Jack Harris

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-42 and to review some of the concerns that we have raised time and time again.

I am afraid I do not share the optimism of the member for Random—Burin—St. George's in terms of the expectations she has for U.S. participation in making changes to this and in reviewing its procedures. There have been no discussions about these procedures, no safeguards have been put in place and no limitations whatsoever on the kind of information that the American government, its agencies or the foreign governments to which it will be passed on, would obtain from this process.

The legislation is very simple. It is an agreement to release information. It causes us very grave concerns. We have not seen the agreement itself but we have seen are other agreements. The European Union has an agreement on this. The United States and the European Union have agreed that all this information, called PNR, the passenger name record, that the travel agencies or airlines have will be passed on to the American homeland security.

The information that is collected can be retained for up to 40 years and it may be forwarded to the security services of a third party nation without the consent or notification to the other signatory, and that includes the individual who is the subject of this. People may know what information about them is being held by the United States and may not correct that information. In the case of the EU agreement with the United States, the Americans can amend that agreement unilaterally any time they wish by themselves without the consent of the other party.

That is a pretty devastating amount of invasion of privacy of Canadians who, in this case, are not even going to the United States. They may be travelling to Cuba, Mexico or on an international flight from one part of Canada to Europe or South America which happens to over-fly U.S. airspace.

This is rather disturbing. In fact, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, told the committee that Bill C-42 raises important sovereignty issues. She said that she was not questioning the American government's authority to implement its own program. International law is clear that a state's sovereignty extends to its own airspace.

However, the Privacy Commissioner said that the Canadian government had a duty to protect the privacy and civil rights of its citizens. That is not what is happening here at all. There are, in fact, very few or no limitations on the protection of privacy here.

Nathalie Des Rosiers, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, spoke to the committee as well. She said that the bill did not really meet the protection of privacy in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it had no limitations.

This is a mystery bill. There is no requirement in either Bill C-42 or in the regulations for the United States to safeguard and protect the information from other people. There is no safeguard that the TSA will not pass information on to other government agencies. In fact, it has been suggested that the information will be available to some 16 United States government agencies.

There is no safeguard that the U.S. will not pass the information on to third countries, and, in fact, it has the right to do that. As we know, this has been a particularly difficult issue for some Canadians given what happened to some Canadian citizens, such as Maher Arar who was tortured as a result of information being passed on by the Americans which they had obtained in part from Canada.

This whole no-fly list, as has been mentioned here, is part of the issue. One of the issues around the United States homeland security no-fly list is that it is under constitutional challenge in the United States.

The concerns the Americans have are similar to the concerns we have. In the United States, for example, Americans are not allowed to know whether they are on the no-fly list, how to get off the list or what evidence their presence on the list is based. This is a concern we are having here.

We need to understand how this process works. If a passenger will be overflying the United States, the airline must advise the American homeland security as to what information it has on its passenger record. The Americans will then do data mining of their own and they will issue a result to the travel agency. The instructions will be one of the following: issue a boarding pass, deny permission to travel or issue an enhanced screening requirement. This regulation will give the United States access to a whole subset of information on air passengers who are not even entering the United States.

This information can be shared with at least 16 United States agencies and foreign governments and the government of a foreign country, in this case the United States, has a de facto right to decide who gets to travel to and from Canada since the vast majority of Canadian flights to and from Europe, the Caribbean and South America overfly American airspace. That is not true for all overseas flights, obviously, but for the majority it is.

We have a serious concern about the bill, so much so that we are voting against it. I am surprised to hear similar concerns to ours being raised by members of the Liberal Party, including the previous speaker. Again and again the Liberals raise the same issues and say that they are concerned about them and yet they seem to be quite happy to support this legislation. I do not understand that.

There are a lot of concerns. People have mentioned the success in getting the exemption on the issue of overflight when airlines fly from one Canadian city to another. If an airline is flying from Vancouver to Toronto and is overflying the U.S., there is an exemption. I wonder why the Americans were so happy to grant that exemption in this arrangement. I suspect it has something to do with the perimeter security agreement. I suspect that Canada in the perimeter security agreement has already given up the right to information on who is flying on any plane in Canada. Even the information on someone flying from Toronto to Ottawa may already be available under the perimeter security agreement. Therefore, it may be that this exemption is merely just a sop to public opinion.

The reality of this legislation is that we are now entering into a world of mystery. I am not normally into conspiracy theories but we are entering into a world of mystery that the homeland security no-fly list, for example, has been called Kafkaesque in reference to a very famous author who wrote about a mystery world where one does not know what is going on, one does not know why one is being charged with something, one does not know why one is being held, one does not know why one is being treated in a certain way by authorities. That is the essence of the Kafkaesque world.

