Jack Harris

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the decision as to what is more expensive and what is less expensive can only really be found out in the bid.

However, to answer the parliamentary secretary's second question, it is the process that we are questioning. The same kind of process was not followed here, which does provide the level of rigour that we have been told exists within the Department of National Defence, the same kind of board challenges that we were told was an important part of procurement.

The Auditor General criticized the Department of National Defence for its failure to use those efforts in another project and unfortunately the same rigour is not being applied here. Therefore, this is a process problem and it is a question that can only be resolved by an open competition.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the Boeing representatives and we heard from the French manufacturers of the Rafale. They said that they fully believed they could deliver a competitive product and meet the needs of Canada. They felt they were left out of the loop, that they were not even spoken to and that they did not get the attention they would have expected if there was to be an open competition. This speaks to the motion before us. If there is to be a choice, and obviously a choice has to be made, it should be based on a level playing field, where those in the business have an opportunity to compete.

One of the things I find disturbing is we have been told there cannot be a competition without getting out of the MOU. That was part of the approach the government used to fend off the suggestion that there could be a competition. This is not the case. We can still have a competition. We can still ask others to come forward with their projects and the decision can be made on what is the best choice for Canada without getting out of the MOU.

[Business of Supply, November 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on the Liberal opposition day motion regarding the F-35 contract.

With respect to this particular contract, I want to go back to the estimates debate in the committee of the whole in this House on May 27. At that point in time, theMinister of National Defence was in the House answering questions, along with officials who were advising him. We had an issue with respect to a question I asked about what was to happen with the replacement for the F-18s.

Early in the debate, the minister said very clearly that there would be:

...an open, competitive, transparent process that [would] see us receive the best capability, to provide that capability to the best pilots in the world.

Later on in the debate, on page 3064 of the May 27 Hansard, he came back to say:

Mr. Chair, I will come back to that in an instant. I just want to be very clear on the record that the reference to the next generation of fighter aircraft does not preclude a competition, and an open and transparent one. In fact, the joint strike fighter program thus far has provided Canadian industry with access to high technology industry opportunities. [And we] have already [had] contracts with a total estimated value of over $325 million.

That is consistent with the statements that were given to the defence committee by Alan Williams, the former ADM materiel, who said that the participation in the joint strike fighter program was not a decision to purchase that particular aircraft. The decision to engage in the joint strike fighter program was to participate as Canadians, with other countries, to develop and design a new jet fighter. However, there was no commitment to actually buy it.

What we now have is the government taking the position that there was a competition back in 2000. It does not understand why the opposition motion is asking for a competitive bidding process to choose a replacement for the F-18. It is pretty obvious why we are asking for one. It is because that is the way defence procurement is supposed to take place. In fact, that is what was promised by the Minister of National Defence here in this House on May 27.

It seems that there has been a bit of a pattern going on over the last little while. The House of Commons went into recess for the summer and, lo and behold, in the middle of the summer, on July 15, there was a press conference, with a prototype F-35 in the background. An announcement with big fanfare was made that Canada was committing to buying 65 F-35 jet fighters with kind of an unannounced cost. However, the media quickly came to the conclusion that we were talking about a $16 billion program that the taxpayers of Canada were expected to pay for, without any competition, based on an announcement made by the government over the summer, after making a commitment in this House to having an open and transparent competition.

What was wrong with that? What was wrong was that the basic procurement principles and very basic government operations where we decide, first, what it is we want and what it is we need, and then we go about trying to find it, were not followed.

Once again, in defence procurement, the starting point is supposed to be what is called a statement of operational requirements. In a statement of operational requirements, the military does not go to the departmental officials and say that it wants to buy a Chinook, that it wants to buy a particular aircraft or that it wants to buy a particular item.

The starting point is supposed to be what our needs are for an aircraft, whether it be a search and rescue fixed wing, a helicopter for operations in Afghanistan, or a fighter jet, a patrol jet, a patrol plane or whatever it is, and then what we need it for and what we want the equipment to be able to do.

This statement of operational requirements is a complex process and it often involves, in some cases, many years of study and analysis by experts within the Department of National Defence. In fact, the statement of operational requirements is often sent out in draft form to potential suppliers for their comments and review and then comes back to the department to be finalized. When the statement of operational requirements, which shows what the need is and what the capabilities are, is finalized, then a tender document is put together for a competition.

The document would show the industry our requirements and then the industry would put together a bid as to whether it can meet these requirements, what the cost would be, what the delivery times would be and so on, although some of those would obviously be within the tender documents.

