Debates of March 1st, 2001

Supply

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about conflict or wars, one of the words that we always hear is brainwashing. It seems that the members opposite have been very well brainwashed in relation to the procedures that we are dealing with here.

What concerns us and I am sure Canadians is not that we are seeking information in relation to the replacement of the helicopters. It is the matter of the rules and restrictions that are being placed on them to prohibit the best type of helicopter that would replace what we have.

Perhaps we should be asking why some of these restrictions are in place. That might be something we will follow up at another time. The bottom line is that if we are going to have the best, then we should have the opportunity to get the best, not a bargain basement price where we usually get what we pay for.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member for St. John's West on this very important initiative, the procurement of the maritime helicopter. His party knows the history, more than any other party in the House, about what it took to bring that procurement up to this point.

Governments have been trying to pick a maritime helicopter for over 30 years. The Conservative Party initiated the procurement process to purchase this helicopter. The military went through a long process in picking the best helicopter for the conditions that it would be faced with.

I ask the member, what does he think the helicopter should be like, given the fact that it was his party that chose it? Could he also tell us why it was chosen?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very simple. If we are going to send our people to the front lines, we should provide them with the best equipment that is available.

The original undertaking by the Tory government to provide helicopters to the armed forces ended with the decision to buy ones that would cost $4.3 billion. That was opposed, as hon. members know, by the government opposite. The selection was made because the Tory government thought those machines were the best at that time. All we ask now is that the current government, in purchasing equipment for our armed forces, buy what is best for them.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this morning. It gives me the opportunity to explain how my department intends to manage this important project so that the contract for the purchase of the helicopters needed by the Department of National Defence for its maritime operations may be concluded at a reasonable cost to Canadian taxpayers.

The people of Canada realize that the country needs a fleet of combat capable helicopters for maritime operations.

The Department of National Defence and its representatives have spent a lot of time and energy setting out Canada's needs in this regard. The minister had the support of members of cabinet in their acquisition and now it is my department's turn to manage the purchase process.

I assure hon. members on all sides of the House that the process will be fair, open, transparent and competitive. At the end of the day we will have saved taxpayers $1.5 billion compared to the former government's helicopter purchase project. That $1.5 billion can be invested in other worthwhile initiatives including the new social justice initiative announced in the Speech from the Throne.

I know that hon. members across the way will want to applaud the government for its sound fiscal management. Canadians have endorsed the Liberal approach of balancing tax and debt reductions with strategic investment in the economy. Now it is time to get on with the job.

It was my pleasure to be at the side of the Minister of National Defence last August when he announced the government's intention to proceed with the purchase of 28 maritime helicopters. Over the past six months we have continued to develop and refine the procurement strategy that will be used for the project.

Today I will update hon. members on various elements of the strategy, including a number of innovative procurement practices that will help ensure Canada gets the helicopters and the mission system it needs at the lowest price.

Hon. members know that the project in question is intended to replace the fleet of Sea King CH-124 helicopters of the Canadian armed forces. The new helicopters will be equipped with integrated mission systems designed to meet needs specific to maritime operations. This state of the art equipment will give the men and women of the Canadian armed forces the tools they need to do their work better in demanding often dangerous operations.

Shortly after the maritime helicopter project was announced, last August, the government released a letter of interest to inform businesses of our intentions and our general requirements and to discover their interest in the project.

The letter of interest also set out the purchasing strategy planned, and the facts were confirmed. The project would comprise two separate contracts: the first would pertain to basic vehicles and the second, integrated mission systems. Long term service support will be an element of both contracts.

The letter of interest had another goal, and that was to initiate a dialogue with the industry. I am pleased to report that we have been successful in that regard. Many of the companies that responded to the letter of interest have also provided helpful feedback on our statement of operational requirements and procurement strategy. We will respond to the comments and take the views of potential bidders into account as the project unfolds over coming weeks and months.

The point I am making is that it is very much an open and transparent process. Industry interaction is critical for large projects such as this one. The release of the letter of interest was a first step in our effort to encourage a dialogue with industry.

One of our next steps will be to announce which companies have expressed an interest in becoming the prime contractor for the helicopters or the mission systems, or both, and meet the criteria set in the letter of interest.

Unfortunately—and this is very important—no Canadian company makes helicopters that comply with the requirements of the maritime helicopter project. This means that the basic model will be provided by a foreign supplier. We think that several foreign companies can meet our needs and we anticipate that a large number of companies will compete for these contracts.

