House of Commons Hansard #108 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was norad.

Topics

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to debate this issue, an issue which already has been before the House and an issue which I expect will be before the House again.

I would like to advise the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I want to speak in favour of the motion before us today. In doing so, I would like to reiterate a few of the points already made by the Minister of National Defence earlier today.

First, I would like to try to put this issue in some context in terms of our relationship with the United States. We all know that we have been working with the United States on continental security for some time and that clearly the United States is our best friend and best ally.

This relationship goes back to the 1940 Ogdensburg agreement between Canada and the U.S., which represented a concrete acknowledgement of the indivisibility of our security interests and committed us to assist one another in the case of hostilities. That agreement led to the creation of a high level, bilateral forum, the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, whose two chairs report directly to the Prime Minister and to the U.S. president.

I should add by way of introduction to my colleague that the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie is our representative on the PJBD and I must say that based on what I have seen thus far the hon. member has done a very admirable job in that capacity.

Today, the Canada-U.S. defence relationship is an extensive one. It is a complex one. It is governed by something in the order of 80 treaties and 250 memoranda of understanding. There are as well approximately 145 bilateral fora in which our two countries discuss defence matters.

One of the most important institutions or agencies developed over the years in terms of this defence relationship is certainly Norad, the North American Aerospace Defense Command. For 45 years Norad has been the cornerstone of this very close defence relationship. The fact that this military command serves both Canadian and American military and security interests has very much helped build a harmonious Canada-U.S. relationship in the field of air and aerospace defence.

I should say as well that a number of years ago I had the great pleasure and honour of visiting the troops, both Canadian and American, at Cheyenne mountain. I cannot express how impressed I was at the level of bilateral cooperation exhibited and on display at Cheyenne mountain between Canada and the United States.

Norad obviously has a binational command structure. The deputy commander is a Canadian officer. This structure ensures that Canada has a voice in planning and in operations for the aerospace defence of North America, as the commander is responsible to both countries.

I have talked a little about the history of the defence relationship with the United States, particularly with respect to Norad. There are obviously many other dimensions to that relationship, not the least of which is the defence production sharing agreement along with other agreements we have with the United States. But clearly our relationship with the United States and our shared approach to continental defence have been affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I think it is safe to say they have changed. Certainly the security perspective that exists within North America has, and I would venture to say that these attacks have changed the entire strategic environment in which we operate today.

Since September 11, 2001, the government has shown that we are committed to protecting Canadians from emerging threats and that we are equally committed to continuing to work with the United States to address our shared security needs. The government has clearly recognized the fundamental importance of continental security and the benefits of working closely with our American allies to protect lives on both sides of the border.

That is why, last December, the Canadian and American governments established a binational planning group. This group is co-located at Norad headquarters in Colorado Springs and is led by a Canadian, Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie. Furthermore, some positions on this planning group may be filled by “double hatting” personnel already assigned to Norad. The establishment of this group marked yet another critical step in furthering the already strong defence relations that exist between Canada and the United States.

By coordinating surveillance and intelligence sharing, the planning group may play a role in deterring further terrorist attacks in North America, while in the event of a crisis the planning group's arrangements may well save lives as well. This group represents a very important addition to our bilateral defence relationship.

I would now like to turn to the issue of ballistic missile defence. The announcement made earlier today by the Minister of National Defence to proceed with discussions on ballistic missile defence is an important step in our efforts to have the command of ballistic missile defence assigned to Norad, where we can have a say in the development and operation of the system. We have already seen for ourselves that Norad can adapt to the new security environment. We saw it react quickly and effectively after September 11, taking steps to greatly improve its internal airspace surveillance.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would bring to your attention the fact that it was a Canadian who was in the chair as the acting commander on September 11 when those jets hit the World Trade Center. I think it is an expression of the level of trust that has existed between Canada and the United States that a Canadian would be in the chair giving the commands to Norad in connection with air defence at that critical time in American history.