What happened here? I am sure the government is quite within its right to talk about the process of the development of the joint strike fighter but that was a separate project. It did not commit Canada or any other nation, including the U.S., by the way, to buy any of the planes at any time. The memorandum of understanding is about the development and provides for the acquisition of these planes and for long-term maintenance contracts and participation in the contracts for supplying the supply chain for the production. That is a separate item from the defence procurement process which was developed, defined and designed to give our armed forces what they need at the lowest cost to taxpayers, meeting operational requirements and needs.

We have been told that the defence department was advised back as early as 2006 that the joint strike fighter was what it wanted to have and what it needed and yet we find out from the defence committee hearings that the statement of operational requirements was not actually developed until the spring of this year. The statement of operational requirements appears to have been finalized somewhere around April or May of this year, at the same time as the minister was saying that there would be an open and fair competition.

Then we had a decision in July to have a sole source of the F-35 by Canada under that program. So far, we have had witnesses from Boeing come to our committee and, based on what has been made available to our committee and publicly in terms of the capability requirements, say that they could meet those needs. Through their capabilities, they wanted to be a part of that program and they could have bid on this jet but they were denied that opportunity.

We also had representatives from a French manufacturer who also said that their company could meet the needs of the statement of operational requirements.

We will hear arguments from the other side, which we already heard in the committee, that their planes are not as good as the JSF or the F-35, that this one is not as good as that one, that that one is more expensive than the other one, and so on.

All of that should not really be the subject of debate in a parliamentary committee or in this House. That is something that is done through a sophisticated professional process designed to ensure not that someone can score political points in a committee or in this House, but that the factual capabilities, the actual numbers, the real tests, are being examined when a decision is being made.

We have not heard from all the potential bidders, but it is pretty clear from what we have heard so far that discussions stopped with these other manufacturers at a certain point. In fact, they were not given an opportunity to disclose to the Canadian government the full capabilities of their own aircraft. So there was really no basis to make the kind of comparison that could have and should have been made when making a decision of this nature.

That portion of my remarks has to do with the process itself. The process is clearly flawed. We are talking about spending, when all is said and done, as much as $16 billion of public funds, devoted to a particular aircraft to replace the F-18. That is part of the issue that this particular motion focuses on.

There is another part of the issue that I want to address, and that is, do we need this particular aircraft versus other possibilities for Canadian defence requirements?

I did not mean to be flippant when I said it, but I think it does capture the essence of my argument and the question that was raised, that one does not need a Maserati to drive to work and we do not need a stealth fighter to patrol Canada's Arctic or east coast.

That begs the question, what are our actual defence needs and do those defence needs require what I have called “the latest and the greatest”? It may well be, when all is said and done, that the F-35 is the most capable fighter jet available in the world today to do any number of things, but are those any number of things the things that we need to have done?

I think that kind of exercise is one of strategic analysis that ought to be available to this Parliament and to the committee, an analysis of Canada's plans for the future and how we plan to engage in international operations. Do we need the kind of capability that's there?

For example, in a major international conflict, will Canada's contribution, if that is what we choose to buy, actually make any difference in an international operation when we compare Canada's 65 jets as potentially part of an operation with the Americans who may have 2,500 or 3,500 jets?

The last time the jets were engaged in activity, the real issue was finding space at airports to land them, because access to aerodromes and airstrips was restricted and only a certain number could be accommodated. Is it really necessary for Canada to have this capability as part some international effort?

Who are we going to be fighting against? We heard it said that we do not know, we are making plans for the next 30 or 40 years, and the only thing we can really do is to say that we will get this because it is the best available today.

Is that really what Canada needs to do? The only way to find that out is to have a significant type of military strategic analysis made available for debate. That is normally done through a defence white paper that analyzes the various options for Canada and sets forth recommendations as to how the Canadian Forces ought to be configured, what kind of equipment it should have and what its needs are. It makes an argument that all of us can have a look at.

I have heard the Canada First defence strategy called an equivalent to that, but in my view, that is very inadequate and superficial. I do not mean to dismiss it entirely, but it amounts to a shopping list of new equipment and refurbishment of the equipment we have. It does not hang together as a strategy, but rather, a suggestion that we should acquire this, that, and the other type of equipment over the next while.

We had a fleet of F-18 fighter jets. We lost another one last night, unfortunately. These have been operating for more than 20 years, some as many as 30 years. They received what was called a mid-life refurbishment, which was only completed in March of this year. They were part of the defence of Europe during the cold war. They were used as a military air presence in Canada, particularly over Canada's coastal waters.

During the cold war, the Russians were constantly testing Canadian defence responses and these jets were the ones scrambled to be present and show that we were paying attention and that we knew when somebody was active. With the techniques of satellites and other sophisticated technology today, surveillance by itself is not really the issue. The issue is the ability to respond. But what are we responding to?

