CONTENTS
Monday, March 11, 1996
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 495
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 511
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 517
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 521
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 524
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 524
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 524
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 525
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 525
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 525
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 525
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 526
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 527
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 527
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 527
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 527
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 531
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 532
Bill C-19. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 535
(Bill deemed read the second time, deemed to have beenconsidered
by a committee and deemed reported withamendments.) 535
Bill C-231. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted. 535
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the second time andreferred to
a committee.) 536
Bill C-232. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 536
Bill C-233. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 536
Motion for concurrence in fifth report agreed to 536
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 537
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 537
Consideration resumed of motion 537
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 537
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 541
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 543
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 554
495
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 11, 1996
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
moved:
That this House take note of the importance of the North American
Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) in the security and defence of North
America, and of the government's intention to renew the NORAD agreement
with the United States for a further five years.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to all
members of the House in agreeing to this important debate. This is
the second time in three weeks that we have had the opportunity as
parliamentarians to look at a critical aspect of Canadian foreign
policy.
In this case we are dealing with one of the most important
bilateral treaties that has been established between ourselves and
the United States over the last almost 40 years; the renewal of the
North American air defence agreement which has represented a
major issue of security and defence co-operation between our two
countries.
NORAD has been a key element in this co-operation since 1958.
It has served our countries well during a variety of changes,
particularly during the period when we were concerned about the
surveillance of airways during the cold war.
(1105 )
It is our assertion, one I believe most Canadians share, that the
continuation of NORAD can serve us equally as well in a post-cold
war environment, an environment which despite the reduction and
elimination of the ballistic missile threat to North America still
remains full of many uncertainties in the world we live in.
[Translation]
NORAD represents a key element of our foreign and security
policies. For 40 years, this agreement has been a strong link in our
bilateral relationship with the U.S. That is why we are proposing
today to renew this agreement for a further five years effective May
12, 1996.
[English]
My colleague, the Minister of National Defence, will further
review during this debate the specific military and defence
requirements and aspects of this agreement.
I will concentrate my remarks on the rationale, the new
objectives, the new security context as well as the foreign affairs
dimension of this proposed NORAD renewal.
I hope we can encourage members to participate in how we
situate this important resigning of the NORAD agreement within
the broader context of our relationships with the United States.
[Translation]
Four sets of issues have dominated Canada-U.S. relations in the
past few years: first, economic and trade relations following the
implementation of NAFTA; second, culture; third, the
environment; and fourth, defence matters.
Defence relations have been the least controversial of the last
three sectors. In fact, the U.S. and Canada generally share the same
vision and interests with respect to the security of North America.
[English]
This very close co-operation in defence and security matters has
constituted for 55 years a fundamental and important foundation of
our relationship in the North American continent with the
Americans.
The question before us today is how these fundamentals evolve
in a post-cold war era. Times have drastically changed, as we all
recognize, since the basic text of NORAD was last updated in 1981.
Canadians can legitimately ask whether we still need a NORAD
agreement.
Since becoming the Minister of Foreign Affairs I have carefully
studied the reviews of NORAD undertaken by Canada and the U.S.
in the last two years. I have read the recommendations of the
496
special joint committee on Canada's defence policy and the special
joint committee that reviewed Canadian foreign policy, both of
which endorsed the renewal of NORAD.
In that assessment and review I conclude the following. Even
though Canada does not face the same threat or concern about
bombers, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles it did during the
height of the cold war period, the capability and the necessity to
continue to exercise effective surveillance and control over
Canadian air space are still basic defence requirements with
important implications for Canadian sovereignty.
A binational aerospace defence co-operation through NORAD
remains a highly effective, cost effective means to meet this basic
national objective. What we are saying is that NORAD itself is a
very important way in which the continued protection and
advancement of Canadian sovereignty and responsibility can be
maintained at a cost within our means.
To date the central purpose of NORAD has been to provide both
Canada and the United States with the means to ensure an
appropriate level of air sovereignty, attack warnings, assessments
and responsive defence. The agreement offers a number of key
advantages which are just as relevant today as they were a few
decades ago. Let me cite a few.
(1110 )
First, NORAD provides a comprehensive warning capability
against any residual stocks of ballistic missiles and provides
defence against bombers and cruise missiles.
Second, NORAD discourages criminal activity, especially drug
smuggling and illegal immigration, which we do not need in this
day and age. It is evident that we need continual protection against
terrorism and common criminals who may seek access to our
borders through the use of air means.
Third, it gives Canada access to valuable military and
technological intelligence in the aerospace field that is unique
among all countries.
Fourth, it substantially enhances the ability of the Government
of Canada to ensure its will is respected throughout all areas within
Canadian jurisdiction by providing in a very cost effective way the
capability to monitor and control developments within our
aerospace.
Fifth, it gives Canadians a voice in the planning and operations
of the aerospace defence of North America, developments which
whether we were in NORAD or not would directly affect our
interests.
For these reasons alone NORAD continues to make good basic
sense. While NORAD has continued to serve these basic national
interests our government felt strongly that aspects of the agreement
needed to be substantially updated to meet current and future
defence needs. In the last two years new considerations have come
forward and are being addressed in the new agreement. This is not
just an old NORAD agreement; it is a substantially revised
agreement.
I will cite four major changes in the proposed renewal. First,
there is a concern about the proliferation of advanced military
technology including weapons of mass destruction in the hands of
rogue governments that may support terrorism. As we all know,
Canada is a leader in the effort to deter the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We recognize this
is an essential component of an effective defence against attack by
nations or terrorists using nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The reason for this leadership is that there is concrete evidence
that the number of countries working together to acquire these
weapons is increasing. In this regard the end of the Soviet Union
diminished one threat, a nuclear exchange between east and west.
At the same time it increased another threat, the opportunity for
other countries to acquire the expertise and materials to build their
own weapons. This is a concern that has become increasingly
apparent as we see the trade and exchange of components of
nuclear weapons, delivery and manufacture.
The new NORAD agreement will provide clear provisions of
aerospace warning and control to meet the potential of this new
threat of arms proliferation. It is one way to provide a clear
deterrent against that expansion we so greatly fear.
There is another equally important reality. In renewing the
NORAD agreement we faced the growing importance of space in
military operations. The special parliamentary joint committee on
Canada's foreign policy recommended Canada should be prepared
to renew the NORAD agreement, but should press for a further
shift of emphasis from air defence to global space surveillance.
Canada should require prior consultations on any move to abrogate
the anti-ballistic missile treaty or to place weapons in space.
The new agreement does exactly that. It is one way we can
ensure full protection against developments that would increase the
risk of new space based weapons. As a result of the NORAD
agreement we are now in a position to exercise real control and
judgment.
I want to make one thing very clear: NORAD's technology
remains the best in the world to provide surveillance and warning
functions with efforts to defend our aerospace. However, that new
technology is not the stuff and matter of a star wars program. It
involves no weapons in space, a concept we as Canadians oppose.
There is no anti-ballistic missile system in any way connected to
this NORAD agreement. NORAD has evolved to reflect the threats
faced by Canada and the United States and this process will
continue if we decide to renew the agreement.
497
(1115)
In fact, one important objective which was sought by Canada and
will be met in the renewal of the agreement was to develop a more
formal mechanism for the two countries to consult on
developments with implications for North American aerospace
defence and through which NORAD's missions could evolve.
Because of NORAD we will have a place at the table to determine
the pace and timing of any developments and the ability to say no
or to register our concerns.
Moreover, the agreement will make clear that these missions
will require the approval of both governments to proceed. In effect,
we have a veto within the North American defence agreement to
say no to these particular proposals.
A third consideration when renewing the agreement was the
increased use of North American air space for legitimate purposes,
such as civil air traffic, which has expanded geometrically with the
signing of the open skies agreement. Unfortunately, it is also
becoming increasingly penetrated by illicit activity from the air.
That is particularly true when it comes to the drug trade and their
use of air space to make their connections.
The agreement we are proposing will clearly refer to the need to
co-ordinate national systems for the surveillance and control of
North American air space to cope with these added activities, both
of a legal nature and of an illegal nature so that both governments
can make sure that the best protection for our citizens is provided.
A fourth consideration, and one that I know is of great
importance to members of the House, was the need to reflect the
contemporary concern for environmental protection. Up to now the
NORAD agreement has not contained any clause on environmental
protection whatsoever.
At Canada's request, a new clause will be added in the accord to
refer directly to environmental issues, expected to be few, but that
reference will go to the permanent joint board of defence by a
national group made up of defence and diplomatic representatives,
the chair of which is the member of Parliament for High Park, who
is our representative and the co-chair in that area.
With these changes, ensuring again that any problems related to
the environment under the new agreement will be relayed to that
joint board and decisions will be made jointly, I think that
completely and clearly answers the concerns expressed by
members of the House during those hearings.
With the changes I have just outlined, I believe that the revised
agreement will transform NORAD from a cold war defence
arrangement to one of the 1990s and beyond and will give us a
much better ability to protect our sovereignty and provide for
increased co-operation in areas of vital concern to us in the use of
our valuable air space.
As rewritten, the new NORAD agreement should meet today's
security environment as well as Canadian interests and needs. It
will also provide a clear indication of the government's
commitment to Canada-U.S. defence co-operation and reaffirm at
the highest level our intention to continue the co-operation in North
American aerospace surveillance and air defence.
Let me in closing take a moment to talk about how NORAD fits
into the broader context or scenarios of Canada-U.S. relations. We
have all read from our school days on, the variety of cliches that
abound about Canada-U.S. relationships. However, beyond those
cliches there is one fundamental truth. The most comprehensive
relationship between any two countries in the world is that which
exists between Canada and the United States. It exists in the
hundreds of thousands of transactions that take place every day
between private citizens and businesses across borders. It also
exists in a wide variety of areas such as trade, culture and the
environment. In these cases we have been able to or tried to
manage these relationships in a variety of ways.
Much of what we do bilaterally, regionally and internationally
relates directly to the special management of our unique
relationship with the United States. Our co-operative yet complex
relationship stands as a model. I do not believe any two countries in
the world have been able to manage these complex relationships in
the way we have. In saying that, it is clear we have our differences,
and sometimes the differences tend to be a lot more visible than the
matters in which we share common interests, common values and
common visions.
(1120)
We are all very aware of the irritants which characterize the trade
and environment areas, to take just two examples. The
extraterritoriality being proposed under the Helms-Burton bill, or
the disputes on Pacific salmon which are now being dealt with, are
serious integral challenges to our basic interests. I can assure
members of the House that we will take all necessary steps to
defend the Canadian national interest in these two areas.
We also have differences of opinion, not just in direct
relationships about larger foreign policy issues such as the reform
of the United Nations. We think the United States has a
responsibility to pay its bills. We believe on the issue of Cuba that
an active program of engagement is the best way to provide for the
evolution of democracy and the treatment of human rights in that
country rather than a policy of isolation.
We know how to work out those differences in a productive and
friendly manner through good debate and dialogue. Subject to the
recommendations of this debate, Canada's intention to renew the
498
NORAD agreement offers yet another illustration of a good
working relationship with the United States.
Furthermore, the NORAD agreement offers to those elected
representatives in the United States who have been making some
comments in the last few weeks about Canada's position, how
things should properly be done: where we sign an agreement;
where we have a framework; where we engage in dialogue; where
there are rules of the game; where there is processes to follow. That
is the way two countries get along, not by calling each other names
or having certain members of the senate make aspersions about our
past history.
The NORAD agreement is the model on how we conduct our
relationship, not the kind of statements made by the chairman of
the Senate foreign relations committee, the senator from North
Carolina.
I believe a renewal of this agreement provides a very strong
message, a very effective message, to Canadians and Americans
alike. This is the way to do business together. This is the way to get
along together. This is the way to co-operate together and to do it in
an orderly rules based system that allows us to express our
differences but at the same time to co-operate where that
co-operation is in our mutual interests.
We have differences and similarities. The way to deal with these
is to have rules in place to make sure that those rules and
similarities have their best expression and their best outlet. It is a
relationship that must continue to be based on mutual respect and a
solid understanding of our respective individual and independent
needs and priorities.
The new NORAD agreement that we are putting before the
House today for debate builds on this relationship. It demonstrates
to both our populations how we can continue to advance and secure
good, co-operative relationships with our very important
neighbours. Perhaps it can demonstrate to other countries around
the world that is better to get along than to have disputes. The
NORAD agreement is one clear way of doing that.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in this House to speak to the renewal of the
NORAD agreement between Canada and the U.S, especially since
this debate was requested by the Bloc Quebecois in its dissenting
report on reviewing Canada's defence policy.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the new Minister
of Foreign Affairs for agreeing to give the official opposition
enough time to prepare for today's debate. The new Minister of
Foreign Affairs' open-mindedness is in stark contrast to the
arrogant and disrespectful attitude toward the opposition taken by
this government since the beginning of its mandate with respect to
this type of debate.
During the election campaign, as you may recall, the Liberal
Party of Canada promised-in an effort to increase transparency, or
so it claimed-to regularly consult the House on major issues in
foreign and defence policy that may require Canada's involvement.
Since the 1993 election, we have in fact noticed that the few
debates hastily organized by the government-supposedly to
consult Parliament-were nothing but a sham.
(1125)
Most of the debates were announced with less than 24 hours'
notice, with the government providing the motions, relevant papers
and briefings at the last minute, before we finally realized that the
dice were loaded and that the government was consulting the
House merely for appearance's sake.
Despite somewhat inadequate preparation due to a lack of time,
we have always insisted on taking part in these debates, if only to
be heard. We are therefore happy to see that the government has
finally decided to give us enough time to prepare adequately for
this debate.
Yet, I fear that this debate will have no more impact on the
government's decision, since it seems that the foreign affairs
minister's signature is a mere formality. According to a report in
the February 24 edition of Le Devoir, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs has already approved the final version of the new NORAD
agreement and will sign this agreement with his American
counterpart during a visit to Washington on March 13 or 14.
Let us point out that the minister's officials have informed us
that no decision in this regard had been made so far. This raises an
important question: if the minister feels that today's debate is
serious, does he really believe that major amendments could be
made to the new NORAD agreement in the 24 to 48 hours
following this debate?
Which leads to this other important question: Why does the
minister refuse to provide the official opposition and the other
parties represented in this House with a draft of the new NORAD
agreement before it is finalized? Why are the various opposition
parties not allowed to give their opinion on this agreement on the
basis of all the relevant information that would enable them to
really discuss Canada's participation in NORAD?
In this sense, we would greatly appreciate it if, out of respect for
parliamentary democracy and for the people of Quebec and
Canada, the minister provided all parties in this House with a draft
of any agreement or accord contemplated before it is implemented.
This would enable the opposition parties to better fulfil their
parliamentary duties, while at the same time enhancing the quality
of debate for the benefit of our fellow citizens. That is what I call
real transparency.
499
This being said, as you no doubt know, the NORAD agreement
was not negotiated overnight. Allow me, therefore, to backtrack
briefly to try to understand why such an agreement came about
in the first place and to try to see more clearly whether or not
the NORAD agreement should be renewed.
First of all, note that this agreement originally derived from the
Ogdensburg Declaration of 1940, in which the idea of joint defence
arrangements between the U.S. and Canada was officially set out
for the first time.
At the time-must we be reminded-the United States and
Canada were at war with the Axis powers, which greatly
encouraged closer formal military ties with our American allies.
Later, in 1947, our two countries set out the basis of a new military
co-operation, particularly for air defence. A few years later, in 1954
to be precise, Canadian and American air force officials came to
the conclusion that the best way of ensuring both countries' air
defence was to place it in the hands of a single organization under a
single command.
The U.S. and Canada conducted negotiations that eventually led
to a bilateral agreement being signed in 1957, establishing an
integrated air defence command based in Colorado Springs,
Colorado. The following year, on May 12, 1958, the North
American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement, commonly
known as NORAD agreement, was entered into by Canada and the
United States. At first, this agreement was to be renewed every ten
years, but this time frame was shortened to five years, in light of
the ever changing geostrategic global situation.
Note also that, since its beginnings, the NORAD agreement has
been renewed seven times. Initially, the main purpose of this
agreement was to ensure active air defence against Soviet long
range bombers. To this end, NORAD's integrated command was
equipped with ground based radars and with fighter interceptors.
(1130)
It is interesting to note that NORAD's defence system was set up
shortly after the U.S.S.R. developed an atomic bomb, thus creating
a real threat for North America.
It is also to be noted that a major element of strategic balance
changed following the launching of the first Soviet satellite in
space. Indeed, in the ensuing years, the U.S.S.R. developed
delivery vehicles capable of making decisive hits on Canadian and
U.S. targets.
During the arms race, the United States also developed
intercontinental ballistic missiles, commonly called ICBMs. These
missiles were equipped with nuclear warheads and were also
capable of hitting Soviet targets. However, given its lack of
effective defence systems against this type of attack, the U.S. found
itself, for the first time in its history, vulnerable to the Soviet threat.
Consequently, in the mid-sixties, NORAD put the emphasis on
early warning in case of an attack. NORAD's early detection of
soviet missiles would ensure a swift response from the U.S. and
became part of the nuclear deterrent strategy. However, even
though it had lost some of its importance, air defence against
bombers remained a priority.
When the NORAD agreement was renewed in 1981, and
following the development of cruise missiles launched from
airplanes and submarines, air defence against such a threat became
again a top priority. It goes without saying that these developments
resulted in a strengthening of east-west and northern security
measures. The name of the organization was also changed. The
term ``air defence'' was replaced by ``aerospace defence'', so as to
reflect NORAD's increasingly greater concerns regarding
aerospace threats.
NORAD continues to play an important role in terms of
surveillance and defence of the North American air space.
However, given the end of the cold war and the dismantling of the
Soviet Union in the early nineties, we now have to ask ourselves
whether it is necessary to maintain such a structure and, if so,
whether its mandate should be redefined.
Even though the cold war is over and Russia is not the aggressive
and threatening power that the Soviet Union was, we must remain
alert and on the lookout for any outside attack. While NORAD was
set up to counter the Soviet threat, it would be overly simplistic to
assume that, since the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, we do not need
this type of aerospace defence system any more.
It is true that, in times of peace, the relevancy of such a system
may not be obvious. History, however, has taught us several lessons
including this one: to be naive when it comes to security could have
disastrous consequences.
It is an accepted fact that, to survive, a state must be able to
ensure the security of its territory and of its population. Even today,
the Canadian state cannot escape this simple but unavoidable
obligation. But we would be kidding ourselves if we thought or
claimed that Canada can ensure its own security. That is why it is in
the best interests of both Canada and Quebec to be realistic and to
renew the NORAD agreement.
Nobody can deny that Russia as it exists in 1996 still possesses
mass destruction weapons and nothing can guarantee that we will
not see, in the years to come, changes of government or changes of
attitude toward the west, particularly toward the United States. And
the same goes for other powers such as China, for example, which
also possesses mass destruction weapons and has very large
military capabilities.
Since the end of the cold war, dozens of armed conflicts have
arisen throughout the world and no country can claim to be immune
from that. Every country tries to get the maximum from the means
at its disposal. It is well known within the international community
500
that several countries are presently trying to acquire or to develop
chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons.
(1135)
These weapons, combined with the use of missiles launched
from submarines, ships, airplanes or by other means, could
eventually become a threat to us. Let us not forget that terrorism
has become a problem in our societies and that state terrorism is a
reality that we have to live with.
On the other hand, we must ask ourselves what would be the
possible consequences of Canada's non-participation in NORAD.
What could be the impact of this non-participation in terms of the
inviolability of our air and aerospace sovereignty, the effectiveness
of our military defence and the costs that an autonomous defence
would create?
It is obvious that the NORAD agreement has been particularly
beneficial to Canada's defence policy. The establishment of an
exclusively Canadian air and aerospace detection system would
have been extremely costly for Canada. Sharing the costs of the
current system with the United States has certainly helped us save
tens of millions of dollars.
At the present time, we spend about $300 million each year on
the NORAD aerospace defence system, which is about 10 per cent
of the total costs associated with this system. It is absolutely certain
that, if we were on our own, Canada could not have the same level
of protection it is enjoying now for the same amount of money.
Canada's participation in NORAD has even allowed us to protect
our sovereignty in the far north over the last 35 years. Because of
the scope and efficiency of the detection system in place, Canada is
spared from having to maintain a major military presence in this
region. Canada's position and credibility concerning the
demilitarization of the Arctic is therefore defensible.
Canada is also able, through NORAD, to obtain highly
significant strategic information from our American allies which
would otherwise be unavailable.
Our NORAD membership provides us with access to
information concerning Canada, while sparing us the heavy
expenditures related to developing, launching and maintaining
such satellites.
NORAD also provides Canada with access to space monitoring
technology, which is nothing to be sneezed at. That access takes a
number of different forms, one of which is the training Canadian
military personnel in American military installations.
The Bloc Quebecois sees another advantage in Canadian
membership in NORAD: Canada's partnership with the Americans
in aerospace defence has, undeniably, given it some clout with the
U.S. in this field. Canada has some degree of control over what
goes on in Canadian air space. Without NORAD, would it have
been possible for us to defend ourselves against the designs the
U.S. had on our air space? That is far from certain.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to indicate the
Bloc's support of the government's recent commitment not to
authorize any weapon deployment in Canadian air space.
While the Bloc does agree that the NORAD agreement has
served Quebec's and Canada's interests well, and while it is
prepared to support renewal for a further five years, this does not
mean there are no changes to be made to it.
In fact, in its 1994 defence white paper, in connection with the
renewal of the NORAD agreement, the government committed to
``look closely into those areas which might require updating, given
the new challenges to continental security''.
The Bloc finds it most regrettable that the government has let
slip the opportunity offered by renewal of the NORAD agreement
to do as it had suggested in its own white paper: redefine the
primary mission of that organization within the present
international context. Why indeed has it not seized the opportunity
afforded us here to make changes, such as an expansion of
NORAD's mandate to enable it to support UN peacekeeping
missions in the Americas.
(1140)
In this regard, the Bloc Quebecois wrote in its dissenting report
on the foreign policy review that Canada should review ``its current
military alliances and adapt them to strategic missions in
accordance with the needs of the United Nations. This approach
would inject new life into these organizations and would make
them more effective in protecting safety and in resolving conflicts.
It would also make it possible for Canada to meet its public
security objectives, which are crucial to its own domestic
security''.
As regards UN regional peace missions in North America, could
NORAD not help the UN with its mandate, in Haiti for example, by
doing air surveillance? This new mandate for NORAD might help
the UN increase its chances for successful peace missions in the
region.
Furthermore, by supporting this new mission for NORAD, as
proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the government could tighten up
its notion of collective security. It could thus play a more important
role with the United States in this regard in North America.
The Bloc Quebecois also feels it is time the NORAD agreement
was expanded to include our other American economic partners.
We feel that NORAD could provide a valuable means of linking
our economic and trading interests to our common interest in
501
security. This could ensure the sustainability of the incipient
political stability in countries in Central and South America.
In this regard, we could start first by extending NORAD to
Mexico, which is also a party to NAFTA, and then, little by little, to
other countries, in South America. We could thus eventually end up
with an alliance of the Americas. The aim of this alliance,
essentially, would be to set up a common air, land and sea
surveillance network. It would enable Canada to set up a tighter,
and better co-ordinated defence structure at less cost to taxpayers.
NORAD could also be used to a greater extent in the fight
against drug trafficking. It could be used more intensively against
drug traffickers using Canadian and American airspace. And, if it
were extended to other countries in the Americas, it could be put to
greater use in their struggle against the drug trade.
Moreover, the new NORAD agreement should answer the Bloc
Quebecois' legitimate concerns with regard to anti-missile
defence. If, for instance, either party to the NORAD agreement
wanted to develop and use new anti-missile defence technology,
the other party should not only be consulted but also be in
agreement.
By so doing, Canada would avoid finding itself in a situation
where, even though consulted, it would be subject to American
decisions in this area, which, let us not forget, is at the heart of
today's nuclear deterrence strategy. A new NORAD agreement
should also include clauses providing for environmental protection
with respect to Northern military facilities. Furthermore, since the
Canadian and American governments appointed negotiators, in
February 1995, to deal with this issue, we would hope that by now a
solution to this problem has been found and that it is reflected in
the present NORAD agreement.
However, in the what we would consider regretable event that
the Canadian government was unable to reach an agreement with
our neighbours to the south, the Bloc Quebecois would urge it to
engage in continuing negotiations without delay; eventually, such
negotiations would be held on a regular basis. My party believes
that the U.S. must pay its fair share of the costs to clean up these
sites.
Lastly, Canada should make it very clear it is committed to
promoting the demilitarization of Canada's North and to
negotiating with Russia granting this region the same demilitarized
zone status as Antarctica.
To conclude, I would say that, for the reasons I just mentioned,
the Bloc Quebecois will support renewing the NORAD agreement.
However, we believe it essential to make a number of changes and,
in this respect, we ask the government to consider the official
opposition's legitimate claims with an open mind.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak in this take note
debate on the motion:
That this House take note of the importance of the North American
Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) in the security and defence of North
America, and of the government's intention to renew the NORAD agreement
with the United States for a further five years.
(1145 )
This is the second take note debate in two weeks. Although I
appreciate the spirit in which it is offered, there is a feeling in the
House that these debates are nothing more than smoke and mirrors
and that already a decision has been made by cabinet on this. The
minister is shaking his head no but my mother told me that
perception is everything. If that is not the case, then it is the
minister's responsibility to make sure that the perception is
changed. I leave the minister with that challenge. It is sometimes
felt by opposition members and other members in the House that
these debates are just an illusion and a charade and that the decision
has already been made.
Our bilateral defence ties with the United States have been the
single most important linchpin in Canada's defence network since
World War II. NORAD is the most enduring symbol of these
bilateral defence ties. Since the beginning of the cold war and the
advent of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, it became readily apparent
that North America was a single entity that could only be defended
with co-operation between Canada and the United States.
In 1951 Canada permitted the United States strategic air
command to place bases on Canadian soil. In addition Canada
independently and in co-operation with the United States
constructed the pinetree line of radar installations for North
American surveillance. It was followed by the mid-Canada line and
of course the DEW line.
In 1957 NORAD was formally established in an agreement that
has been reviewed and renewed every five years since 1967. Due to
the significant benefits Canada derives from NORAD, the Reform
Party supports in principle the renewal of the NORAD agreement.
NORAD was designed to simplify combined operations between
the air forces of the United States and Canada during times of crisis
or conflict. The primary objective of NORAD continues to be to
use aerospace surveillance and air defences to assist each nation in
safeguarding the sovereignty of its air space.
To those in the House and other Canadians who would ask why
Canada should continue in NORAD in this post cold war era, the
502
answer is very simple: sovereignty. Sovereignty is a country's
responsibility. We must ensure that no one violates our air space.
This is the primary focus of NORAD, one that is independent of the
demise of the Soviet Union.
Air sovereignty is defined as a nation's inherent right to exercise
absolute control over air space above its territory. NORAD assists
Canada and the U.S. in this undertaking through surveillance and
control, the ability to detect, identify and if necessary to intercept
unknown aircraft approaching North American air space. That is
the reason Canada should renew this agreement.
In his remarks the Minister of Foreign Affairs made mention of
the fact that most of the threats are gone in this post cold war era. I
caution the minister to reassess his statements in that regard. With
the end of the cold war the threats did not just disappear; they are
still there. The minister called them residual stockpiles. By the end
of the year 2000 up to 25 nations will have developed weapons of
mass destruction. Some will have the technology to reach North
America. We in the House must support sovereignty.
