Derek Lee

[Government Response To Petitions, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, June 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the second item was also agreed to by all House leaders. It was the approval of a travel request for the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[Sir John A. Macdonald Day And The Sir Wilfrid Laurier Day Act, June 7th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are two items that have been agreed to by all the House leaders and I am wondering if there would be consent to adopt them at this time.

The first item involves concurrence in the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this week on a committee change to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I would be seeking concurrence in that.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

We have obviously touched a cord here with the Progressive Conservatives.

The other issue I want to bring up at this time has to do with this envelope of equipment acquisition by the Department of National Defence, specifically helicopters. We all know that the military has been acquiring new helicopters for about five to ten years. It was necessary to replace virtually all its equipment but we were not going to do it in one day.

The first helicopter equipment to be replaced was the HU series, sometimes known as the Huey helicopter. These were 1950s and 1960s vintage helicopters and they were replaced with the Griffon helicopter. Those deliveries were commenced and completed over a period two to four years ago. The Griffon helicopter is successfully fulfilling its new role in the Canadian armed forces.

We then got to the search and rescue helicopter, which is a land based dedicated search and rescue piece of equipment. We have been flying a Labrador twin rotor helicopter on both coasts for many years. It is manufactured by Boeing and is a good piece of equipment. It has stood the test of time but it has outlived its lifespan. After the cancellation of the EH-101 in 1993-94, the government commenced the acquisition process for a replacement of the Labradors. That particular replacement is known as the Cormorant.

As everyone will realize, a period of time is required to commission a replacement, design it and get it constructed. These are custom designed pieces of military equipment for particular countries. Canada wants a certain helicopter that will do a certain job. The frame of the helicopter is essentially off the shelf but the components and the equipment necessary to allow that equipment to do its specific role has to be customized and prepared carefully. The process of replacing the Labradors is underway.

We are just a few weeks away from the delivery of the first search and rescue Cormorant. I am hopeful that Canadians will get a chance to see the first one on the front page of one of the newspapers. This process has been in play for approximately five years. I remember, as other colleagues will, when that contract was being dealt with by the government. We had a number of incessant repeated questions from the opposition in question period, scrutinizing, questioning and criticizing the process of acquiring that particular replacement helicopter. That process is virtually completed now. Deliveries are imminent and I am looking forward to the first delivery, as are the armed forces.

The member opposite put her hand on her heart. As people, do we care about the men and women who fly this equipment? Of course we do. We have replaced the Hueys, we are about to replace the Labradors and now we are embarking on the replacement of the Sea Kings, which are old inventions as well.

I would like to point out that Canada is not the only country flying Sea Kings. A lot of countries, including NATO countries are flying Sea Kings. All of us know they are outrageously expensive to maintain, which is one of the reasons why we are replacing them, but they have served their role well.

None of our armed forces personnel will fly in an unsafe Sea King, nor will any member of any armed forces of any country. They are all safe to fly. It is one of the reasons it costs so much to maintain them. To maintain them properly so that they are safe and effective in their role takes a lot of bucks and a lot of downtime, but when they fly, they are safe.

Once in a while we have a Sea King that gets a flat tire. My own automobile gets a flat tire from time to time. I do my best to maintain it. I drive it safely and our military flies its Sea Kings safely.

Now we are in a process of replacing the Sea Kings. The government has made a decision to enhance the prospects for competition, in part to ensure that we get the best price available. As I said earlier, the frame for the new helicopter will probably come off the shelf from a multinational aviation company that produces helicopters and it could be one in Canada. The components and equipment that go into the helicopter for its maritime purpose and to primarily fly off the back end of a naval ship, among other roles, has to be carefully designed and sourced among competitive sources for price. Therefore, the contract has been split in two. Rather than being stuck with a situation where we might have had one, two or three sole source suppliers for one contract, we now have approximately 13 potential suppliers for various components of the replacement helicopter.

As we go forward, I fully expect the opposition to ask many questions and allege many things about the process here. I would just like all of us to get a grip and to understand the perspective. We are irrevocably embarked on an acquisition process to replace the Sea King helicopter. We will get one as soon as we can for the best price that we can, and we will get the best possible equipment that we can.

If the only window the public gets on the acquisition process is questions in question period with 30 second answers, maybe we should have a debate sometime in the House on the whole process and on the military equipment, but that would be up to colleagues in the House on both sides and House leaders. However, right now today we have other business. Therefore, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have begun today in routine proceedings with a motion to adopt a defence committee report that was tabled not long ago in connection with helicopter acquisitions by the military.

It is clear from the debate so far, although we have really only had the one speaker from the Progressive Conservative Party, that the PC Party still appears to be apologizing for the EH-101 helicopter deal that was in place in 1993. It has been indicated that the contract was cancelled for political reasons. My recollection was that the contract was cancelled for what we regarded as blatant profligacy.

At the time the contract was in play, Canada had a $43 billion deficit, not to mention the accruing debt. Financially it simply was not sound. The equipment that was intended to be purchased, was a helicopter that many regarded as very capable and multi-tasked in terms of its role, but really a Cadillac capable of filling many different roles and perhaps more roles than we needed. Therefore, the decision was made by the Liberal government, which was elected in the fall of 1993, to cancel the contract.

[Motions For Papers, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 6th, 2001]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all other questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 39, 41 and 51. .[Text]

Question No. 39—

[Committees Of The House, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items,

In accordance with Standing Order 92 this report is deemed adopted on presentation.

I also have the honour to present the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in both official languages, and I should like to move concurrence at this time.

[Government Response To Petitions, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.