Lucien Bouchard

[Taxation, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Finance for his answer, which was specific enough to be somewhat reassuring for senior

citizens. I am not so sure that the occasion was as happy as he seems to think. The budget speech will tell whether the occasion was a happy one.

However, since this report exists, is now available to the public and will be widely examined, it may prove very tempting for people who want to tamper with what so far has been inviolable, and I am referring to old age pensions. Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether he personally, as the Minister of Finance, would agree to start taxing old age pensions when an individual's annual income exceeds $30,000, in order to save 700 to 800 million dollars at the expense of the elderly?

[Taxation, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

A Bank of Canada study released today under the Access to Information Act has suggested to the government a number of measures that would increase income tax for families, students and, especially, for the elderly. By substantially reducing the current tax exemption for senior citizens, the Bank of Canada proposes saving a total of $1.8 billion at the expense of the elderly.

Does the minister intend to follow up on these recommendations, which would have the effect of raising income tax for thousands of senior citizens? In other words, is he prepared today to give certain assurances to these senior citizens who are concerned, and rightly so, about these recommendations, revealed just a few weeks before the budget speech?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

In closing, I want to remind the hon. members that social justice is at risk. It could be bearing the brunt of decades of federal government carelessness. This is no time to be reducing the social security net, as there is more and more cause for concern for the situation of the less fortunate. And for as long as we can foresee, we will always have to protect those who, as fate would have it, will not have the same opportunity as other people.

The recession that we are only now starting to put behind us has caused terrible hardship. Take the statistics for 1990. According to the National Council on Welfare, 18 per cent of the

Quebec population, or 1.2 million individuals, had incomes that placed them below the poverty line. Using Statistics Canada's own figures, Campagnie 2000 estimated that 1.1 million Canadian children, or one child out of six, were living in poverty. This is Canada we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, not some far-away country that we see shows about on TV at night. We are talking about Canada where 1,100,000 children are living in poverty.

At the same time, an international group of research scientists was reporting that Canada ranked second to last among the eight industrialized nations, with 29 per cent of single-parent families living in poverty.

Had it not been for our social programs, this recession would have irreparably affected these people. Can we safely lower our guard now? We say no, because the economy has not completely recovered yet from the last recession.

We also object to reducing the level of social protection while the economy is recovering because of the lingering risk of seeing the gap between the poor and the wealthy widen.

I dare the government to name one good reason for abdicating its role with regard to ensuring fairness. The fact that such poverty exists constitutes a major problem that all social stakeholders in Canada deplore, but this problem cannot be solved by attacking the poor, as the government is probably about to do, but rather by fighting poverty. And to fight poverty, we need programs that allow the underprivileged to regain their dignity and the courage to find a way out of poverty. To fight poverty, we need coherent social programs, not a maze of federal-provincial programs. Finally, to fight poverty, we need stable employment in areas where there is a future. But this government has no job creation program. This is one of the tragedies caused by frustration.

Here is a government which owes its victory at the polls-a very significant victory, with an overwhelming majority of members elected to this House-to a promise heard a thousand times, a quite simple promise but one of tremendous importance to those who heard it: jobs!

What is there to foster job creation? Two things. First, the municipal infrastructure program, which today is a vague measure and one that will lead to patronage tomorrow. Again, in Quebec, we are still waiting for an agreement to define the applicable criteria, which are still unknown. Yet, the government has started handing out goodies, to the order of a few billion dollars a year, this in spite of the fact that no criteria are established. We fully agree that this initiative could be useful and we are not opposed to it, but the fact that it "could be useful" does not solve anything and does not give it the stature of the government's commitment to introduce measures to get the economic job creation engines going again. That was the first measure.

The second measure is the one announced this morning in that speech announcing broad consultations, a major redefinition, as well as a restructuring of Canada's social security system, to revitalize the economy and put people back to work. But how is the government going to put people to work if it cuts into social programs? How is it going to put unemployed workers back to work by reducing their benefits? Who can believe that the measures announced in this speech will indeed turn the job situation around?

