Debates of April 21st, 1999

Youth Criminal Justice Act

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always interested to hear the remarks of my colleague from Crowfoot. Unfortunately, it is the Reform tape playing.

The minister tabled statistics no one disputes, which indicate that crime among young people has dropped by 23%. In addition, they also reveal, and no one disputes this either, that violent crime by young people has also dropped by 3.2% since 1993.

We all know that, when the law is properly applied, as it is in Quebec, it works well and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders in the justice system.

Does my colleague from Crowfoot not think that instead of changing something that works well, we should implement what works well and make whatever changes are necessary after a trial period? At the moment, before changes are proposed, does he not think that the Young Offenders Act should be properly applied throughout Canada, as it is now in Quebec?

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague thinks the juvenile crime rate is okay in Quebec I disagree with him. I disagree with the crime rate of juvenile offenders in Quebec. If the crime rate is going down that is wonderful, but for years it went up year after year after year. Now it is levelling off and coming down a bit, which is wonderful. If there are methods to account for that, let us emphasize those methods. Let us see what we can do.

As I said in my opening comments, we are very much in favour of the three pronged approach that is evident in Quebec to a greater extent perhaps than in any other province where provincial programs are set up. When a child is struggling in school with aggressiveness or whatever, where it is clearly indicated that the child and perhaps the parents need assistance, that is provided.

We recommended that all provinces adopt that approach and funding be set aside for it. At the second level we very much embrace community committees such as the Sparwood and Maple Ridge programs. I am sure there are programs like those in Quebec where on the first or second minor offence children are taken not into the court system but into the community system where they can receive the assistance they need.

If the acting out by these children is a sign or a signal to society that they need help, surely we should be giving them that help. We also wanted to encompass 10 and 11 year olds because we felt the federal government had abandoned them. In the province of Quebec perhaps there is a good program that looks after those young people who are signalling by their misbehaviour that they do need help.

We say the federal government, because it is the only authority that can legislate in the area of criminal law, has abandoned these young people who, by committing criminal offences, are signalling everyone within seeing or hearing distance that they need help. It has abandoned them.

That is why we urged the recommendation made by Professor Bala and others; that under certain circumstances the justice system have authority in this area to ensure that those young people receive the type of rehabilitative treatment that obviously their actions are signalling they need. We are very much in support of that.

I want to touch on the point that perhaps the juvenile crime rate is down. In so many areas, the offences committed by young people are not even reported because the police tell us that they cannot do anything about it.

If there is break and enter into a home, what answer is there when the police are called? They say “Send us a list of the items that have been stolen”. That is as far as it goes. At one time the police used to come to every break and enter with their fingerprint section and test for fingerprints. They do not do it anymore because they do not have the budget for it. The federal government has cut back in that particular area of law enforcement and crime prevention. It is unfortunate that it is doing that.

If there is one area in which we would like to see greater spending it is in the area of helping our young children. We say, save the ones we can, help the ones we can, but for those who create a threat to our lives, we must not shrink from the use of incarceration. However, if we do incarcerate them we must make sure they get the help they need while they are there. I hope that answers my colleague's question.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, would my hon. colleague not think that instead of all the millions wasted on the old Bill C-68 from the previous parliament, that those millions of dollars could be better spent on this type of bill?

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has hit the nail right on the head on this particular issue.

When Bill C-68, the firearms registration bill came in, we were promised that it would cost no more than $85 million to implement. Before a single firearm was registered last year, the cost was over $200 million, and the government cuts the budget of the RCMP. If we look at it carefully, it is cutting the RCMP budget by over $20 million, but in what area? It is not in the provincial area where there are provincial and municipal contracts but in the federal area. What is it cutting down on? It is cutting down on drug enforcement, organized crime and so on.

Let us take a look at drug enforcement, the main revenue source for organized crime which is responsible for bringing drugs into our schoolyards that affect our children and contribute to this terrible situation we see in many of our larger cities. The government is reducing that budget by an enormous amount.

When the minister stands up and says the government has cut some $20 million out of a $1.2 billion budget, that is not accurate. It is not cutting anything out of the provincial budgets. It is cutting out of the federal programs.

That $22 million is coming out of the federal programs where we have the special units covering white collar crime, organized crime, drug trafficking and so on. Yes, it is a matter of priorities, but the government is spending money on a useless firearms registration system that will not enhance the safety of our streets and homes. It could be spending that money on a host of other things, including making sure that we have enough uniformed policemen on the streets to help reduce crime. Let us get them into the schools talking with the children, like the DARE drug program that many of the police forces are running in western Canada. We should be focusing our money on those areas, not on a useless firearms registration system that has not proven to do anything to reduce crime or enhance safety on our streets or in our homes.

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that in a former life the hon. member was a policeman. The minister has touted the whole idea of police cautioning. The government seems to think this is something new, but I know it has been going on for years. I know it has been going on in my part of the country for a long time.

I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on his experience with police cautioning of young people to keep them out of the courts.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a real story here. As a member of a police force, my colleagues and I used to keep more young people out of court than we ever took in because we had the discretion to do so.

