Mr. Speaker, for those watching on TV and in the gallery we are starting what in Parliament is called the adjournment proceedings, affectionately known as the late show, a time when members can follow up if they get a poor answer in question period.
As for the parliamentary secretary, I would suggest that he write quickly. I have a lot of questions and I am sure he will answer them, but if he does not, I am sure the media will be quite interested in hearing this.
The question I asked in question period was:
Mr. Speaker, in the last election the centrepiece of the Prime Minister's Arctic sovereignty strategy was a promise to build a deep water Arctic port and a fleet of icebreakers. Several communities are now actively lobbying and preparing construction for this deep water port.
Leaked documents suggest the Conservatives will now only build a refuelling site for naval ships and the construction of six small Arctic patrol vessels that cannot even go in the ice. This is a far cry from a deep water Arctic port and a fleet of icebreakers.
Why is the Conservative government breaking yet another promise and failing to protect our Arctic sovereignty and our northern resources?
The answer I received from the Minister of National Defence was:
--this is a case where one cannot always believe what one reads.
I guess it is like how one cannot always believe what he reads when the Prime Minister said he would never touch or tax income trusts. I guess one cannot always believe what he reads during an election campaign when the Prime Minister said he would build three icebreakers and a deep water port. We did not promise those icebreakers to get elected, but the government did.
Navy officers confirmed to CanWest News Service that they are indeed proceeding with a plan to build six Arctic patrol ships, not icebreakers.
Can the government tell us at what stage these plans are? What is the cost of these vessels versus the icebreakers? What is the practicality of these patrol ships in north? My understanding is that they cannot even go through the Arctic winter ice.
Last summer, with great fanfare, the minister and the Prime Minister separately toured the north. What information was uncovered in these tours that would apply to the site selection of a deep water port?
Given the government inaction, what led to the cancellation of the deep sea port? Cost? Location? Is it no longer needed because the icebreakers are no longer in government plans?
Why did the government raise expectations across the north about a deep sea port and then disappoint the Arctic communities? These communities do not have a lot of economic opportunities and really had their expectations raised over this potential opportunity.
The government is considering the establishment of forward operating refuelling and berthing sites. Why would that be? If the boats cannot go there at the major time of the year, what is going to be refuelled? If the government is going to do this, where might it be located?
How will these locations be justified if the government has yet to complete mapping of our continental shelf? Is the mapping of the continental shelf on schedule? When will it be completed? When will we have a clear indication of our territorial holdings in the north? I was very proud that we signed the law of the sea and started that Arctic mapping on schedule, as the opposition was asking. It was on schedule when we left government. Is it on schedule now?
A greater armed presence in the north will also mean an air presence. How many search and rescue air force utility aircraft will be stationed north of 60?
It is very serious to make a promise to get elected in an area that needs resources and protection, an area of Arctic sovereignty that all Canadians believe in. I hope the parliamentary secretary here tonight will confirm--