House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.

Topics

Support Measures for Adoptive ParentsPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Support Measures for Adoptive ParentsPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Support Measures for Adoptive ParentsPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

All those opposed will please say nay.

Support Measures for Adoptive ParentsPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Support Measures for Adoptive ParentsPrivate Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 25, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, the questions that I asked the Minister of National Defence on September 14 were related to the Sea Gypsy, which was sadly lost off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador just days earlier.

The tragedy of the Sea Gypsy emphasized the importance of getting action from the government on offshore search and rescue. However, the response from the Minister of National Defence has been disappointing and is far from what has been required.

These issues are still very much of concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Another tragedy occurred off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in March of this year, and has also drawn attention to the inadequacies of search and rescue responses in the province.

Fifteen offshore workers and two crew members were lost when a Cougar helicopter crashed into the sea. The cause of the crash is being examined by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada and there is an inquiry about this crash called for by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, the board that regulates the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil activity. The inquiry's role is not to investigate the cause of the crash or assign blame, but rather the inquiry is to look for ways to make travelling to offshore oil platforms as safe as possible.

Judge Robert Wells, a retired Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador judge, is tasked with assessing whether offshore helicopter transport is as safe as it possibly could be. Since this inquiry began its hearings on October 19, the witnesses appearing have issued many concerns. They have talked about the challenges that must be addressed. While I will continue to follow the hearings closely and I look forward to Judge Wells' report, the need for additional resources has long been known.

More than 25 years ago, the royal commission that studied the tragic sinking of the Ocean Ranger recommended that a full-time helicopter fully equipped for search and rescue standards be located near offshore oil activities, but to date no such recommendation has been implemented.

How many more lives are going to be lost before we actually do something on this issue?

I am hoping the government will vote in favour of the motion by the member for Random—Burin—St. George's that will be voted upon tomorrow. I am hoping the government will have the wisdom to vote in favour of this motion.

The Minister of National Defence has already said that he expects there will be questions about the department's choice of Gander, Newfoundland and Labrador as a base for search and rescue. I have to inform the minister that this is not about the choice of Gander. Gander is doing an incredible job. Search and rescue crews in Gander perform a vital role and must continue to do so. It is about adding additional resources to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Before my time is up, I want to also make an important point. I want to be clear that my comments are in no way a negative comment about the search and rescue workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I recognize the professionalism and bravery of the people in the field. We know how they risk their lives to save others in very difficult circumstances. I know from personal experience the stress and responsibility that people who work in this field carry. What I and others are saying is to give these highly trained and dedicated professionals the resources and support they need to do this very difficult job.

I want to ask the minister once again, given the tragedies off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, given the expanse of the oceans surrounding the province, given the serious problems in response time, will he now commit to additional resources for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will help save lives?

6:35 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Conservative

Laurie Hawn ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl has asked for clarification on the availability of search and rescue service in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be my pleasure to provide additional clarification on this issue.

Let me first say that the Canadian Forces works closely with its search and rescue partners to respond as quickly as it possibly can to save the lives of those at risk whenever and wherever incidents occur. It has total dedication to this mission, as the member has noted.

The Canadian Forces search and rescue assets are carefully managed and strategically located across the country. The location of Canadian Forces assets is based upon experience and studies that determine where search and rescue incidents are concentrated and where the need is greatest. Gander is centrally located in Newfoundland and Labrador, which allows the Canadian Forces to provide an even search and rescue coverage throughout the region.

Further, based on historical weather patterns, Gander has more favourable conditions that allow for more reliable deployment of search and rescue units. Gander has fewer fog days than other locations in the area. I can say that from personal experience, there is nothing more frustrating for an air crew than not being able to launch a mission because of weather. We try to control as many factors as we possibly can.

The Department of National Defence conducted a comprehensive study in 2005 on the location of search and rescue assets. This is one of many studies that has gone on.

Search and rescue is a no-fail mission for the Canadian Forces and it has a 100% dedication to that goal. In addition, the Canadian Forces routinely evaluates its processes and capacity following search and rescue responses and incidents to ensure that our resources and posture are best suited to meet the needs of Canadians. We take lessons learned from every incident, with the aim to make it better for the next one. It is a continuous review process.

I will take this opportunity to discuss the recent search and rescue efforts involving the Sea Gypsy Enterprise to which the hon. member has referred.

A Provincial Airlines aircraft was already in the air on a routine fishing patrol and confirmed the location of the incident. A Cormorant helicopter was dispatched from Gander without delay and was joined by a Hercules aircraft and two Canadian Coast Guard vessels. We recovered three survivors and a deceased crew member, and continued to search for the missing crew member despite bad weather conditions. Two Hercules aircraft, one in Sydney and one in Greenwood, were on standby through the duration of the operation, in the hope that the aerial search could be resumed. The decision to end the active search was made well after all hope for survival of the remaining crew member had been exhausted. It is always a tough decision; it is based on input from all agencies, and there is no satisfaction, clearly, when that occurs.