The organization that is Norad has certainly proved to be flexible, flexible enough to successfully accommodate and make a contribution to a new missile defence mission. Such a mission would in fact be a natural extension, certainly in my view, of Norad's current responsibilities. As things currently stand, the North American missile defence mission has been assigned to the U.S.-only northern command. Reassignment of the North American missile defence mission to Norad would make Canada well placed to influence the development and functioning of this new missile defence system.

I want to clarify that these issues remain hypothetical, as the government has not yet made a decision concerning ballistic missile defence. We are, as I stated and emphasize once again, only engaging in discussions at this point. Moreover, any decision to negotiate would not be about saving Norad. It would be about building on it.

During question period we heard talk about this new missile defence system. A lot of red herrings have been brought up, not the least of which is the whole issue of SDI, or star wars, as it has been called. That is not what we are talking about in connection with missile defence today. It is a ground based, sea based interceptor system that is intended to protect against small numbers of missiles entering North American airspace. It is no more and no less than that. To suggest for a second that this is automatically going to lead to some huge star wars based system is misleading the Canadian public, I think, and doing a disservice as far as the public debate on this issue is concerned.

I see that my time is winding up, so let me say that the motion before us deals with a very important issue. It is a motion that concerns bilateral relations with our closest ally and the future role and possible contributions of the critical organization that is Norad. It is an issue of Canadian security.

I am in favour of the motion because it speaks to the importance of Norad and the importance of working with our allies to ensure the best possible defence of our shared continent.

I am in favour of the motion also because this government is committed to examining any issues that involve the protection of our continent and our citizens. In that regard, ballistic missile defence is no exception.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Gagnon Bloc Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard it said that the government changed its tactics on September 11, 2001, changed its policies and from that time on started thinking about a missile defence plan. If I understood the previous speaker correctly, I would like him to explain to me how a missile defence plan could have prevented the terrorist attacks on September 11.

I think that, if we want to prevent terrorist attacks throughout the world, if we really want to solve this problem, what we need to do is attack inequality, and seek to ensure that there is greater justice everywhere.

I would like the hon. member to explain to me how arming ourselves more heavily and creating a missile defence system can prevent terrorist attacks.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to explain. I think what the hon. member is missing in the context of this entire debate is that the security environment changed dramatically on September 11.

Yes, the people who were involved were using box cutters to hijack aircraft and to fly them into populated office towers. That in and of itself constituted, in my view, a weapon of mass destruction. It was a weapon of mass destruction that killed thousands of people. We know that. There is no debate on that.

What we are talking about here is the strategic environment, the use of cell-based terrorism to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As well, we are talking about the situation that currently exists, again within the strategic environment we are operating in, of rogue nations acquiring the technology involved in ballistic missile delivery systems.

The world has changed very dramatically in the last number of years. We have seen rogue states in action. We have seen North Korea in action, for instance. There is no direct connection between North Korea and al-Qaeda, obviously, but some of the thinking on the other side of the House, and specifically within the Bloc and the NDP, involves a kind of cold war approach to the world that does not exist anymore. These were some of the same people who were telling us, when the U.S. cancelled the ABM treaty, that the non-proliferation efforts of the international community were about to collapse. They did not collapse, and they did not collapse because the ABM treaty was a relic of the cold war. It had effectively died back in 1976 when the Americans decommissioned their own missiles at Grand Forks, South Dakota.

What has to be understood here is that we are dealing with an entirely new strategic environment with new challenges that we are going to have to address in new ways. Ballistic missile technology has been around since the Germans launched V-2 rockets on London in July, 1944. Since then, governments have been looking to protect their populations.

