Laurie Hawn

[National Defence, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply nonsense. We looked at this project with experts for many years, as has happened in 10, and counting, other allied countries. We have all come to the same conclusion.

This is the best aircraft, at the best price, for the best industrial opportunities for Canadian industry. This is a program that is going to take us through the next 40 years of Canadian industry, the next level of technology and beyond. It is a win-win for the Canadian Forces, the Canadian taxpayer and Canadian industry.

[National Defence, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, again, our primary job in Afghanistan is to get the job done and save Canadian lives. This contract is temporary. Several companies bid on it. It followed all Treasury Board guidelines and all Government of Canada contracting guidelines. The contract will end in 2011, when the combat mission ends. It has nothing to do with future Chinook contracts at all. The member should just be happy the government is looking after our men and women in uniform.

[National Defence, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, helicopters save lives. The request came directly from the Canadian commanders in Kandahar as an urgent operational requirement for an increased troop movement capability to augment Griffon and Chinooks ops.

The contract process, which followed all Government of Canada contract rules and guidelines and all Treasury Board guidelines, was very competitive, although it was not posted on MERX for security reasons. Several companies submitted bids and a decision was taken on the best value bid.

This contract will end when the combat mission ends in 2011. The government remains committed to giving our men and women in uniform the tools to do their jobs in a timely manner.

[98th Grey Cup Game, November 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in the House today to highlight Edmonton's hosting of the 98th Grey Cup game. As a westerner, it gives me great pleasure to see the city I am privileged to represent host the biggest one-day sports competition in the country.

I could not agree more with the words of CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon when he referred to Edmonton as the “natural home for our national championship” and that “nothing brings Canadians together like the Grey Cup, and no one has a better track record as Grey Cup hosts than Edmontonians”.

This Sunday, the eyes of football fans in Edmonton and across Canada will be fixed on the game unfolding on the field at Commonwealth Stadium. My family and I will be there, and I look forward to the fierce competition on the field and the friendly competition in the stands.

The year 2010 also marks a special year for Edmonton football as it represents 100 years of Eskimo football in northern Alberta. I know that once again this year, our organizers will put on one of the most successful Grey Cups ever. I only hope that the Riders have learned to count to 12 since last year.

As an Edmontonian, it does pain me a bit to say this, but go, Riders, go.

[National Defence, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to getting the best equipment for our men and women in uniform. We are also committed to giving the best opportunity to Canadian industry.

Let me tell the House what Claude Lajeunesse of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada said:

Cancellation and delay of this purchase will not only mean lost jobs and investment related to the 65 planes, but also billions of dollars and thousands of Canadian jobs lost relating to thousands of planes to be built as part of the broader program.

Let me also quote what the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor said yesterday. When asked whether the member was willing to put Canadian jobs, aerospace and our military at risk by supporting cancelling this F-35 purchase, he said “no”.

[National Defence, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a lot has changed since 1964, but apparently not the Liberals' thinking.

What has not changed since 1964 is Canada's overall priorities of defending Canadian sovereignty, Canadian airspace and doing the right thing on the international stage under NORAD, NATO and other international commitments. That is exactly what we will be able to do with the F-35.

Again, my colleague has picked the number of $3 billion out of the air. It is not substantiated by anything other than the opinion of a man who has not been involved in the program for over five years. I would prefer to rely on the Canadian experts who have been following this program at a very high level for many years.

[National Defence, November 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are addressing all those things. The other thing we are addressing is what we need to give to our men and women in the Canadian Forces to do the jobs we give them to do.

The hon. member pulls this figure of $3 billion out of the air. As someone who has not been involved with the program for many years and who is not current with what has actually gone on, he has picked that figure out of the air and has decided that is the number that has some relevance. It has no basis in fact. There is absolutely nothing to that. It is a completely fantasy number.

We are getting the best airplane at the best price with the best participation by Canadian industry, and that is a win-win for Canada all around.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in his comments, my colleague asked for some help, so I will give him a bit of help.

The cost of maintaining the F-35 will be approximately the same per year as the cost of maintaining the current F-18 fleet, which is about $250 million per year.

This is about jobs. I would invite the member to speak to the Canadian industry. The Canadian industry, the aerospace industry in particular, is absolutely thrilled with this program because it will have opportunities that it would never have had before for the next generation of technology and whatever comes beyond that.

We have looked at the alternatives. I covered that. Yes, we are not locked in. We were not locked into the program in 1997 or 2002 or 2006. We have stayed with the program because it is simply the best program out there. Ten countries have looked at the same program, the same options. We have had subject matter experts, civilian and military, looking at this at a very highly classified level for many years. They have all come to the same conclusion. So, we have looked at those alternatives.

When he talks about no penalties for getting out of the MOU, that is simply not true. We would have to negotiate our way out, which could cost, but probably would not, as much as $551 million. That is not chump change. We would lose our slots in the production line to the point where we may not be able to replace the F-18 on time. We would lose access to the intellectual property that we need to sustain the airplane over its life. If we are not in the MOU, we would not have access to that intellectual property. We would lose a lot of contracts that are in place now. They would be fulfilled for the small number, but we would lose those contracts with respect to following on for the global supply chain of 3,000 to 5,000 airplanes. And there is more.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague across the way and we agree on many things, but there are so many factually wrong things in what he has said that it is hard to know where to start.

First, the Chinook is not replacing the Sea King. It is a completely different program. We are sticking to the JSS budget, the joint support ship budget. The U.K. is buying 138 airplanes and Norway has a pretty similar climate to Canada. The engines issue on the F-18, and I was there and I was part of that process, was one of many factors that said F-18 versus F-16.

Has he asked the Canadian Forces or anybody in the Canadian Forces, army navy or air force, if they like what we are doing? Has he asked people in the Canadian air force on the fighter side what they think of this program? Has he asked industry what it thinks of this program? When industry talks about certainty, it talks about certainty of a program going ahead. This program, as everybody in the industry has said, is the best program for it because it gives it the absolute best opportunity to go far beyond the IRB process.

I will quote Paul Kalil from Avcorp, who said, “Canada is going to see the long term benefits that come with the economies of scale that a program this size delivers, and even greater opportunities, based on this timely government decision because of the technology transfers that that facilitates”.

This is important because the technology that is in the F-35 is the next generation of technology and getting in on the ground floor of that will lead to whatever comes after that. Has he asked any of those questions of industry or the Canadian Forces?

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Very good, Scott.