The greatest benefit the Canadian and U.S. governments derive
from NORAD is the ability to share not only the responsibilities
but the resources and the costs for continental security. It would be
militarily impractical as well as inefficient for each nation to
unilaterally perform NORAD's current missions and functions.
(1150 )
In Canada's case although air sovereignty control may be
possible, the mission of air defence in depth would be difficult due
to the country's large land mass and its small and, it seems every
year, shrinking defence force. Other benefits to both nations
include shared intelligence and technology, joint strategic planning
for defence and the long tradition of binational co-operation and
friendship. In short, Canada cannot go it alone. With our modest
population and expansive territory, we must maintain our defence
ties with the United States.
As a sovereign nation with NORAD, Canada must play its part
and contribute combat capable forces for our mutual benefit. This
is where the Liberal government has failed. The Liberal
government is letting Canadians and our allies down. The Liberal
government has again hit the defence budget with significant cuts.
Defence spending will be reduced a further $800 million. Where
does the government intend to make cuts in the defence budget?
The answer is capital equipment, the very thing that our armed
forces need to maintain our Canadian sovereignty.
The Liberal government has not been forthcoming enough to tell
us what equipment it plans to eliminate. It could be more of our
CF-18s. Maybe they will move from their current warm storage
into cold storage or maybe will be mothballed completely. Those
CF-18s are needed to intercept intruders or for a variety of other
NORAD related systems. Regardless of what equipment goes, the
end result will be less combat capability and less ability for Canada
to protect its sovereignty.
Defence, deterrence and sovereignty are concepts that require
combat capable forces if they are to be realized. Allies and
potential aggressors alike must view our combat capabilities with
respect. The $800 million in cuts to the defence budget will reduce
not only our combat capabilities but the international respect
Canada has fostered since World War II.
As a member from British Columbia, I will give a recent
example which the Minister of Foreign Affairs also alluded to.
Even our closest ally, the United States is losing respect for our
sovereignty. I refer to a letter dated March 6 written by the hon.
member for Skeena to the Prime Minister which states:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
I write to you on a matter of utmost urgency, which has serious implications
to our national interest and our Pacific salmon fishery.
I refer to the passage of Congressional Amendments to the American
Fisheries Protective Act in November of 1995. By this action, the U.S. Congress
is seeking to prevent Canada from exercising unfettered jurisdiction over
Canadian internal waters. This is a direct challenge to Canadian sovereignty and
cannot be allowed to stand.
As I am sure you are aware, the American Congress has made a unilateral
declaration of free passage for U.S. ships travelling through B.C.'s inside
passage. This is preposterous and totally unacceptable.
Alaskan commercial fishermen continue to harvest Canadian salmon at levels
which violate both the letter and spirit of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (1985). This
is at the core of the American declaration for ``free passage''. It is a bully tactic,
designed to both intimidate and remove any leverage Canada has in seeking a
resolution to the Pacific salmon dispute, by imposing economic costs to
American commercial vessels.
The actions of the American government do not call for diplomacy, but with a
resolute declaration by you, as Prime Minister, that Canada will not in any way
tolerate a challenge to its sovereignty over its internal waters. You must be
prepared to back this declaration with a visible demonstration of our Nation's
resolve. I strongly urge you to take the following actions:
1. Immediately declare that this American legislation constitutes a direct
threat to Canada's sovereignty and that it will not be tolerated.
2. Declare Canada's position that any attempt by the U.S. Coastguard, or any
other military force to enter Canadian internal waters to enforce their
legislation, to be an act of invasion.
3. Declare that any act of invasion will be treated as such and appropriate
measures taken to counter it.
4. Establish a Canadian naval presence in the Canadian territorial waters
along B.C.'s coast, to deter any American breach of Canada's internal waters,
unless authorized by Canada.
503
5. In the absence of a fishing plan under the Pacific Salmon Treaty for 1996,
announce passage fees for American fishing vessels at the same rate, or higher,
than those levied over two years ago.
Mr. Prime Minister, it is vital to the interests of both B.C. and Canada that you
act in a decisive and responsible manner. The American people have long been
our good friends and neighbours. I am confident that this irresponsible act, on
the part of a handful of politicians bowing to the American commercial fishing
lobby, would never carry the judgment of the vast majority of American
citizens. I am also confident that it will not carry the judgment of the
international community. This is the act of bullies who would use intimidation
and the veiled threat of force to get their way.
This is not a partisan issue. Strong leadership by you and your government is
crucial at this time. If you take the actions listed above, or ones very similar, all
of Canada will be behind you. If you do not, Canadian sovereignty will be
diminished, our standing in the international community diminished and
Canadian citizens demoralized.
I look forward to your actions on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians.
(1155)
It seems odd at this very time when we are talking about
protecting sovereignty around the world for North America that the
only ones who are invading our sovereignty are the people with
whom we hope to sign an agreement in a few short hours or days.
The Reform Party is pleased to support in principal, and I stress
in principal, the extension of the NORAD agreement for another
five years. With Canada's shrinking defence budget, it is
imperative that we continue this agreement. NORAD is value
added for the Canadian taxpayer. We benefit greatly from the
agreement. This capability benefits peacekeeping forces around the
world. It plays a vital role in drug interdiction and could also
contribute to monitoring arms control and treaty compliance.
We are not pleased at the proposed massive cuts to the defence
budget which will further undermine our armed forces, their
combat capability and ultimately Canadian sovereignty. The
government should be ashamed of the additional cuts to the
defence budget. These cuts are not the result of deficit reduction
but rather the result of the government's failure to balance the
budget. This failure to balance the budget is not only undermining
our social programs but Canada's national security and sovereignty
as well.
The Liberals are sending a strong signal to our allies that
Canadians are freeloaders and not prepared to contribute to our
mutual defence. This is the wrong signal to be sending. It is one
that will call into question our position as a middle power and a
reliable partner.
I suggest to the Liberal government that unless we maintain our
military capability which can adequately defend our sovereignty,
we will have more incidents such as we see in B.C. with the U.S.
declaring B.C.'s inside passage to be an international waterway.
We ask that the Liberal government express to the United States
our concern and determination to maintain Canadian sovereignty
over the B.C. inside passage.
We would hope that in the tradition of shared resources with the
United States and the friendship and co-operation which has been
expressed over the years that those qualities can be maintained with
the settlement of this most recent irritant and that Canada will
continue to support the common interests of sovereignty with the
United States and not work against them. We hope that can be
accomplished with respect to the signing of the NORAD
agreement.
(1200)
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in the debate for the NORAD renewal. I am pleased that
both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party have given their
general support to the renewal of the agreement, although I am
perplexed at the convoluted logic of the last speaker, the critic for
the Reform Party.
In one breath he is supporting the NORAD renewal but in
another he is issuing a virtual declaration of war against the United
States for incursions the Americans are allegedly making on the
west coast militarily. That will bring some smiles, if not in
Washington certainly in the parliamentary press gallery.
Another point raised is that the debate is somehow irrelevant.
That could not be further from the truth. Cabinet has not looked at
this issue. There has been no debate and therefore it is totally
wrong to say that what is being said here today will have no
influence on ministers when they look at the agreement.
[Translation]
I urge the House to support the renewal of the North American
Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD agreement. The reason I
want this agreement, which served the interests of this country and
this continent well, to be renewed is because I am confident that, in
this regard, the government is supported by most Canadians and by
the vast majority of members. Incidentally, my colleagues and
myself are very grateful for this support.
Throughout the cold war, this Canada-U.S. partnership for the
aerospace defence of North America faced the greatest threats that
defence technology could devise. NORAD waited and watched,
always ready to sound the alarm and intervene. This task, however
mundane, was necessary and if it went largely unnoticed, it is
precisely because it was so successful.
[English]
Today the cold war is over and there is no immediate threat to
Canada. Hon. members are correct to assert that. However, it would
be a mistake to conclude that Canada can go without defences.
Although the challenges facing us have changed and laudable
504
progress has been achieved in arms control, not all dangers have
been eliminated. Dangers continue to be posed by the huge
remaining stockpiles of nuclear weapons, by the proliferation of
advanced military technology, by the transfer of technologies to
rogue regimes and by the growing importance of space in military
operations.
That is why the House of Commons and Senate special joint
committee on defence drew attention to the instability in the world
when it brought forward its recommendations in the fall 1994.
These instabilities were reflected in the white paper the
government issued in December of that year.
None of the dangers we have been talking about is of an
immediate threat to North America, but in a world characterized by
turbulence and uncertainty all of the dangers are real. Despite the
emergence of a new international order, prudence dictates we must
maintain an adequate aerospace defence capability for the longer
term.
NORAD's basic missions, early warning and the preservation of
air sovereignty, are and must remain unchanged. That said, the
NORAD agreement we placed before the House today has been
substantially revised to meet today's specific conditions and to
anticipate future requirements.
[Translation]
NORAD has adapted to the new geopolitical and financial
realities, in that the agreement was substantially rationalized to
make it much more affordable. Since the agreement was last
renewed in 1991, spending has been greatly reduced and other
savings are contemplated.
The agreement remains vital to Canada's defence and economic
interests, to the establishment of close and harmonious relations
between Canada and the U.S., as well as to international peace and
stability.
(1205)
The NORAD agreement is the most important and most visible
bilateral agreement on security and defence that Canada has
entered into with the United States. It was originally signed on May
12, 1958, and it has since been renewed, extended seven times, the
latest renewal dating back to 1991 and carrying us over to May 12,
1996.
Canada-U.S. co-operation for the defence of North America was
already well established long before 1958; after the French were
defeated in 1940, Canada and the U.S. established a permanent
joint board to oversee defence planning and commitments.
A point of particular relevance to this discussion should also be
mentioned. During the years immediately following the second
world war, the U.S. air force and the Royal Canadian Air Force
began working together to ward off the launching of an attack on
the continental air space.
[English]
This co-operation was inevitable. General Charles Foulkes, the
chair of the Canadian joint chiefs of staff from 1951 to 1960, once
wrote: ``There were no boundaries upstairs and the most direct air
routes to the United States' major targets were through Canada.
Therefore air defence was to be a joint effort from the start''.
The original NORAD agreement put in place a binational
command structure for fighter defence against long range Soviet
bombers. In the mid-1960's the emphasis shifted from air defence
to attack warning and characterization of attack in response to the
emergence of nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles,
ICBMs, as the primary threat to the North American continent.
The 1975 renewal of the agreement redefined NORAD's
mandate in the following way. First, it was to assist Canada and the
U.S. in safeguarding sovereign air space. Second, it was to
contribute to deterrence by providing attack warning and
assessment of aerospace attack. Third, it was to ensure an
appropriate response against air attack if required. NORAD has
retained these missions in all subsequent renewals.
Since 1975 there have been only two major modifications to the
NORAD agreement. In 1981 NORAD changed its name from the
North American air defence command to the North American
aerospace defence command in keeping with the new emphasis on
warning against ballistic missiles.
In 1991 the definition of air sovereignty was expanded to include
detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of drug trafficking.
Canada's contribution to NORAD includes aircraft surveillance
assets, infrastructure and personnel, which represent almost 10 per
cent of NORAD's total cost.
Our annual expenditures include the cost of some 790 personnel
working at NORAD headquarters at Cheyenne mountain operation
centres on airborne early warning aircraft, at a variety of sensor
sites and in NORAD air defence operations. Canada's four
operational CF-18 squadrons have NORAD responsibilities on a
rotating basis with two squadrons, one in the east and one in the
west, out of Cold Lake and out of Bagotville, on designated state
alert at any one time.
In recent years the reduced threat of air attack against North
America has necessitated the alert state's being reduced
significantly. Should there be a crisis or war that threatens North
America, two squadrons of CF-18s would be assigned to NORAD
for the joint defence of Canada and the U.S. Additional resources
could be assigned to the defence of the continent if required.
505
The hon. Reform critic said the recent budget cuts in national
defence could somehow impair our commitment to NORAD. We
would not be bringing this agreement for renewal if we did not
think we had the capability, notwithstanding the defence budget
cuts, to deliver on our capability. The hon. member should be
assured that we do have the capability and will retain the
capability in that regard.
In addition to the availability of the CF-18s, the Canadian
NORAD region headquarters at North Bay operates the Canadian
portion of the North warning system, four coastal radars and four
forward operating locations to support fighter operations in
Canada's north.
(1210)
[Translation]
Like previous governments, the current Canadian government
agrees that our country's aerospace defence needs may be very
effectively and efficiently satisfied through NORAD. Early in
1994, the external affairs minister and myself instructed our
officials to undertake preliminary discussions with their American
counterparts regarding a possible extension of the NORAD
agreement beyond 1996.
We were in complete support of the goals and principles of the
existing NORAD agreement, but we had come to the conclusion
that it had to be adjusted to meet present and future defence needs.
From the very start, we were determined to have substantial
changes made to ensure that the agreement is streamlined and
brought up to date in preparation for the next century.
Our first and most fundamental concern was the wording of the
agreement. We felt it should more closely reflect the real world.
The gist of it has not changed since 1981, in spite of the fact that
the nature of North American aerospace defence has changed
drastically. A new strategic framework has emerged since the cold
war between east and west. In this framework, while the threat is
greatly reduced, new challenges require a new approach and
greater flexibility than before, when our present and future needs
were set strictly by the cold war.
The government also wanted to make sure that NORAD's
mandate would be clearly set out. It also was of the opinion that a
consultation process be established that would allow Canada to
state its views to the United States in a more formal setting. Thus,
the missions would be discussed on a regular basis and, if
necessary, they would evolve very naturally.
[English]
While these Canadian-American exploratory talks were
underway the parliamentary committees independently reviewing
Canada's foreign defence policies fully endorsed the renewal of
NORAD. They did so in the context of the threat being diminished
to North American airspace but not eliminated.
The government followed the reports with strong statements of
its own in favour of NORAD in two documents, ``Canada and the
World'', the foreign policy white paper, and the 1994 defence white
paper. In that document we spelled out in explicit terms the
fundamental role that collective defence plays in our security,
indeed in our sense of ourselves as a people and as responsible
citizens of the world. The white paper pointed out we are bound to
our allies in Europe and the United States by political values,
interests and traditions we wish to support and foster.
It is for that reason that Canada has participated in the
implementation force under NATO in Bosnia. I was pleased last
weekend to be with the Canadian men and women serving in that
theatre who are doing a remarkable job in a short period of time to
help bring peace and stability to Bosnia. This is a historic mission
because it is the first time NATO has actually taken on an
operational assignment in its 50-year history. It has shown that the
command and control, the lessons of preparation of the last 50
years have stood the organization in good stead for its operational
effectiveness which I saw last weekend.
There are practical benefits to collective defence such as
standardized equipment and procedures and the accumulated
experience of joint and combined operations. I certainly saw that
last weekend. These practical benefits are valuable in our
continuing efforts in support of collective security.
Alliances dismantled in peacetime may be difficult to revive
when a crisis occurs. That is why we have to keep our involvement
in multilateral organizations such as NATO and why we must
renew the NORAD agreement.
It seems obvious enough but somehow this lesson was forgotten
twice in this century when political leaders not only in Canada but
among our allies allowed the defence establishment to run down to
such a level that it was ill prepared when crisis came.
(1215 )
Despite the compressions in the defence budget, we are
absolutely determined to keep a combat capable force with new
equipment, a lean and efficient military that will serve our interests
and will be the effective cadre, together with a revitalized reserve
force, for mobilization should we be called on to go into a major
conflict.
In the 1994 report of the special joint committee on Canada's
defence policy there was an articulation of our wider international
responsibilities as a country:
If we believe that Canada stands for values that are worth promoting in a
larger world, we must be prepared to invest resources and commit Canadian
troops in defence of those values. If we are not prepared to do so then what do
we stand for as a country?
When President Clinton visited Ottawa in February of last year,
he and the Prime Minister reaffirmed the intention of both
506
countries to renew the NORAD agreement. In the same month, I
visited NORAD headquarters and toured the operation centre at
Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado in the company of my colleague,
the Secretary of Defence, William Perry.
During that tour, I was really impressed by the continuing
necessity of a co-operative, high level aerospace defence function
for our two countries and by the competence and dedication of the
Canadian and American personnel serving there. These people
work side by side in an integrated command structure for the
security of our continent. They truly reflect the special relationship
that Canada and the United States has developed over 39 years of
close co-operation.
Therefore, as the men and women of Canada work, sleep and
enjoy their lives, a group of men and women are still, in this age of
diminished threat, constantly on watch for any threat against North
American air space.
Canadian and American officials continued to meet on NORAD
renewal dossiers throughout most of last year. This has resulted in
the agreement that we hope to sign. I hope MPs will be pleased by
the extent to which the final draft reflects Canada's negotiating
aims. I know the critics for the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois
have been brought up to speed on the agreement. Briefly I want to
touch on a couple of points before I sit down.
The agreement transforms NORAD from a cold war defence
arrangement to an international accord for the 1990s and beyond.
The agreement's definition of the strategic environment as it
affects North America is entirely new. It stresses the revolutionary
change brought about by the end of the cold war and the progress
that has been made in nuclear arms control.
However, at the same time, it notes that the world has not
become suddenly safe.
[Translation]
As I have already said, the threat posed by ballistic missiles may
no longer be an imminent one. Nonetheless, we must take into
consideration the fact that there are still large stockpiles of such
weapons. We must also take into account current and future
strategic developments that could impact on the security of North
America's airspace. For example, I am thinking of the proliferation
of mass destruction weapons and their delivery vehicles, not to
mention the increasing use of space for military purposes.
The new text of the agreement also provides that Canada and the
United States must work together to monitor and control
non-military air traffic in North-American skies. This joint effort is
necessary to deal with the increase in legitimate air traffic, and also
with air access to North America for illegal purposes such as drug
trafficking.
To ensure government transparency as well as clarity in terms of
its goal and its policy, the agreement provides, as regards NORAD
missions, the most detailed definition ever included in a public
document.
[English]
These missions are twofold. The first is aerospace warning,
including identification of aircraft or missile threat with the
potential of striking North America and the monitoring of
man-made objects in space and the detection, validation and
forewarning of attack, whether by aircraft, missiles or space
vehicles, using mutual support arrangements with other
commands.
Second, aerospace control, which includes providing effective
surveillance and control of North American air space from routine
peacetime surveillance through a defence attack from aircraft or
cruise missiles.
(1220 )
Before I conclude, I am pleased to announce a heightened level
of agreed consultation between the two governments and on a
formal mechanism for the consultation on developments with
implications for aerospace.
As my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, any of
those disagreements or clarifications will be sent to the permanent
joint board on defence. I am pleased to note that the chairman of
the board has been re-appointed for another term and is a member
of the House, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park, who has
done a terrific job over the last year, ensuring Canada's interests.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to put a question to the defence minister about the demilitarization
of the Arctic. I am familiar with the situation in the Antarctic, to
the south of Chile and Argentina, which the international
community agreed to recognize as a demilitarized zone. Everything
went very well; every state with some territories in the Antarctic, as
well as all of the international community I think, agreed to
co-operate.
What is the position of the Canadian government on the
demilitarization of the Arctic? Is the government ready to open
discussions with Russia on this issue? I would like to see the Arctic
demilitarized in the years to come.
[English]
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks of his
earlier life in Chile and of the demilitarization of the Antarctic
region. This was possible because the same degree of international
threat was not prevalent.
The Canadian Arctic and the Arctic generally was for 50 years
the potential battleground between the Soviet Union and the United
507
States, Canada and its allies. Therefore, strategically the Arctic has
historically occupied a different place in geopolitics.
The goal was for demilitarization in general. In a perfect world
we would not need armies, air forces or navies. We would all be
peaceful people and get along with each other. However it is
somewhat naive to believe that we are even close to that state in the
world. In fact, as we are debating, we see potential hostile acts
occurring off the coast of China with respect to exercises by that
government. That shows the level of threat is everywhere, not just
in the Arctic but around the world.
With respect to the Arctic, we have to be prudent. We have to
realize that our security has to be protected and we must recognize
that means a military presence through warning systems and
communication devices in the Arctic until such time as the threat
over the Arctic is diminished.
This is not particularly my field, but I am sure the Minister of
Foreign Affairs would say that even while we still look forward to
maintaining our defence over the Arctic, we can still work with
countries such as Russia and others who have an interest in the
Arctic to make sure that pollution is controlled and environmental
concerns generally are respected.
Moving forward with this agreement does not preclude
movement on those fronts.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the minister. At the beginning of his speech, he
referred to comments some hon. members from this side of the
House have made so far, including me, about how this debate will
really influence the decision the government is about to make or
will make in the next few days concerning the renewal of the
NORAD agreement.
I was pleased to hear the minister say, and I am ready to believe
him, that this debate is relevant and that the government intends to
take into consideration what is said in today's debate when the time
comes to make a decision.
(1225)
However, I cannot help but be a little sceptical. In his speech, the
minister described the process which will ultimately lead to the
renewal of the NORAD agreement. He described the whole
process. So, I am a little bewildered, since the negotiations with our
American partners are over and, from what I hear, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs is expected to travel to Washington to sign the
agreement very shortly, on the 13th or 14th of this month.
Therefore, following today's debate, can the government really
take into consideration all the information and the suggestions we
have for them? I put the same question to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs earlier, but, unfortunately, his speech was not followed by a
question and comment period, so he could not answer. Maybe the
Minister of National Defence will provide the House with an
answer.
Technically, is it possible for the government, following this
debate, to reopen the negotiations with our American partners in
order to include a number of recommendations made by members
from Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, including the ones I made
about the demilitarization of the Arctic and the integration of new
member states in the NORAD agreement? Is it possible to reopen
the negotiations on some of these issues before the agreement is to
be signed? Or is this only an exercise in futility, where we debate
the NORAD agreement, knowing full well that, in the end, not a lot
can be changed before the agreement is ratified?
[English]
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat distressed at the
cynicism the hon. member displays in his question.
The debate today is the conclusion of a two-year process in this
Parliament of discussing NORAD renewal. His colleague, the hon.
member for Charlesbourg, the critic for the Bloc Quebecois, was on
the special joint committee on defence and NORAD was discussed.
In fact, committee members may have even visited Colorado
Springs and certainly got full briefings on North American air
defence.
We have had other discussions of NORAD at the parliamentary
committee during the estimates when the chief of staff, other
military officials and public servants have been present. Today is a
full day's debate on the discussions that we have had with the U.S.
on the draft agreement. The critics of the other parties have been
fully briefed.
The hon. member talks of being inspired, and if indeed there are
inspiring insights that are revealed today in the debate, yes, they
will be taken into account by the government. We can still go back
to our American colleagues and say that we had a debate in the
House of Commons and an interesting point was raised on this
particular item which we feel should be taken into account before
the agreement is signed.
Knowing the co-operative nature of discussions that have gone
on between the Americans and the Canadians, I am sure we would
be able to reflect those concerns in the final document.
Perhaps the hon. member lives in a somewhat cynical world. I
live in a much more idealistic world which says that when the
government comes to the House of Commons and says it really and
sincerely wants to hear from hon. members, the transcript will be
looked at. Officials are listening to the debate, watching television,
and all those comments will be taken into account before the
agreement goes to cabinet and is signed.
508
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the government motion to renew the NORAD
agreement. As my colleague from Verchères has already pointed
out, along with the ministers of foreign affairs and defence, this is a
longstanding agreement due to be renewed in May 1996.
(1230)
All speakers have agreed on the agreement's beneficial effects in
a variety of areas, as well as on its role in advanced observation,
detection and surveillance of air space.
I am sure all members are aware that, without the NORAD
agreement and the U.S. financial contribution, Canada could never
have afforded such a sophisticated and effective facility in the
north. Clearly, as my colleague has already pointed out, the Bloc
Quebecois totally supports renewal of the NORAD agreement.
As I have already stated, this agreement has provided Canada
with heightened surveillance potential at an affordable cost, as well
as a wealth of information. For instance, I have in mind satellite
surveillance. Canada made no financial contribution to it, but
access under the NORAD agreement, and receives information of
undeniable usefulness to a variety of fields.
I think what has been said indicates clearly, however, that there
is unanimous agreement that NORAD itself is a child of the cold
war, dating back to a time when there was a threat of Russian
invasion of North America, with bombers or medium to long range
ballistic missiles. I will spare you the various names attached to the
metre per second performance or the range of each missile
according to their classification. This was the threat that gave rise
to the NORAD agreement during the cold war.
Later, agreements between the U.S. and Russia were signed at
the end of the cold war, which put an end to missile detection and
altered NORAD's role to some extent. I think this year's renewal
will bring a new shift. Clearly as the minister or even my colleague
for Verchères has said, we cannot simply drop this agreement.
Obviously, if the government decided to abolish the radar
installations in the north on the grounds that, with the NORAD
agreement, satellite detection would be sufficient, we would no
longer need these infrastructures. It is nevertheless a facility paid
for, as I said earlier, in part by Canada and in part by the United
States, which therefore has meant the latest high efficiency
equipment and which should continue to operate in order to provide
air surveillance.
Although the Soviet threat disappeared following the end of the
cold war, air space surveillance remains a priority, to my mind, but
not perhaps because of the potential threat of invasion. I was
listening to the minister earlier, who said that Canada will retain
full military capability in order to defend its sovereignty.
I always chuckle a bit when I hear that, because experts, even
those from the Department of National Defence, have often said
that, with our long coastline and our huge air space over both
Canadian and Quebec territory, we have neither the resources nor
the funds needed to go at it alone and defend our sovereignty.
It is a bit unrealistic to think that we alone can defend our
immense territory despite budget cuts, which could have in fact
been even somewhat more substantial than those the minister
announced this year. Even if the budget were increased, we would
never have what it takes to defend our immense air space and
coastline on our own. We need only look at NORAD.
(1235)
I believe that, under this kind of arrangement, Canada has done
what it could, agreeing that the Americans would provide
technology and funds in exchange for using the Canadian territory
to monitor the North American air space.
The reopening of this agreement between two countries
negotiating according to their resources reminds me of what we
mentioned in our dissenting report on the defence policy review,
that is that Canada should conclude alliances or agreements and
supply only what it is able to supply, given its financial resources.
As I said before, those who believe that we can defend our
territory with the limited resources we have right now are
dreaming, especially in today's economic climate. Through its
reputation, its participation in peacekeeping missions and
diplomatic negotiations, Canada is offering its partners, its allies
all it can financially.
I believe that Canada cannot afford to withdraw from NORAD,
which has been very profitable for both Canada and the United
States, especially in financial terms.
At this point, I would like to add that, unfortunately, when we
reviewed the defence policy, we touched only briefly on the
NORAD agreement. We met with Defence representatives who
explained the 1991 agreement and the changes made since then.
The Bloc Quebecois said on several occasions both on the
foreign affairs committee and the committee in charge of reviewing
defence policy that the NORAD agreement should be expanded in
terms of its role, its mission and its partners.
I believe that the minister has redefined its role very well; its role
is to provide early warning and to monitor air space, which in
Canada includes searching for civilian aircraft that might be
involved in drug trafficking. I believe that in this respect the United
States has been slower to act than Canada. During talks on this new
agreement and at the time of signing, I think Canada should
suggest an increase in membership, their involvement being in
509
accordance with their military or financial potential, and also some
changes in the role of NORAD.
It is often said in military circles that some agreements should
not be abandoned in time of peace, that we should not demilitarize
in peace time; we should not lose our combat capability, because
should a conflict arise we would have problems restoring the
severed links or the cancelled agreements.
I recognize that we could call this being wary of any potential
conflict. However, I think we should remember that North America
itself never had any wars, but always participated with its allies in
the search for solutions to various conflicts. I believe the role of
Canada, Quebec and the United States is to continue in that
direction.
