Debates of March 1st, 2001

Summit Of The Americas

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, there is a body called CIM that works specifically on gender issues within the Organization of American States.

There was a meeting of that body and NGOs were there. In fact, members of that particular political party came to the meeting. The recommendations from that meeting will be discussed by the leaders at the meeting in Quebec.

Foreign Affairs

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel land mines has been in force for two years now. Could the minister explain to the House what the government has done, is doing and will do to ensure the success of this vital international convention?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the land mines treaty is a great accomplishment of Canadian diplomacy and of my predecessor Lloyd Axworthy.

Yesterday, on its second anniversary, we had the 111th country ratifying the treaty. We have seen a significant reduction in land mine problems around the world as fewer mines are going out than are being withdrawn from the minefields. The number of injuries is falling.

Canada has made an important contribution to de-mining efforts in countries as disparate as Nicaragua, Jordan, Bosnia and Afghanistan. This is a credit to Canada. This is the kind of thing we need to be doing.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of all hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Chris Axworthy, QC, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader about the business of the House for the rest of this week.

I realize we have a break week coming up, but could he possibly tell us what the business of the House will be for the week after the break and perhaps tell us whether we will have any kind of a special debate on the future of CFB Chilliwack?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, immediately after this statement I will be seeking consent of the House to revert to introduction of bills for the purpose of introducing a bill on shipping conferences. I discussed it with other House leaders on Tuesday.

This afternoon we will continue with the allotted day. Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-13, the GST technical amendments.

On return from the break, we will debate the Canada Shipping Act amendments to be introduced later this afternoon if the House gives its consent. This would be followed by Bill C-12, the Judges Act amendments.

I am consulting widely with a view to finding a suitable time in the immediate future to complete second reading of Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. Hopefully that will get done very quickly.

Tuesday, March 13, and Thursday, March 15, shall be allotted days.

As I said, although we are still negotiating, my intention at this point would be on the March 16 to commence the debate on Bill C-4, the sustainable development foundation bill.

Points Of Order

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the motion under Government Business No. 2. I implore the Chair to grant me a few minutes. This is a point I want to raise with this House and with you in particular, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well that you will be concerned by it.

As you know, Tuesday of this week, the government used closure to force the House to change the amendment process in the Standing Orders of the House. The government took this action after giving notice once, last Friday, following only two hours of debate. We want our amendments respected at committee report stage.

We are trying to understand at the moment and to grasp this new rule the government has imposed on the House. I refer in particular to the last sentence of the new government rule, which states, and I quote:

—in exercising this power of selection, the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.

This is essentially what Erskine May said in a document in English only.

I am trying to understand the subtlety of this regulatory innovation. We asked the Journals Branch of the House of Commons for information in French, so as to understand that new rule. Nothing is available in French.

This is quite understandable, since documents are not translated in French in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Gone are the days when French was the language of the monarchy. As a francophone member of parliament from Quebec who wants to understand the subtleties of that new rule, I would like to at least have the opportunity to examine it in my own language. It would make it easier to understand and to discuss.

How can I do my job properly if I must draft amendments and the rules governing that process remain an unfathomable mystery because they are in English?

Section 133 of the Constitution Act, of 1867, guarantees and protects my right to use my language, French, during the proceedings of the House of Commons. This is a right, and I want that right to be respected. A number of hon. members in this House have always fought and continue to fight to have French recognized. The hon. government House leader is a prime example.

No one here is able to tell me in my own language the scope of that rule. But to do my work effectively as a member of parliament, I must understand the nuances and subtleties of a rule of law. I must understand its very essence. In order to do so, I must have an opportunity to study that rule in my language.

Only anglophone members of parliament will have that privilege. Until all members of the House have access to complete, substantive rules and a full description in the French language of the practices of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, it is impossible for me to know and to understand what now constitutes a satisfactory amendment.

I am entitled to have at my disposal the necessary tools to present an effective argument. I must be able to reply to objections when members try to attack our amendments. As a francophone MP, this new rule subjects me to an arbitrary and inaccessible decision.

This is the 21st century. When my amendments are attacked, I am entitled to be able to reply knowledgeably. I am entitled to know the rules of this House and to have access to them in my mother tongue, French.

