Christine Moore

[National Defence, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, military procurement of this magnitude is normally subject to a tendering process, but that never happened. No supplier other than Lockheed Martin was ever taken seriously. To try to justify this action, a statement of operational requirements was written that was tailored to the F-35. The Conservatives are saying that they are going to examine all the options to see what the best choice is for the Canadian air fleet, but there is nothing to show that such is actually the case.

Has the statement of operational requirements been rewritten so that it is not tailored to the F-35? Is the secretariat seriously examining other options? What other options are being examined? Unfortunately, we still have not received any answers.

[National Defence, November 21st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today about the question I asked the government on September 17. My question was mainly about transparency and the release of information about the program to replace the CF-18s.

Virtually no progress has been made in the past two months. When I asked my previous question, I wanted to know how the government could honestly say that it was implementing the Auditor General's recommendation when a series of emails clearly showed that the Department of National Defence had tried to influence the report and was rejecting the conclusions.

In the meantime, we have learned that the famous national fighter procurement secretariat, which is supposed to review the entire acquisition process and provide Parliament with revised specific costs, will obtain information about the life cycle costs of the F-35s from the Department of National Defence. We are talking about the very same department that was deemed incapable of managing the procurement program that it had bungled from the beginning, a department that kept two sets of books, one for the department and one for the public, to ensure that it would not have to reveal the true cost of this program.

I am not sure this is what the Auditor General had in mind when he talked about due diligence. The truth is that the sole-sourcing of fighter aircraft is the biggest military procurement botch-up in Canadian history. It is even worse than what the Liberals did.

The Auditor General said that the process has to be done again. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services says that she is looking at other options, while the chief of the air force staff says that, to his knowledge, other options are not being looked at. The Department of National Defence confirms that, yes, other options are being studied. No one is saying, or seems to know, what the other options are. We have complete silence.

On top of that, the special committee that was set up to study the Auditor General's report has been gagged. However, the NDP and the Auditor General are not the only ones sounding the alarm. A few days ago, an article appeared expressing the concerns of one of the American air force's best pilots. Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Niemi, a former F-22 test pilot, said that the American air force was making a mistake by acquiring an all-stealth fleet. In his view, stealth may have advantages, but the disadvantages must not be forgotten; this is something to be taken seriously.

His comments remind me strangely of those we have repeatedly made in committee for months, when the F-35s are discussed. The government may seem not to want to listen to the NDP, so perhaps it should pay attention to what a stealth aircraft test pilot says. He goes on to say that, in his opinion, stealth provides no advantage in conflicts such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq, since 2003, and it cannot guarantee success in future struggles.The F-22, the F-35's big brother, remains inferior to older fourth-generation aircraft in some scenarios.

All the evidence seems to suggest that there is reasonable doubt about the choice of replacement aircraft for the CF-18s, evidence that the government is ignoring month after month. After announcing in July 2010 that Canada would be buying 65 F-35s, the government is backpedalling and saying that the decision has not yet been made. But, in light of the non-existent work and the different stories about the F-35 secretariat, I would like to ask the government if anyone really has any idea of how botched-up this program is.

[Bullying, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the motion against bullying, made by my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

We must fight bullying wherever it exists because we know it is a serious problem.

The federal government must take steps to greatly reduce this serious problem, which is growing among Canada’s youth. It is now found in elementary schools, as I have seen in my own riding.

In an elementary school in Rouyn-Noranda, last February, worried parents had had enough: some 15 of the 50 children in the school did not go to school for several days as a protest by their parents, who were worried about the violence and bullying and fed up with broken promises. Fifteen children out of 50 is nearly one-third of the school’s population.

The provinces, including Quebec and Ontario, and some schools and school boards are already taking steps, but more effort is needed. It is a national epidemic. As we have seen, with great regret, the consequences can be extremely serious. I am thinking about the young people of 11, 15 or 17 who committed suicide because they believed their torture would never end.

Bullying has also changed. It no longer is confined to schools. Now there is cyberbullying through social networks. Young people can be continuously exposed to bullying 24 hours a day. Moreover, it is even easier to do such things when hiding behind a computer. Thus, it is even more important for the government to act. Cyberbullying is a problem that lies within federal jurisdiction. In other fields, it is a provincial matter, and that is why the federal and provincial governments must co-operate to reach a solution.

We need an action plan based on studies and facts, with input from families, stakeholders and victims from across the country, in order to eliminate this problem in the long term. In addition, studying this problem in a committee, as my colleague has proposed in his motion, could help us find long-term solutions.

Parents and grandparents are worried that their children are being bullied. Parents, too, often feel powerless in this situation, and powerless to help their young people overcome their problems.

I would like to talk about André Lavigne, a resident of Rouyn-Noranda and a Second World War veteran. He is very much involved in finding practical solutions to the problem of bullying in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. One of his granddaughters was a victim of bullying. He told me how important it is to create real solutions and to get the entire community involved. According to him, the current approach is like putting buckets under a leaky roof.

That is exactly what this motion is intended to do: act quickly, but find a real solution.