There was a time, in the history of the federal police force that I belonged to, where in order to get the budget it needed to give members of the force a day off or leave, it had to justify its demand for further revenue. Treasury Board would only accept one type of proof for needing more money or more men and that was through statistics. Instead of—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, in support of the amendment by my colleague, the hon. member for Laval Centre, which clearly and unambiguously calls for withdrawal of the bill.

If we were asked to give an award for the most despicable, the most backward, the most ill-founded bill as far as youth rehabilitation is concerned, we would not hesitate for one second before giving the nod to this bill on young offenders.

I would like those who are listening in, or have just joined us, to have some idea of what is being proposed to us. There is nothing run-of-the-mill about it. This bill refers to 14-year olds. That is those in early adolescence, not those who are 18, 19 or 20, i.e. young adults. To all intents and purposes, these are not even adolescents yet. These young people aged 14 could be given sentences comparable to those for adults. In order to avoid any ambiguity, I will read the actual words, for I am very much aware that words are important in matters of law.

This is what we are being asked to vote on, and I would ask the Liberals to pay a bit of attention. The clause in question states:

—being the group of offenders liable to be sentenced to what would be imposed upon an adult, in order to encompass the 14 and 15 year-old group.

This makes no sense whatsoever. How can the Government of Quebec, Quebeckers and all the youth support network, which makes Quebec society something very unique, accept such a bill?

As an aside, I have just come from a Privy Council briefing session in which I heard reference made to the House leader. He is, I know, a man who can be called upon for certain matters, for certain circumstances, but there are some matters with a human dimension which require, I believe, an appeal to his common sense.

I ask him to tell us in all honesty if he thinks that a 14-year old who is just starting out in life, who has no experience and is at the mercy of his environment, can be considered a hardened criminal the way an adult can? Naturally, it is possible that there are circumstances where young people get off to a bad start in life.

In our work as MPs, we all see instances of this. That is why we must turn to family support, social institutions, and measures for socializing and moulding a young person that will completely redirect these values, that will attempt to give meaning to his life.

The House leader surely knows that the commission of a crime by a 14-year old is a cry for help. It is a sign of distress, a sign of inner turmoil. It does not make the offence committed any less serious, but we cannot agree with the logic that imprisonment and an intense process of criminalization will resolve the problem. I just do not see it.

Members know that this bill is politically driven. They know that the Minister of Justice wants to align herself as closely as possible with the Reform Party. It is a question of votes.

When the Minister of Justice introduces a bill such as this, she does so not as the Minister of Justice but as an Albertan. That is what has to be understood. She introduces it as a servant of the federal government, which wants to hold on to its seats in western Canada.

This bill comes straight from the Reform Party mould. I wonder whether the union of the Liberal Party and the Reform Party is not germinating in a bill like this one. That is what we are talking about.

The Liberal Party never said in the red book that we should criminalize 14-year olds. Can the House leader tell us whether in the red book—and I leave the description to him, but it went round in certain circles—there was ever talk in 1993-94 of criminalizing 14-year olds? There was not. Now, the Liberals are realizing that the time for elections is approaching and consideration must be given to an electoral base.

It is too sad to be funny. No one here finds it funny, because the fate and the future of the young are at stake. I would ask the House leader to exert his influence on cabinet to ensure that corrective action is taken.

What I find the hardest to understand is the levels of crime. When the discussion concerns the organized crime that is gnawing away at communities, cities such as Montreal, we are entitled to expect remedy. How is it we are discussing a law on young offenders aged 14, but for three years we have been calling for legislation on money laundering, which we have yet to see?

There is a problem setting priorities. This government must understand that there are nuances to the subject of crime. Things are happening as if the word nuance was prohibited in ministers' speeches. And yet, I think a distinction must be made.

As the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, I am often asked by my constituents about this issue, by people who are concerned about street gangs, about young people aged 13, 14 or 15 who may go astray and commit reprehensible acts in our society. This does not make them criminals in the same way as adults. This is what I just cannot understand.

I truly believe that we would make a terrible mistake, as parliamentarians, if we were to get caught up in that. If we set the age at 14 today, who is to say that, next year, representations will not be made to set the age at 13, or even 12? Where would it stop?

As parliamentarians, we cannot subscribe to this kind of logic. This is all the more worrisome considering that juvenile crime is not on the rise.

There is a whole attempt on the intellectual and political front to misrepresent facts; and this is dishonest. The government wants us, the decision makers and parliamentarians, to think that juvenile crime is on the rise when in fact, as the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is the Bloc Quebecois justice critic—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He will have two minutes remaining when next this bill comes before the House.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Canadian Armed Forces

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved that:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should have a standing committee of the House of Commons hold public hearings on every proposed procurement of goods or services by the Canadian Armed Forces valued at more than $100 million, in order to ensure that the procurement process is transparent and fair to all concerned.

Madam Speaker, I will begin with the following question: Why did I move such a motion?

On numerous occasions, examples of insufficient spending on the part of National Defence have been raised in the daily newspapers and in the House, and there have also been examples of heavier spending, in fact, very substantial spending.

Looking at these examples, one could not help but conclude that what applies to minor spending ought to apply equally to major spending, which is the reason for this motion.

