Jack Harris

[Impact Awards, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Marguerite MacKenzie, a linguist from Memorial University of Newfoundland, on receiving one of the prestigious Impact Awards for 2013, which was presented by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Dr. MacKenzie was recognized for her work over the past 40 years on the lnnu language, which is spoken by over 18,000 lnnu in Labrador and Quebec. The lnnu language project, led by Dr. MacKenzie, was a partnership involving several universities, together with Quebec and Labrador lnnu educational institutes.

It has produced the first dictionary in lnnu, English, and French, and is an impressive volume that includes more than 27,000 words. This dictionary, together with training and school curriculum materials, will be an invaluable tool, in both preserving lnnu language and culture and promoting the advancement of the lnnu people within Canada.

I ask all honourable members to join in congratulating Dr. MacKenzie and all those who collaborated in this project.

[Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, October 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his remarks. Of course, he is also aware of the closure of the marine rescue centre in St. John's and the attempt to close one in Quebec as well.

I want to talk about oil spill response capabilities. Back in February, the environment commissioner talked about Canada’s lack of preparedness for a major offshore oil spill on its east coast and warned of a potential 300% jump in tanker traffic on the west coast. In June the B.C. environment officials warned the minister that even a moderate oil spill in British Columbia would overwhelm provincial resources and that industry requirements of Transport Canada are deficient in scope and scale.

I wonder why the minister is tweaking this bill and not doing a consultation across the country to find out what is actually needed to ensure that our tanker traffic, coastal communities, and waters are safe from the dangers that even a moderate oil spill would cause.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of concern has been raised about the possible stigmatization arising from bills like this, so I think it is important to put in perspective the kind of numbers we are talking about.

There was evidence that in Ontario only 0.001% of those convicted of a crime are found not criminally responsible. That is about one in 100,000 people, and of those the recidivism rate is between 2.5% and 7.5%. For other people who are convicted of a crime, the recidivism rate is between 41% and 44%. For those who think this is about mentally ill people being the problem in society, the other 99,999 people who are before the courts do not have any mental illness. This is not really about mental illness. A very small percentage of people are involved, and a small percentage of them would be considered potential high-risk offenders.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to tobacco addiction as much as anybody else, and I appreciate the member's comments.

However, are we into the new normal here now? The Senate passes legislation. It has the whole process, then it comes here. We have one hour of debate, and then closure is called. We are the rubber stamp for the other place. Is that the new normal the government is taking on?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 13th, 2013]

With regard to the target for the performance indicator “the total average reserve force paid strength by FY (determined by Director Reserves) compared to the target planned strength as published in annual RPP as %”, as cited on page 33 of the 2013-2014 Report on Plans and Priorities: (a) why is the government’s target “to be determined”; (b) how does the government calculate this target; (c) what information is the government missing in order to calculate this target; (d) what government decisions have not been made in calculating this target; and (e) what has changed since the last target so that the government is not capable of having a target until spring 2014?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 13th, 2013]

With regard to page 40 of the 2013-2014 Report on Plans and Priorities, which states, “the minister of national defence has provided direction for the targeted divestment of certain infrastructure holdings”: (a) which infrastructure holdings has the Minister of National Defence provided for targeted divestment; (b) on what basis has the Minister decided to divest certain infrastructure holdings; (c) what are the associated costs of these targeted divestments; (d) what are the expected savings of these targeted divestments; (e) how are the expected costs and savings of these targeted divestments calculated; (f) what are the impacts on the Canadian Forces of these targeted divestments; and (g) what are the impacts on the local communities of these targeted divestments?

[Privacy, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Auditor General said. Why can the minister not just admit that he was wrong?

Yesterday, the minister could not answer questions about whether the Communications Security Establishment received information from the U.S. program known as PRISM. Hours later, though, CSE released a statement.

Can the minister now tell us if he has raised any concerns with the United States about the NSA eavesdropping on Canadians? What steps has the department taken to help the Privacy Commissioner in her investigation?

[Search and Rescue, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it was a half measure. The reality is, they claim that search and rescue is a “priority”, then they fail to act when warned. For over a year, the report from Defence Research and Development Canada gathered dust, potentially putting lives at risk. New Democrats were warning them. Experts were warning them, and even internal reports were warning them. Improving response times saves lives. They were warned, but they did not act. Why?

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the minister describe the Indian Act as being antiquated, outdated, et cetera, I thought he was talking about the Senate, where this bill originated a year and a half ago. It was debated in this House for a few minutes, at around midnight, last week. Now the minister says that if time allocation is not brought in, it will not be passed.

What is going on is that democracy is being turned on its head. The Senate had this bill a year and a half ago. The unelected Senate, which has no New Democrats and has only appointed people, has debated this bill. It called witnesses, and it heard all about it.

Now, for some reason, all of a sudden, it is urgent that we not have debate on this except for five hours. Is this now becoming routine that this House will effectively be only the rubber stamp for what goes on in the Senate? We are turning democracy on its head here. I hoped that the minister would not want to continue doing that.

[Privacy, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not denying having access to PRISM, or being in possession of a secret $90,000 cheque, or that the PMO-controlled funds were used in this process. While Canadians deserve answers, the Minister of National Defence repeatedly failed to answer the three questions today about snooping.

Did the Canadian government have access to PRISM, yes or no?