Debates of March 26th, 2003

Assisted Human Reproduction Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

I would like to apologize to the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest for being short with him during the proceedings earlier this day.

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' hour this day.

The order is therefore deferred to a future sitting.

I understand that the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North would like the unanimous consent of the House to have his vote recorded as a yea on the vote just taken. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Business of the House

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had indicated to the table clerks my desire to raise a point of order before debate was resumed.

There has been consultation among all the parties and I believe that you would find unanimous consent, in connection with Bill C-230, a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Manicouagan, for the order to be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

There is consent among all parties on this.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to elaborate on my question about the issue of the new maritime helicopter procurement. At the time the defence minister replied to my question which had been directed to the public works minister, but the genesis of the whole issue is whether we are getting the best value for the new dollars we are going to spend.

After 10 years of foot dragging on this issue, the cancellation of the EH-101s which the previous government had ordered, we find the government is now in a hurry to be seen to be doing something but it has really given up the pretence that it is out to get helicopters as fast as possible. There have been 10 years of the government dragging its feet.

I am really concerned. Does the minister understand that the best price and lowest dollar is not necessarily the same as best value? We have to talk about the lifetime of the contract, the helicopters in place, maintenance of them and fleet commonality. A lot of those things come into best value when we start to describe it.

Best value is called for by the Auditor General, Treasury Board guidelines, the public works manual and of course the new finance minister in his 2003 budget. If the minister will not deny that bureaucrats are using lowest cost compliance to choose a contractor, then how can the minister explain the dumbing down of requirements for the potential new helicopter? I will run through the points where the government has weakened the bid.

Does the new chopper need twin landing gear? The old Sea King has it. Does it need to take off with a full load in zero wind conditions? The Sea King can. Does it need to fly more than two hours and twenty minutes? The Sea King, even at 40 years of age, can still do it. Does it need to carry more than one little torpedo if it is warm out? There is the load capacity. The Sea King can carry two now, formerly four. Does it need to cruise faster than 120 knots? The Sea King can still maintain and sustain 151 knots. Does it need to be able to handle new equipment in the years ahead? Apparently it is acceptable that its performance falls off.

What is listed as specs for the new helicopter does not even compete with the 40-year-old Sea Kings that we have today. The government has lowered the requirements to try to bring in a cheap price to justify the cancellation from 10 years ago. It is a terrible way to operate a procurement procedure.

Canadian taxpayers, and of course we in the opposition, would like an explanation why the government is looking for a helicopter that is slower, smaller, less safe and less capable than our 40-year-old Sea Kings.

A lot of it seemed to come to pass when the Prime Minister's Office made the cancellation. Now it seems to be muddling up the requirement process in the new procurement. It was debundled under the former public works minister who is now an ambassador. We hope he is doing a better job as an ambassador than he did as public works minister. He debundled it, split it apart. He took the airframe and got bids on that, and then got bids on the whole mission suite and the guts of the unit from someone else. Everybody said that was not the right way to go, that it was totally wrong-headed.

The government has rebundled it under the new ministers who are in place. That is a good idea but it seems to us to have more to do with the Sikorski-Bombardier partnership than it does with the common sense that is required in this type of procurement.

The bottom line is, who is holding it up? Why? Why are we flipping and flopping on this? Why is the government not talking about fleet commonality the same as it did with the Challengers?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for giving me the opportunity to participate in my first adjournment debate as parliamentary secretary.

Canada has long been a country dedicated to peace and security, and an important part of that security obviously are the Canadian armed forces. We have demonstrated this commitment time and again and, in many circumstances, the men and women of the Canadian Forces have been an essential part of preserving the security and peace of Canadians.

The Canadian Forces also have the capability to respond to a wide range of operational requirements with respect to Sea King helicopters. As I said, time and again the Canadian Forces have demonstrated their ability to meet the requirements asked of them by the government, both at home and on missions abroad.

Our shipborne helicopters, currently the Sea Kings, have been an important part of the success of the Canadian Forces. In recent years, the Sea King fleet as a whole has performed very well in peace support, in maritime surveillance and as a secondary requirement in search and rescue operations.

That being said, the government has recognized that there are limitations with respect to the current Sea King fleet and that is why the goal of the government is to upgrade the Sea King fleet and, ultimately, and we hope quickly, replace the Sea Kings.

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster referred to the single tender approach that the minister announced in December. We believe this single tender approach will accelerate the procurement process, involve less risk and reduce the cost to Canadians.

