Stéphane Bergeron

[Rwanda, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, will the minister, on behalf of the federal government, make a commitment to participate in much needed efforts to provide humanitarian and medical aid by supporting agencies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross?

[Rwanda, April 14th, 1994]

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

Quebeckers and Canadians were appalled by the scenes of slaughter and barbarism in Rwanda following a coup by the Rwandan army. In fact, the situation continues to deteriorate.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs comment on current negotiations between the rebel Rwanda Patriotic Front and government troops on concluding a genuine cease-fire? And is the minister prepared to ask the UN Security Council to help the parties agree on conditions for a cease-fire?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the question period was very lively. The debate is still heated.

So, I also have the pleasure to speak to Bill C-18, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994.

Of course, as you were able to see from the various statements made since this morning, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the bill. Since the beginning of the electoral boundaries readjustment process, the Bloc Quebecois members, in keeping with the Elections Act, have decided to get involved in that process so as to defend the interests of their constituents, of their fellow citizens.

This morning, you heard our colleague, the member for Shefford, say that he has always resided in the riding of Shefford and that with the new provisions or new proposals introduced by the Chief Electoral Officer, he would become a resident of the riding of Chambly. So, it would be somewhat unusual for an individual who has always resided in one particular riding to represent a riding in which he has never resided, simply because of changes made to electoral boundaries.

That is why we support the principle of this bill, which is to temporarily suspend the electoral boundaries readjustment process. Of course, we also support the principle of an equal vote for all citizens. But that principle, when applied too restrictively and too mechanically, can produce unfortunate distortions, and I will have the opportunity to get back to that later.

The readjustment of electoral boundaries at fixed intervals prevents the development, the building of a sense of belonging to one's riding. The example that I mentioned earlier concerning my colleague from Shefford is certainly one of the best we can give. He explained it to you very well a while ago. He has been a resident of the riding of Shefford for many years. He now represents this riding in the House of Commons and by virtue of the amendments proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, he would become a resident of the riding of Chambly but would remain the member for Shefford. Therefore, I believe there are anomalies that must be avoided.

This case of my colleague from Shefford shows that people who live in the fringe areas of their electoral district and then switch periodically from one district to another on account of readjustments of the electoral map find it very difficult to develop a sense of belonging and to identify with their riding because of all this moving around.

As far as demographic criteria are concerned-as I said earlier-we fully support the principle of a equal vote for each citizen of Canada and of Quebec. We do support the principle that each citizen must be represented by a member of Parliament and that this representation is as important as that of any other citizen throughout this country. However, the demographic criterion used for the readjustment of the electoral boundaries too often masks other criteria which should be as important, such as social, economic cultural factors which, I think, should also be taken into consideration in the readjustment of the boundaries of this constituency.

As I emphasized earlier, this sense of belonging, the possibility of identifying with our riding, with the people of our riding are surely as valid as the strictly mathematical calculations mainly used for the readjustment of the electoral boundaries. These calculations inhibit the creation of a type of interaction specific to a riding, to a community. It is a fact that has been recognized, not so long ago, only a few months ago, by the National Assembly which amended its elections act to prevent further readjustment of the electoral boundaries for the next ten years.

It is thus assumed that there will not be any readjustment of the electoral boundaries in Quebec for ten years, which means that for ten years, the residents of a district will be able to feel part of their community and to identify with their MNA. Electoral boundaries are not readjusted at each election as was the case before under the Quebec elections act.

I think that we are now considering the spirit behind Bill C-18. We support the bill, for the reasons I have just stated. In fact, we are not afraid to say that. I will come back to that a bit later. If we have to consider amendments, we will perhaps have to think of redrawing the electoral boundaries on the demographic basis that I talked about earlier. However, as my colleague for Richelieu mentioned earlier this morning, we have to contemplate a more thorough reform of the parliamentary institutions and, in doing so-we know we cannot use certain terms-reassess the role of the other Chamber, the Upper House.

My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe, who is with us this afternoon, and my colleague from Richelieu talked about that issue regularly, and I think that it is quite justified. My colleague from Richelieu said that there are in fact, in the Upper House, a number of people with quite valuable and useful expertise, but those people often end up in that Chamber for reasons that are not too valid. People often get appointed to the Senate strictly on a partisan basis.

