Robert Bertrand

[Quebec Bridge, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I would like to comment on the motion by the member for Louis-Hébert dealing with the federal government's responsibility for repairs to the Quebec bridge.

As my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, already knows, the Quebec bridge is an issue which has been much discussed in recent years. In fact, the bridge was recently declared a historic site by the former Minister of Canadian Heritage. As the longest cantilever railway bridge in the world, it is a remarkable tribute to the perseverance and triumph of engineers and bridge builders.

In 1987, the Quebec bridge was classified as a historic monument by both the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Like any other complex 80-year old structure, this bridge must be examined and repaired regularly. I can assure all the members of this House that the Quebec bridge is very safe.

It can safely withstand existing traffic and the expected increase in suburban traffic for many years to come. This was confirmed by CN, following a comprehensive study on the condition of the bridge conducted by Modjeski & Masters, a firm of engineering consultants.

This firm was one of the major consultants involved in the actual building of the Quebec bridge. According to the comprehensive inspection it carried out, the bridge is in a remarkably good condition, considering its age and the operating environment of its structure.

The member recommends that the federal government, in conjunction with Canadian National, participate in repairing the Quebec bridge. I want to remind the member that the bridge is no longer the property of the federal government.

An agreement signed in July 1993 by the Canadian government and CN provided for the transfer to CN of the Quebec Bridge and the Canadian government railway lands. Pursuant to this agreement, CN undertook to invest in a maintenance program to restore the structure in a way that ensures its long term viability.

I am glad to announce to the House that, in accordance with its commitment to ensure the long term viability of the bridge and honour the agreement signed in July 1993, CN intends to launch next summer a major maintenance program.

CN expects to invest in the bridge $1.5 to $2 million a year for the next 15 years. Such a significant investment proves that CN is committed to maintaining this important infrastructure. This is a huge commitment on the part of a railway for a bridge that is used mainly for suburban road traffic. Surely the hon. member knows that, although the bridge was originally constructed to meet the needs of rail transport, a Canada-Quebec agreement signed in 1928 allowed the province to build and maintain a road span on this bridge.

An agreement signed in 1949 allowed for the widening of this span for $25,000 a year. This agreement is still in force and will expire only in 2012. Needless to say this payment negotiated almost 50 years ago is far from covering structural costs resulting from daily road traffic.

Motor vehicles represent close to 75 per cent of present traffic on the bridge. Although I should point out again that the bridge is safe, a certain amount of deterioration has occurred from the use of products to remove snow and ice on the road portion of the bridge's superstructure.

In addition to the sums CN is prepared to invest in order to ensure the long term viability of the bridge, the railway company is totally willing to contribute to a more complete restoration program, if the Quebec Department of Transport agrees to review the terms and conditions of the 1949 agreement and if it agrees to assume half of the costs of an important maintenance program. I have also learned that CN is willing to meet with the representatives of Quebec's Department of Transport to discuss cost sharing.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert should admit that the previous government disposed of the railway lands belonging to the Canadian government on the express condition that the CN take total responsibility for the Quebec Bridge. The federal government made its contribution at that time.

Since deficit reduction is our priority, the participation of the government in a maintenance program that is clearly the CN's responsibility would be an inappropriate use of public funds.

As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert knows, the Quebec Bridge is primarily used by south shore commuters who cross over every day on their way to work on the north shore. In fact, less than 10 trains use the bridge daily while 25,000 cars cross it regularly. All things considered, the Quebec Bridge has become a road bridge used mainly by commuters. The deterioration of the bridge is certainly attributable in large part to that car traffic.

The government recognizes the unique character of the Quebec Bridge and its historical significance for the world. Its unique splendour must be preserved for future generations and it will be. I am convinced that the CN will fulfil its obligations according to the agreement concluded with the Government of Canada in 1993.

[Pontiac Regional County Municipality, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last month, Pontiac made headlines across the country. The mayors of the Pontiac regional county municipality had decided to consider a motion proclaiming the territorial integrity of the Pontiac RCM, should the yes side win the next referendum.

In the end, on February 16, the Pontiac RCM mayors signed a joint statement asking: "That the Prime Minister of Canada, provincial and territorial premiers spare no effort to reach a compromise eliminating the option that would result in altered territorial borders".

The next day, a local paper ran an article under the headline "Sixteen Pontiac Mayors in Favour of Secession". This catchy title in no way reflected the content of the Pontiac mayors' final statement, and I question the real purpose of such statements.

[National Defence, March 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Some time ago now, the special commission on the restructuring of the reserves released its report.

Could the minister inform the House what steps, if any, have been taken to deal with the commission's report?