In the past, National Defence's goods and services procurement procedures have experienced numerous failures. I want to go into a few examples of these.

First of all, the purchase of the utility tactical transport helicopters known as the Griffons. Cabinet approved this on April 7, 1992, and Treasury Board assented on September 8, 1992. The very next day, a $754.5 million contract for the purchase of some 100 Griffon helicopters, a flight simulator, and other equipment, plus related documentation and services, was awarded.

The first aircraft was delivered in March 1995, and the last in January 1998. The estimated total cost of the project was $1.2 billion, according to the auditor general's April 1998 report.

It can therefore be seen that the project went $445 million over budget, more than 59% over budget. It has cost $1.2 billion rather than $754.5 million.

The Griffon replaced three other models of helicopter, which were retired: the CH-118 Iroquois, the CH-135 Twin Huey and the CH-136 Kiowa.

The auditor general made many criticisms with respect to the selection of this helicopter. I refer to the April 1998 auditor general report, which states that “it appears there was a review of how a single aircraft could replace two types but departmental officials could not produce a copy of it”.

Other documents as well were lost only God knows how.

A study done in August 1992, after the department had decided on the Griffon, showed that its load capacity was less than that required to transport a gun or engineer equipment. Its load capacity for evacuating wounded and for logistical support was also lower than required.

In its response, the department stated that the lack of capacity could be made up by the support provided by allied aircraft. In other words, the equipment we are unable to load in our helicopters could be loaded with the help of our good neighbours. That is the good neighbour strategy. So much for Canada's sovereignty in the area of national defence.

The department concluded that to buy only one type of utility tactical transport helicopters would cost less than to modernize and maintain a fleet made up of several types of aircraft. However, the auditor general demonstrated that the operating cost of the new helicopter would be 20% to 40% higher than that of the aircraft to be replaced.

The department bought the aircraft from the only supplier it consulted. Only one supplier was consulted. This is a commercial aircraft and not a military one. Other types of helicopter were turned down. Life cycle costs for other aircraft, which might have been lower, were not considered.

This aircraft has a limited reconnaissance capability, and the auditor general concluded that the tactical studies did not adequately justify replacing two divergent aircraft types with one, and that they were concluded too late in the process to affect decision making. In addition, the studies called into question the suitability of the aircraft that was selected.

The acquisition of search and rescue helicopters is another example. They are the Cormorant helicopters, the ones in the notorious helicopter contract.

On April 23, 1998, the Minister of National Defence announced the purchase of 15 Cormorant search and rescue helicopters from a British-Italian consortium, E.H. Industries. The total value of this contract was $777 million, with $580 million for the aircraft and $197 million for project management, training, parts, integrated logistic support, and a small contingency fund.

Delivery to the Canadian forces should commence in the summer of 2000 and be concluded by the spring of 2002. The financial resources for this program are provided for in the February 1997 federal budget, and they are within the existing financial framework.

Four helicopter manufacturers were competing for this contract. There was E.H. Industries, which manufactures model AW-520 or the Cormorant; Boeing, an American manufacturer offering the Chinook; Eurocopter, which manufactures the Cougar; and Sikorsky, an American company manufacturing the Maplehawk.

Initially the cost of acquiring helicopters was some $593 million. This was reduced to $580 million, because a saving was made by having the helicopters picked up at the manufacturer in Italy, rather than having them delivered to Canada.

E.H. Industries expected providing the Canadian forces with helicopters would mean jobs totalling 5,000 person years for Canadians over the life of the eight year contract.

E.H. Industries also undertook to provide major industrial and regional benefits before the conclusion of the contract. So, it made a commitment to spend a total of $629 million on industrial and regional benefits.

Here again, of the $593 in industrial and regional benefits already distributed—that is what we were told in May 1998—$318 million will go to Quebec companies. The E.H. Industries consortium in Canada includes Bombardier, located in Montreal, Canadian Helicopter Corporation, in St. John's, Newfoundland, and Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg.

There are other examples of major purchases. I mention here the purchase of 35 helicopters intended this time for maritime patrol. The purchase of these new helicopters has become necessary because it is time to get rid of the thirty or so Sea King helicopters from the 1960s. Every hour of flying time requires an average of 21 hours of maintenance, according to the army. In addition, the army also says that they have to be stripped down almost entirely after every 500 hours' flying time.

The Sea Kings are based on warships. They fight submarines, acting as the eyes and ears of the frigates.

Minister Eggleton, like his predecessor, asked his staff for a study on the possibility of renting helicopters instead of buying them. The acquisition cost of 35 helicopters is estimated at $2 to $3 billion. As for the search and rescue helicopter contract, Eurocopter is in contention for this new contract.

In 1997, this company lost out in the bidding process for 15 maritime search and rescue helicopters. Bitter, it even threatened to sue the government and its competitors. It would have been useful to have a committee of the House compare the bids at the time so that parliamentarians could see them and make absolutely sure that we made the right choice.