Therefore, their legitimacy is very questionable. The suggestion of my colleague from Richelieu was that those people who are qualified, who have plenty of skills should be able to use their skills in this House where people are democratically elected and where their legitimacy cannot be questioned. It was suggested that we should eventually revise and reform our parliamentary institutions and abolish that timeworn and rusty institution that supports friends of the party, friends of the government who periodically, depending on which party sits on the other side of this House, cause changes in the majorities in the other place. Then we could eventually consider such a reform.

Speaking of reform, I am wondering about the participation of our colleagues in the Reform Party in this debate. We are presently discussing a motion brought by them, but for some time now I have seen only members of the Bloc Quebecois taking the floor. I believe therefore we should question the seriousness of our colleagues who bring in a motion and leave it to members of the Bloc Quebecois to speak on that motion.

I therefore invite my colleagues in the Reform Party to be consistent and to rise on their own motion. We should not be surprised by the silence of our Liberal friends, although it is absolutely deplorable for the electors of the various ridings represented by Liberal members to see those members being so absent and silent during a debate of such significance for the future of their constituents. The interests of the constituents of those ridings represented by those Liberal members are at stake.

That being said, I will now leave the floor, at least I hope, to a member of the Reform Party.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure-

[Trade, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the GATT General Secretary and several European countries are concerned about the threats to the international community posed by the United States' aggressive unilateral measures. What concrete actions does the government intend to take to prevent Canadian industries from bearing the brunt of the Americans' measures against all their trading partners?

[Trade, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the United States recently revived its trade "atomic bomb", its "Super 301". This measure, quite incompatible with the spirit and content of GATT and NAFTA regulations, is aimed at penalizing countries found guilty of trade practices deemed unfair by the United States. A list of such countries will appear in a few days in the National Trade Estimates Report , and Canada should be on it.

Under the circumstances, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the number of unresolved trade disputes between Canada and the United States, does the minister not think that the United States could use Super 301 against Canada, as it did in 1990 against Canadian beer?

[Canadian Centre For Magnetic Fusion, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on March 20, 1992, the then Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Bruce Howe, made a formal commitment on behalf of the federal government to contribute $7.2 million a year for five years to the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion. This centre conducts research on nuclear fusion in Varennes, using a test reactor called Tokamak.

This program funded equally by the federal government and Hydro-Québec is part of concerted international action on nuclear fusion, a process quite unlike conventional nuclear fission that looks like a clean, safe and promising alternative source of energy for the future.

Despite the representations made to the Minister of Natural Resources by the President of Hydro-Québec, the government decided to reduce its contribution by over $2 million.

I strongly deplore the government's decision to save a little money at the expense of a major research project in Quebec, a province already shortchanged in federal research and development funding.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find interesting the specific reference made by my colleague from Red Deer to a Scandinavian country which, everyone knows, has experienced over the last few years a growth in public spending for which it now has to bear the consequences.

I think he has deliberately targetted a Scandinavian country to illustrate his point. He could just as well have chosen a country other than a Scandinavian one, such as Austria, Denmark or Switzerland. He preferred to choose Norway to argue that a small state is not necessarily more efficient than a large one.

In answer to that, I will only point out that while Canada is a large country, it is not really in a better financial shape than Norway.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last February 17, the government invited this House to a third debate on national defence launching the process that would lead to the review of Canada's defence policy.

At that time, I mentioned the contradiction in the fact that the government was entering into such a debate before declaring what its own directions, its own intentions were on the subject of defence. Meanwhile, the government had already decided to authorise the United States to resume testing of cruise missiles over Canadian territory and, a few days later, it announced some drastic cuts in the defence budget, the closing of several bases and two military colleges, and the six-month extension of the Canadian peacekeepers' mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina. All those decisions have a direct impact on Canada's defence policy and they were made without the slightest announcement of the government's intentions and before the joint committee responsible for the review of the defence policy had even begun its proceedings.

At the time of that debate, I said: "Moreover, the government assumes that a defence policy can be considered independently from foreign policy, which is not the case. There again, the government carefully avoided unveiling its intentions regarding the direction it will give to this new foreign policy".

