Rick Casson

[Statutes Repeal Act, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this bill today. It is an important initiative for the member opposite and I congratulate him on it.

I come from a background of municipal government. I was a councillor and mayor for a number of years in a small town in Alberta. We went through this type of process a number of years ago. When we looked at old bylaws, it was amazing to see what kinds of bylaws were left on the books. Some of them as years went by were quite funny. We had one where a horse could not be tied to a fire hydrant. This was in the nineties and nobody was riding horses in the town anymore. That is maybe a lighter side of what we are trying to do here.

We support this legislation because it makes good sense. It also makes good housekeeping sense to be able to every once in a while stand back and have a look at what has happened. The fact that something like 65 pieces of legislation have been on the books for a period of 10 years and are not being used or have not been put into action means that we need to do a better job of looking at what we are doing. There is a listing of these acts and provisions and if that list is put forward it should be subject to automatic repeal. I believe that in the spirit of cooperation all parties have agreed that this is a reasonable thing to do. It is a good move by the member opposite to propose this bill which came from the Senate.

Keeping order in the House of Commons is the proper thing to do because we have enough trouble as it is keeping track of all of the statutes, bills and motions that come before the House. The proper thing to do would be to look over things that are redundant every once in a while.

Our party also thinks there should be a sunset clause on most legislation. Every once in a while we should stop and review legislation to ensure it is still doing the job it was originally intended to do. I believe that many of the programs that were put in place based on legislation and some other legislation that deals with specific issues that we face as a government and as Canadians, are not doing the job any more. Money has been put forward and either the need has disappeared or times have changed to a point where that particular function is no longer necessary. This kind of ties into the whole issue of this repeal of legislation bill.

This will be a very worthwhile exercise but at the same time we could be looking further to see exactly what has been put in place. I suppose we could do this through the budgetary process which allocates funds to different programs through the system we use in the House for supply. The budget process would be a good opportunity to have a look at the programs to which money is being allocated to ensure they are still of value and are necessary.

One of the questions that has been asked was whether the operation of the bill could be limited. For future statutes, it would be possible for the House to include a provision that says that the statutes in question would remain law notwithstanding the provisions of the repeal of legislation act. This would cover off any concern about moving forward and it would be particularly useful for statutes relating to international treaties.

Treaties are special issues. International treaties are negotiated by the government and then introduced in the House. However, over a period of time many may need amending or may need to be looked at to ensure they are still necessary. The House would be able to pass a resolution to keep a statute alive if needed.

I believe there are aspects of this bill that would cover off all the situations that could arise and, for statutes that are presently on the books, the House could pass legislation to keep those statutes that it deems important in effect.

This does not mean that one quick brush stroke will cover them all. There will be exceptions. However, we will have an opportunity to analyze each piece of legislation to ensure each statute is still relevant and to ensure we leave the ones in place that need to be in place.

It is important that we review this on a regular basis because, as we all get busy and governments change from time to time, we need to ensure that changes are made on a regular basis in order to keep things current and to ensure there is not a huge backlog to go over at any particular time.

The member from our party mentioned quite a few of the issues that deal with legislation and ministerial issues but this is a worthwhile bill and I am glad the member chose to sponsor it and bring it forward.

[Petitions, December 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to table a petition comprised of 2,511 names from across Canada. This petition was put together by the Youth Volunteer Coalition.

The petitioners state that each year several tens of thousands of young Canadians express a desire to serve society as volunteers in Canada or abroad and that a great majority of them are denied this opportunity due to a lack of government funds provided to experienced and competent non-government organizations that offer volunteer programs.

They call on Parliament to enact legislation or take measures that will allow all young Canadians, who wish to do so, to serve in communities as volunteers at the national or international levels.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in his capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, he, of all people in this House, understands the importance of nations within a nation.

I will say upfront that we do develop friendships with our colleagues from the Bloc but we absolutely disagree with its whole purpose for being as a party, which is to destroy this country.

Yesterday, in response to a threat to this country by a motion that was presented by the Bloc, we saw the rest of the parties, the rest of the representatives from across the country and even some from Quebec, stand together against that threat. I think the Prime Minister, in his motion, has made a great move to maybe open up the debate but also to make Canadians feel that we are one and we will always remain one.

As an Albertan and a fellow westerner, I would like to ask my colleague to maybe delve a bit further into the issue of recognizing the Quebec people, Quebeckers, as a nation in relationship to recognizing Quebec as a nation. The motion put forward by the Prime Minister recognizes Quebeckers.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, the previous government was quite content to let the equipment used by our military men and women in uniform deteriorate. A perfect example of this is the medium logistics trucks for the army. These trucks were first purchased in 1982. That makes the truck fleet 24 years old.

