Jim Hart

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has been saying today that this debate is a lot of smoke and mirrors because we will not have the opportunity to vote on this issue.

The argument that we are putting forward is that the government has already made a decision and has committed to sending troops.

I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on the most recent Canadian Press report from just a few minutes ago. It states: "A NATO official has said that Canada has committed a headquarters brigade and a battalion to IFOR". This would mean a participation in the neighbourhood of anywhere between 1,200 and 1,500 people. What does the member have to say?

[The Balkans, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with is an escalation of the traditional peacekeeping, as the hon. member has pointed out, in which Canada has proudly participated since the Suez crisis of 1956.

This is a new level of readiness, a combat situation. NATO is clearly asking Canada for combat troops. The U.S. has said NATO wants land forces and the U.S. president has said it is willing to accept casualties in this higher level of participation.

The hon. member spoke about Canada always being there, always able to be there. In the 1960s we had a force of some 120,000. In just a few short years we will be down to a force of some 60,000 but the commitments have increased over time.

I quote from the defence minister's white paper of a few months ago: "Canada cannot and need not participate in every multilateral operation. Our resources are finite and we may not agree with the purpose or the organization of a given mission".

How many Canadian soldiers have to be sacrificed so that the Canadian government can continue on this course?

[National Defence, December 4th, 1995]

I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence: When can Canadians expect to hear about the bidding process to commence on the new shipborne helicopters?

[National Defence, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party and every member of this House would like to congratulate the performance of the captain and crew of the HMCS Calgary and the captain and crew of the Sea King helicopter in the rescue operation this past weekend.

[British Columbia Treaty Commission Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to oppose Bill C-107, an act to establish the British Columbia Treaty Commission.

Bill C-107 is a fine piece of legislative engineering in theory. The is are dotted and the t s are crossed. It has been translated in both official languages. It has been printed and distributed in incomprehensible legalese. However, there are three important issues that call this legislation into question. First, 23 per cent of the Indian nations are not involved, which constitutes 31,682 individuals.

Second, the public at large, which constitutes the majority of British Columbians, 3 million people, is left out of the negotiations. There is no room for its input into the process, nor are there provisions for a grassroots referendum of all British Columbians to ratify any negotiations. These two issues must be addressed. They are vital to the continued well-being of the people and the economy of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

Third, no substantive amendments can be made to help correct the above mentioned deficiencies in this legislation.

Let us look at each one of these points. Twenty-three per cent of the B.C. Indian nations are not in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. These include the Okanagan Tribal Council, consisting of Indian bands from Osoyoos, Penticton, Upper and Lower Similkameen and Okanagan, and the Upper and Lower Nicola Indian bands and the Nicola Valley Tribal Council.

In other words, the Indians in my riding do not recognize the B.C. Treaty Commission as facilitators of land claims. The Indians within the Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt riding have been actively stepping outside the law to attempt to claim jurisdiction over land.

Currently they are threatening violence over the Green Mountain Road. They have been digging trenches along the road and are wearing camouflage fatigues in true Oka and Gustafsen Lake style. This form of confrontation is not new to the Indians in my riding. Over the past couple of years numerous incidents such as the Apex ski resort blockade have shown that formal civil negotiations outlined as the duties of the B.C. Treaty Commission are redundant and irrelevant to the Indians in my riding.

Currently they are in court fighting the B.C. government over ownership of Green Mountain Road. They say they will enforce a blockade of the road, win or lose. They claim they are willing to fight and die for this road. The rest of my constituents feel the same way the Indians do. In a survey conducted over the summer, 72 per cent of those responding were opposed to the continuation of the B.C. treaty process.

This fall I approached the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a number of times to encourage him to come to Penticton to help resolve this situation. On October 23 I wrote the minister on humanitarian grounds to tell him that a dispute between the B.C. government and the Penticton Indians was escalating. A roadblock was being threatened. In the letter I asked him to go to Penticton on October 28, not as a negotiator, not as a mediator, but as a sign of good faith to the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to try to get these people back to the negotiating table.

I did not receive a letter or a response from the Minister of Indian Affairs until today, November 28. He said that it would be inappropriate for him to become involved, despite the effect this dispute is having on the communities in my riding. He said he will leave it to the province to negotiate with the Penticton Indian bands.

