Debates of Nov. 20th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by the hon. member for Ottawa South to be quite eloquent. He is quite eloquent sometimes. However, sometimes his actions are not consistent with his pretty words. I am a little disappointed at the hypocrisy that I find implicit in contrasting what he said today and has said on other occasions with the actions that the Liberals have taken in general, and that he has taken in particular.

Over 13 years the Liberals did sign Kyoto but also they made no plan, they had no success in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, they grew by about 30% during their reign. The hon. member, as a member of the environment committee and as the environment critic for his party recommended to his party that it delay the vote on Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen. The Liberal Party could have chosen to have helped that bill to pass so we would be sending clear direction and clear messages to Copenhagen.

Why did the member vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen and why are his actions inconsistent with his pretty words?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, members will not be surprised to hear that a lot of the preamble to that question is simply untrue.

I would like to respond, though, by saying that, yes, it is true that we had the privilege of serving as government for over a dozen years. During that time, I was not here but we can take some pride in announcing that we did bring in the Species at Risk Act. We did bring in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We did create the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. We actually did give the powers to regulate greenhouse gases. We did ratify Kyoto after it became law internationally, in 2004. We did bring in the greenest budget in Canadian history, according to Elizabeth May, in 2005. We did have the largest expenditure program in that budget. We had signed deals with every sector of all the final and large emitters polluting and putting greenhouse gases in. The plan was ready to execute, and then along came the Reform-Conservatives. That is the truth.

Now, with respect to Bill C-311, I do reject the member's characterization of this being a delay tactic, this notion that we are delaying something. It was not two weeks ago that his colleague, the critic in the NDP, was in agreement that this extension for 30 days in committee was extremely important in order to hear other expert witnesses. We are hearing them now. We heard yesterday from the ambassador from the EU, the high commissioner from the U.K. This was important insight as to where the world is going and where Canada is situated in a global context.

What we are really seeing is the NDP using, frankly, propaganda tactics to try to score points. At the end of the day, when we examine Bill C-311, it is a call for a plan, but it is not a plan. There is no notion of a plan in it. It omits so much in a credible plan, including international offsets, international credits, a schedule for carbon pricing.

Anyone can call for a plan. I am glad the member has joined us here in calling for a plan from the government. There is no delay tactic here. There is an opportunity for us to hear from some of the best minds in Canada and elsewhere as to how to move forward in a responsible way.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's remarks. I am going to question him on some of the not so big substantive things that can be done to improve climate change and also create economic activity.

As the member would know, I am the Liberal Party's agriculture critic. I think there is tremendous opportunity in the agriculture area in a rural base to create economic opportunities for the farm sector, for rural Canada by utilizing the environment to create those opportunities, whether it is using biomass production of energy waste, waste from forests, from lumber mills, growing crops for energy on farms, or the environmental goods and services that producers do on their farms.

As well, in my own province of Prince of Edward Island, one of the first acts of the Prime Minister when he came to power was to cancel a $32 million transatlantic cable across the Northumberland Strait to utilize export wind power. Would it not make sense to put that cable in now so that Prince Edward Island could have the opportunity to use windmills, clean energy, for domestic and export use?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. There are so many opportunities for Canada to seize in urban and rural areas across Canada.

The member's specific example of cancelling the support for connectivity to a grid to get electricity from cleaner sources demonstrates clearly how the government operates. It operates in a vacuum, without a plan, without examining what projects are worth funding. It arbitrarily cuts and slashes. It is reckless conduct.

There are so many opportunities in rural Canada, in next generation biofuels. My prediction is that within the next 10 years rural landowners, private woodlot owners and those who have agricultural lands will be full partners in the climate change response in this country and internationally. Their land masses and the organic matter that they steward for us will play a huge part in sequestering, in capturing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and holding it for us so we reduce our emissions.

In my view, we should be working in Copenhagen and in Canada toward forms of compensation to deal with those eco-services. I think that is where we are heading. There are huge opportunities for us.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am delighted to speak in support of the motion from my hon. colleagues on federal climate change policy. It has become blatantly obvious to Canadians and the international community that the Conservative government has no plan for the future on climate change. It is especially important that this Parliament fill the void in leadership by proposing real solutions.

The motion has three parts, but the first and third parts really flow from the second part. The first part says we should commit to proposing targets that reduce absolute greenhouse gas pollution to 25% lower than 1990 levels, not 2006 ridiculous levels, by 2020. This is, of course, the same 2020 target in my private member's bill, Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, which has unfortunately been stalled in committee for some time now by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

This target is the logical extension of the temperature limit, which is the second part of the motion. The science has become very clear recently that we must avoid a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels if we are to escape catastrophic climate effects.

