House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 44% of the vote.
National Defence June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most outrageous accusations I have heard. It is totally misplaced, misinformed and misunderstood no doubt by the member.
The member opposite is strictly misleading Canadians. We are working to procure the right aircraft for our men and women to replace the CF-18s. That member and his party should get into line and support our military.
National Defence June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member opposite, I do believe that she is in fact misinformed. We are working diligently to find ways to replace our aging CF-18s. We are guided by the work of the secretariat. We are committed to doing that. We are following diligently the recommendation made by the Auditor General.
It is really unfortunate that the member opposite and her party will not have faith in the recommendation made by the Auditor General.
National Defence June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we are totally and absolutely committed to supporting our soldiers not only in theatre but also those coming back from service.
In this matter, the issue is being dealt with through the commission. I understand as well that there are legal considerations with respect to lawyer-client privilege. We are in fact working to resolve these issues as we speak.
National Defence June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we are deeply saddened by this tragedy.
The Government of Canada has reiterated its commitment to co-operating with the commission and within the proper limits of the commission's mandate and the law. That is exactly what we have been doing.
Parliamentary Budget Officer June 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong.
In actual fact, the Minister of National Defence and I appeared for four hours before the committee of the whole, where we answered over 100 questions from all opposition parties. I have also dutifully answered several hundred F-35 questions and disclosed a myriad of documents to the opposition during the past year.
We have been open and forthright. It is unfortunate that the member opposite has not been listening.
Search and Rescue June 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, there is a strong professional relationship between the Canadian Forces and the minister's office, as I stated earlier.
The Canadian Forces are responsible for human resources within that organization. With respect to the trip in question, that question has been answered many times before.
National Defence June 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, nobody is denying the contribution made by the hon. member opposite to the Canadian Forces. However, there is a strong professional relationship between the Canadian Forces and the minister's office. The Canadian Forces are responsible for human resources within their organization.
With respect to the trip in question, it has been answered many times before.
National Defence June 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, these questions have been answered over and over again. The reality still remains that if it were up to the NDP, our military men and women would have no assets whatsoever.
The issue here is that we are doing the best we can under the circumstances to provide our men and women the tools they need to do their job. Issues of use of military assets is up to the men and women of the military.
National Defence June 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the announcement to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet was considered significant and necessary to ensure public media and industry awareness. The cost of this announcement had been reported in many ways, including previous responses to written questions.
Questions on the Order Paper June 4th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the statement of operational requirements was developed by the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, through analyzing the history of fighter operations in Canada and accessing various intelligence sources to identify potential current and future threats in order to make an informed assessment of the future threat environment. This process built upon the “Future Combat Air Operations System” report that was produced in 2003 and was further developed into the “Operational Requirements Concept” document in 2005-2006 and the high-level mandatory capabilities in 2008.
At the joint capabilities review board on September 25, 2008, the next generation fighter capability high-level mandatory capabilities, HLMCs, were approved by the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff. As these high-level mandatory capabilities provided the core of the operational requirements, the formal statement of operational requirements drafting began at that time. The statement of operational requirements' drafting was completed upon endorsement of version 1.0 of the statement, dated June 1, 2010. This document was officially approved by the Chief of the Air Staff and endorsed by the Chief of Force Development and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff.
With regard to (b), the statement of operational requirements was developed with an understanding of the current and emerging technologies that the Canadian Forces would likely encounter and be challenged by in the decades ahead, as well as the proliferation of these technologies. This understanding shaped the expected capability deficiencies that led to the Royal Canadian Air Force initiating the development of operational requirements in 2008. It is important to note that the statement of operational requirements is a technical planning document internal to the Department of National Defence that is not normally shown to the Minister or Associate Minister of National Defence or other members of cabinet. The role of the document is to derive and define specific requirements that will form the basis for the request for proposal, RFP, that is issued to industry to initiate the procurement of a new capability. As a matter of course, senior officials are made aware of the key elements of the mandatory requirements in the statement of operational requirements through briefings and other internal documents.
With regard to (b)(i) and (b)(ii), as the draft of the statement of operational requirements was a working copy, the Minister of National Defence was not shown this draft. The statement of operational requirements is a technical planning document internal to the Department of National Defence that is not normally shown to the Minister or Associate Minister of National Defence or other members of cabinet. However, the Minister of National Defence was briefed on a number of occasions over the final six months leading to the final statement of operational requirements being produced and the government decision. The information presented to the minister was presented via detailed briefings and briefing notes that focused on the high-level mandatory capabilities as well as the key attributes critical to a next generation fighter aircraft for the Canadian Forces. The minister was aware of the contents of the statement of operational requirements after its completion and on March 1, 2011, he was provided a formal briefing to address security concerns surrounding the provision of the statement of requirements to a Parliamentary committee. The document reviewed in this context was the final version of the statement of operational requirements version 1.0, dated June 1, 2010.
With regard to (c)(i) and (c)(ii), the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have never briefed the Prime Minister on the draft or final version of the statement of operational requirements.
With regard to (d) and (e), as outlined above, the next generation fighter capability statement of operational requirements is internal to the Canadian Forces. The statement of operational requirements is an operational-level document and as such, the development of the document and the consultation process were done at the staff level by subject matter experts to determine the operational requirements for Canada’s next generation fighter. Therefore, neither the Minister of National Defence nor the Prime Minister was consulted on the drafting of this document.