The government must avoid the easy solutions it is attracted to, namely the elimination of programs and the reduction of transfers to provinces. If the government opts for those easy solutions, it will violate its social contract with Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

Is it not intolerable that 725,000 employable adults are out of work? Of course it is. Is it not intolerable that 125,000 young heads of households have to rely on welfare assistance in Quebec? Of course it is. The government cannot let these people down until they find a job commensurate with their skills, their will and their wishes. In the name of that compassion to which the minister referred to, and also to avoid a deterioration of our social fabric, the Bloc Quebecois proposes three solutions:

First, in the short-term, the federal government must maintain at its current relative level the transfer payments made to provinces. At its "relative" level means relative to its current commitment, given the other expenditures faced by provincial governments. Let us not play with words; let us not play little games. Let us not say: We maintain transfers to provinces at their current level when, in fact, those transfers would be frozen. That is not the solution. The government must increase and keep increasing its level of contribution to those transfers, proportionally to the efforts made by the provinces, which are struggling with inflation, increased needs, and so on and so forth. By current level, we mean to truly maintain that level and not merely do some tricky accounting.

Also, in the middle term, we propose, for the sake of economy and cohesion, an in-depth review of transfer payments. Only one level of government should set standards, collect taxes and provide social services on a given territory. And Quebecers will never want to leave those responsibilities to the federal government. In other words, the federal government must stop interfering in provincial jurisdictions.

Sound management of public funds is based on the elimination of overlapping jurisdictions, programs, departments and unhealthy competition, which all lead to the wasting of taxpayers money. Such a measure is simply a matter of ensuring

cohesion. To be effective, social as well as employment development policies must be integrated. Every Canadian understands that.

However, for Quebecers the choice is simple: health and social services policies must be concentrated in Quebec. After some 30 years of making claims, from Jean Lesage to the Allaire report, it must be recognized that such a reform is impossible to achieve. The solution, therefore, is in the sovereignty of Quebec. Then, Quebec will have to make choices. It will be responsible for its decisions, its successes and its failures. It will have to perform without this safety net, from a political point of view, but it will make its own decisions. Conversely, English Canada will also be free to decide which level will be responsible for its social and economic policies.

I strongly suspect that English Canada, at least some groups, will largely support the measures which the minister is about to implement. Indeed, I truly believe that a lot of people will support this government initiative. English Canada has the right to choose its own social and economic measures. I also strongly suspect that other groups from English Canada will be concerned by the minister's intervention in a sector which matters so much to English Canadians. But one thing is sure: English Canada is like Quebec and must deal with the situation by taking action to meet its needs.

Third, the federal government must immediately implement a vigorous economic recovery and job creation program using the cuts made not in social programs but in Canada's heavy bureaucratic and military structure. If Parliament can operate with less resources, the government and the armed forces can as well.

I do not think that many people will believe that this bankrupt government, subject to continual pressure from the right, is not trying to take money from the less fortunate with this reform. Who will believe that this is not a budget exercise? The rhetoric of the department and of the minister, I am sorry to say, is the same as we heard last year from the Conservatives when they imposed their reform with Bill C-113, a reform which after some very fine words, as wonderful as those spoken today, resulted in a 5 per cent reduction in benefits paid to the unemployed.

The Liberals did not fall for that rhetoric then. They rightly and to their credit voted against that bill. We will do as they did and vote against the proposed measure.

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to thank the minister for proposing this debate in the House. We may not agree with the content or with the minister's announcement, but this debate will at least launch a much-needed discussion of the government's intentions and of exactly where the government is going, considering the real interests of Canada and Quebec.

The government intends to focus its concern on our social security system. With the help of the people of this country, it will to conduct a review of the social safety net.

The minister's speech is full of noble sentiment and references to the dignity of work, leadership, the promise of change, and all those wonderful words people find in the dictionary when they want to make an announcement without saying exactly what they plan to do.

To listen to the minister, one would think this government, mindful of its social justice traditions-the traditions of the Liberal Party -is preparing to strengthen the universality of social programs, give broader access to these programs and provide reassurances for the unemployed, welfare recipients and people in need generally who are suffering most under the impact of the recession.

Unfortunately, that is not the case, because these fine phrases, pronounced so eloquently by the minister, are mere camouflage for an unprecedented attack against our social security system.

