House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 56% of the vote.
Infrastructure December 1st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the government keeps telling us to wait and see. Owen Sound's arena will only be 50% done in March and the City of Ottawa will be on the hook for millions of dollars in roadwork.
If the minister is so fair and flexible, then why are his Conservative members in the transport committee filibustering a Liberal motion to extend the deadline? That is not fair. It is obstruction and it is all about jobs. Why will they not extend the deadline?
Infrastructure December 1st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will soon be publishing an update on the infrastructure stimulus fund. He will probably confirm that a good number of projects are in jeopardy across the country. Recreational facilities in communities such as Sainte-Marie and Trois-Pistoles are at risk, as well as the Pat Burns arena, announced by the Prime Minister himself.
When will this government finally announce the across-the-board extension of its arbitrary deadline?
Infrastructure November 23rd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, the minister should listen to Premier Dalton McGuinty who said recently, “it just wouldn't make sense to walk away from projects that are four walls without a roof”, and he is right.
The government's hollow promise to be fair and reasonable provides no comfort at all to tens of thousands of workers in the construction trade. Is the minister forgetting that jobs are at stake? When will he put down the gun he is holding to the head of municipalities and issue a blanket extension of the deadline? It makes sense.
Infrastructure November 23rd, 2010
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly clear that the government's arbitrary deadline will have a negative impact on our municipalities, particularly municipalities in Quebec.
The government knows that over 1,000 projects are threatened by this irresponsible policy.
Instead of putting thousands of jobs at risk, why does the government not just extend the deadline?
Business of Supply November 18th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Liberal senator wants us to have a competitive process or not. However, whether or not he does, I believe a competitive process is the way to go. There is more than one plane out there that can do the job. It is irresponsible, from the point of view of taxpayers, to sole-source and thereby spend $3.2 billion more than taxpayers would have to spend if we had a competition.
I would not rule out the possibility we would end up with the same plane after a competition. That is always possible. However, we would get it at a lower price and with better industrial benefits.
Business of Supply November 18th, 2010
Of course we will, Mr. Speaker.
Business of Supply November 18th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with that general list of requirements. We work with NORAD, we need to defend our airspace, et cetera, but that does not mean that only this single plane can do those jobs. There are two, three, or more other contenders out there that could possibly do the jobs the member listed equally well or better, and possibly at a lower cost.
That is why we need to have the competition, see who brings the best value for the money and the best performance abilities. That is the way we should go and not this sole-sourced contract to a single plane.
Business of Supply November 18th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt in our minds that at some point the CF-18s need to be replaced, perhaps in eight or nine years or some such length of time.
The issue is not whether we need these planes, the issue is whether the government is right to choose a sole-sourced order for 65 F-35s with no statement of requirements and no competition. This is where we fundamentally disagree, and this is where we say there must be a competition, partly because it would save money.
On this I will quote Alan Williams, former assistant deputy minister of defence, in charge of procurement. He was in that position when I was defence minister, so I know him well. I know he is an extremely intelligent and hardworking public servant. He knows what he is talking about. He has no axe to grind. He is retired now so he is free to speak his mind.
He said that if we did a competition, the taxpayer would probably save in the order of $3.2 billion. And $3.2 billion is a lot of money. We in the Liberal Party have been talking about the hard-pressed Canadian families needing assistance for such things as home care, child care and post-secondary education. If the taxpayers could save $3.2 billion on this procurement, that would go a long way to helping hard-pressed middle class Canadian families to cope with making ends meet. Liberals argue very strongly that a competitive process is good.
Furthermore, the government has not even specified the requirements. First, the requirements as to what these planes will do have to be specified. Second, as a result of knowing what they will do, the technical requirements and capabilities have to be specified. The government has not done that. That is the first step. How many do we need? What capabilities should the plane have?
Then it should be put out to tender to get value for money. The government is not doing that. It has decided on this single plane with no competition, just throwing away taxpayer money. We on this side of the House believe that that is utterly irresponsible.
The government is also making up stories that are incorrect. First of all, when funding was contributed for this aircraft, there was no commitment in any way to buy it. In 2002, minister Art Eggleton said that Ottawa is not prepared to commit to buying the JSF planes.
Then there are Conservatives ministers. In 2006, the then defence minister said, “participation in this next phase does not commit the department to purchasing the multi-role aircraft”.
In 2008, then-ministers Michael Fortier and Jim Prentice said, “this participation does not commit it to purchase the aircraft”.
So let us get that bogus point off the table. There was no commitment at all to purchase the aircraft. As a consequence of entering into this agreement, Canada derived very important industrial benefits, and so that was a good move but it in no way committed us to purchasing the planes.
The second fallacy is that there was any competition on the basis of Canadian needs. There was a U.S. competition, but the Canadian needs had nothing to do with that competition.
To quote Alan Williams again, he said, “To try to con the public into equating one competition with the other is despicable and insults our intelligence.”
So where do we stand? There was no commitment to buy this single plane. There has been no competition based on anything to do with Canada's needs. Yes, those planes need to be replaced in just under a decade but there is lots of time. No contract has been signed. There will be no penalty to pay if the government does not go ahead with this particular airplane.
The Liberal position is extremely simple. We should scrap this idea of the single plane. We go back to square one. We specify the needs and the requirements. On the basis of those specifications, we put it out to tender. We have bids and then at the end of the day choose the lowest price, the best value for money.
That way we will get the airplane that Canada needs with the right qualities and the right numbers. According to Alan Williams, we will probably save in the order of $3 billion if we do not just arbitrarily go with this particular plane, which has not been demonstrated to be the best to meet Canada's needs under the circumstances.
Certainly its cost is rising out of control, as virtually every country has noted; the U.S. and Europe. These costs are escalating out of control and this government just sits there and remains committed to this plane when other countries are having second thoughts and the case for this plane has not yet been made.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will indulge me, but I neglected to say that I would like to split my time with the member for Parkdale—High Park.
I think I have made the case and our position is very simple: scrap this arbitrary deal, specify the needs and the requirements, put the thing out to tender and with whatever comes up buy the plane that is the best value for money for Canadian taxpayers.
Infrastructure November 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, Canada is still missing 115,000 full-time jobs compared to October 2008.
The government had no trouble shovelling $1 billion out the door in record time for a 72-hour summit, but it only managed to invest 3% of its green infrastructure fund last year and only one-quarter of the infrastructure stimulus fund.
Can the Conservatives not understand that money that does not get out the door fails to create or save a single job?
Infrastructure November 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, documents show that last year, Infrastructure Canada disbursed less than 25% of the money allocated in the economic action plan.
Not only did it not invest the amount promised, but now it wants to impose an arbitrary deadline that is jeopardizing hundreds of projects. It did not release the money on time and now they want to cut it off early.
Is this a matter of incompetence or bad faith?