However, I would like to say, because it was mentioned by the
Bloc Quebecois in its minority report, that there is currently a war
which, in my opinion, might be more deadly, more real and more
obvious that any hypothetical cataclysm or conflict which could
bring about loss of human lives, and I am thinking about the drug
problem, the problem of drug trafficking, mainly in the U.S., but
also in Canada.
(1240)
We know that the detection systems of NORAD could be applied
to the fight against drug traffickers with great effectiveness.
According to information coming from the Department of National
Defence we are about to acquire a new coastal system which would
allow detection as far as 250 miles from shore, and this would be
useful to monitor both fishing activities and drug smuggling.
Unfortunately, neither the Americans nor the Canadians seem
willing to acknowledge the financial and human problems, the
society problems, created by drugs coming into the country in
scores of places, because of the vastness of the North American
territory. I find it hard to understand how we can contemplate
spending money on things like equipment, weapons, antitank
missiles, radars, perhaps even helicopters and antisubmarine
equipment, when the social fabric in large metropolitan areas,
especially in the U.S. and Canada, is disintegrating before our very
eyes-because of the mafia's growing influence, among other
things-when we could make very effective use of NORAD's
monitoring capabilities, including satellite and AWACS
surveillance, the DEW line and even coastal radars, to detect any
small boat or aircraft that could then be intercepted very easily.
Instead, we see the potential for invasion. It is in this regard that
I question the real evolution of NORAD. Canada has very
often-even more often than the U.S.-taken part in missions in
various parts of Europe, Africa and Asia. Although North America
is not experiencing any conflict like that in Europe, there is still a
kind of plague that, in the last 30 years, has killed in my opinion as
many if not more people than all the conflicts elsewhere on this
planet, and yet we do nothing about it.
I find it somewhat puzzling that we are not using our defence
capabilities to address a very serious social problem as well as
negotiating and refining agreements with other countries to address
this problem.
In closing, like my colleague for Verchères, I would like to tell
the minister-who told us that, for all practical purposes,
negotiations had been completed but that we could still make
suggestions-that I hope he will take into consideration the Bloc
Quebecois' suggestions, which I feel are very important. First,
allow more countries to join NORAD, broaden NORAD's role and
mission without focusing on potential star wars or invaders, but
continue to use this defence technology infrastructure. I would also
suggest some civilian or parliamentary monitoring of these defence
partnerships which, I think, could be very useful to American
society.
(1245)
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was a pleasure to hear the hon. member for
Charlesbourg make positive comments about the NORAD
agreement and the possibility of its enlargement.
Of even more pleasure to my ears was to hear the hon. member
for Charlesbourg talk about support of the integrity of Canadian
sovereignty. I emphasize the words he used on Canadian
sovereignty and the membership in this by all sovereignists
together in a united Canada. I do not know if he meant it, but that is
the way it came across to me. I thank him for that support. We are
all working toward it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member
took what said that way, because that is not at all what I meant. I
even stated in my speech that Canada should not consider
preserving its sovereignty, or so-called territorial integrity, all by
itself. I had no such thing in mind. What the parliamentary
secretary was suggesting is that, deep down in my speech, one
could read that I stood for Canadian unity. Far be it from me to
address constitutional issues while dealing with the NORAD
agreement. I was speaking as a citizen of Quebec, of Canada and of
North America.
I regret that, in a discussion of capital importance in my view,
elements of a political game are introduced that do not have their
place in considering an international agreement like this one. I
would suggest that the parliamentary secretary keep his digs for our
upcoming discussions at the defence committee.
510
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle.
[Translation]
I perused the opposition member's statement on sovereignty.
[English]
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the
renewal of the North American aerospace defence command, or
NORAD agreement. NORAD has been one of the pillars of the
Canadian-American defence relationship for nearly 40 years. It
symbolizes the long tradition of friendship and co-operation which
exists between Canada and the United States.
Throughout the cold war NORAD provided our countries with
effective means of defending the North American continent against
possible air attack. It also proved to be a highly flexible agreement
adapting to meet new threats. I will take this opportunity to trace
the evolution of NORAD and in particular to discuss the ways it
evolved to meet today's challenges.
With this new agreement the government will equip NORAD to
deal with new domestic and international circumstances while at
the same time preserving the benefits of our longstanding
co-operation with the United States in the aerospace defence field.
[Translation]
After the second world war, the cold war gave rise to a new
threat, that of an intercontinental bomber force capable of
launching a nuclear attack on North America.
That is what prompted Canada and the United States to deploy
forces to counter this threat. However, the level of co-operation
between the our two countries in terms of continental air defence
remained limited for some years.
Things changed in 1958, with the signing of the NORAD
agreement, which integrated Canadian and American air defence
resources.
(1250)
Our governments had come to recognize that it was much more
efficient and effective to work together to ensure air defence. And
they still think so.
[English]
Over the years the original mission of NORAD which was to
control entry into sovereign air space, to provide a warning of
attack and to respond to the attack if necessary, has been modified
to keep pace with the changing weapons technologies. From 1958
to 1962 NORAD focused on defending against bombers. NORAD
employed American and Canadian interceptor aircraft, American
air defence artillery and Canadian based surface to air missiles. Our
collective radar resources at the time consisted of the Canadian
based distance early warning, mid-Canada and pinetree lines as
well as some United States based radar systems.
In 1962 as the superpowers kicked their ballistic missile
programs into high gear, NORAD adjusted its operational posture
to that of deterrence. Although NORAD still had to contend with
the bomber threat, its main focus shifted to missile warning, space
intelligence and target identification. The mid-Canada line was
dismantled and the pinetree line and the United States radar
systems were reduced. As well, the number of American and
Canadian interceptor aircraft were reduced from 1,600 to 500.
[Translation]
In the 1980s, the development of cruise missiles that could be
launched from aircraft or submarines once again changed the
nature of the threat hanging over North America. At the operational
level, NORAD continued to put the emphasis on the same
elements, but it made some changes regarding the deployment of
its forces.
For example, forward operating locations in Canada's north were
organized so that NORAD's airplanes could intercept cruise
missile carrying aircraft before they could launch their missiles.
[English]
It was also during this period in 1981 that NORAD changed its
name from North American Air Defence Command to the North
American Aerospace Defence Command, reflecting the new
emphasis on the space based satellites to warn against missiles.
At the end of the cold war NORAD has entered yet another stage
in its development. The end of the superpower rivalry lifted the
shadow of a nuclear Armageddon and for now eliminated the threat
of attack against the North American continent. But the new
strategic environment remains far from stable. Weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery still exist and their
proliferation especially among rogue states could in time pose a
major threat to North America. Facing an uncertain future, we
cannot afford to let down our guard completely. NORAD therefore
still has a role to play in preserving our security.
[Translation]
Under the new agreement, giving the alert in case of an
aerospace attack against North America will continue to be
NORAD's main mission, along with the surveillance and control of
North America's air space, including legal and illegal air traffic.
NORAD must also continue to evolve, and the new agreement will
ensure that it is the case.
511
[English]
Canada and the United States have already decided to reduce
operating levels for air defence and ground based radar
surveillance for our northern approaches. However we will
maintain the capability to conduct the appropriate levels of
operations at full readiness should the need arise.
(1255)
Should a strategic threat to the continent arise in the future, we
will have enough equipment, infrastructure and expertise to build
up our NORAD forces again. Canada currently contributes 720
personnel to NORAD as well as a number of CF-18 aircraft on
continuous air sovereignty alert.
NORAD will remain a flexible arrangement that can take on new
roles as circumstances dictate. The new agreement will stress the
importance of close consultation between our two governments as
NORAD moves into the 21st century.
[Translation]
NORAD remains a pillar of North America's security system. It
also remains a highly effective and economical defence agreement.
NORAD was set up almost 40 years ago. Canadian and U.S.
governments still feel that it makes more sense to accomplish
together the missions and the duties of that command.
Since Canada's territory is very wide and since our armed forces
are relatively limited in numbers, it would very difficult for us to
conduct aerospace defence operations alone.
[English]
Although control of our air sovereignty would be possible, air
defence would be difficult. Canada also depends entirely on the
assistance of the United States to provide warning of ballistic
missile attack both at home and in other theatres where Canadians
could be threatened. For example, during the gulf war, Canadians
in the Persian Gulf donned protective gear and gathered in shelters
after receiving warnings based on NORAD assessments of
impending scud missile attacks.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Questions or comments.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is:
Would the member please conclude his remarks.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Speaker, Canada also benefits greatly
from American intelligence, technology and expertise, all of which
help us maintain essential military capabilities. We must not forget
that NORAD is a cost effective exercise for Canada.
[Translation]
Our annual contribution to NORAD is only 10 per cent of total
costs. Should it decide to assume alone its aerospace defence, the
costs to Canada would be prohibitive.
Moreover, only 12 per cent of NORAD's total operation costs are
related to headquarters. The rest is directly related to NORAD's
operational activities. In other words, NORAD uses its resources
efficiently.
[English]
In conclusion, shared values and interests have made Canada and
the United States trusted friends and allies. Our defence partnership
stands out in this respect. Our defence relations have been close
and always successful. NORAD is a case in point. The challenge of
co-ordinating activities of two air forces against a wide range of
threats has never been easy but NORAD has proven equal to the
task.
NORAD's success can be traced above all to its flexibility.
Although its basic objectives have endured over the years, NORAD
has responded to an evolving strategic assessment. Canadian forces
personnel associated with NORAD have performed an essential
national service over the years with skill and dedication. This new
agreement gives them the opportunity to continue this service.
(1300)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to take part in this
debate on the importance of NORAD. I want to share a few salient
points about NORAD with my distinguished parliamentary
colleagues.
NORAD was set up about 39 years ago to provide for common
air defence of North America. The first NORAD agreement was
concluded in 1958, that is in the year following the creation of the
command.
At first, NORAD was organized in such a way as to counter the
threat posed by Soviet bombers, but it evolved over the years in
response to the transformation of the strategic context.
In the early sixties, NORAD had to develop warning capabilities
against intercontinental ballistic missiles, to add to the capabilities
against long range aircraft that were already in place. Those were
the main threats during the sixties and the seventies. However, the
introduction of sophisticated cruise missiles in the Soviet military
arsenal led to other adjustments in the defence capabilities of
NORAD in the eighties.
As NORAD adapted to the changing threat, its facilities and its
infrastructure were changed. Thus the old radar facilities were
replaced or closed down, operations centres were regrouped and
512
the number of aircraft available to NORAD was considerably
reduced.
Thanks to such adjustments, NORAD has been able to retain its
operational and financial efficiency and effectiveness, because the
command continually adjusted to new developments.
NORAD is well known for its flexibility, efficiency, and
effectiveness, and it still serves the security interests of both
countries very well. Without NORAD, it would be difficult if not
impossible to protect these interests. These elements still have an
important role to play, as was evident in discussions on the renewal
of the agreement in 1996.
The command and control structure of NORAD has also
developed over the years into the integrated structure we now have.
Representatives of both countries are found at all levels of that
structure. This means that Canadians and Americans work in close
co-operation at all levels of the NORAD organization in both
countries.
NORAD headquarters are located in Colorado Springs,
Colorado. The commander-in-chief is an American general, and
the deputy commander-in-chief is a lieutenant-general of the
Canadian forces.
There are also three regional headquarters. One is in the Alaska
region of NORAD, at Elmendorf air force base, near Anchorage,
Alaska. The headquarters of the Canadian region are located at the
base of the 22nd wing in North Bay. Finally, the headquarters for
continental U.S.A. are at Tyndall air force base, Florida.
Regional headquarters in the United States are under the
command of American major-generals. Canadian
brigadier-generals act as deputy commanding officers: the
Canadian sector is commanded by a Canadian major-general and
an American brigadier-general acts as deputy.
Although the NORAD agreement has been renewed every five
years, the text of the agreement has not been revised since 1981.
The objectives mentioned in the 1981 agreement were taken from
the 1975 renewed agreement. This means that these objectives are
now more than 20 years old.
(1305)
The objectives are to help each country protect the sovereignty
of its airspace, including the fight against drug trafficking; to
prevent attacks against North America by maintaining our
capabilities in aerospace surveillance, early warning,
characterization of aerospace attacks and defense against air
attacks.
The special joint committees on the defence policy and the
foreign policy of Canada both examined the issue of future
Canadian participation in NORAD. It was recommended that
Canada continue to participate in NORAD, in consultations on the
renewal of the NORAD agreement and in policy analyses. It is not
surprising that the 1994 white paper on defence also reflected this
point of view.
Even though most Canadians take NORAD for granted, it is
worth pointing out all the benefits Canada derives from its role in
the command. NORAD is first and foremost the principal
institution protecting Canada's air sovereignty. If it were not a
member of NORAD, Canada would have to spend considerable
sums of money on command and control resources, satellites and
aircraft for protection similar to the one provided by this
organization.
Canada assumes approximately 10 per cent of total operating
costs of NORAD, and it would be quite difficult to find a more cost
effective arrangement. NORAD also offers other benefits besides
protection of our air space. NORAD could very well have become
the principal symbol of Canada-US co-operation in defence
matters.
NORAD contributes greatly to dialogue and co-operation and
often enables Canada to exercise, in security matters, more
influence than it would be able to otherwise. Besides being
conducive to goodwill, NORAD provides Canada with practical
and measurable benefits.
The sharing of information is one of the most important practical
benefits. Canada enjoys a special relationship with the United
States. As its ally, it is first among its equals. Because of this,
Canada has access to invaluable strategic information from space
based resources that it does not have and does not have the means
to acquire.
Access to advanced technology is another benefit of NORAD.
For example, we took part with the United States in research and
development projects on radars in space. As Canada acquired some
knowledge in the field, it was invited to participate fully in a
United States-United Kingdom technology exchange program on
space based surveillance systems. Generally speaking, our
co-operation with the United States in NORAD allows us to keep
abreast of the latest developments in aerospace.
On the operational level, the Canadian Armed Forces get
significant benefits from their participation in NORAD. Canadian
Forces can really work together with American forces in complex
military situations thanks to the many years of practical experience
they got in joint planning and in NORAD operations.
The professional training the aircrews, air weapons technicians
and air traffic controllers get by participating in NORAD is almost
irreplaceable and it does not compare with the training the
Canadian forces could give on their own. Since our fiscal situation
will remain tight in the near future, the operational benefits we
derive from NORAD will be essential to the maintenance of our
army's skills in aerospace defence.
513
(1310)
The NORAD agreement is undoubtedly the most significant
defence agreement concluded between Canada and the United
States. It has given us many benefits for nearly 40 years et should
continue to do so well after the year 2000, given the changes we
have agreed to make.
Through renewal of the agreement, NORAD will remain a key
component of Canada's defence position. Consequently, it will
allow our country to continue to defend its interests.
Canada's participation in NORAD is clearly beneficial, both in
terms of operations and of economics. Without NORAD, it would
be absolutely impossible for Canada to ensure its aerospace
defence as effectively, even if it continued to devote the same
amount of money to this task.
In brief, NORAD is a good deal for Canada and I support it.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is yet another Liberal pretence of parliamentary consultation
on an important defence issue. There is to be no vote and the
outcome is a foregone conclusion because all parties are on record
as approving the continuation of Canada's participation in the
NORAD agreement.
At the risk of dating myself, I first became involved in NORAD
in 1958, shortly after it came into force. That was an employment
in Quebec at place called Mont Apica and following that to Ontario
and to Vancouver. Over the intervening years I continued a
sporadic involvement in NORAD matters until my final tour in
NORAD at McCord air force base, 25th air division headquarters,
Tacoma, Washington.
I have since been involved in studying NORAD through my
membership on the special joint committee on Canada's defence
policy. In that capacity we looked at NORAD in detail and visited
NORAD headquarters at Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado Springs.
The primary objective of NORAD, of course, is to protect
Canadian and U.S. air space. By maintaining a known and capable
aerospace surveillance we expect and hope to deter attack. If that
deterrent should fail it is the responsibility of NORAD to identify
the threat, to characterize the type of air attack and respond
appropriately by the effective deployment of either Canadian or
American aeroplanes or both.
Obviously with the end of the cold war the situation in NORAD
has changed and there have been ongoing consultations to
incorporate appropriate new postures. Starting in 1994 there have
been studies by various agencies including the Department of
National Defence, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the
Department of International Trade, the American Department of
Defence, the State Department and, as I mentioned a few moments
ago, the special joint committee on Canada's defence policy. It has
also been discussed in the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs and with the Department of Foreign
Affairs and the Department of National Defence.
This had led to a unanimous endorsement of Canada's continued
participation in NORAD. This agreement is soon to be approved
for a further five years and Reform is and has been on record as
supporting NORAD.
This is a good deal. Canada's share of the expense in NORAD is
10 per cent of the total cost, about $320 million. It promotes
goodwill between our countries and provides benefits such as
intelligence sharing from which we acquire knowledge.
(1315 )
It gives us access to leading edge technology, not only with the
United States but also with other countries such as the U.K. We
also share research and development activities. This assures
Canada's aerospace sovereignty and provides untold benefits to us.
I say again NORAD is a good deal for Canada.
Speaking of good deals and Canadian sovereignty, what about
the four British Upholder submarines? They are modern. They are
almost new. I understand that two of them have barely been used.
They are capable. Unlike the description that some people give to
them, they are not hunter-killer, they are patrol submarines.
Canada has developed and maintained an expertise that took
years to acquire. Continuing our submarine practice would enable
us to pay our NATO dues to an extent by providing submarines as
targets not only for Canadian but for all NATO forces. Being a
member of the submarine club provides intelligence information
that is of great benefit to Canada. People do not want submarines
running into each other under water, so they advise each other
where their submarines are located.
This acquisition would provide Canada with the ability to patrol
both coasts, which is something we cannot do full time at the
present time. With the advent of air independent propulsion or AIP,
these submarines would provide an under ice capability which
would answer a lot of critics who look at the northern waters and
say Canada can do nothing about them. This is not a nuclear
capability. It is in the vicinity 14 days submerged but it would
provide the ability for Canadian submarines to transit the
Northwest Passage and certainly to seek out anyone who is there
without permission.
Submarines are cost effective. They have relatively small crews,
about 45 in the Upholder, and they can be sent off for a long time
without having to be replenished.
Submarines are surreptitious and thus they are very effective
against, for instance, ships jettisoning garbage; tankers or
freighters who choose to pump their oily bilge in Canadian waters;
514
foreign fishers in restricted waters; drug smugglers; and illegal
immigrants. In a lot of ways, they are similar to what NORAD
assists Canada in doing.
Furthermore, submarines are effective because when people
know you have them but do not know where they are, they have to
take this into account when they operate. There are well over 600
submarines in use in the world today and more under construction.
Forty-four different countries operate them, countries like Iran or
Libya. They were a factor in the former Yugoslavia. They had five
submarines in that area and we had to take note of them. Most
people are aware that there is an active submarine building
program under way in China.
Because of its effectiveness and economy, the submarine is
really becoming a weapon of choice for a lot of countries. If I might
give one example of the effect it can have, if we go back to the
Falklands, one British submarine tied up the entire Argentinian
fleet by being on patrol outside the harbour. They have an effect
and ability to influence operations far beyond their normal
capacity.
Submarines have been recommended by the special joint
committee on Canada's defence policy and they were included in
the white paper. What we have is a government which lacks
resolution. It has reduced the defence budget by some $800 million
over the following three years but it is prepared to give away $24
million to put a UN force in Haiti rather than recoup the funds from
the UN.
The government is procrastinating unnecessarily and perhaps it
is going to forgo this possessed and needed expertise and
capability. I refer to a statement by the Minister of National
Defence previously when he pointed out that NORAD, an
agreement signed and conducted in peacetime, if it were not
renewed might be difficult to reacquire were we to go to war. I say
the same thing with regard to our submarine expertise. It is
something that has taken many years to acquire and surely we
should not forgo it lightly.
(1320 )
The same questionable judgment is involved in delaying the
maritime helicopter buy. This is a deliberate gamble which will
endanger maritime helicopter crews by extending the time they
have to fly the antiquated Sea King.
It brings the question to mind, is the government deliberately
reducing Canada's military capability to the point where it
becomes ineffective? We know that former Prime Minister Trudeau
was heading that way until he discovered the ill effects it would
have on Canada's trade relations in Europe. Is it a coincidence that
our present Prime Minister was a member of Mr. Trudeau's cabinet
and presumably supported his thrust?
The submarine decision apparently has been left in the hands of
the Prime Minister. I wish I could but I do not have much
confidence in the fair, practical consideration that submarine
acquisition will be given.
We know that one of the Prime Minister's closest advisers, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, thinks the Canadian forces should
become simply peacekeepers, this despite all the evidence which
confirms that the best peacekeeper is a combat capable sailor,
soldier or air crew.
What should happen here is that the good, the needs of Canada
should prevail over politically correct positioning. Despite the
recommendations of the special joint committee on Canada's
defence policy that 66,700 was the absolute minimum to which the
Canadian forces could be reduced without giving up capability, this
government is headed for 60,000, several thousand under the
recommended minimum. It is my position that the recommended
figure was already marginal or too low. Look at what the Liberals
propose to do to the reserves.
Is there a threat to justify NORAD'S continuation? There are
still a great number of ballistic missiles armed with nuclear
warheads that can reach North America. There is a proliferation of
ballistic missile technology and we need to continue to improve
methods of missile event protection, assessment and warning.
Furthermore, the role of space is becoming more important. We
must remember there are still more than 20,000 nuclear weapons in
the world. At present there are about 170 to 200 missile events each
year, half of which are space launches. In comparison, missile
events peaked in the late-1980s at 1,400, but this is still a
substantial number and the technology is improving.
By 2001, which will be the next NORAD renewal, space will
assume an even greater role in aerospace defence. Also, the new
cruise missile technology may lead to a North American threat.
These missiles are becoming smaller and more accurate. They can
be deployed from any number of vehicles, a freighter, a small
aeroplane, a submarine and so on.
Examples of countries that are proceeding with this type of
equipment are North Korea and China, both of whom have a
missile capability to strike Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. We
have seen the flexing of China's muscle recently in the run up to the
Taiwan election.
Peace and global stability are achieved from a position of
strength, deterrence and a balance of power, not through the vain
hope that reasonable positions or responsible actions are likely to
prevail. Any such hope is an illusion.
There has been and still is considerable concern and mistrust
among Central American, South American and Caribbean
countries when it comes to co-operative ventures with the United
States. They have a perception that U.S. interests will overpower
the
515
partnership, resulting in the concerns of smaller states being
ignored or overruled.
However, NORAD, by clearly demonstrating that an effective,
considerate and balanced partnership can exist between the only
remaining superpower and a relatively small-at least in
population-neighbour is an example that a security organization
like NATO has become in Europe could be possible within the
Americas. Thus NORAD could be the basis from which an
Americas defence security organization emerges.
OAS, the Organization of American States, would seem to be the
logical genesis for such an organization. However, my admittedly
limited exposure to the OAS has revealed that the apprehension I
referred to earlier is embedded in that body. Whether there is or
will be a perceived need for an Americas defence security
organization, I do not know. However, I do know that if an example
of balanced and co-operative partnership between the U.S. and a
smaller, much less powerful state is required, NORAD provides
that example.
(1325)
In conclusion, NORAD has been and is a success story in which
it is in Canada's best interests to continue participation.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a
couple of remarks about the speech that was made by my friend
from Saanich-Gulf Islands.
First, since it has occurred twice now in the debate with respect
to America's defences, not just North America but South America,
I should tell the hon. member that Mr. Perry, my counterpart in the
United States, convened a meeting of all defence ministers of the
Americas for the first time in Williamsburg last October. A second
meeting will be held later this year. We are starting to develop links
with those countries through trade. Therefore, it is natural that
security questions should be discussed also.
Second, I want to take note of the hon. member's criticism of my
colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, whom he alleges has
said that the defence forces of Canada exist solely for
peacekeeping. That was not what the minister said and the hon.
member knows that is not true.
The fact is that peacekeeping is the most visible portion of our
defence effort because we have been involved in so many
peacekeeping efforts. The participation in IFOR in the last couple
of months, the first NATO force to which I alluded earlier, shows
that there are other bilateral arrangements and engagements in
which we take part.
It is true that many in Canada believe that Canadian defence
forces should be relegated solely to peacekeeping. Those people
are wrong. Canada has armed forces for: first, domestic assistance
to the civil authority; second, in defence of sovereignty, which is
what we are talking about today with NORAD; and third, the
involvement in multilateral assignments, most of which have been
the UN but it is not exclusively so.
Last, I would just like to comment on the hon. member's
continual reference to expenditure cuts in the defence budget which
he is tying into the NORAD debate. I find it somewhat odd that
Reform Party members, who have campaigned for the last few
years on slashing the deficit and have chastised the Minister of
Finance for not going fast enough, are being somewhat selective.
When they do not like expenditure cuts in certain areas they then
have some other justification for their position. We saw this in their
defence of social programs when we know the Reform Party is out
to demolish social programs. There is a bit of incoherence here.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his
intervention.
I am delighted to hear there has been some ongoing consultation
with American defence ministers with regard to the establishment
of a defence/security mechanism for the Americas. I hope that my
reference to the NORAD example as being a workable indication
that this will suit people will be taken forward.
With regard to the comments about Reform's budget cutting
policies, what we say is that if a capacity is required then it should
be provided. If it cannot be provided as an adequate capacity then it
is not worthwhile supporting. The money should go where it is
needed and there should be sufficient funds to make it work
properly.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Otherwise, why do it?
Mr. Frazer: When the minister referred to the Reform position
on social policies, he is forgetting what was said during the
campaign. We said that the biggest single threat to social policies in
Canada is the interest payments on the debt. That is exactly where
we are right now. Since this government came into power, $10
billion extra is being paid out in interest on the debt which will hit
over $600 billion this year. That is what is endangering our social
policies and that is all.
Reform would again examine them and would focus its support
on the people who really need it. That is not slashing, that is not
demolishing, that is being sensible and forthright.
(1330 )
Mr. Collenette Mr. Speaker, he had an eloquent defence of his
party's policy, but he talks about the interest on the debt. Obviously
the interest on the debt is something that concerns us on this side of
the House.
516
How does he plan to deal with that problem if he is advocating
that we do not make expenditure cuts in operations? Defence is
one of the largest operating departments.
If we had not cut defence by the amount that was in the budget
last week, can he tell us where the Reform Party would have got the
money to deal with this problem?
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister would take the
time to read the taxpayers' budget, he would find out where those
cuts were. He would also be aware that this time next year we
would be debating what to do with the small surplus that would be
forthcoming as a result of implementing that budget, not looking at
another $24 billion down the drain including interest charges and
cutting into social programs.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with another member.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the
importance of NORAD and to share some perspective with my hon.
colleagues on the value derived from NORAD's agreement,
naturally on behalf of the people of Victoria-Haliburton.
A 1994 review by the auditor general showed the Department of
Defence was the largest body in government with 33,000 civilians,
77,000 regular personnel and 30,000 reserves. They have been
faced since that time with CAP growth and yet have participated in
unusually high levels of military operations; recently in the gulf
war and engagements in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and even
the Oka crisis. We have every reason to be very proud of our
military personnel.
Since the end of the cold war the North American Aerospace
Defence Command, NORAD, and the Canadian NORAD region,
CANR, have undergone numerous changes to respond
appropriately to the changing threat to North America.
Although change has been part of NORAD's evolution since its
inception in 1957, recent political developments have been
especially dramatic and significant. The response by NORAD
demonstrates its commitment to providing effective and efficient
aerospace defence for both Canada and the United States.