At this point in the course of human history, what we see is that Russia is not a threat anymore. China certainly does not appear to be a threat anymore. The Europeans are not going to launch missiles at us. So where are they going to come from? Typically they will come from states that we now categorize as rogue states. Or we may have developments that overthrow governments and replace them with rogue states that are a threat to our security. They are a threat anytime anyone can use weapons of mass destruction to blackmail us as well, as we have seen in terms of some of the attempts that have occurred with North Korea, for example, in using its weapons systems to try to extort food from the international community in order to feed starving populations. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow ourselves to be blackmailed. We must have the defence capabilities in place.

This is not a debate that is occurring just exclusively in the United States. It is a debate that is taking place in Europe as well. They are talking about theatre missile defence, but effectively what we are talking about is a missile defence system which will protect civilian populations in a way that I think all governments have a responsibility to do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

We have a motion before us today which I would like to read:

That this House affirm its strong support for NORAD as aviable defence organization to counter threats to North America, including the threat of ballistic missile attack; and support giving NORAD responsibility for the command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles.

Before setting out my reasons for supporting this motion, I would like to revisit a fundamental principle for Canada-U.S. defence cooperation as set out in the 1994 White Paper:

The United States is Canada's most important ally and the two countries maintain a relationship that is as close, complex, and extensive as any in the world. Canada and the US are partners in the world's largest bilateral trading relationship. The undefended border between them is evidence of the common political, economic, social and cultural values Canada and the US share as advanced industrial democracies. Geography, history, trust and shared beliefs have also made the two countries partners in the defence of North America.

When we talk about Norad, we are talking about the fundamental principle of partnership in the defence of North America.

What is Norad? First, Norad is the cornerstone of North American security. Norad was created in 1958 to protect the airspace over North America. The remarkable thing is that this protection is ensured in complete respect for Canadian sovereignty. I repeat, because it is important and it is fundamental: in complete respect of Canadian sovereignty.

Naturally, the motion before us reaffirms our commitment to the North American Air Defence Command, or Norad, and recognizes the role that organization could play in ballistic missile defence.

Missile defence is a normal extension of Norad's role. It is not a novelty; it is not something coming in from left field. It is a step along the evolutionary path we have been following for several decades.

What is remarkable is that the bi-national Planning Group will also be located within Norad. This group will coordinate the planning of emergency measures to react to natural disasters or man-made crises. Everything to do with the conception, coordination and planning of joint security takes place there.

A few days ago, here in this House, we had an opportunity to debate the issue of missile defence. If you will permit, I will repeat a few sentences I used at that time, because they seem very relevant to today's debate as well. I said:

—the state has the duty to ensure the security of its citizens. I do not necessarily share the American assessment that Canada would be a potential target for hostile action by someone, somewhere on this planet.

Not being a target does not necessarily mean not becoming a victim. If an attack were launched using nuclear warheads—or bacteriological or chemical warheads—targeting Chicago, New York or Seattle, the fallout on Canada would be nearly automatic. Are we going to leave it up to others to protect us?

Of course, the issue here is the fundamental principle of our government's responsibility, the exercise of Canadian sovereignty. In terms of decision-making, the missile defence system is a fait accompli for our American friends. It presupposes studying a host of scenarios, planning countermeasures that must begin within 20 minutes at most of the launch of a hostile missile.

The question is as follows: Would we be better able to ensure the protection of Canadians if we participated in examining these scenarios, or if we were absent? Would Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver be better protected if our neighbours were left to assessing needs on their own, or if our government took part in these plans to protect us? For me, the answer is obvious. Canada's participation, incidentally, would be fully in line with our commitment to contributing to the defence of North America.

Norad, which has existed since 1958, protects North American air space and is a perfect example—I want to say this again, as it is so fundamental, so important—of military cooperation under bi-national command that fully respects the sovereignty of our two nations.

In the interests of Canadians and our collective security, we must support maintaining Norad. We must do better than this: we must support Norad's expansion. That is why I am very pleased to support the motion before the House today.

I forgot to say when I started that my hon. colleague from Nepean began by paying tribute to my work as chair of the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, and he was extremely complimentary. I thank him, in the hope that I will live up to these expectations and respond in a manner that is fitting and professional.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part in this debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for York North.

