Christine Moore

[National Defence, November 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the latest information about Jeffrey Delisle indicates that his espionage activities were discovered by the FBI.

However, the Minister of National Defence refuses to accept responsibility for this appalling security breach. National Defence and CSIS did not follow the rules. Delisle's security clearance was supposed to be checked every five years. That did not happen.

Why was the level 3 top secret security clearance of an officer who put the security of our country and our allies at risk not reviewed on schedule?

[National Defence, November 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that the minister has tried to avoid being accountable. In the process to replace the CF-18s, the Conservatives initially avoided analyzing the options and instead went with a statement of operational requirements that was biased in favour of Lockheed Martin. They are now allegedly analyzing their options, but there is no statement of operational requirements.

The Minister of National Defence is in charge of analyzing the options. Why does he insist on not following the rules for military equipment procurement?

[National Defence, November 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the Standing Committee on National Defence, I wanted to question the minister on the mismanagement of infrastructure on military bases. It was a legitimate question, since the Auditor General raised some serious concerns in his latest report. However, the Conservatives blocked this question. Apparently, they did not want any light shed on this issue.

If the minister did not plan on answering questions from committee members, why was he there? Why did he not see fit to adjust the supplementary estimates (B) in light of the Auditor General's concerns about infrastructure on military bases?

[National Defence, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have more faith in the ombudsman than in the minister when it comes to judging progress on the implementation of the recommendations.

In September, the Minister of National Defence shamefully said that the ombudsman should not be defending Canadian Forces members, but rather should simply act as a mediator. I know from experience just how crucial it is for our military personnel to have adequate support.

The Conservatives have failed miserably when it comes to implementing the ombudsman's recommendations. Why? The answer to that can be found in the documents that the minister wants to keep secret. Why is he hiding them?

[National Defence, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, four years ago, the National Defence ombudsman indicated in a report that injured reservists were not receiving adequate care or sufficient support. He issued 12 recommendations, of which four have been implemented and two were rejected. That leaves six recommendations on the list.

In order to understand why certain recommendations have not been implemented, the ombudsman needs some information. Why are the Conservatives keeping certain documents from the ombudsman?

[National Defence, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government is bragging about making progress and moving forward on this issue, but it is still leaving parliamentarians and Canadians in the dark.

In March 2012, before the Auditor General's report came out, the Associate Minister of National Defence said, “We remain committed to the joint strike fighter program along with our partners. We will continue to act responsibly on all of these matters.”

A month later, we learned that that was far from being the case. Today, the government is telling us that the secretariat will ensure that due diligence is applied, but we have yet to see any proof of that.

Will the Auditor General have to produce another report before the government admits that it has not done anything? Why should we believe that the government is doing work and making progress, when it has nothing tangible to show for it?

A website is far from being enough, and I think I have proven that.

[National Defence, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence several questions during the adjournment debate. I have an opportunity to come back to the same issue today because I have not yet received an answer to the question I posed some time ago.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence again talked about the government's seven-point plan. This plan has made no difference whatsoever. In fact, the government is not even following its own plan. It is a smokescreen or the government is treating people like idiots. As you wish. The talking points from the Prime Minister's Office are read over and over because there is not much else they can say to save face.

Last week, the parliamentary secretary suggested that I consult the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat's website, which I did. It says:

--the Secretariat is committed to coordinating timely, open and transparent communications through: regular reporting to Parliament; ongoing briefings with stakeholders; a dedicated website to post and share information; regular updates on the status of implementing the action plan.

With regard to the regular reporting to Parliament, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced on June 13 that the secretariat was operational. Yet, over six months later, we still have not received any reports from the secretariat.

With regard to the ongoing briefings with stakeholders, even the Chief of the Air Staff did not seem to be aware of the work the secretariat is doing regarding the fighter jets. With regard to the regular updates on the status of implementing the action plan, there have been no updates aside from the endless talking points during question period. It is important to note that talking points and updates are not the same thing; there is a big difference. Updates give new information on how the work is progressing. Talking points allow the government to buy time in order to figure out how it is going to get out of this mess.

What is more, the website states that the secretariat is exercising the required due diligence, oversight and transparency. However, it also states that a DM-level governance committee is overseeing the secretariat's work. These are the same DMs who, a few months ago, had not demonstrated any of the required due diligence, oversight or transparency.

Lastly, it says this:

Parliament and the Canadian public need to have confidence in the open and transparent acquisition process that will be used to replace the CF-18 fleet.

Why, exactly, do Canadians and Parliament need to have confidence?

As we have just seen, none of the secretariat's promises were kept even though it has been up and running for six months and the Auditor General's report was released nine months ago. The government talks about taking immediate measures, but nothing has changed in the past six months.

We know that this secretariat is made up of the same deputy ministers and that they are using the same numbers and the same data provided by National Defence that the Auditor General deemed inadequate. So why should Canadians have confidence in this secretariat?

[National Defence, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should support the ombudsman instead of protecting himself.

The statement of operational requirements, which was fixed to ensure that only the F-35s would meet the requirements, was always classified. We recently learned that it could be discarded. As long as there is no new statement of operational requirements and we do not have an open and transparent process, the government will continue to choose the F-35.

Can they confirm that the statement of operational requirements has been rewritten? Will they make it public?

[National Defence, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, when the ombudsman investigates an issue that the government does not like, it tries to interfere. Suddenly, the documents he wants to examine become classified.

Care for wounded reservists is very important. Need I point out that only 4 of the 12 recommendations from the ombudsman's 2008 report have been implemented in the past four years?

Why are the Conservatives choosing to interfere instead of improving care for our reservists?

[National Defence, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 secretariat's seven-point plan is useless unless the air force's statement of operational requirements is not amended.

The statement of requirements was written for Lockheed Martin, with its F-35, the only company that qualifies for the contract. Therefore, it is important to know if the Conservatives and the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat will be working with the same requirements.

If that is the case, will these requirements be revised to allow for an objective assessment and the consideration of other aircraft?