Members will recall that, originally, the Department of National Defence had called for 50 aircraft, that is 15 search and rescue helicopters and 35 maritime patrol helicopters. However, in 1993, the Liberals cancelled the EH-101 contract, saying that the contract, which was awarded by the Conservatives, was too expensive. We demanded a lot of explanation at the time but never got the information we wanted.

The cancellation of this contract cost taxpayers a whopping $478.3 million, or almost half a billion dollars.

Today, with regard to the search and rescue capability, the Liberal government would have us believe that it saved money, even taking into account the cost of cancelling the EH-101 contract. Let us wait and see how much this contract for 35 new aircraft will cost taxpayers. Again, in this case, we think that the opportunity to discuss this issue before a standing committee of the House would help shed some light on the real terms of the contract.

I will now deal with the auditor general's report on DND, dated April 1998 . It shows that DND bought military equipment that does not meet the needs of our troops. In other words, the department is badly mismanaging its budget.

Out of six major capital equipment projects worth a total of $3.3 billion, half the projects scrutinized by the auditor general do not meet the pre-established needs of the military. Therefore, 60% of the $3.3 billion worth of capital equipment purchased does not even meet the real needs of the army.

Another example is the Leopard thermal weapon sight. On September 19, 1996, Treasury Board officially approved a project to install a thermal weapon sight on Leopard tanks.

The total estimated cost of the project is $145 million. The results of tactical analyses on how to upgrade the Leopard do not justify the decision to improve only the night vision system. Indeed, the army established that the upgrading of the whole vehicle, including the gun and the armour, was the minimum that would have been acceptable.

According to DND, a detailed analysis of existing options was not carried out for financial reasons. DND decided that purchasing the thermal weapon sight was the only affordable option. However the auditor general found no study showing this option optimized the financial resources of the army.

As part of a 1992 study by the Canadian forces, contracting out was considered. However, they came to the conclusion that no Canadian firm could supply this service and it was therefore preferable to buy the equipment. However the department did not bother calculating the cost of contracting out this service.

Then there was the project to replace the Lynx, the Coyote project.

In 1992, the government announced it was purchasing 299 light armoured reconnaissance vehicles and related support equipment. A contract was signed in March 1993. The total cost approved by Treasury Board was $883,686,000 for the budget year. The vehicles were delivered in March 1996 and January 1998.

The Coyote provides the army with a reconnaissance capability. The tactical concept adopted for the Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicle was based on various studies, including the simulation study used for the Leopard C1. This study showed that, without the support of a powerful force, a vehicle with armour like the Coyote's could not withstand enemy fire during a battle of average intensity. There again, the vehicle acquired was not suited to the needs of the army.

The study also showed that this type of vehicle could certainly not be used by a multipurpose force. Units using this kind of vehicle should be considered light units with limited means and should perform only limited tasks.

At the time of the audit by the auditor general, Canadian forces were still conducting trials to determine how the Coyotes could best be used. The assistant deputy minister, materiel, and the vice chief of defence staff ordered that Coyotes be bought on the basis of prime necessity. However, no other vehicles had been tested.

These are enough examples to justify the motion.

However, I will deal with the conclusions reached by the auditor general in April 98. He concluded that the Department of Defence relied on simplistic judgments for complex purchases, that it relied very little on equipment use plans in its studies and that the choice of materiel it ends up buying is not based on the results of the studies carried out.

This probably explains why, for 12 maritime coastal defence vessels, the department bought two units of a mechanical minesweeping device that is only effective against specific types of mines. This probably also explains why it did not buy all the necessary equipment that would allow its ships to conduct effective night patrols in poor visibility. In other words, we are well protected, but only during the daytime and when the weather is fine.

For taxpayers in Quebec and Canada, this waste of public money is unacceptable. It is also a major cause for concern, since DND plans to spend close to $6.5 billion over the next five years.

Once again, the federal government is mismanaging our tax dollars, and taxpayers in Quebec and Canada would be well advised to see to this.

We must change the defence department's way of doing things. On February 11, 1999, the auditor general appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to provide an update on that department's procurement policy.

On that occasion, the auditor general levelled criticism at the defence department's way of doing things. The department now has a plan of action to reform its procurement process, but that plan is incomplete and it does not go far enough.

For example, the purpose of the pilot project component is to test certain procurement concepts. However, several of these projects will not be completed before September 2000. Moreover, the pilot projects selected are relatively unimportant.

Conversely, in Great Britain, the smart procurement initiative was much for audacious. It led to a broad reform of the procurement proposals process, which could lead to a closer partnership between government and the private sector.

Contrary to what is done here, the British have literally opted for their major procurement items, namely their aircraft carriers, attack submarines and Apache helicopters. Canada could follow the lead of the British in that regard. Meanwhile, the House could make a first step by voting in favour of this motion.

In conclusion, I wish to say that taxpayers in Quebec and Canada can expect, in the months and years to come, to pay colossal amounts of money for these projects.

Therefore, they have a right to expect that their money is being spent wisely on good quality products. For that to happen, we believe that we should avoid past mistakes and change the way the department does things, first by adopting a rule whereby any procurement project valued at more than $100 million will be examined during public hearings by a standing committee of the House.

