Jack Harris

[National Defence, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is funny. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence both said they had a contract.

Here is what the defence minister said on the cost of the F-35s in 2011, and I quote. “Many figures have been circulated on the cost.... I have no idea where [they're] coming from. They’re simply made up — or they’re guessing.”

Was the Auditor General guessing in his report when he showed it was the defence minister repeatedly misleading costs for months on end? Was the Parliamentary Budget Officer simply making things up when he accurately estimated the costs?

When will the government stop making excuses for deceiving Canadians?

[National Defence, April 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the defence minister was fully aware two years ago of the true cost of the F-35s but chose to keep Canadians in the dark. He spent the last two weeks making up bogus excuses for his mishandling of the fighter jet procurement, further confirming that the government has lost all credibility on the file.

Will the minister stop hiding the truth from Canadians and finally take responsibility for this fiasco?

[Search and Rescue, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the calls for an investigation into Canada's search and rescue system are growing.

On Tuesday, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador called for a joint federal-provincial inquiry into the death of 14-year-old Burton Winters. However, it seems that the Minister of National Defence told the premier that there was no need for a joint inquiry. The family of Burton Winters and all Canadians deserve clear answers.

Will the government hold a full and independent inquiry into Canada's search and rescue system, or is all it has to offer are contradictions, empty excuses and spin?

[Firearms Registry, April 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, we may have heard from one or two police officers that they did not like the system and did not rely on it. However, the RCMP did a study of front-line police officers, and 81% supported the statement, “In my experience, CFRO [the Canadian firearms registry online] query results have proven beneficial during major operations”, 98% of CFRO-trained police forces use the system, 81% use it responding to calls for service. We are dealing with a report that clearly and undeniably supports the firearms registration system. In fact, they say it is estimated that approximately 3,940 lives have been saved by the licensing and registration system.

I will acknowledge that includes licensing, but it is a system that the RCMP has said is a holistic system and the registration of long guns was a critical part of that system. The registry being lost is at the increased danger to public safety in the country. As well, the government has, systematically in fact, kept these two reports away from the public for periods of time.

[Firearms Registry, April 4th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I rise to further query the Minister of Public Safety on the question raised on January 31 of this year concerning the firearms registry. The question was about the government's misleading Canadians about what the gun registry did and what the government was going to do. It was also about the suppression of reports, government reports from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one going back to February 2010, which was hidden from the public, and the other being the Commissioner of Firearms 2010 report, which was also withheld.

These reports were suppressed during the time when the House was considering the notion of a vote on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, which I understand was passed today. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety will crow about that when she gets up to respond.

This is about the kind of misinformation we heard in the House today. A government member talked about a $2 billion cost for the registry, frightening Canadians about the expense, when a report of February 2010, the RCMP Canadian firearms program evaluation, said the cost of the long gun registry was between $1.1 million and $4 million in 2009, that it was a cost-effective program. The RCMP, which runs the firearms program, said in its report that it was going to cost between $1.1 million and $4 million a year, yet the government even today talked about $2 billion. That is obviously misleading.

The report, by the way, was suppressed. It was available in February 2010. It was not until it was reported in August and September that the government was refusing to release the report that it ever came out.

What does the report tell us? It tells us a lot about the firearms program that Canadians were not allowed to find out about, because the government did not want them to know because it was pursuing its own approach, which was to try to kill the long gun registry without the facts getting in the way.

The RCMP said the firearms registry was a critical component of the entire firearms program. It recommended that the existing full registry be maintained as part of that program in order to increase non-restricted firearms compliance.

The RCMP also said that one of the effects of the proposed changes would be a significant impact on firearm-related mortality and injury. What did that mean? It meant that if these changes were brought about there would be deaths in Canada.

The RCMP also said something that we raised in debate. It said without the registration there is a failure of accountability, and anyone could buy and sell firearms privately and there would be “no record”. That is a fact that was included, and the bill that was before the House made loose provisions for that.

The other report that was suppressed was in November 2011 while we were having the same debate in Parliament. The report disclosed that the firearms registry was used 14,357 times per day in 2010. The government did not want Canadians to know about that. It misled Canadians by saying that it would continue to monitor long guns after the registry was gone. It is not doing that. No records will be kept of sales by gun shops and there will be unenforceable laws with respect to transfers.

[Petitions, April 3rd, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to present yet another petition from residents mostly of Newfoundland and Labrador. These residents of Canada have grave concerns regarding the changes that are being made to the marine rescue coordination centre in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, it is being closed.

The petitioners urge the government to acknowledge and understand that this closure will put lives at risk. Six hundred people per year are saved as a result of the work of this centre. It is responsible for 900,000 square kilometres of ocean and nearly 30,000 kilometres of coastline. The centre is staffed with a group of people who are very knowledgeable of the coastline, of weather and water conditions, and of the people themselves and the dialects they speak. It is important to them that this centre not be closed.

[Petitions, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my petition is on the importance of the marine rescue coordination centre in St. John's. These petitioners are concerned about the 600 people whose lives are saved each year through the efforts of the marine rescue coordination centre in St. John's. They do not want it closed. They fear that lives will be lost. The understanding of the local area, people and dialects is extremely important and they want this decision reversed.

[Search and Rescue, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been two months since 14-year-old Burton Winters went missing, and the contradictions from the government keep on multiplying.

A report from Major-General Vance states:

It should be noted that the 444 Sqn Griffons in Goose Bay do not have a mandate to maintain a SAR readiness posture...nor do they have a mandate to maintain a “Ready 12” response time.

However, the Canadian Forces website states that their secondary role is to maintain a 12-hour search and rescue standby.

Which is it? When will Canadians get clear answers about the state of our search and rescue system?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have a short time to respond.

There are a number of problems with the grievance system, the principal one being the length of time it would take to have grievances processed. Some work has been done on it and it has been shortened, but it has become militarized to a large extent. This is not the case with other countries.

We have a grievance system. Most of the grievances actually have to do with the terms and conditions of employment, with benefits and entitlements and that sort of thing, human resources matters.

We believe there should be civilian predominance in the grievance system. In fact, I think 60-40 was what was passed in the committee in the last Parliament. That has been stripped out of the bill and we do not have that, so we have to make all those arguments again, bring all those witnesses again and have that discussion again. It is a bit unfortunate, but it has to be done.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this issue is extremely important, but we would have hoped that the bill as it was passed the last time would have been presented and then we could seek to make improvements to that.

The reality is that more than 90%, I think some 97%, of offences are tried in the summary conviction manner, and the military tribunal that the previous speaker talked about is actually the court martial, which is a different place. In the court martial, individuals have all the protections of right to counsel, full answer and defence and a criminal record attaching to that. We do not have a problem with that.

It is the summary trials, which do not have the legal protections that are available if one is before a provincial court in any of the provinces of Canada and one is a civilian. This is the area we need to work on and fix, and I do not hear at this point yet the signal from the government that it is prepared to fully explore that and try to find out what is the best way of achieving that goal and still maintain the importance of military justice for the purposes of efficiency, operational efficiency, morale and discipline that is essential to a military force of any kind.