Jack Harris

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this take note debate. I want to thank the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for bringing this matter forward for debate. I do appreciate that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and other members of government are here to participate and to listen to the remarks made by hon. members here tonight.

I realize that we are talking particularly about the big changes in the total allowable catch, in the southern gulf in particular and that region, but I want to talk for a moment about other aspects of the problems in the snow crab industry and the fishing industry generally, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, where there is not, in some of the other areas, such a big change in the total allowable catch, but despite that, there is a significant problem and a significant crisis.

I am a little disturbed to hear the member for Wetaskiwin refer to the annual crisis in the east coast fisheries, partly because he is right. We have had a series of crises in the east coast fisheries. It is not the fault of the people who are in the fishery and it is not because of the fact that the Fisheries Act was first introduced in 1867. The way the member talks, one would not know that there was never an amendment made to the Fisheries Act since 1867 and that somehow that means that not only does it have to be changed, but changed in the way that the government proposed it be changed the last time around. It is no trouble having a review of legislation, but it depends what one wants to do with it.

I want to talk about the fact that what has been causing the crisis in the last couple of years in the east coast fishery, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador, is a result of the recession that has been taking place, the one that the government denied in the first instance and then claimed to have solved a couple of months later. The fact of the matter is that regardless of what is happening in Canada, and we are seeming to have some turning of the corner here, the reality is that the products that we are talking about, crab, lobster and some high end fish, are really products that are sold in the worldwide market, principally in the United States, Europe and Japan.

What do we see? We see two things.

First, we have fish being purchased mostly in restaurants, a product that is based on the disposable income of people going to restaurants, and when we see the guts taken out of the incomes of Americans, for example, they are still suffering perhaps worse than many Canadians are, but they are the ones upon whom we depend to actually go and buy this product.

The second thing that we see happening is the devaluation by Canadian standards, and we call it a rise in the Canadian dollar but it was actually a devaluation of the U.S. currency, the devaluation of the British pound, the Danish krone, the Japanese yen and the Euro, all devalued in comparison with the Canadian dollar. What does that do? That significantly reduces the incomes of Canadian fishers and subsequently plant workers because the whole market depends upon them.

The crisis that we have is the result of the economic downturn in this particular instance, and the depreciation of other currencies compared to the Canadian dollar, so a reduction of 20% in the market price is just as devastating to them as a reduction in the total allowable catch.

I know the previous speaker is from Wetaskiwin. I was in this House before, 20 years ago, when there used to be an awful lot of debate about the family farm out west and the need to protect the family farm. We do not hear much about that anymore because maybe so many family farms are actually gone and consolidated into larger farms and ranches, and the industrialization of farming out west, but that was a major topic.

It was in fact a long-standing role of the Government of Canada to support farmers with programs when there were droughts, when the prices were low, and when there were significant downturns in the economics of the family farm as a result of either natural or market pressures. The farmers could look to and did look to the Government of Canada for support in those kinds of circumstances.

I do not think we have really seen that to the same extent in the east coast fishery. The treatment seems to be a little different, and perhaps the minister would like to comment on that during the questions and comments period.

We have occasional programs, the kind of programs that the minister is talking about in terms of the lobster fishery. It is not direct support for the people engaged in the industry. We have not used the kind of creativity that is needed to support the industry.

We have seen examples in major disasters, and I would refer to the cod moratorium in Newfoundland in 1992 as a major disaster, where there was a government response in those days. We are not talking about the same kind of devastating circumstances that came with the cod moratorium. Part of the issue had to do with the science at the time, and part of it had to do with overfishing, not only by foreigners, but also by Canadian fleets. There was a significant response by the Government of Canada.

We still think the Government of Canada has a role to play in trying to mitigate against the situation that fishers are facing in the whole of the Atlantic these days because of the recession. We could talk about the infrastructure program. Obviously there are some benefits to communities if there is a small craft harbours program or an infrastructure program for roads or other things. That does not directly engage fishermen in the activity, but it provides some economic activity in the communities. We do need some significant support in these particular circumstances.

