Alfonso Gagliano

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, the reason for making two contracts is that we wanted to have more competition. This will give more companies, especially more Canadian companies, the possibility to participate in this major procurement.

Second, there will be a primary contractor. The primary contractor will be, according to the letter of interest that we put forward and received comments on and to which we will respond, the integrated mission control contractor.

In this industry, companies make associations with each other. Why have an open competition process when these companies can make agreements among themselves for the benefit of the Canadian taxpayer?

That is why we are doing it this way. I am surprised again how they take a pre-position for one company when there are so many companies interested in the project.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member gets her information but definitely she has it all wrong.

First, in August it was the Minister of Finance. I said, if they would have listened to my speech, that I was at the side of the Minister of National Defence when he announced the procurement, strategy and intention of the government. This was a government decision. It was not a decision by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services or the Minister of National Defence. The government stands behind this decision.

Concerning the second part of the member's question, I do not know where she got the information but there is no agreement with any company. We sent a letter of interest. We got proposals and we opened dialogue and discussions. There is no signed agreement with anybody.

I am really surprised and shocked to see that while we are going through the process, the hon. member has decided to fight about what company should get the contract. It is unfair since we have an open process.

[Supply, March 1st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this morning. It gives me the opportunity to explain how my department intends to manage this important project so that the contract for the purchase of the helicopters needed by the Department of National Defence for its maritime operations may be concluded at a reasonable cost to Canadian taxpayers.

The people of Canada realize that the country needs a fleet of combat capable helicopters for maritime operations.

The Department of National Defence and its representatives have spent a lot of time and energy setting out Canada's needs in this regard. The minister had the support of members of cabinet in their acquisition and now it is my department's turn to manage the purchase process.

I assure hon. members on all sides of the House that the process will be fair, open, transparent and competitive. At the end of the day we will have saved taxpayers $1.5 billion compared to the former government's helicopter purchase project. That $1.5 billion can be invested in other worthwhile initiatives including the new social justice initiative announced in the Speech from the Throne.

I know that hon. members across the way will want to applaud the government for its sound fiscal management. Canadians have endorsed the Liberal approach of balancing tax and debt reductions with strategic investment in the economy. Now it is time to get on with the job.

It was my pleasure to be at the side of the Minister of National Defence last August when he announced the government's intention to proceed with the purchase of 28 maritime helicopters. Over the past six months we have continued to develop and refine the procurement strategy that will be used for the project.

Today I will update hon. members on various elements of the strategy, including a number of innovative procurement practices that will help ensure Canada gets the helicopters and the mission system it needs at the lowest price.

Hon. members know that the project in question is intended to replace the fleet of Sea King CH-124 helicopters of the Canadian armed forces. The new helicopters will be equipped with integrated mission systems designed to meet needs specific to maritime operations. This state of the art equipment will give the men and women of the Canadian armed forces the tools they need to do their work better in demanding often dangerous operations.

Shortly after the maritime helicopter project was announced, last August, the government released a letter of interest to inform businesses of our intentions and our general requirements and to discover their interest in the project.

The letter of interest also set out the purchasing strategy planned, and the facts were confirmed. The project would comprise two separate contracts: the first would pertain to basic vehicles and the second, integrated mission systems. Long term service support will be an element of both contracts.

The letter of interest had another goal, and that was to initiate a dialogue with the industry. I am pleased to report that we have been successful in that regard. Many of the companies that responded to the letter of interest have also provided helpful feedback on our statement of operational requirements and procurement strategy. We will respond to the comments and take the views of potential bidders into account as the project unfolds over coming weeks and months.

The point I am making is that it is very much an open and transparent process. Industry interaction is critical for large projects such as this one. The release of the letter of interest was a first step in our effort to encourage a dialogue with industry.

One of our next steps will be to announce which companies have expressed an interest in becoming the prime contractor for the helicopters or the mission systems, or both, and meet the criteria set in the letter of interest.

Unfortunately—and this is very important—no Canadian company makes helicopters that comply with the requirements of the maritime helicopter project. This means that the basic model will be provided by a foreign supplier. We think that several foreign companies can meet our needs and we anticipate that a large number of companies will compete for these contracts.

As for mission systems, I am pleased to say that Canadian companies can provide such systems and that some have expressed an interest in that regard. It is perfectly possible that a Canadian company will be awarded that contract. We also expect Canadian companies to bid for the two subcontracts.

Some wonder why it is necessary to have two different calls for tenders to buy helicopters and mission systems. The reason is very simple. We believe that, by using separate calls for tenders, the state will get the helicopters and services that it needs, and the necessary long term in-service support, at the best possible price.

That approach will also allow a larger number of companies to bid, since using a single contract would have the effect of eliminating many Canadian companies that are interested in becoming the prime contractor.