Until my rights and those of other francophones are protected and respected, I respectfully and humbly ask that the Chair suspend the execution of this measure. Francophone members must be on an equal footing with the other members of this House when we prepare amendments. A double standard will never do.

We are all entitled to an equal opportunity to have our amendments selected, debated and voted on in the House. I should not be penalized because I work in French.

What I am calling on you to do is to protect the rights of all members of the House and to treat us all alike in the 21st century.

The government unilaterally invoked closure. This was a blatant attack by the government on one of the linguistic groups sitting in this House, and was not what we expected from many hon. members, including the government House leader.

We francophone MPs have had rules and practices imposed on us and will have to work with them in English only. We really cannot call London every time we want to understand how the rule works.

Are we to hire translators to consult officials in London? Would it be up to them to explain to us, poor francophones that we are, the subtleties of the rule? I ask the question quite simply and with all due respect.

Once again, I ask you to declare this rule inoperative. This is not the first time that the rules have created a conflict with reality. Some of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have addressed similar situations. I ask you to declare that linguistic equality, the creator of opportunities in this House, will take precedence so that all members may have the same opportunity to learn the rules of the game.

In closing, I would remind you that we have a law in Canada called the Official Languages Act. Very quickly, I quote for your consideration two paragraphs to the preamble to the act. The first indicates that the law provides:

—full and equal access to Parliament, to the laws of Canada and to courts—

The fourth paragraph is of particular interest to us as it pertains to the work involved in putting amendments forward, because the government House leader's motion deals with this:

—officers and employees of institutions of the Parliament or government of Canada should have equal opportunities to use the official language of their choice while working together in pursuing the goals of those institutions;

I will conclude by reminding the House of section 2 of the act, which reads as follows: a ) ensure respect for English and French—

Imagine if it had been decided in this House that, from now on, in order to help members make decisions, we will be using documents in French only. Some MPs would have stood up and said “This is treason. Quebec is once again taking precedence. Francophones want to take control”. But think about it. As the act says, we must: a ) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions—

And what is most important:

—in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments—

I respectfully submit this argument—knowing you, Mr. Speaker, and knowing the parliamentarians in this House—and I hope for a ruling in favour of removing this insulting measure which prevents us from working in both official languages and understanding a very important process, namely the procedure regarding amendments made to any government bill.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this time. I truly appreciate it and I am waiting for your comments.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to use a linguistic argument to win a political point. First, I must say that he is completely distorting the motion already passed by this House, as all parliamentarians are aware, and, second, a few days later, he is using this point in an attempt to legitimize something completely different.

Neither the government House leader nor anyone else here has invented the fact that section 1 of our constitution says that we are guided by the parliamentary practices of the United Kingdom. I was certainly not around when that was written.

It is the same in the Quebec National Assembly and everywhere else in Canada.

The member opposite is perfectly aware of this. If he did not know any better, it would perhaps be half excusable. But that is not the case. The member is perfectly aware of this.

And his leader today, who dares to grumble right now, was one of our country's premiers. It is a disgrace.

The articles of our present rules, the Parliament of Canada Act, all refer to the fact that we are guided by the principle of the United Kingdom parliament.

Have we rejected our style of parliament? Are we going to reject the fact that we live in a system known as responsible government? What kind of nonsense is that?

They are doing this to make a cheap political point, to try to monopolize a rule that does not even exist.

What upsets me the most is that the hon. member is using the language of my ancestors, of my children and of my grandchildren to do so. This is the shameful part. He should rise and offer his apologies to this hon. House for daring to perpetrate such an act today. The member opposite knows full well he is in the wrong. He knows what he has just said is not right. But it has been done.

I know that the Speaker of the House knows these rules much better than I do. And I know as well that he will recognize that we are guided everywhere, unless indicated elsewhere in the Standing Orders, by the practices of the United Kingdom.

The member opposite claimed that I drew on Erskine May. Even if that were true, and it is not, Erskine May's is one of our procedural manuals on the table before me in this hon. House, quoted by one and all, including the person today in the Chair. The member opposite knows better than what he is saying, and I know that he will fail to influence the Chair, which will act with its usual wisdom.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear such rhetoric from the government House leader. I guess it is somewhat embarrassing to get caught with one's pants down. And the government House leader is obviously embarrassed.