The purpose is to make the process more transparent and fairer for taxpayers in Quebec and Canada, so that they can get more of their money's worth. Finally, we do not believe that our motion is an end in itself. However, we do think that it is a step in the right direction.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services I would like to respond to the question raised by the hon. member for Joliette concerning the transparency and fairness of the procurement process, most specifically where the Department of National Defence is concerned.

I am therefore pleased to provide the House with a general overview of the procurement policies, processes and practices of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, as well as a brief historical background of the department.

A lengthy debate on every proposed procurement of goods and services by the Canadian Armed Forces over $100 million is not needed. Nor is it very efficient. The procurement policies presently in place demonstrate precisely what the hon. member is seeking: the assurance of an open and fair process to all concerned.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services is mandated to ensure that the procurement process is one of integrity and one which is conducted in an open and transparent manner. Wherever possible competition is the preferred approach.

To ensure businesses have equal access to contract opportunities the government has put in place an electronic tendering system called MERX. Accessible through the Internet all potential suppliers are informed about procurement opportunities at the same time. MERX reduces access costs, increases competition and provides businesses with a single point of access to information on contracting opportunities.

This system is also currently being used by seven provinces and a growing number of public institutions such as municipalities, academic institutions, school boards and hospitals. It is an excellent example of the kind of co-operation we can work on with all levels of government.

In addition, in 1997 the Government of Canada launched Contracts Canada. Through this initiative hundreds of seminars were conducted annually and are conducted annually today with businesses across the country on how to do business with the crown. Furthermore, virtually all contracts processed by the department are published on the Internet, again ensuring openness and equal access at the same time.

I would also like to take this opportunity to promote the Department of Public Works and Government Services benefits driven procurement initiative. In the past the traditional approach to procurement in a complex project was for an organization to spend months, possibly years, developing a detailed requirement to present to industry. Firms were invited to present bids based on a sometimes massive document and the lowest bid usually won.

This approach had many pitfalls. That is why a new approach has been introduced to deal with the complexities and risks of major procurement projects. Basically the benefits driven procurement asks the industry to deliver certain agreed upon results rather than follow a blueprint assigned by the government. The industry is also invited to submit ideas on what sort of project should be undertaken before a formal request is issued.

What distinguishes this approach is thorough and rigorous front end planning to remove or mitigate potential problems in a procurement process. Both the front end planning and the management of the entire acquisition life cycle are based on four basic elements: a solid business case, risk analysis, clear delineation of accountabilities, and a compensation structure closely tied to the contractor's performance.

The benefits driven procurement will help support the Canadian industry, boost confidence in the public sector and confirm the public works department as a world leader in government procurement.

Federal purchasing services are provided to more than 100 federal departments and agencies by the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Department of National Defence being its biggest client. Its mandate is to ensure the integrity of the procurement process. It is committed to open, fair, transparent and competitive procurement policies and processes. This is fundamental to our ability to deliver excellent service to our clients through the Government of Canada.

In addition, the department is determined to harness innovative ideas and make the federal procurement process even more efficient as we move into the next millennium.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services is the nation's largest purchasing agent, providing an astounding range of services to support the daily operations of government to meet the needs of all Canadians.

Every year this department buys more than $8 billion in goods and services covering 17,000 categories of service and creates more than 60,000 contract opportunities for businesses in Canada. These opportunities stimulate Canada's economy and create or maintain jobs in every sector, particularly for small and medium size businesses which are the engines of economic growth for Canada.

As I previously mentioned, the Department of National Defence is the Department of Public Works and Government Services biggest client, accounting for approximately half the department's business every year. It includes much more than weapons, ships, aircraft and military vehicles.

The public works and government services department has a long history with the Department of National Defence going back to September 1939. On the eve of the second world war Prime Minister Mackenzie King asked for the preparation of an act to create a department of supply. On the prime minister's behalf C. D. Howe, the then minister of transport, defended the move in the House of Commons by declaring that “the best guarantee that profits on war material will be kept to a minimum is to place men of skill, experience and absolute integrity” in charge of purchasing and production. This led to the war supply board which became the department of munitions and supply and then the department of defence production.

For almost 60 years the Department of National Defence has identified its needs and the Department of Public Works and Government Services has been responsible and accountable for developing and implementing procurement strategies to fulfil those needs. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where this separation exists. It is crucial to ensure the process remains fair. In the end we want Canadians to receive the best value possible for the money spent on their behalf.

To conclude, let me reiterate the government's commitment to a fair, open, transparent and competitive procurement process, a process which ensures equal access for all businesses and is managed in a way that will pass the test of public scrutiny.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to discuss the motion of the hon. member from the Bloc.

Motion M-73 calls on the House to hold public hearings on every proposed procurement of goods and services by the Canadian forces valued at more than $100 million. With respect, I would like to suggest that this would be a bad idea.

Many observers of the defence department procurement process have pointed out that the level of bureaucratic and political interference at that process is already bad enough. In fact the auditor general's report makes mention of that. I will quote from that document:

The federal government's approach to major weapons systems acquisition is too complicated, marked by the involvement of several departments, an adversarial approach to industry and complicated paperwork and specifications. Overall (industry experts) believe the current federal approach adds overhead costs and slows project completion, adding again to the total cost.