As for mission systems, I am pleased to say that Canadian companies can provide such systems and that some have expressed an interest in that regard. It is perfectly possible that a Canadian company will be awarded that contract. We also expect Canadian companies to bid for the two subcontracts.

Some wonder why it is necessary to have two different calls for tenders to buy helicopters and mission systems. The reason is very simple. We believe that, by using separate calls for tenders, the state will get the helicopters and services that it needs, and the necessary long term in-service support, at the best possible price.

That approach will also allow a larger number of companies to bid, since using a single contract would have the effect of eliminating many Canadian companies that are interested in becoming the prime contractor.

As a matter of general interest I confirm for hon. members that the maritime helicopter project is exempt from the North American Free Trade Agreement, from the WTO agreement on government procurement, and from any restriction or requirement under comprehensive land claims agreements. However the agreement on internal trade will apply to the project.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the letter of interest released last August has triggered a dialogue with industry. To facilitate further industry interaction, the project management office for the maritime helicopter project has established a website to serve as the principal means of communicating with the industry. The website will be a vital source of information for potential prime contractors and others interested in the project. We plan to use the site to make key technical requirements known to all bidders as early as possible.

Toward this end, over the next few weeks the project management office will post draft specifications and other documents on the web that will eventually form part of the formal request for proposals.

The progressive issuing of provisional RFPs will enable interested companies to examine and comment on various aspects of the maritime helicopter project. We will be able to make changes to the technical requirements or other features of the project based on their comments.

This dialogue will increase the likelihood that helicopter and mission system hardware will be compliant with project requirements, and will also make it possible to confirm that interested companies can reasonably meet the government's requirements.

Interested companies will have ample opportunity to examine the provisional specifications for the base helicopter and to make comments in this regard over a two-month period, after which we will be launching an obligatory prequalification process.

The prequalification process is unique in this project. In fact, it is the first time we have used it for a project of this magnitude. We want to avoid having tenders rejected because they are non-compliant technically.

Preparing a tender is very expensive and the government must work together with potential suppliers to keep the risks of non-compliance to a minimum.

With this in mind, the prequalification process will be conducted in advance of the formal submission of bids. Prequalification will largely focus on the hardware aspect of the bid based on the draft specifications. Separate prequalification processes will be conducted for the basic helicopter and integrated mission system.

In keeping with the overall approach being used for the project, the prequalification process will involve a dialogue with industry. Potential prime contractors will be expected to provide a level of detail we would normally get in formal bids. The technical information provided by each potential contractor will be examined to ensure it conforms with the requirements set out by the Department of National Defence.

This interactive approach will give industry an opportunity to address any concerns we might have with its technical proposals before it submits formal bids, thereby reducing the risk of receiving non-compliant bids. Potential bidders who have not achieved the prequalification status at least 30 days in advance of the close of bids will be declared non-compliant. Their bids will not be considered as part of the formal tendering process.

I would like to repeat that the prequalification process will focus primarily on the technical aspects for each contract.

It will still be possible to declare a bid non-compliant if a company does not meet the other requirements set out in the RFP, such as those having to do with the statement of work, management of the program, funding, and industrial and regional benefits.

Members should also know that the inclusion of service support, which is a separate component in each contract, is unique to this project. Comprehensive maintenance and support services for the helicopters and the mission systems will be required on an ongoing basis.

The government anticipates that this service support will be required for a period of approximately 20 years. For each contract, this component will include an option to progressively increase service support up until the end of the helicopters' life cycle.

Service support, which is included in each RFP, will ensure that we obtain a quality product, since the supplier will have to assume long term responsibility for what he is delivering.

It will also allow the government to seek the maximum industrial and regional benefits for each contract.

Some hon. members no doubt have questions about the timing of different stages of the procurement process. Our procurement plan is to ensure the formal RFP for the helicopter contract in the fall. The RFP will have a three month closing date followed by a two month evaluation process leading to the selection of the successful contractor.

Our goal is to sign a contract for a basic helicopter as early as possible in 2002, after which we will move quickly to the issue of requesting formal proposals for the mission system. As hon. members can appreciate, the two RFPs cannot proceed simultaneously, as potential bidders for the mission system will need to know which helicopter is to be purchased in order to develop a proper integration plan.

