Matthew Kellway

[National Defence, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, gross Conservative mismanagement on key issues is not limited to foreign investment. The facts about the F-35 fiasco continue to emerge. Over the weekend more details about the KPMG audit were leaked to the media. There were $46 billion reported. That is five times the number the Conservatives started with. Of course a number north of $40 billion is not news. They have just been sitting on it for quite a while.

Will the Minister of National Defence finally admit that the jig is up, admit he was wrong and hold an open competition?

[National Defence, December 6th, 2012]

None of whom are accountable to Canadians, Mr. Speaker.

It would take a giant leap of imagination to swallow that this current secretive process, including sitting on the KPMG report for at least a week now, is somehow open and transparent. From the get-go, the Conservatives have had permanent staff assigned to the JSF office in Washington. For 11 years they have been receiving bilateral cost breakdowns from the U.S. defense department. Since 2006, they have received 15 cost information packages on the F-35.

Will this information be made public? Will it form part of the KPMG report? When can we expect that report?

[National Defence, December 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, and still he sits, with cover gamely provided by the Minister of Public Works. Yet here is what she once had to say about holding a competition to replace the CF-18, that it “would risk the future of our aerospace industry because any delays, frankly, would be slamming the door shut on Canadian jobs”. Yet today the Conservatives have committed just shy of a billion dollars to the joint strike fighter program and Canadian companies have received less than half of that in contracts. Billions of dollars in industrial benefits have been forgone.

Are they finally prepared to start an open and transparent process?

[National Defence, December 5th, 2012]

“Reset” and “refresh” are the new spin words, Mr. Speaker. However, not so long ago the Minister of National Defence was unwavering in stating, “This is the right plane, this is the right number, this is the right aircraft for our Canadian forces and Canada”.

Now he has lost that loving feeling. Gross Conservative mismanagement has caused it all to come crumbling down around him and he sits and sits.

Will any minister stand up and apologize for deceiving Canadians?

[National Defence, December 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants us to believe that she, too, was converted on the road to the F-35, but you will forgive my skepticism. F-35 bad news is not new news, and documents have surfaced showing that the Prime Minister and his cabinet were informed of every fumble and foul-up on the F-35. What they said before the election was simply not the truth. There was no signed contract, the program was not on time and Canada will, in fact, be subject to billions of dollars in cost overruns.

Why did they not just tell us the truth?

[National Defence, November 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at least the minister got to keep his front row seat. The question is this. Who is doing his job? Is it the associate minister, or the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, or the auditor, the economist and three deputy ministers?

Who is in charge over there? Who is setting defence policy? Who is establishing the statement of requirements to replace the CF-18?

[National Defence, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is great. We have an auditor, an economist and three deputy ministers, and somewhere in there is a walk-into-a-bar joke. However, we are talking about national security, and there are serious policy implications from this procurement. Is the priority Arctic sovereignty, North American air defence and air interception? Is it first strike capability? Does stealth even work?

Are the Conservatives really suggesting that these decisions be left to an economist, an auditor and three deputy ministers to work out behind closed doors?

[National Defence, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is being reported that the F-35 secretariat is not happy with the statement of requirements. This would seem like progress because the Minister of National Defence had a shot at it and failed, and the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was complicit in that fiasco.

The CF-18s need to be replaced, so how do the Conservatives explain to Canadians that we are now left with an auditor, an economist and three deputy ministers to define Canada's defence needs?

[Diabetes, November 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there is a 12-year-old boy in my riding who can play keep-up with a soccer ball for almost two hours straight. That is over 10,000 kicks in a row, alternating feet. He is being scouted and invited to the youth academies of professional clubs in Europe.

Today he came and spoke to the Standing Committee on Health as part of the JDRF Kids for a Cure Lobby Day. Michael has had type 1 diabetes since he was six. His mom, Debbie, tells us how hard it is to live with this, saying “It is a disease that never sleeps. It is a disease that never takes a vacation”.

However, Michael is determined not to let his disease interfere with his dreams and goals. One cannot help but admire him. We can do more than that; we can help him and the other 300,000 Canadians living with type 1 diabetes.

Michael's day used to start and end with a needle. Now he has an insulin pump. On the horizon, not far off, is an artificial pancreas. Our job is to get Michael there with investment in health research and technologies. He will take care of the rest.

[National Defence, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first the Conservatives told Canadians not to worry because they were following the rules. Not so much says the AG in a very thick report. Now they tell us not to worry because they will throw the rules out. The minister should know Rob Ford called and he wants his media strategy back.

If the secretariat is going to look at other options, it is going to need to find requirements first. Could the minister tell us how the government would perform an options analysis without that?