In other words, the hon. member from the Bloc is suggesting that they would add another layer of political involvement and the bureaucracy that would come with it and the process would be even more extended. In my view, the defence procurement process could use a lot less political involvement.

The last speaker from the Bloc sat in the defence committee hearing yesterday when Dr. Bland made a presentation on procurement. The question came up regarding the cancellation of the EH-101s and the present purchase of the shipboard helicopters and the process that it now entails. The question basically was what is wrong? What happened? Where is the problem?

Dr. Bland put it in this way. He said that the problems lie with the military, bureaucratic and political interface. That is where it lies. Tell me what that means, military, bureaucratic and political interface on this procurement process.

The EH-101 helicopter is a prime example of political interference, I might add. In other words, it is political interference. In the hard face of all these contracts that have been either cancelled or altered, it is direct political interference.

I do not think adding another layer of political involvement would work. I can see all kinds of arguments arising out of having public hearings on this matter. All of a sudden there would be a myriad of politicians wanting to jump into the fray making sure that a chunk of that contract was going to end up in their ridings.

What would happen to the process? It would be extended. It would be more involved, and I would have to suggest it would be much more costly to do it.

What the defence department needs is to be able to purchase the equipment it needs to do its job. It needs politicians to leave it alone and not tell it what to buy. There is always the issue that there is a political element to every purchase, but that is where experts come in to advise the politicians. The politicians should not be telling the specific department what to buy.

I know that other contracts have been let. There has always been the question of sole sourcing. That is one point that has always come up, where there is no bid process. It would be nice to have the assurance that there would be a greater number of open bid contracts and not the sole sourcing we have seen in many cases here in Canada.

There is always the question of political interference. It may not be directly by anybody in the cabinet, but it could be someone else. They could have a certain industry in their riding and may want to have a chunk of all that. I can see that coming into the mix here if we have these public hearings and politicians demand that they be involved, that industries in their ridings be involved. It may often be the case that it may not be the best industry to be involved in that bid process.

When the frigates were built, the contract was let to one shipbuilder. The one shipbuilder decided on who the subcontractors were going to be. He was guaranteed that in the contract, which was a good provision within the contract.

It prevented what some members tried to do. They tried to have that contract changed by saying they had a subcontractor in their riding that would be suitable for that contract. The contractor was able to say “No, you will not be permitted to become part of this bidding process. I have the final say”. It is my understanding it saved millions and millions of dollars because the subcontractors were selected by the contractor and everything went ahead smoothly without the interference of the politicians.

For those reasons alone, I must declare my opposition to the hon. member's motion.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. We see it as an initiative to begin the huge job of cleaning up the mess in this government's defence ministry.

The auditor general pointed out in his report last year that national defence plans to spend $6.5 billion over the next five years to purchase equipment for the Canadian forces. The auditor general was scathing in his report. All Canadians deserve an open and fair defence procurement procedure. They are not receiving the quality they deserve from their taxes.

Canada's auditor general had these words to say about this Liberal government's defence procurement practices:

We are concerned at the extent to which the Department relies on professional judgment in making complex purchase decisions. Management did not conduct adequate analyses to justify its spending decisions for most of the projects we examined. Tactical studies often did not reflect the way officials said they actually planned to employ equipment, were done too late to influence decisions, produced results that contradicted the purchase decision, were undertaken by contractors who had an interest in the Department's decision, or were not done at all.

In three cases, the Department considered only a single option. In other cases, the options analyses were inadequate.

This is simply not good enough. Furthermore this is not news to this government. The auditor general has been sounding the alarm bells on the government's procurement policies for years. The auditor general reminded the government of the following:

In 1992, we reported that DND had recognized the need to simplify and streamline its major capital acquisition process, which had become unnecessarily complex, process-driven, costly and no longer appropriate for the management of the defence capital program. Our 1994 chapters on Information Technology and Infrastructure Management pointed to continuing problems with the Department's project and program management systems, despite attempts to improve them. Our 1994 follow-up chapter also noted that while the Department has generally concurred with our recommendations, it has been slow to implement improvements. We also expressed our concern that the actions it has taken may be inadequate to address the problems with the project and program management systems.

Many of the problems associated with the purchase of major capital equipment that we found in our 1984, 1987 and 1992 audits continue to affect today's defence capital acquisition projects.

Just how bad is this situation? Following is a partial list of the disastrous mishandling of the Canadian taxpayers' money by this Liberal government's defence spenders courtesy of the auditor general: excessively complex and labour intensive acquisition process; inadequately trained project managers; insufficient resources and underestimation of supportability costs; an ineffective and untimely staffing of project management offices; gaps and overlaps in project management responsibilities; poor procurement practices; poor application of program and project risk evaluation and risk management principles; lack of an integrated information system; and inadequate project management information.

Housing and pay conditions for our forces personnel still demand attention. Recent announcements to improve pay, particularly for the lowest paid defence personnel, helps but it is not enough.

