Jack Harris

[Search and Rescue, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members on both sides of the House who participated in this debate. A lot of people took the opportunity to talk about search and rescue in general, and I am very glad to see it given that attention in the House. It ought to be a greater priority, we believe, for Canadian Forces. Therefore, the attention being given to it from all parts of the country is certainly valuable and worthwhile.

I did not really hear any rationale for not supporting this motion. We know that SAR involves many elements, but the Canadian Forces' response time with helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft is extremely important in getting to an emergency, particularly at sea. The position of the double standard of 30 minutes during the 8:00 to 4:00 period and two hours afterwards, when about 80% plus of the taskings take place, is really unsupportable.

The Kitsilano Coast Guard station, which was closed down by this government, with 12 people, provides a rescue crew of 3 people at any one time who can respond 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the whole year round, and they can do so within 1 to 2 minutes of being tasked.

Coast Guard ships on SAR standby duty are able to embark within 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In St. John's if someone is in a helicopter being transported to the Hibernia, or any other oil platform off the coast of Newfoundland, there is another SAR helicopter required to be wheels up in 15 to 20 minutes. This is a result of the recommendation of the Wells inquiry into the Cougar crash of March 2009. If there is an emergency, especially at sea, we need the rescue to “get there fast”, to quote the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley. I agree with him, getting there fast means getting into the air fast, to get there.

Therefore, why do we continue with a system that says we can have a SAR aircraft in the air within 30 minutes between 8:00 and 4:00 on weekdays, but outside that, when as I mentioned over 80% of the tasking takes place, the standard required is two hours?

Members opposite said that we are unique and that this is the reason why we must have our own standard. Well, we certainly are unique in the world. We are in fact the second-largest country in the world, which is all the more reason we need to get into the air faster. We also have the longest coastline in the world. We have to remember we are going from only four places for primary aeronautical SAR for all of Canada: Gander, in Newfoundland and Labrador; Greenwood, in Nova Scotia; Trenton, Ontario; and Comox, B.C. There are four places for all of Canada, including the Arctic. Getting there fast means getting into the air fast and that requires a better standard than we have.

Other countries have set a better standard. The United States and Australia have 30 minutes to wheels up, 24/7, 365 days. Norway has a 15-minute standard for getting a helicopter into the air, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have an elongated day, 15 minutes in the daytime up until 9:00 or 10:00 at night and 45 minutes overnight. Even Mexico has around-the-clock 40-minute wheels up, in the air.

These countries can do this; why can we not? Why can we not give the priority to search and rescue that it deserves? Why can we not have a 21st century rescue service that can respond quickly, as other countries can? Even the United States, for example, has not only the 30-minute standard but a standard that says they have to be at any place in their area of responsibility within a total of 90 minutes. A country like Canada should be looking at standards like that to be sure we can meet our commitments to our citizens, in particular the Canadian Forces, whose job it is to defend Canada and protect Canadians.

I urge members opposite who have considered voting against this motion to change their minds. We would sure like you have their support for improving search and rescue standards in Canada, to help save lives, particularly for those who are in desperate emergencies that require search and rescue to get there as soon as possible.

[Transboundary Waters Protection Act, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the member for bringing forth this bill. It is very useful legislation.

In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a number of years ago there was a proposal to ship water in bulk out of a place called Gisborne Lake.

One of the concerns raised--and this might fall into his fearmongering category, but it was believed by us--was that once we start exporting water in bulk by shiploads, it then becomes a commodity and perhaps subject to the NAFTA rules and then we cannot stop doing it and we turn water into a commodity, which we feared at the time, and it was a grave concern.

Does the member share that concern? Is that one of the reasons that he is bringing forth this particular legislation?

[National Defence, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of time and energy put into this communications strategy by the military to hide the facts as to what happened to one of its own is deeply worrying. The lack of transparency goes straight to the top as the Minister of National Defence is still refusing to release all documents in this case. This is looking more and more like a coordinated effort to damage control, rather than helping to get at the truth.

When will the Minister of National Defence stop trying to combat negative media coverage and instead focus on combatting the lack of transparency in his own department?

[National Defence, June 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are shocked to see the extent the military's public relations machine is being used to protect the military instead of helping the public and the family understand the facts of the 2008 suicide of Afghanistan veteran Stuart Langridge. His family members became increasingly frustrated with the lack of information from the investigation, which was supposed to be provided to them. They even had to wait over a year to learn that there was a suicide note addressed to them.

