Christine Moore

[National Defence, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit a question I asked on November 28, 2012, on the mismanagement of infrastructure on military bases, since this was also raised in chapter five of the Auditor General's fall 2012 report.

The concerns related primarily to the maintenance of sites and buildings that belong to the Canadian Forces, as well as the safety of some buildings, since some do not meet safety standards and pose a danger to the personnel working in them.

The Auditor General recommended developing a real property management framework and a national strategy for managing real property, which did not exist when the report came out. Such a framework was apparently prepared in November 2010, but it remains on stand-by.

Indeed, according to the Auditor General, until such a framework is in place, the department cannot know if it has the required real property assets at the right place, and in good repair, to meet the operational requirements of the Canadian Forces.

There are gaps in National Defence’s management practices for acquiring, maintaining, and repairing capital assets. The overall performance management framework for real property is incomplete. Maintenance work tends to be reactive, rather than proactive, for instance, in response to breakdown. This can result in a premature failure of real property assets.

I would like to know the status of this management framework. Have any measures been taken to create a national strategy for real property?

Furthermore, there were also problems regarding the funding cycles for maintenance and repairs. Funds intended for maintenance are available too late in the fiscal year to pay for plans and projects based on the normal construction cycle, which operates seasonally.

I would also like to know if this problem has been addressed through any changes or adjustments to make it easier to coordinate financial resources and capital projects.

The supplementary estimates indicate that $649 million were transferred out of real property, which means that the $649 million originally allocated for National Defence real property was not spent and was reallocated elsewhere.

What projects were supposed to be funded by that $649 million? Why was that money not invested in real property, when immediate funds are clearly needed to pay for upgrades to buildings on bases? What projects are being ignored or delayed when it comes to real property?

Real property assets are certainly less glamourous than ships and planes when it comes to photo ops, but I think they are the foundation of Canadian Forces operations.

The answer will no doubt be that the funds have been put in place. However, the reality is that these transfers mark a low point in the real property budget of the past five years, just a few months after the alarm was sounded by the Auditor General because the real property assets are falling apart.

I would like to know what the department is doing with these real property assets. What is under way? What does the government have planned? What strategy has been put in place? What is the plan?

I would simply like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence to provide the House with more information about where we are on this matter.

[National Defence, March 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us continue talking about the Conservatives' bad choices.

The support services for Canadian Forces personnel and families should be a priority for the Conservatives. However, we have learned that the Canadian military family resource centres will be subject to major budget cuts as of April 1st. These centres are extremely important for supporting and meeting the needs of the families of our men and women in uniform.

Why are the Conservatives choosing to abandon military families?

[National Defence, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the government agrees with all the ombudsman's recommendations.

I hope that the changes that still need to be made to meet those recommendations will be found in the next budget, and I sincerely hope that they will be retroactive to the start of the mission in Afghanistan.

Clearly, there is no reason why such an unfair situation occurred, and it is vital that measures be taken quickly. The next budget would be an excellent opportunity to do just that.

The Canadian Armed Forces reserve is very important to the Government of Canada. It was essential during the mission to Afghanistan. I used to be a reservist myself. It would be unthinkable for them to be treated like a different class of soldier.

Furthermore, I would like to remind my colleague that much of the infrastructure for reservists is crumbling and that there have been cuts to positions in the regions. I hope that the government will take action in this regard for the well-being of our reserve forces.

[National Defence, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the question I asked on November 26, 2012, concerning the transparency of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman. He did not seem to have access to the documents he needed to fulfill his mandate effectively and conduct his investigations.

The Minister of National Defence's response was:

…we continue to work very productively with the ombudsman's office and we will do so within his mandate and within the law. It is that simple. That is what would be expected.

And yet, it is not only the ombudsman's office that has difficulty accessing the information needed to do the work. For example, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer seems to be having the same problems. He also has difficulty getting access to figures to determine where cuts were made in the departments and how they were targeted. If there are cuts, he really must have the documents that go along with them.

Despite repeated requests, the Conservatives refuse to be transparent. Yet, the very foundation of any democratic system rests on the ability of parliamentarians to monitor government spending. Instead, and this seems to be common practice at the Department of National Defence, the government is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to pay private auditing firms, even though there are parliamentary officers who could do the job. For instance, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General or the ombudsman are all here for the same reason: to conduct such audits and produce studies depending on the situation.

We have nothing against independent audits; on the contrary. However, when officers of Parliament provide independent analyses, the government should support their efforts instead of questioning their math skills or not providing the necessary documents.

The government is paying private firms to do work that has already been done, and the only reason is so they can keep the reports in the hands of the departments and manipulate the information more easily in the House. At the end of the day, it is a huge waste of time, money and resources.