That statement is still very valid today, some four weeks later. Today, the government is inviting us to participate in the launching of Canada's foreign policy review process, while once more keeping its own intentions rather vague and unclear. However, today, we had the opportunity to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade outline the foreign policy guidelines the government intends to follow.

I must say that I find it totally deplorable that it is only this morning that we were given the working paper which is supposed to be the basis for the debate on Canada's foreign policy. Moreover, the government persists in seeing the foreign policy review process as totally separate from the defence policy review process, an approach which, in many respects, does not make any sense.

Foreign policy is closely connected to security and defence. It is particularly true in Canada where post-war foreign policy has been geared to the collective security system set up under the UN, NATO and NORAD.

The foreign policy review we are embarking upon follows two major reviews of this kind undertaken by the Canadian government during the last 25 years. The first one took place in 1969-70 under the Trudeau government and the second one was conducted in 1984 by the Mulroney government. Since then,

there has a been a lot of water under the bridge and a lot of events caused much ink to flow; cases in point are the fall of the Berlin wall and German unification, as well as the breaking up the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism.

There is an urgent need to review defence and foreign policies in view of drastic changes in world order. Today, the notion of security takes on a meaning very different than was the case not that long ago.

However, several other major changes have also contributed to making the federal government feel the need to review Canada's foreign policy. I can think of the development of communications, the emergence of environmental concerns, as well as the globalization of markets.

It is important to point out that this globalization is an inescapable phenomenon. It is a tendency which affects the economy of all countries, whether they are G-7 members or developing nations. To try to escape this reality would be like ignoring the emergence of new means of communication and production; in other words, it would be tantamount to ignoring the changes which have occurred in our economic environment.

In a previous speech made in this House, I mentioned that the economies of Quebec and Canada are largely dependent on exports of goods and services, which account for close to 16 per cent of the country's gross domestic product. Obviously, the economic prosperity of a nation of seven million people or, for that matter, of a country with a population of 28 million, is contingent upon having access to major markets. This is why I wonder about the reluctance of English Canada to recognize the existence of a potentially beneficial pattern, assuming it is well managed.

However, even though market globalization implies a certain degree of integration in an economic structure which transcends national boundaries, it does not mean that small countries have to yield to the powerful economies of the world.

By standing up for themselves, these small nations ensure that their interests will be protected, since they will have been enshrined in duly negotiated agreements implemented by neutral international organizations. Moreover, they can enjoy the same benefits as their trading partners and competitors.

Many smaller states, like Denmark and the Benelux countries, have done well against great economic powers such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom and have recognized the need to open up to the world.

To protect ourselves against the almost unlimited high-handedness of the great powers, we need to embark upon some serious negotiations and to establish dispute settlement mechanisms capable of withstanding political pressure. Of course, laxness and obscure definitions would under no circumstances whatsoever be deemed acceptable.

There is much more to the benefits of free trade and market globalization. In fact, it is our hope that foreign companies gaining access to the United States and North America will increasingly choose Canada and Quebec as their entrance point to these markets.

As you may have guessed, the Bloc Quebecois is not against reopening NAFTA to include new partners. Quite the opposite, it would welcome them. However, it greatly hopes that the government projects will include significant measures to help Quebec and Canadian businesses and workers to adjust to this new reality.

Various groups were opposed to the signing and implementation of the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, because these treaties did not include any adjustment measure.

Finally, I have one last word of advice about market globalization that comes from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. At a round table on international trade, one of its officials said, and I quote: "GATT, NAFTA and other regional agreements help to create a more dynamic, foreseeable and stable trade environment. However, our members believe that globalization represents bigger and bigger challenges for Canada. They think that the capacity of Canadian businesses to take advantage of the opportunities provided by GATT and NAFTA and to keep their share of the domestic market directly depends on the capacity of Canada to put its finances on a healthy footing".

In fact, the leader of the opposition himself raised this issue earlier today, during his speech.

I have also mentioned that the Chamber of Commerce advocates improved co-operation between the private and the public sectors. As I have mentioned before in this House, this means, among other things, that the government must give access to all the information and expertise it has and create an environment conducive to investments in Quebec and in Canada.