The foundation for NORAD was laid prior to the cold war when
Canada and the United States joined forced to defeat the Axis
powers of Europe and Japan. The August 1940 Ogdensburg
Declaration formally articulated for the first time the concept of
joint Canadian and American defence.
Following the second world war in February 1947 both Ottawa
and Washington announced the principles for future military
co-operation including air defence.
In 1954 the Royal Canadian Air Force chief of staff, Air
Marshall C. Roy Slemon, held formal discussions with the
commander of the United States air defence command, General
Earle E. Partridge. They concluded that air defence for both
countries could be best provided by a single organization with one
command.
On August 1, 1957 the Canadian minister of national defence
and the American secretary of defence announced the binational
agreement for an integrated air defence command based in
Colorado Springs, Colorado. NORAD was inaugurated as a
command on September 12, 1957.
The first NORAD agreement was signed by the two countries on
May 12, 1958 and has been renewed or extended seven times since.
The current agreement will expire in May 1996. Today NORAD
continues to assist each nation to safeguard the sovereignty of its
air space, to contribute to deterrents by providing an aerospace
surveillance capacity, to ensure threat evaluation and attack
warning and to plan for an appropriate response to attack should
deterrence fail.
Though each of these missions was born in the cold war,
NORAD's mission emphasis has shifted significantly to adjust to
changes in the strategic situation.
(1335)
The air sovereignty mission has expanded to include south
oriented surveillance and counter-drug operations. The attack
warning mission has changed as well to focus on more accurate
detection of single launches. The air defence postures have relaxed
but the capacity to regenerate forces in a timely manner remains a
priority.
Today's focus is clearly on air sovereignty, defined simply as
each nation's right and responsibility to control the air space above
its territory. Although air sovereignty is a national and not
exclusively a military undertaking NORAD, provides Canada with
an effective and efficient mechanism to monitor and control air
space.
Surveillance systems detect, identify and track unknown aircraft
approaching and/or entering Canadian air space. From January
1992 until October 1994 there were 1,624 unknown aircraft
detected throughout NORAD. Historically Canadian NORAD
regions account for 19 per cent of all NORAD's unknowns, 10 per
cent in eastern Canada and 9 per cent in western Canada. When
necessary, armed fighters are scrambled to intercept, identify and
escort these unknown aircraft.
Counter-drug operations are a classic example of the air
sovereignty mission. Although a small component of the entire air
sovereignty mission, they are vital to the security interests of both
countries and illustrate how well NORAD and Canadian NORAD
regions have adjusted to emerging threats and changing national
priorities.
517
The May 1991 renewal of the NORAD agreement included
surveillance and monitoring of aircraft suspected of smuggling
drugs as part of NORAD's mission. NORAD's goal is to end
undetected and unchallenged air trafficking of illegal drugs into
North America. To achieve this goal NORAD and Canadian
NORAD regions have surveillance and alert forced capable of
responding to aerial trafficking. They also have improved
communication and co-ordination procedures with drug law
enforcement agencies.
Canadian NORAD's regional forces have been drastically
reduced and restructured to meet today's threat. The emergence of
a new threat in the form of air launched and sea launched cruise
missiles in the 1980s lead to sweeping changes in NORAD's
surveillance systems.
An agreement authorizing extensive upgrading and
modernization of air defence systems was reached by the Canadian
and American governments in March 1985. The result was the
North American air defence modernization project. This project
replaced the antiquated distant early warning line and the north
warning system comprising 54 modern radar sights stretching from
the west coast of Alaska across Canada's Arctic mainland, and then
along the east coast through Labrador.
Eleven sights located in Canada have long range radars and 36
short range radars fill gaps and provide improved small target
detection. Additionally, four Canadian coastal radars provide long
range coverage on Canada's east and west coasts.
Another part of NORAD's improvements to its surveillance
capability is the ballistic missile early warning system. This system
includes sights located in Flyingdales, United Kingdom, Thule,
Greenland and Clear, Alaska. The Thule system in Greenland was
upgraded in 1987. The Flyingdales site was upgraded to provide
360 degree coverage for all of Europe and North Africa in 1992.
Canadian fighter forces have also been adjusted to match today's
situation. At the end of the cold war in 1989 Canada had seven
operational squadrons. These squadrons were available for
immediate deployment and ready to fight on arrival. Today there
are four squadrons and training levels have been reduced to the
extent that it would require several days of training, depending on
the tasking, before any of the squadrons could deploy and be
combat ready in a specific theatre.
The benefits and membership of NORAD are outstanding.
Standardizing equipment among members is probably one of the
leading ones. Having a structure in place during peace time is a
lesson we should take from our immediate histories. Situations like
the gulf war and desert storm must keep us on alert and in readiness
mode for our own protection.
(1340 )
Leading edge technology and space based technology are also
another large part of the advantages of NORAD. It is the single
most important agreement between Canada and the United States.
Another part is environmental protection; radar sites for the
protection of our lands and the animals that populate the areas in
question.
Last year the president of the United States and the Prime
Minister of Canada renewed their commitment to NORAD.
We have every reason to take a hard look at the defence budgets
and adjust them to the times we are in. As I stated, in a 1994 review
by the auditor general, our defence indicated 33,000 civilians,
77,000 regular personnel and 30,000 reserves; this with a capped
growth, and yet they have participated in unusually high numbers
of engagements with success have served our country proud.
We have every reason to be proud of our military personnel and
the role they play in NORAD.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask my colleague whether in his opinion NORAD is a good deal for
Canada.
Mr. O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary
for the question. I indicated the benefits to Canada for a DND
budget of $320 million as probably one of the least expensive
agreements any nation could have with the United States.
Though there is a crisis in Cuba right now and that Canada is
having some differences there, I still think that 99 per cent of the
agreements Canada has with the United States, the giant to the
south, are excellent agreements and this is one of them. Although
minuscule problems do occur, they can be solved with this type of
agreement in place.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure for me to participate in the debate today. It is a double
pleasure because the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and the Minister of National Defence gave me the honour
of chairman of the Canadian section of the Permanent Joint Board
on Defence between Canada and the United States.
This Permanent Joint Board on Defence was formed through a
meeting of Prime Minister Mackenzie King and President
Roosevelt at Ogdensburg, New York on August 18, 1940. They
came out with a joint statement issuing the announcement of this
permanent joint board. That board has been meeting since 1940,
sometimes more than twice a year. Now it is twice a year with one
meeting in
518
Canada and one in the United States. The last meeting of the
Permanent Joint Board on Defence was in Kingston on October 10
to 12, 1995. The 197th meeting will be held in the first week of
April in the United States. I am the Canadian chair and Dwight
Mason is the chairman of the U.S. section. He reports to President
Clinton and I report to the Prime Minister of Canada.
It is at those meetings that we did discuss the renewal of the
NORAD agreement. Is it okay as it is? Is there something lacking
in the agreement that we should build in? We talked about the
inclusion of something about protecting the environment. I am
pleased the Minister of Foreign Affairs already mentioned that if
there is any environmental dispute, it would be referred to the
Permanent Joint Board on Defence between Canada and the United
States.
The NORAD treaty is reflective of the positive and co-operative
relationship that Canada and the United States have in so many
areas. Our two countries are linked by defence, a dense web of
common interest in a wide variety of areas. NORAD represents a
highly valuable element of the defence web.
(1345 )
Since both ministers and other speakers before me have already
given the content of the NORAD agreement, I would like to take
this time to show how our two countries co-operate in other areas
for the defence and security of our two countries, for example in
the environment, energy and transportation.
Our two countries are stewards of much of the North American
environment. Our mutual care of this environment is a model for
the world. Our bilateral environmental relations are marked by a
high degree of co-operation. Geography has made joint action and
sensitivity to the rights and needs of each other a matter of both
necessity and common sense.
Canada and the United States share a border close to 9,000
kilometres along over 300 rivers and lakes. Wildlife migrates back
and forth across this border and air currents flow in both directions.
To a significant degree, each country depends on the other to ensure
that the great wealth of natural resources each possesses is
managed in a sustainable fashion and that a high level of
environmental quality is provided to its citizens.
Over the years a dynamic and multifaceted legal institutional
framework for managing our shared environmental resources has
evolved. This framework consists of both formal and informal
arrangements.
At the formal level the oldest mechanism is the boundary waters
treaty negotiated way back in 1909 between the United States and
Great Britain on behalf of Canada. This treaty established the legal
framework for the use and management of transboundary waters by
the two countries. It created the International Joint Commission to
prevent and resolve disputes. The commission has earned an
international reputation for its handling of transboundary
environmental issues in an independent, objective and collegial
manner.
The treaty is a remarkable document which, to the credit of those
who drafted it, has withstood the test of time. Among its notable
provisions are those giving each country equal rights to the use of
boundary waters and prohibiting the pollution of these waters by
either country.
The 1991 air quality agreement provides a forward looking
framework for addressing transboundary air quality issues and for
establishing new commitments to control other transboundary air
pollution problems in the future.
Other important agreements include the 1916 migratory birds
convention, which is one of the oldest and most effective
conservation treaties in North America, and the 1986 North
American waterfowl management plan, which aims to restore
continental migratory waterfowl populations.
In addition there is the 1978 Great Lakes water quality
agreement. This agreement is perhaps the best example of
constructive Canada-U.S. co-operation on environmental issues.
First signed in 1972, the agreement provides a framework for
cleaning up our most significant shared resource. Although more
work needs to be done particularly in eliminating the input of
persistent toxic substances, great strides have been made in
restoring the lakes to an acceptable level of quality for the benefit
of citizens on both sides of the border.
In addition to formal arrangements, there is a network of
informal ad hoc linkages between various levels and departments
of our two governments. Co-operative arrangements have also been
forged between our provinces and the state governments in the
U.S.A. The provinces are of special importance in the
environmental area due to the significant responsibilities they have
for natural resources and environmental management. Just as
Canada and the United States must work together on environmental
issues, so too must the federal and provincial governments.
An additional and valuable component of the Canada-United
States environmental relationship is the many linkages that have
been developed between environmental interest groups and
between business and industry in both countries.
What this myriad of formal and informal linkages have in
common is the recognition that air, water and wildlife do not stop at
national borders. A case in point is the situation of the Porcupine
caribou herd which is crucial to the life and livelihood of Canadian
aboriginal communities. In a 1987 agreement Canada and the
United States recognized that this herd is a shared resource. As a
result, both governments are concerned about any plans that would
cause harm to the herd's main calving grounds in Alaska.
519
(1350)
It is important to note in this debate on the NORAD renewal that
the new NORAD agreement will include a clause that provides for
Canada-U.S. discussions of the environmental implications of
NORAD operations. This underscores that sound environmental
relations between Canada and the United States have become an
important dimension in all areas of the bilateral relationship. It also
underscores the recognition of the need to address in a consistent
manner north and south of the border the environmental
implications of joint defence activities. As I mentioned, the
minister already mentioned in his remarks what happens if there is
an environmental dispute when we are co-operating in NORAD
exercises and activities.
Moving to the energy sector, Canada and the United States have
a co-operative relationship which has benefited both countries for
many years. Our energy relationship is governed by the principles
of deregulation and non-discrimination within the framework of
NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. That is why I do not
think we should get too uptight when Jesse Helms tries to pass
legislation in the United States which affects Canadian businesses.
We do have the NAFTA rules to go to and we have the World Trade
Organization rules to refer to.
The success of Canada's oil and gas export industry in the United
States is impressive by any standard. Canada is one of the United
States' leading oil suppliers. Our current oil exports of one million
barrels per day could increase as new developments such as the
Hibernia field come on stream. Canadian natural gas now
represents some 12 per cent of the U.S. market. Opportunities
should grow as Canada's dynamic petroleum producing and
pipeline companies continue to work closely with their U.S.
partners.
Canada and the U.S. have a long history of electricity trade
dating back to the first export of Niagara Falls power in 1901. We
co-operate very closely on power issues within the context of the
Niagara River treaty and the Columbia River treaty. Today
Canadian provincial utilities export well over $1 billion in
electricity to the U.S.A. However, we face important challenges in
the coming years and I will briefly refer to some of them.
The U.S. electricity industry is now undergoing deregulation and
restructuring. Current U.S. proposals may require Canadian
electricity exporters to offer open access transmission in Canada if
they wish to receive similar access in the U.S. The Canadian
electricity industry and the Canadian government generally
welcome new U.S. market opportunities offered by deregulation.
However, the structure of the Canadian industry is different from
that of the United States, with a small number of very large
publicly owned utilities and provincial jurisdiction over electricity
generation and distribution.
Canada too is moving toward electricity deregulation, but the
pace of change in Canada may be different. We will work with the
U.S. to ensure its co-operation in continuing our strong bilateral
relationship during the transition. Together, Canada and the United
States are putting in place advanced efficient energy systems that
facilitate economic growth in both countries.
In the bilateral transportation area, NAFTA and open skies have
expanded Canada-U.S. commerce and tourism tremendously. For
example, Canada and the U.S. now trade $1 billion Canadian per
day and open skies has helped Canadian Airlines International
increase its transborder passenger traffic by 84 per cent. Air
Canada traffic grew by 24 per cent. Last year more than one million
people crossed the Canada-U.S. border.
These accomplishments put new stresses on the border however
at a time of decreasing government resources for staff and
infrastructure on both sides of the border. In response to the new
realities of border management, Canada and the U.S.A. announced
the accord on our shared border during President Clinton's
February 1995 visit to Ottawa. This is a significant achievement.
(1355)
The border accord is an agreement between the Canadian and
U.S. border inspection agencies to jointly modernize and improve
border management. The border accord functions as an umbrella
agreement for various individual initiatives.
For individual travellers the CANPASS/INSPASS programs at
airports and CANPASS/PORTPASS on highways allow frequent
travellers to cross the border via special lanes. Rather than face a
customs or immigration officer, travellers pass through an
automated gate that is activated by a personal identifier such as a
fingerprint or hand geometry. Duties can be paid by credit card.
CANPASS is now available when entering Canada at the two
highway crossings in B.C. and at the Vancouver airport. It is
expected at all of the Pearson terminals, Dorval and Mirabel by the
fall of 1996.
For commercial traffic, the NAFTA prototype will harmonize
border documents and procedures in all NAFTA countries.
Documentation will be shared electronically. New transponder
technology will read electronic signals from properly documented
trucks and allow them to cross the border without stopping. A
prototype of this system is expected to be on line at Buffalo-Fort
Erie this year.
Canada and the U.S.A. also co-operate on preclearance services.
For example, since the 1950s air preclearance in Canadian airports
has allowed U.S. customs and immigration officers to preclear U.S.
bound passengers into the U.S.A. before crossing the border giving
Canada based travellers direct access to the huge U.S. air network.
520
In the autumn of 1995 Canada and the U.S.A. agreed to extend
preclearance services to the Ottawa airport. The U.S.A. is
considering establishing preclearance services at Halifax. Other
U.S. preclearance services are provided for the Vancouver-Seattle
train service and for ferries travelling between B.C., Washington
and Alaska.
When we look at the NORAD renewal we should not only be
looking at that one agreement between our two countries. We
should look at the whole mass of treaties and agreements we have
to demonstrate to the world how our two countries live together in
peace and harmony. We live together taking into account that air
currents and water currents do not stop at a border; they travel back
and forth. And so with our defence and with our security we must
also look at the defence and security of North America.
The Speaker: I believe that terminates the member's time for
the debate.
[Translation]
It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
_____________________________________________
520
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over 800 volunteers and 51,000 fans enjoyed the display
of superb curling at the recent Scott Tournament of Hearts, our
annual Canadian curling championships held in the great city of
Thunder Bay, Ontario. The enthusiasm and commitment of all
combined to make Thunder Bay the warmest city in Canada despite
what the thermometer may have read.
This year's winning foursome came from St. Catharines, Ontario
and consisted of Marilyn Bodogh, Jane Hooper-Perroud, Corie
Beveridge and Kim Gellard. A capacity crowd saw the Ontario
team post a 7 to 4 win over Alberta. It was truly an exciting eight
days worth of curling.
Thank you Thunder Bay for a job well done.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise in the House to salute the members of the South Alberta Light
Horse Reserve Regiment and the contributions they have made to
the community of Medicine Hat and indeed their country.
This proud regiment and its predecessors have participated in the
Northwest Canada Rebellion of 1885, the first and second world
wars, the Korean conflict and many of Canada's peacekeeping
obligations around the world. Members serving in the regiment
have been awarded numerous and impressive medals and
decorations for their dedicated and selfless contribution to
Canada's military campaigns.
The government's attempt to cut the defence budget on the backs
of cost effective reserve units will sever the link between the
Canadian Armed Forces and local communities and undermine the
glorious contributions of reservists across the country. Instead, the
reserves should be bolstered by directing savings from the bloated
civilian and military bureaucracies to combat personnel and
equipment.
The South Alberta Light Horse Reserve has an outstanding
history. Our nation has benefited from the service and sacrifice of
these men and women who have served Canada well. The
government should preserve, not obliterate their presence.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responded to
recommendations coming from recent meetings between
representatives of Scotia-Fundy fisheries organizations and senior
DFO officials in Dartmouth. As a result, I am happy to report that
all offices in southwest Nova Scotia have now been vacated.
I would like to commend the minister for endorsing the
consensus recommendations and his commitment to seeking
resolution where agreement was not reached.
The minister has shown that he is willing to listen to the
concerns of fishermen and to continue to work toward resolution on
the more contentious issues.
Because of concerns expressed to me by fishermen, I have been
recommending for months that the core criteria be revised to
include fishermen who have 75 per cent of their earned income
from fishing which will include many small handline fishermen.
The minister's commitment to this change is very important.
While not all of the issues were resolved, I am pleased by the
amount of consensus coming from the meetings. It shows that a
free flow of dialogue between the fishermen and the department
can lead to new agreements and a better working relationship. I
commend all who were involved for their patience and flexibility.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Acadia Axemen from my riding of Annapolis
Valley-Hants are once again the national champions.
521
Last night in Toronto the Acadia men's hockey team showed
tremendous determination in the CIAU final against Waterloo and
came away with a thrilling 3-2 victory. Combining their speed and
quickness with a total team effort, Acadia was unstoppable in its
quest for its second national title in four years.
Goals from Paul Doherty, Wade Whitten and Christian Skoryna,
combined with a stellar goaltending performance from rookie
Trevor Amundrud, proved to be the difference in this game.
I want to pass on my congratulations to the players, the coaching
staff, Acadia University, and, of course, the hundreds of fans who
travelled to Toronto to cheer Acadia to victory.
Last night the Acadia Axemen proved that they are truly a cut
above the rest.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in keeping
with the federal strategy aimed at raising one million Canadian
flags before the end of the year, the Minister of Canadian Heritage
is strongly suggesting that Quebec summer festivals receiving
grants from the federal government increase its visibility on their
sites.
How many additional millions is this going to cost Quebec
taxpayers, when the federal government already spent at least $16
million to promote the Canadian identity during the 1995 Quebec
referendum campaign?
I would ask the Prime Minister who is known to have
condemned those he considered excessive devotees of the ``flag on
the hood'', to remind the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage that moderation tastes better.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year
125 employees at Radio Canada International were served notice
that RCI was to be terminated 20 days from today, on March 31.
No specific provision for public funding of RCI is contained in
the government spending estimates tabled last Thursday. The
heritage minister is making noises about continuing RCI but has
given no indication that she is prepared to look at alternative
funding through commercialization.
The minister is seeking out Canadian business financial support
for her flag program. Why can the minister not use these contacts
to seek support for RCI? She should give the employees a chance to
prove that RCI is a viable enterprise that can sustain itself on
corporate advertising. If the government is so confident in the
private sector's ability to create jobs, let us see it happen.
I challenge the heritage minister to announce today that she is
seeking advice and corporate support for the privatization of RCI
rather than the traditional tax and spend Liberal approach that has
driven the country to its knees.
(1405 )
By the way, speaking of people on their knees, when is she going
to tell the RCI employees whether or not they have a job on April
1?
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
weekend at the Max Bell Centre at the University of Manitoba a
young man came second in an 800-metre race.
This would not be such a remarkable event except for the fact
that less than a year ago this young man was a star hurdler. He was
run off the road in an act of violence and rendered a paraplegic.
Rather than giving up, he has worked very hard training over this
past year. After entering his first wheelchair race last week, he
came second.
We are all very proud of Tyler Keith and we hope he keeps it up.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and enthusiasm that yesterday I
joined millions of Canadians in watching Jacques Villeneuve, the
Quebec race car driver, compete in his first formula 1 event.
This race, which took place in Melbourne, Australia, made it
possible for the rest of the world to discover what Quebecers and
Canadians have known for a long time: Jacques Villeneuve is one
of the greatest race car drivers in the world. We are convinced that,
without an unfortunate mechanical problem, Jacques Villeneuve
would have started his promising Formula 1 career from the top
step of the podium.
On behalf of my colleagues in this House, I congratulate Jacques
Villeneuve for his talent and determination. He makes his country
proud.
* * *
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, saturday
evening, the eyes of all sports fans in Quebec and Canada were
riveted to their TV sets. Even sportswriters who were at the
Montreal Forum to cover the game between the Canadians and the
Senators were watching TV. All of them wanted to see Jacques
522
Villeneuve perform in his first Formula 1 race in Melbourne,
Australia.
Jacques Villeneuve started from the pole position. Already this is
a feat for a beginner in Formula 1. He led throughout the race but,
because of mechanical problems, he had to leave that position only
5 laps before the end. He has shown everybody that he really is to
be taken seriously in the Formula 1 racing. He still has to run
several races before this summer, but he will be in Montreal on
June 16 and we will be very glad to see him race on the
Gilles-Villeneuve circuit. Congratulations, Jacques, on your
performance.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent
budget of the finance minister has proven very simply and
effectively that the Canadian government is listening and is
responsive to the provinces' needs. We all remember that, last year,
when our government announced the creation of the Canada health
and social transfer, several provinces, including Quebec, worried
about a possible decrease in funding.
In reply to that legitimate concern and in order to reassure people
on the future of health, post-secondary education and welfare
programs, our government promised to maintain the level of
funding of that program for five years. This is further evidence of
this government's commitment towards the development of a true
partnership with all the provinces.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week's budget brought welcome changes to the
taxation of child support. The finance minister, working in
conjunction with his counterparts in justice, human resources
development, the status of women and internal revenue, announced
a comprehensive plan which will result in fairer tax treatment of
child support payments, more equitable and consistent child
support awards, and improved enforcement mechanisms.
At the heart of these initiatives are the needs of the child. While
it took government action to bring about the legal changes, it was
as a result of the parents, generally mothers raising their children
alone, who pushed this issue forward, Suzanne Thibaudeau's court
challenge to a law she felt treated her unfairly; my colleague, the
member for Nepean whose private member's bill focused attention
on this topic; and the member for Westmount whose leadership
articulated the needs of many witnesses who appeared before us.
Finally, the loudest praise is for the thousands of custodial
parents who have lived with the former system, for whom this issue
was not an interesting legal point but grim reality which hit them
every time there was not enough money for the extras, or even the
necessities.
It was emotionally draining and difficult for many not used to
expressing themselves forcefully or in public. But still they came
and our hat is off to them.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to draw the attention of the
House to the fact that the government has yet to take a stand with
respect to the tensions between Taiwan and China.
Our nation is famous around the world in assisting with dispute
resolution among nations. What are the Liberals doing to prevent a
further increase in tensions? Already free movement in shipping
lanes has been impeded. Trade throughout the Asia Pacific region
has been disrupted.
The lack of Liberal leadership could tarnish Canada's hard
earned international reputation. Canada must demonstrate
leadership before conflict breaks out. The Liberals have no
constructive policy, nothing to offer to help alleviate the tensions
between Taiwan and China. Under the chaotic command of the
Liberals, Canada's defence policy, foreign affairs policy, and
international trade policy are in conflict.
This government should offer to help broker a resolution
between Taiwan and China.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the 1996 federal budget is the same old Liberal approach. It has
ignored poor and middle class Canadians.
This budget is the same old Liberal policy that cuts social
programs. Canadians will see less services and higher taxes as the
provinces struggle to deal with massive social program funding
cuts. Saskatchewan alone will lose $110 per capita.
It is the same old Liberal policy that gives tax breaks to the
wealthy. The Liberals passed Bill S-9 which gives wealthy Cana-
523
dian families tax breaks on U.S. assets and tax credits for donations
to American universities. Meanwhile education funding is cut and
the GST remains.
It is the same old Liberal policy that keeps the unemployment
rate high. It is the same old Liberal policy that ignores small
business. This past year small business created 100 per cent of all
net new jobs in Canada but the budget left them out in the cold.
This budget stays the Liberal course of ignoring the needs of
middle class and poor Canadians, ignoring fair taxation, job
creation and adequate health and education funding.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I
participated in a public hearing held on Prince Edward Island
regarding the future role of Canada Post.
This meeting was organized to provide province-wide input and
discussion on the review of Canada Post, in part because P.E.I. is
being ignored by the review committee set up by the former
minister.
Participants stressed the importance Canada Post plays with
respect to our Canadian heritage when we as a country are
struggling to redefine ourselves. Canada Post is an institution that
operates in many communities throughout Canada. Its continued
existence is essential, especially in rural communities where it
shows the presence of the federal government and provides
services which must be accessible to all Canadians.
I will be sending a summary report to the mandate review
committee but at this stage participants reinforced their support for
the continued existence of Canada Post and all the services it
provides.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
pleased that the throne speech and the budget both mentioned the
necessity of underpinning security and ensuring that social
programs will be in place for future generations of Canadians.
The people of Durham expressed their concern for these
programs, specifically the Canada pension plan, in three town hall
meetings that I held recently.
They were very clear about the general direction of change. Most
understood the shortcomings of the plan and how assumptions
made in 1966 now significantly depart from reality. They wanted
the assurance that changes would not affect those who have already
made their retirement plans, the pensioners that are now receiving
or soon to receive benefits.
They also took exception to governments, whether provincial or
federal, assuming they could invest any reserve balances at their
discretion to refinance their own deficits. They wanted the
assurance that funds would be invested wisely at market rates, and
they questioned the wisdom of allowing governments to make
those decisions.
Canadians will continue to need a mandatory plan but the people
of Durham want it managed better.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, more
than 2,500 people from the Gaspe Peninsula, the Lower St.
Lawrence, New Brunswick and the Micmac nation met on the
Campbellton bridge, in New Brunswick, to protest against the
unemployment insurance reform.
This protest was aimed at expressing their frustration with the
Liberal government, which is showing a total lack of understanding
on this issue. The government must withdraw this bill that will hurt
seasonal workers, among others. The government must go back to
the drawing board and propose to the people of Canada and Quebec
a reform that will reflect the new realities of the labour market.
Yesterday's protest shows the government, particularly the
Deputy Prime Minister, that the people who condemn the
unemployment insurance reform do it because they want justice
and equity. These are not separatists, but men and women who
cannot see the end of the tunnel.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my private member's Bill C-212 proposes that the
Canadian Wheat Board be audited annually by the Auditor General
of Canada. It also proposes that the auditor general receive a
monthly statement from the board for his inspection.
Canadians have been demanding more accountability from their
government institutions. The auditor general has no jurisdiction
over the wheat board and the wheat board is not even subject to the
Access to Information Act.
Wheat board commissioners set their own pensions and those of
their dependants and nobody knows that they are. Clearly this is not
accountability.
I urge all members of the House to support this bill which will
ensure farmers and Canadians that the board is operating in a more
open and accountable manner. This will send a positive message to
Canadians.
>
524
524
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government's budget strikes hard at the financing
capabilities of the 19 venture capital firms of Canadian workers.