We are not satisfied that the government and the minister have aided the industry enough during these difficult economic times. We have seen a major dent in the industry as a result of the recession. We know from our own experience, but also obviously market studies have shown that given the economic recession, people are dealing with significantly tighter household budgets. Disposable income is down. Crab and lobster and other products are seen as a luxury. Eating out at restaurants is seen as a luxury that many families cannot afford. We have that effect of the recession in particular in the areas of the fishery and there needs to be some special programs to deal with that. I understand the macro programs, the economic stimulation generally, but what about programs that directly support this?

While other speakers have talked about the retirement of licences and things like that, there has been long-standing from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the fishermen's union, proposals to engage in the program to help older workers leave the industry, leave the fishery and leave the fish plant industry with dignity. The Government of Canada has so far refused, despite repeated requests by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the fishermen's union in Newfoundland to participate in this program. The Government of Canada has declined to do that.

These are some examples of the lack of sufficient support from the Government of Canada for fishers in Atlantic Canada, wherever they may be.

We have heard from the member for Beauséjour and the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte about the inadequacies of the lobster program. I recognize it was a program in which some effort was made, and perhaps as one member suggested, the minister valiantly fought with members in cabinet and tried to get more money from the Minister of Finance and failed. I do not blame the minister totally for this, but her government obviously has to take responsibility for the failure to provide enough support and enough new programs aimed specifically at helping the people who are suffering as a result of this economic downturn.

We have seen it in the auto industry. We have seen it in the forestry industry. As one member said, we did have specific programs for the forestry industry. Where are the specific programs that are going to help with this particular problem that we are seeing all across Newfoundland and Labrador in the existing crisis in the fishery? It is a market crisis. It is a recession crisis. It is directly related to that. We have seen great difficulties in even getting the fishery industry going this year because of negotiation problems particularly related to the market price of fish.

As I say, it is a problem not simply of the reduction in total allowable catch, but that obviously does great harm to the fishing incomes in much of the southern gulf and other areas affected by the catch, but also the reduction in market price and the consequent significant damage to the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

There's no amendment.

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I listened with great interest to the debate and I noticed the extreme differences in quotas over the last number of years. We have experienced that in Newfoundland and Labrador of course. We know what happens when fishing quotas get out of whack. We have seen extreme measures taken with the cod, for example, in Newfoundland going back to 1992.

The federal minister for Newfoundland in those days, Mr. Crosbie, was very successful in achieving programs to alleviate some of the problems that existed there. I am wondering why we have not seen that kind of program here.

What is happening to the science budget in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that we cannot have more accurate information on an ongoing basis? There has been severe criticism of the reductions in the science program, and I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Afghanistan, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is piling up and so are the legitimate concerns.

Brigadier-General Laroche said yesterday that the firing of the Afghan secret police head confirmed the allegations of torture made by a Canadian-transferred detainee on November 5, 2007. Why does the government continue to bury its head in the sand, refuse to admit that the detainee transfer record is a complete mess? It needs to listen to this general and to the courageous diplomats who have made similar claims.

When will the government admit its mistakes and call a public inquiry?

[Afghanistan, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that the Afghan detainee situation was still unacceptable, even after the transfer agreement was changed in 2007. General Guy Laroche said prison visits were far too infrequent and that the situation was, indeed, critical.

When the military halted transfers in November after instruments of torture were found, General Laroche said they had to resist pressure from senior diplomat David Mulroney to resume transferring prisoners. This conflict between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian Forces shows a lack of leadership and responsibility by the Conservative government.

Does the government not trust General Laroche and will it now, finally, call a public inquiry?

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question is directed at the employment insurance program itself and the fact that people could not qualify which resulted in a huge fund. I think it ended up that some $57 million was taken from the workers' and employers' contributions. The government says that it is not going to retroactively put it back in, so we are back to square one with the workers' and employers' money being thrown into the government coffers for something else.