Why is so much energy and effort put into a communications strategy to hide the truth when the efforts should have been put into finding out what went wrong in the tragic death of this soldier?

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that there will be a need for some flexibility and some change.

The main concern has been the failure, and we see it here again today, of the minister and the political leadership of the department to affirm these policies and to guarantee the independence of the core fishing enterprises--fleet separation and owner-operator policies are designed to maintain that--and not to have what happened in British Columbia with the individual transferable quotas. That is what is being feared.

The minister and the department must say, “We will maintain these policies. We will give them legislative status or regulatory status.” Then we can talk about the details that might need to be adjusted.

However, what has happened here is that the whole shebang has been put on the table, without any sense that the protection of this $400 million industry in the hands of independent fishing enterprises is going to be maintained. That is the fear. That is why these legislatures have supported these policies and want the Government of Canada to maintain those policies to protect those fishermen and their communities.

[Fisheries and Oceans, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, these adjournment proceedings are normally called the late show, but I think we are into the late, late show tonight. However, I do want to put a question to the minister's representative here tonight on what are known in the industry as “fleet separation” and “owner-operator” policies.

I have a very simple definition for anybody unfamiliar with the terms. The fleet separation policy prevents a company from both catching and processing seafood. In others words, a company could do one or the other, but not both. The owner-operator policy requires that the fishing licence holder catch the fish.

It is not that complicated if one understands the industry. However, they are immensely important policies to the practitioners of the fishing industry, meaning the fishermen in the boats, the owners of fishing licences, and the men and women who engage in the fishery.

These policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are not written into law or even regulation, which is a detriment. They apply to the east coast fisheries, but not to the west coast.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans engaged in what he called a “consultation process” recently, suggesting that there should be some discussion about these policies. This was taken immediately as a threat, and I think rightly so, by the fishing industry and participants in the owner-operator policy, because the minister released a document in February called “Preserving the Independence of the Inshore Fleet in Canada's Atlantic Fisheries”.

It was called a “discussion document”, but it opened up the floodgates and suspicions, because there is a group in the Atlantic, the industry companies, that want to see that change.

The minister's thoughts are on “modernizing the fishery”. This is code in the Atlantic for turning over the fishing licences, catches and quotas to individual transferable quotas, which would be the end of the independence of the fishers in Atlantic Canada. This is what the fishers themselves say.

The industry participants brought together some 30 to 35 organizations and groups throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec to respond to that document.

Their response, dated March 20, makes it very clear that they are unhappy with the government in bringing this forward. It is contrary to the agreed-upon participation in any review of policy, and they condemn it. They said that the approach taken by the minister was a perfect example of the top-down, centrally controlled, non-transparent and manipulative policy process that the department said it would move away from.

After significant analysis, the first recommendation they made was that legal entrenchment of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies should take place.

I want to know whether the minister is prepared to follow what the legislatures of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the opposition parties have said. Will the minister commit to keeping these fleet separation and owner-operator policies?

[Main Estimates 2012-13, June 6th, 2012]

First of all, Larry Smith.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member on his intervention on this important issue. I wonder if he would comment on the closure of the St. John's and Quebec City rescue centres. When all three are operating, there are six rescue coordinators on duty and when the government finishes its handiwork, if it does not change its mind, there will only be three coordinators dealing with the entire area. All of the rescue missions will be coordinated through one centre. Does the member think that having half as many people will cause problems, as well as having everything handled by one place?

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would like to comment. I do not know how much he knows about the Vancouver situation. I was out there last week and met with a lot of people. They are not improving the situation. They are in fact taking away 12 full-time direct rescue people who can get in the water in response to a call one or two minutes after receiving it. They are replacing them with volunteers and a seasonal rescue boat operated by students and summer people located at a station some miles away. That is not an improvement at all and just because it is the only one, that does not mean it is not necessary in saving lives each and every day.

[Business of Supply, June 6th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I note, with the member from Quebec, that the centre in Quebec and the one in St. John's were set up 35 years ago, in 1977, as specific, separate centres because of the need for local knowledge, whether of geography, maritime conditions or language. I would say language applies in both cases, but more so, I suppose, in the member's case.

What has changed after 35 years, so that instead of having six coordinators at one time, two in each of Quebec, St. John's and Halifax, there are now only going to be three serving the same area?