[Financial Institutions, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, for several months now I have been hearing almost daily from my constituents about the reform of the legislation governing financial institutions. The majority of my constituents are categorically opposed to letting chartered banks into the insurance, annuity and long term car rental markets.

Canadian chartered banks already enjoy unwarranted privileges in the existing financial system. This is why the government had to see to it that they were not allowed to extend their control. The monopoly situation in which chartered banks operate would only have harmed the Canadian consumer. Allowing chartered banks into the insurance business would have thrown open the door to unwarrranted sales pressure and increased the risk of abusive use of personal information about bank clients. I would therefore like to thank the Minister of Finance for having dealt with the issue with respect at least to the insurance aspect.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since taking office, the deficit percentage has gone down from 5.9 per cent to 3 per cent. The government is meeting its targets. Next year it will be hitting 2 per cent.

I am surprised that the member from the third party likes polls so much considering that his party is staying at 10 per cent and has not moved for a long time.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend opposite for his question. As you probably know, since our government came to office in Ottawa, some 500,000 or 600,000 jobs have been created. Obviously, in certain areas, it will be a little more difficult to create jobs, but on the whole, the number of jobs created for the long term will certainly outweigh the incidental aspects, so to speak, of the finance minister's budget.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I shall be sharing my time with the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women.

I am most pleased today to be able to take the floor in this noble institution to speak on the 1996 budget. This is the third one we are presenting, aimed at guaranteeing Canadians budget stability and an economy that is vigorous, dynamic and competitive, in today's harsh economic context.

Along with the 1994 and 1995 budgets, this one maintains a broad strategy that is deliberate, measured and responsible and is aimed at putting federal public finances on a sounder footing. It is deliberate, because our efforts are continuing unrelenting. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, in our implacable fight against the deficit there is no going back. We are going to balance our books. We shall also put the debt-GDP ratio onto a permanently descending curve, dropping lower every year.

It is measured, because our action plan is not being applied in a blind and reckless manner; it is well structured and proceeding at a rate that will allow efficient adaptation. What we are aiming at is not a quick fix but permanent progress over the long term.

It is responsible, because this is a strategy which requires us to take the needs of the economy and of society into account, and to use particular care in designing the strategic options which will equip us to meet those needs.

What is more, we are seeking the necessary balance to allow Canadians to join us in our efforts to reduce the deficit.

There remains no question about the need for dramatic and disciplined action. High public sector deficits and debt have sapped confidence, soaked up domestic savings and led to a sharp increase in the country's net international indebtedness. Canadians were paying a painful high price through the punishing pressure that high deficits place on interest rates. This takes away consumer and business investments and drives down job creation.

The lethal combination of high interest rates and deficit borrowing also meant that a growing share of government resources must go to interest payments on a growing debt. This year those charges will cost the federal government $47 billion, money that cannot go to lowering taxes, aiding those in need and helping our economy create new jobs.

These, Mr. Speaker, are our reasons for doing what we did. It is not because solving Canada's budget problems constitutes an objective in itself, but because it constitutes a fundamental component of our national growth, of job creation, and of economic security.

In the first two budgets, we began a process of improving our public finances and of restoring the state's budgetary credibility, after years of failing to control the deficit.

By setting credible rolling two-year targets, by basing budget planning on cautious economic assumptions and by creating substantial reserves for contingencies, we are making public finances once again credible.

The first two budgets provided for unprecedented cuts to program expenditures. These structural cuts focussed on the medium term. Thanks to them, the 1995-96 and 1996-97 objectives of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP will be met, despite the fact that the growth of the GDP is slower than expected.

This progress is due in part to the fact that interest rates are also much lower than expected, and this in turn offsets the negative effect of the slower GDP growth.

The measures announced in the 1996 budget strengthen and extend those of our initial budgets and provide an added push toward the achievement of our economic and financial goals.

We set our sights on the reduction of program expenditures, because the debt problem was the creation of the governments. They must therefore resolve it by putting their own affairs in order.

Therefore, the 1996 budget provides for no increase in taxes. There is no increase in income taxes for individuals or corporations, and there is no increase in the excise tax.

Expenditure cuts in the 1996 budget will amount to $1.9 billion in 1998-99 and will build on the reductions of the two previous budgets to keep program spending on a downward track.

Here is a point that must be emphasized: a full 87 per cent of the cumulative fiscal actions taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99 will have been expenditure savings.

Together the three budgets will contribute $26.1 billion in savings for 1997-98. This action, together with the reform of the employment insurance program, will ensure that we hit the new deficit target, to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GDP.

Thanks to the measures announced in the budget, we will manage to save an additional $28.9 billion in 1998-99, which means that the deficit will continue to shrink.