I see that in the main estimates there was only a meagre $26 million allocated to the medium logistics trucks. Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what course of action he has taken with this project and also with the heavy truck fleet?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, as the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, it is a pleasure for me to be involved tonight in this discussion on the 2006-07 estimates for the Department of National Defence.

These estimates reflect many of the important initiatives this government has put forward since it took office a few months ago. Much has been accomplished since that time.

We have introduced a universal child care benefit for every child under six and have helped 1.4 million families make ends meet. Tax cuts and debt payments have helped to keep the economy strong. The introduction of the federal accountability act is part of our effort to clean up our political system. We strengthened crime legislation by tackling gun, gang and drug crime. We have taken concrete steps to advance Canadian interests on the international stage and to rebuild the Canadian Forces.

During the last election, this government promised to rebuild and revitalize the Canadian Forces. In just nine months in office we have already announced a number of important initiatives aimed at doing just that.

One of our big announcements was on recruitment. We plan to expand the regular forces to 75,000 and the reserves to 35,000. But we know that even if we meet 100% of these recruitment goals, our new recruits will not be effective if we do not equip them. So we made some major procurement announcements as well.

In June the Minister of National Defence announced plans to acquire tactical and strategic airlift, joint support ships, medium sized logistics trucks, and medium to heavy lift helicopters. This government recognizes that these are big ticket items, but they are crucial for the Canadian Forces to do their jobs more effectively.

These projects will help the Canadian Forces in their current missions both in Canada and around the world, and will allow the Canadian Forces to meet the challenges they will face in decades to come. Moreover, they will provide positive spinoffs for Canada's defence industry and the Canadian economy.

I would like to now go into these procurement projects in some detail to make it clear why they are necessary. Allow me to begin with the strategic and tactical airlift.

As my hon. colleagues can appreciate, our troops are expected to deploy within Canada, North America and around the world. When they deploy, they often have to move large numbers of troops and heavy equipment. The only Canadian Forces aircraft that can transport large numbers of troops and equipment over long distances is our CC-150 Polaris aircraft. However, this plane's capabilities have proven to be limited. It cannot move heavier vehicles or large cargo; it cannot defend itself against surface to air missiles; and it cannot operate from unpaved airfields. To make up for this capability gap, we have frequently had to charter commercial planes or catch rides with our American ally.

Canada is a sovereign country. It cannot remain dependent upon the goodwill and capacity of others whenever we want to get troops or equipment to theatres of operation. When I say theatres of operation, I do not just mean abroad. Due to the overwhelming size of Canada's territory, the Canadian Forces need a strategic airlift capability to serve our own country.

To address this crucial need, the Canadian Forces will acquire four C-17 Globemaster aircraft. These new acquisitions will enhance the Canadian Forces' ability to deploy on missions. They will be timely, dependable and they will be ours. But that is not enough. I now want to turn to our decision to invest in new Hercules aircraft.

As many of my colleagues are aware, our fleet of Hercules tactical airlift aircraft is now getting old. I can speak from personal experience. I spent three days on a Hercules on a resupply mission from Trenton to Alert. The plane I was on had been re-winged. It had 40,000 hours on it. It was well past its due date and that was a number of years ago. In fact, our fleet has logged more flying hours than any other military Hercules fleet in the world.

The Hercules are essential as they support our forces involved in combat operations. They provide in-theatre support that is essential for missions such as the current one in Afghanistan. We need to replace the old Hercules now or we could lose our tactical airlift capability by 2010, a short three years away.

I would now like to turn to another key purchase, the purchase of 16 Chinook medium to heavy lift helicopters. Our recent operational experience at home and abroad has also underscored the vital need for such helicopters. In theatres abroad the new helicopter will allow us to support our troops as they operate in increasingly dangerous environments. For example, the ability to move personnel and equipment by air quickly has become a key requirement for us in Afghanistan, as ground transportation, as we have seen, has proven to be very dangerous for our troops.

At home, the new helicopters will allow the Canadian Forces to reach remote and isolated locations. They will provide better support to first responders in disaster situations. They will also help out troops in the field when ground transportation is difficult and access to airfields is impossible.

Aircraft and helicopters do not solve all the equipment needs of the Canadian Forces. They have requirements on the ground too.

Our existing medium size trucks are nearing the end of their service life and are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. We had to move on this project immediately. The government plans to acquire medium sized logistics trucks. They will be used for training and to transport the troops and supplies necessary to conduct operations. Because these trucks will be able to handle pallets that are standard with our allies, they will increase the interoperability of the Canadian Forces.

