Jack Harris

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to hear my colleague across the way mischaracterize my statements about growing up with the threat of worldwide thermonuclear war between states armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and with red phones sitting on the desks of the President of the United States and the president of Russia during the Cold War. That is what I was talking about.

I did not say that people were not concerned about nuclear terrorism, obviously. I specifically mentioned North Korea, Iran and others. On the threats that people make like that, threats and capabilities are two different things, and we are certainly concerned about that. It is why we are passing legislation like this. It is why we are urging countries like Canada, as well as the United Nations, to impose and increase sanctions to try to find a solution to the acts of states such as North Korea and Iran and to come to a better way of dealing with them. All efforts should be made to try to deal with that. I reject the member's characterization of what I said. Of course people are concerned about nuclear terrorism.

However, I wonder why we waited until now to try to ratify this convention and bring into our domestic law the important aspects that we have here. That is what I am wondering about.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill S-9, now before the House. It is called an act to amend the Criminal Code, but it is very directly related to the short title, which is nuclear terrorism act. It is an important piece of legislation on which my colleague, and dare I say friend, from Mount Royal, has said there is a consensus and probably has been a consensus for six or seven years in this country.

Therefore, it is quite a surprise that it has not been brought forward. As he pointed out, there are many instances where there can be a consensus on matters that could come before the House and be dealt with expeditiously, and some are, but there ought to be more of that. If we are going to be combative about certain things, I think that is the nature of politics. However, where there is a consensus, there can be a great deal more co-operation.

An ironic example of that was last year when the justice bill, Bill C-10, was before the House. It went to committee. The member for Mount Royal moved six or seven amendments at committee. They were defeated at committee. The government had to bring them into the House, but they were ruled out of order because they could have been done at committee. The Conservatives had to use the other place to deal with the passage of those amendments. It was quite embarrassing, I should think, that they showed their nature in terms of dealing with legislation and dealing with the opposition. However, that is one example of many.

Mr. Speaker, I was supposed to say at the beginning of my speech that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

The substance of the bill is something that we support. The bill has a number of objectives. It amends the Criminal Code in adding four new offences.The bill was introduced in the Senate a year ago. It could have been brought here earlier than this, but, once again, that is a sign of not moving as quickly as one would have thought on something as important as this.

The bill adds four new offences to the Criminal Code, having to do with possession, use or disposing of nuclear radioactive material with the intention to cause death, serious bodily harm or substantial damage to property or the environment. That is an act against a nuclear facility or any of its operations. One has to do with using or altering a radioactive material or a nuclear or radioactive device with the intent to compel a person or government organization to do or refrain from doing any act being guilty of an indictable offence. That is a classic example of terrorism. Then, there's committing an indictable offence under a federal law for the purpose of obtaining nuclear radioactive material or a radioactive device or to control a facility, or to threaten to commit any of those other three offences.

These are significant crimes and would be given significant penalties in the Criminal Code as a result of the bill. It would be life imprisonment for the first three, as a maximum penalty, and 14 years as a maximum penalty for the threat to do any of these three things.

It is an important part of following through on two conventions that were agreed upon internationally: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Both of these conventions were an important part of a regime to attempt to control nuclear materials throughout the world.

As we were debating the bill this morning, I recalled growing up in an era where there was a real threat of nuclear war and nuclear annihilation. I grew up in the fifties and sixties, and in 1962 we all know there was a Cuban missile crisis.

I distinctly remember hearing air raid sirens being tested occasionally to remind us what they sounded like, and we had instructions. Some people were building fallout shelters in their back gardens in the event of a nuclear war. That was the reality. In schools, children were being told that if they heard the air raid sirens, they should get under their desks or under the stairs in their homes, and so forth. That was the way we thought about the world when we were children.

Happily, that is not something that children think about today, or have to think about, because the world is not in a state in which that is a likelihood or even a remote possibility at this point.

However, we do see proliferation. States such as Pakistan and India, with certain historic difficulties and disagreements that have not been resolved, are becoming nuclear powers. North Korea is attempting to engage in the development of nuclear weapons, as is Iran, as the member from Mount Royal has pointed out. Therefore, there are significant threats.

It is important to note that among the signatories to this convention are some important players, including the United States of America, China, India, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Obviously we would like to see more. However, it is a framework that can be used to control international terrorism or attempts to use these materials for nefarious purposes.

More can and should be done. The area of prevention is extremely important. Canada and the countries who are signatories can play a role in assisting countries to ensure the protection of nuclear materials, because there are countries that do not necessarily have the technical ability to control those activities within their own borders.

Importantly, the 2005 amendments to the treaties made to deal with interstate transport and usage of these materials extended the scope to also cover domestic use, storage and transport and nuclear facilities used for peaceful purposes.

Historically, Canada ratified one of these conventions in 1980. Canada only signed the agreement, which does not make us a party until it has actually been ratified. This step is one of ratification of both these treaties.

What is also interesting as well is that this piece of legislation is called Bill S-9 for a reason. It was started in what we are required to call “the other place”. I think we are allowed to say “senators” and we are allowed to talk about people by name over there, but what are we doing? Are we now the chamber of sober second thought? Have we reversed the constitutional roles? Do we have legislation coming out of the Senate? Is that where we start?

