.

Budget 2006 provided additional funding of $40 million per year to the three granting councils. Budget 2007 invested a further $85 million per year. In last year's budget, the granting councils received another increase of $80 million per year of funding in areas of benefit to Canadians.

These funding increases, $205 million per year in total, are cumulative. They represent ongoing permanent increases in core funding for the granting councils.

Our most recent budget, budget 2009, provided over $5 billion in new S and T investments, one of the most substantial budget investments in S and T in Canadian history. Of this over $5 billion investment, Canada will spend $3.8 billion by 2010. Per capita, that is more than what the United States government has earmarked for science and technology in its own stimulus package for the same period.

Given that much of the focus of this budget was on stimulus, we provided a massive $2 billion investment to enhance university and college infrastructure. This initiative, which was part of the government's economic action plan to stimulate economic activity, was in response to the number one priority expressed by university and college presidents.

Budget 2009 and our past investments underscore our understanding of the tremendous importance and value of S and T for our country.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, the government continues to use the $5.1 billion figure as the amount it has invested in science and research. I think that it is really a game of charades and a house of cards.

The funding commitments that the government cites to support this are not dedicated toward actual research projects, nor will the money necessarily even go toward infrastructure to create such projects. The Conservatives have barely maintained federal funding for science and technology research projects. Canada's three granting councils are undergoing $148 million in cuts.

According to Statistics Canada, the total federal funding for science and technology in 2008 was $365 million less than in 2005 when adjusted for inflation. Universities have borne the brunt of a drop in funding. When adjusted for inflation, federal funding for university research in 2008 was $187 million less than in 2005.

I think that demonstrates that it is not the government's priority to invest in science and technology. As a result, we are falling behind our international competitors when it comes to research and innovation. In terms of investing in research and development, U.S. stimulus allocated six times more funding per capita.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Madam Speaker, we can debate the numbers all day long. It seems to me that the hon. member might be pulling numbers out of the air.

We do rank first in the G7 and second after Sweden among the 30 OECD countries in terms of higher education R and D expenditures as a percentage of GDP. As I noted, our per capita spending on the stimulus package as it relates to S and T is actually higher than the United States for this year.

Of note, in regard to the three granting councils, they received successive increases of $40 million per year, $85 million per year and $80 million per year in the budgets of 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. As I noted earlier, these increases were cumulative, ongoing and permanent.

I trust that my remarks have helped to reinforce this government's ongoing communication of our S and T strategy.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada was built by immigrants, from the Irish refugees fleeing the potato famine at the turn of the century to the Chinese workers who helped build the Canadian railway that united Canada.

These immigrants built Canada because they were able to establish roots in Canada, they were able to stay here permanently. Some got married, had children and grandchildren. They had a future in Canada. They built the nation.

Now, in 2009, the Conservatives treat migrant workers as economic units, not as nation builders. Here and now, across the country, we have over 364,000 temporary foreign workers who have little future in Canada. Last year alone, 192,519 were brought into Canada as migrant workers. They toil year after year but most of their children and their parents will not have a chance to come to Canada and join them. This is unfair, unjust and un-Canadian. If foreign workers are good enough to work here, these workers should be good enough to stay here permanently.

Through the exploitation of tens of thousands of migrant workers and their families, the Conservative government is driving down wages and working conditions for Canadian workers.

The Conservatives promised to fix it, but they did not deliver. They said they would fix the live-in caregivers program, yet today no action. There is nothing temporary about live-in caregivers. As long as we do not have a national universal child care program or a home care program for seniors, these caregivers are needed in Canada permanently.

By offering the chance of permanent status to these workers, we can eliminate unfair conditions and wages, just as the rest of Canadians expect for themselves.

All workers should have access to employment insurance and Canada pension plan since they contribute to it, but right now migrant workers cannot get it. They should have access to the health care system because they pay for it through their taxes, but most of them cannot get it in the first few months. The same holds true for all health and safety protection and workers compensation if they are injured at the job. They should have the right to join a union. Temporary foreign workers deserve the same rights as Canadians take advantage of every day.