The Minister of Finance is thus attacking job creation directly,
because employee funds have assets of nearly $3 billion. More than
$800 million has been invested in Canada's economy and has
helped create and keep some 38,000 jobs in Quebec alone.
Since the government is doing so little to create jobs, how can it
justify going on to attack a tool as effective in creating and
maintaining jobs as the labour-sponsored venture capital funds,
because they invest all their money in Canada's economic
development?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt as to the importance of these funds in creating
jobs and there is no doubt as to the management capability of these
funds.
That said, I have to point out that there is enough money in the
funds for the next three years, that is, they have grown
considerably, and the measures we have taken will not affect them.
There is money available.
It was also agreed from the start that major incentives were
needed to get these funds off the ground. Now that they are
established, we think it important to lower the incentives in order to
free the money for use elsewhere, specifically to create jobs for
young people.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would correct the minister and remind him that the fund
set up by the CSN, for example, is a new one and has not had time
to capitalize and really get off the ground. The blow dealt it by the
Minister of Finance is extremely hard for such a fund to absorb; it
could well cut it off in mid flight.
I would ask the minister how he explains his attack on the
labour-sponsored venture capital funds, when he has not withdrawn
the authorization given RRSPs-regular registered retirement
savings plans-in January 1994 to invest 20 per cent of their funds
abroad, promoting job creation, but abroad?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am satisfied the new CSN fund, which we, the government helped
develop, will grow hugely.
Furthermore, as regards the RRSPs and foreign investment, it
must be said that the aim of RRSPs is not only investment in
Canada but also the protection and expansion of pension funds to
protect Canadians' pension plans.
(1420)
In addition, Canada, and the province of Quebec, I must add, are
dependent on foreign capital. It is therefore not in our interest to
limit Canadians' ability to invest abroad, on one level, because we
want to encourage foreigners to come and invest here at the same
time.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is important that we understand each other well, the
Minister of Finance and I. Therefore, I ask him the following: How
can his government-the government that is doing so little for job
creation, I would remind him-how can it justify giving tax
exemptions to people investing in RRSPs, who, through these
RRSPs, are permitted to invest 20 per cent of their capital outside
the country, who thus keep or create jobs outside the country, when
this 20 per cent can go as high as 36 per cent through an investment
in trust companies?
How does the Minister of Finance justify the hard blow to the
labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which invest and ask only
to invest all their money in keeping and creating jobs at home?
They are trying to save and maintain our businesses. Is this not
reason for him to change his mind?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when we look the investments these funds make, we see that a
fairly significant percentage is in debentures and has not gone
directly to job creation, for the pure and simple reason-and they
will tell you so-that there is a shortage of investments and it takes
a bit of time. That is why I said there was enough at least for three
years. There is nothing there to slow growth or job creation.
On the other hand, the measures we took with respect to these
funds have been very well received throughout Canada, including
in Quebec, because we recognize that these funds were established
to help them get started, and, now that they are established, things
are going quite well. I should add, as far as the 20 per cent is
concerned, I have said in this House that it was not this
government's intention to permit more than 20 per cent. But, it
must be said that pension funds in Canada invest in companies that
create jobs abroad.
I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would not want the Caisse
de dépôt to stop investing in Canadian companies creating jobs
abroad.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in making his budget public last week, the Minister of
Finance announced his intention to establish a technical committee
of outside experts on the business tax system. Some of its members
are representatives of accounting firms that have affiliates in
525
countries considered as tax havens and advise big business on how
to avoid paying Canadian taxes.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. How can he believe
that the public will have confidence in a committee whose
membership includes people whose own firms take advantage of
tax havens, and whose very business consists precisely in advising
clients on how to reduce or eliminate completely taxes payable to
Revenue Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): First of all, Mr.
Speaker, when the same question was asked of me last week by the
same member, I told him that three committee members, including
the chair, are academics with no connections with any corporations,
or major multinationals.
Having said this, I am convinced that the hon. member will
realize that, if what we want is to look at how to close up tax
loopholes or the ways companies wrongly get around job creation
or foreign investment requirements, it is worthwhile to consult
precisely those who are knowledgeable about such loopholes, not
people who know absolutely nothing about them.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister believe for even a minute that those
committee members would agree to chop off the very branch they
are sitting on? Not likely. It is anything but logical.
What I am asking the Minister of Finance under the
circumstances is this: Is he not in the process of providing a first
class funeral for business tax reform? If that is what he is up to, let
him admit it.
(1425)
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
one wants to examine social policy, one will ask those people who
are experts in social policy. If one wants to examine environmental
policy, one will ask those people who are experts in environmental
policy. If one wants to close tax loopholes, who better to ask than
those who know how to create them?
Surely the hon. member would not really want us to ask
members of his party who have professed total ignorance of the Tax
Act since they have been elected.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
budget last week the finance minister said the government was
working very hard to replace the federal sales tax. The federal sales
tax is the government's new synonym for the GST and replace is
the new word for abolish, kill or scrap.
Creative writing is one thing but people in Canada thought they
were voting in a government, not a thesaurus. Words have to mean
the same thing. Replace means replace. Scrap means scrap, kill or
abolish.
These people across the way have clearly broken their election
promise time after time. Why will the finance minister not simply
admit the government has no intention of scrapping, killing or
abolishing the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
quote from the red book once again: ``A Liberal government will
replace the GST with a system that promotes federal-provincial
fiscal co-operation and harmonization''. Harmonization means
harmonization means harmonization.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, rest
assured there will be no harmony with this harmonization,
especially in the province of Alberta with no provincial sales tax.
The truth is the government has simply broken its promise to
Canadians. What is worse, it plans to replace the GST with a new
super tax that will increase the cost of textbooks, heating oil and
funerals, to name a few.
In Ontario alone the Liberal super tax would amount to a tax
increase of $3 billion a year. That is why residents of Toronto will
be gathering in front of the Sheraton tonight at seven o'clock to
protest this Liberal plan.
How much will this new Liberal super tax, the twin of the GST,
add to the yearly tax bill of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
would not add to the tax bill of Canadians. If a number of the
provinces were to harmonize, it could well lead to a reduction in
taxes. It would certainly lead to a reduction in the cost of
administration which would be passed on to consumers.
The Reform Party is so desperate to seek issues. Nobody ever
said that in the province of Alberta it would be imposed on
Albertans. We now have virtual harmonization in Alberta because
there is no tax.
For the hon. member for Beaver River to consistently raise straw
people and say here is a problem when none exists, surely to
heaven she can put her attention to the problems and the
opportunities of the country rather than the figments of her own
imagination.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you
will be surprised to learn that several straw people will be outside
the Sheraton in Toronto tonight because taxes are taxes and people
feel that very strongly.
The minister talks about fairer taxes. How fairer will this new
super tax be? First, it increases the tax bill for consumers. No
matter what he says he simply will not convince Canadians who are
already paying too much in taxes. Second, it kills jobs. A recent
study done by the University of Toronto estimates that the Liberal
government's new super tax will kill 74,000 jobs in Ontario alone.
526
That is not a straw person saying that. It will also reduce real
income substantially. That is not a straw person. It will also slow
economic growth for real people, not straw people.
How will this new super tax be fair to anyone, especially Liberal
members seeking re-election?
(1430 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker
this tax has been recommended by the Canadian Tax Foundation.
Tax simplification is vitally important to small and medium size
business.
Can the hon. member tell me why the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business recommends this tax? I will tell her. It wants
to create jobs among its membership. Why does the Chamber of
Commerce recommend this tax? It knows how good it will be for
Canadians.
What is the matter with the member for Beaver River that she
refuses to accept that Canadians want tax simplification and lower
costs? Why does the Reform Party not wake up and smell the
roses?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources.
Yesterday, more than 2,000 people demonstrated for the
withdrawal of the unemployment insurance reform bill, which now
goes by the number C-12. That group was made up of Quebecers
from a number of different regions, New Brunswickers, Micmac,
people from the Gaspé, Acadians, anglophones, all coming
together to demand that bill C-12 be withdrawn. They have had
enough of the government's dumping on the disadvantaged and the
middle class to control the deficit.
Will the minister acknowledge that what people are demanding,
people who need a real unemployment insurance scheme, is not
minor amendments but withdrawal of this bill?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that again
yesterday people were expressing their concerns about the
proposed bill, which was first known as C-111. I trust that my hon.
colleague, as well as those voicing their concerns yesterday, will
wait for the reaction of MPs, such as my hon. colleague, who sit on
the Committee on Human Resources Development.
That committee is now charged with examining Bill C-12, which
is an exact reproduction of the former bill, as required by
parliamentary procedure. There will, however, be changes,
amendments and it is somewhat surprising to hear that the hon.
member has already decided these would be minor.
I have confidence in the committee and I am confident that the
proposals from members interested in improving the situation will
be serious and extensive.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
read the budget, and if there had been any signal of an in-depth
reform, we would have seen it.
Is the minister aware that, as long as the Minister of Finance
continues to take $5 billion each year from unemployment
insurance premiums, the best that can be done is cuts and
mini-reforms, which will be disastrous both economically and
socially?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the
Minister of Finance has not taken any $5 billion from the
unemployment insurance fund. The hon. member who is the Bloc
finance critic can, I am sure, explain to his colleague that the
surplus is, moreover, extremely small at this time.
That surplus is expected to increase, but I must remind the hon.
member that, at this very time last year, we were in a deficit
situation with the unemployment insurance fund. What is very
important to realize is that we must not interfere with a surplus,
even one that has actually existed until recently only in the mind of
the hon. member.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the government's major selling points on the
Nisga'a deal was that it would end special tax exempt status for the
Nisga'a.
That would be good news if it were true, but it is not. The
Nisga'a deal just substitutes one kind of tax exempt status for
another. It would mean that all Nisga'a lands and any business that
is run by the Nisga'a central government is tax exempt.
(1435)
How can the Minister of Finance justify permanent exemptions
from taxation on no other basis than race?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the key issues we had to
address is how to deal with taxation of aboriginal people. We did it
in what we thought was a humane and progressive way by saying:
``We will work with you toward profitability and self-sufficiency
and at a certain time you have a responsibility to pay taxes''.
It is through that type of sensitivity and philosophy that a deal
was reached with the Nisga'a. I would think the Reform Party,
which has been calling for a system of taxation, would hail such a
527
system where aboriginal people are now saying: ``We will agree to
that. We will pay taxes like everybody else. Just give us a hand to
get there''.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is continuing to perpetuate a myth that is not
true in this agreement. This leads to constitutional entrenchment of
tax exemption. This is unfair. It is that simple. Disguising it under
the terms of a land deal makes it no less unjust. Other businesses in
the area will not be able to compete with tax exempt businesses run
by the Nisga'a central government.
If the Indian affairs minister is serious about fairness, will he
commit to restoring real fairness by levying the same tax on the
Nisga'a that all other Canadians will have to pay?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of our side, this
riding is represented by a Reform member, the member for Skeena,
who has never mentioned a word in the House about the Nisga'a.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: It is true, thirty per cent of his riding; 23,331 natives
in the Nisga'a area are members of his riding.
Businesses at Terrace are now looking at this as a business
opportunity. Rather than lining with the Reform and saying they
want a referendum they are now saying: ``Maybe we should get in
our cars, drive that hour and a half and talk to the Joe Gosnells of
the world''.
Last week the media in B.C., Alberta and Ontario supported this.
Bill Young, 72 years old, one of 240 people in the area, said: ``I feel
good about this. I think a lot of people around here feel good about
it too''. So do we.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
According to this government's third budget, in the future,
pension benefits for senior women with spouses will be determined
on the basis of family income, thus reducing their benefit level and
their degree of financial independence. Questioned on this subject
in this House last Thursday, the Minister answered, and I quote:
``-nine women out of ten will get more money because of our
reform''.
Will the Minister of Finance finally recognize in this House that
this decision to make pension benefits dependent on family income
is a direct attack on the independence achieved by women as a
result of 50 years of continued efforts?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Not at all, Mr.
Speaker. As I have already stated in this House: nine women out of
ten will benefit from this reform.
Take the poverty level for example; one absolutely aberrant
consequence of the poverty that exists in certain parts of our
country is the high percentage of women who are affected. That is
why one of the goals of our reform was precisely to benefit these
women. In fact, I think we have done a great job of ensuring that
they will be better off.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister, in repeating himself, left something aside; he
forgot to mention that these nine out ten women are ``single''
women, not women with spouses.
My question is about women with spouses. Since he is so sure of
his facts, this must mean that he directed his officials in the
department to conduct some studies. My question to the minister is
very straightforward. Tell him, Mr. Speaker, that it is very
straightforward. How many women with spouses will see their
pension cheques cut or taken away as a result of the bad decision
announced in the minister's budget?
(1440)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 75
per cent of all Canadians will benefit from this reform. Seventy
five per cent of all Canadian men and women, and women are the
majority. In fact, women represent not only the majority of the
population, but also the majority of seniors. Quite clearly, the vast
majority of women with spouses will benefit from this program.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Union of National Defence Employees at 5 Wing Goose Bay
are concerned about government plans to privatize or contract out
some base functions. They accept the need to increase cost
effectiveness but are not being told what is going on and thus
cannot prepare for their future. The union's president was this
morning again denied details of the proposal and it would seem
they will not be released until after the Labrador byelection.
Will the Minister of National defence stop playing politics with
these worried employees and sit down and tell them which base
areas and personnel are to be affected by privatization?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, alternative
service delivery is one means by which we are cutting costs at
528
national defence. In the budget last week we mentioned a number
of locations that would be eligible candidates for such alternative
service delivery.
Alternative service delivery does not necessarily mean
privatizing in its pure sense. It could also mean an arrangement
whereby the current employees are involved. All these matters are
to be discussed with our employees and the unions.
As for the specific question, there is no proposal on the table. We
have just announced that this particular base may be a candidate
and we have to look at it over the coming months.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the employees have been informed that the plan has already left the
base. These employees are not only being kept in the dark about
their future, they are even being denied the right to bid on these
contracted out functions. They are also worried that a local Liberal
supporter has an inside track in seeking this contract.
Will the minister assure this House that all legitimate bids for
contracting out will be considered and that we will not see yet
another example of political payoff and patronage at 5 Wing Goose
Bay?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member accused me of playing politics. It seems that this particular
member who has never uttered one question on anything pertaining
to defence arrangements in Newfoundland before, now rises at this
point in time with this specific question. The reason he is so
concerned about undue Liberal influence in that riding is that just
about everybody votes Liberal in the elections and they will do so
on March 25.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The minister proposes to establish a health services research
fund, on which he will spend $65 million over five years, and
whose mandate is to identify, and I quote: ``what works best in our
medical system'' and ``what does not''.
How can the minister, on the one hand, threaten the quality of
health care by cutting transfer payments to the provinces and, on
the other hand, spend $65 million on a committee to find out what
does not work in the system?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have to take issue with the thesis of the hon. member's question.
The Minister of Finance has given exactly what provincial
ministers of health have wanted for quite some time. He has given
them consistency. He has given them a cash floor as it relates to the
CHST and he has given longevity in terms of the amount of money
that will be provided in terms of the transfers.
With regard to the second part of her question in terms of the
health services research fund, this is a very creative tool which the
Minister of Finance has agreed to. It will help to lever money from
other provincial governments, the private sector and non-profit
organizations in order to look at research which will have an
immediate impact on cutting the cost in terms of the health care
system. It is not a form of duplication anywhere in the country. We
want to work co-operatively and consult with the provinces on the
best way in which to utilize the fund, provided of course that they
wish to be a part of it.
(1445)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government has already spent $12 million on the national forum on
health. And it is now setting aside $65 million for a research fund.
Does the minister realize that he could have used this $77
million in public funds in a different way, if only the federal
government agreed to withdraw from this area, which comes under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and in which it is
interfering through its spending powers?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe at some other time we will have an opportunity to debate the
hon. member's assertion that this is exclusively a provincial matter.
The research fund which is being put in place by the Minister of
Finance is a very creative tool. Provincial governments that deliver
health care in this country would then have the ability to utilize that
kind of money on research which is needed. It will be conducted by
the Medical Research Council. It will be done at arm's length to the
minister involved. It will provide paybacks to the health care
system not only for the first year but indeed in the years to come.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Krever commission submitted an interim report with a
number of recommendations. The government's response to this
529
report indicates that Health Canada is prepared to take a leadership
role to make sure that the Krever recommendations are
implemented.
Could the Minister of Health tell the House what is being done
now to reassure Canadians of the safety of their blood system?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Justice Krever has a made a significant positive contribution to the
country's blood system. His interim report of 43 different
recommendations and the seven which apply to Health Canada
have all been acted upon.
As a result of Justice Krever's recommendations where he talked
about the lack of governance in the blood system in this country,
today I have embarked upon a consultation process not only with
provincial governments but with all of the major stakeholders and
consumers across the country to try to put in place a system of
governance for the blood system.
It is our obligation to work co-operatively and effectively with
all of the players to ensure that the blood system in this country
which is presently safe is the safest system in the entire world.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Transport.
Two hundred and eighty-seven kilometres of the Trans-Canada
Highway in Saskatchewan have not yet been twinned in spite of the
provincial government's readiness to proceed under a
federal-provincial cost sharing agreement.
The government here seems to have a bottomless purse to
finance hockey rinks, swimming pools and useless projects like
gun control but no real infrastructure. When will the government
honour its cost sharing obligations, complete this important project
and end the carnage on this death trap?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the leader of the Reform Party promising hundreds of
millions of dollars of highways in Labrador, I am surprised the hon.
member did not follow up his leader's approach.
We have number of agreements in place with the provinces but
of course we have limited funds. At the present time Transport
Canada is putting out some hundreds of millions of dollars on joint
programs that have been agreed to with the provinces to improve
the road systems. We will obviously be looking at Saskatchewan
along with the other requests that come in.
I must point out again to the hon. member and his party that
funds are limited. The Minister of Finance is a hard taskmaster and
we do not have the opportunity of spending money on roads right,
left and centre as that party seems to believe we should.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the only time the
hon. minister looks at Saskatchewan is when he flies over it.
(1450 )
I am glad the minister mentioned Labrador because the section
of the Trans-Labrador Highway from Churchill Falls to Goose Bay
is a national disgrace. It is very strange that when there is a 90-10
sharing agreement available for the Trans-Canada Highway, the
best the government has been able to come up with for Labrador is
50-50. Our annual foreign aid to China would pay for that section
of highway many times over. Where are the government's
priorities?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, before this government took office the previous
government did a study of the Trans-Labrador Highway. There
were two aspects involved. The cost to bring it up to a paved two
lane highway with .8 meter paved shoulders and a design speed of
100 kilometres was $625 million. It went up from there to the
second phase to between $700 million and $1.125 billion.
That is the type of approach of the party opposite: endorsing for
short term byelection purposes extravagant road building projects
in Labrador. I would like to think that party would adopt a more
responsible approach, particularly in light of the responsible
budget we heard in the House only a week ago.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. In its budget, the federal
government claims that it will increase by $60 million the moneys
allocated for summer employment. However, since 1994, the
government has cut $26 million from these programs. Moreover,
cuts affecting transfer payments will deprive Quebec students of
$150 million this year and $300 million next year.
How can the government pretend to help young people when, in
fact, it reduces funding for education by hundreds of millions, in
return for a few temporary jobs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, young people in CEGEPs,
community colleges and universities certainly do not have the
same understanding of the program as does the hon. member. They
know full well that the only jobs that make sense for people who
are still studying at a post-secondary level are temporary ones. This
is what
530
happens when one attends university; these students do not expect
permanent jobs this summer.
I can tell you that the young people whom we met were really
appreciative of the fact that, in our budget, and in spite of all the
restrictions imposed by every province as well as by the federal
government, we still managed to double the moneys available to
create jobs for Canadian students this summer.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
obviously do not meet the same people. The students I know are not
very pleased by the fact that they are being deprived of $500
million in return for $60 million. They do not see this as a helpful
measure.
Does the minister realize that, by making cuts in social transfers
and, consequently, in the funding of post-secondary education, he
deprives young people of a decent education, accessible to all, and
of true access to the job market?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with Bloc
Quebecois members is that they are totally disconnected from
reality.
If anybody in the Bloc Quebecois has a list of students they do
not want to have helped by the summer student job creation
program, send it over. Across the country and in Quebec young
men and women are looking for work and they are extremely
pleased that the government in these circumstances has found the
way to double the amount of money available for summer student
employment.
It is an indication of the lack of concern the hon. member has
that again he plays politics on the backs of young people while
pretending to support them.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal broken promises are starting to sound like a broken
record and the record shows this government has failed to support
science and technology.
The red book promised a $900 million increase in research and
development yet these are the facts: Last year the Liberals cut
heavily into basic research and eliminated capital gains
exemptions. Why did the government break its promise to increase
R and D funding by $900 million? Better yet, why did the
government not create tax incentives for research and development
rather than subsidies?
(1455)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was interested to hear the Reform Party advocating
increased tax breaks and increased spending, but we will take that
under advisement.
I am very happy the member raised the question of research and
development. Today not only was the government able to release
its science and technology strategy ``Science and Technology for
the 21st Century'' but it also introduced the new program
Technology Partnerships Canada. It will provide funding of $150
million next year, $200 million the following year and $250 million
the year after, not in subsidies but in assistance to research and
development. It is money for projects including environmental
technologies and defence conversion. Again, these are red book
check offs: defence conversion, environmental technologies, new
funding for research and development. We are fulfilling our
promises.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Industry is giving us the next chapter in the Liberal
program of do as we say, not as we do.
Canadians were hoping for a forward looking science and
technology strategy to create good long term jobs. Indeed they
were hoping for some form of tax relief to spur investment growth
in the emerging technologies. Instead, last year the Liberals killed
the Tory defence industry productivity program, DIPP, and now
they present a $250 million business subsidy dressed up as a
non-subsidy. Call it son of DIPP.
Can the minister tell us how giving people back their own money
and calling it not a subsidy is better than lowering taxes?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member has read the science and technology review
he has a remarkable ability to read quickly because it is quite a
thick document and was just made available to him this morning. I
commend it to his reading. He may be surprised at what he finds
there.
I ask myself who it is he has been talking to. Who is it out there
who wants more tax loopholes when the Canadian Chamber of
Commerce, the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, the
Business Council on National Issues and the business organizations
have all recognized that the kind of program we have designed is
not a subsidy program. It is an investment program with repayable
contributions to give Canadian firms the ability to compete on a
level playing field with firms from across the world. This is where
we are going to create jobs for the next century. This is where we
are going to give Canadians the advantage they need.
531
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Following the minister's statements in the House last week,
China, which is a permanent member of the security council, fired
three M-9 guided missiles which struck within 30 to 40 kilometres
of the island of Taiwan. In light of these actions by China with
whom we normally have good relations, can the minister assure the
House that Canada condemns this unprovoked act of intimidation
against Taiwan and that the peace and security in this region, an
important one for Canada, will not be allowed to deteriorate
further?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member's question represents is the deep
concern many Canadians and we in the government feel about the
escalating conditions between China and Taiwan. We are deeply
concerned that these matters not be allowed to escalate.
To underline that fact, I met again this morning with the Chinese
ambassador. We had a very long discussion where on behalf of the
Government of Canada and the people of Canada I reiterated that
we should ensure that nothing is done to provoke or escalate the
matter, that any differences should be decided by a peaceful
negotiation and that we offer whatever good services we can in
Canada to help provide a peaceful solution in that area.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Immigration.
The minister denied last week that bribes were being given by
her department's officials. But the minister knows perfectly well
that former deputy minister Roger Tassé, in spite of a restricted
mandate, said more in his public statement than he did in his report,
and that his allegations were confirmed by Mr. Pascucci, president
of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union.
(1500)
Under the circumstances, why does the minister not call a new
inquiry?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have indeed received Mr.
Tassé's report. We are looking at it now, and after studying all its
recommendations, we will act on most of them. Again, Mr. Tassé's
report contains no allegation of fraudulent or illicit acts involving
any departmental officials.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the CRTC
has done its best to stall competition in the direct to home satellite
industry to the detriment of the industry, Canadian artists and the
Canadian consumer. One can only speculate that its members were
frustrated by the interference of the Liberal cabinet on behalf of its
friends at Power Corp. That is probably why the CRTC did it, but
last week the cabinet decided whether or not it would allow the
CRTC to continue to hamper competition.
Did the cabinet decide last week? If it did, does it believe the
CRTC is fulfilling its 1994 order to open up competition and what
was the decision?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is aware that appeals have been lodged
with the governor in council with respect to decisions of the CRTC.
When cabinet has dealt with those appeals he and the public will be
notified.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is addressed to the Prime Minister.
Within days of firing 25 per cent of the staff of its newly
acquired Saskatchewan daily newspapers, your friend, Conrad
Black's Hollinger Inc.-
The Speaker: I would like the hon. member to address his
question through the Speaker and make it quite brief, please.
Mr. Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hollinger
corporation threatened to put small independent community based
newspapers out of business. It threatened to put the smaller weekly
newspapers out of business by providing free newspapers in the
communities of Melville, Wynyard, Canora, Kamsack, Preeceville,
Norquay and Watson.
My question is this. Since the Prime Minister has challenged
business to create jobs for Canadians and since his finance minister
agrees that the firing of Hollinger employees at the Saskatchewan
dailies is ``not behaviour that is supported by the community
itself,'' could the Prime Minister tell the House when he will come
to the aid of these small Saskatchewan businesses and communities
by instructing the bureau of competition policy to initiate an
investigation of the concentration of media-
532
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member knows the provisions of the Competition
Act. If he has some information he wishes to disclose I know the
director will want to investigate it.
He will also know that the director acts as an independent agent
in investigating complaints that are made with respect to offences
that may or may not have been committed under the Competition
Act. I suggest that is the appropriate remedy.
The Speaker: My colleagues, this brings question period to a
close.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw members' attention to the presence in the
gallery of the Hon. Dr. Bud Hulan, Minister of Fisheries, Food and
Agriculture for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have notice of a point of order arising from
question period from the member for Skeena.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the course
of question period in a response to a question that was asked by my
colleague, the member for North Island-Powell River, the
Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated that I,
as the member for Skeena, had never risen in the House of
Commons to talk about the Nisga'a land claim.
The minister knows full well that this land claim is very
important. It is a crucial issue in my riding. I have risen on it many
times in the House. I have held many meetings in the riding with
respect to this.
(1505 )
I would ask that the minister, to whom many of these
interventions have been directed-
The Speaker: The hon. member of course raises a point of
debate but it is not a point of order.
Mr. Stinson: It's in Hansard, the guy lied.
Mr. Abbott: The minister lied.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member rose on a point of order. I heard
his point of order. He is on the record and I have judged it to be not
a point of order but a point of debate.
At times we get a bit excited in the House. I would ask all hon.
members to please be very judicious in their choice of words, even
when they are just reacting out loud. I would ask all hon. members
to do that.
Mr. Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask for your guidance.
If an issue arises in the House that has profound implications to me
as a member of Parliament and for my riding, such as false
information is put in front of the House, what am I entitled to do as
a member of Parliament to ensure the record is straightened out?
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member will see when he
reviews the blues that he did have recourse today. He is now on the
record. However I still judge that it is not a point of order. Perhaps
it is a point of debate between members.
I am not here to say who is saying what is true. I am here to see
to it that all members have a chance to speak and speak freely. If
corrections are to be made they will be made as they have today.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I may clear the record for the
benefit of the hon. member, he has spoken many times about this
issue. The point I made is he has not spoken on the side of the
Nisga'a people.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Before we get into further debate I will call
Orders of the Day.
_____________________________________________
532
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions
presented during the first session.