There is no doubt we have taken a historical step. The program expenditures, that is, all expenditures less interest payments, could shrink for six consecutive years, until 1998-99. These are actual cuts in real dollars. Expenditures would shrink from $120 billion in 1993-94 to $105.5 billion in 1998-99, that is, a reduction of 12 per cent in the amounts spent.

In real terms, the level of program expenditures, adjusted to reflect inflation, will in fact be below that for 1984-85.

Program spending, as compared to the size of the economy, will be at its lowest level since 1949-50. The debt to GDP ratio, or what we owe as compared to what we produce, will drop by 1.1 per cent to reach 73.7 per cent in 1997-98. This will be the first significant drop since 1974-75.

Another fiscal element is worthy of mention. Calculated the same way a number of countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, measure their deficit, our financial needs reached $30 billion in 1993-94. In 1997-98, they will have dropped to only $6 billion. As compared to the size of the economy, this is the lowest they have been in nearly 30 years. At this rate, we will likely have the lowest shortfall of all G-7 central governments.

Two additional points are worthy of mention. First, the economic assumptions included in the budget plan are once again more conservative than the private sector's. For instance, our projections for 1997 are based on interest rates nearly 1 per cent higher, or 80 base points, than the private sector's forecasts.

If economic forecasts reach or surpass the planned levels, the deficit could be lower than our 2 per cent deficit target for 1997-98. Any unused portion of the contingency reserves will be used directly to reduce the deficit even further.

Second, the federal government's fiscal health is not the only one to improve; that of the provinces and territories is also improving markedly. The combined deficit of the provinces and territories dropped from a record $25 billion in 1992-93 to $12.6 billion in 1995-96, from 3.6 per cent to 1.6 per cent of GDP. Consequently, in Canada, the total government deficit should improve significantly as compared to the other G-7 countries.

In 1992 the combined government deficits in Canada stood at 7.4 per cent of GDP. That was double the G-7 average of 3.7 per cent and the second highest behind Italy. This year Canada's total government deficit will have fallen below the G-7 average to rank second lowest among the the G-7 countries, just behind the United States. By 1997 our country's total government deficit should be the lowest of the G-7 based on the each country's current plans.

Obviously, we are making sustained progress, as are all major public administrations. The biggest winners will be Canadians. We are taking the necessary steps to lower interest rates, increase competitiveness, promote job creation, and improve economic security. You can be sure we will stay the course.

[Quebec's English Speaking Community, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the PQ premier invited prominent people representing Quebec's English speaking community to an important meeting that took place in Montreal on Monday evening.

The event was really meant to be an opportunity for the new PQ leader to rebuild bridges with Quebec's English speaking community, following the unfortunate comments made by his predecessor on the evening of October 30.

We salute Mr. Bouchard's initiative, which shows a willingness to get closer to an important community in Quebec and to co-operate with it. However, like the majority of the participants in that meeting, we deplore the fact that the PQ leader stubbornly wants to pursue, even against the will of the people, his objective of separating Quebec from the rest of Canada.

If he sincerely wants to get Quebec's economy back on track and improve public finances, the PQ leader must set aside the main obstacle to his province's economic well-being, namely his plan for separation.

[Tribute To Jacques Villeneuve, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and enthusiasm that yesterday I joined millions of Canadians in watching Jacques Villeneuve, the Quebec race car driver, compete in his first formula 1 event.

This race, which took place in Melbourne, Australia, made it possible for the rest of the world to discover what Quebecers and Canadians have known for a long time: Jacques Villeneuve is one of the greatest race car drivers in the world. We are convinced that, without an unfortunate mechanical problem, Jacques Villeneuve would have started his promising Formula 1 career from the top step of the podium.

On behalf of my colleagues in this House, I congratulate Jacques Villeneuve for his talent and determination. He makes his country proud.

[North American Aerospacedefence Command, March 11th, 1996]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to take part in this debate on the importance of NORAD. I want to share a few salient points about NORAD with my distinguished parliamentary colleagues.

NORAD was set up about 39 years ago to provide for common air defence of North America. The first NORAD agreement was concluded in 1958, that is in the year following the creation of the command.

At first, NORAD was organized in such a way as to counter the threat posed by Soviet bombers, but it evolved over the years in response to the transformation of the strategic context.

In the early sixties, NORAD had to develop warning capabilities against intercontinental ballistic missiles, to add to the capabilities against long range aircraft that were already in place. Those were the main threats during the sixties and the seventies. However, the introduction of sophisticated cruise missiles in the Soviet military arsenal led to other adjustments in the defence capabilities of NORAD in the eighties.