The minister has stated time and again that his wish is that this procurement proceed quickly and on a priority basis. In fact, last Friday the government received letters of interest from four companies interested in being potential prime contractors for this project.

It is the government's responsibility to carefully manage all major crown procurements and the steps in this process are designed to ensure fairness, openness and, of course, transparency.

Not only is the valuation methodology for the new maritime helicopter consistent with Treasury Board policy, but the office of the Auditor General has stated that “There is more than one way to achieve best value”. She goes on to say “In these circumstances a lowest cost compliant approach to this type of procurement could give rise to best value”.

Our approach allows us to meet the operational needs of our military as specified by the military at the lowest life cycle cost to taxpayers. That is an important statement. The operational requirements for the maritime helicopter project have been determined by the military and at no point have we changed the operational requirements for this procurement.

In closing, I would like to take this opportunity given to me by the hon. member to congratulate and thank the Canadian Forces for their extraordinary work carried out in situations that are often very difficult. These men and women make a daily contribution to our country and our collective security. We are all very proud of them.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, of course all of us in the House agree on the great job our men and women in the armed forces do and, in a lot of cases, do in spite of the rambling, old equipment with which they are forced to work.

There is an old axiom in real estate. There are only three rules in real estate: location, location, location. There is really only the same type of axiom in purchasing and procurement: best value, best value, best value.

We saw the helicopter issue debundled and chased around the block for 10 years under the Liberal government. We have now seen it rebundled. The government says that it has four inquiries of potential bidders, which is fantastic, but the big point it is making here is life cycle cost. I guess it just goes beyond all reason that we did buy the best ones in 1963 because they had to do double duty. They have extended their life cycle by double. Instead of a 20 year life cycle, they have been extended to 40 years. Therefore if we had bought the cheapest ones in 1963 they would not have lasted and performed as they have.

I would ask the government to make sure it gets past this lowest price compliance attitude that it has and think about best value for that life cycle that it will probably extend again.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern and support for the men and women of our forces but on this side of the House we strongly support the decision of the minister and the outstanding job that the minister is doing in accelerating this procurement process.

We recognize that the Sea King fleet needs to be replaced. However there are a number of common misunderstandings with respect to the replacement. To use the word cheapest helicopter or to say best value as a way to exceed the operational requirements as determined by the military is not entirely accurate.

It is well-known that the debate around best value in this procurement is fueled largely by one private sector company which is free to pursue, in whatever way it wishes, this procurement process. However the government has been consistent and it has been clear. The operational requirements for this procurement have been determined by the military. They have not been changed. We believe that the contracting process currently underway will lead to the best possible helicopter as quickly as possibly, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, Kurdish Canadians, indeed Kurds around the world, are deeply concerned about the potential for grave tragedy throughout Kurdistan.

On December 13 of last year I asked the Solicitor General a question in the House concerning the listing of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, now known as KADEK, which stands for Kurdistan Democracy and Freedom Congress. I asked the government why it was now criminalizing Canadians who want to support the peaceful struggle of the Kurds for justice and human rights, for respect for their language and culture and for an end to the jailing of Kurdish MPs like Leyla Zana. I asked the government why it added this peaceful organization which quite some time ago renounced the armed struggle for justice for the Kurdish people. The answer from the Solicitor General was totally unacceptable.

I want to highlight today, in the brief time I have, a number of other very serious concerns affecting the Kurdish community. Recently Turkey banned a legal party known as KADEK. It was a deliberate provocation by the Turkish government, there is no doubt about it. It was hoping that Kurds in Turkey would react violently, thereby giving the Turks an excuse to crack down and for invading Iraqi Kurdistan to “root out the terrorists”. Five KADEK mayors in Turkey have already been jailed. Others have been interrogated and/or detained, but so far there has been no violent reaction from the Kurds in Turkey.

We all know that the Turks have a terrible history of repression and brutality directed at the Kurds within Turkey. They have destroyed villages. Currently Human Rights Watch has pointed out that they are refusing to allow thousands of villagers to return to their homes three years after the hostilities have ended.

Now, with the United States led invasion of Iraq, there is a very serious concern that the Turkish government may take advantage of this to invade Iraqi Kurdistan. This would have a disastrous impact on the Kurds in northern Iraq.

I am here today to call on the government to not only revert its decision with respect to the listing of KADEK, but to call on our government to speak out forcefully and call on the Turkish government and all other neighbouring countries not to intervene militarily in Iraqi Kurdistan for any reason.