In order to check temperature increases, 99% of scientists tell us that we need to stabilize the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere at no more than 400 parts per million. Incidentally, we are already basically at 390 parts per million today.

The third and last part of the motion is about supporting developing countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and adapt to the damaging effects of climate change. While that is very vague, I can certainly see that supporting others is integral to pulling our own weight to reduce global emissions.

A ton of carbon pollution reduced in a developing country is like a ton reduced here as far the climate is concerned. This could represent the greatest economic opportunity since the second world war to export Canadian technology and business know-how abroad. It would be a sort of environmental Marshall plan.

Other countries have already seen the potential of being leaders rather than laggards versus the bleak economic future of business as usual. In fact, at this point, delay is economically irresponsible. We know that former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern has reported that the cost of inaction would be far higher than action. Unchecked emissions would cost us as much as 20% of global GDP per year, whereas the cost of bold action to reduce emissions could be limited to less than one-tenth of that on average. It does not take an economist to see which option is more affordable.

Here in Canada the recent TD Bank study by Jaccard and Associates shows that even with firm targets, such as the 25% 2020 target in Bill C-311, Canada would still be able to surpass the 2% annual growth led by Alberta.

Canadians have not seen any economic modelling of this type from our federal government. Why not? Not planning economically for something of this colossal magnitude is planning to fail and is grossly negligent. Perhaps the government has done the modelling but is reluctant to release its study. Canadians deserve to see what the government has, if the government has it.

We have just spent billions on corporate tax cuts and on the recent economic downturn, but the government has yet to seriously address the much more costly and damaging climate crisis. It has admitted it has no plan and no targets going into the Copenhagen summit next month. In fact, the Minister of the Environment said just this week that the government will wait to regulate greenhouse gas pollution until the United States takes action and until the global climate action deal is first reached by 192 other countries. We will be the last in. Talk about lack of leadership.

Years ago the government promised a plan would be in place and working by this year. Then it was delayed, but a plan was to at least be published by January 2009, then by the beginning of next year. Now it will not even be until perhaps late 2010 and more likely 2011. The minister admitted that under the American timetable, people will not even see regulations take effect until as late as 2016. No wonder our government has so little credibility on the international stage anymore. No wonder countries walk out when Canadian representatives take the podium on the world stage.

The principal reason the environment minister now gives for avoiding setting targets today is that we should wait until other countries set theirs so ours are not drastically different.

The environment minister's logic has not held back the EU. Yesterday the European Union's new ambassador appeared before the House environmental committee on Bill C-311. He testified that the EU has already set firm, science based targets like a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas pollution over 1990 not 2006 levels by 2020 and are willing to go up to 30% if countries like Canada step up to the plate with an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen.

The high commissioner for the United Kingdom also appeared before that committee yesterday and showed that prosperity and ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution was not just possible but that it was already happening in Britain.

The U.K. has already adopted targets like those in the Climate Change Accountability Act, but instead of just 20% over 1990 levels by 2020, it has committed to a 34% reduction in law. It has already achieved today a 21% reduction. More than a million homes are powered by wind alone in Great Britain. Almost a million Britons are employed in the new green economy there. The Brits see that reducing greenhouse gases is not a cost but a huge economic opportunity.

Instead of avoiding responsibility to cut carbon pollution as our Prime Minister has done, Prime Minister Brown said this year that “a vast expansion” of carbon-cutting technologies was in fact crucial to their economic recovery.

It is not surprising that Great Britain should be enthusiastic about reducing its emissions, after all, it is fundamentally about increasing efficiency. It is about using less energy and less resources for more goods and better services that the country produces. That is good for business and necessary for prosperity. The U.K. knows that there is not much of a future left in the Canadian Conservative business as usual process of wasting energy.

So the British government has already adopted this target and is well on its way to meeting it and beating it. In fact, this is the more cautious plan in the U.K. The opposition Tories there are demanding even more ambitious action yet. Conservatives in our country would do well to take their climate cues from their British brethren rather than the Bush era conservatives south of us.

Conservatives in the U.S., as here, have tried to make the environment the enemy of the economy and in doing so condemn them both to decline. They have used this excuse to delay action for decades.

The Conservative government here continues to delay, even to this day. To continue in this way in the face of so much overwhelming evidence, ignoring the demands of both industry and Canadians alike, is irresponsible to the point of being criminal.

We are now skating very close to the edge. We have little margin for error left and little time. The government should know that past that tipping point, over that cliff to climate chaos, lies economic ruin as well. There can be no prosperity on a dying planet.