Although mouthing noble sentiments, these reformers have their scissors at the ready. Behind the Minister of Human Resources Development, we see lurking in the shadows the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board.

Can there be any doubt about the real motives for this rationalization when it is announced by a government that is trying to keep the wolf from the door?

Let us not be fooled into thinking that this government wants to improve the quality of health care. Do not believe for one minute it is trying to do something about crowded emergency wards or long waits for people to be admitted to the hospital or have an operation. And it certainly does not plan to raise the meagre pensions we pay to the elderly.

The threat is a serious one, because the federal government is involved. As we all know, the role it plays in maintaining and financing social programs is considerable. The federal government has taken advantage of the provinces' lack of fiscal resources and occupied a large section of this area of responsibility, so that today, a very substantial part of our social safety net is controlled from Ottawa. I am thinking of unemployment insurance, disability pensions, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement, spousal allowances, survivors' allowances and veterans allowances and, except in Quebec, the Canada Pension Plan and family allowances.

These programs are administered by Ottawa, which determines benefit levels, benefit criteria and eligibility. Another section of our social security system is dominated in part by the federal government because the services are provided by the provinces. Included are equalization payments; the Canada Assistance Plan, which covers welfare payments; and Established Programs Financing, which covers medicare.

Under these programs, the provinces provide services to their citizens, but in strict compliance with standards set by the federal government. Program costs are shared by both levels of government.

The one thing that all of the programs just mentioned, whether federal or cost-shared, have in common is the participation of the federal government. Whether or not they survive depends on the goodwill of Ottawa.

The provinces have continued to exercise their jurisdiction in the health and social services field, but their jurisdiction is no longer exclusive. Workers' compensation, assistance to residents of homes for the aged and dental care for children are just a few examples of vitally important social services provided by the provincial government.

Quebec was a pioneer in several fields and continues today to provide a range of services not found elsewhere such as maternity allowances and child grants. Quebec was also in the forefront in terms of protecting its rights from being encroached upon by the federal government. It took steps to establish its own pension plan, its own retirement pension scheme and its own family allowances system.

For many in Quebec and in Canada, social security is the very core of our values system. It should be remembered that the old age pension system was first introduced back in 1927. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Family Allowances Act, when the federal government first turned its attention to the plight of the poor. This year's reform initiatives promise to be a sorry tribute indeed to this event. Starting in 1944, the social safety net was gradually cast ever wider to cover the blind, the disabled and finally, the unemployed.

With each federal foray, the provinces found themselves with less room to manoeuvre where social programs were concerned. Indeed, to finance its so-called "national" programs, Ottawa needed a major tax grab and it set its sights on the same taxpayers that the provinces would have liked to target because they were underfunded and no longer able to meet the responsibilities associated with the baby boom. In other words, by encroaching upon provincial fields of taxation, the federal government put the provinces in a vulnerable position. And when Ottawa extended to the provinces an offer to establish social programs which would be partially funded and controlled by the federal government, the provincial partners had no choice but to accept. The joint programs included hospitalization insurance introduced in 1958, the Canada Assistance Plan introduced in 1966 and health insurance introduced in 1968.

Quebec challenged Ottawa's incursions into these areas. At federal-provincial conferences during the sixties and seventies, successive Quebec governments demanded that the provinces, not the federal government, have jurisdiction over health care and social services.

Jean Lesage said in 1965 that the provinces were in a better position than the federal government to take lasting, effective action. Daniel Johnson Sr. and Jean-Jacques Bertrand repeatedly argued that health and social security came under provincial jurisdiction. Even Robert Bourassa called upon the federal government to end joint hospitalization and health insurance programs and replace them with outright grants.

But, as usual, Quebec stood alone. Only once did it succeed in catching the federal government off guard, and this was when it set up its own pension plan, the Quebec Pension Plan, the cornerstone of the Quiet Revolution. Nevertheless, in spite of Quebec's dogged opposition, the provinces lost ground to the federal government. Today, Ottawa collects the taxes and sets the standards. And as it prepares to reduce transfer payments to the provinces, it wants to control programs and at the same time keep the money collected from taxpayers.