The request for proposals for both contracts will set out strict evaluation criteria for price, technical compliance, contractual terms and conditions, and industrial regional benefits. Specifically with regard to industrial regional benefits our goal is to ensure that Canadian suppliers receive maximum benefits for both contracts.

Consistent with the principles used for previous procurements, we will be seeking industrial regional benefits equivalent to the value of the contracts for both the helicopter and the integrated mission system.

In the case of the airframe, the contract will be awarded to the prime contractor submitting the lowest proposal that complies with all the terms. This proposal is to include the airframe, the modifications, the related modifications to the ship and service support.

In the case of the mission systems, the contract will be awarded to the prime contractor whose proposal is the lowest. This proposal is to include the costs of the mission package of the maritime helicopters and service support.

My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, informed the House that the maritime helicopters were the first priority of his department in equipment procurement. Worth nearly $2.9 billion, this proposed purchase is also the largest under my department's management at the moment.

My department is the largest procurement organization in Canada. We have vast experience in the management of major government supply projects, including the purchase of defence materiel. I can therefore assure the House that my department is able to carry the maritime helicopter project to a successful conclusion.

I want also to assure my hon. colleagues that the transparent and competitive process we have put in place will ensure that all those tendering will be treated fairly, that taxpayers' money will be carefully invested and that, finally, the purchase of these maritime helicopters will meet Canada's needs for many years to come.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, we have an access response from DND that states that the maritime helicopter program office in DND never initiated the recommendation to split the maritime helicopter program and make purchases based on lowest price compliance.

As all government departments must agree before it leaves cabinet, public works recommendations had to be the same as DND. DND did not agree on what was being proposed by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Minister of National Defence.

Could the minister please tell us why it is going in this direction? Furthermore, how could they possibly at this time enter into an agreement? In New Brunswick the Learn Stream company, the president and CEO of Lockheed Martin Canada, has already signed a memorandum of understanding with them. I thought we had not made a decision yet. Why are we out signing agreements with companies, such as the one in Fredericton, in my province, that are in pursuit of the federal government's $2.8 billion maritime helicopter program?

The government recognizes the need to secure the very best in training systems and the Learn Stream expertise in the development of custom courseware and learning technologies, helps to fulfil this requirement.

The government has already entered into agreements with companies and yet we are supposed to be discussing who gets the contract. I have never seen this done before. I am sure it has never happened in the House before.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member gets her information but definitely she has it all wrong.

First, in August it was the Minister of Finance. I said, if they would have listened to my speech, that I was at the side of the Minister of National Defence when he announced the procurement, strategy and intention of the government. This was a government decision. It was not a decision by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services or the Minister of National Defence. The government stands behind this decision.

Concerning the second part of the member's question, I do not know where she got the information but there is no agreement with any company. We sent a letter of interest. We got proposals and we opened dialogue and discussions. There is no signed agreement with anybody.

I am really surprised and shocked to see that while we are going through the process, the hon. member has decided to fight about what company should get the contract. It is unfair since we have an open process.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly listened to the minister carefully because I too had some questions on the way this particular procurement initiative has been set up.

Clearly he pointed out that there would be two contracts left: one for the airframe, basically the helicopter airframe, and the other one for the mission kit. Is that not correct?

Because there are two contractors, who will be the prime contractor? Will it be the Government of Canada?

If the mission kit does not quite fit into the airframe, or if something has to be adjusted, holes cut in the frame or whatever, who will be liable for that if it does not work?

Who will be liable if one contractor does not like the way the other contractor configured a certain part of the airframe or vice versa? Will the government then have to come and intervene? Why is there not a prime contractor and why was it not let?

I know for a fact that the government was advised not to do it this way but it went ahead and did it anyway.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, the reason for making two contracts is that we wanted to have more competition. This will give more companies, especially more Canadian companies, the possibility to participate in this major procurement.

Second, there will be a primary contractor. The primary contractor will be, according to the letter of interest that we put forward and received comments on and to which we will respond, the integrated mission control contractor.

In this industry, companies make associations with each other. Why have an open competition process when these companies can make agreements among themselves for the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer?

That is why we are doing it this way. I am surprised again how they take a pre-position for one company when there are so many companies interested in the project.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, from what the minister just said, and I say this with all due respect, the reality is that this is simple nonsense.