If the government were not guilty of wasting the taxpayers' money, I wonder how much we would be able to improve housing for our forces personnel. I wonder if we would be facing the safety crisis posed by our obsolete Labrador and Sea King helicopters. All Canadians deserve to have these very serious issues resolved.

The motion before us proposes to hold public hearings on every expenditure over $100 million. The sentiment lying behind the motion is good. It raises a very important question. At the crux of this issue is the extent to which the Liberal government is wasting untold millions of dollars. I can say that the people of my riding of Halifax West and throughout the province of Nova Scotia do not want the government to continue to waste their money.

I want to know, and I am quite sure that Canadians would want to know, what military hardware is currently mothballed in warehouses and elsewhere throughout the land. There must be big ticket items that are neither currently being used nor intended for use. Let us see an inventory of unused hardware that might be sold to other allied countries.

I am concerned that the government may be reluctant to provide this information so as not to be embarrassed by the amount or value of equipment purchased that was never used or used only for a short period of time before becoming obsolete or incompatible with other equipment.

In the standing committee we are currently reviewing the procurement process. It is true that one of the things that comes to mind is the complexity of this process and the length of time involved from deciding that a piece of equipment is required to the time that equipment is acquired. Perhaps part of the problem could be resolved if there was more public transparency.

The public should be aware of what is happening, the amounts of money that are being spent and how they are being spent. The previous speaker argued that public involvement might further complicate the problem. However, I would think that perhaps the threat and the involvement of public scrutiny would be a very positive thing. As things become more transparent it places more responsibility upon us to make sure that things are done properly, adequately and more effectively.

In this instance we could argue very strongly that with such huge amounts of money being expended, public scrutiny and transparency is a very important factor and would assist in the process. Anything that can assist in this procurement process to bring fairness and justice to the system and to bring good value for the money being spent is something that we would support.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party I am pleased to indicate our support for this motion.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to support this motion by the member for Joliette.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should have a Standing Committee of the House of Commons hold public hearings on every proposed procurement of goods or services by the Canadian Armed Forces valued at more than $100 million, in order to ensure that the procurement process is transparent and fair to all concerns.

In my opinion, there are good reasons to support this motion. I think that the Liberal government has given Canadians great cause to question its procurement programs. I tend to partially agree and partially disagree with the member for Calgary Northeast.

The auditor general has said that there is too much bureaucracy within our procurement process. Perhaps we should be taking out some of those levels of bureaucracy and putting in public scrutiny at that point. Public scrutiny should probably be at the level of the statement of requirement so that we could get this moving a little faster.

If we look at the maritime helicopter project, the SOR on that has already been nine years and we still have not seen anything. If we had the defence committee involved in it we would have seen something by now. From that point on it can go through the regular process but again taking out some of the levels and maybe speeding things up a little. There is no question that things have been dragging.

After all, this is the Liberal government that came to power by cancelling the EH-101 program at a cost of about $1 billion. It says it was only $500 million. If we look at what it will cost by the time we get the new Sea Kings and the search and rescue on line, it will probably be well over a $1 billion.

This program was critical to the Canadian search and rescue forces and maritime helicopter capability. It was cancelled for strictly crass political purposes. Our search and rescue capability today is hanging by a thread. A couple of weeks ago an American helicopter piloted by a Canadian completed a rescue mission off the coast of Nova Scotia.

There is a report sitting in the minister's office that reportedly says the Labrador helicopters are prone to catastrophic failures and they present a high risk to crews. The Liberals have since turned around and bought the EH-101 helicopter for search and rescue, but after spending almost $1 billion to cancel a program.

The interesting point is that we will not see the first new helicopter until the year 2001. As for the Sea King it is still waiting for a replacement. We do not even have the SOR on it yet. Once we get that it will still take five to eight years down the road.

I have been to Greenwood to see the work they are doing to rebuild these helicopters. If we add in the rebuilding they are doing, we are talking about 70 hours for every one hour of flight. No wonder the auditor general is nervous about the whole situation and is saying that the government is not handling things properly.

It is costing us millions of dollars to keep these aging helicopters air worthy, and that with a minimal return. The Sea King is available less than 40% of the time and its mission system fails half the time when it is available. There is question about the legitimacy of the Canada search helicopter program from industry and the Sea King replacement contract is coming up.

The member for Joliette has already spoken to us about the infamous Griffon helicopters. I will therefore leave them aside for now.

Then there was a Bombardier contract for NATO flight training in western Canada, an untendered contract awarded by the Liberal government to the tune of $2.85 billion. Many questions have been asked about this Liberal decision. Perhaps, if the process were more transparent, parliamentarians would have been less suspicious of Liberal motives in the decision.

These are questions that parliamentarians should be able to ask and should be able to get substantive answers to, but not at the moment. In my opinion the Liberal government, through its sleight of hand approach to procurement, has forced parliamentarians to put forward these types of motions.

One of the very functions of the committee process is to enable parliamentarians to question government on the estimates. The government has not been forthcoming in this regard and has demonstrated its disrespect for the parliamentary process. It is not just a problem of the Department of National Defence but of all departments of the government. Thus parliamentarians are forced to take action such as this motion to create another committee.

