House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 29% of the vote.
Government Spending October 29th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, he cannot account for the spending because the sidewalk leads to a minister out of control. So much for accountability. It is just another misuse of taxpayers' dollars. The problem is the minister is using funds solely for his pet projects and not for what they were intended. When will he stop using taxpayers' dollars as if they were his own?
Government Spending October 29th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, next year, Canadians will host the G20 summit, yet Canadians are concerned when they hear that the Minister of Industry is using the opportunity to siphon millions of dollars to projects that have nothing to do with the summit itself.
Could the minister explain why the G8 legacy fund is being used to replace a sidewalk 84 kilometres away from the summit? This sidewalk has nothing to do with the summit. How can the minister justify such blatant, personal misuse of taxpayer dollars?
Veterans Affairs October 22nd, 2009
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Joe Hawco laid his life on the line for his country, serving in the Canadian military for 17 years. He was a peacekeeper who did two tours of duty in the Middle East. He had a fellow peacekeeper die in his arms while on duty.
Mr. Hawco is now 74 years of age and suffers from dementia. I am sure all members of the House would want him to be treated with the dignity and respect he deserves.
However, Mr. Hawco does not qualify for the Department of Veterans Affairs Caribou Pavilion because he did not serve in a world war or in the Korean conflict. Only those who did so have access to the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Peacekeepers do not have access, nor do those returning from Afghanistan.
It is time to review this practice. We must do right by our heroes.
Government spending October 21st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want is a government that focuses on the truth.
Not only does the Conservative government like to use taxpayers' money as Conservative gifts, it is also wasting untold millions on propaganda. The Conservatives replace doorknobs, install humidifiers, change drain pans, all as an excuse to put up Conservative signs that cost more than the actual repairs themselves.
Could the Prime Minister tell us how many taxpayers' dollars he is wasting to advertise routine maintenance?
Government spending October 21st, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the ethics commissioner has opened at least 50 investigations into the conduct of the Conservative members of Parliament who tried to pass off taxpayer dollars as gifts of the Conservative Party. What is worse, the phony cheques themselves were produced using taxpayer money.
With over one-third of the Conservative caucus now under investigation, how can the Prime Minister claim that the cheque scandal did not come from his office?
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.
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?
Search and Rescue Helicopter October 8th, 2009
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.
Fisheries and Oceans October 7th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is admitting that the Newfoundland and Labrador government is vigorously opposing these amendments.
If the government insists on continuing with the proposed NAFO amendments, Canada could lose the ability to enforce fishing quotas. This threatens the livelihood of thousands of people in the fishing industry, yet the minister refuses to have a full and open debate on the amendments.
Why will the minister not allow a full debate on the NAFO amendments? Is she afraid that Canadians will once again see how incompetent the government really is?
Fisheries and Oceans October 7th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to listen to concerns that amendments to NAFO would weaken Canada's ability to protect fish stocks. A distinguished group of former DFO senior executives recently took the unusual action of speaking out, calling the amendments a sellout of Canadian interests.
Why is the minister ignoring the concerns of her former employees who are experts in the field? Does she not understand the implications of the amendments, or does she not care about Canadian sovereignty?