Chris Alexander

[April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening to reply to the question posed by the hon. member for Beaches—East York regarding this important issue.

Before putting forward a few points in reply, it is absolutely essential that I distinguish three issues with regard to fighter jet aircraft required by the Royal Canadian Air Force to perform tasks that all members agree are important for Canada.

First, there is the issue of the lifespan of the CF-18s, which is running out as we speak but has been extended for the rest of this decade, we are told, due to the expertise of our engineers, pilots and aviators.

I invite the hon. member in his subsequent statements to make it clear for the people of Canada and this House that the NDP supports a replacement for this aircraft. By merely citing the voices of experts, some of whom are absolutely against procuring fighter jet aircraft for this country at all, the NDP is taking an ambiguous position on that issue. I think that is of concern to Canadians.

Second, there is the issue of a development program on which Canada embarked 15 years ago and that now includes nine allied nations to develop a next-generation joint strike fighter, now known as the F-35. That is a development program. Let us be very clear to this House and the people of Canada: we are not yet in procurement mode. We are not yet signing contracts for an aircraft. We are developing an aircraft for Canada and other allies because we think the technology represented by this aircraft will be superior to other available options.

Third, there is the question of purchase, contracts and procurement, which the hon. member has mentioned. It is very important that we distinguish and discuss all three.

I would like to leave the first question with the hon. member. We need to hear back from the NDP on that issue.

On the issue of the development program, let me reassure the hon. member that this is an effort to build a state-of-the-art fighter. It is an effort to work in partnership with allies, with countries that did the hardest work with us in Libya, Afghanistan and Kosovo, like the United States and the United Kingdom, but also with Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. This effort will develop an absolutely superior piece of technology that will perform in the air, fulfill the missions Canada asks of its air force and bring our pilots back safely.

The program is not only on track to develop this aircraft; it is ahead of the test schedule for flights and flight hours. Canada continues to work with all of its partners to make sure this project moves ahead. We are encouraged by the recent statement by the United States that its total purchase of 2,443 aircraft will not be reduced. It is a fact that flies in the face of the kinds of arguments and innuendoes that our colleagues on the other side have put forward both here in this House and in comments to the media. Allies remain committed to this development program.

We intend to purchase the least expensive variant. We remain confident that we will see the F-35 delivered, and there will be benefits for Canada. Almost 70 companies in six provinces across this country have, as a result of our participation in the MOU, received orders for $435 million to date, an amount that is well in excess of the investment Canada has made to be part of the development program.

In future, our companies may have access to billions of dollars' worth of subcontracts. For that reason, we remain committed to this development program as well as to the replacement of the CF-18s at the end of their useful lives, within a budget that we have set. We have been clear about it every step.

[The Budget, April 2nd, 2012]

We can give you some facts too.

[Groundwater Contamination, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to address the motion being put forward by the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier because it concerns the health and well-being of Canadians, which is of central importance to the government.

This matter is also critical to the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces because the Department of National Defence considers that safeguarding the health of its members, Canadians and their families is of paramount importance. Our members and their families are the key to our operational success, and their well-being remains one of the department's primary concerns.

As a result, the department assigns a high priority to its environmental programs, as I mentioned earlier when I asked my question. The department is committed to conducting its operations in a way that protects human health and the environment. This commitment is manifest in myriad environmental and occupational health and safety programs, protocols and frameworks in place throughout the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. All members of the House are well aware of the department's very high standards.

This commitment has also been clearly demonstrated in the way that the Department of National Defence responded to the 1997 discovery of trichloroethylene—also known as TCE, a solvent used to clean equipment—in the groundwater at CFB Valcartier.

Many elements of the motion we are discussing today are currently before the courts. As such, it would be inappropriate for us to discuss them in detail. Still, I do want to contest the idea implied in this motion that the government has been remiss in dealing with the presence of TCE in the groundwater at Valcartier.

As soon as the presence of TCE was discovered, officials began carefully monitoring and managing the water supply so that those working and living on the base were assured of clean drinking water.

When TCE was also found in private wells in the nearby community of Shannon three years later, an unexpected and unwelcome discovery, the Department of National Defence and representatives of other departments having jurisdiction, such as Environment Canada and Health Canada, worked with their municipal and provincial counterparts and all other stakeholders.