SCONDVA is studying the issue of procurement. This committee should have the same oversight role with regard to defence procurement. SCONDVA demonstrated its competence and its credibility with the recent quality of life study. It is a good, strong committee with members deeply interested in the defence of the country and has garnered considerable expertise on defence issues in the last several years. Thus it is only right that the expertise of SCONDVA is given an oversight role on defence procurement.

If we remember, the Somalia inquiry called for a vigilant parliament. Vigilance must be demonstrated in the field of defence procurement as well. Another committee as recommended in the motion would be necessary to allow SCONDVA to deal with the massive issues before it.

My only concern is that while remaining vigilant we do not unnecessarily tie the hands of government in times of crisis. For instance, the United States is now running low on cruise missiles at a time when it is at war.

It might not be in the nation's national security interest to put procurement issues through a committee during a serious crisis. I think many would agree that this is a delicate time and a delicate issue. Thus I support the motion.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion by the member for Joliette.

I seconded this motion because I think it makes a lot of sense. One could even ask why what it proposes is not already in practice.

The motion proposes that a standing committee hold public hearings on every proposed procurement valued at more than $100 million. This would probably come under the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. There would therefore be witnesses, people who would ask questions in order to examine all aspects of such procurement. One hundred million dollars is a lot of money. The government would do well to be transparent.

Speaking of national defence, we can see in the Kosovo crisis that one of the problems of this government is a lack of transparency in its actions, the paucity of information it provides. Ultimately, we should perhaps not expect to be given strategic information in wartime.

I had to replace the member for Joliette on the committee. He almost never misses committee meetings. He is extremely available and devoted to his work. Approximately one month ago, however, he asked me to replace him on the defence committee. At the time, the committee was examining government contracts and defence procurement.

National Defence representatives, officials and military personnel appeared as witnesses. I was surprised at the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of obtaining information, about the breakdown by province of military equipment procurement, for instance.

We were given a few examples. If memory serves, there were about 50 budgets and, at the most, three breakdowns. It is interesting for members, who represent their riding, of course, but also their region and their province, to know how the money is distributed. I was able to question witnesses on regional impacts.

Why did the member for Joliette ask me to replace him? Quite simply because I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development. I therefore wanted to see the defence budgets, the impact they could have on a region.

This information seems to be a state secret. Yet I was not questioning them with a view to finding out what the equipment looked like or what it was made of, or to obtain military secrets. If that had been the case, I could understand. There is no question of telling all, of making everything public, when dealing with defence matters. It is important, however, to know how the money is distributed, what companies and how many jobs are involved. Questions have to be asked about how defence budgets are allocated and decided upon.

I also asked how these things were assessed and by whom. Departmental officials said that they had committees, that studies were commissioned and that the findings were submitted to cabinet. An interesting discovery we make while reading the auditor general's report is that taxpayers from Canada and Quebec can expect to spend large sums of money on projects over the next few months. That means there is a lot of money to be spent each year and, over the next few years, more equipment will have to be replaced.

The report also says that cabinet did not always rely on the findings from studies commissioned by the Department of National Defence. The findings from studies, whether in-house or conducted by firms outside DND, should be used. The auditor general noted, however, that decisions made by cabinet were seldom based on these studies, which is absolutely deplorable.

Regarding the choice of criteria, officials told me that studies were taken into account, but that decisions were primarily based on the political judgement of cabinet members.

When small amounts are involved, I can understand that it may not always be necessary to call for public tenders. But for contracts of $100 million or more, as the member for Joliette said, it seems to me that tendering should be considered.

In fact, I think the member for Joliette is a little bit too reasonable. If I have one criticism to voice regarding his motion, it is that the amount could have been smaller. However he made the following comment in his speech “This is for lack of anything better, since currently there is no obligation to go to tender for procurement projects valued at even more than that”. He suggests that at least we start at this level.

Personally, I would go further, but he is wise. He is trying to get the support of all parties and possibly government members. Even though it is a private member's motion, government members could support it. It seems to me it would be in the public interest.

We should have a parliamentary committee to review budgets, legislation and regulations on this. This is what our constituents want us to do. We are talking about $100 million in military equipment procurement and the government it telling us “No, these decisions are up to cabinet”. The auditor general, public servants and independent observers are saying that the trouble these days in Canada is that everything is decided by the cabinet.

However, I will not go as far as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and leave with my seat on this account.

Last night, the governing party went against the wishes of all the opposition parties and refused to hold a vote in the House on the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo. Decisions like these reflect the centralizing approach of the government.

The year 2000 is near. In my riding, people do not think much of politicians as a whole because they feel that in this parliament, as in others, democracy means “You can say all you want, decisions are made elsewhere”. In this instance, decisions are made strictly at cabinet level.

And who controls the cabinet? The Prime Minister. This is how things are done in the Prime Minister's office: the minister responsible makes a recommendation and the other ministers support it because of what is called collective cabinet responsibility. In fact, only a handful of people make the big decisions.

I want to remind the House that we are talking about $100 million, which seems quite reasonable to me. This is why I wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Joliette. I want to commend him for moving the motion and aptly arguing in its favour. I urge my Liberal colleagues to support it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)