The goal of this exercise is patently obvious. The federal government wants to use the money saved by cutting transfer payments to finance the debt, using money it now allocates to social services. And what is likely to happen as a result of this action? Either the provinces will be forced to cut services, or they will have to raise taxes even higher. In either case, they will

have to bear most of the burden and the federal government will piously wash its hands of the whole matter.

The economic security afforded by our social safety net is the envy of millions of people who enjoy no such protection against the whims of fate. This is doubtless one of the reasons why Canada and Quebec rate so highly among the best places in the world in which to live. Canadians and Quebecers are pleased and proud of this affirmation of the values of social justice and, over time, a consensus has emerged on the success of our social system.

We know that social values are one of the symbols of Canada and of Quebec. We happen to be sovereignists. We have said so and we will say it again on numerous occasions. We know that not every program has been a failure in Canada and in Quebec.

We are not naive and extremist to the point of thinking that everything that has been done for the last century and more has been a failure or a weakness. We do not think that everything has been built on bad faith. There have been successes. Many people thought for a time there would be more successes.

One of the successes is the social programs. We should know that when we are trying to touch them. The minister probably knows that more than most of us because he is dedicated to social programs. I know it.

We know this is something very delicate. We know that politicians are devoted to rhetoric. We heard very strong words to qualify the importance of the social programs. Words like "sacred trust" were used and nobody laughed. This was something deeply rooted in the traditions, the mentality and the values of Canada and of Quebec.

I listened to the speech of the minister. Of course there were nice words: leadership, change, better days, to restart the engine. There were all kinds of words used to crank up people and make them believe that what will be done is something very sweet and nice for them.

When one knows the situation of the government and of the federal state, when one knows that we are on the brink of collective bankruptcy, who will believe that this is not a budgetary operation? Who would believe that out of this will stem a better system of security, a better system of health and care. Who will believe it? I suspect no one will believe it and certainly not the Official Opposition.

We have heard speeches like that in the past. For example last year, a few of us were here to hear the rhetoric of the Conservatives. When the Tories brought in Bill C-113 they used words like that. I am sorry but they were the same words. When we heard the ministers of the Tory government last year they said something like this: "to build up a new Canada, to restart the economy, to revitalize faith in our institutions, to put Canada back to work". We heard all those words so many times. The minister did not believe them. The minister was not fooled by those words. He voted against the bill like we did.

Here we are today. The minister is using the same words. I think we must fear that he is probably getting ready to do the same thing as the people he was strenuously denouncing last year.

It is already said in some circles that the federal government does not have a choice, that its disastrous financial situation requires it to reduce its effort to fund social programs but what is not being said is that these cuts have already taken place. In fact, the federal government has been reducing its share of program financing for the last 15 years.

In 1977-78, 45 per cent of total health expenditures in Quebec-I am taking Quebec as an example but I am convinced that it is about the same everywhere else-came from federal transfer payments. Today health expenditures account for nearly $12 billion-which is a lot of money, of course-only 33 per cent of which is Ottawa's share of Quebec's health budget. In 15 years we went from 45 to 33 per cent. That is a reduction, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a substantial reduction and I think that to determine who must pay for health care, who must support the tax effort and the budget cuts necessary to turn around our financial situation, we must look elsewhere.

The health needs of Quebecers and Canadians have not changed. The fact that social programs will be cut, revamped or whatever term you want to use-restructured, redesigned, redefined, modernized-does not mean that health care needs will diminish. They are not going to decrease.

With the level of excellence-everything being relative-that we have reached in terms of hospital and medical care, people will not resign themselves to inferior care overnight.

The Quebec government allocates every year about 31 per cent of its budget to health and social services. To maintain the quality of its services, it had to compensate for the federal government's withdrawal by increasing spending and cutting operations elsewhere, a step the federal administration has yet to take.

Last year federal cuts produced a $1.121 billion shortfall in health and social services in Quebec alone. The more than $1.7 billion frozen by the federal government last year brought the proportion of Quebec revenues coming from federal transfer payments from 29 to 18 per cent between 1984 and 1993 in terms of health services.