In the case of Russia, if they care to make them airborne, which they do occasionally, we are responding to technology from the 1950s, long-range bombers that are run by propellers. They take many hours to get to Canadian airspace or even near it. Is that something that we need a stealth fighter to deal with? Is that something that we need the very latest of technology to deal with? I do not think so.

There are those who scoff at that and one of them is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, who is a former fighter pilot himself. He will say that fighter pilots want to have the latest technology, everything that is available, because that is what they should have, and there is an argument for that. However, there is also an argument that says Canada does not have to play the same role in international military activities as other countries. We can define the role that we wish to play. We can decide what we need.

So the second part of my argument as to what needs to happen before we make this kind of commitment is to have a thorough review of the actual needs of Canada and the requirements for Canada's participation in military activities. We need to patrol our coasts, we need a fisheries patrol, we need to have a presence in the Arctic and throughout the country, but do we need this very expensive jet fighter to fill that need? Can the needs of Canada be met with something less expensive with a different configuration?

Those are the kinds of questions that we in the NDP have asked and challenged the government on and to date have not received a satisfactory answer. We support this motion. Yes, there ought to be an open competition. However, before that takes place, there also ought to be a thorough review and debate about what Canada actually needs in the air over the next while to replace the F-18s.

[Afghanistan, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister came to office campaigning on accountability and promising to bring decisions on military engagements to Parliament for a vote. Time and again, the Prime Minister has assured this House and Canadians that our soldiers would be out of Afghanistan in 2011. These promises and principles are now out the window.

Why is this government breaking its promise to bring our soldiers home in 2011? Why is it breaking its promise to put such important matters to a vote?

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, it would be very difficult for me to say as eloquently as my colleague how wrong that is. He has spoken very passionately about this in the past. I fully agree with him that this should not be allowed to happen to someone who has paid for 30 years into the EI program.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

I can? I thought we were being non-political here tonight.

Obviously we do need a national strategy to look after housing for homeless veterans and for anybody in Canada who needs affordable housing.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, that is one of the areas that makes a lot of people feel sad to know that veterans are unable to have adequate housing in this country.

We need a national housing strategy, period. Obviously veterans are a very important client group that would need to be addressed, but we are in desperate need of a national housing strategy in this country.

We did have one. In fact, we had one up until the mid-1990s and were recognized worldwide as being a leader in national housing policy. So that is something that has been lost. I will not mention what party was in power at the time.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I know there are a lot of people across this country who will be showing an interest in the events of Saturday, November 6, and I am hoping that the minister will make a statement similar to that of the Minister of National Defence with respect to his employees who raised the concern that they have been told not to attend this demonstration and show their concerns that may be raised. I hope he can provide the kind of assurance that the Minister of National Defence did to military personnel in suggesting that it was perfectly all right for them to exercise their freedom by attending this demonstration. I would like the minister to do that same thing.

The minister also, earlier tonight, talked about the distinction between traditional veterans and current veterans. We have DVA pavilions, for example, one in St. John's, Newfoundland that was part of the old General Hospital. It is only available to Korean or World War II veterans. We have peacekeeping veterans, some of whom are in need of the kind of care that is provided by these DVA pavilions, but it is not available to them.

We talk about the dwindling number of veterans going to Ste. Anne's Hospital. If the veterans were entitled to get the services that are provided, the access to these hospitals and to these DVA pavilions, then they would be used and veterans would not have to go elsewhere or do without the kind of service they actually need.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned some individual cases. We had a serious one in St. John's, Newfoundland this summer where a person with Alzheimer's ended up in a facility that was inadequate for the kind of expectations that his family had for a veteran who served his country.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the government for agreeing to hold this debate at the request put forward, because it is an extremely important issue for all Canadians, not just for veterans. All Canadians have an interest and a concern about what is happening to the people who fight for this country, serve this country, risk their lives for this country and come home expecting to be treated with respect and dignity and rely on the Government of Canada to provide those services.

First of all, let me say that I want to thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs who has sat through each and every word of this debate tonight, and that is not always the case, I understand, with debates like this. He is listening carefully to everything that is being said, some of it not so complimentary of his government. However, the fact that he is listening provides some hope that changes will continue to be made.

I want to agree with one thing the previous speaker said, that yes, progress is being made. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Progress is being made in the last couple of years in terms of recognition of the full effects of PTSD resulting from activity in serving overseas, the psychological injuries of service. It is important that these injuries be recognized, understood and in fact given equal weight when it comes to dealing with benefits and recognition for service and the sacrifices that were made.

A good example of what needs to be done comes from the case of Corporal Langridge that was brought before the House last week. This came here out of necessity because he was not properly dealt with and his family was not property dealt with after he returned from Afghanistan and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. He ended up, as is known now, committing suicide on the Canadian Forces base in Edmonton, and his family had to go through a very difficult time to try to get some understanding and justice, and they ended up coming here to Ottawa to do that.