He feels compelled to invoke the Canadian constitution, which tells us of course that this parliament is a British type of parliament and that, consequently, its rules and procedures are patterned on those of the United Kingdom parliament. He feels compelled to do that to refute the argument of the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that, in my opinion, the point raised by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska is of the utmost importance.

If the government House leader thought that the section of the Canadian constitution was enough for us to understand his motion, why did he feel necessary to include in Government Business No. 2 an explicit reference to the fact that the Speaker shall be guided by the practice followed in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom? This is a fundamental issue.

This is indeed a British type of parliament. But all of us in this House know that, while this parliament may be a British type of parliament, it has its own distinctive features and rules.

Consequently we cannot decide from the outset that whatever applies in the United Kingdom automatically applies here in Canada, since we have our own rules and precedents. Only in the absence of rules and precedents do we look at how things are done in London, only then do we look at the rules and precedents are in London. Otherwise, we follow our own rules.

Here, in the Parliament of Canada, we have our own rules and I fail to see why we should get excited the way the government House leader has about the fact that we simply want to point out that among these rules there is one requiring that this parliament operate in both official languages, French and English.

Of course, the motion refers to the United Kingdom. Suppose that this motion had referred to practices in effect in France's national assembly. What would have been the reaction of our anglophone colleagues? They would have said “My God, what are the practices of the French national assembly, and how can I become familiar with them, because they are available in French only?”

The point being made by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska is of the utmost importance. For that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, you must give it consideration.

I would add another reason, which I mentioned in my speech on the motion of the government House leader. Naturally, he reminded us that his motion had been duly passed in the House. I need hardly point out that this motion, which amends a practice of this parliament, was imposed by the government majority, that the opposition parties did not support this practice that the government House leader wants to introduce, that he did not even have the courage to amend the standing orders, and that he is indirectly trying to force you, Mr. Speaker, to take a stand in a political debate.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the intervention by my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska and with respect to the motion itself, as passed by the government majority, I refer you to pages 260 and 261 of Montpetit and Marleau, and I quote:

The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority.

It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, just to assist the Chair, although I am not sure the Chair will always need much assistance, the member opposite has suggested that a very important point has been raised and I suggest to you that it is not a very important point.

The House relies on constitutional law that goes as far back as 1215. I do not think the Magna Carta was written in any other language but English.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

What does that mean?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

The House relies on constitutional law written in the years 1688 and 1689. That was the bill of rights that happened to have been written in the English language in the United Kingdom as it then was. In the Parliament of Canada Act, as it exists right now, right in the statute that provides a statutory basis for much—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

They do not want to listen, Mr. Speaker. I am proposing that I make these remarks for your benefit, obviously not for theirs. They do not want to listen.

Section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act states very clearly the following:

1. The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise

(a) such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as is consistent with that Act—

Our laws already make reference to the laws as they exist or may have evolved in the parliamentary envelope, all the way from the beginning of Confederation. We still do it, we continue to do it and there is nothing improper. I do not happen to think it is a very important point, although the fact that the House should always be operating in two languages is, and the House does, and there have been two languages used on this point of order.

I think the reference to the Parliament of Canada Act will help you, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this point of order.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this point and I will speak in my first language.

I want to speak of the law of Canada and particularly the Official Languages Act of Canada. Many members of the House will remember not many months ago when we stood in tribute to the memory of the late Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. He was a man with whom I disagreed on many matters. He brought in a law that wrote into the law of the land the bilingual nature of this country and particularly of this institution.

There are many of us here in the House who fought to support that law and fought to support that principle. That is the principle that is at risk here today. If we, citing laws from a century ago, a time when Canada was a colony of Britain and not an independent country, start a precedent here of saying that the unilingualism that was part of Canada's past should prevail over the bilingualism that is part of Canada's law and present, then we are on a dangerous and slippery slope.

