Peter MacKay

[National Defence, October 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Auditor General for the incredible work that she does. She has literally defined the role for our country.

I had the opportunity to meet with her last week to discuss some of the issues as they relate to the Department of National Defence. She has made constructive recommendations with regard to both the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works. She has given us some recommendations, all of which I can assure the hon. member and the House have been accepted. These recommendations will be acted upon.

For years, the Department of National Defence has been striving to streamline these complex acquisitions.

[Points of Order, October 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify the record.

In response to a question from the Bloc member from Quebec, I referred to compensating the people of Quebec. I should have used the word “assist”, as the support actually went to the municipality as opposed to directly to people. This is the matter of a court case, so I wanted to clarify the record.

[Contaminated Water in Shannon, October 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, many of those same documents would form part of the court case in the ongoing litigation.

With respect to this government and previous governments, the matter is being taken seriously. How else could one justify having spent tens of millions of dollars with respect to the compensation of people in the municipality of Shannon?

In that regard, this government takes this matter very seriously and continues to engage. However, this matter is before the courts and I therefore can comment no further.

[Contaminated Water in Shannon, October 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this government, as previous governments, has been engaged in this file for some time. There have been millions of dollars paid to the municipality of Shannon. We continue to be seized with this issue, but it is now a matter before the courts. Thus, it would be inappropriate to comment further.

[National Defence, October 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, these types of defence investments contribute greatly to local economies as well as to the Canadian Forces.

Last December, we announced that our new fleet of Chinook helicopters would be based at CFB Petawawa. Today I am pleased to announce that a contract of almost $135 million has been awarded to construct new hangars to house these new Chinooks. These hangars will include maintenance bays, training schools, a warehouse, and a command suite. This construction will be a major boost to the local economy and will create jobs.

This investment is good for the forces and for surrounding communities. I thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her work.

[National Defence, October 21st, 2010]

I repeat for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that there was a competition. In fact, he was a member of the government that held the competition, so he ought to know that.

What is really ironic despite the publication of a Canada first defence strategy back in May 2008, where it clearly outlines the intent to follow the path set in place by the Liberal government to purchase 65 next generation fighter aircraft, the Liberals did not ask a single question on this until the spring of 2010.

Welcome on board. We will get new fighter aircraft because the Canadian Forces deserve the best protection in the best planes in the world.

[National Defence, October 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let me bring the member up to speed. There was a competition. In fact, Canada, under the former Liberal government, participated in an extensive, rigorous, U.S.-led competition between 1997 and 2001. There were two bidders at that time and Lockheed Martin won. It was in fact the Liberal government of the day that signed the joint strike fighter program in 2002, following an extensive competition for the F-35 Lightning.

Why do the members opposite, why does the Liberal Party, always want to take the force out of the air force?

[National Defence, October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to the lecturing and the harping of the member opposite who was part of a government that cancelled the maritime helicopter program, and 17 years later we are still flying that aircraft.

Let us listen to a current expert, Dan Ross, who is the assistant deputy minister for materiel. He said that officials looked at that and with their colleagues in Public Works asked was it sufficiently transparent, was that sufficiently rigorous, fair and open and obviously did it deliver the solution that here in 2010 was the most appropriate solution.

That is what the current assistant deputy minister for materiel is saying. I will take his word.

[National Defence, October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, putting aside some of the rhetoric, we are doing just that. We are getting the best aircraft at the best price. We are in fact ensuring that by the year 2020 the brave pilots and the men and women of the Canadian Forces will have a fifth generation fighter aircraft to help them do their jobs. However, let us listen to a real expert, not the member opposite. Let us listen to top Canadian Forces pilot André Deschamps, chief of the air staff, who said:

In summary, the F-35 Lightning II will provide Canada with the greatest probability of mission success, and the greatest probability for our men and women will survive, returning safely from their missions.

[National Defence, October 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that was a fact-free question. This process goes back many years. It goes back to a time when the member opposite was, wait for it, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence. In 2003, he had this to say:

Our cooperation with the United States, for example on joint strike fighters has earned Canadian companies substantial industrial benefits.

At that time he was for the process and wanted to replace the aircraft. Now he has changed his position. We will not play politics on the backs of the military. We are going to replace--