Finally, the government has announced plans to purchase three joint supply ships. These state of the art vessels will be used to refuel and resupply other ships at sea. They will provide support for ship borne helicopters. They will be able to transport large quantities of equipment and transfer it to shore. The capacity to provide support to forces deployed ashore will improve the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces.

These ships will provide the navy with a three-ocean capacity and the global reach necessary for a transformed Canadian Forces.

All of this new equipment will enhance the ability of the Canadian Forces to deliver success in operations in Canada, in North America and around the world. The forces will be better prepared to face the evolving security environment and to meet the challenges of decades to come. These investments will not only build long term capacity for the Canadian Forces, they will also provide positive spin-offs for the Canadian economy.

Under the industrial and regional benefits policy, contractors are required to invest an amount equal to the value of the contract into the Canadian economy. Canadians can be reassured that each dollar spent on this new equipment will be matched by spending right here in Canada.

Canadians also stand to benefit through in-service support contracts, which will bring jobs and investment to Canadian industry.

The Conservative Party is delivering on its election promise to rebuild the Canadian Forces. The procurement plans I discussed tonight will allow the Canadian Forces to better serve and better defend Canadians.

These are the right acquisitions for the Canadian Forces and for all Canadians. This government is proud of the work done by our men and women in uniform. It is committed to giving them the tools they need to do their job safely and effectively.

The new government is getting things done for taxpayers and families. The government is making sure that Canada is united and secure. It is ensuring that our streets are safe and that those in need get a helping hand. It is ensuring that Canada remains prosperous and secure.

Rebuilding the Canadian Forces is an important part of this effort.

I have a few questions for the parliamentary secretary.

We have heard time and again from a variety of sources about the problems associated with procurement process within the Department of National Defence. Under years of Liberal leadership, the process continued to be complex, lengthy and overly bureaucratic.

The new government will not stand for this. We are committed to giving our troops the equipment they need in a timely manner, while maintaining a fair, open and transparent procurement system.

Over the past five years, the government has produced three large reports that deal with the issue of procurement for military services and equipment. These reports have all suggested that buying equipment for the Canadian military takes too long and costs too much.

One of the biggest problems with the procurement system is the fact that it takes the government over 15 years to get a piece of equipment into service after the government has made the decision to buy it. This means that what the Liberal government did not do in 1991 is hurting the military today.

It is clear that our current situation is a legacy of previous Liberal governments. After continuous cuts to the defence budget throughout the 1990s, the department could not afford to buy the equipment that was necessary to sustain military operations. Worse than that, they were not capable of making timely decisions when the money was available. After years and years of neglect, the military has been forced to operate aging and technologically irrelevant equipment.

Our men and women in uniform should be commended for performing complex operations throughout the 1990s with equipment that was less than suitable.

The new government will not allow our military to suffer like that. Therefore, the government is committed to protecting the rights of Canadians to have access to fair, open and transparent competition for contracts. It is also committed to respect Canadian obligations under international trade agreements that are vital to the competitiveness of Canadian industry abroad.

How does the parliamentary secretary intend to uphold these commitments while providing our men and women in uniform with the equipment they need to get the job done? Could he update the House and all Canadians on how the Department of National Defence has reformed the procurement process for military equipment and services?

[Aeronautics Act, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, being members of Parliament, there is legislation plus there is regulation involved in most bills that come forward. If there have been some regulatory changes, they would have been made under the guidance of overriding legislation.

On the issue of parliamentary oversight, we take very seriously the safety of Canadians as they travel back and forth across Canada and around the world. Whether it is a service provided by a private sector or through the public, there is legislation that governs the regulation, that provides the incentive to improve the system is how a lot of the system works.

The fact that we are today debating a bill dealing with aeronautical safety proves my point. The government is aware of the issues that are there. We realize some of it is dealt through regulation, some through legislation. The process that we are going through today on Bill C-6 is the legal aspect of preparing legislation that will govern the industry.

[Aeronautics Act, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my intervention today is concerned with issues facing the air force and our military personnel. I am not aware of the issues that CUPE might have brought forward. However, I indicated in my presentation that one of the gaps we found was that some of this work was being performed by contractors. Possibly this is a concern that some have as far as unions and such go.

Overall, whether it is interventions by CUPE or the other organizations that have put forward the recommendations and suggestions to the government, the end focus of the bill is to improve the safety of our airline industry and our aircraft in general.

I will take the point the member makes that there were interventions from many sources to deal with many angles of the industry. However, the scope of Bill C-6 is to ultimately make our industry safer for all Canadians, not only our people in the air force and in our national defence and military.