He understands that a concerted effort by all stakeholders is necessary, that the problem must be taken seriously and all resources committed to permanent change in situations where youth across the nation are subject to bullying and violence.

When young victims take their own lives, it causes a lot of talk, and the political classes agree that it is not acceptable. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Most people who are bullied are not being talked about and not doing media interviews, but they are suffering serious problems like depression, anxiety and sleep loss. Without help, some of these child victims will suffer the consequences the rest of their lives.

Bullying can affect everyone. Tommy Thibodeau, from La Sarre, was bullied as a young boy. Today, as the author of Entre l'ombre et la lumière, he gives talks at institutions in the region on how to deal with bullying. He has dared to speak out. When he gives talks, many people identify with what he says. He survived, but others may not have that chance. His experience could help other youth and institutions take effective measures against bullying, and that is what this motion proposes to do.

We also have to think, from a social and medical point of view, about taking care of those who are bullied and the people who bully them.

The federal government also has a role to play in this area and can lend impetus at the national level.

As I said, people who have been bullied may suffer from mental health problems, such as chronic depression, even into adult life years later. Bullies are often young people with other problems, such as family problems, for example.

To combat bullying, we must not only put tools in place to help people who are bullied; we must also consider the bullies. In some cases, bullies are former bullying victims for whom bullying was the only way out.

We need a national anti-bullying and anti-cyberbullying strategy. We must bring stakeholders together and discuss best practices across Canada to provide specific, effective tools for organizations, parents and institutions. Lastly, we must provide support for stakeholders in the field.

For all these reasons, I will tirelessly support the motion of my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord because I believe it is high time we found a long-term solution and took the trouble to think about this issue and help our children build their future.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, chiefs and band councils already submit financial information to the members of their communities. The members of the communities thus already have access to that information; that is already being done.

In my riding, for example, band chiefs are currently negotiating with mining giants that want to open mines on traditional lands. If the government decides that all the financial figures related to the contracts signed with mining companies have to be published on the Internet, then every time these people negotiate and try to get good contracts for their members, someone will point out that it says on the Internet that another first nation accepted such and such an amount. Companies will therefore tell bands to accept their offers and to keep quiet because what they are offering them is good. However, it does not work that way.

In no communities other than first nations communities would people be compelled to reveal what they have negotiated with big corporations. People who live in communities of 800, who have no diplomas or basic university degrees, are being asked to negotiate with big corporations and to publish the results of their negotiations on the Internet. That is utterly unacceptable, and no other community in Canada would be asked to do that.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for that question.

The communities do have a lot of reporting requirements. Compared to what is asked of municipalities of 800 inhabitants like those in my riding, the fact that aboriginal communities are being asked to prepare all these reports is incredible, when they live in poverty and difficult conditions in many instances. We are asking them to deal with more red tape. There are ways to ensure the financial transparency of first nations communities without asking them to prepare more annual reports.

If federal government members travelled to the communities to see things for themselves, they would understand. When you take the time to travel, to go to those communities and to see the money that has been invested there and the repairs that have been made, you can see whether a community is properly managing its money.

The government might not need as many reports if it took the trouble to go and meet with them and talk to them.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-27 today, after it was examined by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

The government says the purpose of this bill is to improve the financial transparency of the first nations. I am going to ignore the irony of the situation, where we have the government talking about financial transparency. Everyone is aware of how grotesque that situation is without any comment being needed.

So this bill is supposed to enhance the financial transparency of the first nations by making it mandatory that their financial statements be prepared and disclosed. The information to be disclosed includes the details of the annual remuneration paid by a first nation, and by any entity that it controls, to its chief and each of its councillors, acting in their professional and personal capacity.

In addition to the obligation to report the salaries paid to chiefs and band councillors, the bill makes it mandatory to disclose complete audit reports and publish those documents on the first nation’s website for 10 years.

On this side of the House, we consider many points in this bill to be problematic, and I think the members who spoke before me have summarized them very well. For that reason, I am instead going to focus not on the content of this bill, but on the administrative burden it represents for many first nations communities.

First, the band councils already submit audited annual financial statements under agreements with the government. This bill therefore serves no purpose other than to make everything even more complicated.

According to the figures in the Auditor General’s 2006 report, a first nation has to produce, on average, 200 reports a year, when some communities have populations of 700 or 800 people—fewer than 1,000 people. This may raise some eyebrows.

If there still is not enough transparency, when first nations communities are being made to write an average of two reports a week, I would venture to suggest that the government perhaps needs to rethink the entire system. That would be more useful and more effective than adding another report on top of all the rest.

I watched the speech the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar gave when she introduced the bill; she had introduced the previous version of this bill in the last Parliament. According to her, the communities “go to great lengths to make this information available to community members. They display it on their community websites. They feature it in householder mailings. They post it in band offices.”

So the member is saying that chiefs and band councils are completely aware of the importance of transparency toward the members of their communities, and in fact they are already doing this very well without needing to be reminded by a humiliating and coercive bill.

