Debates of May 15th, 2003

Don Boudria Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition supply day motion that we commenced this morning.

Tomorrow we will resume the debate on Bill C-28, the budget implementation bill. This would be followed by Bill C-31, the pension bill of certain veterans and members of the RCMP. If and when this is completed, hopefully tomorrow, we would then resume consideration of Bill C-36, the archives bill, and possibly Bill C-17 on public safety.

Next week, as the hon. leader of the opposition in the House has stated, is a constituency week.

I have designated May 26 as an allotted day, although we are willing to have further conversations about that this afternoon.

On Tuesday, May 27, if Bill C-28 has not already been disposed of, we would at that point have to return to it. We would then turn to Bill C-25, the public service bill, followed by business not yet completed from this week.

This is the program at this juncture.

Joe Clark Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not rising to clarify or elaborate on my question of earlier today.

I had the opportunity this morning to attend at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, where the bill under consideration would alter the rights of Canada's first nations and the relationship with the Crown. It was an interesting meeting that ended rather abruptly.

Mr. Speaker, the transcript from the committee is not yet available to me but I want to reserve my right to raise both a question of privilege and a point of order with the Speaker when the records of the committee do become available.

John McCallum Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

As I begin, let me say that I believe this is a very important issue for Canada. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it today. However, I would like to make it clear just where we are in this process.

We are simply discussing the significance of taking part in negotiations.

Many Canadians have already expressed their opinions on this subject. I am pleased that we can discuss it in greater depth today, and I will take this opportunity to explain why our government is planning to participate in negotiations regarding the ballistic missile defence system. It goes without saying that I do not support the motion currently before us.

The U.S. announcement last December confirmed what we have known for some time, that the Americans will deploy a missile defence system. In light of this decision, Canada stepped up discussions with the Americans to try to identify what implications this could have for us.

The most recent talks involving officials were held in Washington in January. For Canada the issue at this point is relatively simple: if missile defence may enhance our security, we should explore it. In fact, we have a duty to keep an open mind about any actions we can take that would better protect our citizens and our territory.

Timing is now a primary consideration, particularly if we want to examine options for having Norad play a prominent role. In my view there are a number of reasons for Canada to consider participating in BMD. By far the most compelling one is to protect Canada and defend North America. Before elaborating on this, I would like to set out some of the facts on what BMD is and what it is not and why it is such a priority for the Americans.

Canada, like the United States, believes that weapons of mass destruction and missiles are growing in number and falling into the wrong hands. Moreover, the range and accuracy of these missiles are constantly increasing.

Thus, there is an emerging threat against which the United States has decided to protect itself.

For the Americans, BMD has moved beyond the controversy that characterized it in the past. In fact, it has received wide bipartisan support. They know how much the world has changed and they are well aware of the new threats they face.

They also understand that BMD is not star wars of 20 years ago. It is a much more modest system designed to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack. For now the system will use satellites and radars to detect missile launches, with interceptors launched from U.S. territory or U.S. ships.

In 2004 there will initially be six interceptors, followed by 14 more land based interceptors over the next year or so. There will also be up to 20 sea based interceptors. It is not, however, the tens of thousands envisaged under star wars, which was aimed at defending against a massive Soviet missile assault.

Another reason that the Americans are more supportive of this initiative is they recognize that the strategic environment has changed. As we know, Russia does not perceive BMD as a direct threat. My colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs spent some time earlier today going into some detail on the changing geopolitical situation.

The United States has also shown great openness by approaching its friends and allies on the subject of ballistic missile defence, including Russia.

This is an issue which is gaining more and more support among the allies; some of them have designed their own programs to meet their own needs.

The issue has been studied very seriously by NATO. At the Prague summit last November, the NATO heads of state agreed to broaden their examination of the issue. That is why NATO has begun a new study on antimissile defence, in order to examine various options to protect people and territories against the whole range of threats related to missiles.