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour for me to address the House of Commons
to celebrate, as we do every year on March 2, Canada's strong
commitment to the Commonwealth, its values and its principles.
More important, it is an occasion for me to underline Canada's
strong partnership in the Commonwealth. Partnership is a word
that is often used these days. In some ways it is almost in danger of
becoming meaningless by the fact that it is so often used in so
533
many contexts, unless we give it meaning with real substance, real
force and real action.
In my previous portfolio of human resources development we
worked very actively in partnerships with the business community,
local communities, charitable communities. We learned that the
most effective partnerships were those where everybody had a
voice in the process, where the objectives of the partnership were
clear and where action was taken collectively to achieve our ends.
(1510 )
Often the most complex and seemingly difficult problems could
be cracked wide open when the right people were brought together
to collaborate, work and make sure their energies were used in a
new synergy.
I believe that the Commonwealth can provide the active dynamic
partnership to find solutions to many of the very complex, difficult
problems affecting people around the globe.
We have proven before that developing solutions and bringing
collective pressures to bear can produce important results, such as
the change in the apartheid regime in South Africa which is one of
the notable accomplishments of the Commonwealth over the past
decade.
With 53 countries and 1.5 billion people represented, we have at
our fingertips in the Commonwealth a potentially enormous force
for wisdom, power and influence. The leaders of the
Commonwealth can use that force to bring about important
objectives to which we all aspire.
[Translation]
Our collective commitment to promoting democracy, good
governance and greater respect for human rights is a high priority
item of our Commonwealth program. This commitment was
reaffirmed by the Harare declaration and during the summit of
Commonwealth heads of government. We must act according to
the old saying ``Charity begins at home''.
[English]
Obviously we are saying that we must begin at home.
In my recent speech to the non-governmental organizations in
preparation for the 52nd UN Commission on Human Rights
meetings, I stated the first principle of Canada's human rights
policy must be a commitment to continue working on domestic
agendas with particular regard to aboriginal people.
Such individual action by countries must be complemented by a
collective action, if you like, a new partnership. By adopting the
Millbrook action program, heads of government in Auckland this
past year responded to a personal initiative by the Prime Minister
to provide the Commonwealth with a much more expanded and
explicit mandate to work for democracy and to respond in a
preventive way to problems before they arise.
The creation of a Commonwealth ministerial action group as a
part of this initiative is an ideal and important vehicle for carrying
out that statement.
Currently this meeting of action groups of ministers is facing an
enormous challenge in the form of the brutal regime in Nigeria.
The execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other political
prisoners during the last Commonwealth meeting was a call to
action to which none of us can afford to be in any way indifferent.
The Commonwealth is at the forefront of condemning those
killings. We must now take the lead in trying to bring about timely
changes in Nigeria and not to be overtaken by events.
It is our partnership with all the forces described above which
can advance to the next Commonwealth ministerial meeting in
London in the next month, give real impetus for driving changes
and creating a more open society in Nigeria. Like any successful
partnership, we must have a clear objective and the means by
which that objective can be achieved.
It is something to which the government is dedicated and we
hope we can call on the support of all members of Parliament as we
work within the Commonwealth to bring about major evolution and
devolution of practices in Nigeria, to open up the system and to
protect human rights.
In addition to the official Commonwealth that brings
governments together, the Commonwealth is also a growing
association of ordinary people having thousands of transactions
across many borders every day of the year. Thousands of Canadians
are active in international voluntary, professional, development
and service organizations which are based on the Commonwealth.
Direct contacts between Canadians and individuals from this
broad array of countries to these organizations are an important
force in building international understanding and ensuring that
Canada's position and reputation in the world can be enhanced.
I would like to conclude by reaffirming my personal
commitment and that of the Government of Canada to the
Commonwealth and the partnership it represents between peoples
of different languages, different races, and different faiths around
the globe.
[Translation]
We must join our efforts and work relentlessly to create a
tolerant and stable world.
534
(1515)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this afternoon on behalf of my colleagues from the
Bloc Quebecois to mark Commonwealth Day on this second
Monday in March.
This is the third time the Bloc Quebecois has the opportunity to
celebrate this event in the House of Commons. As my predecessors
did on previous occasions, I would like to stress how important
Canada's membership in the Commonwealth is. It dates back to the
very beginning of the organization, in 1931.
I cannot help but insist on the need for this government to finally
give its true meaning to its Commonwealth membership. We will
never say it often enough, the Commonwealth is the ultimate forum
to debate the major issue of respect and promotion of human rights
and democracy.
The last Commonwealth government heads meeting, which took
place in New Zealand last November, was no exception. This last
summit ended with Nigeria being suspended from the organization
on account of the unusually harsh nature of its present government,
which executed several political opponents, including Mr.
Saro-Wiwa.
The Bloc Quebecois welcomes the three main objectives set at
the Auckland summit, namely, to go beyond rhetoric, to put
principles into effect, and to show determination to stick to them.
These new objectives, set out at the Auckland summit, show how
Canadian policy, in terms of these three goals-the promotion of
human rights and democracy, foreign aid and international
trade-is inconsistent. I would like to take this opportunity to point
out to the government that it is really unfortunate that it has opted
for not going beyond the rhetoric and not making its actions
conform to a consistent and transparent policy.
The government chose not to actively promote human rights and
democracy in order to be able to focus only on its commercial
interests.
In a different connection, I would like to remind the House, and
in particular our English speaking fellow citizens in Quebec, that a
sovereign Quebec would wish to remain part of the
Commonwealth. This commitment is quite natural, since it reflects
the value of our British heritage and traditions. The English
speaking community in Quebec must be reassured in this regard.
Need I remind them again that the nationalists have many times
undertaken to ensure that a sovereign Quebec would fulfil its
responsibilities towards the English speaking minority in Quebec?
English speaking Quebecers, as we have said repeatedly, will
continue to enjoy all the collective rights they already have. I hope
that this is no longer an issue for English speaking Quebecers. The
English culture is as vibrant as ever in Quebec and we are very
proud of it. It is part of the rich collective heritage we want to
preserve. Historically, English speaking Quebecers have played a
great role in the growth and evolution of Quebec society and their
contribution is greatly appreciated by all of us.
The fact that Canada, and indirectly Quebec, is a member of the
Commonwealth reminds us that English is not the preserve of
English speaking Quebecers. The majority of French speaking
Quebecers use it too. That is a firm guarantee that English will
survive and prosper in Quebec. Needless to say, English is a great
cultural language, and there is no reason to believe it is threatened
in any way.
Sovereignists have expressed a desire to remain part of the
Commonwealth. This is not only a sign of respect for the
contribution the English speaking community has made to the
development of Quebec, but it is also the best demonstration of our
will to live all together in our modern and outward looking society.
Why would it not be possible to extend that concept to include a
larger partnership which would be in the best mutual interests of
the rest of Canada and Quebec? This would be an opportunity to
give a real meaning to the word partnership.
(1520)
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the
opportunity to rise on the occasion of Commonwealth Day. Canada
has been a proud member of Commonwealth since its inception in
1931. The first secretary-general of the Commonwealth, Arnold
Smith, was a Canadian who helped shape the spirit of international
co-operation which remains the foundation on which the
Commonwealth stands.
Over the years Canada has established a leadership role in the
Commonwealth and provided an example for other countries to
follow. Today Canada is the second largest financial contributor in
the Commonwealth. That, coupled with our lack of a colonial past,
should ensure that Canada maintains a guidance role in the
organization for the future.
The Commonwealth in the mid-1990s has seen some dramatic
changes. First, it was the readmittance of South Africa in 1984 and
then the suspension of Nigeria in 1995. I hope that in view of the
continuing intransigence of the Nigerian regime the
Commonwealth will extend its suspension of Nigeria to outright
expulsion.
Canada's current work within the Commonwealth in the fields of
democracy, good governance and human rights is a worthwhile
attempt to give the Commonwealth the identity it needs, an identity
that will serve it into the next millennium.
535
As Canadians and our governments are attempting to do more
with less, it is fitting on Commonwealth Day to examine the value
Canada receives from its membership. I call on the minister to
provide leadership in the ongoing renewal and review of Canada's
membership not only in the Commonwealth but in all multilateral
organizations in which we participate.
Canadians as well as the citizens of all Commonwealth member
states would be well served by the Minister of Foreign Affairs were
he to encourage the organization to examine its financing, goals
and practices to ensure all member countries are receiving the
greatest possible value for dollar from its activities.
However, this is a day to celebrate the accomplishments of the
Commonwealth and look forward to the future. I join with my
colleagues in their observance of Commonwealth Day.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in
both official languages, the report of the delegation of the
Canada-Japan interparliamentary group to the fourth annual
meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Cha-am,
Thailand, January 15-19 of this year.
In four years the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum has grown
from 15 to 25 member states in the Asia-Pacific region, many of
them also members of APEC. Through regular dialogue this
assembly has established itself as an important platform to enhance
confidence, consultation and co-operation among its member
countries.
As one of the founding members of this forum, Canada is a well
established and active player in this assembly. Through this
meaningful vehicle, Canada has the opportunity to build goodwill
with Asia and to establish important contacts for future dealings.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the fifth report later this day.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development regarding Bill C-11, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and
repeal certain related acts and, as agreed, to report it with
amendments.
* * *
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement
on internal trade.
(1525 )
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-88 of
the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I
therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special
order adopted on March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-88 at the time of prorogation
of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996 the
bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by the
Standing Committee on Industry and reported with amendments.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-231, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority
of claims).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a social justice measure that
protects the rights of workers in case their employer goes bankrupt
since it gives priority to wage claims.
As a point of order, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-237 at
the time of prorogation of the first session. I would like to mention
that, the first time it was introduced, this bill was seconded by the
late Gaston Péloquin, our former colleague and member for
Brome-Missisquoi.
With the approval of my colleagues from the Bloc, of course,
and also of 46 Liberal members and two NDP members, I ask that
this bill be reinstated pursuant to special order of March 4.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
536
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair is satisfied that
this bill is in the same form as Bill C-237 at the time of
prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996,
the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to
the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-232, an act to prohibit the export of water by
interbasin transfers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has in one form or another been
before the House for some time. Basically it is an act to prohibit the
interbasin transfer of water used for export. Primarily it is intended
to keep Canadian water in Canada.
Recognizing the actions of the Americans in the last little while,
whether with regard to salmon, inland passage, Cuba, the
marketing board, sugar or softwood lumber, we need to take some
very clear steps in order to protect our water and ensure that we
have adequate water for future generations.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-233, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is the result of a number of
initiatives taken by young people in my constituency and a number
of neighbouring constituencies urging Parliament to consider
reducing the voting age from 18 to 16.
They point out that at 16 young people are able to drive all sorts
of vehicles on our highways, get married and raise a family, join
the armed forces, collect unemployment insurance but cannot vote.
There a lot of young people ages 16 and 17 who would enjoy the
privilege of voting. This bill would give them that opportunity.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(1530 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the fifth report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to
the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a
petition signed by some 700 constituents across the country. They
are very much interested in bringing to the House of Commons the
importance of mining in Canada as well as the livelihood of
hundreds of thousands of Canadians working in and serving the
mining industry.
The petitioners are looking for a system that will deal with the
overlapping regulations and investment climate making sure that
this industry remains in Canada. This is part of the Keep Mining in
Canada campaign. I am very much a large supporter of it and urge
the government to pay attention to their interests.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions. In the first petition the petitioners
pray and request that Parliament recognize their Judeo-Christian
heritage and call for a return to the Holy Bible as the nation's moral
standard. They call for the return of Bible reading and prayer in our
public schools, the reinstatement of the name of Jesus Christ and
the Lord's Prayer in the parliamentary daily opening prayer, and in
recognition of the spiritual need of this nation, to declare a national
day of prayer and repentance.
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the other group of petitioners humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to ensure that the CRTC recognize that Canadians do
not need to be shocked to be entertained. Foul language, excessive
violence and explicit sex are not necessary to provide quality
entertainment.
537
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in
the House to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk of
petitions, on behalf of 46 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands
and surrounding area. The petitioners call upon Parliament to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): I have a
second petition, Mr. Speaker, which is also duly certified by the
clerk of petitions, on behalf of 1,206 constituents of Saanich-Gulf
Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider the advisability
of extending benefits or compensation to veterans of the wartime
merchant navy equal to that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World
War II armed services.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition signed by roughly 875
constituents on the subject of gasoline taxation. They state that
given that the federal government reinvests in highways less than 5
per cent of its fuel tax revenue, they request Parliament not to
consider an increase in the federal excise tax on gasoline and to
strongly consider reallocating current revenues to rehabilitate
Canada's crumbling national highways.
This petition obviously was signed in advance of the budget of
the Minister of Finance, so we can put this one down for the next
budget.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.
The first group of petitioners request that the Government of
Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase of
sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could
lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal
privileges as married people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
group of 152 petitioners request that Parliament pass legislation to
strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including publishing the
names of the young offenders, lowering the age of application and
transferring serious offenders to adult court.
(1535 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of
the North Thompson Valley stretching from Vavenby to
Kamloops. There are thousands of names on this petition.
The petitioners point out a number of options and I will read a
sample of them. They are asking to keep dangerous sex offenders
and pedophiles locked up for life; to eliminate statutory release; to
impose stiffer sentences for violent offenders; have violent
offenders serve their full sentences; have time added for bad
behaviour; have a central register for the names and addresses of
violent offenders; and give the police more authority in
apprehending and interrogating violent offenders, including the
ability to take blood and saliva samples and on and on. Mr.
Speaker, I think you get the point.
The petitioners feel very strongly about this issue. I am pleased
to present the petition on their behalf.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to present a petition signed by many of my
constituents as well as people from Spiritwood, Saskatoon and Fort
Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan and Minnedosa, Manitoba.
The petitioners believe that the Senate should be abolished. If we
abolished the Senate we would save $600 million over the next 10
years. They feel that because it is an institution which is not very
productive this should happen. They ask the House of Commons to
provide an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to
certain matters that may be initiated by a resolution in the House of
Commons.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the House
that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will
be extended by 13 minutes.
_____________________________________________
537
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want
to tell this House that I support the motion tabled on March 5 by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the importance of the role of the
538
North American Aerospace Defence Command, better known as
NORAD.
I do support the government's intention of renewing the NORAD
agreement with the United States for a further five years.
I support the motion, but I also want to propose some major
changes to this strategic defence alliance, with a view to promoting
a pan-American integrated alliance. As we know, the first NORAD
agreement was signed on May 12, 1958. Since then, the agreement
has been renewed seven times.
We all agree that the international situation is very different now,
and that NORAD should adjust to the new reality. Let us first look
at the political aspect. It is important to ensure that Canada is
represented effectively. To that end, it is absolutely necessary that
the Canadian government come up with a new defence policy that
is sound, detailed and practical, given our international
commitments as well as the state of Canadian public finances.
The government must assume its responsibilities by clearly
stating its position in that regard, while also reiterating its
commitment to NORAD. From a strategic point of view, the
geopolitical context is changing at an accelerated pace. That
evolution must not necessarily be viewed as the portent of a new
era of peace in the world, quite the contrary.
The bloody conflicts that occur everywhere on the planet should
make us aware of the need for this type of co-operation and for the
development of new military alliances that are better integrated.
(1540)
It would be illogical to think that, because of the disappearance
of the bipolar world that came into existence after the second world
war, we must stop playing a role in strategic alliances. On the
contrary, we must develop such alliances, for they have served us
well so far. It is through them that Canada, a middle power, has
achieved a measure of credibility around the world.
Through our membership in NATO and our partnership with the
U.S. as part of NORAD, we have developed a multilateral approach
to the defence and security of North America.
We are working with our partners and allies to promote peace
and stability because we know that we cannot do much on our own.
This, however, does not prevent us from reviewing our role in
current alliances and redefining our mission within these alliances,
in light of the changes dictated by today's realities and in
anticipation of the new data that may affect us later.
I would now like to make a few points. Contrary to what many
Canadians and Quebecers may think, NORAD is not an agreement
for the integrated defence of North America but a bilateral defence
agreement to develop a joint Canada-U.S air defence based on a
unified command structure.
Earlier this week, we met with defence and foreign affairs
officials, who told us that NORAD is costing Canada around $300
million a year. We pay about 10 per cent of the costs, which puts
the total for both Canada and the U.S. at a little less than $3 billion.
Canada allocates 700 person-years to NORAD, while the U.S.
assigns some 12,000 troops.
For the Canadian government, NORAD has always been the
cheapest way to monitor and defend Canada's vast air space since
implementation costs are shared.
Yet, since the early 1980s, the purpose and content of the
NORAD agreements have changed in ways that have broadened the
geographical area over which facilities are scattered and especially
the nature of the equipment's surveillance and interception
mission. It must be understood that times have changed,
technology has evolved and NORAD has had to adapt.
The review process put in place when the agreement was last
renewed, in 1991, concluded that NORAD ``was not obsolete'' in
the unstable context of a world ``still equipped with nuclear
weapons posing enough of a threat to justify maintaining collective
air and space surveillance''.
The 1994 white paper on defence goes along the same lines. That
is why the government undertook to take ``a close look at areas that
may require updating in view of new challenges to continental
security''.
The Bloc Quebecois is pleased with the government's decision to
allow a debate to be held on the renewal of the NORAD agreement.
This perfectly meets the expectations we has expressed in our
dissenting report on the review of Canada's defence policy.
(1545)
It must be understood that this House of the Canadian Parliament
is the only elected House in Canada. It is therefore important that
this kind of matter, that accords or agreements like this one,
between Canada and the U.S. first be submitted to this House, and
not the opposite, where we would be consulted after a decision was
made. That is what I call phoney consultations, and that is
unacceptable.
However, I think that, contrary to the way things were done in
1991, this time, as part of the renewal process, the new role of
NORAD in the context of the post-cold war era should be examined
much more openly.
The government could take this opportunity to redefine the
primary role of NORAD, as promised in its 1994 white paper. On
this subject, I would like to ask a few basic questions to this House
and to the minister.
539
Today, in 1996, against whom does NORAD protect us? Does
NORAD's initial role reflect the new dynamics of the post-cold
war era? Why should we continue spending billions of dollars on
defence if Canada is no longer threatened by any direct military
threat? In all parts of Quebec and Canada, our constituents all ask
the same think: What is the use of defence?
If the concept of security has really changed, would it not be
wiser and more positive to put our limited resources to use for new
purposes, within new structures and more appropriate alliances?
Given that NORAD was set up during the cold war, it goes
without saying that the agreement served a different purpose then
than it does now. In my opinion, NORAD no longer concerns
exclusively Soviet military power.
This is what brings me to discuss the need to redefine NORAD's
mandate and to make a proposal to the minister, namely that
NORAD's new mandate should promote a pan-American
integrated alliance. That alliance would essentially set up a joint
detection and surveillance network to monitor the skies, lands and
waters of the whole continent.
NORAD's mandate could be extended so as to include other
partners from the American continent. The agreement could be a
precious tool to link our economic and commercial interests to
military alliances that can ensure some continuity to the political
stability that is emerging in some Central and South American
states.
In short, the time has come to develop a defence policy that is
responsible, turned to the future and, above all, that reflects
Canadian democratic values. I do not claim to know the future any
more than you, Mr. Speaker, the minister, or any other member of
this House. Only time will tell whether Russia pursues its journey
toward democracy and a market economy, or whether it opts for a
more menacing type of regime.
I did not even attempt to speculate on the impact that a military
conflict could have in regions that have been enjoying relative
stability in recent years, including China and the Indian
sub-continent.
(1550)
I will only say that the relative peace that has been ours for over
40 years is a blessing for all. Developed countries must absolutely
not take peace for granted, mainly because of the tensions caused
by the worldwide increase in population and pollution.
One thing is for sure: should a major threat hang over the
North-American continent, Canada will always be asked to take
part in an alliance such as NORAD, and its citizens will always
expect concrete action from their government.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada and the United States had to share the most
intimate secrets in the context of the NORAD agreement. Of
course, Mexico was not included. Does my Bloc Quebecois
colleague believe that the United States would like to share a
highly confidential agreement such as NORAD with a third
country, like a separate Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. If Quebec were to become a sovereign state it would
be most interested in being part of NORAD because NORAD is
part of North America and we are part of North America.
The world is changing tremendously. I hope the member agrees
that the Americans are one part of the world we must organize
today. It could be the new mission of NORAD to organize this part
of the world.
When there is a conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina some people say
that Europeans should take care of it, should deal with it. If there is
ever to be regional conflicts in the Americas of which Quebec is
part, the Americans should be asked to send blue berets to that part
of the world to take care of them in a very specific way.
I said in my speech that we no longer have the money to go
around the world on these missions. I believe it would be wise for
Canadians, Quebecers, Americans, and perhaps Mexicans and
others, to have a regional organization of the Americas in which we
could take care of them.
[Translation]
Like I said, it seems important to me to review the role of
NORAD. This agreement will be renewed in 1996, but it will have
to be reviewed again later on. I think now is the time to start
thinking about that and about the kind of arrangement we could
have. The organization of NORAD is important. It has changed
over the years, and I think its future role could be to defend the
Americas. That is the point I am trying to make.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment the member on his presentation. I thought it
was enthusiastically put forward and I understand his commitment.
Does the member have any specific points which would enhance
the present negotiations and would make the treaty more current
and relevant than he suggested earlier?
(1555)
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, in its minority report on
the defence committee, the Bloc Quebecois made suggestions to
improve NORAD's performance, if I may use the term.
540
We feel that regional defence structures require a new
framework for our continental defence agreements. As you know,
NORAD is a military organization. The decisions are made by
members of the military. I think that, in a changing world, it would
be interesting to also have a civilian NORAD organization that
could participate in the decision making process.
As I said earlier in the other language, the beautiful language of
Shakespeare, I think that NORAD should be the ultimate
organization for the Americas. In order to achieve this goal, we will
have to develop our relations.
Later, one of my colleagues will talk about the economic and
trade implications, etc. He could elaborate on this. The Bloc
Quebecois also feels that the Canadian government should do an
in-depth analysis of the consequences of all its defence agreements
with the U.S.
As you know, there are over 800 defence agreements in effect
between Canada and the U.S. There are also 149 working
committees and subcommittees. I think what matters is to have a
consistent, affordable defence policy, which is what Canadians and
Quebecers expect from us.
We are currently enjoying a climate of relative peace and I think
we must never forget that every dollar we spend comes from the
pockets of Canadians and Quebecers. We must always think of why
we spend this money: to ensure the best possible protection and
security for our taxpayers.
We support the NORAD agreement because it is not costing us a
lot of money. We receive a great deal in return for paying about 10
per cent of the costs. I think that $300 million is a reasonable
amount to pay to enjoy safer air space. I think it is quite reasonable.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
splitting my time this afternoon with the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
It is a delight to be participating in today's debate on the renewal
of NORAD. As many members are aware, Canada and the United
States have a long history of friendship. Our political, economic,
social and cultural ties are the most extensive of any bilateral
relationship existing in the world today.
Our defence ties are far reaching. Although we have always had
and will continue to pursue an independent foreign defence policy,
our geography, our history, our trust and our shared beliefs have
made the Americans our close partners in the defence of our
common continent. They have also made us natural allies in the
pursuit of international peace and security.
NORAD is one of the pillars of this defence relationship but our
co-operation does not end there. Members should be aware of the
extent and importance of our military partnership. As it evolves to
meet new demands and challenges this partnership will continue to
play a major role in ensuring Canadian security and in enhancing
international stability.
[Translation]
Canada and the United States have maintained a close security
relationship since the end of the 1930s, when President Roosevelt
and Prime Minister Mackenzie King united our two countries in a
continental defence partnership for the first time.
During the second world war, our defence relationships
expanded and deepened. That is how, under the Ogdensburg accord
of 1940, the permanent joint board on defence was established.
(1600)
As for the Hyde Park declaration of 1941, it united the Canadian
and U.S. economies to counter aggression.
[English]
After the war as the east-west confrontation took root, the
relationship continued to develop. As years passed, new bilateral
agreements and arrangements, NORAD being the most famous,
were added to the list. Today this list is very long. Our military
partnership now includes 60 formal bilateral defence agreements,
200 memoranda of understanding and numerous service to service
understandings. These agreements and arrangements cover
virtually the entire sphere of military activity: joint planning and
operations, combined exercises, defence production, logistics,
communications, research and development, and intelligence. In
all, there about 600 Canadian military personnel serving south of
the border.
Canada and the U.S. consult in roughly 150 bilateral forums that
require regular consultation, discussion and meetings. In addition
to NORAD, this includes the permanent joint board on defence.
The PJBD is the senior advisory body on continental security. It
meets twice a year providing an opportunity for diplomats and
military officials from both countries to discuss important and
sensitive bilateral and international defence matters. There is also
the military co-operation committee established in 1945. This
forum allows our respective military staffs to meet and carry out
combined military planning for the defence of North America.
Canada-American defence co-operation also includes an
extensive network of defence production research and development
arrangements which provide the framework for our close economic
ties in this sphere.
[Translation]
The defence production sharing agreement signed in 1956 sets
out the terms of bilateral trade in defence material. It allowed
Canadian companies to compete with American companies on the
American market.
541
The defence development sharing agreement signed in 1963
helps Canadian companies develop products for use by the U.S.
armed forces and promotes research and development in Canada.
[English]
Trade in defence goods between the two countries amounts to
almost $2 billion Canadian every year. Our longstanding industrial
co-operation has resulted in a highly integrated defence industrial
base.
We also have the Canada-U.S. test and evaluation program,
allowing our countries to test important weapons systems at each
other's military facility. This cost effective and flexible
arrangement has become an integral component of our defence
relationship.
[Translation]
And, naturally, Canada and the United States are tied by their
membership in a variety of multinational organizations, including
the UN, NATO, the organization responsible for security and
co-operation in Europe as well as the Organization of American
States.
Recently, we participated in a number of multilateral operations,
such as the United Nations mission in Haiti and the activities
conducted under NATO in Bosnia by the peace plan
implementation task force, or IFOR.
[English]
Closer to home, Canadian and American military personnel have
a long tradition of working closely with each other in operations
and training exercises. At sea, Canada-U.S. co-operation involves
the surveillance and control of vast ocean areas on both coasts and
in the Arctic. We exchange information in support of search and
rescue and any narcotic operations, co-operate in humanitarian
emergencies and hold regular bilateral exercises at sea.
Canada-U.S. defence co-operation, having lasted through more
than 50 years of evolving challenges, continues to thrive. The
Canadian government believes that this co-operation still serves
the fundamental interests of Canada. Although the world has
changed dramatically in recent years, we must always be ready to
co-operate with our American allies in the defence of North
America. There may be no direct military threat to our continent at
the moment but there are no guarantees for the future.
[Translation]
The government would like the Canadian Forces to be able to
continue to work closely with the U.S. armed forces under various
circumstances. We must bear in mind that there are other
immediate benefits to maintaining a close relationship with the
U.S. for defence purposes.
(1605 )
[English]
For example, extensive training and operational experience are
gained by Canadians. We retain a useful degree of influence in
critical areas of United States defence policy that directly affect us.
We gain access to important defence related information. Canadian
companies benefit from access to important technologies and the
large U.S. defence market.
If the Canadian government remains firmly committed to its
defence relationship with the U.S., we also understand this
relationship must continue to evolve. Although Canada and the
U.S. are cutting back on some continental defence activities, we are
also looking into ways to preserve the Canadian-American defence
relationship. NORAD is a perfect example.