The federal system of transfer payments is a trap that has slowly closed in on the Canadian provinces. Today, because it is facing a chronic deficit, the federal government is trying to make the provinces pay the bill without giving them the money needed to fund these programs or reducing its taxes to clear the tax base to the benefit of the provinces. It has chosen to attack the poor on the back of the provinces.

It will be the provinces and not the federal government that will attack the poor. The provinces will have to play the part of the bad guys, of right-wing governments without compassion while the federal government will make a large contribution to health care by maintaining by law its own standards to keep services at the same level. The problems will be left to the provinces.

Canada is now standing on the brink of the financial abyss. The deficit projected in this year's budget was $32.8 billion but the Finance Minister is now talking about $45 billion. This shortfall cannot be blamed on the federal government's social spending because, while it was slashing transfer payments to the provinces between 1985 and 1993, the federal debt jumped from 33 to 58 percent of the GDP. While social expenditures were being cut the federal debt kept growing, therefore we must not blame social expenditures. On the contrary, they helped to slow the growth of the federal debt.

Social programs have been in existence for a long time but it is only in the last 20 years that deficits have been fuelling the federal debt. But social spending was already on the scene when the deficit phenomenon emerged. Therefore social spending is not responsible for our current deficit. It is wrong to make our social programs responsible for the government's financial crisis. We must look elsewhere for the cause of the chronic deficits in the federal budget.

This problem cannot be addressed by another tax increase. Taxpayers are already feeling the squeeze. An increase in underground employment and in smuggling would deprive the federal Treasury of revenues it is trying to collect.

We cannot borrow more money. The deficit is already draining a large part of savings and the money withdrawn from the economy would no longer be used to buy goods and services, thus reducing government revenues. In addition, increasing foreign borrowing would put us at the mercy of international lenders. Let us not forget that the part of the federal debt held by non-residents has already doubled in ten years.

Like everyone else, we recognize that there must be more cutbacks. The welfare state has become a hunted animal that must bite somewhere, but where? Does the government not realize that it cannot make extra cuts in health care budgets without affecting the level and quality of services?

Since the poor have already been squeezed for money, we have to look elsewhere. Social justice means not only distributing wealth in times of prosperity, but also, especially in times of crisis, sharing the burden of the deficit and the debt before going any further in the direction of cutting social programs. The government must start by exhausting all other means of putting the economy back on its feet.

What is the government waiting for to cut drastically, I would even say mercilessly, just this one time, in the public administration? What is it waiting for to cut its operating expenditures? What is it waiting for to bring the military budget in line with the reduced requirements of a changing geopolitical situation?

The government should address the overlap between levels of government. Billions could be recovered, but the government is not even interested in knowing how much.

What is it waiting for to launch a program to eliminate unjustified tax shelters? What will it do in light of the scandal of family trusts that enable the rich to avoid paying tax on major portions of their capital?

The government made a mistake this morning. The Cabinet member who should have been the first to rise in this House to announce ways of remedying our disastrous budgetary situation is not the Minister of Human Resources Development-whose role it is to protect the less fortunate who need his help now more than ever.

It should have been the Minister of Finance. He should be the one to tell us how his government will cut excessive and unwarranted expenditures to restore tax fairness and put a stop to duplication between levels of government. That is where they should start!

[Native Communities, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should have watched the television program last night. He should ask his staff to show it to him because it is really terrible to see. You cannot watch this program and report without feeling sad about the situation of those people in Canada.

I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to agree to the request of the Innu in Davis Inlet who want to leave the island to go back to the Labrador mainland to recover their ancestral hunting grounds?

[Native Communities, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Indian Affairs. This week in response to a question from the hon. member from Saint-Jean, the minister said that he was about to make a proposal to the people of Davis Inlet that would deal with issues of justice and health care, a proposal that he felt was acceptable. Does the minister realize that the problem is escalating, since RCMP officers are being denied access to Davis Inlet to investigate cases of sexual assault and violence against women and children?

[Native Communities, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. A year ago, images of six young Innu sniffing gas vapours horrified public opinion, as we became aware of the terrible living conditions of the native population in Davis Inlet. A year later, nothing has changed. Drugs and suicide are still a serious problem, as shown in a report televised last night on Radio-Canada's Le Point . On the same program, we also saw that conditions were similar in a native community, in Quebec, at Lac Simon.