I frankly am shocked to hear these arguments coming from members of the party that was created and given such momentum by the late Mr. Trudeau, by members of the party of the late Mr. Pearson who fought so hard to assure a respect for the official languages of the country.

The Official Languages Act is clear. It says:

The purpose of this Act is to—ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions—

This is the central and most important federal institution of the land. If we are not, on a particular item, going to respect the full import of the Official Languages Act in the proceedings of this parliament, then it is in danger everywhere.

This is raised by my colleague as a point of order. It could almost be a point of privilege because it goes to the roots of the purpose of the House and it goes to the roots of the bilingual nature of the country.

We have all engaged in debate in the House and sometimes said intemperate things. All of us do. I would hope that the government House leader and his colleagues will consider what he has just said. I would hope that they would consider the tone in which he spoke, perhaps not deliberately; that is not the issue. No one is accusing anyone of anything deliberate, although I have to say that if this is proceeded with, if there is an attempt to steamroll over this legitimate concern that has been raised by francophone and other members of the House, then it becomes a deliberate slight of the principles of the law concerning the Official Languages Act of Canada.

I call on my colleagues in the Liberal Party, a party I worked with in having the Official Languages Act adopted across Canada, to reconsider and to insist on the application in fact here of the fundamental principle of this act as concerns the rights of the francophone members of this House.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate our party with the remarks of the right hon. gentleman from Calgary Centre. As a westerner I see how important it is that we have the absolute equality of the two languages in the House.

I remember the great debate over the Official Languages Act in 1969 when I was a member of parliament, and I remember the commitment made by all three parties in the House at that time that the two languages would be absolutely equal here in the House of Commons. I think that is a fundamental principle and it is a principle we must continue. What happened the other day in the House of Commons runs the risk of deviating from that principle. I hope that the minister will come back and amend what he said in the House a short time ago.

It is extremely important that we have the absolute equality of the two languages in the institution of parliament, indeed in all other institutions in the country. We have the Official Languages Act and the principles of that act are extremely important. People tend to forget the long battle toward achieving that act in 1969.

There was a time not long before that when there was no instantaneous translation, for example, in the Cabinet of Canada. It was not long before that when there was no translation in the House of Commons. That was quite the achievement by the parliament of the day.

Later on we had the patriation of the constitution, once again enshrining the equality of the two languages in the constitution of the country.

It is very important that we make sure to continue those principles in the House in every way possible. I support the point of order raised by my friend of the Conservative Party from the province of Quebec.

[The Speaker]

The Chair wants to thank all hon. members for their interventions on this point.

I will consider the opinions expressed by the hon. members and I will return to the House with a ruling later.

Privilege

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the opposition House leader, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, on February 13, 2001.

Subsequent to the adoption of a time allocation motion in relation to Bill C-2, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and employment insurance regulations, the hon. member rose on a question of privilege to express his concern and dismay about the frequency with which the government had resorted to time allocation to cut off debate prematurely on legislation during the 35th and 36th parliaments, a trend he believes is to continue in the present parliament. The hon. member claimed that the government's use of time allocation was a misuse of its authority and that the time had come “to declare the measures imposed by the government today as excessive and unorthodox”.

The hon. member argued that the Speaker has the authority to refuse to put a time allocation motion if, in his judgment, the government is abusing its powers and the rules of the House by not allowing sufficient amount of time for debate. He concluded his argument by suggesting that the Speaker consider the amount of authority and discretion available to the Chair to decide not to propose to the House a motion of time allocation if there has not been a sufficient period of time for debate.

I wish to thank the hon. government House leader, the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Roberval, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and the hon. member for St. Albert for their interventions.

The request that is being made of the Chair in this instance is one which places me in a position of some delicacy. It is, of course, true that the Chair uses its discretion on every occasion on which it intervenes. That is not to say, however, that rulings are made simply on the Speaker's personal authority. Nothing could be further from the truth. House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 570, and I quote:

—the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation if all the procedural exigencies have been observed.

In a ruling on a similar case, Speaker Fraser said, at Debates , March 31, 1993, page 17860:

—it is not always understood that the Chair is constrained in what the Chair can do by the rules which this House has passed. It is not surprising that sometimes some hon. Members, or even members of the public, feel that the rules we have set for ourselves may in some cases be unreasonable or even worse. However, it is extremely important I think that the Chair be bound by those rules until the House decides to change them.