The fact is that this contract was split to exclude one particular company, the company that had the original EH-101. If the government decided that possibly that company would have been the most successful bidder today, then we would be asking the government why it cancelled the contract in 1993 in the first place. That is the reality.

I have the following question for the minister. When the initial tender process for the helicopters went out, it stated that it was “mandatory” that it be completed by 2005. Now we have word that it has been changed to read that it would be “preferred” to have the helicopter replaced by 2005.

Would the minister please explain the change?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, this process does not exclude anybody. To the contrary, it includes everybody to compete. If the Cormorant wants to compete, it can compete. It is very good.

This procurement strategy is to make sure that Canadians get the best for their tax dollars and that they get the best equipment the defence needs. The government cancelled the contract because it does not need to spend so much money. This strategy will save Canadian taxpayers $1.5 billion that we can invest in health, in social justice and other things that Canadians need.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My question was quite clear. I asked why the change in the wording of the contract from mandatory to preferred.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

That is not a point of order.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, the distinguished member for Saint John mentioned in her speech that one would never buy a motor vehicle without the frame, the tires, the transmission and the air conditioning. That struck a chord with me being a car dealer for 18 years.

I will point out that the Ford Motor Company just announced that it has had so much trouble separating the contract for regular cars and police equipped cars that it has come together with its contractor to produce one package. It will now have one package for electronics, navigation and communications, with which police cars are equipped. It has all come together because there was no accountability. Nobody was ever held responsible if there was a defect or a change.

How can the minister separate the air frame from the mission package on helicopters when he knows that private industry has proven this to be a defective approach?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we had fruitful discussions after the letter of interest was sent out to the industry. The way this procurement would go ahead is that, first, we would have the competition for procurement of the basic helicopter. Once that competitive process is over and we have chosen a base helicopter, the other competition will start. In the second competition the industry will now know the model of helicopter we will have chosen.

This is a very sophisticated industry and an industry that works with each other. We have been seeing consortiums on purchases of this nature around the world. Why can consortiums not be within the competitive process for the taxpayers' benefit? Why do multinationals always have to always get the benefit instead of Canadians?

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I should point out that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Island North.

Before I jump into the discussion on the Sea King replacement, I would like to begin by thanking all the people in my riding for the valiant effort they put forward in my successful re-election.

I am very appreciative of the democratic process. I saw it in full action in my riding for eight months, although it was almost a year if we include the election. A lot of campaigning went on during the nomination process and my membership reached 15,000, the largest membership in Canada. I had 10,000 constituents who came out to the polls for my nomination. It was very significant. I am very grateful for their involvement in my nomination and election. My election was rather like a cakewalk after the nomination. My deepest gratitude goes to those people who participated and helped out so much.

I will now go on to the Sea Kings, which has been an issue for quite some time. Discussions and efforts to replace the Sea Kings, the maritime helicopter, have been going on for over 30 years. It began in the early seventies and we are no closer now than we were back then.

The issue was studied at length under the Conservative government of the day and a decision was made, I believe, in 1992 to replace the helicopter and give our military personnel something they could use, feel safe in and something for which they would be proud. Everyone in the House knows what unfortunately happened to that project in the 1993 election. A decision was made by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister of the day to shut down that project. I have never heard a good excuse as to why it was shut down. There have been excuses rendered, but I said a good excuse.

I have had an opportunity to see a lot of our equipment, as have other members on both sides of the House. They have had the opportunity to look at the equipment our military personnel have to work with. The Sea King is one of the oldest helicopters and is definitely in need of replacement. Its limitations jeopardize those who use the equipment as well as those who may depend on our personnel for help.

I feel very frustrated given the fact that we have sat in the opposition in the House since 1993. We have pushed the government to bring about closure on this issue and give our troops some good equipment. It just was not to be. It is still not to be for several years to come.

I do not know how much longer our Sea Kings will last or how many more lives will be lost. Lives have been lost by personnel using this equipment. It is an unnecessary jeopardy of members of our military personnel. They work in a most unusual environment. Even with good equipment they sometimes lose their lives. We saw that happen not too long ago, but to jeopardize lives unnecessarily by allowing them to continue to use old equipment is another matter.

Prior to the last election we submitted a policy paper dealing with military issues called “Canada Strong and Free”. It makes mention of the need for having proper equipment. There are experienced people who know what proper equipment means.

