Stéphane Bergeron

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with a comment on the presentation made by the hon. member for Drummond who is to be commended for her excellent speech.

First of all, I entirely approve of her proposal that the provinces should themselves raise, and be allowed to keep, the amounts they need to operate the health care system. However, as we know, under the present system this is unthinkable. So we must ensure that transfer payments to the provinces are not affected, so that the provinces can continue to be responsible for and provide health care services to their residents. I may remind hon. members opposite that during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that he would not tamper with transfer payments to the provinces.

The hon. member also made a very careful analysis of the two perverse consequences of a possible reduction in transfer payments for health care. First of all, there would be a reduction in services. And, as she so astutely pointed out, the neediest members of our society would suffer most because they are unable to pay the user-fee or health tax that might be introduced by the province if transfer payments were cut. They would either postpone medical appointments or not go at all.

Furthermore, as I pointed out myself, this might increase the tax burden, because if the federal government reduces transfer payments to the provinces, that does not necessarily mean it will lower its tax rates. Consequently, the provinces will have to pick up the slack, either by increasing their own tax revenues or by asking residents for a bigger contribution to the health care system. And this illustrates the other perverse effect I was mentioning previously. It is a kind of vicious circle: increased burden for the taxpayer on the one hand, and reduced services on the other. I believe, therefore, that the perverse consequences are too important to even consider a reduction of transfer payments to the provinces.

Besides, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister promised not to cut transfer payments to provinces. However, we will have to watch carefully to make sure that those payments are not frozen at their present level, since that would amount, in the long run, to a reduction equivalent to inflation. The government will have to keep the promise it made during the campaign and index transfer payments to provinces to the consumer price index.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member and thank her for her speech. In fact, we have something in common. I am referring to a shared concern about the steel industry, which is important in my riding as well. We have two big steel mills, Sidbec Dosco and Stelco McMaster.

I found the feverish enthusiasm with which the hon. member described the achievements of her government, so far, and those of the Prime Minister, almost moving. She mentioned several, starting with the cuts in the House of Commons budgelt.

At this point I think I should remind the hon. member that theoretically the House of Commons is entirely independent of the government and that not the government but the parties represented in the House made these budget cuts. Members themselves reduced the House budget-at the request, of course, of the Prime Minister, but in any case, the consent of the parties was essential. I may add the Bloc Quebecois did its share in this respect.

The hon. member also mentioned the debates we had Tuesday and Wednesday on the presence of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia and on cruise missile testing on Canadian territory.

The hon. member will also remember that yesterday we protested the fact that these debates were held before the government announced its defence policy. What was said yesterday may no longer be relevant if the government decides to take a different stand. I think the debate itself was entirely appropriate but the timing was wrong.

The hon. member also talked about all kinds of other so-called successes which I will not mention here. I would rather emphasize what this government has not done or rather where it has failed so far. Did the hon. member forget that the government failed miserably on the issue of free trade, for instance? During the election campaign, the Liberals said they would not implement the free trade agreement unless they obtained a certain number of guarantees on the environment and resources, and unless they were given a definition of the word subsidy. They did not obtain any of these guarantees or definitions before the agreement was implemented.

Similarly, on the subject of GATT, the government caved in miserably and failed to protect Article XI which is so important for farmers. I imagine the hon. member does not have any farmers in her riding. I do have a few, in fact I have quite a number of farmers in my riding, and that is one difference. So I would say we are a little disappointed in the government's performance.

Finally, I would like to ask the hon. member, since she mentioned the government's achievements, whether it will take very long for the government to do something about cigarette smuggling and then about tax equity.

Could we have some answers on these issues which are still pending?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Again I want to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway for his question which seems to be about the conservative position of the Bloc Quebecois on the issue of cruise missile testing.

First of all, I get the impression that he did not listen properly to what I said, because we do not want to go back to the context of the cold war and use that as the basis for our policy. I made it quite clear in my speech that the Bloc's response to this particular question was based on a new global context, and I referred to the presence of Zhirinovsky in Russia and to the existence of new nuclear powers to justify continuing the tests.

I also pointed out that the purpose of the tests was basically to improve and refine the missile's remote control system and that consequently the tests had no direct impact on the nuclear arms race.

I would also like to say to the hon. member that if the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel makes contradictory remarks, that is his problem, not mine.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

I want to thank the hon. member for his hypothetical question, and I will try to be as specific as I can in my answer.

The question is hypothetical to the extent that these tests are not scheduled to take place over Quebec territory. If that were the case, however, we would have to ensure, as has been done in the case of cruise missile testing since 1983, that the tests are carried out under the best possible conditions, which means, as I

pointed out earlier, within a corridor away from populated areas, where there would be very little impact on the environment.