Our government must also call for the protection of the people of Iraqi Kurdistan from a possible retaliatory use of chemical and/or biological weapons by the Iraqi regime. Our government must call as well for the recognition of the right to self-determination for the Kurdish people.

This is a critical time for the Kurdish people, particularly in northern Iraq. They have carved out communities there in which there is a degree of autonomy, and we must not allow the Turkish government to move in and destroy that.

It is also critically important that the Kurdish government and international relief organizations receive the desperately needed aid to handle the thousands and even tens of thousands of Iraqis who may cross into Iraqi Kurdistan at any time.

Today once again I want to appeal to our government to speak out. Its silence has been deafening. It should call on the United States and on the United Kingdom to demand that Turkey not in any way take advantage of this opportunity. It should make sure no deals have been done between the United States and Turkey to allow the United States to overfly its territory in exchange for a licence to the Turks to invade Iraqi Kurdistan.

The Kurds were betrayed once in 1991. They must not be betrayed again.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the member for Burnaby--Douglas for his comments. I will limit my comments to the question that he asked in December because he found the response unsatisfactory.

The member for Burnaby--Douglas is dissatisfied, unhappy, and disagrees with the fact that the federal government, through the Solicitor General, has listed the Kurdistan Workers Party, otherwise known as PKK and which is now commonly referred to as the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress or KADEK as the member for Burnaby--Douglas mentioned, pursuant to the Criminal Code on December 11, 2002.

What does that mean? It means that under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which received royal assent on December 18, 2001, the government has the ability to create a list of entities.

Under the Criminal Code, the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the Solicitor General of Canada, establish a list of entities if the governor in council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity, or is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with an entity that has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity.

PKK was also listed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs pursuant to Canada's United Nations suppression of terrorism regulations on November 7, 2001, in other words, more than a year prior to the listing under the Criminal Code based on the recommendation of the Solicitor General.

The member has not mentioned that the PKK is known to have led a campaign of guerilla warfare and terrorism by attacking Turkish armed forces, diplomats and businesses in western European cities, and by attempting to destabilize tourism in Turkey by bombing resorts and kidnapping tourists. Such behaviour is clearly terrorist in nature. The listing of the PKK is one more means to ensure that such behaviour is not supported or facilitated from Canada.

It is clear that the Solicitor General, when making such a recommendation to the governor in council, has done so on clear information that has created reasonable grounds to believe that PKK or KADEK, as it is now known, is currently in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act in the sense that it has either knowingly facilitated, participated in, acted at the direction of terrorist activities, or facilitated such activities on the part of a terrorist organization.

Canada does not list entities lightly. We have had opposition members who have been really unhappy that we have not listed--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that it is pressure from the Turkish government that is driving this policy because KADEK is a democratic and peaceful organization. I would point out that the PKK, as the member knows, renounced any armed struggle over three years ago.

I am concerned that since Canada placed KADEK on the list of terrorist organizations Kurds in Canada have been suffering. CSIS has hassled them. Many of them have been denied citizenship or other immigration status or documents because of past involvement in what is now considered a terrorist organization.

I am concerned that possible involvement with HADEP, the legitimate, legal political party that Turkey recently banned, may give rise to a harassment of those Kurds in Canada who have supported the work of HADEP, work which I strongly support as well.

Does the member not recognize that CSIS and the government are acting on outdated information here, and that they are acting in a way that is causing extreme hardship and unfairness to the Kurdish community in Canada?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

No, I do not, Madam Speaker, and I find it offensive that a member of the House would intimate that our government would act under pressure or that an independent intelligence service agency of our government would act under pressure from another government to list an entity based on no evidence whatsoever; I think that is shameful.

I would like to inform the member for Burnaby—Douglas that he may wish to inform PKK or KADEK, if he supports them that highly, that any listed entity, be it under the Criminal Code or the United Nations suppression of terrorism regulation, can apply to the Solicitor General asking to be removed from the list or lists. Under the Criminal Code, provisions also exist for a listed entity to have the listing decision reviewed by the judicial system. If the member is so convinced that there is no evidence to justify the listing of PKK or KADEK, he should inform KADEK or PKK of the possibility of asking for an appeal of that decision. He should do that.

I believe that the government has acted wisely. I know that the Solicitor General would not have made such a recommendation if reasonable grounds did not exist to believe that KADEK or PKK should be listed pursuant to the Criminal Code.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:53 p.m.)