One section in that pamphlet included an idea that we wanted to put forward in an effort to try to fill a need in our military. It said that we should have corvettes with helicopters on them as a means of patrolling and as a means of readiness. Our booklet was circulated to ex-military personnel and to the military. Many experts had a good look at it. The feedback indicated that it was not a very good idea to have a corvette ship with helicopters on it because of the size of a corvette.

Experienced personnel said that we were crazy if we thought they would go back to corvettes in the North Atlantic, the roughest seas in the world. It would not be a suitable way to spend taxpayer money. That came from an expert. We are certainly open to changes and suggestions. I think in this case that is exactly what must be done. The experts know the environment in which the equipment will be operating.

If the Eurocopter happens to be the choice of the government on the other side, it is a dreadful mistake.

[An hon. member]

Where are they?

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I hear the hon. member. Where are they? That helicopter is no bigger or more powerful than the Sea King that is operating on our frigates now, which is 40 years old. It has no more capacity than our present equipment. Why are we replacing a helicopter considered too old and unable to meet the conditions of the day with something almost comparable except somewhat newer? That is the only difference. Why would that be happening?

I have question for the government across the way. Is it because back in 1993 the Prime Minister decided to cancel that cadillac project, as he called it, at the expense of the military and for the benefit of gaining votes? Is that the reason it was cancelled and is no longer being considered?

Twenty years of progress in trying to come up with the right piece of equipment is finally reached, and what happens? It becomes political. The member across the way mentioned something about partisanship. I do not know how much more partisan we can get than ripping something away that is legitimately needed, in this case by our military, because of a political advantage that might be gained. I think there is something cynical about that.

That is the past. Today is the present. Since that time there has been an effort to change the statement of requirements so that something less or something other than the one that was cancelled back in 1993 could possibly be selected. How can we go about doing that? How can we change the statement of requirements on which the military spent years and many millions of dollars researching? All of a sudden we will change it into something else and expect the military to support everything we do.

We can talk to the rank and file in the military. As members across the way will know, those who were part and parcel of the project know that this is not what is required. They had already made their selection and now the political masters will make them change it and turn it all around.

My time is up. There is a real need to take the procurement processes out of the hands of politicians until the final level of negotiation is done. Unfortunately that is not the direction in which the government is going.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, the member suggests that decisions have already been taken. That could not be further from the case.

As the minister laid out for the House, there is an ongoing extensive process where the letters of interest were sent to create a dialogue with the industry to determine what its situation. We found that the helicopter market is much more mature, much more developed than it was back when the situation was dealt with by the former government.

It raises a question about procurement as a process. Public Works and Government Services Canada provides professional procurement services on behalf of all government departments and agencies. In regard to this very important procurement that has been presented to us by the Department of National Defence, our objectives are to meet the specifications of the client, being DND. That is precisely what we are doing. The process is to satisfy the specifications required by the Department of National Defence.

Public works and government services does not play around with the specifications. By creating a dialogue with the industry we ensure that the process we go through will meet those standards. We want value. We want the lowest cost for the taxpayer and we want to meet the specifications. We do not want anything more.

As the minister indicated, by splitting the request for proposal into two pieces, one for the frame and one for the mission system, it is quite frankly an opportunity to take advantage of the mature marketplace that the helicopter industry and the aerospace industry provide. I hope the member will inform himself that there are many more interested parties now than there ever were before.

Does the member have a problem with a process that seeks to procure the frame and the mission system in accordance with the specifications of DND and the lowest cost for meeting those specifications?

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. Do I have a problem? If the process were as open as the government claims it to be I would have no problem, but that has not happened.

We just have to go back a few years, during which time an effort was made on the part of the government under the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office to change the statement of requirements on the maritime helicopter from what the EH-101 specified, or the military specified, into something more suitable for the frontline over there. Is that open and transparent? No, it is not open and transparent.

The member raised a good point. There is a need to consult. We have to change the overall procurement process, not just in the area of the military. I know other countries have done so. They have included industry. They have included the public, the government and the opposition where there was a unified voice coming out of the house to do what was best for the military.

We do not have that now. It has become a very partisan issue. The military has been chopped this way and that way because it is easy to chop it. It is not a constituency that is all lumped together in one spot. It is easy to pick on. It is easy to knock down. It is easy to change the whole way of thinking because of that fact.