Families are the foundation for healthy and strong communities and every individual should be afforded the same rights.

The citizenship and immigration committee spent two years and formulated two reports with many recommendations to stop the exploitation of temporary foreign workers and welcome them as nation builders, not just economic units.

When will the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism heed the call of his colleagues and stem the flow of migrant workers into this country, improve the working conditions for those who are here, provide them with hope so they can stay here permanently to help build communities that are harmonious, healthy, diverse and vibrant?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate some of the comments made by the member for Trinity—Spadina, and in particular, those at the beginning of her comments, with respect to immigrants. I can only think about my parents who immigrated to this country: my father, who landed in Quebec by boat in 1950 and my mother, who arrived by ship in Halifax in 1952. I certainly know of what she speaks as a first-generation Canadian in terms of understanding how much opportunity there is in this country for those of us, either ourselves or our parents, who have come to this country as immigrants, only to then be able to call ourselves Canadians.

I am pleased to rise to address the hon. member's question with respect to the temporary foreign worker program, and more specifically with regard to live-in caregivers. Obviously, the health, safety and well-being of all temporary foreign workers in Canada is very important to the government.

The live-in caregiver program is important as it helps meet care-giving needs in Canada. It also provides the possibility of permanent residence to foreign live-in caregivers. Our government is committed to ensuring that this program remains fair and equitable to both workers and employers while protecting potentially vulnerable caregivers. The federal government is working with the provinces and territories to ensure that workers receive full protection of the law. All levels of government are working to improve the situation of live-in caregivers.

I know I was personally shocked, and so was the member who sits with me on the committee for citizenship and immigration, by some of the testimony we have heard at the immigration committee about the poor working conditions and the treatment, and I am confident that having heard from the witnesses that we all heard from, the committee members left the room even more committed to protecting vulnerable workers from people in positions of power.

Provincial and territorial labour laws establish employment standards such as minimum wage, overtime payment for additional hours worked, vacation pay and maximum amounts for room and board. These labour laws also provide a complaint mechanism for employees. We have consulted with caregivers and other stakeholders, including employers, to hear how we can better ensure their protection. We are also looking at intermediaries and recruiting agencies and the role they play in Canada's immigration system.

To ensure worker protection, there is a legal requirement for signed employment contracts between employers and their employees, and these contracts are subject to provincial employment standards. Our government has been developing regulatory amendments that would help ensure that employers of temporary foreign workers, including live-in caregivers, provide the workers the wages, the working conditions and the jobs that were promised.

We are taking action to achieve our goal of ensuring worker protection, and we are informing workers of their rights and their options for recourse if they are mistreated. I can assure the House that our government is committed to ensuring that the live-in caregiver program remains fair and equitable to workers and employers.

In fact, as the minister has already indicated to the standing committee, improvements are planned for the live-in caregiver program and work is already under way, as the member for Trinity—Spadina knows. We voted together on it to move it forward.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, fair and equitable treatment of live-in caregivers means the end of exploitation. As long as the live-in caregivers come in as temporary foreign workers, many of them will be exploited by people who have power and money. We have seen it, yes, and we have heard their testimony, and some of those stories are tragic.

The best way to solve the problem is to allow them to come in as permanent residents with the condition that they have to work in Canada for two or three years and then the condition can be removed.

Coming in as permanent residents means that they could walk away from a job without fearing deportation. It means that they could speak up if they have been told to work in unfair living conditions, and that is the kind of action that needs to take place now.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, our government is committed to ensuring that this program remains fair and equitable so that employers receive the services that they need, and that our vulnerable workers are not exploited by the unscrupulous.

The fact remains, employers and their employees are required under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to sign employment contracts, and the terms of these contracts cannot violate provincial employment standards.

These standards include minimum wage overtime payment for additional hours worked and vacation pay. All decent people expect these standards to be respected, and we cannot accept instances where employers violate these standards. If employers fail to measure up to these standards, employees can take their complaints up with provincial labour departments, just as all Canadians can.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has also distributed information about their rights to caregivers. This information is also available to all.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is 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 6:49 p.m.)