I can assure members that the Canadian Forces, in cooperation with the Canadian Coast Guard, has handled this operation both proactively and professionally.

With respect to the Cougar helicopter incident, we have discussed that at some length in the House. That was basically a non-survival crash. It was miraculous that one person actually survived. Had there been a helicopter overhead, it would not have made any difference.

The Canadian Forces, along with its search and rescue partners, maintains the required readiness posture to provide the best possible level of search and rescue services to Canadians across the country.

I will conclude by saying that Canada has one of the best search and rescue systems in the world. This is made possible by the ability of the Canadian Forces and its search and rescue partners to effectively coordinate all available assets and bring them to bear on an incident. This is due to the dedication and courage of the individual Canadian Forces members, and I know the hon. member agrees with that, and the organization, as a whole.

I hope this information has helped the member better understand the effective and efficient level of search and rescue service that is maintained throughout the country and throughout the region of Newfoundland and Labrador.

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do understand the valiant efforts that search and rescue crews make across this country. As I said in my opening remarks, absolutely, the services provided by the professional men and women who provide search and rescue are second to none in the world. This is not about whether or not they have the professional services, it is about whether or not they have the resources, the actual assets, that we require to ensure that we have adequate protection.

The hon. member spoke of Gander. Gander offers incredibly important service to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is a question of additional resources being required. We have heard now, as an outcome of the sinking of the Ocean Ranger, that additional resources were required. That was 25-plus years ago.

When I asked the question of the minister that prompted this debate this evening, he indicated there were additional resources in Sydney, which is almost two hours away.

We need additional resources for the province.

6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, in fact the recommendations resulting from the Ocean Ranger incident, tragic as it obviously was, have been implemented and there are additional resources available in St. John's.

From the Canadian Forces' perspective, there are limited resources. That is just a simple fact of life and it is the job of the Canadian Forces to make the best use of those limited resources. To duplicate Gander in St. John's, which is really what this discussion is about, would require an additional three aircraft, five crews, dozens of maintenance staff and several administration staff. Those resources simply are not available.

The Canadian Forces make the best use of the resources they have. That is why we are in Gander and that is the indication from all studies that have been conducted in this area. They will continue to do that job for the benefit of all Canadians.

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to follow up on a question that I asked regarding the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization agreement, which has been amended through negotiations involving Canada and the member states of NAFO. It was brought to the House for debate by a concurrence motion on the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

What I first need to say about NAFO is that it is a long-standing organization that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador lost confidence in many years ago. Not only did the people of Newfoundland and Labrador lose confidence in it, but in 2005 there was a unanimous report of the fisheries committee seeking custodial management as an alternative to the very negative experience with NAFO involving overfishing, the breaking of the rules, lack of interest in conservation, and many other problems Canada had in seeking to enforce conservation rules outside of the 200-mile limit and having an expectation that the international community would participate.

The convention was agreed to by the government despite the all-party committee and, in fact, despite all-party support for custodial management, which had no greater champion than Loyola Hearn, who later became the minister of fisheries and oceans in the Conservative government. In the 2006 election, Conservatives promised that they would seek to achieve custodial management. Since then, of course, they have backed off and now support the NAFO amendments.

It has been said by the Prime Minister in the past that there is no greater fraud than a promise not kept. In this case, there was a promise not kept. Instead of supporting custodial management, seeking a regime whereby Canada would enforce the conservation rules in the interests of international law and international obligations for conservation and to make sure that all of the historical rights of other nations were respected while making sure that these laws were going to be enforced, that is not what took place.

We have a situation where backward steps have been taken and we now have a situation where there is no improvement in the enforcement. None of the objectives achieved were identified. It does not provide for effective enforcement. It does not address the objection problem effectively and there are only non-binding solutions.

A number of prominent people, including federal deputy minister Bill Rowat, former provincial deputies Leslie Dean and David Vardy from Newfoundland and Labrador, negotiators for DFO and others have condemned this as a backward step. They do not want it ratified by the government and have in fact filed an objection so that the process can start over again and we can try to seek custodial management, which is what we were promised.

Also, the debate yesterday was shut down by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who I understand is going to speak now, after only two speakers and himself. The members for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte and Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor spoke. The parliamentary secretary spoke and the debate was shut down. I was to speak very shortly after that.

There was no chance to speak in Parliament despite a promise by the government that all treaties being entered into would be brought before the House for debate. Instead, it was shut down. Why is that?