As I read the motion that is before us, I find much that I like, particularly when it comes to Norad, and I will be speaking about that. Unfortunately, the motion contains a huge and fatal flaw. It is one word. The word is any, which means that I must oppose this motion. First, let me begin with the part I like:

That this House affirm its strong support for NORAD as a viable defence organization to counter threats to North America, including the threat of ballistic missile attack;--

I like that part because I was in Colorado Springs last week for three days to visit Norad headquarters and saw the amazing complex in Cheyenne Mountain. I came back hugely impressed by the skill, talent and dedication of the Canadian men and women of the armed forces who serve in the joint Norad command. I support Norad and those people.

After my discussions with them, I am of the view that Norad has an increasingly important role to play in the defence of North America after September 11, 2001. In the first place, as we discovered, the aerospace defence of North America is no longer about the perimeter, about armed bombers coming from some other continent, or from inter-ballistic missiles only. The defence of the continent is now about hijacked civilian airliners and the fact that Norad is speaking with our own Canadian civil aviation authority, Nav Canada, and with the American FAA, to ensure the internal defence of North America is an important strong and vital step. Of course, it is logical because we share this airspace with the United States.

Second, there is a very important activity going on right now in Norad called the binational planning group, which is looking at a variety of other threats to the security of North America based on our new understanding of the way in which international terrorists operate. That binational planning group is asking itself whether there are things we can do together which are not simply about aerospace, but are about land based threats because we share a common land base with the United States separated only by a frontier. There is also the issue of sea based threats because ships may move in and out of Canadian or American water, and they may constitute a serious threat to the security of North America.

I give the example of some kind of tramp steamer off the coast of the eastern seaboard within 100 kilometres of a major American city that has a fairly low tech cruise missile. Currently, the whole question of it being a ship means that it is under a maritime operation and surveillance, but the moment a cruise missile leaves that freighter and heads toward North America it becomes a Norad task. The only problem is that with about a seven minute period of time to react there is no way we can counteract a cruise missile under the current divided structure between maritime surveillance and air surveillance. Therefore, we may see ourselves, quite apart from national missile defence, with these clear and present dangers, with a Norad which deals with air, land and sea so that we can have an integrated and more pre-emptive approach to the defence of the continent. I think that is an important and useful direction for Norad to evolve.

The problem is, of course, what happens when we get to national missile defence? Where does that fit in to our catalogue of risks to the continent? Let me begin by speaking of the ways in which I agree with the Minister of National Defence in his statement this morning.

Though I have much to criticize in the whole concept of national missile defence in terms of the geopolitical questions it raises, I agree with the minister that it is important that Canadians take charge of the defence of their own space in North America and that they share in a sensible way that duty with the United States; hence the importance of Norad.

I agree with him about the importance of improving our ability to detect incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles from whatever source, whether that is from Russia, China, North Korea, or any other rogue state.

I agree with the minister on the importance of insisting, in our discussions with the Americans, that we will not participate in any scheme which involves the weaponization of space. In saying so, of course, the minister was reiterating what the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said in the House before that.

Finally, it is possible and appropriate that we should proceed with discussions with the Americans on that basis, understanding the limitations of the discussions and the possibility that we may not come to agreement. That is where I agree with the Minister of National Defence.

I, however, disagree with this particular motion. I indicated at the beginning of my speech that my disagreement focuses on one word, that we would support giving Norad responsibility for the command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles, any system. Unfortunately, this is a blank cheque motion. It says in effect, as long as a new weapons system is under Norad control it does not matter whether it involves the weaponization of space or not. It opens the barn door. It opens a huge possibility and therefore, I cannot support it.

