Robert Bertrand

[Kosovo, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has stated that the rules are contained in the agreement. If the hon. member would like to check them, I am sure he would find his answer.

[Canadian Armed Forces, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying how proud we are of the job our military is doing in the Balkans, in Aviano and on other missions.

Our people and our equipment are up to the task. They will be using the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle, which is very highly mobile, well armed and well protected; the Bison armoured personnel carrier; the Griffon military helicopter; and, let us not forget, the CF-18s in Aviano.

We have no doubt that our professional soldiers have the training, the leadership and the equipment they need to do a good job.

[Canadian Forces, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the provost marshal of the Canadian forces.

[Canadian Economy, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the economy, the Liberal government chose to take concrete measures to promote economic growth. The results accurately reflect our efforts to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

For example, since 1993 the job creation and economic growth strategy of the Liberal government has been made possible by a policy promoting investment, tax reduction and debt reduction.

Since October 1993 1.6 million new jobs have been created and economic indicators are generating optimism among Canadians.

The Liberal government is also helping young people. To help regions with high unemployment we invest $110 million each year in the Canada jobs fund.

These are concrete measures taken by the Liberal government to ensure sustained economic growth in all regions of Canada.

[Division No. 542, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our on-going commitment in Kosovo is important for this government and for all Canadians, not only because we are members of an alliance, but because of the moral issues at stake.

Our contribution has been recognized as significant and worthy. As we speak, members and planes of the Canadian forces are taking part in NATO air operations over Yugoslavia.

We are sending some 800 members of the Canadian armed forces to the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia as part of our commitment to an international force that will help implement a peace accord.

The members of the Canadian forces deserve our recognition and our support for the most important job they have taken on on behalf of all Canadian citizens.

There are no munitions containing depleted uranium in the Canadian forces' inventory. There are no plans to purchase or use such ammunition in the future. Canada does not allow any foreign testing or use of depleted uranium ammunition on Canadian soil.

Some of our NATO allies are using this type of ammunition. The use of depleted uranium is not restricted by any international arms control treaty or convention.

Exposure to depleted uranium has been investigated as a possible cause for illness, in particular in gulf war veterans. None of the scientific work published to this day supports a link between exposure to depleted uranium and illnesses in gulf war veterans, including cancer and birth defects. American investigators followed gulf war veterans with depleted uranium shrapnel in their bodies and have not found any illnesses compatible with heavy metal or radiation poisoning.

[Canadian Armed Forces, May 31st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take advantage of the opportunity provided by this motion to speak of the role of Parliament in the procurement of goods and services for the Canadian forces.

I must begin by stating clearly that the government is opposed to the motion calling for a standing committee of the House of Commons to hold public hearings on every proposed procurement of goods or services by the Canadian armed forces valued at more than $100 million. In order for hon. members to clearly understand why, I would like to describe the present procurement process.

This process, which has been in place for many years in the Department of National Defence and in fact in all departments, is an important instrument of public scrutiny. I would like to speak as well of the potential impact of the proposed change on the expeditious delivery of the necessary equipment to the armed forces.

The procurement of equipment, goods and services is of vital importance to the success of the Canadian forces. The quantity and type of equipment purchased has a direct influence on the forces' capacity to fulfil their role, which in turn influences where and how they can be deployed by the government.

The 1994 white paper on defence defined these roles as protecting Canada, co-operating with the United States in the defence of North America, and contributing to peace and international security.

These are important jobs and I know I speak for everyone here today when I say that the Canadian armed forces have delivered an exceptional calibre of service in everything from their contribution during last year's ice storm to the present operations in Yugoslavia.

However, in order to maintain this level of excellence, the Canadian armed forces must be able to count on the appropriate equipment at a fair price and when they need it. The procurement process of the Department of National Defence complies with Treasury Board requirements. When possible and feasible, all large dollar contracts are put out to tender in an open and transparent manner.

All capital projects are included in the annual budget tabled in the House and all major government projects, that is those over $100 million, containing an element of risk, are examined by the Treasury Board and by cabinet. Because major government projects also affect several departments, they must meet strict conditions and national requirements.

Not surprisingly, there is a comprehensive procurement process for major government projects, starting with the identification of needs and continuing through to delivery of the product. It is also transparent and fair. I will describe this process briefly.

The Canadian forces may need a particular good or service for several reasons. Repairing some of its equipment might not be cost-effective. Operational changes might make different equipment necessary. Technological advances may necessitate the updating of equipment or, again, a strategic analysis may lead to the identification of new requirements.

When a need is identified, a preliminary list of potential solutions is drawn up, and costs are estimated. Next, options are analysed, feasibility studies done, scenarios tried out and, finally, risks are assessed. The cost evaluations are then refined, and various aspects of the study are reviewed by the Treasury Board secretariat and by a senior advisory committee in charge of contracts comprising the heads of various departments.

This committee must make sure that the proposal receives the attention of senior managers, is covered by broad government policy and is in keeping with the government's objectives.

The proposal and procurement strategy are then reviewed by cabinet, and, if it is deemed acceptable, receives approval in principle. At this point, Treasury Board looks at the proposal with a view to a preliminary approval, and this step is followed by the procurement process. Once the strategy has been approved, a call for tenders is put out.

The Minister of National Defence again presents the proposal to cabinet, taking different factors in consideration this time, including the reconfirmation of the need, the underlying justification, the implementation plan, the global cost and other aspects.

If the procurement strategy has already led to a call for tenders, cabinet would also approve the choice of a bidder at this stage. Once a decision has been made, the proposal moves to final approval by Treasury Board.