[Aeronautics Act, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of his question. I believe the amendments put forward in this act, whether civilian or military, to do with aeronautic safety will make things safer.

As I have outlined in my presentation, through the evolution of the aircraft industry and the growth of aircraft operations in the world, we have had to adjust as government to this reality. I believe the process and the evolution of these programs over a period of time has helped to create safety in the aircraft industry and aeronautics in general.

The member's question is somewhat misplaced, if we look at the record. Over the period of time, and if we go back for 60 years and more forward, we have seen marked improvement in aeronautic safety.

I believe Bill C-6 would fill some gaps, allowing further safety measures to be implemented. I look forward to the bill being put into law because the safety of all Canadians, not only our military personnel as I indicated in my presentation, is critical to this government.

[Aeronautics Act, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak on this subject.

The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act will help to improve the safety of Canada's military aviation system. In order to fully appreciate the need for the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act, a brief explanation of this flight safety program would be beneficial.

Unfortunately, aircraft accidents have been part of aviation since its inception. This was highlighted during the first world war. In the Canadian air training system alone, there were 56 accidents involving 48 fatalities between April 1917 and May 1918. In those days, flight safety was a secondary consideration. The prime focus of the organization was to complete the mission at all costs.

This attitude prevailed during the interwar years and the early stages of World War II, but as the war progressed, the air force determined that aircraft losses due to accidents equalled or exceeded operational losses. It became obvious that Canada could not continue to sustain this high accident rate and that some standards and measures of safety had to be created. Accordingly, in 1942 the Royal Canadian Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigation Board was formed.

It is interesting for me to speak in the House on this subject. During the war, my dad was in the air force and was stationed in southern Alberta. Southern Alberta is one of the areas that pilots trained in because the terrain was very similar to that of France, so these air force training facilities are scattered throughout southern Alberta. My dad was on the force that recovered and salvaged damaged airplanes. The one comment I remember him making was that he was surprised we were able to have any planes at all in theatre, what with the number of planes being damaged here in Canada.

One of the prized possessions I have in my home is the centre part of a propeller off one of these airplanes. I believe it was an Anson. It is just the centre part because the blades were broken off and buried in the ground. I have the brass bolts that held the propeller on and just the centre part. I prize it very much. However, for me to be speaking on aircraft safety some 60 years later and referring to what happened during the war is possibly more than just ironic.

The mandate of this board was to reduce non-operational losses through the investigation of aircraft accidents. That was a very tall order. Unfortunately, not much progress was made in accident prevention prior to the end of the war.

During demobilization following the second world war, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board was downsized and eventually, in the early 1950s, renamed the Directorate of Flight Safety. This small directorate was overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the early 1950s as a result of the Korean conflict and the cold war.

Once again the concept of flight safety apparently took a back seat to completing the mission, as the air force suffered 405 fatalities and lost 476 aircraft in accidents between 1953 and 1957. This loss rate could not be sustained, so in 1957 the chief of the air staff directed that the development of an effective flight safety program receive the highest priority.

One of the first steps taken was to employ carefully selected pilots and engineers with specialized training for the investigation of aircraft accidents. The mandate of these investigators was to find the true cause of accidents so that effective corrective measures could be identified and implemented. Accident investigators were no longer required to assign blame.

Over the next 10 years, this new approach to flight safety resulted in a gradual reduction in the losses of both personnel and aircraft. By the early 1970s, a formal comprehensive flight safety program was developed and the Manual of Flight Safety for the Canadian Forces was published.

The objective of the flight safety program continues to be the prevention of the accidental loss of aviation resources. Today, this program consists of three basic elements: analysis, education and promotion. Let me explain each of these.

The first, analysis, involves the investigation of aircraft occurrences and the analysis of information derived from those investigations. The program is designed to foster a culture of free and open reporting as well as voluntary acknowledgement of errors and omissions.

All personnel associated with air operations are encouraged to report all hazards and potential hazards to the safety of the operation. This includes the reporting of occurrences where there were no injuries to personnel and no damage to equipment, but there was potential for loss.

In the current system, each flight safety occurrence is recorded and, if necessary, investigated. The occurrence information is also entered into a database of the flight safety occurrence management system for analysis. Approximately 2,500 to 3,000 occurrences are recorded annually in this database.

In order to foster voluntary reporting, a long-standing policy of treating information provided to the flight safety system as privileged has been in place. This means that the information provided by personnel to the flight safety program would not be used for administrative, disciplinary or legal purposes.

