House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 9th, 2012
Madam Chair, we heard that in the unit of epidemiologists and researchers, eight out of the 18 positions would be cut. These people do not provide a direct service to the troops, but they do research on the mental health of soldiers and they target areas for intervention. This research is even more important considering that the soldiers are often excluded from Statistic Canada's research.
I would like to know whether or not any of the epidemiologist positions have been cut.
Business of Supply May 9th, 2012
Madam Chair, I would like a clarification just to be sure. Those eight of the 18 epidemiologist positions will not be cut and all 18 epidemiologists will still be employed. Is that right?
Business of Supply May 9th, 2012
Madam Chair, in the most recent budget, cuts to the number of Canadian Forces health care professionals were announced. These cuts will affect 15 of the 25 health care workers and 8 of the 18 epidemiologists who work mainly in the area of mental health, not to mention the section that does research into the mental health of deployed soldiers. Can the minister confirm those figures?
National Defence May 8th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, although the parliamentary secretary has a more pleasant voice than the other two ministers, she is still repeating the same points that I have heard a million times. I have not heard any new information. After constantly receiving vague answers, I gave her the opportunity to give concrete answers, but she did not do so.
I would therefore like to know if the interdepartmental secretariat has all the information it needs to give Canadians and parliamentarians real answers. Will it finally give Canadians the real figures? Will it organize an open and transparent competitive bidding process? Will this secretariat make the ministers take a little more responsibility for the disaster they have made of this file or will another secretariat have to be created for that?
National Defence May 8th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I asked the Associate Minister of National Defence a question. The question of course had to do with the contingency plan for the infamous F-35s. What is the plan B? What is the deadline? How many planes are we talking about? How much will it cost? So many questions remain unanswered.
On April 3, the Office of the Auditor General published its spring report and showed no mercy when it came to the F-35s: the Conservatives hid the real cost of procuring the F-35s. The Auditor General said that the government had known about the huge cost overruns of the program for a long time and that it had internal and external estimates that differed, coincidentally, by $10 billion.
In the meantime, the minister and the associate minister responded to us, my colleagues and me, by playing the same tape over and over again and raising the same talking points, deviating from the script only slightly. Now, the talking points have changed with the situation. They have accepted the recommendations, but not the responsibility; the funding has been frozen; and a seven-point action plan has been put into place. Again, those are lovely talking points.
Today, the government has four minutes, instead of 30 seconds, to reply. Consequently, I would like to have a better answer. Now that an interdepartmental secretariat has been established, I would like to know what is happening with this file. Can the government provide information about certain points? The Auditor General pointed out that there was absolutely no communication between Public Works and National Defence and that National Defence refused to share pertinent information requested by Public Works. I quote:
We found that National Defence engaged PWGSC late in the decision-making process and hampered PWGSC’s ability to carry out its responsibilities as contracting authority to ensure the integrity of the procurement process. At the same time, PWGSC relied almost exclusively on assertions by National Defence and endorsed the procurement strategy in the absence of required documentation and completed analysis.
What communication is there between these two departments? Who manages and checks that all documents are forwarded in a timely manner to the secretariat? Is it still taking several months for the requested information to be forwarded? Are unilateral decisions still being made?
I would also like to point out that the testimony given by Kevin Page before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts confirms what we have been speaking out against from the beginning and that is that the Conservatives deliberately hid information about the real cost of the F-35s. The Minister of National Defence also admitted that he was aware of the existence of two different sets of books on the actual cost of the F-35s.
The Auditor General and the NDP actively spoke out against the government's total lack of transparency in this regard. Today, I heard the Minister of Public Works and Government Services say in question period:
We expect full transparency and accountability from the Department of National Defence when it comes forward to table its updated cost estimates on the F-35s to all Parliamentarians.
I therefore expect full transparency from the department. What is the status of this file? How is the secretariat dealing with this issue? Is there any information in this regard? Have any consultations been held to find alternative solutions? Has a plan B been developed? How are the visits going? Have consultations been held with other aircraft manufacturers? What stage is this interdepartmental secretariat at in its efforts to replace the fighter jets?
National Defence May 8th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives needed only 160 words to justify a procurement process worth over $25 billion for the F-35s, which, I would again point out, are still in development and behind schedule and which come with no guarantee of any economic benefits.
A former senior official responsible for the F-35s has said: “The government insulted Canadians’ intelligence by using disinformation and repeatedly manipulating the facts to achieve its goals.”
So who is responsible for this manipulation?
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about old age security.
We have heard the Conservative members say that people will have enough time to prepare. Many people in my riding had planned to retire at 55. They had mapped out their financial affairs in order to retire at 55, based on the assumption that, at 65, they would begin receiving the old age security pension. I would like to know if someone who is currently 53 years old will be able to prepare for the change in two years.
Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act May 7th, 2012
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague a question. Since he spoke about Ontario families, I would like to talk to him about a situation caused by the budget and that is the closure of the Kapuskasing experimental farm.
This farm contributes to agricultural research and development. It helps farmers to be more productive, to develop the cattle industry, and to promote, for example, the use of more effective feed for cows. The research conducted at the farm also helps the residents of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Furthermore, there is a partnership with the UQAT agri–food research centre in Notre-Dame-du-Nord.
I would like to know what the hon. member has against the farming families in Ontario and northern Quebec, who will be affected by this budget. They will end up being unable to develop their industry or to move forward. We are supposed to be stimulating the economy but, when an attempt is made to find tangible ways to help farmers be more productive, the government turns its back on them. What does the hon. member have against farmers in Ontario and Quebec?
National Defence May 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, instead of following its own rules and providing a detailed formal statement of operational requirements to justify its decision to go with the F-35, the government preferred to use a letter with only 160 words—which, incidentally, was kept from parliamentarians—to confirm its decision to spend $25 billion. It used a letter—with spelling mistakes no less—to justify its decision not to run an open, transparent competitive bidding process. It is completely ridiculous.
Can the entire Conservative selection process really be summed up in three paragraphs?
National Defence May 4th, 2012
Madam Speaker, taxpayers are no fools. Between the Conservatives' version of the story and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's objective facts, the taxpayers will figure out what is going on. The Deputy Minister of National Defence confirmed that the figure given to cabinet was $25 billion. However, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday, unfortunately that is the not the figure the Conservatives communicated to the public.
Lies and confusion reign in this file.
Who, in this government, made the decision to communicate false figures to the taxpayers?