The weaponization of space is a great deal closer than people have given it credit. Last week President Bush released a confidential national security presidential directive which had been signed in 2002 in which the national missile defence was described. It said:

We are pursuing an evolutionary approach to the development and deployment of missile defenses to improve our defenses over time. The United States will not have a final, fixed missile defense architecture. Rather, we will deploy an initial set of capabilities that will evolve to meet the changing threat and to take advantage of technological developments. The composition of missile defenses, to include the number and location of systems deployed, will change over time.

Then the President listed some of the things that were being looked at and ends with:

Enhanced sensor capabilities; anddevelopment and testing of space-based defenses.

Space based defences is the weaponization of space. How likely is this? Let me turn to the hearing of the senate armed services committee in Washington held on March 18, 2003, and an exchange between Senator Bill Nelson and Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, Director, Missile Defense Agency.

Sen. Nelson: All right, General Kadish, your budget documents show that you are going down parallel paths to acquire the ground-based boost phase and a space-based phase.

Gen. Kadish: It is our intent, as far as at least my internal discussions, that that test bed that we would space-base would serve two functions. One is to demonstrate intercepts from interceptors that would be on orbit, so we'd actually do an intercept, and to work out all the difficulties involved with having a constellation of that size potentially on orbit.

Then there is more discussion and Senator Bill Nelson asks:

Well, let me--let me ask a policy question to the secretary over there. That would be the first time that we would be weaponizing space, and there has been a policy up to this point that we are not going to weaponize space. Tell me about your thinking with regard to that change of that policy.

General Kadish does not answer that question. It is answered by Pete Aldridge who says:

Now, once you've accomplished that, then you look at various ways to do boost phase, and we are looking at airborne lasers, we are looking at ground-based interceptors, and we are looking at space-based.

And then he says whether they do any of these things depends on whether there is any money or not. We might say if they do not have any money they will not go there.

I happen to have the Missile Defense Agency 2004-05 fiscal year biennial budget estimates. Under space based tests, the Missile Defense Agency will begin developing a space based kinetic energy interceptor test bed in fiscal year 2004, one year from now. Initial on-orbit tests will commence in block 2008 with three to five satellites. The test best capability will be expanded in two year blocks.

The money will be in next year's budget, fiscal year 2004. Money set aside for these interceptors is initially $14 million, and for fiscal year 2005, $119 million with the first satellite launch in 2008 and the first flight test in 2009.

Here is the problem. Weaponization of space is real. We are moving in that direction. It would be naive to think that when we are having these discussions that might not end up being the killer, the end of the discussion, because that is where the United States is going.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way mentioned that he has problems with the word “any”. In the motion it refers to Norad being in command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles.

If Norad is not going to be in charge, Canada playing a role in the command of the anti-ballistic missile system, then who would he suggest? Would he suggest that Canada not be a part of this altogether? It could go ahead whether we agree or not. Does he not agree that we are in a stronger position to be a part of the discussion rather than already setting lines?

Talking about the weaponization of space, interceptors in space do not constitute the weaponization of space. The member across is far overreaching what the capabilities are or are seen to be within the next couple of decades.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have to re-emphasize that the focus is not on Norad control. I do not have a problem with Norad control for the improved surveillance of North America. What I have a problem with is the idea that as long as we are part of Norad control we will allow any system to develop when we have just clearly said that we will not endorse a system which involves the weaponization of space. The whole point of an interceptor based in space is to knock down other satellites, and that is the weaponization of space.

The issue is not the control but rather what kind of a system will the United States put up there. It does not make it any better that we have a hand in a system we have denounced as the weaponization of space. It just means that we are writing a blank cheque and saying that wherever this leads to, any system the United States comes up with we will be there for it. We cannot accept that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member what type of plan North American should adopt to defend a missile strike against our continent that would enable us to deter or destroy any incoming missiles before they reached our continent. Does he have a suggestion of an alternative? Is he hoping that if we ask all potential aggressors against our continent to please not fire anything at us, they will not? Is that good enough for him and the government?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, for 50 years Canada and the other major nations of the world have pursued dual track policy with regard to defending ourselves against inner-ballistic missiles. The first was the principle of mutually assured destruction, which basically said that there was enough rationality on the part of others that they would see it is not in their interests to be wiped off the face of the planet.