The real problem is that when the government gutted the fund, it also put in rules that treated people who collected employment insurance, particularly seasonal workers, as repeat offenders. If people came back a second year because they were in seasonal employment, they received less in EI benefits that year and the year after that they received less again. It was driving people out of the seasonal workforce, hurting our forestry industry, our fishing industry, our construction industry, and all sorts of other industries in the process.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we should not only talk about people involved in military missions such as Afghanistan. There are sailors who are at sea for many months at a time on a regular ongoing basis. It is something that applies not just to people fighting in Afghanistan, although we obviously appreciate the commitment, sacrifice and courage of those people.

In terms of being good for the child, it is also good for the parent to have that early relationship with a child and the bonding with the family despite the fact that there are periods of absence and ensure that the father has that opportunity, and we are talking about parental leave and normally we are not going to have a serving member of the forces who will have maternity leave, regardless of whether there is a deployment or not. From a parental leave perspective, having the family together for a lengthy period of time in the early years of a child's life is a very important thing. Yes, we should have it and we should have it fast. We do not need to have a big rigmarole about this. It could be done other ways. We welcome other EI reforms to take place as well and put them in a big bill. We would certainly be happy to see this bill passed quickly.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have to confess I do not recall exactly which riding he is talking about, but I do remember the figure of $50 million. When the changes were made to the EI program in the 1990s by the Liberals, we went from a situation where more than 75%, I think it was 80 and some per cent, of people who were unemployed qualified and were able to collect EI benefits. It is now down to I think 53% of people who become unemployed in this country are eligible for EI benefits. That is down from 80 and some per cent, which is a shocking change. It has undercut the incomes of working people throughout Canada, but it has been particularly devastating in my riding and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Fairness for Military Families (Employment Insurance) Act, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech by my friend from Edmonton Centre on Bill C-13. He had, as we all know, a 30-year career in the Canadian Forces and speaks with obvious passion on the issue of our troops and soldiers who are doing their duty for Canada in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The NDP fully supports this bill. The fact that a bill can come to the House of Commons through the offices of an individual member of Parliament, whether someone on this side or that side of the House, and can be made into law is really what being parliamentarians is all about. Obviously, this is a government measure, but how does it get here? How does it become an issue for parliamentarians?

It happens because someone raises it and feels strongly about it. It is an idea whose time has come and needs to be recognized. We in the NDP fully support this piece of legislation. In fact, we have been critical of the government in other areas when it talks of supporting our soldiers and troops, particularly veterans, which I will get to a little later, but to focus on the particular issue of this bill is extremely important.

We have all seen and know from family, friends and constituents the hardships, worries and concern we have when soldiers have gone off for long rotations to Afghanistan in the past seven or eight years or elsewhere. They are going to be away from their families, children and spouses or, in the case of parental leave, which is what we are talking about now, fathers are not being present at the birth of a child and being away many months before seeing their newborn. It tugs on the heart strings of all of us to know that Canadians do that for their country because that is the job they have taken on, the commitment they have made, and the sacrifice they have undertaken on behalf of their fellow citizens.

We are all proud that we have young men and women who are prepared to do that. We owe them not only a debt of gratitude but full support for doing what Canada is asking of them. We also, of course, owe it to them to ensure that our own government's actions and activities are in keeping with the high standards that we have as Canadians.

It is a pleasure to support this piece of legislation. On a going-forward basis, it will give soldiers and young families some comfort to know that they will be guaranteed of having family time after a deployment when it is interrupted by service or when a birth takes place while a soldier is deployed.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has spoken on this bill already. The NDP has some proposals that would expand this to include others who serve overseas on Canada's behalf, some of them in fact in Afghanistan. One of whom, as we know, in the diplomatic corps lost his life in the same theatre of war as soldiers are fighting now, Glyn Berry. He lost his life while serving in Afghanistan as part of the diplomatic corps.

