Jack Harris

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I am asking specifically about the Cormorants and their availability. I have heard availability figures in the range of under 50%, perhaps in the range of 40%. Would the minister confirm that number as of now, as we speak today? What is the availability of the Cormorant aircraft?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I am not surprised that the member mentioned the acquisitions of the Globemaster and the Hercules. It is not that hard to buy things that are already built and in production. They can be bought off the shelf. In the case of the Globemaster, it was an advanced contract award. They were bought six months after the decision was made to buy them. Buying things off the shelf is easy, but doing the things that the government cannot do and that it has messed up is hard. That is why everything else is in progress.

Let me mention an acquisition that I am particularly interested in seeing done properly. It is based on a letter to the Minister of National Defence on October 2009 and signed by General Natynczyk, who is here with us today, regarding the rotary search and rescue aircraft.

We acquired 15 Cormorants in 2004. They were deployed around the country, including to Trenton Air Force Base. In 2005 it was decided that they would be replaced, on the condition that it was temporary, by CH-146 Griffons, which are less adequate than the Cormorant for the search and rescue role. This was due to the unavailability of the Cormorant fleet that had been promised by the manufacturer.

Could the minister tell us the percentage of availability of a Cormorant aircraft as we speak today? What percentage of a time is a Cormorant helicopter available to task for search and rescue?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have another opportunity to ask some questions of the ministers and officials opposite.

I know that the members opposite are fond of referring to the Liberal era, previous to them as the “decade of darkness” when it comes to military equipment and equipping the Canadian Forces. Would the minister not agree that we are now, and have been, in what I would call “an interval of incompetence” when it comes to acquiring equipment for our Canadian Forces?

I will start with a few examples, such as the cancellation of the joint support ship program in August 2008 at the 11th hour and 59th minute of awarding a contract. We now are not going to have the first ship of the joint supply program until 2018, a 10-year delay. There is a six-year delay in the acquisition of the Chinook helicopter program, with the failure to comply with its own tendering, according to the Auditor General.

There was the failure to put forth a fixed-wing SAR procurement program that actually followed its own rule to the point that that was also shut down, with yet another delay for the acquisition of fixed wing, which is desperately needed because of our 50-year-old Buffalos, which are supposedly ending their lifespan in 2015. We will not have any replacements there until the earliest projected date of 2017. We have a total reset on the closed combat vehicle procurement, just announced the other day. Again, this is because the government failed to follow a proper procurement procedure. Of course, we have the debacle of the F-35s, which we are discussing in great detail tonight and the Auditor General has commented so roundly on.

Would either minister, or both ministers, agree that we have a serious problem in the Department of National Defence with respect to acquisition programs? They cannot seem to get it right. They do not seem to be able to follow the rules. We have a serious problem. Would he not agree with that, and will he do something to fix it? Is he going to tell us what his government and his department are going to do to fix this problem so they can get it right and do what they say they want to do, which is to make sure we have the right equipment for our forces?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. I know you have diligently, throughout the evening, been reminding members that they should address questions to the Chair, but this member insists on calling him sir, asking him questions and speaking to him directly, instead of directing questions to the Chair.

I wonder if he could be reminded of his obligation?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, there was no translation on the last answer of the minister.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, there will be others who will ask some further detailed questions about this, despite the fact that we are being stonewalled and getting no answers from the ministers opposite. That is a great pity for the people of Canada who are being asked and have been asked to support this project for the last two years.

As a result of the budget, we have been told by the president of the Canadian Military Colleges Faculty Association that about 20% of the 182 faculty positions at the Royal Military College and other military colleges in Canada will be eliminated. How does the minister feel the education of our officers in training for the Canadian Forces will benefit by eliminating 20% of the faculty, affecting approximately 160 fewer courses at our military college?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, we have been having this debate for three years now and the government has been putting forth these numbers. Is it giving up on all these numbers now and trying to say that they are meaningless?

The fact is that, based on these numbers, $5 billion are missing in industrial and regional development benefits that would have taken place if we had followed what the Minister of National Defence said on May 27 at the estimates committee meetings, which was that there would be a fair, open and transparent competition. Will there be a fair, open and transparent competition for replacement of the CF-18s?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, that figure of $9.8 billion, as the official from the Department of Industry indicated, was actually what they could bid on, not what could they could get or are actually going to get. The Auditor General has said as well that these were the most optimistic scenarios being put forward, with no real background for them.

Could the Minister of Defence tell us how that compares to the dollar for dollar industrial and regional benefits that Canadian defence procurement has traditionally required, when we are talking about $14.7 billion, at a minimum, of purchase and sustainment costs over the next 20 years?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, perhaps the minister does not pay attention either to what goes on in House of Commons committees. The House of Commons committee was told last Thursday that Canadian companies could bid on as much as $9.85 billion in production contracts for the U.S. stealth fighter. Is the minister aware of that number?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2012]

Madam Chair, if the government members are going to continue stonewalling, I may as well ask more questions they can stonewall.

Could the minister tell us what the actual latest figure is for industrial benefits for the proposed F-35 purchase? Figures like $14.7 billion or $12 billion have been used and we are now down to $9.8 billion in terms of potential industrial benefits for Canadian industry. Could the minister tell us what the real figure is and what the actual projections are today?