Jack Harris

[Afghanistan, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, not even the defence minister can keep up with his own story on when he knew or heard about Afghan detainee abuse. First he said he had not heard of Richard Colvin. Then he said he may have received Mr. Colvin's briefings but did not read them. Then he said the reports did not make it to his desk, only to take that remark back a month later. On Friday he accused diplomats and generals of filtering out such reports.

The only way to the truth here is through a public inquiry. When will the government call one?

[Poverty, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, more than a quarter of a million seniors in Canada are living in poverty today. However, the good news is that something can be done about it. For about $700 million a year we could put an end to seniors poverty, ensuring that no senior lives below the poverty line.

This could be done by an immediate increase to the guaranteed income supplement paid to seniors. We need a guaranteed income supplement that would actually guarantee an acceptable standard of living.

New Democrats believe that seniors deserve to live with dignity rather than in poverty. In my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador nearly two-thirds of seniors rely on old age pension and guaranteed income supplement benefits as their sole source of income. Think of the great step forward it would be for them and for seniors across the country, and for Canada as a whole to put an end to seniors poverty.

We call on the government to improve the guaranteed income supplement and bring an end to seniors poverty now.

[Afghanistan, November 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the detainee torture issue, first the government starved the MPCC by withholding documents. Then it fought against the committee hearings. Then it intimidated the witnesses at committee and withheld information from members of Parliament. At the same time, it gave full access to documents to its witnesses, even those no longer working for government.

Despite that, Mr. Mulroney yesterday confirmed our contention that for a year and a half, Canada did not have in place proper protection for detainees, as required by international law, and left them at risk of torture.

When will this government stop playing games and hiding the truth? When will it call a public inquiry?

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the submissions by other parties, but I do want to say to the government member who spoke that the character assassination I was talking about was the character assassination that took place in the House and in the public by members of the government.

I want to thank the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her reference to the parliamentary procedures book that I see you are assiduously reviewing at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to add that the effect on this witness goes further.

In fact, he was also instructed two days before to surrender any reports from Afghanistan in his possession to the Department of Justice. Not only are the Conservatives telling him that they do not agree with what the counsel to Parliament says in its interpretation of parliamentary privileges but they will not allow him to present the papers the committee is looking for because they are instructing him to give the documents to them.

That is clearly an attempt to interfere and obstruct with the operations of this Parliament by preventing an individual under pain, as an employer, from presenting papers to the House that the committee is clearly looking for. This goes well beyond the activity of the committee itself and the whole of Parliament is affected by this, if the government can operate in this way to thwart, defeat and remove the privileges of members of Parliament by its actions as an employer in giving instructions to its employees. That is the thrust of what we are saying here today.

What I am saying is that my privileges have been breached and I thank the members on this side who have supported my submission.

[Privilege, November 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the government's action in suppressing evidence that was to be presented to a committee of the House. It is a question of privilege based on all members of the House. I am not a member of the committee but I will read the question of privilege and should you agree that it meets the prima facie test, I would be prepared to make the appropriate motion.

As we know, questions of privilege arise when members or the House of Commons as an institution have been prevented from carrying out their duties. These privileges include freedom of speech, freedom from obstruction, interference and intimidation, and the right to institute inquiries, call witnesses and demand papers. So important are these privileges of the House that they are rooted in the Constitution and contained in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan has for some weeks been attempting to exercise its parliamentary functions in relation to the hearings and allegations of detainee abuse in Afghanistan. Evidence that was submitted to the Military Police Complaints Commission on the same issue was suppressed by the government under the provisions of sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The special committee wanted to obtain this evidence using its powers to call persons and papers and so it called forward Mr. Richard Colvin, a senior diplomat, to testify. In order to assist in its work, the committee first called Mr. Rob Walsh, law clerk for the House of Commons, to testify and advise the committee.

Mr. Walsh confirmed the privileges of Parliament in relation to hearing evidence, requesting testimony and receiving documents. He confirmed that the Canada Evidence Act did not prevent Mr. Colvin or any other witness from testifying and providing documents to support that testimony. He advised that parliamentary privilege overrules sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

On the morning of Mr. Colvin's proposed testimony to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, he received an email from a representative of his employer at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In this email, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade advised Mr. Colvin in writing that the Government of Canada did not accept the law clerk's legal opinion on parliamentary privilege. It states that, “The Government of Canada does not share the Clerk's view of the effect of the laws adopted by Parliament on parliamentary proceedings and, as a public servant, we trust that you will conduct yourself according to the interpretation of the Government of Canada. Should there be any concerns expressed by members of the committee, those concerns should be referred to government counsel”.

This email makes it clear that the Government of Canada does not accept Parliament's privileges and will not abide by the law clerk's confirmation of these privileges.