If we harmonize the two, the environment and the economy, realizing that new economic opportunities and green industries will emerge if we fulfill our environmental obligations as other countries are doing, we will open up the possibility of a richer, more sustainable and fairer world for us all and a more prosperous Canada with new green jobs.

Decisive targets, policies and action on energy policy will create jobs across Canada, including in Thunder Bay where Bombardier can and will build the trains of the future or the giant windmills that we need.

The forestry and mining industries have already met the 2020 targets in Bill C-311 and in this motion.

There is something else that must be reconciled with climate change that the government has virtually ignored. Climate change poses the greatest threat to Canadian security and international security since the cold war.

It is not only Arctic sovereignty we are talking about, although that is significant enough, but spreading pests, drought and desertification, among other things, will result in an acute and permanent global food supply crisis. Canadian crops will suffer too. The geopolitical consequences of this alone are huge, including in North America. Water will be much scarcer for much of the world but overabundant on many coasts where regions and entire countries will be flooded.

For every degree the global temperature rises so do the mass migrations of people, the number of failed and failing states, and wars.

Britain now sees climate change as its number one national security priority. The United States military takes climate change seriously too. Even the youngest schoolchildren seem to know what the government does not, which is that controlling climate change is vital to the health of our planet and civilization. Lack of strong action to defend Canada's long-term economic prosperity and our very security—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member can finish his comments in response to one of the questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the hon. member give the House his thoughts on why the Liberal Party would vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa South said something earlier that was incorrect. He said that I had agreed with him that it would be a good idea to delay and to call more witnesses. We have been hearing from witnesses for years.

The environment committee has had about six months to call witnesses and chose not to do so until very recently. All of the witnesses are underscoring the importance of acting quickly and before Copenhagen. It is quite clear that the decision to call witnesses now is a delay tactic. I thank my colleague for the question that allowed me to clarify that.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sit as chair of the Canada-China Legislative Association and, as such, I am aware that Canada, relative to China, has a bit of a dramatic difference. In China right now, it has, either in operation or under construction, 534 coal-fired power plants.

If one were to put a blanket over North America and shut the lights and energy off for 20 years, greenhouse gases would still double. Prime Minister Harper and our party have recognized that this does require a global solution.

Does the hon. member not believe that countries like China and Brazil that are major emitters should also be part of the solution?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to remind the member that it is forbidden to mention the names of sitting members in the House.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely that is something that must be done on a global scale. Quite clearly, the future of Chinese decisions, actions and policies on the burning of coal are highly problematic.

However, I feel that my job, and I am sure the member feels that his job is to determine Canadian policy, not Chinese policy. When I look at the history of Canada, we have occasionally had Canadian prime ministers and Canadian leaders who have formulated our own Canadian policy and did not wait to be the last in after 192 countries have formulated their policy.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for his great leadership in bringing forward Bill C-311 and for his great contribution to this debate. I know we are supporting this motion brought forward by the Bloc today. I know he makes the point very well that this idea of dividing the economy from the environment is a fatal mistake.

The member spoke about the economic benefits, such as the building of transit cars in Thunder Bay. I just wonder if he could expand more on the importance of the economic opportunity that is contained in meeting climate change targets and how that could actually be beneficial to all of us in our local communities and the planet as a whole.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we are going to worry about economic competition in the future, I suggest that we worry less about the economic competition from south of the border and worry more about the economic competition from the European Union.

Germany, Great Britain, Denmark and most of the European Union countries are doing a superb job of running ahead of us in realizing that economic development will not be versus cleaning up the environment, but closely tied to cleaning up the environment. They realize that green policies will lead to green jobs and high quality economies. We need to get on that train. It is pulling out of the station.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for splitting his time with me. I also want to acknowledge the passionate work he has done in terms of ensuring that Canada takes a leadership role in protecting the environment.

As the member noted, we will supporting the Bloc opposition day motion and, in part, it is because it reflects work that the NDP has already proposed. The NDP has long been out there speaking to the need to take on action around climate change and to protect the environment. We recognize the significance of the crisis that is facing us.

Bill C-377 was originally introduced by the member for Toronto—Danforth. In his appearance before the committee, he talked about the fact that we need to deal with climate change. It is a fundamental issue. How fundamental? The United Nations Secretary General has called climate change the biggest challenge to humanity in the 21st century. The Global Environment Outlook by the United Nations environmental program stated:

Biophysical and social systems can reach tipping points, beyond which there are abrupt, accelerating or potentially irreversible changes.

We must do our share to prevent the planet from reaching the point of no return.