We have other diplomats stationed abroad in such places like Afghanistan and elsewhere, who make the sacrifice of being away from their families for long periods of time. We believe this change in the EI Act should be expanded to include them as well. It should be noted also that not only in Afghanistan but elsewhere, places like Haiti and others, there are a considerable number of members of police forces, whether the Canadian Royal Mounted Police, provincial or municipal police forces, who volunteer and are part of military and international engagements that Canada has undertaken.

I know members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in my province have served in Bosnia as part of a mission. They are serving in Haiti and elsewhere in training missions away from their families.

Similarly we have a large contingent of RCMP and others in Afghanistan, assisting and training the Afghan police force. We recognize this is directed at military personnel only, but the concept is a good one and in fairness should apply to others in the diplomatic corps and to police officers who serve abroad under the same kind of circumstances, away from their country.

I will not go into the details of the amendments. I know one of the previous speakers said that he had not had an opportunity to read them yet. As indicated, this will be a matter raised in the committee. This being second reading, we are talking about the principle of the bill. When it receives second reading, and I have every expectation that it will receive the support of all parties in the House, and goes to committee, there may be an opportunity for witnesses to be heard, to talk about the provisions and to talk about their experiences with EI.

I know other members in the military and some veterans have issues with EI. In many cases, they are unable to collect EI, although they pay into it for many years. We may hear some more information about problems with respect to the employment insurance system and military or other foreign service. There may be opportunities to improve the legislation, to make it more fair to other Canadians in similar circumstances.

I know the impetus came from, and we should focus on, the consequences to military families when members serve abroad and have an addition to their family, whether it be by birth or adoption. I am not sure, to be honest, that this covers the adoption situation, and I hope it does. If it does not, then we would be very careful in looking at the committee stage. Parental leave applies whether we are talking about a birth or an adoption.

To be fair to military families on that score, we want to ensure, and certainly the NDP wants to ensure, that the same provisions with respect to parental leave available to ordinary citizens are available in these circumstances to the military as well.

There is no reason why that form of parental leave ought to be cut short by military deployment or being called into service, or have to be deferred until after the deployment is over so they can actually spend that time bonding with the new addition to the family and providing the kind of support that is always needed when there is a new member to a family, particularly a newborn or in an adoption situation. There is a whole change in circumstances that have to be adjusted to. That is the whole purpose of parental leave in the first place.

We can fully support the legislation. I will not use this as an opportunity to talk for any great length about what our troops do in Afghanistan. We do know they are there for long periods of time, up to six months and for some it is more than one rotation. We have had evidence before the defence committee that some individuals have done as many as four rotations in Afghanistan over the very lengthy period of time we have been engaged in that combat.

I do not think a lot of Canadians realize that the military engagement in Afghanistan has gone on longer than any other military engagement in which our country has ever, in its history, been involved. It has been longer than the second world war, which lasted from 1939-45. It is obviously longer than the Korean War or the first world war. It has been going on since 2002 until now, eight years, where Canadians have been engaged in combat in Afghanistan. Soldiers have been deploying there on an ongoing basis, as many as the 3,000 soldiers, diplomats and police officers are involved today. I suppose that long period of time has given rise to the kinds of issues that we see now, the ongoing needs of military families in these circumstances.

I know the military family support groups are very active across the country. I think all parliamentarians support those groups in their ridings and recognize the good work they do. One of the things they do is provide support for the families who are left behind.

In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador it is a little more difficult in some respects. Most of the people who are deployed overseas are from the reserve units and they are spread around. The support provided by the military family support organization has been extremely valuable where people do not live on base and where there is less of a connect between them. Their neighbours are not necessarily in the same boat and do not understand the same way other military families do, whether they be spouses, or parents, or siblings, that are concentrated in other places where there are have significant bases.

