Laurie Hawn

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my question is for my colleague in the Bloc. However, I want to go back to what the member for Elmwood—Transcona said.

The price we are paying for the airplane under the MOU is exactly the same as the Australians are paying. It is the other things that are involved in the program, such as simulators, spares and that sort of thing, that make the difference in the overall program cost. However, the price we are paying is precisely the same as the fly-away price that the Australians are paying.

Is my hon. colleague aware of that?

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the member's general point about his perception that there is a lack of foreign policy and so on. I would suggest to the hon. member that if he looked back to the defence white paper of 1964, he would see that nothing much has actually changed. In that paper and in papers ever since then the overall defence policies of Canada have been defence of Canada, sovereignty, and international operations, whether in support of Norad, NATO, or the United Nations.

The overall need for the military is virtually the same today as it was then and the missions basically have not changed. What has changed is what we are facing in our missions today versus what we will be facing in our missions 20 or 30 years from now.

Would the member agree that if we do not know what is going to come down the road 20 or 30 years from now, and we certainly do not, it behooves the government to equip our men and women of the Canadian Forces with the best possible equipment to face whatever threat might come down the road?

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

That's nonsense. That is not true.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Nonsense.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Nice try.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it will be a little difficult to make a short comment because there were so many inaccuracies but I will make a couple of comments.

First, not only did Canada look at all of those options but so did the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Israel. Ten highly-advanced countries looked at the same challenges and came to the same conclusion, which was that the F-35 was the airplane that met their needs, at the best cost and with the best industrial benefits package.

Are all of the experts who examined this at a very highly-classified level in all of those countries wrong or stupid? This in not just a coincidence. These are not third world nations.

[National Defence, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in veterans and we will try to continue to do more. We have invested billions of dollars in the navy as part of the Canada first defence strategy. On this side of the House, we know how to take care of veterans. We know how to take care of the Canadian Forces.

The simple fact is that the most important thing is the mission on the ground in Afghanistan. That mission continues with the full support of this government, and I just wish the opposition would get onside with it.

[National Defence, November 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, while we do not comment on operational matters, the Government of Canada will always act in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.

The closure of Camp Mirage does not impact our mission in Afghanistan. We continue to support that mission through arrangements in Cyprus and Germany. None of these basing or logistical challenges change the fact that the Canadian Forces will continue to progress on the military mission right up until July 2011 and will redeploy from Kandahar in accordance with the 2008 parliamentary motion.

[Remembrance Day, November 4th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on November 11, 1918, the guns fell silent on the battlefields of Europe and every year since, Canadians have gathered at the cenotaphs and legions across the country to commemorate those who laid down their lives for this nation.

On the 11th hour of the 11th day, the whole of our people stand in silent remembrance. We can never fully repay our veterans and their fallen comrades but we can honour them, and that is what we do again this year.

Our nation now has new veterans, younger veterans standing shoulder to shoulder with those who fought in Korea and to liberate Europe from the clutches of tyranny. Those who fight now in the deserts of Afghanistan deserve the same honour and recognition as our veterans in conflicts passed.

Veterans are our nation's heroes. Some of their exploits are well known. Others are known only to those who witnessed the countless unrecorded acts of courage and self-sacrifice, and some are known only unto God.

It is truly said that there is no greater sacrifice than one who lays down his life for another. We will remember them.

Lest we forget.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the hon. member left me with a few seconds to point out that this stuff started half a century ago. In the last half century, only one government has done anything about this.

Some people may be focused on public inquiries, I do not know why. We actually took action. We are the only government in the last 50 years that has done anything about this. That shows that we do care. It shows that we take action while others talk about things.

It is never enough. I acknowledge that. Things were done in the 1950s that we did not understand then. That is certainly not our fault. It is not anybody's fault. The simple fact is that we have heard a lot of talk over the last 50 years about doing something. The only government that has done anything is this government, and we are proud of it.