In the case which gave rise to the point which I am addressing, there has been no suggestion that the government in any way deviated from the procedure laid out in the standing orders. I do not feel, under those circumstances, that there are any grounds whatsoever which would lead the Chair to intervene. The Chair wishes to be very clear on this point. The rules and practices established by this House with respect to time allocation leave the Speaker with no alternative in this matter. Speaker Fraser said in the case to which I have already referred, at Debates March 31, 1993, page 17861:

I have to advise the House that the rule is clear. It is within the government's discretion to use it. I cannot find any lawful way that I can exercise a discretion which would unilaterally break a very specific rule.

In making this ruling, Speaker Fraser was faced with arguments very close to those before us in the present case.

The question of the extent of the Speaker's authority has been raised and reference has been made to the practice in the United Kingdom. The government House leader indicated in his comments on this question that in other jurisdictions greater use is made of the scheduling of work both in the House and in committee. It may be that the House is no longer satisfied with the manner in which the time allocation rule works. If that is so, it is for the House to consider and, ultimately, to determine what procedure will best suit its current circumstances. Planning done on the basis of consensus could be a significant benefit, not only for the business of the House but also in promoting an atmosphere of decorum and respect in which that business is conducted.

Our system has always been one which functions on the basis of rules established by the House itself. However, under our current standing orders, it would be highly inappropriate for the Chair to take unilateral action on issues already provided for in the standing orders. Where the standing orders gives the Speaker some discretion, then it is the Speaker's responsibility to be guided accordingly; where no such guidance is provided, no such action can be taken. It is certainly not up to the Chair to establish a timetable for the business of the House.

It is by its rules and not by the authority of the Speaker that the House protects itself from excesses, both on the government side and on that of the opposition. The Speaker's role is to judge each case as it arises, fairly and objectively, and in so doing, to ensure that those rules are applied as the House intended.

Speaker Lamoureux, when faced with a similar situation stated in Journals July 24, 1969, page 1398:

The Speaker is the servant of the House. Honourable Members may want me to be the master of the House today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion—I am not prepared at this time to take this responsibility on my shoulders. I think it is my duty to rule on such matters in accordance with the rules, regulations and standing orders which honourable Members themselves have turned over to the Speaker to administer.

I would also like to remind the House that the standing order with respect to time allocation has been invoked only once in this, the 37th Parliament. I have indicated clearly that this use of the standing order does not represent a matter of privilege. If further cases arise, the Chair will deal with them individually, on their merits. I remind the House that the Chair will not rule on hypothetical cases or on questions raised only in the abstract.

Once again, I would like to thank hon. Members for their carefully considered arguments on this question. The Chair is conscious of the importance which members on both sides of the House attach to it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the process that has occurred with the Liberal government in terms of it cancelling the promise that it made in 1993 to deliver helicopters. We are still paying for that promise now. We do not have the equipment in place right now. The Prime Minister cancelled that unilaterally in 1993. Could he comment on that?

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that overall this indicates a dramatic failure of the Liberal government in the very basics of governing, which is procuring and supplying our armed forces with equipment. In fact, this has really been a 25 year procurement boondoggle that is never ending. It is going on and on and on.

Earlier in my speech, I related my experience coming from the militaries of the 1960s. Coincidentally this has existed since the 1960s. In 1962, I took electronics training in Clinton, Ontario, in the Royal Canadian Air Force. At that time the transistor was considered to be an unreliable; a new invention.

In that period of time, we have progressed from transistors to chips with tens of thousands of transistors on them to fibre optics. The progression has been going on and on. However where are our helicopters? They are still in the 1960s, while a Liberal government waffles and waffles and procurement goes on endlessly.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

This my first speech in the 37th parliament. It is certainly a great pleasure to be back. I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I hope you will relay to the Speaker my very best wishes and best regards on his election as Speaker.

I am very pleased and deeply honoured that the people of Nepean—Carleton have put their trust in me to be their voice in this important, historic and, as we have seen, often colourful institution.