As NORAD adapted to the changing threat, its facilities and its infrastructure were changed. Thus the old radar facilities were replaced or closed down, operations centres were regrouped and

the number of aircraft available to NORAD was considerably reduced.

Thanks to such adjustments, NORAD has been able to retain its operational and financial efficiency and effectiveness, because the command continually adjusted to new developments.

NORAD is well known for its flexibility, efficiency, and effectiveness, and it still serves the security interests of both countries very well. Without NORAD, it would be difficult if not impossible to protect these interests. These elements still have an important role to play, as was evident in discussions on the renewal of the agreement in 1996.

The command and control structure of NORAD has also developed over the years into the integrated structure we now have. Representatives of both countries are found at all levels of that structure. This means that Canadians and Americans work in close co-operation at all levels of the NORAD organization in both countries.

NORAD headquarters are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The commander-in-chief is an American general, and the deputy commander-in-chief is a lieutenant-general of the Canadian forces.

There are also three regional headquarters. One is in the Alaska region of NORAD, at Elmendorf air force base, near Anchorage, Alaska. The headquarters of the Canadian region are located at the base of the 22nd wing in North Bay. Finally, the headquarters for continental U.S.A. are at Tyndall air force base, Florida.

Regional headquarters in the United States are under the command of American major-generals. Canadian brigadier-generals act as deputy commanding officers: the Canadian sector is commanded by a Canadian major-general and an American brigadier-general acts as deputy.

Although the NORAD agreement has been renewed every five years, the text of the agreement has not been revised since 1981. The objectives mentioned in the 1981 agreement were taken from the 1975 renewed agreement. This means that these objectives are now more than 20 years old.

The objectives are to help each country protect the sovereignty of its airspace, including the fight against drug trafficking; to prevent attacks against North America by maintaining our capabilities in aerospace surveillance, early warning, characterization of aerospace attacks and defense against air attacks.

The special joint committees on the defence policy and the foreign policy of Canada both examined the issue of future Canadian participation in NORAD. It was recommended that Canada continue to participate in NORAD, in consultations on the renewal of the NORAD agreement and in policy analyses. It is not surprising that the 1994 white paper on defence also reflected this point of view.

Even though most Canadians take NORAD for granted, it is worth pointing out all the benefits Canada derives from its role in the command. NORAD is first and foremost the principal institution protecting Canada's air sovereignty. If it were not a member of NORAD, Canada would have to spend considerable sums of money on command and control resources, satellites and aircraft for protection similar to the one provided by this organization.

Canada assumes approximately 10 per cent of total operating costs of NORAD, and it would be quite difficult to find a more cost effective arrangement. NORAD also offers other benefits besides protection of our air space. NORAD could very well have become the principal symbol of Canada-US co-operation in defence matters.

NORAD contributes greatly to dialogue and co-operation and often enables Canada to exercise, in security matters, more influence than it would be able to otherwise. Besides being conducive to goodwill, NORAD provides Canada with practical and measurable benefits.

The sharing of information is one of the most important practical benefits. Canada enjoys a special relationship with the United States. As its ally, it is first among its equals. Because of this, Canada has access to invaluable strategic information from space based resources that it does not have and does not have the means to acquire.

Access to advanced technology is another benefit of NORAD. For example, we took part with the United States in research and development projects on radars in space. As Canada acquired some knowledge in the field, it was invited to participate fully in a United States-United Kingdom technology exchange program on space based surveillance systems. Generally speaking, our co-operation with the United States in NORAD allows us to keep abreast of the latest developments in aerospace.

On the operational level, the Canadian Armed Forces get significant benefits from their participation in NORAD. Canadian Forces can really work together with American forces in complex military situations thanks to the many years of practical experience they got in joint planning and in NORAD operations.

The professional training the aircrews, air weapons technicians and air traffic controllers get by participating in NORAD is almost irreplaceable and it does not compare with the training the Canadian forces could give on their own. Since our fiscal situation will remain tight in the near future, the operational benefits we derive from NORAD will be essential to the maintenance of our army's skills in aerospace defence.

The NORAD agreement is undoubtedly the most significant defence agreement concluded between Canada and the United States. It has given us many benefits for nearly 40 years et should continue to do so well after the year 2000, given the changes we have agreed to make.

Through renewal of the agreement, NORAD will remain a key component of Canada's defence position. Consequently, it will allow our country to continue to defend its interests.

Canada's participation in NORAD is clearly beneficial, both in terms of operations and of economics. Without NORAD, it would be absolutely impossible for Canada to ensure its aerospace defence as effectively, even if it continued to devote the same amount of money to this task.

In brief, NORAD is a good deal for Canada and I support it.