Peter MacKay

[National Defence, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. In fact, the F-35 will have refuelling capability and capacity. Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the plane, has confirmed that the F-35 can handle different types of refuelling systems, including the one currently used by our forces.

We are at least five years away from receipt of that first aircraft. We are working with Lockheed Martin and all the members of that consortium. I do not know why the member opposite and his party want to cancel the program that they started in 1997.

[Afghanistan, December 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, after Canada ends its combat role in July of 2011, as has been widely publicized, we have announced we will continue to provide trainers in the future in the Kabul area.

Clearly even the member opposite would have to acknowledge that security is the vital element for all the development, all the progress we are seeing in Afghanistan in a very difficult situation.

However, we certainly send our best wishes and our hearts and thoughts are with the members of the Canadian Forces and all the civilians who are working to achieve these goals in 2011.

[Contaminated Water in Shannon, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member has partly answered her own question. Because the matter is before the courts, this complicates the issue significantly. However, as per the parliamentary motion, these documents will be properly examined and released in due course.

[National Defence, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that Canada has already invested $168 million in the F-35 program. How would he know that? He was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence when it happened under his government.

But let us take it out of the realm of parliamentary rhetoric. Let us listen to Gilles Labbé, president and chief executive officer of Héroux-Devtek, a company in Montreal. This program will give Canadian companies access to opportunities on partner fees valued at around $12 billion. He says this is an outstanding opportunity for the Canadian aerospace industry.

Why does the hon. member not come back to his original position and support this purchase?

[National Defence, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauséjour and welcome him back from his celebrity tour.

Here is the truth. The truth is that the cancellation of the F-35 purchase could cost this country up to $1 billion. The truth is the member opposite is a member of a party that knows well about the cancellation of contracts. The cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter contract cost the country $1 billion. As a result, the Canadian Forces are still flying up to 45-year-old helicopters. That is older than he or I.

[Public Safety, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the concern expressed by the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. We all share that concern for the travellers who are stranded in the snowstorm that has pounded southwest Ontario and has left people in their vehicles on Highway 402.

Canadian Forces are hard at work, including members of a helicopter crew and SAR techs, to help the Ontario Provincial Police and fire services. Those citizens who were stranded have benefited greatly from these efforts and I applaud all that has been done thus far. I have indicated to the provincial minister that the Canadian Forces are there to do more.

At home or abroad, the magnificent men and women of the forces are doing their job.

[National Defence, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his tremendous service to this country in uniform. I would, however, ask him again why he is abandoning those who are currently in uniform who need this aircraft. Why is he abandoning the Canadian aerospace industry? In particular, why is he abandoning a company like Héroux-Devtek, which is currently operating in the Montreal area? It says that they enthusiastically support the Government of Canada's decision to purchase the F-35 joint strike fighters. The program, based on our partnership with nine nations, originating in 1997, will provide thousands—

[National Defence, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think what the member opposite, and particularly those in his constituency, would like to know is why the Liberal Party is constantly against efforts to give the Canadian Forces the important equipment it needs, like this aircraft.

Why is he also abandoning his local aerospace industry? In and around Montreal, it will be a primary beneficiary of the many jobs and the potential of billions of dollars in contracts that will be afforded the Canadian aerospace industry.

Why is he abandoning his constituents' interests and those of the Canadian Forces? That is what Canadians need to know.

[National Defence, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, let us put aside the partisan rant for a moment.

Claude Lajeunesse of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada said that this was a contract that would give the Canadian aerospace industry the ability to bid on aircraft, up to 3,000 to 5,000. He referenced the $12 billion in opportunities. It was the association itself that referenced the 150,000 direct and indirect jobs that this contract would generate.

The hon. member should take his radio off broadcast and put it on receive.

[National Defence, December 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong on all fronts. We have said all along that we expect the cost of sustaining the F-35 will be in the same order of magnitude as the current fleet when we factor in the 2016 dollars. This will be in keeping with the projections that we have maintained all along. A 20 year contract would mean somewhere between $5 billion and $6 billion.

Members should keep in mind that as more countries decide to purchase the F-35, which they may very well, this will bring the price down for Canada. It is a win-win situation for the Canadian Forces. It is a win for the aerospace industry. I wish members opposite would support the Canadian Forces in this important purchase.