They continue to work together to address the situation, and are exploring viable solutions to the environmental challenges in the area of the Valcartier garrison. This collaboration was institutionalized in 2001 when a consultation committee was founded, bringing together representatives from the federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as those from civil society groups, including: the Department of National Defence; Environment Canada; Health Canada; the Direction régionale de santé publique du Québec; the Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et des Parcs du Québec; the Conseil régional de l'environnement; the Corporation du bassin de la Jacques-Cartier and the Comité du bassin de la rivière Saint-Charles; the City of Quebec; the Municipality of Shannon; the Regroupement des citoyens de Shannon—which the hon. member mentioned; and SNC Lavalin and the Société immobilière Valcartier inc., which are commercial landowners in the area with a role to play in mitigating the effects of the presence of TCE in the Valcartier regional groundwater.

The department has brought together all the interested parties, and continues to do so through the committee’s twice-yearly meetings. Thus, extensive consultation is ongoing. During these regular meetings, stakeholders share information and discuss TCE-related issues as they all move together toward a solution to the challenges posed by the presence of this chemical.

The committee has helped foster trust and transparency between all parties involved, and has showed the department's good faith in addressing the matter at hand. The establishment of this consultation committee was just one of many measures implemented by the department in response to the discovery of TCE in Valcartier and Shannon.

In late 2001 and early 2002, the bond of trust developed by the committee proved invaluable as the department linked 161 homes in Shannon to the base's water system. This measure helped reassure the residents of Shannon that they would have access to the same clean drinking water enjoyed by their neighbours in the garrison.

I do not know whether the hon. member's family benefited from this initiative, but 161 families did.

Nevertheless, this initiative was only part of a broader effort that has seen the government spend nearly $60 million to address the presence of TCE in the groundwater. This money has been used to conduct studies to better understand the regional groundwater flow, to monitor and sample the water on the base on a regular basis, to identify options that would reduce the presence of TCE in the groundwater, and, most importantly, to put in place new infrastructure related to the drinking water system.

The department continues to take seriously the welfare of our men and women in uniform and that of their families. The fact that significant sources of TCE lie off Crown-owned land complicates our efforts, but the department is ensuring that water for the Valcartier garrison continues to be drawn exclusively from wells that are closely monitored for the presence of TCE.

In fact, the Canadian Forces test the wells on the Valcartier base daily to ensure that the water meets federal and provincial standards. These daily tests are complemented by monthly analyses conducted by an independent lab. the department regularly shares the results of these tests with the City of Quebec, the Municipality of Shannon, and others.

In the meantime, the department—and indeed the government as a whole—has been diligent in seeking a lasting solution to the presence of TCE in the region's groundwater. We have performed several pilot tests and studies of various technologies aimed at removing the TCE in CFB Valcartier's groundwater. One technique, which pumps water containing TCE from the aquifer, treats it, and then returns the clean water back to the environment, has shown great promise, but is not being used yet. This ‘pump and treat’ approach will prove useful in mitigating the presence of TCE in CFB Valcartier's groundwater.

Ever since TCE was first found in the water around Valcartier, the government—and the Department of National Defence more specifically—has recognized the seriousness of the issue, has taken appropriate measures to deal with it, and has done so in an open and collaborative fashion.

All in all, the government has spent nearly $60 million not only to improve the potable water supply at Valcartier and Shannon, but also to address the broader issues related to the presence of these chemical substances in the area's groundwater. It has ensured the safety of the garrison's water system, and it is currently investigating concrete ways in which to mitigate the effects of the TCE present in the groundwater under CFB Valcartier.

The government's legacy in this matter is one of responsibility and diligence as it works with other stakeholders to find a durable overall solution. The motion we are discussing today fails to take into account all of the excellent work already done by the government. More seriously, it seeks to raise matters of liability and compensation, both issues which are currently before the courts.

For these reasons, I cannot support this motion. We welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue, but we cannot support the motion. Nevertheless, we hope that in addition to supporting such motions and initiating such debates, the hon. opposition member, with her personal experience of our military—both past and present—will be diligent and apprise her colleagues of the importance of the Canadian Forces and investing in their equipment, infrastructure and training.

We would also expect more NDP members to support the various initiatives that we are taking to support our Canadian Forces, which include measures to deal with the environmental challenges arising out of past actions.

[Groundwater Contamination, April 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for her family's military service in various capacities and at different times. We are proud that she is a member of this House and that she brings to bear her family's experience.

However, with regard to the issue underlying her motion, far from denying the facts, the Government of Canada has provided drinking water to the municipality of Shannon since TCE was discovered on Canadian Forces Base Valcartier and in the private wells in Shannon. In addition, the government has spent more than $32 million to establish and maintain Shannon's drinking water system.

Would the hon. member not agree that the government has taken responsible measures to ensure that the citizens of these municipalities have access to drinking water?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on this important matter of military justice, there is obvious urgency given that four successive Parliaments now have considered this issue and the bill in different forms.