There is not agreement in the House over what is best for our military. It has become very partisan and I have to say it is because of that side of the House.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, as members of parliament we should not be advocating one company over another in the House. We should be advocating a clear, open and transparent contract so that all companies have fair bids on it.

In my earlier question to the minister of public works I said a particular company was being excluded from the contract because of the way the tender process was set up. I did not mention the name of the company. The minister mentioned the name of the company, which was Cormorant.

This obviously smacks and reeks of political interference. Could the hon. member from the Alliance Party elaborate on that?

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member raises the crux of the whole matter. It shows how partisan the House has become over issues that are beneficial to the overall country and in this case to the military.

It has involved meetings behind closed doors to change things that should never have been changed. It has defeated and frustrated the efforts of experts and those who use this equipment to the point where a malaise has set in. It has been detrimental to our country and to our military.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I remind everyone what we are talking about today. We are talking about a supply day motion of the Progressive Conservative Party, sponsored by the member for Saint John. The basic crux of the motion is:

—to eliminate the barriers in the Letter of Interest to the aerospace industry, which impede a fair and open Maritime Helicopter Project.

I am very grateful the member brought it forward. Comox air force base is in my riding and I am delighted to represent a riding encompassing this special place.

In 1990 the budget for the Department of National Defence was more than $12 billion. It had 85,000 members. The budget was slashed by the government to $9 billion. It is now at $10 billion and its ranks have shrunk to 58,000. This week there are noises from the government that it will add another $600 million, basically for deserved wage increases.

Given the value of the dollar and the 11 year timeframe, is it any wonder our military has been asked to do more and more with less and less? Throughout this whole episode since 1993, the government has been paying lip service to supporting the military when in fact it has been callous and irresponsible in its actions, particularly in terms of equipping our armed forces personnel for the jobs at hand.

I was a candidate in the federal election in 1993. How well I remember the Liberals making a huge issue of the EH-101 cancellation. They never suggested we did not need helicopters. They simply suggested it was the wrong one. Where are we now, eight years later? Not a single maritime helicopter replacement for the Sea Kings has yet been ordered.

Search and rescue helicopters will be delivered to the west coast. We will have five in Comox this year and we will have the operational training centre in Comox. Search and rescue capabilities will be filled over the next year and a half, none too soon.

The Sea Kings are ancient. They are a national embarrassment. The $600 million paid to cancel the 43 Cormorant helicopters ordered in 1993 was a problem at the time. Cancellation was a problem because Canada really needed new helicopters then. We need them now more than ever.

The search and rescue helicopters ordered in December 1997 are the same helicopters that the government cancelled in 1994 at great cost to the taxpayer. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence questions whether we have a problem with this process. Yes, we sure do, because we are not naive.

I will quote at some length from Greg Weston, Sun Media national political columnist. I would rather do that than plagiarize. He encapsulates very well what is common knowledge in national defence and political circles, both nationally and unfortunately internationally. This is an international embarrassment. He states:

Now, buying Cormorant helicopters from the same British-Italian consortium that got $600 million of public money for (the Prime Minister's) cancelling of the original contract for Cormorant helicopters—well, the political optics of this were not lost on the bright lights in the Prime Minister's Office.

Enter (the Prime Minister) and Company. According to one classified document, retired Ontario Chief Justice Charles Dubin was hired by the justice department to give “a legal opinion—in connection with the procurement of search and rescue helicopters”. He found nothing to justify voiding the Cormorant bid.

The Department of Government Services hired the accounting firm KPMG—

This is a respected outfit. He continues:

—to conduct an “independent validation” of the bid process. In a document marked “for government eyes only—sensitive,” KPMG reported that the bid process represented “one of the best procurement evaluations we have seen”.

Finally, sources tell us that the PM appointed—his trusty deputy PM and all-purpose political fixer to head up a secret cabinet committee, presumably to ensure that bidding was fair, open, honest—and not won by the Cormorant.

In December 1997, (the Prime Minister) headed south for his usual month of golf, reassured by the military that the Cormorant bid was history. But a funny thing happened on the way to the contracting office. (The Deputy Prime Minister) had to phone (the Prime Minister) in Florida to tell him the Cormorant had won. (So apparently had the Defence Department which had so effectively bamboozled the PM.) (The Prime Minister's) response to this news was described to us as largely unprintable.