If these conditions were met, I think that our answer would be the same as the one we give today for tests in western Canada.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I simply want to say that I understand the enthusiasm of my colleague regarding the fact that the Prime Minister has allowed this House to speak on an issue before the government policy is announced. I understand that the member has been here for a few years and this is the first time he has an opportunity to speak freely on a government policy before such a policy is made public. Consequently, I can certainly understand his enthusiasm.

However, what I object to is not this opportunity to express our views in the House on this issue, but rather the chronological process involved. To use a common expression, I feel that the government has "put the cart before the horse" to the extent that we start this debate without even knowing where the government is headed with its defence policy.

You will agree with me that if the government decides that the collective security system which has been in place since the late forties is no longer adequate and that we must withdraw from it, such a decision will have a major impact on the continuation of the cruise missile tests conducted over the Canadian territory. Consequently, we cannot discuss this issue without first undertaking a comprehensive review of the Canadian defence policy.

Therefore, the chronology of events is not perfectly logical. I agree that a debate had to be held, that it should be held, and I have no objection to that. However, this debate should take place once we know the general outline of the national defence policy.

Moreover, we are asked to participate in this debate with only a few days notice, and without any opportunity to have access to documents from the Department of National Defence. Consequently, we parliamentarians are not well prepared for this exercise. I hope that it was not the deliberate intention of the government to announce a debate at the last minute and to give instructions to the Department of National Defence to not provide us with documents which might be necessary for the purpose of the debate.

This is what I object to. I certainly have nothing against a debate as such. It is a good thing to allow members to express their views on a government policy, but we have to know what the general outline of that policy is, so as to see if what we are debating will still be part of the policy in a few weeks or a few months.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

But since any sovereign state must be able to protect its borders, we must recognize that Canada's political and territorial sovereignty depends to a large extent on its participation in the collective security system provided under NATO and NORAD.

We must recognize that Canada does not have the resources required to defend its huge territory by itself.

Canada has been a member of NATO since 1949 and of NORAD since 1958. Cruise missile tests are not strategically tied to NORAD since this organization's mandate, namely the surveillance of North America, is essentially defensive in nature. The use of the cruise missile must be seen in that context mainly as a counter-offensive measure. However, cruise missile tests improve detection and interception techniques that fall under NORAD's mandate.

Since Canada does not stockpile strategic arms and bases its defence policy on the collective security system put in place under NATO, it must volunteer to co-operate with its allies in putting in place a strategic deterrent force if necessary.

Under this approach, Canada was asked in 1983 to approve cruise missile tests on its territory despite the fact that this nuclear deterrence strategy was not directed linked to NATO's strategy. This was aimed at maintaining a strategic balance between the two superpowers in a then bipolar world.

The international situation has changed since the dismantling of the Warsaw pact and the Eastern Bloc. Nevertheless, the nuclear threat has remained and become even more complex with the arrival of new nuclear powers. I am thinking of Ukraine and Kazakhstan, for example. In its 1992 defence policy, Canada recognized that the geopolitical environment had changed considerably and that the global balance of power was no longer based on a bipolar structure. We have witnessed the gradual emergence of new nuclear powers, which are often very politically unstable. Under such circumstances, it was risky for Canada and its allies to question the collective security system their defence policy had been built on since the days of the cold war. The cruise missile is a weapon perfectly suited to the new strategic context and illustrates our current collective security system.

The tests requested by the U.S. administration are not designed to encourage the escalation of new nuclear technologies. The START I and START II treaties already limit the number of deployed missiles. This ceiling cannot be exceeded either in terms of the number of missiles deployed or in terms of striking force, that is the size of nuclear heads.

It must be pointed out that this type of missile can be used for conventional-type missions, which is certainly not without importance. Even though nuclear weapons were not used in the Persian Gulf, that conflict demonstrated the effectiveness of very localized attacks on well-defined targets. We saw cruise missiles used to destroy armed command posts, conventional or chemical weapons storage sites and even conventional, chemical and nuclear, or should I say potentially nuclear, weapons manufacturing plants. Had it not been for these missiles, massive bombing strikes would undoubtedly have been undertaken to destroy these targets. Heavy conventional bombing strikes would have exacted a very high toll in human lives since the majority of the sites destroyed were located in densely populated areas. Because this type of weapon was used, the heavy bombardment which could have resulted in a great many civilian casualties was not necessary.

Although some cruise missiles launched during the Persian gulf war did in fact miss their targets, there is no question that they proved to be an effective weapon. But the fact remains that certain flaws inherent in the design of the cruise missile resulted

in targeting errors. New technologies have been developed to correct these design flaws and the United States now needs to conduct tests, and hence extend new missile development programs. The purpose of the testing over Canadian soil is to improve and perfect the cruise missile guidance system.

These tests are conducted no more than two or three times a year over sparsely populated areas. The impact on the ecosystem and on local populations is therefore minimal.

It should also be pointed out that these tests do not involve any outlay of Canadian public funds, since under the terms of the umbrella agreement, the United States covers all costs associated with tests of this nature. Therefore, the testing would not lead to any increase in our national defence budget.