The Senate has looked at this legislation and has fixed it by adding one of the measures that was in the convention but not in the bill. I am sure it could have been fixed here easily before it was sent over there, but the government wants to legitimize the other place somehow, and even though senators are unelected, unaccountable and unapologetic, as we have found out in the last long while, the government seems to rely on the Senate as some sort of an institution where it can start legislation and have it come over here. Are we here to ratify what the Senate has done? Is that the expectation?

I think we support the bill, but it should have been brought here five or six years ago, when the government came into power.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment the member for Mount Royal on his excellent speech and intervention, and for his long career of work in international law and human rights.

I would like to ask him, and I will not get into the specifics of what he is proposing in other areas outside this treaty, whether he would care to comment on what appears to be the dilatory nature of states that are party to these two conventions in actually taking action.

We know the Americans, for example, have yet to ratify this, although they are signatories and support the objectives. Here we are in Canada, having signed one of these treaties in 1980, and we are only now getting around to ratifying it. We were signatories to this 2005 agreement, but it is seven years later and we are only now taking the steps to ratify this.

Would the member like to comment on the government talking about it being urgent but then waiting seven years to bring it forward?

[National Defence, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, spending on external consultants and contractors at the Department of National Defence rose by $500 million to a staggering $3.2 billion and climbing. This comes after General Andrew Leslie's report called for a reduction of 30%.

The poor management by the minister has even prompted the Prime Minister to remind him that the goal is more teeth and less tail; but when it comes to defence contracting, it is beginning to look like the tail wagging the dog.

Why can the Minister of National Defence not bring external contracting in his department under control?

[National Defence, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are clearly flying blind in the cuts they are making at the Department of National Defence.

Army Commander General Peter Devlin wrote in January in a document outlining cuts that, “The uncertainty created by anticipated additional reductions has yet to be factored in”. Therefore, it will get worse. Everything seems to be open to cuts, from the reserves, civilian staff, to the capacity of the Canadian Forces to carry out domestic operations, including the Arctic.

When will the Conservatives finally come clean on how cuts will affect military communities and families and the readiness of the Canadian Forces?

[Ethics, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Marjorie LeBreton, the Conservative House leader in the Senate, claims that Mr. Duffy is eligible to be a senator because he signed a declaration of qualification, a declaration that makes no reference to being a resident of Prince Edward Island.

According to articles 23 and 31 of the Constitution, he must be a resident or he does not qualify and his seat becomes vacant. It is as simple as that.

Do Conservatives really believe that senators can simply sign a declaration when that does not even affirm their residency to meet a constitutional obligation, regardless of the facts?

[Employment Insurance, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government just does not get it. After Liberals and Conservatives stole $57 billion from the EI fund, the Conservatives are making things even worse for the unemployed, for seasonal workers and for those in precarious or intermittent work. Now fewer than four out of ten unemployed people have access to benefits, and those benefits are being decreased. Do the Conservatives not realize that seasonal industries are an important part of our economy? They include forestry, fishery, construction and agriculture, and tourism too, which just hit the $1 billion a year mark in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then Conservatives say that people do not want to work. They could join me on the planes from Atlantic Canada filled with workers off on the long commute to Alberta, to Fort McMurray and beyond, and to other parts of Canada and the world for weeks and weeks at a time. Is this a culture of defeat? I do not think so.

People want to work, and so do the unemployed, but they do not want to be treated like offenders or fraudsters, have their incomes reduced and have their communities hurt. The Conservatives should roll back these callous cuts and stop attacking the unemployed.

[National Defence, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this project has been announced, delayed, announced, cancelled and then announced again. Conservative incompetence in managing military projects is mind-boggling. This PBO report shows that the initial cancellation by the government could cost taxpayers over $1 billion, and it has been delayed by years.

It is the Minister of National Defence who is responsible for this, and yet he is not even allowed to stand up and explain himself. When will the minister and the government finally take responsibility for their failure to manage this project?

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there have been complaints in respect to both organizations, but what is comparable between the military and the RCMP is that we have hierarchical organizations in which the people who are senior in rank have an enormous amount of power over individuals below that rank. Therefore, in order to counter that, the culture has to have a very strong and robust anti-harassment policy and clear ways of dealing with it.

Neither in the bill nor anywhere else has the Minister of Public Safety mandated the adoption of clear anti-harassment policies within the RCMP containing specific standards for behaviour and specific criteria for evaluating the performance of employees. We need that kind of commitment from the government if the RCMP is to have the tools to deal with that, and the support and ability for discipline to take place and a fair process to deal with it. What is lacking is leadership by the government.

[Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the defence committee.

Yes, we are going through a similar process as we went through on Bill C-42, for which the NDP brought forward a significant number of amendments. We are not through all of them yet, but so far the government has accepted none of the amendments we proposed, and that is the case here.

If there is a problem that requires a solution, legislation is brought forward. If it is inadequate and we provided means to address the problem for which the legislation was created in the first place, we would expect the co-operation that reasonable members of Parliament would address to an issue.

However, it appears the Conservatives say that it is their bill and they will not make any changes. They do not care what arguments are made and what support there is for them logically and from people who are experts in the field. They will continue to do what they want. This seems to be what happened here as well.