In early 1998 (yes, after the election) the Liberal government decided to call bids for another 28 multi-purpose military helicopters, bringing the total new fleet to 43—the same number the Tories had ordered and (the Prime Minister) had cancelled five years before. This time (the Prime Minister) and Co. left little to chance.

In one memo to Air Force Commander L. C. Campbell, a fellow officer began: “Assuming there will be a competition to select the new maritime helicopter, it is quite possible that the Cormorant might win it”. He then asked: “Even though the Cormorant is politically unacceptable (“political suicide” as you said), how do you ensure that it does not win a maritime helicopter competition?“ And: “If the Cormorant were to win a military helicopter competition on its merits, wouldn't we again be in the same position of being accused of tricking the government?”

Finally: “Do you think the Cabinet would just opt to select the second place finisher if the Cormorant were to be winner of a competition?”

Does the parliamentary secretary now understand why we are suspicious, why we are not naive?

The bottom line is that this knowledge within the Department of National Defence, in political circles and for anyone close to this subject is the motivation for this motion. The government thinks it is politically embarrassing for it to allow an objective, unbiased, non-partisan analysis of the Sea King replacement proposals and insiders are aware that the fix is in.

The men and women in our armed forces and Canadian taxpayers deserve to be treated with respect and the government needs to take a principled position, not a political position, on such an important issue. Shame on the government. Shame on the Prime Minister's Office for allowing this to become a political exercise, for leaving our military in the lurch without replacement maritime helicopters and for corrupting the process.

The member for Saint John, the mover of the motion, has been eloquent this morning on this issue, as has the Canadian Alliance critic. I support this motion.

I have other points I should like to make. If the initial EH-101 contract had been filled, all search and rescue and shipboard aircraft, none of which are flying now, would have been flying four or five years ago. When a Sea King crashed in Saint John in 1994 the then defence minister, who is now the transport minister, asked Colonel Cody, then the base commander at Shearwater, to keep a lid on the community with the promise there would be a replacement by the year 2000. Colonel Cody complied, but when the promises went unfulfilled, in retirement he felt compelled to speak out.

Retired Canadian forces officers and Atlantic Canada senators have formed Friends of Maritime Aviation to speak out against tardiness of Sea King replacement. Collectively the retired officers have flown more than 10,000 hours in the Sea Kings. The blame rests with the Prime Minister.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, the member says that the government has corrupted the process. This is absolutely wrong and I want to lay out why.

We put out a letter of interest to advise the industry about the government's intentions and requirements to determine the level of interest in the project. The letter of interest outlines the intended procurement strategy and the fact that the project will involve two separate competitions, one for the helicopter and one for the mission system.

The contracts will set out strict evaluation criteria for price, technical compliance, contractual terms and conditions and industrial and regional benefits, or IRBs.

We have a process. It is open. It is fair. It is transparent. It has been laid out. All of the specs are on the Department of National Defence website for all members to see and for the aerospace industry to see.

Given that this is the process, which has been laid out very clearly in the letter of interest to the aerospace industry, I wonder if the member would not agree that this in fact is an open, fair and transparent process.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I read a lot of military history and a lot of regular political and other history. If we do not pay attention to history, we are bound to repeat it. The mistakes are ones that we have to pay attention to, along with the other malfeasance.

I am not naive. We know this is not an open and fair process. We know that the Prime Minister's office is trying to direct where this contract goes. We know the Prime Minister's office has an agenda. That is totally unprincipled and totally inappropriate.

Our armed forces personnel, more than anyone else in the country, are people who, when they sign an employment contract, put more than a vocation into this. They are putting their lives in the hands of their employer, the Government of Canada and our armed forces. They do not deserve to be treated the way they are being treated in this Sea King helicopter replacement program.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member from Vancouver Island. As he has an air force base in his riding so I have one in mine, Shearwater, where I believe most of the replacements will hopefully eventually end up.

In an earlier question I had for the minister of public works, I said that the way this tendering process is split basically excludes a particular company from bidding on the contract. I never mentioned the name of the company. In the minister's reply, the minister said Cormorant, so even the government knows the company that is being excluded from this process.

It is not for members of parliament to stand up in the House and support one company over another one, but the member from Vancouver Island is right when he says it is up to us to ensure that all tendered contracts, especially for something as valuable as armed forces, are as open and transparent as possible so that everyone has an opportunity to bid fairly.

I wonder whether he could just elaborate on that, please.