That was the underpinnings of Bill C-377, which was adopted by Parliament on June 4, 2008, so clearly there was debate and the hearing of witnesses. The bill talked about long term targets to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 level by 2050 and medium term targets to bring emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.

We have heard in the House that the NDP simply does not have an action plan. That is absolutely untrue. Our fighting climate change program contains a lengthy list, so I will not go over every detail, but it does talk about implementing a $3 billion green collar jobs plan, including a fund for training; establishing an industry innovation plan to help businesses reduce their energy use; investments in renewable energy solutions; reduce pollution through an early adopters program that encourages the purchase of commercial and electric hybrid vehicles; investing in environmental solutions and incentives to encourage individual Canadians and small businesses to make better choices for their environment through a better building, retrofit and energy efficiency initiative; investing in stable annual transit funding, and it goes on and on.

I would encourage members who have not read our fighting climate change action plan to read it because there are those kinds of concrete actions in it.

The member for Thunder Bay—Superior North has covered some of the details and some of the other potential links with the economy. Sadly, however, we have some serious inaction by the Conservative government. As the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North pointed out, the Minister of the Environment said that they would wait for 192 other countries to put in place regulations before Canada would develop its regulations.

Canada should be a leader, particularly since we are the second highest emitter per capita in the world. We should be out there demonstrating leadership in this field, not waiting for 192 other countries to come onside.

In Canada, fortunately, we have communities and members of Parliament who are actually taking action, not waiting for the government to step up to the plate. I want to turn to a couple of communities on Vancouver Island. In Victoria this past week, about 1,000 people showed up to say that they wanted the government to demonstrate global leadership on climate change. We also know that greater Victoria is the national leader in green commuting. Its bike commuting rate is nearly triple the second place city and the walking rate is tops among census metropolitan areas.

Victoria also has a an excellent member of Parliament who is also taking some initiative. The member for Victoria has introduced Bill C-466 to make employee benefits for transit car pooling and bike commuting tax free. That would go a long way toward encouraging the kinds of behaviour that we know can have an effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

We also know that the member for Victoria has called for a national transit plan. Canada is the only G8 country without one. We also need to increase the municipal share of the gas tax. I am well aware that the City of Victoria and the member have called for global leadership at Copenhagen.

As well, there is an organization in Victoria called the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association, which is certainly an organization that is taking concrete, meaningful action. It has a program called the SolarBC Solar Hot Water Acceleration Project, which has put solar systems in 50 homes in 17 B.C. communities. It also has a climate change showdown program, delivering an interactive climate change education program to 5,000 grade 5 and grade 6 students and challenging their parents to reduce emissions. These are grassroots community initiatives that can have some influence on the kinds of behaviour that we see as important to position Canada as a global leader.

As well, I know the member for Victoria has also taken a leadership role right here in the House, by initiating a series of talks to bring parliamentarians together to find common ground on climate change. These are important educational initiatives to help parliamentarians understand the seriousness of the problem.

I want to turn to my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan for a couple of minutes, because in my riding we have many local initiatives. I just want to focus on a couple. One is the Cowichan Green Community, part of whose mandate is the promotion of energy efficiency, healthy housing and environmental sustainability in the Cowichan Valley. It does that through a whole series of initiatives. It has a food security initiative for community gardens, for growing one's own food, fruit gleaning and buying local. It has healthy, efficient housing initiatives, which build sciences geared specifically to the valley's temperate climate. It has a water conservation and water quality initiative; sustainable gardening and landscaping around organics and native plants; natural based household products; rural air quality; and alternative transportation.

Just a couple of things it has undertaken to help support local responsibility for greenhouse gas initiatives include a buy local push to prompt local grocers to support local farmers; a car share co-op; help to start a garden; support for the Duncan Seedy Saturdays, including seed sharing and preserving heritage seeds; and food security concepts, where they have initiated a local food security program.

It does not stop at Cowichan. The little town of Cowichan Bay is part of the slow food initiative, which links local restaurants and farmers.

We have a biodiesel co-op and local restaurants providing vegetable oil to it. We are finding that a lot of our local people are signing up to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by using local biodiesel.

We have the Nanaimo food link program, which has a field-to-table program and is looking at food policy and food security systems. Again, it is trying to link up and protect local farmers, and encouraging and purchasing local food.

We also have programs supporting the cultural and traditional indigenous foods project. In this particular project, we are seeing organizations work with first nations all over Vancouver Island to support the traditional local diets that were far healthier. It is also making links back to local growers and local suppliers, including our wild salmon suppliers.

We can see that local communities are stepping up to the plate. Local communities recognize that in the absence of leadership, we need the municipalities, the provincial governments and the federal government to come to the table.