As a matter of general interest I confirm for hon. members that the maritime helicopter project is exempt from the North American Free Trade Agreement, from the WTO agreement on government procurement, and from any restriction or requirement under comprehensive land claims agreements. However the agreement on internal trade will apply to the project.

As I mentioned a moment ago, the letter of interest released last August has triggered a dialogue with industry. To facilitate further industry interaction, the project management office for the maritime helicopter project has established a website to serve as the principal means of communicating with the industry. The website will be a vital source of information for potential prime contractors and others interested in the project. We plan to use the site to make key technical requirements known to all bidders as early as possible.

Toward this end, over the next few weeks the project management office will post draft specifications and other documents on the web that will eventually form part of the formal request for proposals.

The progressive issuing of provisional RFPs will enable interested companies to examine and comment on various aspects of the maritime helicopter project. We will be able to make changes to the technical requirements or other features of the project based on their comments.

This dialogue will increase the likelihood that helicopter and mission system hardware will be compliant with project requirements, and will also make it possible to confirm that interested companies can reasonably meet the government's requirements.

Interested companies will have ample opportunity to examine the provisional specifications for the base helicopter and to make comments in this regard over a two-month period, after which we will be launching an obligatory prequalification process.

The prequalification process is unique in this project. In fact, it is the first time we have used it for a project of this magnitude. We want to avoid having tenders rejected because they are non-compliant technically.

Preparing a tender is very expensive and the government must work together with potential suppliers to keep the risks of non-compliance to a minimum.

With this in mind, the prequalification process will be conducted in advance of the formal submission of bids. Prequalification will largely focus on the hardware aspect of the bid based on the draft specifications. Separate prequalification processes will be conducted for the basic helicopter and integrated mission system.

In keeping with the overall approach being used for the project, the prequalification process will involve a dialogue with industry. Potential prime contractors will be expected to provide a level of detail we would normally get in formal bids. The technical information provided by each potential contractor will be examined to ensure it conforms with the requirements set out by the Department of National Defence.

This interactive approach will give industry an opportunity to address any concerns we might have with its technical proposals before it submits formal bids, thereby reducing the risk of receiving non-compliant bids. Potential bidders who have not achieved the prequalification status at least 30 days in advance of the close of bids will be declared non-compliant. Their bids will not be considered as part of the formal tendering process.

I would like to repeat that the prequalification process will focus primarily on the technical aspects for each contract.

It will still be possible to declare a bid non-compliant if a company does not meet the other requirements set out in the RFP, such as those having to do with the statement of work, management of the program, funding, and industrial and regional benefits.

Members should also know that the inclusion of service support, which is a separate component in each contract, is unique to this project. Comprehensive maintenance and support services for the helicopters and the mission systems will be required on an ongoing basis.

The government anticipates that this service support will be required for a period of approximately 20 years. For each contract, this component will include an option to progressively increase service support up until the end of the helicopters' life cycle.

Service support, which is included in each RFP, will ensure that we obtain a quality product, since the supplier will have to assume long term responsibility for what he is delivering.

It will also allow the government to seek the maximum industrial and regional benefits for each contract.

Some hon. members no doubt have questions about the timing of different stages of the procurement process. Our procurement plan is to ensure the formal RFP for the helicopter contract in the fall. The RFP will have a three month closing date followed by a two month evaluation process leading to the selection of the successful contractor.

Our goal is to sign a contract for a basic helicopter as early as possible in 2002, after which we will move quickly to the issue of requesting formal proposals for the mission system. As hon. members can appreciate, the two RFPs cannot proceed simultaneously, as potential bidders for the mission system will need to know which helicopter is to be purchased in order to develop a proper integration plan.

The request for proposals for both contracts will set out strict evaluation criteria for price, technical compliance, contractual terms and conditions, and industrial regional benefits. Specifically with regard to industrial regional benefits our goal is to ensure that Canadian suppliers receive maximum benefits for both contracts.

Consistent with the principles used for previous procurements, we will be seeking industrial regional benefits equivalent to the value of the contracts for both the helicopter and the integrated mission system.

In the case of the airframe, the contract will be awarded to the prime contractor submitting the lowest proposal that complies with all the terms. This proposal is to include the airframe, the modifications, the related modifications to the ship and service support.

In the case of the mission systems, the contract will be awarded to the prime contractor whose proposal is the lowest. This proposal is to include the costs of the mission package of the maritime helicopters and service support.

My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, informed the House that the maritime helicopters were the first priority of his department in equipment procurement. Worth nearly $2.9 billion, this proposed purchase is also the largest under my department's management at the moment.

