Matthew Kellway

[National Defence, June 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the F-35 secretariat was the Conservatives' chance to hit the reset button, but like its namesake, it could not fly either.

We are back where the Conservatives have always been on this file, ducking and diving. The Minister of National Defence knew before the June 2010 F-35 announcement was made, that the costing information they were using was wrong. Both the minister and the associate minister were briefed a month before he sat in his model F-35 for a photo op, and again in April 2011 and February 2012, about the rising costs of the F-35.

When will the Conservatives drop the pretence and tell us the real—

[National Defence, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, those were three opportunities for the Minister of National Defence to account for almost $4 billion of spending in one month alone. He failed three times, and this after being advised that the Canada first defence strategy—by his own department, I would add—is unaffordable. Now even shipbuilding threatens to blow the bank, but the minister, undeterred, treats defence procurement like his own personal shopping spree.

Will the minister put down the catalogue and present a new, prudent defence strategy, including the required equipment that will serve our troops as they serve to protect us?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 8th, 2012]

With regard to formal communications received by the government of Canada from the United States Department of Defense (DoD) regarding the Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 program: (a) what were the dates of all formal communications received from DoD regarding project costs and/or overruns; (b) what was the content of the communications; (c) who in the government received these communications; (d) were Ministers informed of these communications; (e) was the Prime Minister informed of these communications; (f) if not, why not; (g) if yes, how were these messages given to Ministers and on what date; and (h) what actions were taken in response to these communications?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 8th, 2012]

With regard to the government response to Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General: (a) when did the departments of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC), National Defence (DND), and Industry Canada provide their final responses to the Office of the Auditor General (OAG); (b) when did PWGSC and DND inform the OAG that they disagreed with the conclusions of Paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81 of the report; (c) was the disagreement with those two paragraphs approved by the Minister; (d) if this disagreement was not approved by the Minister, who were the officials who approved this response; (e) what was the rationale for disagreement; and (f) how was this disagreement communicated to the OAG?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 7th, 2012]

With regard to the use of the term “fifth generation fighter” by the government: (a) is the term “fifth generation” considered to be appropriate for a statement of requirements; (b) is there an accepted and/or objective definition of the term “fifth generation” by the government; and (c) how has the classification of “fifth generation” been used for the proposed procurement of the F-35?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 7th, 2012]

With regard to events described in paragraph 2.58 of Chapter 2 of the 2012 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada “Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets” concerning the approval by Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) of a sole source procurement of the F-35: (a) when were senior decision-makers in PWGSC informed that there had not been sufficient justification provided for a sole source contract; (b) why were they informed of this and what was the rationale; (c) who within PWGSC made the decision to ask the Department of National Defence to provide a letter of justification in lieu of a finalized statement of operational requirement or a complete options analysis; (d) why did this letter meet the justification for National Defence’s proposed procurement strategy; (e) was the Minister informed of the use of this letter; (f) if not, why not; and (g) if the Minister was informed when did that take place?

[National Defence, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may want to ignore the problems with the F-35, but the U.S. Senate armed services committee has serious concerns, concerns with affordability, with production quality and with warfare capability. Therefore, it seems the model F-35 was pretty close to the real thing after all.

What will the Conservatives say to the members of our air force when they find out they have to patrol the Arctic on the back of a flatbed truck?

[Canada–Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that recommends this trade agreement over other ones that the government has put forward is better standards for labour issues.

Does my colleague think the government could do better in terms of negotiating free trade agreements with other jurisdictions if it were negotiating from a better position of strength on its own commitment to labour legislation and free collective bargaining? I ask that question in light of the government bringing in back-to-work legislation three times so far in this Parliament.

[National Defence, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with responses like that from our colleagues, it is no wonder the Minister of Public Works and Government Services is “tired of procurement problems”. She should join the club. It is big and we are getting jackets made.

We now know that at least two other mystery planes meet the high level requirements, come at a potentially lower cost and with guaranteed industrial benefits. Further proof that the fix was in.

At this time, will the government compare all the planes in an open competition?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the end of my colleague's speech. In light of her own party's record on employment insurance cuts through the 1990s, how can she can justify those today?