The Government of Canada in this email attempts to intimidate a witness prior to his testimony in front of the committee. The government also instructs the witness on how he is to answer questions from members of Parliament. As his employer, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the government, is in a position of power over Mr. Colvin and this is a clear attempt to intimidate him.

In 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that parliamentary privileges, such as freedom of speech and freedom from intimidation and obstruction, extend to witnesses testifying in committees.

In addition, the official from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade appears to expect that members of Parliament must address their concerns about the issue of privilege to the Department of Justice rather than to their own counsel.

This is a very disturbing situation and I am perturbed that the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs believe that all concerns by MPs on the admissibility of documents to Parliament should be referred by the witness to Department of Justice lawyers. These are lawyers who have already stated that they do not believe parliamentarians have the rights and privileges that the Constitution accords them, as outlined in Mr. Rob Walsh's opinion in writing to the committee.

Members cannot receive unbiased advice from the Department of Justice, nor are they obliged to report to the Department of Justice.

I regard this as a clear violation of members' privileges. It attempts to restrict their right to free speech and counsel and it is an affront to Parliament. In silencing witnesses, interfering with and obstructing a person's carrying out the lawful order of the committee and denying parliamentarians rights, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice are in contempt of Parliament.

In addition, the government's attempt to wilfully ignore a constitutionally enshrined right of Parliament to oversee it and hold it accountable is deeply worrying. In turning a blind eye to this contempt of Parliament, a precedent is set that allows the government to withhold any evidence from Parliament that it sees as embarrassing under the guise of national security. It also sets a precedent of ignoring rights of parliamentarians and their constituents. This goes right to the heart of government's accountability to Parliament, and through that, to Canadians.

This particular breach relates in some way to a committee, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would be very well aware of that. I am not a member of this committee and I am not seeking a relief for the committee. I am talking here as an ordinary member of Parliament whose own privileges are breached by the failure and the lack of following the relationship between Parliament and the government that this breach speaks to.

The intimidation that we are talking about as well did not take place in the committee itself. It took place in private correspondence prior to committee hearings. I might add that it has also taken place in the public domain, by the government of course, with the character assassination of Mr. Colvin in recent weeks.

The government's complete refusal to recognize the privileges of the House also did not take place in committee, nor is this refusal restricted solely to a committee. The government's blanket refusal to recognize the power to call persons and papers, regardless of the Canada Evidence Act, relates to this chamber.

I raise this issue in the House because it goes to the very core of the purposes of this House and we believe the government is trying to set a very dangerous precedent that actually threatens the work of parliamentarians in all its areas. When the government can take this approach to the parliamentary privileges and the advice being given to parliamentarians by the parliamentary counsel, is that in fact interfering with the rights and privileges of Parliament and the work of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, that is my submission as a point of privilege and I will leave it to you to make a finding.

[November 24th, 2009]

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—

[November 24th, 2009]

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?

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's suspicions. I certainly do not have enough information to make such a charge, but I do believe that the Conservatives have been rushing, hell-bent on bringing before the House as many pieces of legislation as possible to support some political campaign in which they would hope to engage suggesting that somehow or other they are tough on crime and that everybody else in the House does not support their point of view.

If they really believe that this faint hope clause is abused or overused or that it results in some significant problems, then surely we would expect them to bring the evidence to support those beliefs before a committee studying the very elements of the legislation that they hope to change. The fact that they failed to do that smacks of political motivation more than anything else. I agree with the hon. member. The way to correct that is to send the bill back to committee and get the information so the committee can look at it.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked an important question. As he would know and those of us who have practised law over many years would know, our opponents are not perfect and neither are we. We do not always make the kinds of objections that our colleagues would expect us to make, or make them at the time or the place where our opponents would expect us to make them.

We do have a process here before us. We were considering the bill at third reading. It appears that this information is useful. We have a procedure by which this information can be made available to the committee and we have opportunity, so whatever needs to be done, can be done.

If there was a failure, as my colleague and learned friend, since he is a member of the Bar, has suggested, then we now have a way of fixing that and making sure it does not cause problems.

[Criminal Code, November 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the amendment by my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, related to the operation of this debate at third reading.

The amendment before the House would send the bill back to the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights to reconsider clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 because the committee has not been able to do its work.

One of the responsibilities of a parliamentary committee studying legislation is to study the legislation in detail, clause by clause for each and every clause, to determine whether or not any amendments need to be made.

How does the committee do its work? It asks for witnesses. It asks for information that it needs to understand the reason and the rationale for a particular amendment before it can consider it fully. Members of the House in doing their duty asked for this information from the department. We understand that information was available.

I was not in the committee. I would say there is a very good chance that there were at least 290 or 295 members of the House who were not in the committee, because that is the way Parliament operates.

The committee is an agent of Parliament and does on behalf of other parliamentarians the serious work of investigating a bill.