The other part of that is we have also worked to restrict the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of all of these systems. It was hard and dirty work but it was generally pretty successful.

The problem I have with investing all of this money and energy into national missile defence is that it detracts from the real work of disarmament and anti-proliferation. It means that people have given up on the idea of trying to stop these states from acquiring these weapons, whether it is through diplomacy or some kind of negotiation which has worked for 50 years, in favour of a technology which is incredibly dubious. It is only based on these missiles coming in being extremely primitive. It does not deal with a missile with any degree of sophistication which would have decoys on it, for example.

That is the problem. We need to pursue the old doctrine of first, we crush them if they attack us, and second, we will try to negotiate with them so they do not feel they have to.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I understand there has been some discussions with regard to the rotation of this debate. I will recognize the member for York North afterward if in fact I have misinterpreted what I consider to be possibly a rearrangement of the rotation. The Chair would recognize the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and afterward would then return to the member for York North for her intervention, followed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Would that be correct?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I understand that is correct. How much time do I have in my intervention then?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for York North would have what she originally was allocated which, as I understand, would be the 10 minutes for her intervention followed by possibly five minutes for questions or comments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank the member for York North for helping us out in this matter.

On May 6, the Prime Minister stood in this place and made the following comments regarding continental air defence:

Through Norad we are involved, Mr. Speaker. The question is, should we be involved in the next step, which is the missile element of the defence, but we have been involved in Norad for 50 years and Norad is working very well.

Yes, Norad is working quite well. The Prime Minister failed to point out that Norad works well because for 45 years the governments of Canada and the United States have cooperated to make it work well. However under this administration, Canada's relationship with our friends to the south has deteriorated.

Most recently the Prime Minister bragged that he talked baseball with President Bush, yet barely 24 hours later he again was insulting the U.S. administration, this time to reporters on a flight to attend the G-8 summit.

Those who think these actions do not have consequences are fooling themselves. Last October the U.S. government created the Northern Command, or Northcom, to coordinate North American defence. Canada is on the outside looking in on the structure of Northcom.

Canada was once a leader in agencies like Norad and NATO. Lester Pearson helped negotiate the creation of NATO, an accomplishment that was a factor in his receiving a Nobel Peace Prize in 1960. Now our commitments do not even meet the barest requirements of the NATO in terms of spending.

We have dragged our feet on missile defence for seven years. Our actions have increasingly made our membership in Norad and Norad itself irrelevant. The United States has made it very clear that if we do not proceed with it on missile defence, it will proceed without us. The truth is, with our large territory and reduced military, we need Norad far more than our southern allies.

The Minister of National Defence in his speech this morning, reversing the government's damaging position over the past seven years, announced that Canada would be joining the U.S. discussions on the missile defence systems under the umbrella of Norad. However he did leave some question as to its role. He basically stated that he had set out some parameters. We got the sense that it would be far better off on the inside opposing than on the outside opposing. Hopefully, we will go into these discussions with a very open, genuine mind and be sincere participants.

I am pleased the Liberals have finally heeded the words of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance this time at least. We will be watching very carefully to ensure there are no reversals of this position.

It is important, now that Canada is finally going to participate, that we talk about what exactly missile defence is and what it is not and what its opponents paint it to be.

It is not the 1980 star wars program envisioned by the Reagan administration. It will not employ any weapons in space. The program calls for a limited ground and sea based system employing six interceptors in 2004 building up to 40 interceptors in 2005. The interceptors do not create a danger in themselves. They do not have warheads. Their job is to intercept incoming missiles and destroy them before they reach their target. The risk of debris landing on Canada is very small. Most missiles would be intercepted prior to crossing over land. The risk is certainly outweighed by the security they would offer from a possible threat.

