Matthew Kellway

[National Defence, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is a mountain of evidence from multiple reliable sources that contradicts what the associate minister tells the House every day. The associate minister is at odds with his own minister, his own ministry and now with our allies.

Yesterday, the Norwegians told us that they expect to pay five times what the Conservative government will pay for the F-35s, $40 billion for 13 fewer planes, and they acknowledge that it may go up.

How did Canada qualify for an 80% discount, or is the minister just making these numbers up?

[National Defence, November 25th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the associate minister is making facts up as he goes along.

Yesterday he claimed that his F-35s would be able to communicate with our ground troops as soon as we get them, but his own department says that is simply not true, putting our troops at risk of friendly fire.

The associate minister is in way over his head. Will he finally put this contract out to tender so our troops are not stuck with planes that put them in danger?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers, November 23rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, were this just about Bill C-18 and this one time, that would be harmful enough to democracy and offensive enough to the democratic tradition of this institution and this country, but when the Liberal government previously had an addiction to closure, the members across the way were most offended by that practice. The Minister of Public Safety said most expressively at the time:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada swung an axe across the throat of parliament. While committee members had an opportunity to speak to Bill C-36, members of all parties in parliament lost the ability to express the concerns of Canadians.

If the bill was the right thing to do, why did the Prime Minister do the wrong thing by invoking closure?

I return that question to the government. If it is doing the right thing, why does it keep invoking closure?

[National Defence, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is not just about another procurement boondoggle, this is about the safety of our troops. We ask a lot of our troops and we in the House in return owe them the very best chance to return home safely to their families. However, the government continues to rush headlong to purchase a fighter jet that cannot even communicate with the ground forces it is supposed to support.

When will the government stop playing politics with the safety of our troops? When will it admit it made a mistake and put this contract out to tender?

[National Defence, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, three elections promising fiscal responsibility followed by six years of fiscal mismanagement and the government continues to miss opportunities to save money and improve accountability. The Auditor General said there is a gap between the money needed for military maintenance and what is available.

Does the Auditor General's discovery of mismanagement come as a complete surprise to the minister, or can he explain to Canadians why his department is failing to give our soldiers properly maintained military equipment?

[National Defence, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians and what we in the House need to know is what forces, and when, are we talking about communicating with?

Canadian families deserve a better explanation for a half billion dollar expenditure than that. They deserve to know, and we all deserve to know, why the Conservatives are pursuing another risky military project shrouded in mystery. How many more boondoggles before the government finally wises up?

[National Defence, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken arrogance and secrecy to a new low. Without letting Canadians know, the Conservatives are throwing half a billion dollars into a new U.S. military satellite. We, in the House, had to find out about this program from the media.

On what grounds does the government feel free to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on military projects, without telling anyone? Would the minister please advise the House and Canadians today what this satellite will be used for?

[National Defence, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, since we are trading literary recommendations today, I hear there is a new publication called “Buying Jets for Dummies”. I recommend it to the Associate Minister of National Defence.

The Associate Minister of National Defence clearly said that there are no problems, but there is a plan B. The minister said there are problems, but there is no plan B. Americans and others understand that the F-35s are behind schedule and massively over budget. Perhaps the ministers could ask the U.S. Secretary of Defense about his plan B.

Here at home, New Democrats have a great plan B: put the file out to tender. Will they?

[National Defence, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the only competition that has ever taken place for the F-35 has been between the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence.

Yesterday, the Associate Minister of National Defence said there is no problem, no delays, but there is a plan B. Then Conservative officials told us there are many plans. Then moments later, the Minister of National Defence told us that in fact there are problems and long delays.

I have a simple question for whoever is in charge today. If the government has a plan B for replacing our fighter jets, what is it?

[National Defence, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is the same line again. To the associate minister and the Prime Minister, living in denial is a dangerously expensive and irresponsible approach to military procurement.

The facts here are simple. The economics are simple. The government says the F-35 price tag will go down when the planes are in full production, but when we are the only ones ordering them, that price can only skyrocket.

If the Americans pull out of the F-35 program, this plane is unaffordable, so what is the government's backup plan? Why is the government hell-bent on blowing the budget on a plane that everyone else is walking away--