This is pure nonsense. This is pure balderdash. The abdication of the constitutional responsibility by this government, which is responsible for Indians and land reserved to Indians, is totally unacceptable.

To make matters worse, today I also find out that the Minister of Indian Affairs this past weekend was in Kamloops, a three-hour drive from Penticton. The minister did not even have the courtesy to talk to the mayor of Penticton, to the Penticton Indian band, or to any of the provincial people in the area. This again is totally unacceptable.

I have a letter from the minister to the mayor of Penticton dated August 21, 1995. In the letter he makes it clear that this road is still federal property, not the property of the province or the Indian band. So why will the minister not get involved? The Minister of Indian Affairs is running out of excuses, and he always has them.

When there is a roadblock up, he says he will not come to Penticton when there is a roadblock up. When the roadblock is down, he says he will not come to Penticton when there is nothing to talk about because there are no roadblocks. When there is a court case going on, the Minister of Indian Affairs says he will not come to Penticton because there is a court case going on. But when there is no court case on the table, the minister still refuses to come to Penticton and talk to the people and get the negotiation back on the tracks.

The only thing I have not heard from this minister is that he cannot come to Penticton because he has to go to the parliamentary dining room for a sandwich. I do expect I will get that excuse as well.

The third problem with Bill C-107 is that the Reform Party would like to make a number of amendments on behalf of their constituents. I can bring to the table two deficiencies, which I have previously spoken about. One example that comes to mind would be an amendment to make the Union of British Columbia Municipalities a fourth negotiating power alongside the federal government, the B.C. government, and the B.C. summit. This would provide a forum for the interests and concerns of millions of British Columbians excluded from the current process.

With such a large proportion of B.C. territory up for grabs, the interests and concerns of the grassroots British Columbians must be heard and must be addressed.

Making an amendment of this nature is impossible. Bill C-107 is based on a 1992 agreement between the federal government, the B.C. government, and the B.C. Indians. This agreement is absolutely cast in stone and it contains absolutely no amending formula. All legislation that enacts the provisions of the agreement is therefore closed to amendments as well. No amendments are possible to the bill.

What has happened to our parliamentary democracy? As member of Parliament for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, one of my primary responsibilities is to review, debate, and if necessary amend legislation based on the wishes of my constituents. Our whole parliamentary process is set around these very important functions.

Bills go through three separate readings, a committee hearing, and a final report stage in the House of Commons to ensure that all members of the House and members of the public have had time to analyse legislation for faults.

There are a number of opportunities for members of Parliament to bring forth amendments based on the concerns of constituents and the Canadian public. The process is then repeated in the Senate. This process is not perfect. Governments can refuse amendments. This Liberal government is particularly noteworthy in this regard. Governments can also rush legislation through the House without adequate debate. In this regard, the Liberal government's track record is appalling and a disgrace to the parliamentary legacy of our forefathers.

Despite the lack of respect the Liberals have for our parliamentary democracy, this system can be made to work. However, with Bill C-107 there is no opportunity for members of the House to offer amendments to this piece of legislation. I must ask, why are we even bothering to debate this legislation? The concerns I have for this bill are falling on deaf ears. It is shocking that the Liberals have the gall to even present this bill in the House. It might as well have gone straight over to the Governor General for his approval.

Bill C-107 usurps the power of Parliament in a most undemocratic manner. Parliament has become just a rubber stamp for the whims of this Liberal government. The elected members of the House are powerless to do their jobs. Every piece of legislation must be open to amendment by elected representatives. This is the very essence of our democracy. The alternative is a Liberal dictatorship.

It is time for this government to restore some honour to the House by removing this bill from the Order Paper. The three treaty signators must go back to the negotiating table to make a new agreement, which will allow the interests of all British Columbians to be heard.

The people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt have instructed me to oppose Bill C-107.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 38 on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt on an issue of national importance.

On October 3, 1995 I asked the Minister of National Defence a question pertaining to Colonel Kenward who ordered the destruction of video tape evidence of an airborne regiment hazing video. The minister's response was, to say the least, insufficient.

