Art Hanger

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

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.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

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.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

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.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

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.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

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.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

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?

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for Saint John for her very passionate delivery and support for the military. I am a member of another opposition party, but for some time she has fought for the military's benefit in both procurement and quality of life issues. I commend her on her delivery. She also knows some of the problems that have arisen with this procurement process. She has spelled it out to those across the floor. They are shortchanging the military.

I will ask her to speak a little about the procurement process. She implied through her presentation that there was something wrong with the changing of the statement of requirement on that particular procurement for the maritime helicopter. She alluded to some of this in her reference to the letter of interest. There was a process that took place prior to that letter being delivered which dealt with getting the military to say it would change its mind from the EH-101, which is the helicopter that we know will be suitable for this climate, to something far less.

Could the member talk about the process prior to that letter of interest being delivered?

[Species At Risk Act, February 28th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member in reference to those who work our land, our farmers, ranchers and any others who are using the land as their living, because they have been there a long time. I can remember as a youngster the care taken by farmers and ranchers in the area where I grew up to make sure there was a sort of habitat for some of the birds and some of the ground animals. That seemed to be the order of the day. That seemed to be the norm.

Today we have a very highly mechanized farming community and that concern is still out there, because it is something, it seems, that is passed on from one generation to another. I can recall farmers leaving wide tracts of grassy plain spotted with trees to allow the birds and ground animals to flourish there. They deliberately set that land aside so that they too could enjoy seeing those creatures around.

I do not think a great deal has changed in our farming community. I will ask the member to tell us if he sees that kind of change taking place since he is from that same background.

I also have another question. I was in California three years ago, in the Fresno valley, where there is a very strong environmental law. I must say that I find it almost unsettling to think of the reaction that would take place if that kind of law were to come up here in regard to those who are protecting certain species at risk and how the state handles it. I will relate to members the situation that I learned about down there.

A farmer ploughing his land in the Fresno valley happened to run over a nest of kangaroo rats and kill them all. The environmentalists had been monitoring this. They swooped down on the poor farmer and seized his equipment. Here was a man who was trying to make a living in a very competitive world. They held his equipment, almost like they had the evidence and they were going to keep it, much to the detriment of his business. He is subject to court appearances and court action at great cost, which he has to bear, because he happened to run over some endangered kangaroo rats.

There is something out of balance there. I would like the member for Lethbridge to comment on that and tell us if he actually envisions something like that happening here.

[Criminal Code, February 27th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-285, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no parole when imprisoned for life).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce this private member's bill. It amends certain provisions of the criminal code relating to life imprisonment. It will eliminate any provision for early parole, early release or parole eligibility for a criminal who is sentenced to life.

The bill is about justice for the families of victims, for those who have suffered an irreplaceable loss at the hands of killers. For them, knowing that the offender will never walk the streets again as a free person will bring a sense of relief and an element of closure to a sad chapter in their lives.

My bill sends a clear message to murderers that if they take the life of another, they will be locked away for the remainder of their natural lives. Life will mean just that, life.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, February 26th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-278, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibited sexual acts).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce this private member's bill. It seeks to raise the age of sexual consent from age 14 to age 16. It would thus make it a criminal offence for an adult to engage in sex with children 16 and under.

The bill was first introduced in 1996 and was reintroduced in 1997 and again in 1999.

I rise again in the House and must unfortunately appeal to the better nature of every member of parliament. The widespread concern over child pornography and child prostitution in the country makes it even more urgent for enactment of the legislation to protect the young and the vulnerable in our society from the predators among us.

For the sake of our children, I appeal to members of the House to give serious consideration to the bill and to lend their support accordingly.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)