Jack Harris

[Afghanistan, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the sexual abuse of young boys is a serious matter.

There are now reports that military police were told not to intervene in such matters, and they had the belief that if they were to intervene they would not be supported by the chain of command.

We have a grossly inadequate NIS report and a board of inquiry report sitting with the military since May. The military should not be investigating itself in these matters.

Will the minister order an independent inquiry? What does he have to hide in not doing so?

[Afghanistan, September 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the government's handling of the allegations of sexual abuse of young boys by the Afghan national army on our Canadian Forces base is a national shame.

The narrow scope of the military's NIS report amounted to a whitewash and said that the chain of command did not know anything about it. However, we now know that this is not the case. Now there is corroboration that the military brass knew about this as far back as 2007.

Canadians deserve to know, how long has the minister had knowledge of this tolerance of sexual abuse in Afghanistan?

[Point of Order, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise also on a point of order.

During Question Period, I made reference to a statement by Premier Williams concerning sovereignty of the country. This is contained in a letter of September 11, 2009 to the Prime Minister.

I wonder if you would find unanimous consent to table this letter in the House.

[Fisheries and oceans, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador wrote the Prime Minister saying that this is “an issue that threatens our very sovereignty as a nation”.

We have former deputy ministers of fisheries, two former directors responsible for the international file and an associate deputy minister saying that this is a backward step for Newfoundland and Labrador and should be rejected.

Will the government stand up for our sovereignty, refuse to ratify this agreement and file an objection to these changes at NAFO?

[Fisheries and oceans, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the sustainability of our fishing stocks and the sovereignty of this country are at risk. Instead of delivering on the promise of custodial management by Canada outside 200 miles, recent changes to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization convention could allow foreign nations to patrol and control what happens inside our 200 mile limit.

For all of the grandstanding we have seen from the government over the Arctic, why have we heard nothing from it about Atlantic fishing sovereignty?

[Veterans Affairs, September 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was very disturbing to learn that Canadian Forces veterans who have served in peacekeeping and other missions since the Korean War are denied the use of long-term care facilities and hospital beds provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Exclusion of these veterans overlooks the unique care that is often required for veterans who face specific physical and psychological injuries and needs. Not only do DVA pavilions provide this unique care, they allow veterans to be surrounded by others who have shared a similar past and, therefore, understand the difficulties they face presently.

While the number of surviving eligible veterans is quickly dwindling, the number of Canadian Forces veterans who have served since Korea and who require care is likely to steadily rise, allowing for the continued use of these facilities.

All veterans deserve to be treated equally, as well as with dignity and respect. The policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs should be changed to reflect these principles, and access to DVA pavilions should be given to veterans who have served their country in Bosnia, Cyprus, Africa, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2004-2005 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of St. John's East, listing each department or agency, initiative, and amount?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to the deportation of foreign nationals from Canada, for the last five years: (a) on an annual basis, how many people are deported and to which countries; (b) how many were deported after having been deemed a national security threat, violated immigration rules, or received a criminal conviction; (c) how many countries does the government not deport people to due to concerns of violating the principle of non-refoulement, as codified in international law, including the 1951 Geneva Convention; (d) to which countries does Canada not deport people and why; (e) with regard to countries that have well documented human rights violations, what consideration is given to their records and their potential implications for deportees prior to Canadian government officials making final determinations on whether or not to deport persons, (i) which departments would be involved in such a consideration, (ii) which department is the final authority in making a determination; (f) on what basis would the need to deport a person trump concerns for that person’s welfare after they are deported; (g) with regard to countries that are in the midst of a civil war, what consideration is given to this and its potential implications for a deportee prior to Canadian government officials making a final determination on whether or not to deport a person; (h) what is the annual travel costs of repatriating deportees, as a global figure and a median basis; (i) what is the annual cost of housing deportees in detention prior to their deportation; (j) what is the average time a deportee remains in custody prior to deportation; and (k) currently how many people are waiting to be deported?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 14th, 2009]

With respect to Canadian bilateral aid to Afghanistan, on an annual basis since 2002: (a) what projects have been so funded and in what amounts; (b) which branches of which departments, were involved in approving and overseeing each project; (c) how much is considered tied aid, in percentage and dollar amounts; (d) which projects were sole-sourced contracts; (e) which projects have been audited by independent auditors hired by, or on behalf of, the government; (f) which accounting firms were hired; (g) what was the cost, and submission date, of each audit; (h) by which department or agency was the audit received; (i) were any contracts awarded to auditors without a competitive tender and, if so, which ones, and why; (j) on the basis of what criteria do auditors determine a project to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory and which ones were so designated and why; (k) how many projects have had funding revoked, reduced, or not renewed, because of concerns related to their fiscal or project management and which were so affected, and for what reasons; and (l) which audits referenced projects that lost aid due to corruption, and what was the estimated loss in percentage and dollar amounts?

[National Defence, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canada helped to create the Montreux document outlining obligations under international law and best practices for the use of private military and security contractors. Yet, the government is not forthcoming when questioned about what steps have been taken to comply with this document in Afghanistan.

We understand that Afghan civilian guards are provided weapons only while on duty, with an uncertain level of training, and soldiers have complained of guards sleeping on the job.

Will the government commit to greater openness on this topic and issue a public report outlining how we are meeting our obligations under the Montreux document?