Laurie Hawn

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked some questions.

First, what can the Bloc Québécois members do in the House? Frankly, not very much.

Second, what has the Conservative Party of Canada done for Quebec? In the context of the debate we are having today, the C-17 contract is the first of $17 billion worth of contracts, the benefits of which will go to all Canadians, including a very large portion to workers in the province of Quebec.

Third, does the Quebec industry not deserve some of those contracts? The answer is clearly, yes, it does.

I have particular experience with some of the big companies in Quebec, such as Bombardier Aerospace and CAE Electronics. There are other great companies in Quebec, such as Pratt & Whitney Canada, Héroux-Devtek, Bell Helicopter, Minicut International and many more, companies that can compete very well on their own right. They do not need people sitting in the House, who have no power to enact anything on behalf of their people, telling them that they are not good enough, that they cannot compete and win on their own.

My hon. member says that they have a great plan for the sovereignty of Quebec. What will the defence budget be of the new sovereign country of Quebec? How many billions of dollars of contracts will it be letting to companies like Boeing or any other company that may bring business back into the province of Quebec? What will its defence budget be?

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made today about our sole sourcing the contract and as a result we must have paid a lot more for the airplane. I am talking about the C-17. That is absolutely not true.

Due to our improved relationship with our biggest friend, ally and trading partner, and our strong negotiating approach, we are taking four spots in the C-17 production line at the same prices that will be paid by the United States air force for the same spot in the production line.

The really good news for the Canadian Forces, all the deserving companies in Quebec, and the rest of Canada who will share in the industrial benefits, is that they will be getting those aircraft a year early.

I wonder if my colleague and the rest of those who like to spread falsehoods for political reasons would stop misleading the House about what they perceive as the relative cost of these airplanes because what they are saying is flat out not true.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech and will point out one thing. The technology transfer provisions under ITAR have always been there.

The fact is that under the previous government and the disastrous relations we had with our biggest trading partner, ally and friend, the United States, Canada got no breaks. Canada had always had breaks before. I am happy to say that tremendous progress has been made in that area. Canada is once more becoming a more favoured partner, with the fine efforts of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others, because of our responsible approach to our position in the world.

A little over a year ago I asked the Chief of the Defence Staff a question at the Conference of Defence Associations meeting at the Chateau Laurier. I asked whether he would like to have the C-17. It was a very simple question. His very simple answer was, “Sir, you bring us the money and we would love to have them”. If we did not bring the money, he would have preferred to have the C-130. The fact is that he is not used to a government that gives enough money to rebuild the forces as required.

The fact is that he is thrilled to have the C-17. The fact is that we are getting them early because it is a requirement of the Canadian Forces and a requirement of the people of Canada. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he has spoken to the CDS lately about the C-17. Does he understand the benefits that the C-17 will bring to Canadians, not just for military purposes but for purposes like fighting floods in the province of Manitoba?

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there was so much misinformation in that speech it is hard to know where to start, so I am just going to pick on a couple of points.

The Bloc is fixated on 60% and that is fine. CAE, which is the largest simulator company in the world, does about 10% of the aerospace business in the province of Quebec with about 10% of the employees. We are not buying simulators. A simulator is not needed with the C-17. Does that mean the other 10% could not possibly be spent in Quebec? Should it automatically go to some other sector in Quebec?

The C-17 contract is but the first of several contracts. The Bloc does not approve defence spending in general because of its ideology. Fine. But it is very happy to get involved when there is money going around.

I would like to point out a couple of things to people and I know my hon. friend will comment.

If it were up to the Bloc, there would not be any regional distribution of contracts because there would not be any military contracts. Under the concept of a sovereign Quebec, I would be interested to know what Quebec's defence spending would be and what industrial benefits that would generate. A lot of companies would very likely not stay in a sovereign Quebec because there would be no defence spending and there would be no business. Therefore, there would be no benefits for the people of Quebec like there will be under this government because we are rebuilding the Canadian Forces to the benefit of Canadians, and that includes the people and the companies in Quebec.

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague had some good points about R and D in her speech. I hope the people at CAE will not feel left out, though, because she did not mention them, since they are the largest simulator company in the world.

I would like to ask a question about fairness. The Bloc members are hung up on the 60% number and that is their prerogative. I suppose that would mean they would also be hung up on 40% of the rest of the aerospace being outside Quebec.

If a company started up in Quebec to make a better whatever for the aerospace industry but it meant it would potentially win a contract from a company in Ontario and Quebec would get 65% instead of 60%, would the hon. member consider that fair or would she think that the people in Ontario would have an equal right to cry foul in that case?

Should business not be given to companies that are the most capable, in the best position to earn the business regardless of where they are located in Canada?

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my friend keeps saying that 60% of the benefits come from Quebec and therefore, 60% of the benefits should be in Quebec. If 30% of the business was in Quebec right now and 60% was in British Columbia and there was a very strong start-up capable company in the province of Quebec, should that company be excluded from participating in contracts like this just because he thinks there is some artificial magic to the figure of 60% that may or may not in fact be true?

[Business of Supply, March 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

First of all, I must say that C-130s and C-17s are like apples and oranges. In my experience, the aerospace industry in Quebec is strong and capable. I have often used its products in the past.

Does my colleague from the Bloc think that Quebec companies are not able to hold their own in the marketplace? Do we have to stop competition between companies in all regions of Canada, including Quebec? I think that Quebec workers would be insulted if that was the opinion of my colleague and of the Bloc.

[Air-India Inquiry, February 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, two former Liberal deputy prime ministers, other prominent Liberals, and groups such as the Air India Victims Families Association have been calling on the Liberal leader to change his mind and vote in favour of extending two important provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act. So far their cries have fallen on deaf ears.

If these two security measures are not extended, could the Minister of Public Safety inform the House what impact this will have on the Air-India inquiry and on our ability to fight terrorism?

[Military Valour, February 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I was privileged yesterday to attend ceremonies paying tribute to brave Canadians who were honoured during Canada's first awarding of the Star of Military Valour and the Medal of Military Valour. The Star of Military Valour ranks second only to the Victoria Cross. Many of those honoured are from the Edmonton Garrison and I have had the honour to get to know them over the past few years.

Major Bill Fletcher and Sergeant Patrick Tower were honoured with the Star of Military Valour, while Captain Derek Prohar, Sergeant Michael Denine and Private Jason Lamont were awarded the Medal of Military Valour.

The Governor General also presented 33 Meritorious Service Decorations to individuals whose specific achievements have brought great honour to their families, to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.

I think it is safe to say that this entire House and Canadians across the country are proud of these soldiers and all of our Canadian Forces and wish to say just two things, that they are our heroes and we thank them.

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the rules requiring all air travellers to present acceptable documentation for travel to the United States are now in effect. For most Canadians, a passport will be the document of choice but for frequent travellers to the U.S. there is an alternative in the NEXUS program.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please tell this House how a membership in the NEXUS program can expedite border clearance?