The treatment of reservists is an important issue for all parliamentarians, or at least I hope it is, and the question I asked was about health care for reservists. The ombudsman's report followed up on the recommendations made in the 2008 report. I would like to state that most of these recommendations are apparently being implemented, and that is a good thing.

However, there has been no action on recommendation 10: “...that the Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan be changed...to ensure that all Canadian Forces members receive the same compensation for the same injury”. I am not sure that there have been any improvements or updates.

This recommendation refers to reservists serving in Afghanistan alongside regular forces. However, there is serious inequity in their treatment if they are injured or mutilated. The Forces' Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Plan provides a lump sum payment that is different for a reservist than for a regular forces member. The insurance is not the same. If a class A reservist and a regular forces member each lost a hand, the reservist would receive compensation of $50,000 and the regular forces member would receive $125,000, or 2.5 times as much.

I would like my colleague to tell me about changes that have been made.

[National Defence, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence said some time ago, “The F-35 is the best plane for the best pilots in the Canadian air force.” According to him, it was one of the great moments in Canadian military history, except that yesterday, a Pentagon report made public listed a few of the many problems with the F-35: the aircraft cannot tolerate temperatures lower than 15 degrees; pilots must avoid clouds; and visibility is poor, even in good weather.

When are the Conservatives finally going to proceed with an open and transparent call for tenders?

[National Defence, March 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, believe that the member for St. John's East would make an excellent Minister of National Defence.

The Minister of National Defence is doing nothing to stem the increase in the cost of his department's external contracts. Between 2009 and 2011, the number of contracts awarded to external contractors increased by more than $500 million. However, Lieutenant-General Leslie said in his report that this number could be cut by 30%.

Why are the Conservatives not implementing the recommendations of the report they commissioned?

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that an Ipsos Reid survey from February 18, 2013, showed that a minority of Canadians, 22%, were in favour of the status quo. The vast majority of Canadians, 78%, spoke out in favour of abolishing or reforming the Senate.

It is obvious that Canadians want something to happen with the Senate. Since Senate reform is going nowhere, it is high time we consider abolishing the Senate, in collaboration with the provinces and territories.

As I said in my speech, every province has abolished its senate. The last one was abolished in 1968. Since then, has any province discussed the idea of reinstating their senate? Absolutely not. They function perfectly well without an upper chamber. We could do the same.

Given how much money is wasted in the Senate, I believe it is really the only option available to Canadians. We need to enter into discussions with the provinces and territories about abolishing the Senate.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

I would like to re-read the motion, so that it is very clear for my colleague:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps towards abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada.

Again, it is in consultation with the provinces and territories. Does that mean that we will act unilaterally? No, because we will consult the provinces and territories. The NDP understands the importance of consulting the provinces and territories when they are affected by the decisions.

We are not like the Conservatives, who make major reforms without studying the repercussions, without consulting the provinces and without talking to the ministers. We do not scoff at them. Our motion clearly says that we will consult with the provinces and territories, and that is what we will do.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the truly wonderful member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Today, we are debating a motion, and I will take the time to read it.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps toward abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada.

I want to emphasize one very important element of this motion: “in consultation with the provinces and territories”. The NDP believes that it is essential to consult the provinces and the territories when making decisions that affect them.

We spend $90 million per year on a Senate made up of unelected, unaccountable senators. Since coming to power, the current Prime Minister has made 58 partisan Senate appointments even though he said that he would never appoint an unelected senator. He has appointed more senators than Mr. Mulroney, including several Conservative candidates who were defeated at the polls. Half of the 105 Senate seats are currently occupied by people appointed by this Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's Conservative Senate has become even more corrupt than the Liberal Senate that he inherited when he came to power. Worse still, the Conservatives have just increased the Senate's budget, which is now $92.5 million.

I would also like to point out that the Senate is currently fraught with scandal. I will just mention a few. Senator Brazeau, a Conservative, was recently arrested for domestic violence; he is yet to appear in court. Even before he was appointed to the Senate, several complaints of sexual harassment were filed against him. He is also under investigation for stealing from the Senate and committing tax fraud. Should he remain a Senator until the end of his term, in 2049, taxpayers will have forked out $7 million, not to mention all the other benefits Senators receive, such as their residence and travel expenses—and that does not even take into account other possible acts of fraud. He has been suspended with salary. Taxpayers, therefore, continue to pay an annual salary of over $130,000 to a possible sex offender.

To top it all off, he holds the record among Senators of having been the most frequently absent during the parliamentary session, both in the Senate chamber itself and in the committees on which he sits, or rather, on which he is supposed to sit—I am not sure how I should put it. He has, in other words, missed 65% of the meetings of the aboriginal affairs committee.