Politics can be a very busy lifestyle and spouses often bear the brunt of that lifestyle. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my wife, Joan, for all her support over three municipal elections and two federal elections, all successful I might add.

I would also be remiss if I did not say a few words of thanks to my staff. They are Joan Tierney, Pat Murphy, Carrie Schroder, Liz Schlesak and Michael May.

It is a pleasure to speak on the motion that was moved by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

The government has demonstrated many times its commitment to provide the Canadian forces the equipment it needs to do its job: new search and rescue helicopters; new armoured personnel carriers; new submarines; upgrades to our CF-18 fighter aircraft; and Aurora maritime patrol aircraft. That is an impressive list by any measure. It does not stop there. Acquiring new maritime helicopters to replace the venerable Sea Kings is also a key part of the capital procurement program laid out in the defence white paper.

Again the government has delivered on its promise by announcing last August that it had given the Department of National Defence approval to proceed with acquiring a suitable replacement for the Sea King. Our maritime forces must be capable of dealing with a wide variety of potential threats. They must be capable of controlling events above, on and below the surface of the sea.

Shipborne helicopters are a key component of that capability. Such aircraft are indispensable to any navy and significantly increase the surveillance, defence and attack capabilities of our frigates and destroyers.

However, maritime helicopters play a wide range of roles, including search and rescue. This is an important capability for a country that has the longest coastline and the second largest land mass in the world, not to mention extreme weather conditions. Operating from our ships, they provide us with a unique capability for offshore operations. Many sailors in distress in the frigid waters of the north Atlantic owe their lives to these helicopters and the Canadian forces crews who fly them.

Over the last few years our maritime helicopters have participated in disaster relief missions during the Manitoba floods of 1997, after the crash of Swissair flight 111 in September 1998 and in humanitarian relief operations in Somalia and elsewhere around the world.

These aircraft routinely conduct fisheries patrols and have assisted the RCMP in drug interdiction operations. They have supported operations preventing the landing of illegal immigrants by sea. They have also participated in peace support operations, notably in the Adriatic Sea between 1993 and 1996, in Haiti in 1993 and 1994, in the Persian Gulf since 1991 and in East Timor in 1999. They constitute an important part of our contribution to the defence of North America as part of our naval task groups.

Maritime helicopters are also part of our contribution to NATO's Standing Naval Force Atlantic.

For more than 35 years the Sea King helicopters have performed those duties admirably. There is no doubt that a new helicopter is needed in order to enable the Canadian forces to continue making a vital contribution both here in Canada and around the world.

The government has recognized that need and is moving forward with the acquisition of a replacement, but not at any price. Taxpayer money will be used wisely and the government will not spend any more than it needs to.

The government is committed to providing the Canadian forces with a maritime helicopter that will meet its present and future needs at the best possible price and over the full life cycle of the aircraft. However, let me be clear. We will not compromise the capability requirements for this replacement aircraft. These requirements are clearly laid out and described in the statement of operational requirements that was released last August by the Minister of National Defence.

The document was put together by the Department of National Defence. DND conducted an extensive review of its needs using contemporary scenarios, and identified operational requirements backed by rigorous statistical analysis. The statement of operational requirements is consistent with current defence policy and also reflects the changes brought about by the end of the cold war.

We do not need the kind of helicopter we needed 15 years ago or even in 1993 when we cancelled the EH-101 project. The cold war is over. We are shifting away from open ocean anti-submarine warfare to more regional, coastal or littoral operations.

We now need an aircraft that is available in sufficient numbers and has the appropriate payload, endurance and mission systems to do the job required by tomorrow's security environment. We need a helicopter that has balanced, multipurpose capabilities and will meet the needs of the Canadian forces.

With this strong and coherent statement of operational requirements, the government will be able to pursue a procurement strategy adapted to the times. Canadian taxpayers will also benefit from the strategy.

Even when counting the $478 million in cancellation fees, the cost of the new SAR helicopters and the investments made to ensure the continued airworthiness of the Labrador and Sea King helicopters, we expect to save Canadians $1.5 billion when compared with the cancelled EH-101.