In its recent report, the “World Energy Outlook”, the International Energy Agency warned that each year of delay in addressing climate change will cost $500 billion globally. This is the kind of legacy we are leaving behind for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. I would argue that it is time for us to come together as a House and work across party lines to take on this very serious challenge and demonstrate that Canada can be a leader in fighting climate change, both in this country and internationally.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 8 consideration of the motion.

Search and Rescue Helicopter

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to speak to the private member's motion before us today. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, has already spoken on this motion, and as such I will speak today about search and rescue in general.

It is my view that our search and rescue system functions amazingly well. In fact as my colleagues have said, Canadians enjoy one of the most effective search and rescue systems in the world. I will remind members of the efforts of the men and women, both in and out of uniform, who repeatedly risk their lives to save others.

We often take for granted the search and rescue safety net. Many of us do not know how it was developed or how far it has advanced in the last 70 years.

Canada's large land mass is sparsely populated. Our coastline is the longest in the world. Because of Canada's geography, air and sea travel have taken on great importance in our development. Indeed, in the 1930s, Canada moved more freight by air than the rest of the world combined.

With the relatively primitive equipment of the day, accidents were common and many lives were lost. The harsh Canadian climate only exaggerated the tough geographical realities. Early responses to these actions in the air, on land and at sea were, at best, ad hoc. Communities would organize search parties. Nearby vessels would steam toward a ship in distress. Local RCMP detachments and military units would give what assistance they could at the time. These early efforts, though valiant, were poorly coordinated and often poorly equipped. They seldom met with success, and it was not uncommon for tragedy to befall searchers as well as those already lost.

In 1942, Wilfrid Reid May, the World War I ace, was commanding the No. 2 Air Observer School in Edmonton, Alberta. This training school had its fair share of people who went missing in the Canadian north. Though the aircraft were sometimes found, their crews often perished from exposure and/or the injuries sustained in the crash itself.

Wilfred May thought this was a terrible waste of great search and rescue abilities. He organized a group of volunteers who would parachute from search aircraft to help crashed crew victims in distress. Clad in patterned canvas suits and protected by modified leather football helmets, these men and women of May's para-rescuers were Canada's first foray into organized search and rescue.

These were inauspicious beginnings, but they marked a path for others to follow. May's advocacy not only ensured the survival of the group but also prompted its adoption in the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1944. When the rapid increase in air travel in the post-war years made clear the need to create a professional search and rescue service, the RCAF's para-rescue operations stood as a ready template.

In 1947, the RCAF was assigned the task of providing aeronautical search and rescue response and coordination in Canada. In May 1959, marine search and rescue response was added to this task and the RCAF was assisted by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, forerunner to the Canadian Coast Guard, in its partnership with other countries, as we continue today.

Over the years, operational structures have evolved. New partners have emerged and non-governmental organizations, such as the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association, have also played important roles in improving efficiency. In 1986, the National Search and Rescue Secretariat was established to lead and coordinate Canada's search and rescue efforts.

Despite tremendous changes in the way we do search and rescue in this country, some things remain the same. For example, the courage, dedication, innovation and daring of the men and women engaged in search and rescue have been constant over time.

In the early days of Canadian search and rescue, for example, RCAF nursing sisters received parachute training to allow them to accompany para-rescuers. One of these was the great Grace Woodman. During one of Grace's missions her parachute became entangled in a tree. Separated from her fellow rescuers and hanging upside down at 125 feet from the ground, Grace worked for hours to free herself. She suffered serious rope burns to her hands on the way down to the ground and she ended up walking overnight to find her patient. However, only after she had been stabilized and evacuated to hospital did she let anyone know about her own injuries.

Stories such as Grace's are not unique.

Many may recall the crash of the Hercules transport aircraft near CFS Alert in October 1991. Operating in permanent darkness and in blizzard conditions search and rescue teams from as far away as Edmonton, Alberta and Greenwood, Nova Scotia, worked tirelessly for 32 hours to rescue the crew.

Six search and rescue technicians, or SAR Techs, made a dangerous parachute jump in what were poor conditions to tend to the survivors who were huddled together in the tail of the wreckage. Their heroic rescue was immortalized in the 1993 movie, Ordeal in the Arctic. However, not all rescues receive the same level of media attention.

In November 1996 a Danish fisherman lay dying on a ship in the Arctic. SAR Techs Master Corporal Keith Mitchell and Master Corporal Bryan Pierce set aside their personal safety and jumped through the darkness and into the freezing waters off Resolution Island. Strong winds carried them away from the point where they were supposed to be picked up by an inflatable boat. Tossed by three metre tail waves, they struggled, until close to hypothermia. They were finally plucked from the water by the crew of the same fishing trawler which had called them. Shortly thereafter, they were administering life-saving treatment to the critically ill fishermen.

