Matthew Kellway

[National Defence, February 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our allies did not need the program manager to advise them that this project is based on a fundamental miscalculation. It has been obvious to most for a long time. That is why our allies, including the U.S., have been delaying their purchases, re-assessing their orders and putting in place backup plans.

If the minister is going to ignore the experts, then perhaps he will share the research findings of his colleague from Delta—Richmond East and tell us, with the production schedule indeterminately delayed, how much it will now cost to deliver F-35s by 2020.

[National Defence, February 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister for F-35s told the House that he was listening to experts.

In November, an expert Pentagon panel found 13 major design flaws with only 20% of the testing complete. In response, the F-35 program manager acknowledged that the production plan was “a miscalculation”.

In light of the expert assessments, will the minister now acknowledge that his plan to replace the CF-18 is based on a miscalculation and put this contract out to tender?

[National Defence, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister stands idly by repeating tired speaking points, his allied counterparts are taking action. They all have backup plans.

As the odds grow longer on the F-35, our allies are hedging their bets in the interests of national security and fiscal prudence. Why is the minister and the government the only ones standing pat?

When will the minister show some courage and leadership as befitting a minister of the Crown and do something?

[National Defence, January 31st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the refurbishment of our CF-18s was meant to keep them airborne until 2020, no later. As the air force chief told our national defence committee, “I think we have pretty much done what we can with that airplane”.

Facing similar circumstances and timetables, Israel, Australia, the U.K. and the U.S all have backup plans in place.

Why is the government content to monitor the situation while our allies in the F-35 program are taking action and implementing backup plans?

[National Defence, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after six weeks away and in light of such significant changes, Canadians were expecting the minister to have something more to say on this issue. Around the world, countries are taking a realistic look at the F-35 and cutting back on their orders even in the U.S. Now I value hope and optimism, but here we have crossed over to a world of fantasy.

Are the F-35s the government ordered somehow special? Are they different from those being rejected by other countries? How are our jets on track, while the rest of the world's are falling off the rails?

[National Defence, January 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of cost overruns and mounting technical problems, we left off in 2011 with the minister sticking to the same old story on the F-35.

Since then the U.S. has come to grips with reality. It has cancelled 179 planes and has delayed production of the rest. The Australians, having already downsized their order once, are thinking of doing it again.

With everyone else pulling the chute on this plane, will the minister tell us how much more the F-35s will now cost Canadians?

[National Defence, December 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. When it misleads Canadians, the government must take responsibility.

In April the Prime Minister said, “We are sheltered from research and development costs”. Today we learned that Canadians are on the hook for another $35 million to subsidize Lockheed Martin's R and D. Millions more, delay after delay, and there is no end in sight.

In this season of giving, will the associate minister give us the gift of accountability and acknowledge that he has been misleading the House?

[National Defence, December 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, if the Associate Minister of National Defence were to look beyond his speaking points and into the file, he would have read that the Pentagon has a lack of confidence in the F-35s.

A 55-page detailed technical report leaked last weekend concludes yet again that costs are through the roof, that there are major technical problems with this plane and that the delivery date will not be met.

Is the associate minister prepared to contradict the Pentagon and tell us yet again that the program is on track? Does the Pentagon have it wrong or does the associate minister have it wrong?

[National Defence, December 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I would caution the Prime Minister against borrowing from the Associate Minister of National Defence's speaking points because just yesterday the air force commander contradicted those very speaking points. He said that F-35 training might take place in Canada at some point maybe, but not for a decade. Documents from National Defence say that there might be no training in Canada at all.

Could the Associate Minister of National Defence explain why he gave the House incorrect information? Does the Associate Minister of National Defence have any idea what he is doing on this file?

[National Defence, December 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that we have an Associate Minister of National Defence who does not know the difference between on track and off the rails.

The government's plan of delivery in 2016 is unrealistic. The world all over has acknowledged this, except for the government.

The minister is now saying that he may buy fewer planes. Is this the plan B that the minister was referring to last month, fewer F-35s?