The video tapes that were ordered destroyed impeded the investigation of the military police. Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward who was subsequently promoted to full colonel by the chief of the defence staff despite the minister's own reservations ordered the destruction of the video tapes. It was later revealed that three copies of the video tape existed.

This does not justify the actions of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward. There will never be any way of knowing whether the three copies match the one destroyed by Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward's order.

This case is an example of the serious problems with the system of justice at the Department of National Defence. This case may in fact be providing details of a miscarriage of justice within the senior command of the Department of National Defence.

The Minister of National Defence notified me in his response on October 3 that the chief of defence staff, General John de Chastelain, would hold a press conference on the issue to clear the air. I personally attended that press conference and I would like to say that it did not clear the air. It muddied the waters further.

The CDS presented the official side of the story with a documented audit trail detailing how Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward was promoted to full colonel. What became clear from these documents was that the chief of defence staff had intervened on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward to ensure his promotion.

Documents he released showed that he wrote to the Canadian Armed Forces judge advocate general on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel Kenward. The correspondence included quotes from Kenward himself denying that he had intended any wrongdoing. The judge advocate general, after considering this counsel from his superior, the chief of defence staff, cleared Kenward's name and cleared the way for Kenward's promotion.

This type of shenanigans underlines the culture of cover-up at the highest level of the Department of National Defence. Kenward's promotion to full colonel was secured despite the concerns of the military police and the Minister of National Defence.

The minister has publicly admitted that he expressed his concerns regarding the promotion to the chief of defence staff and the chief of defence staff refused to heed them. Clearly the minister has no confidence in the CDS and the CDS has little respect for the minister's judgment.

This case is indicative of the problems with our military justice system. It is difficult to believe that the military police had their investigation thwarted by the chief of defence staff and the judge advocate general.

I believe that justice was not served. Canadians still want the Minister of National Defence to clarify his position. When did the Minister of National Defence learn that Colonel Kenward had destroyed video tape evidence? Was it before or after the promotion? Why did he have reservations about the promotion of Kenward to full colonel?

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, on my recent visit to Shearwater, while I was being told that the Sea King helicopters were in the best condition they have ever been in 30 years, cranes were lifting them off the flight decks of the frigates.

Canadians might recall the words of a Canadian pilot who was a trainer in Sea King helicopters. He was quoted in the Globe and Mail : ``You only fly a Sea King as far as you want to fall''.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are saying that the procurement policies of governments in the past were not adequate. They were not fair to Canadian taxpayers. They were not fair to the people who pay the bills.

Under the old system, it could be 15 or 16 years from the time a decision was made to purchase a piece of equipment until it is actually delivered. The frigate program is a good example of that.

I was in the navy in 1973. It was about 1975 that the planners of the frigate program started to come around to the ships to talk to the sailors and to the people in the military about the purchase of new frigates. As members know, we have just recently taken delivery of the very frigates that were in the planning stages in the mid-1970s.

Our procurement process over the years has not been a good one. It has not been value added for the Canadian taxpayer. It has left the military personnel who are challenged with these very heavy commitments that the government places on them with aging equipment, as we see with the Labrador and Sea King helicopters. They are literally falling out of the sky while we wait for an announcement on helicopters.

The helicopters were a big campaign promise. Many would argue that the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter was probably what won the Liberal government victory in the last election campaign.

What is happening now? The Canadian taxpayers are paying the cost for cancelling the EH-101. I am not overwhelmingly endorsing the EH-101 project but I am not going to say that we should have ruled it out and used it as a political football, which is what the Liberal Party did during the election campaign.

It did not come down to whether the specifications were right. We did not talk about that in the election campaign. We did not talk about whether it was value for the Canadian taxpayers. The Liberals did not talk about that. They just said that they were going to cancel it regardless of the requirement for it, the specifications for it, the terrain that we have to live with in Canada, one of the largest countries in the world. It has excessive weather.

They did not talk about that. They made it a campaign promise to cancel the contract. The figures run about $600 million right now for the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopters. Now the taxpayers know that those figures could reach $1 billion.

The member shakes his head and says no, it will not reach $1 billion. Why, since I have had access to information on this very subject since the summer, has this government that claims to be open, responsive and interested in letting Canadians know all the

information not been forthright about the actual costs of cancellation? It has not done that.