As I said, there is an increasing threat and the Americans will deploy a missile defence system in any event. Now it is up to us to consider whether it is in our best interest to explore the issue further through negotiations.

Specifically, what we have to consider is would this system help us to defend Canada and Canadians, help us to defend North America, and maintain our influence and protect our sovereignty.

While the ballistic missile threat to Canada itself may not seem to be high at the moment, it will become greater as the range and accuracy of missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction increase and as they proliferate. As we have seen, the rapidity with which potential threats can emerge, even with tight non-proliferation controls, is often surprising.

Ballistic missile defence could therefore be considered akin to an insurance policy against future threats. It could also be a defence against errant missiles aimed at the U.S. that could end up hitting Canada, as well as unauthorized and accidental launches.

As members know, one of our defence missions is to cooperate with the United States in the defence of North America. In this regard, negotiating on BMD would be consistent with our cooperation to date.

I will repeat here what I said when I announced the creation of the Canada-U.S. Joint Planning Groupwithin NORAD. To envisage this option would mean real progress in the evolution of our defence relationship with the United States and in our joint efforts to adapt to the new security environment.

Canada has been a full partner with the U.S. in the defence of North America for over 60 years. It could be argued that ballistic missile defence would be a natural extension of this partnership.

There are also some other practical bilateral reasons that would underlie such negotiations. Canadian participation could build on the role of Norad. We would want to explore the option of having command and control for BMD reassigned from Northcom to Norad which, from our perspective, is the main pillar of the North American defence relationship. If we are not partners in BMD, we may not have access to sensitive information and intelligence to the extent we do now.

In addition to enhancing our security, which in my view would be the most compelling reason to participate, there are some other important considerations.

Participating in BMD could provide some degree of Canadian influence over the development and functioning of the system. It would give Canada a say in the defence of its territory. The alternative could allow the U.S. to make all the choices concerning the missile defence of the continent on its own with implications for our sovereignty.

It should be noted that Canada is not the only country studying this issue. Some NATO countries and other allies may soon announce their intention to play a part in the ballistic missile defence.

The United Kingdom, in fact, has already agreed to modernize its radar installation at Fylingdales, and Denmark has just announced that it will permit the United States to modernize a radar station at Thule.

In conclusion, it is for all of these reasons that we should consider entering into negotiations with the United States. Let me be clear on this point: these negotiations would not mean that we have agreed in advance to take part in missile defence.

Don Boudria Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and I would like to put before the House a motion for travel authorization. There was all party consultation on it. This was initially a two part motion, but one part has been removed because there was only unanimous agreement for the first part. That is the only part I am putting before the House right now. I mention that so everyone is clear.

I move:

That, in relation to its comprehensive study on a National Identity Card and review of the implementation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, six (6) members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to London, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome, Athens and Madrid from June 21 to July 6, 2003 and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

And those are not the original dates.

Leon Benoit Lakeland, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister make his comments and all of a sudden it sounds as if the government is on side with missile defence.

We have been encouraging the government for three years to say to our American friends and neighbours that this sounds like an interesting idea because it will provide security for Canada and that we will sit down and work something out. The government has responded to that by making statements like the one from the foreign affairs minister that terrorists are not going to get their hands on ballistic missiles except in James Bond movies and things like that. The government has said that we do not need it, that we are being alarmists in raising the issue of a possible ballistic missile attack. It has said that we are just catering to the Americans and that anything they say we want to go along with. That has been the government's defence over the past three years.

Now the government is saying that conditions have changed, but it has not given one example of what condition has changed in the last few years. Before September 11 the terrorist problem was well known. That was no surprise. It was widely debated around the world. I attended meetings for six years at the OECD where we discussed the terrorist threat. That is not new.

What has changed all of a sudden to make the government come on side with what the Canadian Alliance has been proposing for three years? Why did the government wait three years? Now the benefit to this country will be less than it otherwise would have been and the harm to our relationship will be greater than what it would have been.