Bernard Valcourt

[Regional Development, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, if the hon. member cares to look at the budget of ACOA, he will find that all programs, either for community development or business development, are fully and solidly funded. As a matter of fact, we have turned down no application for lack of funds. We continue to help small and medium-size businesses to create jobs in Atlantic Canada. By the way, they are taking advantage of the huge naval shipbuilding initiative which will create thousands of jobs all across Atlantic Canada.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, January 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as an arm's-length corporation, ECBC is responsible for its business decisions and, of course, we expect ECBC to make its decisions in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, January 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as an arm's-length crown corporation, ECBC—

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is concerned, and with respect to (a) on the amount disbursed to the director general of operations for Prince Edward Island, since August 1, 2012, no funds have been disbursed for (i) travel expenses, (ii) hospitality expenses, and (iii) travel status benefits. With respect to (b) regarding the official language training for ACOA’s director general of operations for PEI, since August 1, 2012, the total cost incurred is $3,979.00 and the total amount disbursed is $6,064.00 for the full third quarter calendar year, and the director general of operations is no longer receiving training. With respect to (c)(i)(ii), the response is no.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, he did not understand it the first time, so I will say it again: that is not government policy. Not at all.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, November 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to a political union of the maritime provinces, this is not the policy of this government.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), when the Government of Canada made a decision in 2010 to replace the CF-18s, the statement of operational requirement that informed that decision was the “Statement of Operational Requirement for Canada’s Next Generation Fighter Capability”. It is version 1.0, dated June 1, 2010, and is filed under defence services program number 00002527.

On April 3, 2012, the government announced its seven-point action plan, which is currently being implemented by the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat. One of the steps in the action plan is a requirement for DND to evaluate options to sustain a fighter capability well into the 21st century.

Work on all elements of the seven-point action plan will inform conclusions that will be presented to the government for decision

With regard to (b), the statement of operational requirement contains 14 high-level mandatory capabilities, 28 mandatory requirements, 158 tier-1 requirements and 40 tier-2 requirements. These categories are defined below.

First, the high-level mandatory capabilities are the broad capabilities required by the new resource and form the basis for deriving the mandatory requirements. The 14 capabilities, in general terms, define the various capabilities that are required by the next generation fighter capability to provide a reasonable expectation of mission success in the presence of current and assessed future threats and take into account NORAD and NATO requirements.

Second, the mandatory requirements, comprising some 28 requirements, are capability elements that must be in the product, as their absence would unacceptably diminish the aircraft’s operational capability. Therefore, the product must meet the mandatory requirements for consideration.

Third, tier-1 requirements, comprising some 158 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s operational capability would be seriously diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier-1 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a high degree of operational risk.

Fourth, tier-2 requirements, comprising some 40 requirements, are capability elements without which the aircraft’s overall operational capability would be diminished. An aircraft not meeting a tier-2 requirement would result in the Canadian Forces accepting a low to medium degree of operational risk.

With regard to (c) and (d), while there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement, the document was developed in stages. The first stage began with determining the high-level mandatory capabilities, which were then used as the foundation for the mandatory requirements. The mandatory requirements were used to derive rated requirements that were classified as tier 1 and tier 2.

With regard to (e), there is only one version of the statement of operational requirement.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), on April 3, 2012, in response to the 2012 spring report of the Auditor General, the Government of Canada announced a seven-point action plan to ensure that Canada acquires the fighter aircraft it needs to complete its core missions and to ensure public confidence in an open and transparent acquisition process. The government has put the decision to purchase any new aircraft on hold until the action plan is complete. Once the action plan is completed and the conclusions are presented to ministers on a replacement for the CF-18 fleet, the government will make a decision on replacement fighter aircraft, including the corresponding Canadian Forces’ infrastructure needs as required.

With regard to (b), the Department of National Defence’s acquisition and sustainment project assumptions and potential costs are the object of an independent cost review that will be made public as mandated in the government’s seven-point action plan to respond to the Auditor General’s spring 2012 report on replacing Canada’s fighter aircraft.

[National Defence, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence indicated in the House and in committee, the Afghanistan mission will cost the defence department a total of $8.7 billion, which includes the cost of bringing home equipment and closing down the mission in Afghanistan. That information was clearly articulated to the House and the committee.

[National Defence, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging, first, the valiant efforts made by thousands of Canadians in Afghanistan. Next week, I will take time, along with all Canadians, to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

In response to the question, as the Minister of National Defence told the committee of the whole last May, the government expects to invest $8.7 billion in Canada's military commitment to Afghanistan. That figure includes incremental costs, including the end of the combat mission.