We are getting there with this kind of agreement because, if this legislation passes, information on us will be available to the American authorities, some 16 agencies and whatever government they want to give them to. They can make decisions on our future or our situation based on whatever they think of the information that happens to be there and we may have consequences.

I do not really have time to go into the story, but I was in Russia one time, and maybe one of my colleagues will ask me to tell a bit more, but one never knows what happens to this information. One never knows whether there are consequences or not. One never knows whether one is the subject of some kind of oppression because of information that has been made available. That is the essence, the difficulty and the problem I have with this legislation.

I believe my time is nearing an end and in my 10 minutes I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments that my colleagues on both sides of the House may have.

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, March 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, could the member comment on the kind of data that would be required? Would this be useless data or would this be data that could be used by any one of the 16 American agencies that might have access to the information?

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have heard about the British man who cannot get back to his country, et cetera. However, I have been getting calls from Canadians. A lawyer called me saying he had a client who was concerned about travelling to Mexico, because he would have to go through Toronto with his family to get a flight to Mexico. His concern was that he might be held in Toronto while his family would be able to go on their already paid vacation, because there might be something on the Canadian Police Information Centre's computer, or CPIC.

I have been a lawyer for 30 years and I cannot tell members all of the information that CPIC has. Even people who get pardons for offences could be on CPIC. People who have been charged with offences and had the charges withdrawn or who were acquitted could be on CPIC. There is a lot of prejudicial information.

Things that we might not take very seriously in this country, such as a conviction for simple possession of marijuana 25 or 30 years ago when someone was a teenager or in his or her early twenties, might be taken very seriously by the American authorities, because they would think of it as a conviction under a narcotics control act. We do not know how seriously these things will be taken by other countries, particularly the United States. It may have a totally different attitude toward that.

What concerns me is that Canadians will have their freedom of movement and their own personal information available or subject not only to the Americans but also to anybody else they choose to give it, without our knowledge or consent. This is fundamentally wrong.

The member mentioned that ordinary Canadians should be concerned about it. I believe that is the case. Would you comment on that, because I think many ordinary Canadians would have very good reason not to want this bill passed.

[Search and Rescue, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, search and rescue is an important role for our military. It is important in the Arctic, on the west coast, the Great Lakes, in the Maritimes, off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador and on the great land mass of Canada. SAR service responds to over 6,000 incidents a year, saving thousands of lives, but why do we lag behind the rest of the world on response times?

In Norway, its air force gets rescue choppers in the air in 15 minutes around the clock. In Australia and in the United States, the response time is 30 minutes around the clock, seven days a week. Canada has a response standard of 30 minutes but only from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekdays when less than 20% of incidents occur. Otherwise, it is two hours. Lives are lost.

The defence committee heard from a survivor of a sunken fishing vessel who watched two others drown 15 minutes before a Canadian Forces helicopter arrived, which had left one hour and twenty minutes after being tasked. This must change. We can do better. We deserve better.

[National Defence, February 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to commandeer a military transport jet for his personal use, complete with a stateroom and sleeping quarters. Yes, Mulroney's notorious flying Taj Mahal flies again.

Conservatives want an expensive makeover while needs suffer, like improved search and rescue, which goes begging while Conservatives tell fishermen to save themselves when lost at sea.

Our military says the Conservative plan is too expensive and would hurt operations.

Will the Prime Minister drop his airplane makeover vanity project, which is designed solely to enhance his image?

[Business of Supply, February 10th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in hearing the sad story about Forillon National Park. We had, around the same time, a similar park development in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gros Morne National Park. At that time there was an attempt to expropriate and destroy several communities along the west coast of Newfoundland.

The people reacted to that, formed their own opposition group, and made a very strong case. They were supported by the Government of Newfoundland and those communities were saved. Those communities are still there and are an important part. They are excluded from the boundaries of the park, but they have been enhanced by the existence of the park. They even kept their rights to traditional hunting, whether it be for rabbits, subsistence hunting, gathering of wood, et cetera.

It really shows that it is possible to develop a park, a very successful and magnificent national park such as Gros Morne, which has been designated a UNESCO world heritage site, without the kind of damage to people's cultures and livelihoods as has been experienced here.

The request seems to be fairly simple. I wonder why the member thinks that the government cannot join in this expression of apology for what happened in this particular instance. Because as is clear from the case of Gros Morne and other cases, it did not have to happen. It should not have happened even then, let alone in modern times.