For their selflessness and daring efforts, Master Corporal Mitchell and Master Corporal Pierce were awarded the nation's highest award for courage in circumstances of extreme peril, the Cross of Valour.

Despite its humble beginnings, Canada's search and rescue community has a rich heritage of courage, devotion and selflessness. Whether it be searching at low altitudes through the mountains of B.C. for missing aircraft, coming to the rescue of a pleasure boat in Lake Ontario, or flying through thick fog to rescue the crew of a sinking ship, today's highly adaptive and responsive search and rescuers are up to the task because of instruction and the values of those who have gone before them.

Our search and rescue system has developed steadily over 70 years. It is staffed by courageous and dedicated men and women. It is effective and responsive. It is a system that allows all Canadians to fully explore, appreciate and profit from the abundances offered by our great country.

Our search and rescue teams have served and continue to serve that others might live.

I have offered my insight into the development of our search and rescue procedures to emphasize the experience and knowledge behind our current procedures. I hope my colleagues will appreciate that decisions regarding search and rescue are no longer ad hoc. We have come a long way from the days of Ace pilot May. Years of experience and a great deal of research have gone into the decision on how and where to deploy our search and rescue resources across the country. For this reason, I cannot support the motion in front of us.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Motion No. 346 put forward by the hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, 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.

I am standing here today to again indicate the support of New Democrats for this important motion. The member for St. John's East has already spoken in the debate and indicated his support and appreciation for the motion, but I want to do so in a bicoastal expression of solidarity, as a west coast member of Parliament. Search and rescue and the imperatives of being a seafaring part of Canada make me want to stand and support this motion.

We on the west coast in British Columbia know the importance of having an excellent search and rescue force. Through DND, the Coast Guard, local search and rescue associations, police, fire and emergency personnel and organizations, we are well served in British Columbia. It is always possible to make the service better, and that is why we in the NDP think this motion about the services available in Newfoundland and Labrador is of such importance.

We always want to thank the people who undertake this important and dangerous work on behalf of all of our communities. We know they are extremely well trained, brave, and very innovative in the kind of work they do and that they are often forced to walk into, fly into or sail into very dangerous and difficult situations. Their professionalism is something we appreciate.

We also want to thank the volunteers who are often associated with some of the search and rescue associations for the voluntary service they offer in this regard.

We already heard in the debate that DND SAR techs have done probably 8,000 missions in the past year. DND estimates that they are responsible for saving an average of 1,200 lives a year, which is incredibly significant. That is a huge number of missions and of lives saved. We all want to express our appreciation for that important work.

I mentioned that the NDP member for St. John's East has already spoken in the debate. He also had a motion on the order paper similar to this, on the same topic, regarding the need for a search and rescue helicopter to be available 24 hours a day near the offshore oil operations off the coast of Newfoundland. I want to read the motion he tabled in the House. It reads:

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 motion that the member for St. John's East tabled is a little more detailed than the one we are debating today. They are essentially in agreement about the importance of 24-hour staffing and availability of a search and rescue helicopter in the St. John's area. The member for St. John's East included a few other issues, a little more detail, in his motion and, as I say, he is supportive of the motion that we are debating today.

We know the oil production industry off the coast of Newfoundland is a significant one. We know that there were issues in the past around safety and the ability to respond to emergencies in that industry.

We all remember the sinking of the Ocean Ranger on February 15, 1982. That platform in the Hibernia oil field sank and 84 people died in that terrible incident. We know of incidents like that and appreciate the importance of having this kind of response.

The inquiry that looked into the sinking of the Ocean Ranger made a specific recommendation in this regard. It said that a full-time search and rescue dedicated helicopter provided by either government or industry, fully equipped to search and rescue standards, should be required to be available at the airport nearest the ongoing offshore drilling operations, and that it be readily available with a trained crew able to perform all aspects of rescue.

In a sense this recommendation has been around for quite some time, at least since that inquiry reported after the 1982 sinking of the Ocean Ranger.

It is not like there is a small number of people involved in the offshore oil industry off of Newfoundland. We know that 1,200 workers work in that industry. There is something like 300 to 600, I think it is 300 workers who work permanently for up to three weeks on the platforms off of Newfoundland.

Also, half of those workers are members of the Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union, my former union. They are also very interested in the outcome of this debate and the need for a 24-hour search and rescue helicopter based in St. John's. They have been supporting the efforts of both the member for Random—Burin—St. George's and the member for St. John's East on these issues.