Senator Mike Duffy, also a Conservative, claimed a generous housing allowance, alleging that his main residence was on Prince Edward Island despite having an Ontario health insurance card. This is completely unacceptable. In my opinion, if every member of the House were asked which health insurance card they have, I am certain that they would have the card for the province they represent. This, however, is not the case when it comes to Senators.

Over the last three years, Senator Duffy has cost Canadian taxpayers $1.2 million. He is never in the Senate chamber, but he readily participates in Conservative Party fundraising activities.

Senator Pamela Wallin, also a Conservative, is currently being investigated by the Senate, which suspects that she does not meet the residency requirements. She claimed over $300,000 in travel expenses over the past 3 years alone, in spite of the fact that only 10% of these expenses covered travel in Saskatchewan, the province she is supposed to represent. Moreover, just like Mr. Duffy, Ms. Wallin has an Ontario health insurance card, rather than one from Saskatchewan. This is unacceptable.

In 1999, Senator Eric Bernston, also a Conservative, was found guilty of having defrauded the Saskatchewan government. He nevertheless continued to sit in the Senate for two more years at the taxpayers' expense costing over $260,000.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not the only ones to have brought shame upon this country's democratic institutions.

Let us start with Senator Philippe Gigantès. This has to be my favourite example of lack of respect for democratic institutions. This failed Liberal candidate read one of his books in the Senate—from start to finish—in order to get a French translation. And then what did he do? He published that French version. Unbelievable. What a lack of respect for democratic institutions. You have to be pretty cheap to not want to pay for your own book to be translated into French. Come on.

Mac Harb, another Liberal senator, is also being audited for travel expense fraud. He claimed $30,000, even though he has several residences in Ottawa. Andrew Thompson, a Liberal, showed up for work only 12 times in seven years, and continued to be paid. That works out to an average of two days a year, for a salary of $132,300. I imagine that a lot of Canadians would like to get $132,300 for two days of work a year. The government is harassing the unemployed, and meanwhile, senators can work two days a year for $132,300. That is shameful.

This is what the Prime Minister has said about the Senate in recent years:

...the upper house remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the prime minister...

These comments were posted on his website on January 15, 2004, during his party's leadership campaign. Here is another quote:

The truth is the Senate is a patronage position—virtually a lifetime patronage position—with little responsibility or accountability. And this is the fundamental problem...

That is an excerpt from an interview he gave on CTV on December 10, 1997.

Taxpayers are now on the hook for millions so that the Prime Minister's friends and generous Conservative Party supporters can sit pretty for the rest of their lives. In my opinion, there is no place in our democracy for a Senate made up of unelected members who have no accountability.

We could find much better ways to spend the $90 million a year needed to run this archaic institution. How many seniors could we lift out of poverty with $90 million? How many job opportunities could we help create for our young people? How much could we help young single mothers who are living in difficult situations? But no, we are paying senators so that some of them can work two days a year and earn $132,000. We can see where the priority is here.

Appointed senators, especially the ones who abuse their privileges, do not represent the interests or values of Canadians. Canadians, senators aside perhaps, are hard workers. This situation is completely unacceptable to them when they have to get up early every morning to work hard, despite sometimes difficult living conditions and economic situations that the Conservatives do not seem to be aware of. That is what normal Canadians do, while senators hardly do anything and are not accountable.

So we are calling on the Government of Canada to abolish once and for all the upper chamber of unelected, unaccountable officials. Why not simply abolish this archaic, undemocratic and outmoded institution? No province has had an upper chamber since 1968. No province has since said, “We made a mistake and will be reinstituting our upper chamber.”

The provinces, which have not had an upper chamber since 1968, have shown that they are able to operate democratically and that they have not been affected by this. The behaviour of some senators shows that it is high time to review the benefit of this democratic institution. Even if senators are elected for a nine-year term, they are still not accountable to anyone once they are elected, right up until they retire. So this does not solve the problem at all.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to read a quote from my Liberal colleague: “In its conception and in its operations, the Senate is neither regionally representative in the sense that we understand it today, nor is it democratic. In fact the Canadian Senate is an undemocratic institution working at the heart of democratic government.”

It is this, combined with the fact that the Senate has been an instrument of favouritism for the party in power throughout its history, that has led our party to the conclusion that the Senate should be abolished.

And just whom was I quoting? The current interim leader of the Liberal Party.

I would therefore like to know whether the member thinks, as he said in his speech, that the interim leader of the Liberal Party is redirecting debate and has no understanding whatsoever of history.