Given the current international environment and urgent domestic
priorities, it might be tempting for us to turn our backs on a
longstanding co-operative agreement, but the lessons of history
teach us that this would be shortsighted. While still conducting an
independent foreign and defence policy, we must continue to work
with the U.S. to meet the challenges of the coming century and to
preserve our relationship as a source of stability in a turbulent
world. The benefits of our defence partnership far outweigh the
costs, all the more so since activities have been scaled back to deal
with today's realities.
The Canadian and American governments must also show vision
and imagination in ensuring this partnership has the capability to
meet future demands. This new NORAD agreement being debated
today offers clear proof we are following a wise path. That is what
this government does best: it follows wise paths and gives good
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
for me to take part in this debate on the renewal of the NORAD
agreement between Canada and the United States.
Earlier today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the
Canadian government, clearly indicated the government's
preference and its intention to renew the NORAD agreement,
knowing that it could contain significant changes to its objectives
in order to reflect new geopolitical realities in North America and
throughout the world.
I am happy to see that both opposition parties agree with the
government on this issue and support the renewal of the NORAD
agreement. I am also happy to see that opposition parties,
particularly our friends in the official opposition, recognize the
importance of the relationship between Canada and the United
States as
542
shown by this agreement. I will even say, if I may, that it shows
how important it is that Canada be a united country that has the
respect not only of the United States, but of the entire world. That
is why we were able to build with our partners to the south such a
close and strategically sound relationship as the NORAD
agreement.
[English]
In the course of their day to day lives, Canadians carry out their
affairs blissfully unaware of the existence of the NORAD
agreement between Canada and the United States. That speaks well
of the smooth way in which the agreement has worked between our
two countries for the last 37 years since it was first instituted in
1958.
As others have said today, NORAD is a good deal for Canada.
Canada contributes about 10 per cent of NORAD's total annual
operating costs, or $320 million a year. That is a bargain because
every country with the ability to detect and intercept unknown
aircraft does so. No country that can prevent it lets unknown
aircraft overfly.
(1610)
If there were no NORAD, Canada would have to monitor and be
prepared to defend the world's second largest land mass on its own.
This would be an onerous task for our country with its relatively
small military resources. In order to monitor and defend our own
air space with only our own resources we would need an air force
several times larger than the one we have. We would need more
radar installations and the manpower to run them and interpret the
data. By the way, if we had no agreements with the United States in
other defence spheres, this would also require an army and a navy
much larger than the ones we now operate.
There would be two alternatives in a situation without NORAD:
let the Americans do it, or do not do anything. After all, things are
relatively peaceful in this part of the world and who would want to
hurt us? The Americans are our friends, so why not let them do
what they think is necessary to defend North American air space?
If we abdicated our responsibility in that way, we would have no
say in the policy governing our own defence. We would have no
say if there were plans afoot to intercept aircrafts which were
carrying nuclear weapons or missiles over our territory. We would
have no say about what foreign ships and aircraft were doing in our
country. We would have no agreements governing the routes used
by U.S. nuclear powered vessels travelling in our waters. We would
become a passive client state. This would represent a steep descent
from the heights we reached on the scale of pride and independence
50 years ago.
In World War II our efforts to defend freedom were far out of
proportion to our population. We had the world's fourth largest
navy at the end of the war. During the war our military personnel
died in combat at a rate per population that was 1.5 times greater
than that of the United States military. We have always been proud
of the sacrifices we made for freedom. We paid a high price to win
World War II.
If on the other hand we chose to let foreigners' aircraft fly where
they wished and we depended on their good intentions and
responsibility to conform with Canadian law, including
environmental law, we would lack one of the prime indicators of a
modern nation state. These are unthinkable alternatives as I am
sure everyone in this House would agree. Therefore in the domain
of aerospace surveillance and warning we have the North American
aerospace defence command. This brief look at the continent
without NORAD would have made clear for all of us that we need
this organization to protect our sovereignty.
The system begins with the world's most modern technology
centred at the Cheyenne Mountains installation. There are regional
NORAD centres that contribute to our security in Alaska, in North
Bay and in Florida. Members will have heard in the budget speech
that some NORAD functions in Canada will now be centred in
Winnipeg, close to the centre of the country. In addition to the
installations I have mentioned there are radar stations throughout
the north and on both coasts feeding information into the NORAD
networks.
The north warning system consists of 15 long range radars, 11 in
Canada, 39 unattended short range radars and nine associated
satellite communications systems. The north warning system is
deployed across the Alaskan north slope, northern Canada and the
Labrador coast and provides surveillance of the northern
approaches to North America. Data gathered by the system is sent
by satellite communications to the appropriate regional centre at
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska or North Bay where tracking,
identification and interceptor control are handled.
The Canadian portion of the system is operated and maintained
by civilian radar contractors under contracts managed by DND.
With the end of the cold war system costs have been reduced
resulting in a lower level of operations and fewer staff at the radar
locations.
In NORAD we have a system that uses the most advanced
technology to defend Canada against terrorism and surprise attack
by nuclear, chemical or biological weapons carried by missiles or
aircraft. In addition, it detects drug smugglers and terrorists. This is
a multi-purpose system and its effectiveness is tested frequently.
Canadian NORAD pilots fly some 800 training missions a year. I
find this reassuring.
(1615)
The NORAD agreement that I have just described is only one of
many agreements and arrangements that Canada has with the
United States. We have some 239 bilateral agreements covering
everything from water quality of the Great Lakes to trade. Between
543
Canada and the United States there is one of the most extensive,
broad ranging links between any two countries in the world.
The trade between Canada and the United States is greater than
between virtually any other two countries in the world. The range
of bilateral arrangements and co-operations on multilateral fora is
as extensive as that between any other two countries.
By taking advantage of the NORAD renewal in this area of
strategic aerospace defence we are building on the strong
relationship we have shared with our neighbour to the south and
from which we in Canada have benefited. There will be disputes.
We have disputes with the United States at the present time on a
number of issues but that should not obscure the important
friendship and ties that we share and wish to maintain as a united
country on the North American continent with the most powerful
country in the world.
I appreciate the opportunity of speaking on this matter. Once
again I am pleased to see the degree of agreement the government's
proposals have this afternoon. We also look forward to constructive
suggestions opposition members may have for the government as it
prepares to continue this very important agreement with the United
States.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the North
American Aerospace Defence Command.
The question before us is whether as a country Canada should
contribute to NORAD for the next five years. I believe that Canada
should. NORAD has served our country and North American
security extremely well.
The first thing we must realize is that the post cold war era is not
safer than times past. In fact the world is more unstable and fragile
than what has gone before. The duel between two superpowers, the
former U.S.S.R. and America, has unshackled a number of
countries which were in conflict and has given rise to rabid
nationalism that is a major and potent destabilizing factor in the
world.
I might add that we have been ill-equipped, ill-advised,
ill-prepared and unable to deal with the major security threats that
are now occurring. An example is the rise of ethnic nationalism
along the lines of Mr. Zhirinovsky, a very dangerous creature in the
former U.S.S.R.
Many former Soviet Union countries are very unstable. One
need not look any further than Chechnya or Tadzikhistan to see the
conflicts that are brewing there. I need not remind the House that
many of these former Soviet Union countries are nuclear capable.
There has been a proliferation of countries with ballistic missile
technology. Despite our best efforts to control nuclear technology
and biological weapons, a number of countries, some of which are
renegades in some aspects of their foreign policy, may already have
nuclear capability or are pursuing this capability. As has been seen
in recent times this capability can be utterly devastating. We need
look no further than at what happened in Japan last year. If we
expand on that there is no reason why that cannot land on our
doorstep one day.
(1620)
There is a myth that the United States is the only superpower in
the world. That is simply not true. One need not look any further
than the China-Taiwan conflict that is occurring today to see that
there is another superpower, China.
Fueled by a superheated economy, China has gone on a spending
spree, the likes of which has not been seen or taken into full
account in recent memory. It has purchased a lot of very powerful
aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missiles and weaponry, including
nuclear powered and nuclear capable submarines and ships. In
other words, it has built up perhaps the second most powerful
military force in the world.
China also has a very different political ideology from us. That
political ideology is very dangerous. We need not look any further
than the China-Taiwan conflict to see the extent to which China is
willing to pursue its goals. Fuelled by its ability to get Hong Kong
and Macao under its wing, it now sees Taiwan as another
possibility that it can bring into the fold. However, it is doing this
in a way that flies in the face of the norms of international
co-operation and international agreements.
It is up to the international community to deal with this in a way
that will be productive. NORAD has given us this capability.
I bring up the Taiwan-China situation to show that here is a
situation very close to our borders where nuclear weapons can
potentially be used. Therefore, NORAD needs to continue and it
needs to continue with our co-operation.
Another aspect not heard much about in terms of NORAD is that
apart from continuing on as it is today, it can be made an even
better system. Part of what could considered is a global warning
system.
What I propose is something that has been talked about before in
some circles. NORAD could be integrated into a global warning
system with other allies in the north. Their warning systems could
be integrated with NORAD to have a surveillance system, an early
warning system and also a system which can be acted on should
possible dangers be faced. Not only will it be good for the
furtherance of NORAD, but it will also be good for international
co-operation among our allies, a level of co-operation that we are
going to need in the future.
544
As I have said before in the House, Canada's security is
intimately entwined with the security of every other country in
the world. Therefore, Canada has to pursue a course of action that
lends itself to international involvement, co-operation and
endeavours that are going to make our collective security stronger.
To do it alone is impossible. For Canada to do it alone is absolutely
ludicrous because we simply do not have the money and the power
to monitor a land mass the size we have been given.
On a related topic, I might add that the $800 million that has
been taken from the defence portfolio, while it is welcomed, I
would warn the minister of defence that removing it from
procurement is wrong.
The situation at present is that we have a Minister of Foreign
Affairs and the Minister of National Defence who appear to be
pursuing courses that is not in sync. Canada has, correctly so,
pursued a course of peacekeeping and peacemaking in our foreign
policy. It is something that we can do very well and one that we
ought to continue. If the men and women in our armed forces are to
be obligated to do this, then they have to be provided with the tools.
To send them out in the field in peacekeeping and peacemaking
without the proper tools is putting their lives in potential danger
and that is unforgivable. The men and women in the armed forces
must have the tools to do the job properly.
(1625)
Peacemaking and peacekeeping is not a benign endeavour, it is
combat pure and simple, and they must be armed for combat if they
are going to do the job well and if they are going to protect
themselves from possible danger. Anything less would be putting
our people in danger and this House cannot under any
circumstances let that occur. We have that obligation to them.
There are a couple of other aspects of the China-Taiwan situation
that I would like to talk about. I was thankful to see that the
Americans took the initiative by taking a battle force into the
Straits of Taiwan. The larger resolution of this problem and others
like it are going to need international co-operation.
Apart from the China-Taiwan conflict there is the potentially
volatile India-Pakistan conflict, two nuclear powers glaring at each
other across the Himalayas. This has been going on for a long time.
It is heating up and one day this can prove to be a very problematic
and devastating geopolitical event. It is one that is as preventable as
is the one between China and Taiwan.
How is this going to be done? It will not be one country that does
this but it will require international co-operation. I believe, and
many of my colleagues here in the House that I have spoken with
also agree, that Canada has a unique opportunity and a unique
responsibility in the international family. We are one of the few
countries that has the ability and the reputation to take a leadership
role in revamping the international security organizations to
become more effective.
Foreign policy in this world has taken on a reactive tone. We do
not deal truly with peacekeeping or should I say conflict
prevention. We deal with conflict management. That is what
peacekeeping and peacemaking is all about.
Instead of incurring the terrible costs that conflicts occur, not
only in terms of human costs but also the devastation wracked upon
a country that descends into civil war, we must address our
endeavours into preventing those conflicts from occurring. To do
this we have to identify the precursors to conflict and co-ordinate
international efforts.
Who is going to do that? It will not be the United States because
that country, for better or for worse, is mistrusted in many spheres.
Few countries can do this. Canada is one of those along with
probably a half a dozen other Nordic countries, Australia and New
Zealand.
I am happy the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs said that he would be very happy to hear
suggestions from the House. I would suggest that the Minister of
Foreign Affairs convene a meeting with other like-minded nations
to develop a common foreign policy to revamp international
organizations such as the United Nations and international
financial institution.
Through a concerted effort we can make change. The way to do
this is to speak in terms of self-interest. When a country blows up,
when a country descends into civil war such as what happened in
Bosnia, the international community is left spending billions and
billions of dollars to try to reconstruct the economy and the
infrastructure in these countries. It also has to try to push down the
ethnic discontent and hatred that has descended in these countries.
We need to look at it far before this occurs. We need to look at it
before the killing starts because once the killing begins the seeds of
ethnic discontent are there for the future. It is very difficult to
produce long term peace if that occurs.
(1630)
All we need do is look at Bosnia today and see the fracturing
occurring in the Bosnian federation, a situation I believe will
fracture. We hope it will be done in a peaceful way at the
negotiating table and not at the end of an assault rifle.
Canada must involve itself with the Nordic nations to do a
number of things. It must revamp the United Nations. The security
council must be revamped and expanded. We need to get rid of the
security council veto for any country. Any endeavours by the
security council ought to be made on a two-thirds majority vote.
Another aspect is the revamping of international financial
institutions. The IFIs can be a potent, non-military lever to
addressing the precursors to conflict. The precursors to impending
conflict, such as with Nigeria and Bosnia, are often brought
forward by individuals trying to manipulate ethnic hatreds for their
own end, usually for power. The IFIs can bring down on them a
545
number of non-military restrictions such as not renegotiating loans,
withholding foreign aid or giving them foreign aid if they are
prepared to enter into diplomatic solutions to their problems. It is
low cost and effective.
You need money to drive a war. Without the money you will not
have war. The countries that will potentially explode in the future
are some of the most impoverished in the world, often relying
heavily on international financial institutions for their money. As a
country we can work with other countries to revamp the IFIs to
make them a more effective tool for preventing conflict.
Another aspect we can use along with our involvement in
NORAD is the pursuit of a stronger international arms registry. An
arms registry will add a measure of transparency to the very murky
world of arms sales. If we can find where arms are being built up
through sales we can use that as a potential indicator of a precursor
to a conflict about to happen. It will send out warning signs.
The other thing we need to do is revamp the UN crisis centre to
make it an effective conduit of information to the UN security
council. By doing that we and our neighbours can have a better idea
of potential conflicts on the horizon.
These are some of the endeavours that we can pursue. I think it is
incumbent upon us to do that. Our past reactive foreign policy is
costly, myopic and leads to much human suffering that is entirely
unnecessary in our world. Not only do we have the likes of China
and Taiwan, Indian and Pakistan to deal with, but also other
countries such as Tadzikhistan, Chechnya, Rwanda, Burundi,
Nigeria and many others that are potentially explosive.
Why deal with them after? Why not deal with them now before
the conflict? Our approach historically has been weak. It has been
the policy of appeasement, waiting to see what happens. Time has
shown this to be ineffective and inhumane.
One of the fallacies of foreign policy has been that we tend to
negotiate with the leaders of certain countries who do not
necessarily have the best interests of their people at heart.
Generally speaking, wherever we are the average civilian wants to
live in peace and harmony and have a good life.
Politicians in certain countries are willing to sacrifice that for
their own end. It is very important for us to realize that when we are
negotiating with these individuals.
(1635 )
I have an aside on the topic of Bosnia. If we believe the
implementation force is to be the be all and end all of Bosnia, we
are sadly mistaken. The different groups within Bosnia, the
Bosnian Serbs, Muslims and Croats, are starting to polarize. The
leadership in the Bosnian Serb camp is starting to once again stir
the ethnic discontent and hatred that started this problem in part in
the first place. We must head this off. We must head off the
misinformation taking place there now.
Furthermore, the implementation force does not buy us peace.
The implementation force merely buys us a window of opportunity
so peace can occur. First, along with providing a safe haven within
which civilians can live temporarily, the international community
must get together with the European Union to rebuild the economic
infrastructure within Bosnia. If a country's civilian population is
without an economy, if there is a desperate and a poor population
which already has the seeds of ethnic hatred, there are all the
precursors of a conflict. Bosnia will descend into conflict again
unless we recognize that.
We need to keep abreast of the fact these groups are splintering.
Let us make sure they splinter at a negotiating table in a peaceful
way and not at the end of an assault rifle.
Our policy on Cuba has been perfectly correct. The Americans
are wrong. It is a parsimonious policy driven by the rich Cuban
expatriate community in the United States that is manipulating
politicians in America to do what it wants. If we do not help Cuba
in terms of bilateral trade and bilateral economic activity, we will
be left with a desperate population in Cuba. When Mr. Castro dies
there will be a power vacuum that will lead to conflict. Then we
will have Haiti II in the Caribbean. That is what will occur.
I strongly encourage the foreign minister to speak to Mr. Clinton
and to tell him to support our policy of active engagement with
Cuba. When we do that, when we build up the economy for the
people of Cuba, we build up a middle class, we build up a political
power structure that will one day take over from Mr. Castro in a
peaceful way. We would not be left with a potential second Haiti in
our midst. That would not only be unfair to the people there but
would create a political and geopolitical problem in our area.
We support the NORAD involvement into the future.
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the comments of the hon. member which were enlightened and
sensible. Not surprisingly, I agreed with much of what he said.
He made several excellent suggestions such as co-operation
among the polar nations, expansion of NORAD in some respects to
work with other polar nations in terms of surveillance. He made
some important suggestions in terms of UN reform. He said
Canada's security is intertwined with the security of every other
546
country in the world and that Canadians must take a leading role in
establishing the precursors to peacekeeping.
I agree with these sentiments. They are wise sentiments.
However, we are talking today about NORAD and the advantage is
surely that it does save Canada a great deal of money. We work
with the United States in activities such as surveillance. We have
based our defence policy on co-operation.
Many of the hon. member's suggestions would cause Canada's
defence budget, indeed its foreign affairs budget, to rise
dramatically. Does the hon. member believe his party, his
constituents, his province and Canadians in general would support
the kind of increase in the defence budget and foreign affairs
budget that such policies would seem to suggest as necessary?
(1640 )
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my hon. friend for the very important question. There is no way we
in this party would support an increase in spending in foreign
affairs and in defence.
I do not accept the hon. member's premise that it will cost us
more to do the things I mentioned. They do not all have to be done
at the same time but can be worked into our foreign policy and our
defence policy over time.
The cost of inaction today is far greater than the cost of
preventing a situation. If we had been involved in the Rwanda
situation with other countries earlier it would not have cost us the
hundreds of millions of dollars it has today. Similarly it would not
have cost us the billions of dollars in the former Yugoslavia if we
had gone into the situation earlier and prevented those conflicts.
The key is prevention. We might spend a dollar today but we will
save much more in the future. These costs are involved in a number
of different areas. When a conflict occurs we have the migration of
populations to our shores. This costs us in terms of immigration
claimants, in terms of foreign aid, in terms of our defence and
foreign affairs budgets if we do not address these problems in a
preventive fashion. As we all know, the costs of getting involved in
a conflict are far greater than the cost of preventing those conflicts.
My hon. friend has made many interesting and wise suggestions
in the House. I am sure we will get together sometime in the near
future to discuss this further. The bottom line is prevention is better
than waiting for a conflict to occur and action after that.
Furthermore, our involvement in prevention is predicated on the
fact that other countries will involve themselves in prevention as
well.
I reiterate that these involvements are in a multinational fashion,
done with other countries and therefore will be much less
expensive than in reacting to conflicts in the future.
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Nipissing.
I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on
NORAD renewal. As the House has heard, NORAD was originally
formed 39 years ago to provide for the common air defence of
North America, and the first NORAD agreement was signed in
1958.
The original purpose of NORAD was to counter the Soviet
bomber threat of the 1950s, but soon after its establishment we
faced an additional challenge, Soviet intercontinental ballistic
missiles. While these remained the principal threats of the 1960s
and 1970s, the introduction of sophisticated cruise missiles into the
Soviet inventory meant further adjustments to NORAD in the
1980s.
With all these changes NORAD evolved to meet changing
threats and it also adjusted its facilities and infrastructure. For
example, outdated radar facilities were replaced or closed,
operation centres were consolidated and the number of aircraft
available to NORAD was significantly reduced.
Adjustments such as these ensured that NORAD remained
efficient and effective in both an operational and financial sense as
the command matured and adapted to changing circumstances. For
NORAD flexibility, effectiveness and efficiency are established
traits which continue to serve the national security interests of both
Canada and the United States in ways which would be difficult, if
not impossible, to achieve unilaterally. As we have seen in the 1996
renewal negotiations, these traits continue to be a critical feature of
NORAD.
The command and control structure of NORAD has also evolved
over the years into the integrated structure that it is today with
binational representation throughout. This means that at NORAD
bases in both nations Canadian and American military personnel
work side by side at all levels of organization.
The headquarters of NORAD is located at Colorado Springs. The
commander in chief is an American four star general while the
deputy commander in chief is a Canadian forces lieutenant general.
This is an excellent example of co-operation between our two
nations.
(1645)
There are also three regional headquarters: the Alaska NORAD
region at Elmendorf Air Force Base outside Anchorage; the
Canadian NORAD region at 22 Wing North Bay, which will move
to Winnipeg as announced in the recent federal budget; and the
continental United States region at Tyndall Air Force Base in
Florida. The regional headquarters in the United States are
commanded by American air force major generals with Canadian
brigadier generals as deputies, while the Canadian region is
547
commanded by a Canadian major general with an American air
force brigadier general as deputy.
This is a remarkable achievement and there is no other bilateral
command in the world that is so fully integrated as NORAD. To the
men and women who serve within NORAD, the national insignia
on the uniform is immaterial in their day to day activities providing
for the aerospace defence of North America. Yet despite this
integration, NORAD today enhances rather than diminishes our
sovereignty.
Air sovereignty and air defence operations have been enduring
missions for NORAD since its genesis. Last year NORAD
monitored over 400,000 flights entering North American air space.
More than 400 of these flights could not be correlated with known
flight plans and required further investigation, including in some
instances the launch of fighter interceptors.
Approximately 200 fighter launches take place each year to
investigate unknown contacts. About one-third of these result in
interception. Generally the remaining two-thirds are identified by
other means prior to interception. Although the bulk of these
interceptions are innocent in nature, in the past a small number
involved either Russian aircraft or suspected drug smugglers.
Assisting law enforcement agencies and countering suspected
drug smugglers has been a NORAD responsibility since 1991. As I
mentioned earlier, in addition to air sovereignty, since the 1960s
NORAD has been responsible for missile warning for North
America. While the end of the cold war has certainly reduced the
risk of missile attack in North America, we must remember there
are approximately 20,000 nuclear weapons in existence around the
world.
As the defence white paper noted, the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction and the technology for delivering them over
long ranges is an issue of growing concern. Accordingly the missile
warning capability of NORAD remains an important part of North
American defence.
NORAD has specific responsibility to provide warnings of an
intercontinental ballistic missile, submarine launch ballistic
missile or cruise missile attack on North America. Global missile
events are detected by American satellites. Currently there are
some 100 launches into space each year, most having to do with the
launch of military and civilian satellites. In the late 1980s annual
launches numbered approximately 300. NORAD monitors all areas
of strategic interest seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
The greatest benefit the Canadian and American governments
derive from NORAD is the ability to share not only the
responsibilities but also the resources for continental security. It
would be militarily impractical and economically impossible for
Canada or the United States to perform NORAD's current missions
or function unilaterally.
As I said earlier, NORAD was signed in 1958 and it built upon
post war defence arrangements and of course on wartime
co-operation. Prior to the war there were defence discussions
between Canada and the United States in the 1930s which built up
the precedent for the permanent joint board of defence that a
member earlier mentioned.
It is worth remembering that prior to 1930, Canada's defence
planning was developed with the view of countering attacks from
the United States or even in some wild moments thinking of small
Canadian invasions of the United States. It seems ludicrous to us
today that Canada should have the United States in its defence plan
as a possible enemy, but within the last 60 years that had been the
case. What changed the situation was Canadian and American
leaders working together recognizing that greater threats were
outside this continent than within. Working together they achieved
the kind of co-operation that marks Canadian and American
relationships today.
Paradoxically, through co-operation we have shown that we can
preserve our sovereignty better than through conflict. In the case of
NORAD the existence of NORAD made our voice louder in
Washington rather than softer when we objected to American
policy on the ABM treaty. It made our voice louder in Washington
when we objected to aspects of the so-called star wars policy of the
Reagan administration in the 1980s.
In summary, the NORAD agreement transcends defence
co-operation between two nations. Its most visible manifestation is
the broad based co-operation between two countries. It is a model
for other countries in the world that face conflict and believe that
such conflict cannot be transcended.
(1650)
NORAD remains well postured to assist both nations in
responding to current and future aerospace security challenges.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before the resumption of
debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the
House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of
adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Frontenac-Agri-food sector.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to address an issue which is of great importance to my
riding of Nipissing and that is the renewal of the North American
aerospace defence command agreement. I know my colleagues will
agree that NORAD is the most visible and important feature of the
bilateral partnership that exists between Canada and the United
States. The Canadian NORAD region is headquartered in my
riding.
548
Although the NORAD agreement has been renewed at least
every five years since its first signing back in 1958, the text of
the agreement has not been revised since 1981. Moreover,
NORAD's present objectives date back to 1975. These objectives
are: to assist each nation in safeguarding the sovereignty of its
air space, and this also includes counter-drug operations; to
contribute to the deterrence of attack on North America by
providing capabilities for aerospace surveillance, warning and
characterization of aerospace attack, as well as defence against air
attack; and, should deterrence fail, to ensure an appropriate
response against attack by providing for the effective use of our
respective forces available for air defence. With these objectives
in mind, I will summarize the results of the NORAD renewal
negotiations.
Early in 1994 the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade and the Minister of National Defence directed their officials
to consult with the United States on the future of NORAD. These
consultations took place between April 6 and October 18, 1994
under the auspices of a bilateral group consisting of four agencies:
from Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade and the Department of National Defence; and from the
United States, the Department of State and the Department of
Defence.
Out of these consultations emerged the report ``Options for
Canada-U.S. Co-operation in Aerospace Defence'' signed by both
countries on October 18, 1994. This report established the broad
framework for the subsequent renewal negotiations.
While a working group was conducting its analysis and
preparing its report, the special joint committees of Canada's
defence and foreign policies were also examining Canada's future
participation in NORAD, albeit within a larger context. The
NORAD renewal consultations and the parliamentary reviews all
recommended Canada's continued participation in NORAD. Not
surprisingly, this view was also reflected in the 1994 defence white
paper.
Early in 1995 the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International
Trade and the Minister of National Defence approved Canada's
renewal objectives. At the end of July last year, Canada and the
United States together agreed on the general objectives for
renewal. Canada then crafted the first draft and exchange of notes
between our countries, which formed the basis for negotiations
within the United States. Negotiations of the final text of the
exchange of notes took place from August to November 1995. The
text was then presented for national approval.
In Canada the review and approval process for NORAD renewal
includes today's parliamentary debate followed by cabinet
consideration. In addition, the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs also examined the technical aspects
of NORAD's renewal last October.
I will now spend a couple of moments on Canadian negotiating
objectives for NORAD renewal and discuss the degree of success
we have achieved so far. I should mention here that Canada's
objectives took full account of the excellent work of the special
joint committees on Canada's defence and foreign policies as well
as the NORAD renewal working group. Needless to say, the
government's 1994 defence white paper provided critical direction.
As I mentioned earlier, the NORAD agreement was last
rewritten in 1981 and at that time it kept the objectives set out in
1975. As the agreement is now written, it does not reflect current
strategic circumstances. Canada's first negotiating objective
therefore was to update the language of the NORAD agreement to
reflect current and projected geostrategic circumstances. This first
negotiating objective has been fully achieved. The new draft
agreement explicitly recognizes the changed security environment
of the post cold war era and its effect on North American aerospace
defence.