We know that full-time availability is absolutely crucial when we are talking about search and rescue. Taking time to refit a helicopter into a search and rescue capacity loses time when lives are in danger or when people are in an emergency situation.

We know that having to call in crew in the evenings or on weekends, when it is not in the normal operating hours, is also a very serious issue and delays the response available to an emergency situation. Emergencies do not happen during office hours, so to speak. We have to ensure that we have that capacity to respond whenever those emergencies take place.

We also know the importance of having appropriately equipped helicopters to do the job. I know that the union has been very explicit about the kind of equipment that is needed on the helicopter that would respond to these emergency search and rescue situations.

That is a very crucial part of all of this, as well. Some of this has come to light because of the Cougar Air helicopter crash back on March 12, 2009, when 17 people unfortunately lost their lives. There was one survivor, Robert Decker.

We know, right now, there is an inquiry underway under the auspices of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. That report should be available in March 2010. When this whole issue is being reviewed, it is important that we take a stand here in Parliament that says that there is an important solution that is available to us, if we pursue that.

I am happy to note that the member for St. John's East has standing at that inquiry, and I think he expects to appear before the inquiry next week to offer his perspective on this important issue and on that particular crash, that tragic incident back in March.

I think there is concern in Gander that establishing a 24-hour search and rescue capacity at St. John's may impact what is available in Gander. I think we want to say very clearly that we are not talking about removing the capacity from Gander. In fact, we think that should have 24-hour capacity as well.

This is about establishing that capacity in St. John's, which I believe is one of the closest airports to the offshore oil fields in Newfoundland. That is why it is so important to have this capacity there. Again, I just want to stress that having 24-hour capacity, having crew available 24 hours for emergency response, is absolutely crucial in the circumstances of an emergency.

We cannot wait to reconfigure an aircraft that is used for other purposes. We cannot wait to call in staff from their homes in the night or on weekends. We have to have that capacity there at all times. Given the size of the offshore oil operations off Newfoundland and Labrador, given the offshore shipping, the fishing, the pleasure craft that are used there, all of things indicate that we should have that capacity, and that it should be fully functioning.

In conclusion, that is why New Democrats and this New Democrat from the west coast of Canada support this motion to establish that capacity in St. John's.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on this motion. I listened with care to the speakers the last time this motion came up for debate. It is certainly an emotional issue in Newfoundland and other parts of the country, given the difficulties and the tragedies that have occurred over the years.

We are reminded of the Ocean Ranger disaster way back in 1982. That was a disaster in which many people were killed, by the way, on a rig that people said could never sink. How many times have we, in history, been told that a piece of technology, a ship or a balloon for instance, has been developed and that it is unsinkable? It seems that when these claims are made, in fact, many times they are proven to be untrue, and in the case of ships, sometimes on their very first voyage.

However, in the case in question, a number of people were killed, a result which points to the fact that there are inadequacies in search and rescue services for workers in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil industry.

A royal commission was convened in the wake of the disaster. It recommended that a fully equipped search and rescue helicopter be located at the airport nearest the offshore facility, which would be in St. John's. To date, the recommendation has never been realized.

I know we get into an argument here and the government gets into an argument about costs. It is concerned about the cost of having this service available. However, as with anything we do in our country, there is a cost.

In the city of Winnipeg, we currently have a debate going on about whether the possible benefits of having a police helicopter are worth the additional expense. We wonder if it is going to be beneficial in catching people involved in fleeing from police in high-speed chases and whether we could perhaps reduce the number of high-speed chases and the risk to lives when they occur by having this helicopter in the air.

Sure, there is a cost to this helicopter. However, on balance, it has probably been proven, through its use in other jurisdictions and cities across North America and probably elsewhere around the world, that in fact there is a benefit to having that helicopter in place. I think that can be proven here as well. How many people have to die before governments step in and do the right thing?

The previous speaker from British Columbia certainly made the point that wherever there are offshore oil platforms, whether they be on the east coast or the west coast, having proper search and rescue is very important.

In addition to the offshore oil industry, fishing vessels are in constant operation in the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. Several months after the Cougar helicopter tragedy, a fishing vessel sank in the same offshore area during what are considered off-hours for search and rescue services. The response time for search and rescue services during these off-hours is inadequate. The problem is further compounded by the distance of the search and rescue unit from this area.

As a matter of fact, I believe that at a certain point the search and rescue people were involved in a training exercise. In fact, I do not think they were even in the province and they had to be called back.

The Cougar air disaster is certainly very current in people's minds and certainly the sole survivor, Robert Decker, is the only person who is available to talk about what happened in that particular accident.