My question is this: Does the minister agree that if the government is serious about its fiduciary responsibility for these people, it must develop a joint strategy for putting an end to the obscene poverty in Canada's native communities, including Davis Inlet and Lac Simon?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the issue being debated today concerns one of the most significant aspects of relations between Canada and the United States. It concretely involves the framework in which we have developed a system of co-operation for our common security, but it also raises questions related to peace and disarmament.

These questions of peace and disarmament are more current than ever. The world is now painfully torn between the hope for lasting peace and the horror of atrocious massacres, even in Europe, the cradle of civilization. Nevertheless, real hope has been raised by the new order which has seemed to emerge. This hope was fed mainly by the efforts and successes, albeit partial but encouraging, it must be said, in disarmament achieved by the United States and the former Soviet Union, later confirmed by Russia.

All peoples earnestly hope that this effort will intensify. It will go even better and more surely if it is done in an orderly fashion, with each gain consolidated by realistic measures that can assure everyone's security. Disarmament must go together with security, which must still be maintained with a minimum of deterrence.

There is first of all the question of the many solid long-standing ties between Canadians and Americans. Along with the United States, Canada has been a member of NATO since 1949 and of NORAD since 1958. Our mutual commitments therefore bind us both to an integrated defence of North America and of other countries in the North Atlantic region. Under these treaties, our air force, navy and army have for a long time had common modes of operation. Military equipment is often interchangeable and the officers of the various armed services have close working and even personal relations. Training, testing, exercises and manoeuvres go on all the time, and they are all done jointly, as a rule. In short, no two military organizations in the world are closer to each other, so much so that other countries often have difficulty breaking through this close embrace when it comes to selling military equipment to Canada, for example.

In this spirit, a Liberal government in 1983 concluded a 10-year agreement with the United States called CANUSTEP in their awful jargon. It allowed the United States to test weapons on Canadian territory. Each series of tests had to receive permission from the Canadian government to go ahead.

Canada's commitments to strategic deterrence are basically a part of co-operation between allies. Canada has no strategic weapons in its forces. However, in that its defence is based on the agreement among allies and it benefits from collective security, it must voluntarily co-operate in implementing this strategic deterrent force if required. This is an integral part of the national defence policy as found in the 1971 and 1987 white papers on defence and the 1992 defence policy statement.

The arms in question include cruise missiles that, in practically every year between 1983 and 1993, were tested many times in the Canadian north, more precisely inside a 2,200 kilometre corridor including parts of the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. These missiles, that have a 3,000 kilometre range, are launched from bombers and guided to their target by a sophisticated homing device. Because of its size and topography, Canada was and is the only place in the world where the Americans can conduct these tests.

In 1983, the reasons behind the Canadian government's acquiescence obviously had to do with the cold war between the American and Soviet superpowers. It was the era of the nuclear dissuasion strategy in a bipolar world.

The cruise missile met all the requirements of the time as it could carry either a nuclear or a conventional head, thus offering the advantage of flexibility. However, the 1983 agreement formally excluded any possibility of testing missiles equipped with nuclear heads.

As we know, the geopolitical environment went through substantial changes after 1989. The dismantling of the Warsaw pact, set up against NATO, deeply altered the strategic map.

Of the two organizations, only NATO survived. But the political thaw gave new life to the disarmament movement so that the START I and START II treaties negotiated in 1991 and 1992 imposed cuts in the number of missiles and nuclear heads deployed by the United States and Russia. Since then, the ceiling imposed on both parties rules out the production of new cruise missiles, except to compensate for attrition. They can only improve the missiles' performance by making guidance systems more precise and reliable.

That is why, in 1993, the United States asked the Canadian government to renew the 1983 agreement for another 10 years, to 2013. The Canadian government agreed to do so.

Last year, in its policy statement on security, Canada took a slightly different stand on strategic issues stating that it no longer viewed the strategic scene as bipolar. Since the new nuclear powers were considered unstable by nature, it was becoming problematic for Canada and its allies to dissociate themselves from nuclear deterrence, so nuclear deterrence was dropped from the new policy statement.

