Lost his last election, in 2006, with 22% of the vote.
Canadian Militia May 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the document they are studying is very clear. It even contains a lot of details.
Does the minister realize that by doing away with the Canadian militia he will be destroying the cadet corps, the best school of civics available to our young people?
Canadian Militia May 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian army in the first and second world wars was comprised primarily of militiamen.
Today, the Minister of National Defence is prepared to get rid of the militia faster than the German army ever did in the two world wars.
Is the war in Yugoslavia going to be waged on the backs of our Canadian militia?
National Defence May 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, for the second time in a week a Sea King was forced to make a precautionary landing due to a gear box problem. According to experts a gear box failure could be catastrophic. With all the problems with our 35 year old Sea Kings the minister's comment in scrum was “let's not exaggerate”.
Will the government initiate a maritime helicopter program before lives are lost due to an aging, unreliable Sea King? The minister said within two weeks. That was two weeks ago.
National Defence May 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, we have been told that it costs $6,500 an hour to keep our aging Sea Kings airworthy, whereas the modern helicopter flies at $800 to $1,000 an hour. The auditor general has questioned the wisdom of spending taxpayers' money on helicopters that have an availability rate of less than 50%.
When will the government initiate the maritime helicopter program by releasing a statement of requirement? It is long past due. Please, think of the families and crew.
Supply April 27th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I tend to agree with the minister this time. It does not always happen, but I think we are making the right move this time in moving in our peacekeepers. In fact, we said before that they probably should be there so they have a better chance to pre-train, as the minister said, and become a little more inter-operable with their British counterparts, with whom they will be working in the future.
What is the training background of the troops we are planning to send? Has it been strictly in peacekeeping? Will they be prepared to defend the borders, for instance, if there are incursions?
Kosovo April 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, even though the Sea Kings have a maintenance routine that is probably second to none, the Sea Kings are still only available less than 50% of the time and their anti-submarine warfare mission system is prone to failure when they do fly.
The Serbian navy has four diesel electric submarines available to engage NATO ships. What steps is the government taking to provide our ships with effective helicopters for anti-submarine warfare?
Kosovo April 26th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, NATO member countries are preparing to place an oil embargo on Yugoslavia, and HMCS Athabaskan and its Sea King helicopters will be deployed to the region in order to enforce the blockade. Recently a NATO exercise found the Sea Kings operational less than 50% of the time.
What measures is the Minister of National Defence going to take to ensure that the Sea Kings deployed with HMCS Athabaskan are operational?
Issue Of Ceremonial Statements Of Service Act April 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on Private Member's Bill C-453, entitled an act to regulate the issue of ceremonial statements of service and recognition of duty.
It is a fitting tribute to the unsung heroes of Canada's past wars. The member should be applauded for bringing this bill forward.
The purpose of the bill is to enable the Minister of Veterans Affairs to issue a ceremonial certificate of service to any veteran or person who in the opinion of the minister helped Canada in a significant way in a war or armed conflict in which Canada took part.
It is important for the Government of Canada to say thank you to Canadians. In our hearts we honour you for your service to this country and your fellow Canadians at a time of peril.
I am also pleased to see that the merchant navy war veterans were included. My colleagues, the hon. member for Saint John and Senator J. Michael Forrestall and Senator Jack Marshall, have worked long and hard to help these brave Canadians.
Sadly, during the second world war 80 merchant ships were lost. There were 1,509 merchant mariners killed and 198 captured. The merchant navy suffered a higher rate of casualty than any other service.
The Government of Canada on May 19, 1941 by order in council P.C. 14/3550 stated: “The merchant marine on which our seaborne commerce depends, is, under present conditions, virtually an arm of our fighting services, and the provision of merchant seamen, their training, care and protection is essential to the proper conduct of the war, and vitally necessary to keeping open of the sea lanes on which the successful outcome of the present conflict so largely depends”.
After November 1942 merchant seamen were officially called the Canadian Merchant Navy. Merchant mariners were treated as prisoners of war by the multinational agreement after 1942. Merchant mariners were subject to military law under admiralty orders and discipline by the navy JAG. Merchant seamen were subject to the “sail or jail” order by order in council P.C. 4751, the merchant seaman order of 1941, and P.C. 4312, the merchant seamen foreign jurisdiction order of 1944.
There are an estimated 2,400 merchant navy veterans left and that number is rapidly declining. They must be recognized for their war service. My party and I are hoping for compensation for these men and their families after years of neglect.
We hope that the government will move forward immediately with compensation. The recognition of their services and other services to Canada in time of war has been limited. This bill would give further recognition to war veterans who have been marginalized and forgotten. I think it is important recognition for all of our veterans.
I have to say that the government has made another good move just recently. I had the pleasure of attending a ceremony two weeks ago for the John McCrae Medal, a medal brought out this year for veterans of the first world war, recognizing that it has been 80 years since that war.
In my riding there is a gentleman who is 102 years old who received this medal. He fought in both the first world war and the second world war. Also on hand for the ceremony was the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec who read a letter from the Queen.
Recognition like this is important, not just for the veterans themselves, but for all of their families who attend these ceremonies.
In summary, this is a very simple bill. Thus, on behalf of my party, I support the bill.
Kosovo April 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the government on so promptly agreeing to my motion in committee on April 15, and in answering my letter of that same date to the Minister of National Defence which requested that the government brief the SCONDVA committee members several times a week on a regular basis with regard to the Kosovo conflict.
It is appreciated that the Liberal government has decided to consult with parliamentarians about this ever-escalating war. We would have much preferred separate committee briefings because of the technical nature of the information, but any movement by the government is appreciated.
Once again, I would like to remind the government of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry report that called for a vigilant parliament. The importance of parliamentary oversight of the department of defence is a vital aspect of Canadian democracy. It also gives committee members an insight into the military profession, and an opportunity to show our unwavering support for our Canadian forces in this time of conflict as NATO stands on the precipice of further action.
Canadian Armed Forces April 21st, 1999
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.