I wonder whether he cares to comment on why the government members do not seem to be willing to join in this expression of apology.

[February 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the parliamentary secretary that the Chinooks in use in Afghanistan have been very useful, but they were actually off the shelf. They were used Chinooks bought from the Americans that have been very useful and now are military surplus because we are looking for a buyer for them. We spent $286 million on them. They served our purpose and now we are selling them. There is nothing wrong with that. This is a different process altogether.

As for the F-35s, other than Lockheed Martin that produced them, no one was ever looked at in terms of the specifications. After the SOR was developed in 2010, we had the other manufacturers before us at the defence committee. They said they had never been consulted or even asked whether they could meet the operational requirements. There were no detailed discussions with all of the manufacturers after the SOR was determined.

What the minister is saying is not correct. In fact, to go back to the Chinooks, the Auditor General happened to disagree totally with what the hon. member just said and what Treasury Board officials say. We have a serious problem with the procurement policies. The parliamentary secretary and the government need a reality check on procurement.

[February 9th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to ask further about a question I asked during question period on October 26, 2010, regarding the procurement of Chinook helicopters and other helicopters, the Cyclones, by the Department of National Defence and in relation to the Auditor General's report of fall 2009.

There is a familiar story here. The Auditor General reported that in 2006, based on meetings and discussions with Boeing and the market analysis, National Defence formally concluded that Boeing's Chinook was the only existing western certified helicopter in production capable of meeting its needs. It convinced Treasury Board that it was buying an off-the-shelf product and got approval for it. As a result, a sole-source contract was agreed upon, an ACAN, advance contract award notice, approved by Public Works and Government Service Canada, to proceed to buy the Chinooks.

The reality was the government did not really know at the time it would use the Chinooks for. The Auditor General said that after the ACAN was posted, the government negotiated with Boeing, looked at a schedule to produce these aircraft and had to develop a detailed statement of work. In order to do that, it had to know precisely what type of missions the helicopter would support, what it wanted the helicopter to do and the technical specifications needed to achieve it.

The Auditor General said that the evidence on the file was that there were uncertainties both before and after the decision that the Chinooks were the only ones we needed, such as which type of operations would be supported, whether land, maritime or special operations, what mission systems would be needed, the minimum number of helicopters and whether the helicopter would be located on one or two operating bases.

The actual specifications were not decided upon until 2009. Does that sound familiar? We have a situation with the F-35s. The Department of National Defence has decided the only military jet to meet Canada's needs is the F-35. When was that decision made? It was made about a month or so after the Minister of National Defence said in the House that there would be a fair, open and transparent process of competitive bidding. In fact, probably a month or two after, finally the statement of operating requirements, which is basically the first step in a bidding process, was decided upon by the Department of National Defence. All of it was done in the wrong order.

The Auditor General, to go back to the Chinooks and the process, said that the manner in which the advance contract award notice was given did not comply with the applicable regulations and policies and in her opinion the process was not fair, open or transparent. All of this is required, including a whole series of challenges and reviews that must go on before spending of this nature is approved.

We see the same thing here. The Auditor General called the projects undertaken by the Department of National Defence high risk. It resulted in a doubling of the expected costs to $11 billion. We have the same kind of risks with the F-35s. We do not know how much it will cost. We do not have a fair, open and transparent process.

[Search and Rescue, February 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot last long in the cold waters of the North Atlantic.

The defence committee heard last week in Gander and St. John's that Canada's two-hour search and rescue response standard after business hours was unacceptable. One survivor of a sunken fishing boat described how two others drowned 15 minutes before a DND helicopter arrived, having left Gander an hour and 20 minutes after being tasked.

Does the government agree that a two-hour response standard, longer than anywhere else in the world, is acceptable or will it commit to improving response time for search and rescue in Canada?

[Seeds Regulation Act, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to have an opportunity to speak tonight on Bill C-474 introduced by my colleague, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, who has taken a great interest in and is extremely knowledgeable on all issues associated with agriculture.

The bill is one that has attracted interest not just in the farming community but also throughout the country. In my riding of St. John's East, which is on one end of the country, I have received many letters of support for Bill C-474 because people understand the implications of the use of genetically modified organisms and how it affects other aspects of agriculture, Canadian interests and trade.

The member for Western Arctic talked about his interests, concerns and knowledge base derived not only from people he has met along the way but also from his own son-in-law who is knowledgeable about the issue and has the same concerns.