I understand that decisions have been made since his mother came here. She met with the minister and with the Chief of the Defence Staff, and some issues are being resolved.

It is important, I think, that we recognize that this individual whose death occurred as a result of his psychological injuries in Afghanistan is a casualty of war just like other individuals who return with injuries that cause their death.

We had a very unfortunate and sad circumstance. Brian Pinksen from Newfoundland and Labrador was injured in Afghanistan and died this summer as a result of his injuries. These sacrifices ought to be honoured in the same way.

We had another comment, and I will not indicate the member who said it because it is an unfortunate comment in relation to a person who has been fighting very hard for veterans since he was appointed. That is Colonel Pat Stogran. It has been suggested that the responses and the things that have happened in the last little while have not been as a result of somebody's press conference. I want to say this about Colonel Pat Stogran and his work as the ombudsman for veterans. He has done remarkable work in drawing to the attention of the Canadian public and the government the deficiencies that exist in the program for veterans in this country.

I do not think anyone in the House or anyone in this country who knows anything about it would say that there are no deficiencies in the way veterans' programs have been delivered in Canada. I think that is a given.

I do not claim to be an expert on veterans affairs, but when I hear the stories I have heard over the last two years, some of them brought to light by Colonel Stogran as the ombudsman, which was his job to do and when I saw the way he was treated by the government in terms of not renewing his work and his appointment so he could continue his work and the unfortunate way he was treated when he appeared before the veterans affairs committee by members of the government, I was shocked.

He was appointed by the government, to its credit, a colonel who had been a commanding officer in Afghanistan. He had served his country for many years. He understood veterans and their needs and drew attention to the problems. He complained he was not given the tools, information and co-operation he needed to do his job. I found The way he was treated with some kind of disdain by the sitting members of the government on that committee was horrendous.

When we hear that veterans are going to food banks in increasing numbers, as my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, pointed out, that is very disturbing.

We have some terrific examples of positive things that are being done. In some cases, they are being done by the veterans themselves, by way of example. I think Master Corporal Jody Mitic's name was mentioned here tonight. I want to also add Corporal Andrew Knisley's name.

These two veterans, who claim to have three arms and one leg between them, having been injured in Afghanistan and suffered amputations, participated in a motor car race in Newfoundland and Labrador this September, called “Targa Newfoundland”. Their manager, retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who has some interest in car racing himself, offered to manage this team. They went to Newfoundland and Labrador and were sponsored by Canada's Acura dealers and Honda Canada.

They participated in this rally, raising money for the Soldier On campaign. They demonstrated, through their actions, their courage, determination and their willingness to soldier on.

It was very interesting and inspiring to hear them talk on the radio in interviews and on television in our province in September about what drove them to do that, why they wanted to keep active and why they felt so strongly about it. It was also about those who had been inspired by their courage and actions to not see themselves as being injured for life, but in fact trying to make a life for themselves despite their injuries. I think it was extremely positive.

A lot of work needs to be done to improve the lot of veterans in the country. We would not be having the demonstration on November 6, this Saturday, if it were not for the concerns that exist across the country. Veterans and supporters of veterans have worked together to organize it. This is unprecedented in our country.

What is happening now is that people are realizing the government, while it prepared for a war in Afghanistan, did not prepare for the consequences of that war. The consequences are far stronger, far larger and much longer lasting than were imagined. These costs were not taken into consideration with the other costs of participating in this war.

Many things need to be done and many improvements need to be made. Much consideration needs to be given to the ideas that have been brought forward by Pat Stogran to the complaints that have been brought forward, legitimately, ones that have to be dealt with, and more improvements have to be made.

I hope I will have a few more minutes in questions and comments to elaborate on some of these issues.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2010]

Madam Chair, I guess I should ask the minister why he and many members opposite continue to distort the whole notion of democracy that we are asking our veterans and servicemen to fight for. When people in the opposition vote against a budget which contains a whole raft of government policies that imply confidence in the government, it does not mean they are voting against individual particular things that they support. Yet each and every day we hear the minister and others opposite, including the Minister of Veterans Affairs, say the same thing to try to discredit those who are participating in the democratic process that we are asking our people to fight for. Why does the minister continue to distort that?

My second question relates more to the point of what we are talking about. I do want to commend the government and military officials for taking significant action over the last couple of years, particularly on PTSD, commencing when the defence committee started studying PTSD as a result of the efforts of my predecessor. I will use Corporal Langridge as an example, a person who, as a result of his service, suffered from PTSD and psychological injuries which ultimately caused his death. Is the government prepared to start recognizing the sacrifice made by injured soldiers whose injuries are psychological and which also result in their death? Is that something on which the government is prepared to move?