This is a critical component of the Canadian Forces flight safety program. By not assigning blame, personnel are encouraged to admit their mistakes, allowing others to learn from their mistakes. This gives investigators a much better opportunity to determine what exactly happened during an occurrence, since there is no need to hide anything.

The second element, education, involves the formal training of flight safety specialists. These specialists are then employed as flight safety advisers to commanders at various levels in the chain of command. These advisers work directly for the commander and have direct access to the commander on flight safety matters.

The third element, promotion, involves raising awareness of the flight safety program with the military and civilian personnel who conduct or support flying operations in training. This is done through a system of regular briefings, posters and pamphlets, such as Flight Comment, an illustrative flight safety magazine that is published four times a year and distributed to all Canadian Forces units. A testament to the quality of this magazine is that over 40 countries have requested that they regularly be provided with copies of this publication.

Over the years, our military personnel have grown to trust the flight safety program and it has now become part of the air force culture. This program is very effective and has gained a reputation as one of the best in the world.

The military flight safety program is administered by a network of trained flight safety specialists who are an integral part of each flying unit, as well as each unit involved in the support of aircraft operations.

Unit flight safety staff are assisted by wing flight safety personnel, who are normally employed full time in running the wing flight safety program. A full time staff of six personnel supports the flight safety program of the Commander of the 1 Canadian Air Division in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This staff is also responsible for conducting the basic and advanced flight safety courses that are used to train flight safety specialists. The 1 Canadian Air Division flight safety staff also regularly conducts flight safety surveys at the wings and units.

At National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, the director of flight safety has a staff of 21 personnel who administer the flight safety program on behalf of the Chief of the Air Staff. Their activities include the oversight of the flight safety promotions program, the management of the flight safety occurrence database and associated software, and the analysis of trends and the information contained in the database.

The director of flight safety is also the Airworthiness Investigative Authority for the Minister of National Defence. As such, 12 members of his staff receive specialized aircraft accident investigator training from accredited international accident investigation training establishments. This training is exactly the same as that undertaken by the Transportation Safety Board air accident investigators and other aviation investigation organizations.

These military investigators are responsible for preparing the final reports on all investigations for the Airworthiness Investigative Authority's approval.

Canada has a robust military flight safety program, however, circumstances change and the Canadian Forces flight safety program must continue to evolve.

Bill C-6 would help the Canadian Forces adapt to a recent change, including the involvement of far more civilian contractors in the conduct and support of air operations. This change has resulted in a gap in the current authorities for Canadian Forces flight safety investigators when they are dealing with civilian contractors. As the minister noted, Bill C-6 would close this gap.

In order to allow the Canadian flight safety program to continue to meet its objective of maintaining a safe workplace for our military and civilian personnel who are conducting their operations, it is important that they have all the tools needed to do this important job.

The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act will give them those tools and ensure that the critical objectives for the flight safety program are met.

The Canadian Forces has made a significant investment in the flight safety program over the last 60 years. This investment is critical as our military cannot afford to lose personnel and equipment due to aircraft accidents. In addition, this investment has paid off as it has been a key factor in reducing the aircraft loss rates of the 1950s to the low levels that we see today.

The Canadian Forces maintains a cadre of highly trained accident investigators to ensure that the causes of aircraft accidents can be quickly determined and the appropriate safety measures put in place to eliminate or reduce the risk of recurrence.

The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act will help this excellent program adapt to changing times and ensure that the flight safety program continues to be as effective as it has been in the past.

[Committees of the House, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to rise to take part in the debate today and I thank the member opposite for her comments on the motion.

I would like to bring a couple of things to the debate and maybe get closer to the surroundings we are in today. I want to talk about the fact that in our cabinet we have a number of women, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. In my personal opinion, they are doing a tremendous job. The issue of their gender never comes into the discussion at any time because of the tremendous work they are doing.

I would like to draw to the attention of the member the comments that came from the Climate Action Network. Maybe we could get her comments on it as we talk about the status of women. This was brought to our attention yesterday regarding the Minister of the Environment for the Government of Canada, who is a lady.

These comments, to me, were completely inappropriate. That organization posted comments on its website about the minister's hair. This is a minister who has worked extremely hard, probably as hard as any member in the House or any minister, to bring forward a clean air act, which took a tremendous amount of effort. Whether the hon. member agrees with that or not, the effort that was put into the clean air act to make it happen was huge. She has the support of the government and many good people in Canada on this issue. One of the comments was, “Since assuming the presidency, Rona found time away from her hairdresser--”

This, to me, is completely inappropriate. I would like the member who just spoke to let Canadians know how she feels about this type of comment coming from this type of organization.