I know, Madam Speaker, in your part of the country, all of British Columbia and Victoria itself, there is a great deal of interest in this issue. I know many people have contacted you about the need for this legislation and their concerns about genetically modified organisms and what they do to people. Many of the people who are affected by this are, in fact, farmers.

I will provide one example. I will quote from the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Growers Association, which states its concern about the approval of organic organisms. It stated:

--it would be a disaster for us. I'd be out of business, because the first guy who buys that apple and propagates it--its flowers will pollinate with other fruit tree flowers that are non-GMO'd and everything will become genetically modified. And that will be the end of organics.

That is from an apple grower with the Similkameen Okanagan Organic Growers Association expressing the fear that has been described across this country of these GMO products essentially contaminating other crops. It is not just the crops of organic farmers, although they obviously have a very particular concern because their certification, market and the value of their products is totally dependent upon having a piece of paper that certifies, through a process that is rigorously applied, that their produce is totally free from contamination from non-organic sources and, of course, GMO products are considered very much a part of that. That is one organization that is very concerned, and for very good reasons.

There is another organization that represents a significant number of farmers in western Canada, a significant part of our agriculture industry and GDP. That is the Canadian Wheat Board. When Mr. Bill Toews, a director of the Canadian Wheat Board, testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in October of the past year, he had a remarkable warning for the standing committee about its concerns as to what would happen to GMO products let loose in the marketplace without proper analysis and study of their acceptability that would interfere with not only the market for the particular products being introduced but other Canadian products of great importance to our economy and farmers. He stated:

There remains strong and widespread opposition to genetically modified wheat or barley in about half of our markets. This includes, but isn't limited to, the governments of, and customers in, the European Union, Japan, Thailand, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and a number of African nations. Japan and the European Union alone account for roughly 15 per cent of our wheat and barley exports. Both markets pay a premium for high quality. The U.S. and Canada might accept GM wheat sooner than some other groups, although the North American brewing industry has concerns about GM barley.

The markets that are most likely to demand non-GM shipments also have zero tolerance for unapproved GM content. So, they choose not to purchase GM products, and they're prepared to turn back a multi-million-dollar shipment because it contains a low-level presence of GM kernels or even dust.

That is how crucial this is. The countries that do not accept GM modified products are also very leery of having any contamination whatsoever. We have already lost a market for flax.

This is not a fantasy world. We are not inventing concerns here. We are not raising bogeymen to scare people. These are legitimate, fundamental problems that have been identified by people such as the organic growers and the Canadian Wheat Board itself. What more should members need to know? If the Canadian Wheat Board, which is responsible for marketing Canada's wheat for export, is raising these concerns, then members should be listening.

We are talking here about exports and about Canada's ability to export its produce. This bill calls for a proper analysis of the consequences of introducing and approving new GM products. It is very simple and very straightforward. This should be of concern to all Canadians, whether they are living on the east coast, the west coast or, as my colleague and friend from the Western Arctic has said, in the north. We are all concerned about Canada's reputation and Canada's ability to market its products.

Where are the members of the Conservative Party who claim to be representative of rural Canada, of Canadian values, of the little guy, of the farmer trying to make a living and of the freedom from interference with one's activities but who can be contaminated by organic products on the farm next door? How come they are not here agreeing with us that there should be a proper analysis, an amendment to the Seeds Act to ensure that the livelihood of Canadian farmers and the protection of Canadian markets is given full sway? Why are they not here? Why are they not supporting this effort to ensure that Canadian agriculture is safe from the contamination of genetically modified products and that we will be able to continue to export our own products, organic products, Canadian wheat, into markets around the world that we are currently participating in?

There is something wrong and the something that is wrong is probably a big company called Monsanto that has a lot of influence in governments around the world, the American government for example, and I think the Conservative government too. The Conservatives are listening to Monsanto and are not listening to the concerns of farmers whose livelihoods are at risk and who need to be wary and concerned at all stages that their own operation can be interfered with, potentially destroyed and put out of business as a result of some of these products, and the very market itself for the majority of our Canadian wheat and barley products that are sold through the Canadian Wheat Board.

If the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, I am concerned. If the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned, all Canadians should be concerned. We should all be concerned when the Wheat Board is expressing the need for a proper full and total analysis of the consequences of introducing and licensing new genetically modified organisms.

That is all this bill is about. This is not a total attack on any genetically modified food or organism. That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about not introducing new products without a full and proper analysis.

I see that my time is about to come to an end. I do not know if there are any other speakers tonight, but if there are not, then I hope that the vote on this bill will turn out to be one that is in full support of this bill. We look forward to the support of all members of the House for this measure.