These members have not been forthright. If I can use the members own words, the government is being opaque on this issue, very much so.

This issue with the helicopters is so much like this Liberal government. After spending $600 million in cancellation fees so far, after the minister announces that the government is going to spend $600 million on a new search and rescue helicopter with a decreased capability of 15 per cent, we still do not have helicopters today. That is $1.2 billion right there. The costs are not in yet and Canadians do not have one helicopter to show for it.

This is hypocrisy. The government is going to have to get down to real terms. It is going to have to go to the Canadian people and tell them exactly what the requirements are for the search and rescue helicopter. You cannot even get that information from the minister and the department.

The government is supposed to be open, consulting with the people. Why does it keep secret the information on this procurement? It is not right. I will do everything in my power to fight this and make sure that the government is held to the fire on this one until a purchase is made.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I find it strange that the hon. member for Charlesbourg just a few short weeks ago was soliciting members of the Canadian Armed Forces to join a new Quebec armed forces and today he is actually trying to appear to be concerned about the Canadian Armed Forces. It is quite frightening to see this type of motion. I urge the hon. member to seriously read section 62 of the Criminal Code and reflect on his actions of a few short weeks ago.

I also take this opportunity to voice the outrage of Canadians over the mismanagement of the defence portfolio by the Liberal minister. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has its own provincial angle on this issue, one which is largely out of touch with that of the majority of Canadians, despite the Bloc's sacred title. The Reform Party, the de facto opposition party in the House, opposes the motion put forward today by the Bloc Quebecois because grassroots Canadians want value for their tax dollars.

Canadians have told us that Canada desperately needs to replace its aging military equipment with new equipment which can meet a certain set of performance criteria. We need to buy this equipment off the shelf so that we can purchase the best equipment with our taxpayers' dollars. I support and I am determined to fight for the

removal of all measures which are designed to insulate industries from competition.

Canada is over $550 billion in debt. Much of our equipment is older than the military personnel using it. We can no longer play the regional development game when our armed forces need new equipment within the current environment of fiscal restraint.

This does not preclude Canadian companies in the Canadian province of Quebec from bidding on military procurement. I am confident that Quebec's military and aerospace industry, like the military and aerospace industry in other provinces, is up to the task of competition with other national and international firms. An off the shelf policy is certainly less threatening to Quebec industry than the Bloc's attempts to separate from Canada. That would do more harm to the military and aerospace industry in Quebec than any government policy to seek the best price for military hardware.

The motion is almost amusing in light of last month's referendum.

Can Canadian industry compete with the best in the world? I must answer with a resounding yes. There are dozens of military products and industries which are world class and have succeeded or can succeed in the international marketplace.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to reprimand the government for having dropped the Canadian content requirements in contracts for the purchase of military equipment. That is ridiculous. Canadians know that buying military hardware off the shelf is the only practical way for military procurement in Canada.

Procurement is central to the operations of any military service. In the modern era when weapons systems are so complex and design and delivery stages can extend over a decade, successive Canadian governments have too often overspecified Canadian forces requirements. Successive Canadian governments have also used the military as a tool for industrial benefits and for the pursuit of regional economic development. The result has been costly to Canadian taxpayers and the armed forces.

These factors are responsible for the gigantic bureaucracy for the management and control of military procurement. The costliness of an all Canadian design that has not faced international competition has resulted in our armed forces using outdated equipment. Too many resources were being spent on one megaproject while the modernization and upkeep of existing equipment was put on the back burner.

In other words, whenever possible the armed forces must purchase the most cost effective and capable military platforms, such as helicopters, armoured personnel carriers or submarines. If no Canadian defence industry can produce the entire platform at a competitive price, then so be it. There will still be room for Canadian industry in the development and manufacture of subsystems and in the long term, maintenance of the platform.

In addition to acquiring military platforms for the armed forces in a timely manner, the savings to taxpayers would be enormous. The whole procurement process would be simplified. The role of government agencies would be eliminated and significant costs associated with seeking regional benefits would disappear. The end result would be a better equipped armed forces for the money.