The contract is awarded by another department—Public Works and Government Services—which ensures an independent, fair and transparent process. I must add here this practice is unusual among Canada's allies.

It should be noted that the government's major procurement proposals often contribute to other objectives, including regional industrial and economic spinoffs, business opportunities for small business and economic development for native peoples.

The involvement of many other federal agencies and departments ensures that the major government's projects are carried out according to the policies and goals of the government and of the people of Canada.

This process has a significant impact on the Canadian forces, from financial management to defence planning operations. We should not consider any change that could inhibit the ability of the Department of National Defence to provide our Canadian forces with the tools they need to fulfil their missions.

There are at least three reasons for which the House should not support this proposal. First, a number of departments, including DND, have already taken measures to improve the procurement process so that Canada can get the best equipment at the best price.

The Department of National Defence has shown innovative spirit to ensure that our country has a multipurpose combat-capable force, at a fair price. For example, the decision makers have looked at the possibility of acquiring products sold on the market, since military equipment that is made to order is very costly and takes a very long time to get.

Moreover, two recent procurements, one involving 100 utility tactical transport helicopters and the other one 15 Cormorant search and rescue helicopters, are evidence that the Canadian forces can be provided with excellent material at a very good cost and take delivery much more quickly.

There are other innovative procurement processes that involve new financial arrangements. The acquisition last year of Upholder class submarines from Great Britain is an excellent example of innovative procurement. What maximizes the value of this transaction for Canadian taxpayers is an 8-year interest free loan-purchase. In addition to the Canadian forces getting the submarines for one quarter of the price of new ones, this project will generate economic spinoffs of some $350 million for Canadian businesses.

I could go on, because I have other very interesting things to say, but I see that my time is up and I must give the floor to someone else.

[National Defence, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Chief of the Defence Staff for 1998-99, entitled “Into the New Millennium”.

[Division No. 454, May 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, maritime helicopters are essential to the mission of the Canadian forces.

It is our duty to ensure that the Canadian forces possess the equipment they require to accomplish their mission, both in Canada and abroad.

In his 1994 white paper, the minister made a commitment to replace the Sea Kings, and this is an essential project for the Minister of National Defence. On numerous occasions, the minister has expressed his desire to implement a strategy involving the acquisition of maritime helicopters in the near future. In fact, the minister has said he hoped to make an announcement on this issue in the current year.

Department officials are currently reviewing a draft of the requirements established for maritime helicopters. The statement of operational requirements, which is more or less the basis of the project, is undergoing several revisions and rewriting, and is the object of a close review at several levels within the department.

It is on the basis of that document that we will buy several millions of dollars worth of very complex military equipment. Therefore, it is critical that we do what is necessary to ensure the process is implemented properly from the beginning.

It is also important that the industry, Canadians and any other person interested in this issue can read and understand the statement of requirements that will be released. However, more importantly, the new maritime helicopter must meet Canadians forces' policy requirements and operational requirements. This is a must, and there will be no compromise on this point.

We will do our utmost to ensure the Sea Kings remain in service until the arrival of the new maritime helicopter.

The recent minor problems were dealt with, and we will do what it takes to make sure our aircraft are safe to fly.

The Sea Kings will be upgraded if need be, and I have no doubt we will be able to carry out our mission with the equipment currently available to the Canadian armed forces. pluriel

[Fondation Paul-Gérin-Lajoie, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 35 years ago, on May 31, 1964, the Quebec Department of Education was created, with Paul Gérin-Lajoie as its head.

The Fondation Paul-Gérin-Lajoie is using the occasion of this anniversary to launch a fundraising campaign aimed at collecting $2.3 million in donations from Canadian businesses.

The foundation's objective is to provide children here and in other countries with the means to build their individual and collective futures by acquiring a basic education.

The foundation's founder and president, Mr. Gérin-Lajoie, stresses the importance of access to education “When all children know how to read, write and count, they will have the key to their future”.

We wish the foundation well in its undertaking. Let us hope that they attain their objective and that access to education for all children becomes a reality.

[Young Offenders Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last year Canada responded to the threat posed in the gulf by Saddam Hussein. We dispatched the HMCS Toronto , aircraft and personnel from 435 squadron in order to do our part as a member of the international community.

Our maritime personnel provided escort duties for a U.S. navy carrier battle group and contributed to maritime interdiction operations. Our aviators and support personnel provided technical air to air refuelling in support of the allied air effort in the region. Our maritime and air personnel did an excellent job.

The dangers faced by the approximately 360 Canadians in the gulf were very real. They included the possibility that biological weapons could be used against our personnel.

In all good conscience, we could not send our people into a potentially dangerous situation without ensuring they were properly protected. Part of this protection was inoculating them against anthrax. As we all know, anthrax is a very deadly disease in which individuals are not aware they are sick until it is too late to treat them. We had to protect Canadian personnel against the use of such biological weapons. To do otherwise would be both irresponsible and unconscionable.

The government has worked in good faith and in the best interests of the men and women of the Canadian forces to provide them with the best protection possible in what we must remember was a potentially dangerous operation.

We recognize that Sergeant Kipling and his family have no doubt experienced considerable stress over this situation. However, cohesion and discipline are fundamental elements in an effective armed force. For that reason, disobeying an order, any order, is a serious offence that should be treated appropriately by the military justice system.

Sergeant Kipling has been charged with wilfully disobeying an order under section 126 of the National Defence Act. The decision to charge Sergeant Kipling and to proceed to a court martial was made after very careful examination of the case and is in accordance with current military law.