It is important on military bases as well. There are military bases where large numbers of military personnel are deployed and military family support groups are active. Even though there is a social network among military families, the kind of services and counselling that might be needed, in some cases specialized counselling, not only has to be supplied, but an attempt has to be made to understand the need for that. In many circumstances, where people are going through hardship, particularly psychological hardship, it often takes someone else to recognize they may need the kind of assistance and help that can be provided through counselling.

We support all those initiatives through the military family support groups. This is another piece that we, as parliamentarians, can do to mitigate, to some extent, the sacrifices of being away from their family.

I know that even as a parliamentarians, and we do not make the kind of sacrifices that soldiers do. Being away from our family for even four or five days at a time, sometimes a week or two at a time, our young children in particular are affected. We realize how that must affect, on a long-term basis, people who are away for a long time, particularly in the case of people deployed to Afghanistan. Imagine what is on the minds of family members throughout their deployment, how are their loved ones are faring, are they safe. They cannot wait to see them arrive at the airport. I have seen those reunions of families as well. I do not think anybody can be but moved to see a couple being rejoined after a long period of time, particularly where the dangers of war exist and the possibility for injury, or even worse, is present.

We all have to understand, appreciate and be proud that we have young men and young women who are prepared to make that kind of commitment on our behalf.

We would like to see that also extended to diplomats and police force members who also make the same kind of commitment for overseas deployment.

Also, at committee, we will be interested in hearing about other aspects of the employment insurance with respect to military personnel and veterans. I know there is a concern among many veterans and RCMP officers, in particular, about getting access to the EI benefits they may have paid for all of their career. Yet when they leave the forces, they have great difficulty getting access to the employment insurance to which they feel they are entitled and should be entitled. As members of the workforce, they have paid into the EI fund. We commonly hear them say that.

We do not know how many people are affected by this, but I understand we will be hearing from them at the committee phase of the hearings. Hopefully, if there is a need for other improvements to the EI system with respect to military personnel and veterans, then there will be opportunities to discuss those in committee and possibly make the kind of amendments that might be needed.

The bill is contained in only five sections of the act and will come into force very soon, on the first Sunday after the day it receives royal assent. I do not know how soon that would come. It has to go to committee, but I hope it comes back from committee before we rise this spring so it will be available to anyone who qualifies very shortly.

I note, unfortunately, it does not apply to anyone whose benefit period for parental leave began before the day in which the bill comes into force. I do not know why that is. If people are undertaking parental leave now and they get called up at some point during their parental leave, I do not know why the act would not apply to them. Maybe this question can be answered in committee.

The bill is very clear, however, that there will be an extension of the benefit period for someone who is in the Canadian Forces and is required either to defer parental leave because he or she is in service or is called away when this happens.

I commend the government. We do criticize the government for being vocal on supporting our troops in name. This is a case where it is actually doing something concrete, which will improve the lot of individual soldiers by changing legislation that applies to all, to ensure the special circumstances of people in uniform, particularly those serving overseas and making those kinds of sacrifices, are not left out of the benefits of paternal leave and parental leave because of their deployment.

It is a positive change in the law. Our party has been on record many times calling for improvements in general to the EI regime. My friend from Acadie—Bathurst participated in the committee that came up with 28 separate recommendations to make EI better in Canada. We want the government to listen to that as well.

It is a bit ironic in a way. I do not know the record totally, but I know that parental leave has not been a part of the EI system for all that long. I am not sure if the Conservative Party supported it when it was brought in. However, I am glad, given the fact it is here and available to Canadians, we will make the special provision to ensure military personnel get access to it.

We support the bill, I support the bill, wholeheartedly.

[Afghanistan, May 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we also heard from the respected international organization Human Rights Watch, whose senior legal counsel said Canada's practice of obtaining diplomatic assurances from the Afghan government, even with monitoring of transferred detainees, was not enough to comply with our international human rights obligations. She also said, “NDS torture and ill-treatment of detainees in its custody has been well known for years” and that it most often occurs within the first 72 hours of custody.

When is the government going to call an independent judicial inquiry to get at the truth and satisfy Canadians that we can do the right thing in the future?