A number of witnesses, including John Paul, a member of the Membertou First Nation, testified at the committee and also confirmed this. That witness told us: “…transparency, and disclosure of information...is very important to our leadership.... Over decades our community has provided full disclosure of our complete audit, and more recently on our website,...the complete details of compensation to all the members of council.”

I am going to digress for a moment. What about communities that, like those in my area, do not have Internet access at home? They will be forced to disclose information for 10 years on the community's website even though the community does not have Internet access. That is one of my questions that nobody has answered.

What have we learned from my Conservative colleague who introduced the bill in the last Parliament? We have learned that the chiefs and first nations elected officials recognize the value in ensuring the actions and decisions of elected officials are clearly visible to all and to the community. They recognize that their citizens share a fundamental right to know how their money is being spent. In fact, several first nations go to great lengths to make this information available to community members. Therefore, why is there a need for this humiliating and useless bill?

The bill finds its roots and origins in the racist assumption that all first nations are either corrupt or incompetent. I reject both of those assumptions. We need to stop those assumptions for good.

Band councils are already accountable to the government and they get the information out to their members. Why are we debating this bill? Is it because someone in the government decided that a 201st annual report would be amusing?

In the 2006 Auditor General's report, it was mentioned that 96% of first nations file their 200 annual reports on time, without any problem. The Auditor General's report did not include any kind of comment or criticism. Everything was fine. Only 1.7% of all first nations were put into third party management by the government because of financial management problems.

Are we talking about a chronic lack of transparency on the part of first nations? No, quite the contrary.

If one were to look at numbers and statistics, one would see there is nothing wrong with first nations' financial transparency. Of all first nations in this country, 96% submit their audits on time, without comments or criticism from the auditor. The lack of transparency is so minimal that I wonder why we are discussing this bill.

The truth is that all these reports, most of which are not even used by federal organizations, are a waste of time for first nations band councils, which could use that time to meet their population's needs. Yet, today we find ourselves debating the usefulness of a 201st annual report for our communities. Abitibi-Témiscamingue has five Algonquin First Nation communities, and some of them are seen as models of sound management and leading examples of development.

Take, for example, the Abitibiwinni band on the Pikogan reserve near Amos. Chief Kistabish and the council work very hard to ensure their community's prosperity and sustainability. Incidentally, they recently signed a historic agreement with their neighbours and a mining company. The Abitibiwinni band works in concert with stakeholders in regional development. Getting to this point took years of mutual trust. Now, the government is trying to stir up suspicion and misunderstanding.

Our Algonquin communities in Abitibi-Témiscamingue have nothing to gain from such a bill.

Other examples include Eagle Village from the Anishnabe Nation. Chief Madeleine Paul and her band council work so hard to ensure a healthy and wealthy community for future generations. She has to deal with the opportunities brought by a rare earth mining development and the danger of having Lake Kipawa polluted if things are not done properly. The Timiskaming First Nation and the new chief, Terence McBride, are also striving to seek new partnerships for their development.

I sincerely believe that there are other priorities. As we have seen, the financial transparency of first nations is not an issue in the vast majority of cases. Most are aware of the need for transparency and are already being transparent.

Most of my colleagues who have already spoken mentioned this, but I would like to talk about something that is extremely shocking to us: the lack of consultation with the first nations on this bill.

On a related note, and to conclude my speech, I would like to quote article 4 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

I remind all of my hon. colleagues that it is truly worthwhile to visit the first nations communities to see just how financially transparent they are, how proud we can be of how these communities are managed, and just how interested community members are in what is going on. A great many people go to band council meetings to find out exactly how their money is being spent. If we compare that to attendance at municipal council meetings in non-aboriginal cities and towns, I think that we can be proud of our aboriginal communities. People are interested in what is being done with their money, and these council leaders do their jobs diligently and provide all the information. It makes absolutely no sense to demand a 201st annual report, when they are already doing everything they can.

[National Defence, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Conservatives are as transparent as their ministers are competent.

It seems to me that the Minister of National Defence knows as little about the CF-18 replacement as the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women. In an interview with CTV this weekend, the defence minister, like his colleague, was unable to identify a single fighter jet, other than the F-35, that could be used to replace the CF-18s.

Let us try this again: what fighter jets, other than the F-35, are being considered to replace the CF-18s?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member was here at the time, I would like him to tell us about the government's vision when these treaties were ratified or presented for the first time, in 2005.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a medical background. I am a nurse by training. We recently had a shortage of radioactive isotopes used in medicine. Therefore, I can understand why people working in nuclear medicine are worried and want to know whether the process will make the transportation of these materials and their accessibility more complex.

My colleague sits on the committee that will review this bill after the next vote. Will he pay particular attention to the transportation and accessibility of nuclear materials used in medicine, to ensure that the bill does not make access to these materials more complicated and that patients receive the medical care they need?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, November 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Jean said that the government could have introduced this bill much sooner and that the parliamentary secretary's explanation for this was that the Conservatives did not have a majority government at the time. Those are excuses. There were times when the NDP held the balance of power under the minority governments.

If a similar bill to ratify these conventions had been introduced earlier by the government, would the NDP have supported it, thereby allowing this bill to be passed a long time ago?