Although Canada and Quebec are irremediably committed to freer trade with the free trade agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement and GATT negotiated agreements, we must be careful and watchful of arbitrary decisions on the part of our trade partners, in particular the United States, to which our industries could fall victim.

The process leading to the gradual elimination of trade barriers between Canada and the United States is undoubtedly well under way and on schedule, but this does not prevent the

Americans from applying against some of our products and some of our industries protectionist measures which appear to be anachronisms given the current trend towards market globalization.

This total disregard for the international rules of the game on the part of the United States when it comes to trade is evident in a number of areas of economic activity in Canada. Take for example the conflicts between Canada and the United States on steel, softwood, beer, some farm products and uranium.

In those areas, the American authorities are systematically trying to deny Canadian products access to their market by using all kinds of cunning and harassing tactics such as constant red tape, countervailing duties, repeated use of the various dispute settlement mechanisms, etc.

The latest weapon the United States added to their arsenal of trade impediments is their super 301. This rather exceptional measure allows the American administration to penalize the countries deemed guilty of unfair trade practices against the United States.

Super 301, which is in total contradiction with the rules and the spirit of GATT and NAFTA, was strongly denounced all over the world, in particular by the Secretary General of GATT and by the European Commissioner for International Trade.

Fortunately, Canada is not directly threatened, at least for now, with possible application of super 301. The United States are now threatening Japan with trade retaliation measures if it does not open its market wider to some American products. However, there are reasons for Canada to fear the potentially negative impact of the application of super 301 to Japan. The Prime Minister of Australia and some French parliamentarians already expressed their fear.

This strong hint of protectionism from another era shows the need to establish strong international institutions that can guarantee the continuation of the free trade movement and help countries to protect themselves against arbitrary and unilateral decisions by the great economic powers.

In this regard, the creation of the world trade organization as of January 1, 1995 seems to be a step in the right direction. Also, we will have to ensure that clear and functional dispute settlement mechanisms are included in NAFTA and that the discussions requested by the federal government regarding the definition of dumping and subsidies are successful.

As I said earlier, trade liberalization and market globalization seem to be a trend, an irreversible phenomenon. The prosperity of nations will depend more and more on international trade. It is a fact that will be part of Canada's economic reality from now on. So, as I mentioned in this House on February 1, the warm reception given by both federalists and sovereignists in Quebec first to the free trade agreement with the United States and later to the North American Free Trade Agreement should surprise no one.

In the context of market globalization, it appears essential to me that the provinces be able to ensure the development of their economy, their culture and their society. This position, inspired by the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, implies that provincial government institutions abroad deal with areas under exclusive provincial jurisdiction at the international level.

It is with that in mind that Quebec started, in the early 1960s, to establish a network ensuring its presence abroad. Today it has 27 offices abroad to promote Quebec exports, to seek out investment, to implement immigration agreements and to encourage exchanges in education, language and culture.

Other provinces also, including New Brunswick, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, have established a number of offices abroad. However, Ontario recently decided to close its offices outside Canada.

When a provincial government chooses to maintain a mission abroad in order to promote its interests and its culture, it should not expect the federal government to undertake obstructive action against it. If we want provinces to be able to attract investors and to help our businesses break into foreign markets, we should avoid these centralist offensives or pressures on provinces by the federal government.

I would like to take this opportunity to add a few words on the government project called Team Canada. This should not be confused of course with the hockey team of the same name. This project aims to encourage and develop a synergy, a co-operation between the various Canadian stakeholders in the area of exports. Team Canada, it is to be hoped, must remain a flexible organization promoting co-operation and collaboration between these various Canadian stakeholders in the area of exports.

Too often we have seen such initiatives become exercises in centralization which look like bureaucratic monsters. Moreover, consultation with the provinces is imperative if we are to avoid duplication, draw upon their expertise, and define their real needs.

At any rate, the whole process of reviewing our foreign policy, more particularly as it applies to international trade, should obviously take into consideration the views, expectations, and concerns of all interested parties.

At the very beginning of my remarks, I took great care to state my reservations and concerns about a foreign policy review that is totally divorced from the national defence policy review, a rather illogical decision. I would now like to deal with my concern about the process itself.

The government's motion provides for the appointment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate. I think that such a committee is utterly useless and inappropriate. Having a certain number of senators join the members who sit on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade will only make for a heavier structure and lead to an inefficient and unproductive committee. It will also drive up the costs, since more people will be travelling with the committee.