One might therefore wonder why the government has opened up the discussion today as Canada, after assessing the circumstances prevailing at the time, has made a commitment in principle which binds it until the year 2003.

What has happened is that the United States, pursuant to the recently renewed agreement, is requesting the Canadian government for authorization to proceed with the testing of an improved guidance system with which they intend to equip the cruise missiles. Now several senior members of the Liberal Party have already attacked those tests.

Is the government trying today to find allies in the House in order to support its refusal which it is already preparing in response to the American request? As a matter of fact certain remarks in the minister's aseptic speech might provoke the prognosis that it will be so.

The Bloc Quebecois for its part considers it imperative to examine closely and with objectivity setting aside all abstract theory and preconceived judgments where the real interests and responsibilities of Canada lie in this matter.

Those who are opposed to the resumption of the tests base their argument mainly upon the danger of proliferation of this type of missile, particularly at a time when the nuclear deterrent can no longer be justified. It is true that the basic technology for manufacturing these weapons could conceivably become available to many countries. The Russians have already produced their own version of this weapon, the AS-15 missile, and they do not have to ask permission from anybody when they want to perfect the system because they can carry out their tests over the vast Siberian steppes.

Professor Kosta Tsipis of MIT drew attention in 1992 in the New York Times to the risk involved in the proliferation of this weapon. He wrote:

Any country capable of manufacturing an elementary airplane can construct a cruise missile able to transport a charge of one ton over a distance of at least 300 miles and to plant it within 30 feet of its target.

In fact, the threat of proliferation does not come from American testing in Canada. It should be stressed that the tests the American government is requesting permission to conduct do not involve any new nuclear technology. These tests contravene neither the letter nor the spirit of the START treaties, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the missile technology control regime; thus, they do not contribute to the build up of strategic nuclear forces. In July 1993, the manufacturing of new air-launched stealth cruise missiles was restricted to 460 units, that is 1,000 fewer than initially planned. It is also important to note that, for the past few years, tests have been related to detection, interception and missile guidance. In that sense, any test that enhances the target-acquisition and interception capability of these weapons helps to limit the threat posed by the manufacturing and use of other types of cruise missiles developed in other countries. The capability to detect and destroy such weapons in flight is the only effective means of retaliation.

It should be noted in that respect that the Americans are not the only ones to benefit from any improvement in guidance technology flowing from this testing. Canada also benefits from it since our pilots take part in monitoring and detection operations.

The changes on the international scene were not all positive. For one thing, the political climate in Russia by no means guarantees stability. The recent election revealed the rapid emergence of a strong right-wing movement. Statements made by the Russian leader, Mr. Vladimir Jirinovski, do not bode well for the future of detente in the event of a return to power of the military.

This would not be the first time an opposition party formed the government following an election.

While the break-up of the U.S.S.R. may have helped to ease international tensions, it has also had a secondary, more worrisome effect. With the crumbling of the Soviet empire, new nuclear powers have emerged. The resistance of the Ukraine is telling in this regard, although it has shown some signs of co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, there have been doubts about how effectively the weapons stockpiles inherited by these republics are controlled and how they are used. As well, a number of other countries either have nuclear weapons or are doing everything they can to become nuclear powers. China, India and Pakistan already have nuclear arms. Newspapers regularly report on the efforts of several other countries, including Iraq, to develop nuclear weapons. We should not dismiss the potential threat of all of these countries deploying short-range cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

The best way to counter this threat is still to refine detection and interception methods and this is one of the positive aspects of the testing process we are discussing here today.

You may recall that the cruise missile can be used as a conventional load delivery vehicle. The focus should be on developing it for this purpose. The planned tests are particularly interesting since, according to the information supplied by the Americans, they will focus on a new guidance system designed to improve strike reliability and accuracy. There is hardly a need to improve the accuracy of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear arms. To the extent the new geopolitical reality demands alternatives to nuclear strikes, there is a greater need to develop more effective conventional arms.

