Christine Moore

[National Defence, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for months, the NDP has been saying that the Conservatives did not do their homework on the F-35s. Now, the Auditor General is about to prove us right: there was no open bidding process, cost estimates were unrealistic, the government had no plan B and the decision-making process was problematic.

Will the government finally admit that it did not do its homework on the F-35s, and will it do what is needed to rectify the situation?

[National Defence, March 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, in addition to hiring a company known for having killed civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan to train our troops, the government did so without a tendering process. Between 2005 and 2010, the Department of National Defence spent $7.7 million on contracts with this company. Over $5.4 million was spent on this company after the massacre in Baghdad in 2007. The government does not seem to have asked any questions after 17 innocent civilians were killed. Why did it not hold a tendering process? When I asked my question, the Minister of National Defence answered that our Canadian Forces deserved to receive the best training possible.

Does he consider that having our forces trained by mercenaries who do not respect international laws and who are accused of war crimes is the best training possible? Does he not believe that being associated with Blackwater, Xe Services or Academi tarnishes the reputation of our Canadian Forces?

[National Defence, March 14th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to one of my questions concerning the contract awarded to the company Xe Services. When I asked the minister for an explanation of this contract, he replied that Xe Services specializes in preparing for dangerous missions and that this service is operationally essential to our Canadian Forces. I quote, “We give our Canadian Forces the best possible training to prepare them for mission success.”

I was not satisfied with that response. Apparently, I was not the only one. In fact, I received an email from a Canadian that I would like to read.

“I live in the riding of Whitby—Oshawa. I watch question period every day. Over the past few months I have become increasingly concerned about the government paying Blackwater to train our troops. I would like to thank you for your questions in the House of Commons on the issue”.

I want to point out that this person, Joseph Uranowski, lives in a Conservative riding, the Minister of Finance's riding. He is asking the very question I asked myself. Why is the government hiring American mercenaries to train our troops?

This issue is troubling Canadians, not just those in NDP ridings, but also those in Conservative ridings. I believe that an explanation is warranted.

I would like to clarify that I am talking about Xe Services, but I could also have used the names Academi or Blackwater. This company has changed its name three times in the past three years because of its reputation. Personally, the fact that a company changes its name every year for reasons that are not obvious does not really inspire confidence. Apparently, this does not bother anyone in the government.

Xe Services—or Academi, its most recent name—is a private American security group which has been at the centre of some very serious controversies. This company was accused of being involved in a shooting in Iraq that killed 17 civilians, including women and children, and injured 20 others.

People working for this company have been accused of killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan. In October 2007, a report prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives revealed that Blackwater was involved in 195 shootings in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 85% of these shootings, Blackwater guards opened fire first.

Because of the Baghdad incident in 2007, the U.S. Department of State refused to renew Blackwater's international contract for the protection of American diplomats in Iraq. The Iraqi government revoked Blackwater's licence to operate on its soil.

Again, we have to be suspicious when talking about these things. But once again, the Department of National Defence is not asking questions.

Then five former Blackwater security guards were charged with 14 counts of manslaughter and 20 counts of aggravated assault relating to their actions in Iraq.

Before hiring this kind of company for the Canadian Forces, I would ask some serious questions. But the minister does not seem to think there is a problem.

It may well be that Canada does not possess all the infrastructure required to train our Canadian Forces and that we have to call on outside agents from time to time. My question is simple. To train our Canadian Forces, has the government been unable to find any company other than the one accused of shooting civilians and violating human rights? How can Xe Services or Academi or Blackwater be the best choice to train our troops? How can the minister let a bunch of American mercenaries who believe they are above the law train our troops?

[National Defence, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are no tenders, no transparency, no guarantees of industrial spinoffs, a flawed process, and they want to lecture the opposition. That is ridiculous.

Time is passing, but doubts remains about the F-35 jets. The Conservatives' crusade for the F-35s has hit the wall. We have been warning them for months, and now they are panicking and trying to pick up the pieces.

When will this government make a clear decision? Which planes, how many, at what price and when will we receive them?

[National Defence, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The government finally admitted yesterday what everyone has been saying for quite some time: the F-35 program has problems. Apparently, in the backrooms of National Defence, a team is examining alternatives to the F-35 jet. However, there were more questions than answers when the Associate Minister of National Defence appeared before the committee yesterday.

Now that the government has admitted that it has doubts about the F-35s, where is plan B?

[National Defence, March 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today in committee, we learned that a Department of National Defence team is looking at alternatives to the F-35. The opposition has been asking about the Conservatives' apparent lack of a plan B for months. It seems that the Conservatives' plan for these planes is not going as well as the minister hoped it would.

Why did the government skip the tendering process for the country's largest military purchase ever, and why did it not have a plan B? Is the government just trying to distract the committee, or does it really have a team taking a serious look at alternatives to the F-35 fiasco?

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat my earlier comment because I do not think that the minister gave a satisfactory answer. There are legitimate reasons to move a time allocation motion. As I explained, such motions are to be used when dealing with threats to the health or safety of Canadians, situations in which deaths are imminent or could occur within days if Parliament does not intervene immediately. That is not the case here. The example I gave was the drug shortage, which really is an emergency situation.

Does the minister agree that using time allocation for any number of other reasons is completely ridiculous? Such motions are to be used only in an emergency, so, does this demonstrate lack of respect for the rules and practices of Parliament? Should such motions be used only when there is an immediate threat to the health and safety of Canadians? What does my colleague think?

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what my colleague said. He stated that time allocation motions in similar parliaments, like the British Parliament or the Australian Parliament, are used only very rarely, in situations where there is an urgent need to act or there is a threat to public health and safety. I find it hard to understand how this Parliament could have been faced with threats to public health and safety 18 times since we have been sitting, and that is not even a year.

I can give him an example. When we talk, as we are now doing, about the drug shortage we are experiencing, it seems to me that in this case, there actually is an urgent situation. There are lives at stake because of this problem.

I would like to know how he can compare a situation like a drug shortage, where there are lives at stake, to a time allocation motion for this bill. To me, that makes no sense. It eliminates the entire idea of the urgent need to act on a matter of public health and safety, as well as making the idea of the appropriate use of a time allocation motion meaningless.

[National Defence, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with great secrecy and without explanation, the Conservatives are about to announce major reductions in support staff on military bases. Approximately 700 jobs are slated to be eliminated. Families throughout Canada are concerned for their future.

Can the Minister clarify whether or not he intends to get rid of support staff on Canada's military bases?

[Air Service Operations Legislation, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this motion and the situation of the economy. If we count speaking times, seven members will have the opportunity to speak, if everyone uses their time. That means that 2.27% of the House will have the opportunity to speak to this bill. I think this is a complete lack of democracy. As well, she says it is to protect the economy because of the situation.

I would like my colleague to answer my question. Air Canada is an airline, but are there other airlines in Canada? If someone really has no choice but to travel, can they do business with another airline? Are there buses in Canada? Are there cars, trains, boats or other things? Are Canadians absolutely incapable of travelling if Air Canada is the only one affected? Is it the economy in its entirety and transportation capacity in Canada that are completely threatened by this strike, or is it only a portion, with alternatives for people who really have no choice?