The information that was being talked about is statistical information on the number of prisoners who are in jails, subject to various sentences. It is very important information to have in order for members to be able to understand the necessity or otherwise of the kind of amendments that are being proposed.

I gave a speech yesterday and talked about the number of prisoners we have in our prisons who are serving life sentences and the number of all the prisoners who have served life sentences over the last 15 or 16 years who have been given an opportunity to seek further parole and to in fact get parole. This is important information to have in order to understand the context of the amendments being proposed.

What has happened here is that the government has decided not to make that information available and we are now in the House discussing a bill at third reading, trying to do here in the House the work of the committee without the facts and information before us.

This is not something that should be done in the House. It is something that should be done in the committee. I think the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who sits on the committee, is proposing a very reasoned and very reasonable amendment, and as my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster pointed out, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has a very significant reputation for doing his homework and for being knowledgeable and competent on matters affecting justice issues.

Therefore I have to accept that when this information is asked for to allow the committee to do its work, that is something that I should support.

The government claims to have some kind of monopoly or at least a belief in transparency and accountability. What we are seeing instead is an attempt to manipulate the work of the committee through the control of information.

We saw examples of that, as were referenced earlier, when we had the Minister of Public Safety failing to release an RCMP report relating to the gun registry until after a vote had been taken in the House. This is the kind of so-called transparency and accountability that we are getting from the government, the manipulation and control of information in order to try to influence what the public knows and does not know about the true facts and the reality of something so that the government can get its own way.

I do not think it is something that Canadians want to see in their government. They do not want to be manipulated. They do not want to be told one thing publicly while the true facts are kept hidden or not made available at the right time.

There are other instances of trying to manipulate a committee going on right now with respect to the Afghanistan committee. Information this committee needs in order to do its work has not been made available to it, yet the government wants to bring people in to agree with its political point of view without giving the committee a proper opportunity to have the basic information before it in order to conduct the proper inquiry and to ask the kinds of questions that need to be asked.

The government is insisting on putting the cart before the horse, just as it is doing here, saying we should continue to study and vote on the bill without having the proper information before the committee.

In the case of the Afghanistan committee, they are doing the same thing, saying that we want to hear from a certain individual because we think we will like what he has to say, but the committee will not have the documentary information that is required to properly consider and ask questions of the witness who is to come before it.

This is the kind of thing we have seen in the committees in the past. In fact I recall a couple of years ago, in the lead-up to the last election, when the government had a rule book on how to distort and disrupt the activities of committees, which the Conservatives used to make things difficult to operate. Then, over the course of the summer, they claimed that the committee system was not working and that Parliament was not working, and that was an excuse for them to call an election, which I do not believe the public wanted then either.

They do not want one now, obviously. We have been told time and time again. They did not want one then either, and perhaps they will not want one whenever it comes, but the fact of the matter is that the government has a history of using committees in a way that is contrary to accountability, contrary to transparency, contrary to the full and open access to information that true democracy relies upon.

This motion is not an attempt to delay anything. I am hoping we will have a vote on it very soon this afternoon, unless there are a lot of other speakers. We hope that this bill, as a result of that vote, will be sent back to the committee so that it can actually do its job. That is the purpose of this motion. It is not to delay anything.

This bill does not have any great urgency to it, to my knowledge and understanding. Someone can correct me if I am wrong. I do not see any hands up other than to get some water or assistance from the pages, but I believe that there is no great urgency for this bill. It can be sent back to the committee. The information can be provided. The committee can do its work and send it back to this House. That is something that is moderate and reasonable and should be acceptable to this House, and when we come to vote on that, I hope to find that is the case.

The Minister of Public Safety is the one being asked to provide this information. We understand that it is readily available. It is not something that is any more secret than the report of the RCMP commissioner, which the minister failed to make available before an important vote in this House, which I have to say surprised me a lot.

If the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for the public safety of the country and who is responsible for ensuring that people feel safe in their homes and on the streets, has a report from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, our national police force, on an issue that is pertinent to the gun registry and to a vote that was to take place in this House, for him to sit on that and not make it available was shocking to me.

I have been around a long time in politics. I do not know if this is unparliamentary or not, but it was a very brazen act. I do not know if it is unparliamentary to say that. It certainly does not seem to be unparliamentary to do it, if the minister is able to get away with doing that in the face of an extremely important and well-attended vote across this country.

I hope that the actions of the Minister of Public Safety, in suppressing this report until after that vote had taken place and after the publicity had died down, are equally noted by the people of Canada. Suppressing the report that our national police force made available was a brazen affront to the parliamentary process, to an expectation that a government is reasonable, transparent and accountable to voters. For the House to have that evidence in front of it before that vote was taken was important, just as, I would suggest, having the information requested by this committee, promised to the committee, undertaken to be placed before the committee by departmental officials was important. It was not made available. It should be put before this committee, before the bill can come back to this House, for proper consideration.