In that field, to perform better means to be more accurate. Strategists are doing more and more to provide their armies with the means to intervene safely but firmly from a distance. This is the only way to hit a limited but strategic target while sparing the neighbouring civilian populations. The cruise missile is the perfect weapon for the job. During the gulf war, we were able to see the dramatic results obtained with the Tomahawks, those cruise missiles carrying conventional weaponry. Any test aimed at improving this very accurate weapon is therefore part of a strategy especially suited to post-cold war requirements, and I do mean post-cold war.

Moreover, there are practically no direct economic costs related to the cruise missile tests conducted within Canadian territorial boundaries. If such costs exist, they are met by the American government under existing agreements. Conversely, these tests help, at least indirectly, the Canadian Department of National Defence to have access to facilities where military technologies developed here in Canada can be tested.

What about environmental costs? Those costs are, for all intents and purposes, non-existent if one considers the very low frequency of the flights, merely a few over the course of one year, and over 3,000 kilometres of a nearly empty territory.

But we must also take into consideration of the political side of the issue. Who is asking us to conduct these tests? We must not forget that the United States is Canada's best friend, its only neighbour, its safest ally, its major trading partner, and a great nation which speaks the same language as that of most Canadians. Let us not forget that the United States is the pillar of NATO and NORAD, the two pacts which ensure our security. If there ever was a nuclear threat to Canada, something we hope will not happen and probably never will happen, though there is a risk, to whom would Canadians and Quebecers turn? I do not even have to give the answer, because that answer is so obvious. Should such a situation occur, we would be quite relieved to be able to rely on an ally equipped with cruise missiles which it would have developed at its own expense.

Moreover, abrubtly ending the long sequence of tests conducted since 1983 would adversely affect the value of our commitments. I wonder how the Prime Minister would explain this change of attitude to our old friends the next time he goes to Washington. Even if he were accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I think he would have a hard time to provide an explanation.

I can understand and share this will to distance ourselves from the Americans when it is in our interest to do so, but that is not the case in this instance. Quite the contrary, we have everything to gain by co-operating with the United States to ensure our own protection at no cost to us.

I respect the arguments put forward by those who oppose these tests on the grounds that detente is here to stay, but I do not agree with them. I hope they are right, but I would like to be sure of that. And since no one can be sure, we must consider the issue of security. In any case, I do hope that whatever decision the government makes, it is a decision based on rational and well-thought out motives. Many would be concerned if the government simply tried to say no to those tests, to please an anti-American lobby which still has some roots in certain parts of the country.

More importantly, to decide to oppose the tests would be a sudden and inconsistent move.

We are still waiting for the white book on our defence policy which the government promised to table. Where is this review of our military and international role? What will be the duties assigned to our air force? What will be the role of the navy? What will be the mandate of our army? What will be the nature and the level of our involvement with NATO and NORAD? What will be the level of our commitment in Europe? Are we going to maintain our peacekeeping operations? If so, under what conditions, with what equipment and by which criteria? What contribution are we going to ask of the United States regarding the

protection of our security? Are we going to continue to stay under its protection?

All these questions and many others are still without an answer. So, why make an isolated and hurried decision which, by breaking the continuity of our commitments and by being totally out of character, would look like a sudden impulse and would be considered as such.

Therefore, the Bloc feels that under the present circumstances, there is no need to put an end to the co-operation which characterizes our relations with our neighbours. A review of all those issues will have to be undertaken, a detailed and comprehensive exercise which, I hope, will also include a large public consultation.

[Cigarette Smuggling, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I understand these honourable intentions stem from a normal reflex to exercise caution, but we are not dealing with a normal situation. Every evening, we see on television acts of open deliberate defiance which foster bad feelings and entice

other taxpayers to take similar action. The problem here is not just tobacco taxes. It has to do with all of the other taxes.

Since it has not always been made very clear what orders that have been or will be given to the RCMP, could the Prime Minister tell this House clearly once and for all and give us the assurance that he has personally instructed the RCMP to lay charges immediately against smugglers when it has the evidence to do so?

[Cigarette Smuggling, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that after consulting with the provinces, he would be prepared to lower taxes. In light of the urgency of the situation, does he really intend to wait for Mr. Johnson to return from Europe before proceeding? What is the government waiting for to take the action warranted, namely issuing an immediate ministerial statement calling for lower federal taxes on cigarettes?