Search and rescue is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. It does have very adequate well trained teams available. However, once again, it is one thing to have trained people available, but they have to be available when the accident happens.

As I recall from the previous series of speeches on the motion, one of the members said that the crews were on a schedule. They are available more hours during the day and less hours during the evening. A crash does not time itself as to when rescue crews are or are not available. A disaster can occur on an oil rig any time of the day or night. The crew has to be available, has to be resourced and has to be ready to move at a moment's notice.

If we cover all the bases with a helicopter, in addition to whatever facilities are available right now, then we do the best possible service to our men and women working on these rigs.

This is not only an issue of people working in the oil industry. People work in the fishing industry and their boats can be out in the ocean at any given time. When they are in distress, response has to be immediate.

There cannot be any questions of a crew not being available because it is training in a different province. There cannot be any questions about the crew not being available because it is on limited hours during the day. As I indicated, a disaster does not plan itself at the optimum time when crews are available. We need the most possible resources put to this task. We will benefit by this over the long haul.

Why the government would be reluctant to support this motion is suspect in my mind. A price cannot be put on the safety of workers. If we look at the airline industry, the government is only too quick to say that weather affects flights and so on, so it has to be on guard all the time. What is the difference between a group of passengers flying on an airplane versus people on a fishing boat? When the weather turns bad and rescue efforts have to be initiated, the facilities need to be there.

The government is making moves to allow airlines to lessen their requirements to keep track of their safety issues. The government is being contradictory here. On the one hand, it talks about the importance of air safety, yet it is not prepared to put out the extra money for a helicopter to be in areas where there are potential problems with oil rigs or fishing vessels, et cetera. The government has to take a consistent approach and consistent action. It cannot pick and choose its options and support one particular part of safety but not the other.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I want to thank my colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc for supporting this motion, which is of vital importance not just to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but to all people throughout our country and other parts of the world who work offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I also want to thank the member for Burlington for his contribution to the debate. I could not agree more about the importance that search and research provides throughout our country, how valuable the service is and how dedicated those who work in search and rescue are.

However, I have some issues with the comments made by the member for Edmonton Centre. It is to those comments that I want to speak to this afternoon because they need to be rebutted.

First and foremost, he indicated that he appreciated the way I spoke to this issue with sincerity and emotion. He is absolutely right. I am sincere about this and it is a very emotional issue. It is an emotional issue for the hundreds who work offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is also an emotional issue for the families of those individuals. It is an emotional issue for the businesses that are involved. We all feel deeply about this issue, and I make no excuses for that.

In fact, the level of fear among those who work offshore is something we really need to take into account when we decide how we will vote on this motion.

I have spoken to the people offshore who are familiar with what happened back when a fixed platform toppled and 84 people lost their lives. I know about the fear being expressed today by family members of those who died in the helicopter crash just a short while ago. I have heard the lone survivor, Mr. Robert Decker, speak about his ordeal. I have heard the father of the young lady who survived the crash, but subsequently drowned. He wonders if search and rescue had reached her in a timely manner, if she would be alive today.

Those who work in the industry refer to something called the golden hour. It is that first hour after an accident or a sinking at sea. They say that if people are not spotted or rescued in that first hour, their situation will begin to deteriorate very quickly. That points to the need for ensuring we have adequate search and rescue facilities close to the oil fields and close to where accidents occur.

It is not just in the oil industry. As my colleagues have said already today, we are talking about the fishing industry. We are talking about the tourism industry. We are talking about the trade export industry, where ships are involved. This issue affects all of us. I find it somewhat unsettling for anyone to suggest, as the member for Edmonton Centre did when we last spoke to this motion, that we cannot afford this because resources are limited.

Look at how money is being spent today in our country. Look at the amount of money being spent on the Canada action plan, for instance, or on signage. It is a serious issue for me. On the one hand the government can waste that kind of money, but on the other hand it says that it does not have the resources to enhance the search and rescue capabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador or, I would expect, anywhere else in the country for that matter. I would hate to think that it is singling out Newfoundland and Labrador.

The point is the government really has to rethink its position. It has to join with the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals and support this motion. This is too important to be looked at as something that cannot happen because there are not enough resources.

The member for Edmonton Centre suggested that we cannot relocate resources. No one is asking for resources to be relocated. In fact, we are saying that the resources right now in Gander need to be upgraded to 24/7. We are suggesting that the search and rescue operation in Gander needs to be enhanced. No way at no time have we ever suggested that the resources from Gander be reallocated to St. John's. On the contrary, we need to enhance the search and rescue capabilities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?