The Bloc Quebecois, while firmly opposing the continuation of the arms race, cannot ignore the unstable international environment since the dismantling of the former U.S.S.R. and the potential threats now facing the world. NATO recently wanted to show this spirit of co-operation which should normally exist in the aftermath of the cold war, by making a gesture of openness to the countries of eastern Europe. Mr. Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in Russia, replied that admitting these countries to NATO could only lead to a third world war. The rise of the extreme right in Russia and the growing number of nuclear powers mean that it would be imprudent and irresponsible to lower our guard and not to follow global strategic developments closely.

Under these circumstances, Canada cannot afford to call into question its defence commitments to its allies. Its international credibility would be greatly affected as would its special relationship with the United States. A deterioration in political relations between Canada and the United States could have negative economic and trade consequences, at a time when it is already rather difficult for us to have the spirit of the free trade agreement respected and its various provisions enforced.

The present international environment therefore requires us to maintain the collective security system structures to which we belong and as a result Canada must keep its commitments in this regard. Nevertheless, we should follow international developments and adapt our defence policy to new global realities if necessary. On the basis of these new realities, we might even be called upon to review our international defence commitments. It is therefore essential that the government make a formal commitment to repeat annually the exercise in which we are participating today and to submit the question of cruise missile testing to Parliament for discussion and approval every year.

In closing, I wonder about the government's intentions for Canada's defence policy. The speech from the throne announced that Canada's defence policy would be redefined. Barely a week after the speech from the throne was read, even before the government's defence policy has been defined and a public debate has begun on this new defence policy, the government is asking Parliament to deal with two issues that directly concern Canada's defence policy, namely the presence of Canadian UN troops in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia and the authorization of cruise missile tests on Canadian territory. Does the government intend to make a decision on these two important questions before defining a new defence policy or is it just trying to sound out the opinion of the House of Commons on two fundamental aspects of this defence policy before it says where it stands? Although we are glad that the government is consulting parliamentarians on these two important issues, we can well wonder why this exercise is going on at this particular time. This government initiative smells of improvisation and seems like a diversionary tactic.

This debate on cruise missiles is only meaningful to the extent that it is directly related to the Canadian government's defence policy. Since we do not know what the government intends to propose for redefining Canada's defence policy, we think that no real debate can take place and no final decision on cruise missile testing on Canadian territory can be made until the government tables its white paper on defence policy.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

On my first formal speech in this House, I am pleased to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, my most sincere congratulations on your election to this distinguished position.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who have been appointed to be your substitute in the Chair. I can assure you all of my full support and co-operation as well as that of the other members from my party.

Allow me to also take this opportunity to pay my respects to the constituents of the federal riding of Verchères who, by putting their trust in me on October 25, have given me the privilege of representing them in this House.

I have been a fervent sovereigntist since I was 15-and as we saw earlier, sovereigntist is used by the hon. member for Beaver River as a synonym for "enemy within". In those days, I never imagined that some day I would be representing my fellow citizens in the House of Commons, the symbol par excellence of the Canadian federal system. But I have the pleasure of belonging to a political party, namely the Bloc Quebecois, whose raison d'être happens to be to advance the cause of Quebec sovereignty in this House.

Of course, Quebec has not achieved the status of sovereign state yet. It is still part of this vast country we call Canada. And if I start my speech on cruise missile testing by emphasizing this concept of sovereignty so dear to my heart, it is simply because in certain spheres the testing issue is viewed as an attack on the sovereignty of Canada.

There are people who claim that renewing the Canada-U.S.A. umbrella agreement and periodic authorization regarding cruise missile testing within Canadian territorial boundaries is akin to an unacceptable surrender to the imperatives of the foreign and defence policy of our neighbours to the south, an infringement upon the political sovereignty of Canada.

[Canadian Embassy In China, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the minister may recall that the decision to build the embassy was made 15 years ago, under the Liberal government.

And am I to understand from the minister's answer that he is formally committed to preventing future occurrences?

[Canadian Embassy In China, January 26th, 1994]

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

Monday we heard that construction on Canada's new embassy in China will have cost taxpayers more than $78 million, twice the amount initially budgeted 15 years ago.

Small luxuries for embassy staff include a swimming pool and gymnasium at a cost of one million dollars, and a garden with imported maples which cost five million dollars. The interior decorating bill alone for this sumptuous embassy will total nearly one million dollars.

In the light of current budgetary restrictions, at a time when the government is about to make cuts in programs designed for the neediest in our society, how can the Minister of Foreign Affairs justify this kind of spending?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and to congratulate my hon. colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him a question. For one thing, he made a number of very positive remarks in his speech on the value of Canadian intervention abroad, but could he tell us what his position is exactly with regard to a Canadian presence in Bosnia-Hercegovina?