In some instances, Canadian industry will be able to compete and acquire a licence to manufacture an existing platform in Canada. I am sure Canadian industries will be highly successful in competing globally for manufacturing rights to existing products. When this occurs, the armed forces and the taxpayers are again the winners. The procurement process will be streamlined. Jobs will be created. Spending will remain in Canada and other Canadian firms will get the opportunity to compete for subcontracts.

My fear is that the Bloc Quebecois motion is actually redundant. I am not confident this government is going to follow through and implement a true off the shelf policy. Let us look at the government's procurement track record so far.

In 1994 the Minister of National Defence tabled his white paper on defence, the first comprehensive look at Canada's defence policy since 1987. In it the minister pays some lip service to the off the shelf concept. The white paper states under the heading of procurement: "The Department of National Defence will adopt better business practices. Greater reliances will, for example, be placed on just in time delivery of common usage items to reduce inventory costs. The department will increase the procurement of off the shelf commercial technology which meets essential military specifications and standards".

While this is hardly a ringing endorsement of an off the shelf, taxpayer friendly way to military procurement, it is a start. Maybe this government's actions are stronger than its words. Let us look at some of the specific purchases by the Minister of National Defence since 1993 and see if he shows some concern for Canadian taxpayers and Canadian military personnel and determine if he has grasped the off the shelf concept.

One of the latest procurement contracts I am aware of is the minister's $2,000 gold plated pen contract with an Ottawa firm. If the minister had a concern for his troops and Canadian taxpayers, he would have shopped around for a bargain. He would have gone to Grand and Toy and Office Depot, to name two major pen suppliers, which have commercially available pens that could be purchased off the shelf. But no, the minister had a number of specifications. They had to be quill pens with gold engraved

lettering and supplied in a crushed velvet pouch. So much for the minister and his lip service to off the shelf.

Wait. Maybe that purchase was just a fluke. Maybe the minister's track record improves when we examine something that is not for his personal use. Let us examine the government's track record vis-à-vis one of the major equipment purchases this government faces. Let us look at this government's handling of the replacement of search and rescue shipborne helicopters.

This sorry tale begins in the dying days of the previous Tory government. Prior to the 1993 election the Conservative government had set in motion the purchase of the EH-101 replacement helicopter. By the fall of 1993 hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent on research and development.

The hefty cost of the EH-101 which totalled $4.4 billion including training personnel, spare parts, training manuals and training programs prompted the Liberal Party to make a campaign promise to scrap the purchase. This campaign ploy is proving to be costly to taxpayers and a minefield for the Minister of National Defence who has to replace our current deficient fleet while showing the taxpayers that the Liberal government has saved them money.

The fallout from this campaign promise has been great. Our military personnel were told they would have to spend more time flying obsolete and increasingly dangerous helicopters. Our ability to enhance our defences and to get the most out of our new frigates has been deferred. Taxpayers have been forced to waste up to some $600 million on cancellation fees, but all the costs are not in yet. Some experts are saying that the total could cost Canadian taxpayers up to $1 billion at the end of the day.

Sadly the Liberal cabinet is playing politics again. The defence minister has publicly committed himself to purchasing new helicopters and finally announced last week that he would purchase 15 new search and rescue helicopters. He boldly proclaimed that they would be purchased off the shelf for just $600 million. Six hundred million dollars to $1 billion is the amount the Liberal government has forced Canadian taxpayers to spend on helicopters since the election of 1993. But where are the helicopters? The $600 million figure like our aging Labradors and Sea King helicopters does not fly.

To purchase the 15 helicopters Canadian taxpayers are really being asked to spend $1.2 billion to $1.6 billion when the EH-101 cancellation costs are factored in. That equals about $80 million to $100 million each. That is probably more than the average cost of each EH-101 helicopter.

The only reason the minister is forced to commit himself to an off the shelf purchase of helicopters is the political game of football the government has been playing with helicopters. The EH-101 cost included spare parts, pilot training, manuals and other incidentals. The defence minister left these costs out of his assessment, making his new search and rescue variant more costly to taxpayers.

