Peter MacKay

[National Defence, September 21st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to welcome the member opposite to his new critic portfolio. I look forward to working with him on important defence matters. I look forward to finding some level of co-operation, as our fathers did before in this place. I would also like to answer his question.

With respect to the priorities of Canadians, yes, health care, yes, the economy, and yes, many other things, but yes, security. Outfitting the men and women of the Canadian Forces with the best possible equipment, to protect them, to allow them to do their jobs, is an important priority for Canadians. These jets will do just that. This is the best possible jet we could give these members of the Canadian Forces and we intend to make it available to them.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Nanisivik Naval Facility is to have an upgraded berthing capability with a modern fuel farm and a small administrative, services and utilities building. In November 2009, a design contract for just under $900,000 was awarded to WorleyParsons Westmar Limited from North Vancouver, British Columbia. This is the first of the project’s four design phases. The initial design phase is complete and phase two will be awarded shortly. Phase two will provide a recommended option that will lay the foundation for the remaining design phases.

In addition to design work, detailed studies such as geotechnical investigations, wharf structural inspection, topographical and environmental assessment will be required.

It is anticipated that major construction work at the Nanisivik Naval Facility could begin in 2012, once all the necessary assessments are completed, approvals are in place and clean up of the former facility is finished or sufficiently completed in order to have access to the site. Completion of the Nanisivik Naval Facility is scheduled for 2015.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in response to (a), the original estimated operational lifespan of the Buffalo aircraft was from 1967-1982, 15 years.

In response to (b), six aircraft are currently in use.

In response to (c), the current operational lifespan of the Buffalo aircraft ends in 2015.

In response to (d), the cost of maintaining the fleet for the fiscal year 2009-10 was $19.6 million Canadian. This figure includes spare parts, the repair and overhaul of the aircraft parts or systems, contracted maintenance services and engineering services. This figure does not include the salaries of military personnel who conduct maintenance on the aircraft or operational costs, such as fuel.

In response to (e), there are currently no initiatives in place to extend the operational life of the Buffalo aircraft.

In response to (f), the CC115 Buffalo aircraft provides fixed-wing search and rescue response for the Victoria search and rescue region on Canada’s west coast. It has an operational range of 2,240 kilometres, a maximum cruising speed of 407 kilometres per hour, and a maximum payload of 2,727 kilograms. The Buffalo can search for survivors of search and rescue incidents at low altitudes, and can render assistance to survivors on the ground or in the water by dropping life-saving equipment and medical supplies as well as dispatching search and rescue technicians via parachute to provide medical care. The Buffalo aircraft is part of Canada’s combined fleet of search and rescue aircraft. The Government of Canada is currently looking at options to replace fixed-wing search and rescue assets and equip our forces with new aircraft.

[National Defence, September 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite has said is patently false. That is absolutely not the position that was taken by the Department of National Defence.

However, let us take it out of the realm of the partisan. Let us take it away from individuals without credibility who are criticizing this. Let us listen to the chief of the air staff, Lieutenant-General André Deschamps, himself a pilot, himself a member of the Canadian Forces and the air force for many years. He said:

Analysis of our mandatory requirements for Canada's next fighter jet made it clear that only a fifth generation fighter could satisfy these requirements in the increasingly complex future security environment. The Lightning II is the only fifth generation aircraft available to Canada. Not only that, but the F-35 offers the best cost value--

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, June 16th, 2010]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the department has interpreted “excess broker fees” to mean property management fees that were paid by Canadian Forces members which should have been borne by the contractor, Royal Lepage Relocation Services.

In response to a) There were 151 Canadian Forces personnel identified as being eligible for reimbursement of property management fees. Almost all have been reimbursed for their expenditures. Fewer than ten individuals have not received their reimbursement due to changes to addresses and phone numbers. The department is still working to contact them.

In response to b) The approximate dollar value reimbursed by Royal Lepage Relocation Services was $137,000.

In response to c) A general message was sent to all Canadian Forces personnel, inviting those who had paid property management fees to self-identify. A review of files was also undertaken to determine and contact eligible personnel.

[Aerospace Industry, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I only wish we could somehow bottle that feigned indignation and manufactured outrage for a positive purpose.

What we will do of course is comply with rules. We will comply with the best interests of the Canadian Forces, the best interests of Canadian industry.

That is exactly what we are doing. I do not know what the hon. member knows that I do not, but we have not made that decision yet. It is still before cabinet. Perhaps he has a source that I am not familiar with.

[Aerospace Industry, June 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that is exactly what we are doing. We are of course, as a government, committed to providing the best possible equipment at the best possible price in a timely fashion to give our men and women in uniform the equipment they need.

What is ironic and what is lost on the member opposite is that in fact, it was his party when in government which, in 2002, entered into this 10-year, $10 billion contract. It is a bit beyond hypocrisy for the member now to suggest that we are not moving in the right direction with respect to replacing the next generation of fighter aircraft.

[National Defence, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, what this government will commit to is getting the best possible equipment at the best price to benefit Canadian industry.

Again, what is beyond ironic is that this is coming from a member of a party that cancelled the maritime helicopter program, costing our country almost $1 billion. This is coming, as I said, from a member of a party that gutted the Canadian Forces during its time in office. This is the height of hypocrisy.

I would encourage the member, along with his party, to support the noble efforts of the men and women of the Canadian Forces who are doing us proud every day.

[National Defence, June 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, yes, this government has committed to replacing the next generation fighters. We are going ahead with many new purchases.

That is a question coming from the member opposite who is a member of a party that gutted the Canadian Forces and forced them into a decade of darkness, would not have bought the C-17 aircraft so useful in the humanitarian efforts in Haiti, was against the purchase of tanks now saving lives in Afghanistan and that sent our Canadian Forces ill-equipped into Afghanistan in forest green uniforms. We will take no lessons from the member opposite.