(1655)
Specifically, the new agreement acknowledged that there is a
significant decreased threat from manned bombers; that there is the
potential for deep cuts in nuclear arsenals as a result of arms
control measures; that nuclear weapons capable of striking North
America remain in place; that the role of space will take on greater
significance in the future; and that a proliferation of sophisticated
cruise missile technologies could pose a threat to North America in
the future. In short, the new agreement places traditional threats in
their proper post cold war context while making a prudent
assessment of future challenges.
Given the tremendous changes in the world since 1975 and the
potential challenges facing us in the years ahead, Canada's second
renewal objective was to articulate clearly NORAD's current and
future roles. I am happy to report that this objective has been
achieved.
In the revised NORAD agreement, NORAD's missions are
specified as aerospace warning and aerospace control. An example
of aerospace warning is the detection and assessment of missile
launches such as the well publicized scud missile launches that
occurred during the gulf war. An example of aerospace control is
the use of ground based radars to detect, track and assist in the
identification of unknown aircraft in or approaching Canada's air
space.
Canada also wanted to ensure that the NORAD agreement allows
for bilateral examination of potential areas of mutual interest
between our two countries. Therefore, Canada's third negotiating
objective was to ensure that the NORAD agreement facilitates the
examination of new or enhanced mission areas and does not close
off any options that may be in the interests of Canada and the
United States.
549
The third negotiating objective has also been fully achieved.
Nothing in the new agreement would commit Canada or the United
States to any specific programs in this context, but it would
provide the flexibility to explore areas of mutual interest in the
future. It is important to understand that changes to NORAD
activities can only take place with the agreement of both countries
at the appropriate levels.
It is critical that Canada is able to exert some influence on
developments in aerospace defence that affect Canadian security
interests. Canada's fourth negotiating objective therefore was to
include a consultative mechanism to ensure that any future
developments affecting the aerospace defence of North America
would be the subject of prior consultations. Once again, this
objective has been achieved. Wording has been incorporated into
the new agreement that will provide for this consultation.
Moreover, this consultation will serve to underscore the central
role of NORAD in North American aerospace defence.
During the negotiations, Canada also argued that a clause on the
environment should be included in the revised agreement to protect
the environmental interests of both countries. This was not a stated
Canadian objective but the government did attach importance to it.
The new agreement stresses the importance of protecting the
environment and commits both parties to reveal the environmental
dimension of NORAD operations to the permanent joint board of
defence. The procedures for this environmental review will likely
be the subject of a separate agenda item at the next meeting of the
PJBD in April this year. This additional negotiating objective has
been fully met as Canada and the United States will consult at a
higher level on NORAD's role in protecting the environment.
In closing, we are on track for a highly successful renewal of the
NORAD agreement this spring. All of Canada's negotiating
objectives have been achieved. The renewal of NORAD this year
will represent the most significant revision of the agreement since
1981.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to take part in this debate on the renewal of the
North American Aerospace Defense Command agreement,
commonly known as the NORAD agreement.
(1700)
It is important to remember that Canada signed this agreement
for the first time in 1958. Canada and the United States have
renewed the agreement seven times and are expected to renew it
again this year, which explains the debate we are having today in
this House.
First of all, allow me to review the historical background to the
NORAD agreement, and then to propose to extend the NORAD
agreement in order to include our economic partners from the rest
of the Americas.
To properly understand how such an important organization got
its start, I would like to quote from a document prepared in the back
rooms of National Defence, which summarizes NORAD's main
objectives.
According to this document, NORAD's groundwork was laid out
before the cold war, when Canada and the United States joined
together to triumph over Europe-Japan axis powers. The concept of
joint defence activities between Canada and the United States was
officially mentioned for this first time in the 1940 Ogdensburg
Declaration. In February 1947, after the second world war, both
Ottawa and Washington announced the principles for future
military co-operation, including air defence.
In 1954, the Chief of Staff of the Royal Canadian Air Force and
the commander of the United States Air Forces Air Defence
Command held formal discussions. They concluded that air
defence for both countries could be best provided by a single
organization under one command. In 1957, the Canadian Minister
of National Defence and the U.S. Defence Secretary announced the
signing of a binational agreement to establish an integrated air
command based at Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
Since May 12, 1958, the two countries have been renewing this
agreement every five years.
This brief introduction or historical overview shows the
importance of this agreement as far as the air defence of North
American, more specifically of Canadian, air space is concerned.
But there are also economic reasons, in addition to the historical
ones.
I shall stop for an aside here, reminding you that Canada pays for
only approximately 10 per cent of the costs of defending North
American air space, and the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of
renewing the NORAD agreement. At the same time, however, it
does propose major changes.
The Bloc believes that, unlike the situation in 1991, renewal of
the agreement now ought to trigger debate and a far more
transparent evaluation of the role of NORAD in a post cold war
context. The threat of the U.S.S.R. no longer hangs over Canada
and the U.S. The traditional threat of nuclear conflict is, to all
intents and purposes, no longer present. There are still other
threats, however, such as the emergence of regional powers with
nuclear weapons, and the rise in terrorism. Both of these could
have been discussed in a far more transparent fashion here today in
the House.
North America's air defence role can, and must, change to keep
pace with international geostrategic fluctuations. The Bloc Quebe-
550
cois is convinced that decisions on renewal could have been shaped
by such considerations, but here again everything points toa done deal.
According to February 24's Le Devoir, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs has apparently already endorsed the final version of the new
NORAD agreement. The Minister is supposedly going to sign it on
March 13 or 14 with his American counterpart, according to this
report.
What disrespect on the minister's part. Disrespect for the
members of his own party, who get up and speak while knowing
full well their minister has already negotiated the clauses of the
agreement with the U.S. behind the scenes. Disrespect for the
House as well, scoffing at the importance of the debate that has
been going on here and the opinion of the members of all parties. I
trust that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will not get into the habit
of throwing such roadblocks in the way of the workings of this
House, for his credibility will suffer if he does.
(1705)
The Bloc also regrets the fact that the government did not use the
occasion of the renewal of the agreement to redefine the primary
mission, as it said it would in its 1994 white paper on defence. The
proposed changes to the new agreement are relatively minor.
Another promise by the wayside, but we are used to that.
There is one basic point we would have wanted raised in the
negotiations for NORAD's renewal. It has to do with opportunities
to expand the agreement to include new economic partners in the
Americas. The Free Trade Agreement has become the North
American Free Trade Agreement. Three countries have interests in
this huge continental market, and Chile is waiting in the wings. All
of the Americas have agreed to open borders within a specific time
frame. Given this opening up of commercial markets and the
countless economic networks, a complete redefinition of NORAD
seems inevitable and must take this new pan-American reality into
account.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that a renewed NORAD should be the
basic means of linking our economic and commercial interests to
military alliances, which may ensure the longevity of the incipient
political stability in Central and South American countries.
On many occasions, we have seen how a country's political
stability depends on its economic prosperity. I think it would be
beneficial to all the Americas to have this stability apply to the
entire continent, north and south.
The proposal to expand NORAD should first be made to Mexico,
which is already a NAFTA partner. It would then be appropriate to
invite other countries in the OAS to take part in a joint continental
defence project.
The dispute between Cuba and the United States provides a
patent example of the complexities in the relationships among the
countries of the three Americas. The Bloc Quebecois, like the
government, condemns the action of the Cuban air force, but leaves
it up to the ICAO to investigate and reach its conclusions.
However, the Helms-Burton bill, through its extraterritoriality,
violates international law and impinges on Canadian sovereignty in
the area of foreign relations. This conflict also reveals the close
weave of political, economic and commercial ties among the
various trading partners on the continent.
The question we are asking on this side of the House is whether
such a tragic event should lead us to wonder about the continent as
a whole given the links between the countries which make it up. Do
economic interests stay separate from political interests for long?
This is a issue that highlights NORAD's importance within the
context of the global market.
Cohesion is essential in this era of interdependency and, in my
opinion, seems to be a priority in the renewal of this key agreement
between two players faced with a increasingly changing
chess-board.
To remain up to date, a new NORAD could allow for an extended
partnership, as we have seen with NATO, which would serve as a
support to co-operation for peacekeeping as well as for democracy
or the respect of human rights.
We are under the impression that with the assistance that the
United States and Canada give to Haiti, to give only one example, a
preventive air mission could be conducted under the auspices of
NORAD. Many countries in South America are working toward
democracy or trying to protect human rights. These countries could
also benefit from such assistance.
We firmly believe that, with some sort of regional alliance,
issues such as the Haitian problem or the trafficking of drugs from
Colombia would be substantially different. By making overtures to
these countries which are not part of the western bloc, an expanded
NORAD could develop linkages with the south, bringing us to
more open-mindedness and creating new opportunities for Latin
American countries.
(1710)
With regard to technology, NORAD offers several alternatives
through co-operation, which would narrow the gap between north
and south and could result in the export of specialized jobs to the
south. Technological transfers would revitalize the economy in the
countries involved. Chili, where Canadian exporters are investing
millions of dollars, is a case in point. Several other countries in
South America are interested in technology making quick inroads
into their markets.
On an American continent open for business, it would to the
benefit of every one to have partners with a healthy economy and a
healthy political life. Human rights, respect for democracy and
open trade are in North America major values, which are becoming
551
increasingly present in the south. These are several elements
which would warrant a closer monitoring of the continent.
Nobody likes to trade at the expense of human rights. It is up to
us to uphold these fundamental values. Moreover, by increasing the
number of its military partners in the Americas, Canada would no
longer be alone to protect its sovereignty against the United States.
Multilateral agreements would result in American decisions with
regard to air defense having somewhat less weight.
One must realize that, with around 10 per cent of the budget and
an even lesser percentage of forces, Canada is far from having the
last say within NORAD. By increasing the number of participants
and decision makers, and by involving emerging democracies in
the decision making process, Canada will improve its reputation in
this part of the world, which is becoming increasingly familiar to
us.
In conclusion, I would say that we are convinced that NORAD's
mission should be broadened in order to include our economic
partners in the rest of the Americas. This would provide a new
direction for NORAD more in tune with the major economic, social
and political challenges of the next century.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member for Terrebonne.
In his speech-
[English]
-the description of NORAD was well defined in the early part of
the hon. member's speech. The preamble to that led me to believe
that he was looking at this as a collective security agreement,
which it is.
Then it got into something like it was the United Nations with all
kinds of different aspects to it that were not under the umbrella of
the existing mandate for NORAD. As a consequence it was sucked
into the Organization of American States and other areas of
co-operation, like NAFTA.
The reality is a aérospatial collective agreement. It is nothing
else but that. It is two countries coming together for collective
security to bring some stability and peace of mind in case there is
the need to activate it in full force again.
What does the member see in the defensive aspects of the-
[Translation]
-North American Aerospace Defence Command as being
positive?
Mr. Sauvageau: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question, which gives me the opportunity to explain some elements
of my speech he thinks were not perfectly clear. Please excuse me
for that, dear colleague.
The only thing I was trying to say is that Canada and the United
States signed, in 1958, an agreement on the defence of North
American air space mainly because they were the two major
economic and political partners in America and in North America
for that matter.
(1715)
Given the opening up of markets, given the ties being created
between Mexico and Chile, given also the conclusions of the last
trip the Prime Minister made to South America where he said to the
Organization of American States that we wanted a common market
25 years from now, I believe defence of the air space should be
extended not only to Canada and the United States, but to all of the
Americas.
The basis for NORAD, that is defence against the eastern bloc
during the cold war, because NORAD came a short while before the
cold war but was mainly established during the cold war, has
evolved and changed over the years. Should the NORAD bases now
be reoriented according to the geostrategic realities of the
Americas? I believe so.
As my colleagues have said previously, we support the renewal
of the NORAD agreement, like our Reform and Liberal friends. On
that no one disagrees, everybody agrees: NORAD is profitable for
Canada. Nobody disagrees, everybody agrees.
However, in their 1994 defence white paper, the Liberals said
that what was needed was a thorough redefinition of NORAD
orientations; but in the renewal agreement such as it is proposed,
we can see that its principles have not been redefined at all. The
only thing I want to say to my hon. colleague is the following: yes,
NORAD is good, but NORAD needs to evolve with the course of
events, economy and trade trends and all ties that bind all countries
of the Americas together.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak during this
debate. I may be able to add something to it. Everyone in the House
was given a briefing book from national defence on NORAD and I
would like quote one sentence from that document: ``Following the
second world war in February 1947, both Ottawa and Washington
announced the principles for future military co-operation,
including air defence''. I will comment on that February 1947
agreement because it involved much more than settling the
principles we needed for a collective air defence.
Canada shared with Britain and the United States the most
intimate military secrets. At the end of the war they knew about
radar, they had done the most intimate experiments in chemical and
biological warfare research and they shared communications
intelligence. Canada was directly linked with the United States and
552
Britain in intercepting radio signals and decrypting them, as well
as decrypting diplomatic signals.
Canada also ended the war as the second nuclear power in the
world. Nearby in Chalk River the second nuclear reactor outside of
the United States started up in 1945, precisely at the same time that
Igor Gouzenko, the famous Soviet cypher clerk, defected to Canada
and actually launched the cold war. It was Gouzenko who warned
the British and the Americans that the Russians were not allies at
all but were planning world domination. That led very directly to
the secret accord of February 1947.
The details of that agreement are still unavailable in the archives
of Canada and the United States although various historians have
been able to piece together what it consisted of. It dealt in the
sharing of communications intelligence and signals intelligence. It
included the sharing of biological and chemical warfare research.
Canadians undertook on behalf of the allies to do most of the
chemical warfare testing at Suffield near Medicine Hat.
The agreement also included the setting up various intelligence
organizations in Canada which did not exist before. These included
the joint intelligence committee which was the clearing house of
secret intelligence, and the joint intelligence bureau which
examined topographical intelligence, geography and that kind of
thing.
(1720 )
Once the threat had been appreciated, that Stalin was a dictator
much along the lines of Hitler, it was realized that the United States
was the next likely target. The Americans decided that the attack
was likely to come over the Arctic. Therefore, Canada in a very real
sense had no choice but to co-operate with the United States in
setting up some sort of air defence plan in the Arctic.
I have actually seen a document in which the former prime
minister, Mackenzie King, advised his deputy minister of foreign
affairs that Canada had to come to an agreement with the United
States because American planes were already mapping Canada's
Arctic and if Canada did not come to a military agreement on the
defence of North America with the United States it would be a
serious erosion of our sovereignty.
However, the agreement for the defence of North America,
which finally took place in 1957, was not that hard to come by in
the sense that Canada, the United States and Britain were already
intimate allies in terms of secret intelligence. We shared then, as I
hope we still do now, the most intimate military secrets without
question. I can give you an example of that actually, Madam
Speaker, and I will in a moment.
When the North America air defence system was set up it
consisted primarily of three lines: the DEW line, the distant early
warning line which was a series of radar stations in the high Arctic
that looked over into the Soviet Union as far as they could go. The
idea was to spot the masses of Soviet bombers as they approached
Canadian territory. Then there was the mid-Canada line which was
a series of automatic radar stations that would indicate which
direction these masses of bombers were flying, whether they were
going to Chicago, New York or wherever. This was followed by the
pine tree line with one station up near Barrie, not very far north of
Toronto. That line was designed to zero in on the interceptors. We
had aircraft stationed at North Bay that were designed to shoot it
out with the incoming Russian bombers. That was the situation
toward the end of the 1950s.
It was apparent that this was a very expensive thing to put
together. What I have to stress again is that this required the most
intimate co-operation between the Americans and the Canadians.
By 1960 it became apparent that it was going to be very difficult to
shoot down the masses of bombers. It was at about that time, in the
early 1960s, that the Canadian government under Diefenbaker
decided to abandon the famous Avro project which was the fighter
bomber that the Canadians had developed which was a superb
aircraft, no doubt about it, in favour of Bomarc missiles. Canada, at
the pine tree line level, became armed with Bomarc missiles. These
were the most modern missiles of their time.
Madam Speaker, I am going to tell you something that you do
not know. These Bomarc missiles which were stationed in various
places in Canada were equipped with nuclear warheads. At the
time, the government denied that there were nuclear warheads on
Canadian territory but in fact the archives just down the street will
show that Canada actually did have nuclear warheads on the
Bomarc missiles. The reason for this was that if the bombers came
down in waves then a small nuclear warhead could shoot down 30
or 40 bombers rather than trying to bring them down individually.
I mention this to illustrate how absolute was the exchange of
secret intelligence between the United States and Canada at that
time and how absolute was the confidence that the Americans had
in Canada because it actually permitted another foreign country to
have missiles on their soil which were capable not just of shooting
down Russian bombers, but also capable of attacking the United
States. Given the American isolationist or independence mentality,
to have that much trust in another country is quite remarkable.
That leads me to why I am glad to have the opportunity to rise
during this debate because now we come to the present. The threat
has changed and it is a different threat. It is not the Soviet Union
perhaps but there are cruise missiles, biological warfare weapons,
nuclear weapons going around the world who knows where. The
threat still exists so there is good reason to want to renew this
NORAD agreement with the Americans.
553
(1725)
Earlier in this debate several of my colleagues from the Bloc
spoke very strongly for the agreement and felt it could be extended
to the rest of North America. It cannot be extended. The history of
secret intelligence in Canada has been an exchange of information
between the United States and actually less so with Britain.
Those who would argue that we can separate this country and not
lose some essential things are wrong. I can suggest the one thing
that we would lose, certainly a separate Quebec would lose, is the
ability to be a partner in the secret intelligence arrangements that
have existed for 50 years between the United States and Britain. I
suggest that type of isolation would not only be unfortunate for a
separate Quebec, it would be very dangerous.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to speak in the debate on the renewal of the North American
Aerospace Defence Command, commonly known as NORAD.
Canadians are frequently reminded that we have differences with
the United States and indeed we do.
The media tells us of the disputes with the U.S. over the inside
passage between the Canadian mainland and Vancouver Island.
They tell us that we differ over the export of grain, eggs, pork
products and softwood lumber under our trade agreements and we
differ over how we should deal with Cuba. We differ as friends and
participation in NORAD has done much to foster this friendship.
The list of things that Canadians and Americans have in common
is much longer and this list begins with NORAD. Created in 1958
the first agreement covered 10 years and has been renewed seven
times since. Each time the Parliament of Canada has fulfilled its
responsibility in debating the merits of a further extension. Indeed
with the debate today we are once again exercising these
responsibilities.
NORAD has evolved over the years from its original purposes
for a binational command structure for fighter defence against long
range Soviet bombers to attack warning in the mid-sixties in
response to intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the mid-1970s the
current objectives of NORAD were defined which included
assistance in safeguarding sovereignty of airspace which now
includes counter drug initiatives, contributing to deterrence of
attack by surveillance and warning and if deterrence fail to ensure
an appropriate response to attack.
These agreements have never been static. They changed to meet
the changing needs of Canada. The House will note that the first
NORAD agreement was for 10 years. This was too long between
reviews. We needed to look over the forms of our continental
defence effort in the context of changing times and times changed
rapidly in the sixties, seventies and eighties and even faster in the
nineties.
Each renewal has taken place in an atmosphere created by the
times. During the Vietnam war some Canadians believed that we
should not renew NORAD at all. Overall our differences have stood
the fact of our common North American home, the fact of our
shared history and the rock bottom inescapable fact of our
generally similar values.
Our overriding interest since 1958 has been in preserving our
heritage from attack by a system with which we shared little.
However, with the end of the Russian empire we have discovered
that we have more in common than we knew with the peoples of
that region. We have discovered that we do have some things in
common with the Russian people. With the disappearance of their
repressive and expansionist system of government times have
changed.
This time consideration of NORAD renewal takes place in an
atmosphere underlined by a greater degree of international calm
than at any time in the past. At a time when vicious little wars and
the mass murder of prisoners and civilians have brought terrible
suffering to the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda we in Canada face
our own insecurities. We are safer now from attack from abroad
than at any time since the second world war. This security is
founded to a large extent on NORAD. Developments only this
decade are helping to foster greater confidence that the world will
not end in a nuclear holocaust.
(1730)
This system is led by the UN and includes some important
regional groupings such as the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe, the Organization of African Unity, the
Organization of American States and many others.
The system that defends North America, European security and
defence interests is that led by the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, NATO. On this side of the Atlantic the two NATO
partners, Canada and the United States, are allied bilaterally under
NORAD. NORAD defends the aerospace of the North American
region of NATO. Canada is co-operating with a military and
economic superpower in the defence of this continent.
It would be foolish to pretend we bring equal resources to this
task. The U.S. is the senior partner. This is reflected by the fact that
the NORAD commander in chief is always an American and a
four-star U.S. air force general. His deputy is always a Canadian, a
three-star general.
The U.S. is the one remaining military super power. As I
indicated earlier, despite our differences of view on some important
matters we have relatively few important differences on the
defence of this continent.
554
We all know the cold war is over but we should remember there
are still thousands of nuclear weapons in the world and thousands
more people who would like to detonate them in this part of the
world.
There is also a need to remain vigilant against terrorists and drug
smugglers. NORAD continues to do this. We must continue to
protect this continent from threats. There is no question that
Canadians and Americans share the view that drug smuggling and
terrorism are threats serious enough to warrant the use of
NORAD's resources.
NORAD continues to symbolize the things Canada and the
United States share. Consideration of NORAD renewal in 1996
takes place in circumstances quite different from previous
renewals. This time there is a residual threat from nuclear weapons
in addition to drug smuggling and terrorism, and there is a nuclear,
biological and chemical threat combined with terrorism that flows
from the existence of states that inhabit a place outside the
intercourse of the civilized world.
These are the countries that work to gain control of nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons and at the same time striving to
increase the capabilities of their rockets. Some of these weapons
can now reach parts of North America.
Let us not forget China's continued testing of nuclear weapons
and its present bellicose activities mere kilometres off the coast of
Taiwan. These are countries that show no sign of changing their
outlaw ways and there will continue to be a threat from them.
NORAD will continue to scan North American aerospace as a
defence against attack from this kind of threat.
Canada has benefited from its participation in NORAD and will
continue to do so. There are practical benefits to be considered. In
intelligence sharing with the United States, the leading nation of
the free world, we are the first among equals when linked with this
nation. We also have shared access to leading edge technology
which alone we cannot even dream of being able to afford.
The operational value of Canadian forces interacting with U.S.
forces in complex situations is most beneficial for our military.
NORAD is simply a good deal for Canada when one realizes the
cost to our country is a mere 10 per cent of the total budget while
we receive a shared 100 per cent of the benefits attributable to this
agreement. It is good value for our Canadian dollar.
NORAD also provides Canada an opportunity to develop space
power. The exploitation of space for military purposes is
inevitable. There is a new objective in the proposed agreement, one
that is most welcome, enhanced environmental protection.
NORAD activities will now be undertaken with the protection of
environmental interests of both nations.
We have learned from the difficulties of the clean-up of the
environmental harms done by the DEW line, whose clean-up will
be started this year. This is a step forward, as the previous
agreement did not address the issue of environmental protection.
All these things serve to remind us of how much we have in
common with the United States. There are times to celebrate
differences and times to recognize shared values. It is a time to
renew NORAD and to acknowledge our good fortune in having
good neighbours.
Since 1958 NORAD has served the citizens of Canada and the
United States as the first line of defence against an aerospace attack
on our homeland. It has provided through its warning capabilities a
clear deterrent to any aggressor. Through outstanding co-operation
and cohesiveness this organization has proven itself in
strengthening the security and sovereignty of Canada and the
United States through its role of watching, warning and
responding.
By adapting to a changing world and positioning itself to
anticipate future challenges NORAD will continue to play a critical
role in the defence of Canada and the United States. I urge all
members of the House to support continued participation in
NORAD.
Mr. Richardson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There being no further speakers, I seek the unanimous consent of
the House to call it 6.43 p.m., which I believe is the scheduled time
of adjournment, and that we then move directly to the adjournment
debate if members are present and ready.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
554
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am glad to be revisiting something that I consider essential and that
is denying Canada the right to impose tariff equivalents to replace
import quotas on milk, poultry and eggs products. At the present
time, the United States are arguing their case before a special panel
set up under chapter 20 of NAFTA. The five national organizations
dealing with supply management in agriculture as well as the
Government of Canada are abiding by the agreements signed under
the WTO.
555
This major trade dispute should be settled come springtime. Is
the Minister of Agriculture aware that Canada has a lot to lose in
this dispute, more than 138,000 jobs? Should Canada lose before
this NAFTA panel, 138,000 ``jobs, jobs, jobs'' will be in jeopardy.
Is the Prime Minister aware that he is digging his own grave?
One hundred and thirty eight thousand jobs, that is enormous.
Consequently, what measures is the Minister of Agriculture going
to take to win his case before the panel? Could he guarantee this
House that he will defend this case as if his life depended on it?
The uncertainty in the agricultural industry in Canada is the
reason why so many of our farmers are worried; and considering
what the Minister of Agriculture is doing, how can they not to be
worried? The government is burying its head in the sand. Is the
Canadian government convinced that it will win this fight?
We must not fool ourselves. We must face reality and not hide
from it. Above all, we must not hide from the consequences of a
potential defeat that would undoubtedly drive many of our farmers
to bankruptcy.
I wonder if the minister of agriculture intends, for example, to
compensate farmers for the financial losses related to the value of
their production quotas. Will the minister of agriculture and his
government again go so far as to agree to make concessions to the
powerful Americans a few months before the presidential election,
as they did with softwood lumber, durum wheat and sugar, for
example?
Let us not forget that Canada agreed to make concessions such as
setting export quotas and increasing stumpage fees to make our
American neighbours happy.
In the conflict between Cuba and the U.S., the timid behaviour of
the Prime Minister and his Minister for International Trade puzzles
farmers. Is this what awaits us? One does not play with 138,000
jobs. The government's casual handling of this matter is
unacceptable, and the Bloc Quebecois formally notifies this
government that it will never forgive carelessness or a moment of
weakness in this matter of import tariffs on supply-managed
agricultural products.
In closing, the Canadian government has the greatest cause in its
hands. Everyone agrees that the Americans will be defeated, so we
must not make any concession. Do not blink.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
want to reassure the hon. member for Frontenac and say that
Canada will not give up anything. Throughout the panel's
proceedings, Canada will strongly defend its right to impose
customs duties on dairy products, poultry and other American
commodities.
The government worked in close co-operation with industry and
provincial officials to prepare Canada's case, before it is heard by
NAFTA's dispute settlement panel.
Canada and the United States have now submitted their briefs to
the panel. In its document, the United States claims that Canada did
not comply with its commitment, under NAFTA, not to increase its
customs duties, adding that under the same agreement Canada must
eliminate all such duties by 1998.
That position does not take into account-and I say it loud and
clear-the fact that both the FTA and NAFTA clearly state that
Canada retains the rights granted to it under GATT regarding
agricultural commodities subject to a supply management system,
including the right to apply WTO's tariff provisions to agricultural
commodities of American origin.
In its brief to the panel, Canada insists that the tariff system it
uses regarding these commodities is in full compliance with its
international trade obligations under NAFTA and the WTO. When
Canada agreed to have tariff provisions apply to Article XI, in
support of products subject to the supply management system, it
had obtained legal opinions expressly confirming the validity of its
right, under GATT, the WTO and NAFTA, to impose resulting tariff
equivalents to US imports.
We are convinced that our legal opinions are valid and we will
vigorously defend the rights of Canadian producers before
NAFTA's panel. We will not concede anything.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.43 p.m.)