6:45 p.m.

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.

Conservative

Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to respond to this question. Let me begin by assuring the House and this member that the government continues to fully protect Canadian sovereignty when it comes to decision making about fisheries inside Canadian waters. It is also clear that NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, has no such mandate.

In the last few years, NAFO has seen significant progress, moving from words to action by embracing change and responding to the conservation challenges before us. We have seen significant improvements in compliance in the NAFO regulatory area, which is what we want. We have seen improved cooperation and coordinated responses by NAFO members to address any violations on the water.

This happened because several years ago Canada pushed for NAFO members to adopt stronger means to deal with violations of the NAFO conservation and enforcement measures and to ensure that conservation rules were enforced. The member has spoken about that. I think he shares with us that this should be our goal, and that is what we have accomplished. We have ensured that those who were not complying with the rules were given tough sanctions. These sanctions have served as effective deterrents to improper fishing activity.

Canada participates in the NAFO joint inspection and surveillance scheme, which allows patrol vessels from one NAFO member to board and inspect the fishing vessels of another NAFO member in the NAFO regulatory area outside 200 miles. It also allows members to issue citations to vessel masters for violations. We have increased our monitoring, surveillance and enforcement activity outside Canada's exclusive 200-mile zone to accomplish this.

At the most recent meeting, NAFO contracting parties also agreed to enhance the satellite reporting requirements for fishing vessels. These changes will provide NAFO enforcement officials with more accurate and timely information to better monitor fishing vessel movement in the NAFO regulatory area and protect closed areas such as protected vulnerable marine ecosystems.

These are big accomplishments. We as a country, and particularly the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, owe a debt to Loyola Hearn, our previous fisheries minister, who is responsible for many of these positive changes. However, increased enforcement and compliance is only part of the picture.

Canada is a keen supporter of international efforts to strengthen and modernize management of renewable ocean resources. Amendments to the 1978 NAFO convention are a necessary step in the process as they position the organization in line with the provisions of the United Nations fish stocks agreement and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Canada is a party to both of these agreements.

Under the old rules, members could ignore a NAFO decision. The convention also lacked a dispute-resolution mechanism and therefore led to long-standing disagreements. The amended convention places a limit on objections and strives for consensus-based decision making. When a consensus cannot be reached, the approval of two-thirds of members is required. This is emerging as a global standard and provides enhanced protection of Canada's shares of NAFO-managed stock.

The amended convention fully recognizes Canada's sovereignty over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. In recognizing the rights and sovereignty of Canada as a coastal state under the amended convention, no NAFO measure will apply in Canadian waters unless two conditions are met: first, the Canadian government requests the measure and second, Canada's NAFO delegation votes to accept it.

The amended NAFO convention also calls for NAFO to adopt an ecosystem-based approach. These are good improvements. We think it should be ratified. We are thankful for the opportunity to make—

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for St. John's East.

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, this agreement attacks our sovereignty by allowing NAFO, with the acquiescence of the coastal state, to make regulations that are applicable to and conduct enforcement within Canadian waters. If that were to happen in the Northwest Territories, or if it were suggested that the Northwest Passage would be subject to those kinds of rules, people would be up in arms around the country.

The parliamentary secretary is dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks that we had a deterrence mechanism over the last few years leading to this. Between 2004 and 2008, the total allowable catch for turbot, for example, was exceeded by 30% on average each and every year. There has been no change in this, and if he thinks that there is going to be a big difference as a result of this, I think he is dreaming.

The boarding and inspection procedures may take place, but what happens to the vessel? It goes back to its home country for prosecution. We have seen what has happened in the past with that. We had the Estai problem in the past. That has not been improved upon. In fact, we have been taking steps backward, not forward, toward custodial management. We should avoid this.

Why did he shut down the debate? That is the question I would like him to answer right now. Why did he get up yesterday and shut down—

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member just has his facts wrong. If he looks for example at 2005, how many serious violations were there? There were 13, and how many were there in 2008, for example, after these new measures that I have recited for him were put in place? There was zero. The main reason for that is that we have toughened the measures. We have put in place an enforcement regime under which there is greater compliance.

He says it is not effective as one of the measures to have a vessel be required to go back to port if it is fishing in the NAFO regulatory area off of Newfoundland, for example. It is boarded and required to go back to Spain. It sits there for months at a time, there are some examples of that, while inspections are done, while they are deciding what to do with it. That is a very significant deterrent. Certainly it is not very profitable to these fishing enterprises when they are stuck in Spain rather than out fishing. So I think we have made great improvements.

