Peter MacKay

[National Defence, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member has been because the Canada first defence strategy was released two years ago. It is a detailed plan that sets out a great deal of detailed work that will be done with respect to the four pillars of defence policy: personnel, equipment, our infrastructure investments and our readiness. It does include investing in the procurement of new equipment for the military.

I look forward to the hon. member's continued support for those military procurements.

[National Defence, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for Canadian aerospace companies to bid on $12 billion will create thousands of jobs in this country.

With respect to the competition, yes there could be another competition, but let us listen to what the current assistant deputy minister for materiel at the Department of National Defence said. Dan Ross said, “Let's state the obvious”--and I know the obvious goes over the heads of the Liberals here--“you must have more than one viable supplier to have a competition, and there is only one fifth-generation fighter available”.

That is what Dan Ross said. I will take his word over that of the member opposite.

[National Defence, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let us again set the record straight. There was in fact a competition begun in 1997 when the Liberal Party was in office. It was the Liberal Party that began the purchase and the process for the F-35. We have now exercised the option.

What I am finding very curious is that by once again ripping a page from Liberal playbooks past of cancelling and caving in military projects, what we are seeing now are members opposite, none from Montreal I might add, getting up and putting in jeopardy an important contract for the military that will cost thousands of jobs to the Canadian aerospace industry and billions of dollars to our economy.

[National Defence, October 29th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals would know a lot about pressing pause on military procurements. In fact, they have the worst record in the country's history on military procurement going back to 1993 when the Liberal Party spent $1 billion to cancel the EH-101 maritime helicopters. Canadians will recall that with the stroke of a pen a Liberal prime minister said “zero helicopters”. Seventeen years later we still have zero maritime helicopters.

Let the member opposite explain that to the pilots who have to fly 40-year-old Sea Kings.

[Veterans Affairs, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the military who wish to attend any public demonstration at any time are protected by law and perfectly able to do so.

What I would like from the hon. member is some acknowledgement and some respect for the members of the Canadian Forces by supporting the important initiatives that we have taken to improve both their places of work and the equipment with which we are affording to protect them. All of the efforts that we have made to support the men and women in uniform have been singularly opposed by the member and members of his party. Every time there have been votes in this House, he has voted against them.

[Veterans Affairs, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to extend my sympathies to the family of Corporal Langridge.

I want to set the record straight. I learned about this matter this morning and as a result, I have instructed senior officials at the Department of National Defence to be in direct contact with the mother of Corporal Langridge.

We intend to address this situation in a timely fashion. This is unacceptable. We should never refuse access to members of the military or their families when addressing these important matters. We will move post-haste with compassion and respect to address this matter to the best of our ability.

[Veterans Affairs, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have instructed our senior officials to do just that. No one shares the member's outrage more than I do, with the exception of Mrs. Fynes herself. We will look into this matter and we will be speaking with her directly to address these issues.

It is unacceptable to refuse access to the Department of National Defence or to counsel others to do so. We will remedy this matter.

[National Defence, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there was a competition and in fact it was the F-35 that emerged from that competition, and members opposite should know that. How was the process started? It was started under the previous government.

Let us look at what the current assistant deputy minister of materiel in charge of the program has to say. He says:

Let’s state the obvious: you must have more than one viable supplier to have a competition, and there is only one fifth-generation fighter available.

That is the one we are getting.

[National Defence, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what we will do is ensure that all companies across the country are given fair and equal access to these incredible contracts that can be awarded up to $12 billion worth of benefits. That is billions of dollars and thousands of jobs that can result from Canada moving forward on the MOU that was started by the members opposite.

The coalition parties better get their message straight on the F-35. The member opposite is veering a little off script.

[National Defence, October 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I could have sworn I saw the member opposite's comments in the paper today supporting contracts such as the F-35.

With respect to reserves, we are going to continue to value their service. They are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan, as they have around the globe in previous missions.

I find it a little ironic that we are getting advice from the Bloc, a party that does not want the country to succeed, let alone our foreign policy to succeed.