Would the member opposite agree it is absolutely high time the bill be moved to committee? Then we could discuss the amendments he has proposed. We could discuss the composition of courts martial, limitations on sentencing and other issues addressed by this bill. Would the hon. member agree that moving this bill to committee expeditiously would be the best course of action?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend, the member for St. John's East for his very learned speech on this important issue.

The member asked for a signal from our side. I am not sure, but I think Signal Hill is in his riding. I am not absolutely sure of that. It is close to it, so I am not surprised by the request. The signal is given that we on this side are looking forward to consideration of this bill in committee, consideration of his arguments, and we hope to see him there as we have seen him in previous Parliaments on these important issues.

My question for the hon. member is the following. Given the urgency of this bill, given the fact that some of these changes have been pending since the Lamer report in 2003, given the fact that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have considered this bill in different forms three times, Bill C-7 in the 39th Parliament, Bill C-45 in the 38th Parliament, Bill C-41 in the 40th Parliament, and now Bill C-15, would the member not agree with us, and this is really an appeal to his common sense and his sense of duty to do right by our men and women in uniform, that the best place to discuss the details he has proposed, the very technical aspects of this bill that deserve discussion, is in committee and that we as members of Parliament have a duty to get it to committee as soon as possible?

[New Democratic Party of Canada, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today, the new leader of the NDP delivered a speech that showcases his extremist views.

Before the budget is even tabled, he says he will attack our Conservative government's low tax, low debt plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. He has already set his face against a road map that has brought Canada out of the recession sooner and stronger than other advanced economies, putting over 610,000 Canadians into new jobs in the process.

The NDP has already opposed stable, sustainable and record investments in health transfers, support for seniors, including the largest increase in the GIS in over 25 years, and every tax cut and credit introduced for hard-working Canadian families.

Instead, this NDP has a new plan to create a new carbon tax, a second GST that would kill jobs and raise the prices of almost everything.

The NDP is opposed to the responsible development of our natural resources and the creation of hundreds of thousands of good jobs in the Canadian energy sector.

Canadians simply cannot afford the NDP and their—

[Defence Industries Limited, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to 9,000 Canadians, mostly women, who toiled at Defence Industries Limited in Ajax to win the war. With over 100 kilometres of rail and road, it was the largest munitions factory in the Empire. Its workers filled 40 million shells for the Allies. They came from across Canada, changing assumptions about women in the workplace and tilting the balance toward victory. They were Canadian optimists, naming their town for the first victory of the war in 1939 when HMS Ajax triumphed over a larger foe.

Canadians now are rediscovering this chapter in our history thanks to Bomb Girls, the Global Television series from Maureen Jennings and Debbie Drennan. Through shift matron Lorna or Betty and Kate, the girls of Blue Shift, wartime Canada has been brought vividly to life.

For five dangerous years at DIL, hard-working women like Louise Johnson left their jewellery at the door to fill 40 millimetre casings with cordite. On behalf of millions of Canadians, I wish to salute these unsung heroes, congratulate the creators of Bomb Girls on their amazing success and support the new Ajax bomb girls, Pat Brown, Pat Clark, Colleen Jordan and others, in their efforts to build a lasting memorial to the women of DIL. Please join me in paying tribute to Canada's bomb girls.

[Nigeria, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 11, 2012, a suicide attack outside a Roman Catholic church in Jos killed several people, sparking panic and clashes. This violence follows another attack on a church in Jos on February 26 for which Boko Haram claimed responsibility.

Canada condemns unequivocally these latest cowardly attacks in Nigeria. The victims were targeted because of their religion. Canada sees religious freedom as a fundamental human right. We must not let terrorists undermine it or set religious communities against one another.

On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to the families and friends of the victims. We wish a speedy recovery to those who are suffering due to this senseless violence. The Canadian High Commission in Nigeria is working actively with Nigerians to restore peace, especially in Jos. We strongly support the people and the government of Nigeria in their efforts to fight terrorism, and to reinforce stability and unity against this scourge.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I was only saying that her comments lacked credibility for the following reason: in her speech she urged the House and Elections Canada to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations. That investigation is within the purview of Elections Canada, and everyone on this side of the House wishes to see the investigation carried to completion.

She also talked about electoral fraud that has already been proven. That is what she said. She was quite angry; everyone said so. She cannot say both things at the same time. Either she is in favour of a democratic process carried out by Elections Canada, or she has already decided what the outcome of that process should be. I ask the hon. member opposite: which is it?