There is more too. The minister has lowered the operational specifications for the helicopter by 15 per cent. The EH-101 was not an overspecified helicopter. The EH-101 had a set of specifications to meet Canada's expansive geography and our severe weather conditions. Specifications include a range of 550 miles; a speed of 160 knots; a hover capability for a 7,500-foot altitude; a capacity to rescue and carry nine people; a day, all night and all weather capability including severe icing conditions; and the capability of making a safe recovery following the loss of one engine.

The Liberals had wasted so much money calculating the EH-101 deal they could not afford to purchase an off the shelf helicopter that could meet Canada's unique needs.

The announcement that the operational requirements for our search and rescue helicopters is being reduced calls into question the Liberal government's commitment to Canada's search and rescue. What are we telling our fishers and their crew off the west coast of Vancouver Island in an emergency situation? The government is sending them a strong message, scribbled with a pricey quill pen that says: "We may not be able to assist you. The weather is too bad and you are out of range. Good luck".

As for the shipborne helicopters, the cabinet and the defence minister are still wrangling over the difficulty in deciding how to tell the public that they need to spend billions of dollars on a project they cancelled as a campaign promise.

I expect to see the same result with the shipborne helicopters as with the search and rescue variety. Canadians will get at best an inferior helicopter in less numbers for the same price as the EH-101.

Who are the losers? First Canadian taxpayers and second our military personnel. The Minister of National Defence has an approved defence budget and an approved white paper which apparently account for the purchase of new shipborne helicopters. Yet the minister is unable to get cabinet approval to make this important decision. Why? Media reports speculate on the worst. They believe cabinet is fighting over the division of regional benefits.

In August the Financial Post claimed a Parliament Hill lobbyist had said that the Minister of Human Resources Development and

the Minister of Transport were pressing the Minister of National Defence for investment in their regions.

When looking at other major procurement items on the government's agenda it becomes apparent the minister was forced into an off the shelf promise on helicopters because of the fiscal mess the government has put itself in over the EH-101 cancellation.

The recent press conference the minister held to announce his plans for search and rescue helicopters was a non-event, to say the least. The minister only announced his intent to accept bids, something most of us thought had occurred long ago. Normally the minister would announce the items to be procured, the cost to the taxpayers and the industry involved.

This is exactly what happened in August when the minister announced his intent to purchase 240 new armoured personnel carriers in addition to a program for refurbishing about 1,200 of our existing M-113s, Grizzlies and Bisons. In this example the minister threw the concept of off the shelf to the wind. It was lucky for him that he had no APC cancellation contracts to contend with. In this case the minister knew exactly which companies would be awarded the contract. General Motors of London, Ontario was awarded the contract to produce 240 new APCs for $800 million, with the government keeping the door open to ordering another 411 at a future date for a cost of just over $2 billion.

To determine whether this contract was value for money, I submitted an access to information request in August asking for documents showing the minister and his senior officials at DND shopped around and bought the best APC for the money. The information act states that the department must respond to requests within 30 days of receiving them. It is now the end of November. I have heard nothing from the Department of National Defence and I expect the worst. I imagine the department is stonewalling because it knows this is not an off the shelf purchase.

I bet those documents are sitting on the bottom of the in basket of the deputy minister of defence as we speak. I also bet the next set of defence estimates this spring will have a column under the APC project entitled regional benefits.

While the verdict on the new APCs is not in yet, it is clear the APC refurbishing contract awarded to Montreal's 202 workshop is an exercise in regional pork barrelling. This was the price of cabinet approval for the purchase and represents old style politics at its worst.

The latest major purchase the minister has made known is the option to purchase surplus British Upholder class submarines to replace our aged Oberon class subs. The asking price of $800 million dollars for four Upholders, training vessels, spare parts and documentation is a bargain. I suspect cabinet will not allow the minister to announce this purchase because there is no pie to be divided among the regions.

To conclude, the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is the exact opposite to what Canada must do to get its fiscal house in order. This is not surprising. What is surprising is that the government has not embraced the off the shelf concept as a means by which Canada can upgrade its aging and increasingly dangerous military equipment.

If Canada is to maintain its modest military and continue to play an effective role in our nation's defences and international affairs, it must change and it must change quickly. As the Reform Party defence critic I will be watching every aspect of DND's purchases, from pens to submarines. I will ensure that taxpayers and our dedicated military personnel are getting the most for their money.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

I am rising on debate.