Matthew Kellway

[National Defence, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard from the Prime Minister, we have received news from the United States government that the price of the F-35 program has gone up again. The latest figure is $1.45 trillion, up from an even trillion dollars just one year ago. That is $135 million per plane, and if we want an engine to get it off the ground, that is an additional $26 million.

The Prime Minister just described these figures as well within the contingencies of the department. How much are the Conservatives prepared to pay for these planes, and why are they so reckless with taxpayers' money?

[National Defence, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let us see if we can follow this.

The Minister of National Defence says that the F-35 is the only plane that meets the mandatory requirements. His parliamentary secretary says it does not: it is a developmental project. The Associate Minister of National Defence says, yes, it does. But he is off looking for alternatives.

We know that the process has been rigged in favour of the F-35. My question is simply, how did they mess it up so badly?

[National Defence, March 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to bungle this file so badly they cannot even cheat properly.

Yesterday, the CBC claimed to have a document that shows that the F-35 fails to meet at least one mandatory requirement. On the very same day, the government tabled a document in this House, signed by the associate minister, that claims that the F-35 currently meets all mandatory requirements.

The obvious question arises. Which document is the truth, the one for public consumption or the one kept secret?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 26th, 2012]

With regard to the next generation fighter aircraft capability: (a) what is (i) the exact number of requirements, (ii) the exact wording of the specific requirements that can only be met by the F-35A; (b) has the government received written confirmation from other major jet suppliers, including Boeing, Saab or Dassault, indicating that the requirements outlined in (a)(ii) will not be met by 2020, and, if so, what are the dates of the correspondence; (c) does the F-35A currently meet the requirements outlined in (a)(ii); and (d) can the F-35A meet all the requirements for Canada’s next generation fighter aircraft by 2020?

[National Defence, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Tom Cruise may be flying an F-35 in Top Gun II, but this is not Hollywood and the brave men and women of our Canadian Forces need real planes for mission success.

Last week the U.S. government accountability office testified that the F-35's mission systems are “immature and unproven” and just 4% complete.

After 15 years the F-35 remains more fiction than reality. Now we hear that the Auditor General has lost his loving feeling for the program.

Is the government prepared to accept the AG's critical report, or will it ignore his concerns too?

[National Defence, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want answers to these questions. All they are getting from the minister is doublespeak. This is not the first time the government has been blasted by the Auditor General for complete mismanagement of military procurement. Helicopters come to mind. Even a British MP thinks Canada should get its money back for the subs boondoggle. Now we learn that the Auditor General agrees with New Democrats that this government has misled Parliament in its crusade on the F-35.

Will the government finally agree to hold an open and fair competition to replace the CF-18s?

[National Defence, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government's answers on the F-35 have been a bit stealth-like, evading questions every day. We have been warning the Conservatives about their misguided approach to the F-35s. Now the Auditor General is set to report that defence officials have misled Parliament on the F-35 deal. The Conservatives have just run with Lockheed Martin's numbers and have failed to do their homework. Once again, corporate interests trump Canadian taxpayers under this Conservative government.

Has the government seen the report by the Auditor General, and what is it going to do about it?

[National Defence, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in March of last year the Prime Minister described the F-35s as the “only option available” to replace our CF-18s.

Apparently not. Two days ago at the defence committee the Associate Minister of National Defence said that it was not clear if they would actually purchase the F-35. He then added, “...we have not as yet discounted the possibility...of backing out of” the program. Finally, he admitted to an active search for alternatives to the F-35.

The crusade is in full retreat. What the Conservatives had once described as all that is “holy and decent” is now clearly a matter of mismanagement and, ultimately, duplicity.

Our troops deserve better than this gross incompetence. Canadians deserve a transparent and responsible government. We know that means an NDP government in 2015, but in the meantime it is clearly time to take this file out of the hands of the flip-flopping minister and put this contract out to tender.

[National Defence, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for over 18 months the Conservatives characterized their support for the F-35 as a crusade as “holy and decent”. That is their words, not ours. We have had our own words for this obsession. Although likely unparliamentary, our words appear to be a more accurate description as yesterday the Conservatives admitted to backing out of this crusade.

Now that the religious fervour for the F-35 has subsided, will the minister finally do the right thing and put this contract out to tender?

[National Defence, March 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for over 18 months we have raised issues about the procurement process, about production delays and about the ever-rising price of the F-35. In response the Conservatives have had the audacity to question our love of our country and our support for our troops, all the while sharing the very same concerns.

Would the minister now admit that this is not about who loves our country the most, but is about responsible management of what might be the largest procurement project in Canadian history?