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue a question that I asked the government a week ago Monday on the Beaufort Sea and the border dispute between Canada and the United States. This border dispute started in the 1970s when the U.S. decided that the historical boundary on the longitudinal line between Alaska and Yukon was not appropriate and the appropriate boundary was a line perpendicular to the coastline. That meant that the U.S. had projected a claim on some 21,000 square kilometres of Canadian territorial waters in the Beaufort Sea.

In August the U.S. imposed a moratorium on commercial fishing in the waters around Alaska including the portion of the Beaufort Sea claimed by Canada. Canada responded to this movement with a diplomatic note, but in the meantime, we see that the U.S. has now entered into a planning process for the development of oil and natural gas drilling in the Beaufort Sea to the boundary that it has established for Canada.

The Alaskan oil industry regulator cleared the way for a series of lease sales over the next decade along a vast swath of coastal waters in the Beaufort Sea. It supports annual area-wide lease sales planned from this year through 2018 across about two million acres of near-shore waters and islands stretching from Point Barrow east to what the U.S. has now decided is the correct Canadian border.

The U.S. federal government takes responsibility for outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing, and it is planning for more extensive leasing in waters farther off the coast.

The lifting in 2008 of a moratorium on drilling in the Beaufort Sea has allowed the U.S. to do this in its waters and in the waters that it now claims from Canada. Of course, my question is what the government's response to this provocation is.

In a speech yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about Canada's role as an energy superpower. He said, “[O]ur government does, and always will, stand up for our interests and ownership over the Arctic”. He said as well, “We will...respond appropriately when other nations push the envelope when it comes to Canada's Arctic”. But he returned again and again to the issue of sovereignty, assuring the audience that the government would act firmly against other nations which failed to respect the border. Canada is in control of its Arctic waters and takes its responsibilities very seriously.

My question for the government remains. What are we going to do about this provocation by the United States?

6:55 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up this very important issue.

He has quoted the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said yesterday at the Economic Club exactly what the member has said, which is very simple. Canada is ready to defend its Arctic border against nations that would push the envelope. That is very clear. It has been made very clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Arctic is Canada's sovereign place.

Canada has made clear that the lands of the Canadian Arctic are Canadian and that the waters of the Canadian Arctic are the internal waters of Canada. The land and water of the Canadian Arctic are our sovereign territory by virtue of historic title and we will exercise our sovereignty over them.

Canada is taking action in the north to benefit northerners, who are at the heart of Canada's Arctic foreign policy and our northern strategy.

There is no question as far as we are concerned about the issue of the sovereignty of the Arctic. He has raised some questions. There are certain disputes that are coming out, but they are three well managed disputes and we will continue talking to them.

It should be made absolutely very clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Arctic is Canadian territory, period, and the water of the Canadian Arctic are internal waters of Canada.

ThePrime Minister has gone to the Arctic. We have invested very heavily to ensure our sovereignty in that part of the world is well established by investing in the Coast Guard and investing in stations and investing rangers. It is very clear to understand that what happens in those areas, the only nation on earth that can actually look at the protection of the environment and of all other resources is the Canadians.

We must also ensure that we work with our partners. Nothing in this world is by itself. The best solution we have is working with our partners like the U.S., Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and Finland. We have the Arctic Council. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been to it many times. We continue to talk with its members.

I will continue to be engaged with them in order to ensure that this part of the world remains peaceful and calm for the benefit of everyone. However, let me be very clear, there is no question about any ambiguity that the Canadian Arctic is Canadian territory and the waters of the Canadian Arctic are the internal waters of Canada.

7 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, I share those sentiments about the waters, but the U.S. has moved from taking a position on setting a moratorium overfishing, in other words taking control of the environmental issues within the disputed areas, to now taking a program, a planning for drilling, in other words taking over the jurisdiction for the economic use of that area.

This matter will eventually end up in a court, perhaps the World Court, for the dispute resolution. Canada will be in a weaker position because we have allowed the U.S. to move forward with jurisdictional action in a disputed area, which will lead us, perhaps, to a decision by the World Court that would not be in our favour.

I am asking the government what is it doing today to ensure that this—

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

7 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member that in May 2008, at Ilulissat, Greenland, the representatives of the five coastal states of the Arctic Ocean, which is Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States, recalled the extensive international legal framework, which applies to the Arctic Ocean. It is these laws referred to in the Ilulissat declaration that serve as the basis of our co-operation in the Arctic and speak to the unquestioned nature of our sovereignty in the north.

Rather than challenges in the Arctic, Canada co-operates with these Arctic partners on issues of environmental protection, shipping standards, search and rescue and the collection of scientific data concerning the Continental Shelf.

We are co-operating with all states around the Arctic Ocean.

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:03 p.m.)