My department is the largest procurement organization in Canada. We have vast experience in the management of major government supply projects, including the purchase of defence materiel. I can therefore assure the House that my department is able to carry the maritime helicopter project to a successful conclusion.

I want also to assure my hon. colleagues that the transparent and competitive process we have put in place will ensure that all those tendering will be treated fairly, that taxpayers' money will be carefully invested and that, finally, the purchase of these maritime helicopters will meet Canada's needs for many years to come.

[Canada Information Office, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should read the documents. He could have seen for himself that this arrangement no longer exists, that the CIO concluded an agreement with the public service and is treated just like all other agencies and departments.

[Canada Information Office, February 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the CIO's permanent budget will hold at $21.3 million for the next three years. All the other adjustments are program transfers from departments to the CIO. There is no new spending in these programs.

The CIO's role is that of a co-ordinating body for the government's corporate communications. For reasons of effectiveness, we have transferred the management of certain programs from Public Works to the Canada Information Office.

[Social Housing, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, we announced in our red book a program to build affordable rental housing units.

We are currently negotiating with the provinces to reach an agreement on a joint initiative to build or assist in building a number of units for the needy.

We are co-operating with the provinces. As soon as the consultations are completed, and the discussions with my cabinet colleagues as well, I will be in a position to announce a new program.

[Immigration, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know the lady. I did not know the gentleman. My office did not know her before she came to the office.

I only found out about this case as there was a note in my office the day prior to the day La Presse issued the article. That means Thursday afternoon, because the journalist called my office. Otherwise I was not even aware that the file existed.

[Immigration, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I tabled in the House this morning the memo my riding assistant sent, and I quote it.

I can table it again for the Leader of the Opposition. “Simply to discover what stage the permanent residence file has reached with the federal government, I know that the CSQ is valid until June 2000 and that the visitor's visa is valid until 2001. Have the audits come in? And what about the medical results? Do you think the visas will be issued shortly?”

There you have it, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is the only document I have and, as I said, I am ready to table it.

[Privilege, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House last Friday due to a death in my family.

However, during Friday's sitting, I was the victim of false and vicious attacks by certain members of the opposition. My privileges as a member were breached, and, today, I would like to set the facts straight clearly here in the House.

These members based their remarks on an article in Montreal's La Presse , which was full of errors and insinuations. Paying no attention to the categorical denial I had issued Friday morning, certain opposition members not only repeated the falsehoods in the article, but went even further. Let us review the facts.

Last May, a woman of Italian origin, unknown both to me and to my staff, contacted my riding office with an enquiry about her immigration file.

This action surprised no one, since I am the only Italian speaking MP in Montreal, hundreds of people in greater Montreal automatically contact my riding office concerning their immigration files or other matters of concern to them.

The Government of Quebec had approved the woman's investor immigrant application, and she wanted to know the status of the federal portion of her file.

My assistant therefore followed the usual procedure and sent a fax to client services at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

I would point out that the fax was not sent to a specific person, but to a service of the department.

The message's single paragraph read “Simply to find out the status of the residence file”. How much more clearly could a person indicate that this document was merely a simple request for information without any form of support or reference?

The memo continues with the following three questions “have the audits come in?”—and I stress the question mark—, “And what about the medical results?”—again with a question mark. The third question was “Do you think the visas will be issued shortly?” Here, again, there is a question mark.

That memo does not exert any kind of pressure whatsoever and there is not the least bit of involvement in the decision. That document was signed by my riding assistant.

The note is clear and to the point. It is similar in every respect to the more than 40,000 such notes sent each year to Citizenship and Immigration Canada by the members of this House. In fact, I intend, with leave from the House, to table a copy of that note at the end of my speech.

One wonders what motivates journalists, who obviously had a copy of that note, but chose to write that I had personally sent a letter, which was not the case, and insinuate, in a very underhanded way, that I exerted pressure in that case.

The issue will be settled at another level, since I asked my lawyers to order La Presse and the journalists involved to withdraw these comments as soon as possible.

It is not the first time that I have been the target of such underhanded attacks. Each time, an investigation was held and I was cleared of all allegations.

In our work as members of parliament we cannot check in advance the background of all those who call on our staff to follow up on a federal issue. This means that we are all vulnerable. This is why my staff follows very strict procedures to serve the public diligently and effectively, without engaging in favouritism or discrimination.

Still, given the behaviour of some opposition members and journalists, it is easy to say, as a well known radio commentator pointed out this morning, “If my name were Lapierre or Arcand, this sort of thing would not happen”.

Obviously, I have no intention of leaving my ministerial responsibilities, because, with regard to this issue, my staff simply did its work and I am completely blameless.

In fact, I hope that opposition colleagues will withdraw their allegations and apologize.