In my opinion, the creation of working subcommittees that some see as a solution to the problems of effectiveness and cost related to the joint committee's size is in reality a proposal which will ultimately undermine the coherence and unity of all committee members in their work.

Some will say that creating a joint committee will help us avoid duplication between the House standing committee and Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, thus avoiding expenditures made by two committees working simultaneously on the same issue. This argument is pointless since both committees, like all committees of the House which have an equivalent in the Senate, are constantly overlapping anyway.

We agree with the principle which prompts the government to propose the creation of a joint committee of the House and the Senate, that is to eliminate costly and useless duplication between the two committees responsible for foreign affairs and international trade.

Obviously, we disagree on the means. While the Liberals propose a temporary solution to a real problem, which is due to the existence of the Senate itself, we respectfully suggest to our colleagues that the sole purpose of creating such a joint committee is to maintain this ancient and antiquated institution which is completely out of touch with Canadian reality. That is why we oppose the creation of this joint committee.

[Customs Tariff, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to confirm, as we did at second reading, the support of the Bloc Quebecois and Official Opposition for this bill that we consider extremely important, as it provides indirectly for development assistance and is therefore, in our opinion, a bill with a most commendable and honourable purpose.

At committee stage, the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette expressed a number of concerns about the protection of Canadian industries, producers and businesses with regard to the application of the general preferential tariff. I think that my colleague's concerns and questions were well answered by the minister who pointed out to the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette the benefits that can accrue to Canadian business from the general preferential tariff.

We must also bear in mind that we all stand to benefit collectively-the international community as well as Canada-from the development of developing countries and that there are only winners, no losers, with something like the general preferential tariff.

We did express a number of concerns at second reading and again in committee.

We understand that the government is about to undertake consultations with the Canadian private sector, and we could not agree more. We encourage the government to consult Canadian businesses on the issue of the general preferential tariff. Our collective well-being is at stake, as well as that of Canadian producers and industries.

However, we consider that any change to the tariff itself or to the list of countries benefitting from this tariff would have political implications and must therefore be debated in Parliament.

We raised two glaring examples of cases where we, the Official Opposition, believe that parliamentarians should be consulted. We pointed out the case of newly industrialized countries and gave the example of Singapore and South Korea, which now benefit from the general preferential tariff. What we should be asking is whether Canada should continue to extend its general preferential tariff to those countries.

The minister made the pertinent comment that the United States has stopped extending its general preferential tariff to such countries, while Japan and Europe have not done so yet. He went on to say that the government is not really looking at this issue for the time being but that it would reconsider if Japan and Europe decided to move in that direction. This is quite surprising from a government claiming to be in favour of implementing a more independent policy.

We also looked at the case of the People's Republic of China, which is the main beneficiary of Canada's general preferential tariff, to the tune of about 40 per cent. As we know full well, China is guilty of human rights violations and we asked the following question: Should countries such as that one with very little respect for human rights continue to benefit from Canada's general preferential tariff?

The minister was a little evasive in answering these questions and we asked him to consult parliamentarians. We do not want him to wait for us to express our interest in the general preferential tariff through a parliamentary committee or through individual initiatives. We would have expected the government to take the initiative, as it has done since this session started, to consult parliamentarians on this issue with a great impact on our foreign policy.

Having said that, I reiterate our full support for this bill whose goals, as we said earlier, are quite honourable and commendable.

I thank the government for bringing this issue to the attention of the House at the very beginning of the session. I also thank the minister for answering the questions we asked him in committee of the whole. I thank all hon. members who took part in the debate; it was very interesting. As far as the committee of the whole is concerned, I must point out the work done by the interpreters, who had a difficult job to do during this rather fast-paced exchange.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the support staff on both sides of the House, who assisted us in our research. As the minister underlined, the research was well documented and, in this regard, I must say how much we in the Official Opposition appreciate the work done by our researcher, Hugo Séguin.

I reiterate our support for this bill and urge once again the minister to reconsider his decision not to consult parliamentarians as a matter of course and to decide instead to consult us and

bring to our attention any change to the tariff or to the list of beneficiary countries.