Art Hanger

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it has been some weeks now since we have been asking this question and there is still nothing coming from the government side.

Canada is on the verge of going into a ground war. Yet we still do not know how much it has cost just to involve ourselves in the air strikes. The defence budget has been cut by $7.8 billion since 1993. The current budget leaves no room for air strikes. It leaves no room for ground defence. Our troops, and the Prime Minister will recall, were given axe handles to protect themselves in Macedonia.

What assurances can the Prime Minister give our troops that they will have the right equipment to go to war?

[Kosovo, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans are now talking about committing more than $25 billion to the war effort in Yugoslavia. Our allies are planning and budgeting for an escalation of the war in Kosovo. Yet the government does not seem to have a specific plan. We want to make sure that our troops have the resources to be able to do their job over there.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister have an estimate of what the costs will be, or is he waiting for NATO to tell him how much to spend?

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 21st, 1999]

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.

[Kosovo, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the issue will go before the committee in Washington in two or three days. Now there is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to call a vote on the issue. With a clear mandate from parliament the Prime Minister would be able to represent Canada's position with confidence. As it sits right now, no one knows what his position is.

The Prime Minister has two days left. Will the Prime Minister call a vote on the issue of further commitments to the Kosovo crisis?

[Kosovo, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for Canadians to know what the position of the Prime Minister will be in representing Canada at the Washington meeting. The Prime Minister said yesterday “If everyone agrees, I will not be the only one not to agree”. What on earth does that mean? It sounds like the Prime Minister is sitting on the fence. He is going to Washington to represent Canada and Canadians do not know what his position is.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House exactly what Canada's position will be going into these meetings in Washington?

[Kosovo, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just to advise the new member for Windsor—St. Clair, the official opposition is on this side of the House. We certainly congratulate him on his victory in his riding.

The Prime Minister is heading to Washington this weekend to meet with other leaders of the NATO alliance. It is important that our country be represented with a clear position on the question of ground troops. We simply cannot be seen sitting on the sidelines waiting for our NATO allies to make decisions for us. Does the Prime Minister support the use of ground troops in Kosovo, yes or no?

[Kosovo, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with 18 CF-18 fighters now in Aviano there will be an increased strain on both ground crews and particularly our pilots.

The situation in the Canadian forces is that there is a shortage of fighter pilots. With half of the combat-ready pilots now situated in Aviano, what measures is the defence minister taking to ensure that our borders at home are protected? After all, one never knows when there is a Korean missile flying from Korea over to Compton—Stanstead.

[Kosovo, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government has repeatedly assured us that there will be enough money for the Canadian forces to carry out their mission in Yugoslavia; however, it often does not provide enough details for any assurance and the estimates do not predict war.

Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House how much the mission is expected to cost Canada and how much more new money is being set aside for our troops?

[Kosovo, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question I want to remind the House of a saying often repeated during the second world war: “Loose lips sink ships”.

All members of the House need to be cognizant of the fact that what we discuss here can have an effect on the safety of our troops overseas. In other words, some questions are better asked in private.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. The bombing campaign has been going on now for several weeks and the financial cost to the allies is enormous. The Americans are calling for more than $6 billion in new money to finance their side of the operation.

Has the defence minister asked cabinet for more money to finance the Canadian effort in Yugoslavia?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question. That is exactly what it shows, that this House, on a standing vote, with everyone being accounted for, is supportive of our troops and the initiative we have embarked upon with NATO. I agree with him and I thank him for the question.