We will save money because we will acquire off the shelf technologies, not developmental ones. We will save money because we will have a more competitive marketplace and the operational requirements now reflect the changes in the strategic environment. We will also save money because we will take into account both the purchase price for the helicopter and the cost of maintaining it through its life cycle.

Until we get delivery of the new maritime helicopters the Canadian forces will continue to rely on the Sea Kings to perform its missions.

Some members of the House have raised concerns over the safety of the aircraft. It is true they are not getting any younger. We all know that, but let me be clear. The government will not ask the men and women of the Canadian forces to fly unsafe aircraft. The minister has repeated that on a number of occasions.

Significant investments have been made to make sure the Sea Kings continue to operate safely and perform their various tasks until the replacement helicopters are brought into service. For example, we are spending some $50 million on engine and gearbox upgrades. To improve the operational capabilities of the helicopters, the air force is proceeding with upgrades such as cargo carrying floorboards, electronic self-defence equipment and an improved rescue hoist.

In conclusion, I again underline the government's commitment to the Canadian forces. We saw that in today's announcement of the supplementary estimates. Providing them with the equipment they need at the best possible price is at the core of the acquisition process. It will benefit both Canada and the men and women of the Canadian forces. It is worthy of the support of every member of the House.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. There is not really a polite way to comment on it, so I will be very careful how I do so.

Once in the mid-eighties I was up north flying in a twin otter. It had been a scout plane in Vietnam and was full of bullet holes that had been patched up. I suggest that airplane would be more dependable than half the airplanes and all the choppers that the Canadian army, the Canadian navy, and our search and rescue people fly now. It is absolutely scandalous that the hon. member and the government would try to defend the position they have taken on military helicopter procurement and search and rescue vehicles.

I have said before in the House and will say it again that obviously there is no one on that side of the House who has ever waited for a helicopter in a dangerous life and death situation or who is related to anyone who has waited for a helicopter in a life and death situation. If they had and if they had even one bit of credibility or conscience, we would have a much better fleet of helicopters to pick up people offshore, to take people off oil rigs when necessary, and to pick up fishermen when they are standing on the roof of a sinking boat and there is not another boat in sight. We would not be debating the issue. We would not be talking about what helicopters will be procured. We would already have them.

I want to correct the mathematics. These are not the opposition's numbers. These are the government's numbers: EH-101 cancellation fees, $500 million; Sea King maintenance and upgrade to the year 2008, $600 million; Canada search and rescue program, procurement of 15 helicopters, $790 million; maritime helicopter project, 28 helicopters, $2.9 billion; MHP long term service support for 25 years, $1.7 billion.

The total cost of the Liberal's programs, without inflation, is $8.2 billion. The total cost of procurement of the EH-101s, if they had been bought to begin with, was $5.8 billion. Those are the government's numbers. I would like to hear the member's comments.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is long on rhetoric and very short on facts. I have not seen the hon. member anywhere close to the defence committee over the last number of years. I do not know where he has been, but he has obviously not had the opportunity to take in some of the discussions at the committee.

Nevertheless, he attempts in the course of his comments to malign all the equipment the Canadian forces uses. I can tell the hon. member that I have been up in Canadian forces helicopters. I have flown in helicopters over Kosovo. The Griffon helicopter was one of the finest helicopters operating in Kosovo until it was moved out the region and we consolidated our forces in Bosnia. The British and the Americans were relying on Canadian helicopters for surveillance because their own helicopters were giving them trouble. I have flown in Canadian helicopters in Canada as well.

We all know the Sea King is an old helicopter that needs replacing, and that is precisely what the government has done. However had we adopted the program the Conservative Party wanted us to get involved in, the EH-101, we would have had a cold war helicopter for a post cold war environment. It would not have met the operational requirements the Canadian forces have today.

Canada specialized in anti-submarine warfare during the cold war. It did that job extremely well. Canada was noted as one of the best, if not the best, in the world in terms of anti-submarine warfare, but that is not where the game is now. We have to adjust the process, the procedures and the strategy to meet the strategic environment we are faced with now. That is precisely what the government has done with this acquisition.

I do not have time to deal with the hon. member's numbers, but the numbers were certainly very bad. That is why the government cancelled the program.