The program is not opposed by Russia and it has not sparked an arms race. Russia is in fact cooperating with the United States on the missile defence shield. It has proposed incorporating its own medium range missiles into part of the European defence shield. It further has suggested cooperation on a broader shield with the United States.

Yesterday the Danish parliament voted to enter into talks with the U.S. to use an air base in Greenland as a key part of the ballistic missile defence system. Frankly, until today, European countries and former adversaries have been more cooperative than Canada under the present administration.

Assessing the threat is a very difficult thing to do. Military spending and preparation are an insurance policy. There is no way to know what threats will develop in the long term. In the early 1920s Britain put a freeze on capital projects. The prevailing wisdom was that the great war had put an end to the large conflict and this spending could instead realize a peace dividend.

By the time Hitler rose to prominence in the early 1930s, Britain was woefully unprepared. The lack of response to this threat was as much military reality as it was the failed policy of appeasement.

Canada is in a similar position. We cannot continue to cripple our military capabilities. We cannot continue to neglect our international defence pacts.

One thing is certain. September 11, 2001, has awakened North America to a new reality. We are now keenly aware that our citizens are at risk, even though we are thousands of miles from areas of conflict. No amount of missile defence could have prevented the planes being hijacked on 9/11. That is true. However there are other threats.

First, there are rogue states, nations that are aggressively pursuing military technology that will allow them to strike far beyond their own borders. Nations like Syria, Iran and North Korea are all nations pursuing advanced weapons technology with a history of unpredictability and a well-established dislike for the west.

Syria has been pursuing a ballistic missile program since the 1970s. It already has many medium range ballistic missiles.

Iran has an aggressive program, both in nuclear and ballistic missile technology. In fact in late 1992 Iran signed an agreement with North Korea, worth $500 million jointly, to develop nuclear weapons and to improve missile systems with long range capability.

Of all these countries, North Korea has been the most active. North Korea has an estimated 600 to 750 ballistic missiles, with a 175 to 200 of these being medium range. Medium range missiles can launch upwards of 1,000 kilometres. North Korea is well into the development of delivery systems that could strike up to 4,000 kilometres away. North Korea does not just develop weaponry for domestic security. In 2001 the government of Kim Jong Il exported approximately $585 million worth of ballistic missiles to the Middle East alone.

I have chosen to talk about three states of particular concern. However countless other non-democratic states are pursing similar programs with varying results.

A BBC report in February cited the state department as saying that $852 billion was spent on arms in 1999. In the same year developing countries spent record high amounts on weapons. During the 1990s, developing countries increased military spending by 18% over the previous decade. India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea all have nuclear capability. Despite efforts to the contrary, it is likely, as time goes on, this number will grow.

Nuclear technology and intercontinental missile technology are like any other technology. It is impossible to put the cat back in the bag. We need to face this reality.

Even more dangerous than certain states, is the increasing threat of terrorist attack. Syria, Iran and a number of other nations are known to sponsor and fund terrorism. Until the U.S. coalition ended it, so did Iraq. The deteriorating state of the former Soviet Union has caused a number of near misses for terrorists trying to obtain nuclear material as well.

Terrorists will not be deterred by the threat of retaliation. In fact it is often difficult to retaliate against terrorism in a conventional manner. We have had to focus on states that sponsor terror. Despite this, terrorists will continue to slip through our fingers. This is an unavoidable fact.

As I stated earlier, a missile defence shield will not protect us from attacks like those of 9/11. It will not protect us from a smuggled nuclear device into one of our cities. However it could protect us against a sea launched missile attack. It could protect us against a future day when terrorists do have the capability to fire ICBMs.

There is a need for alternative measures. We need to support the possible threat of both rogue states and desperate individuals.

It is also important to point out that missile defence cannot be our only response to global security issues. We should be encouraging democratic reforms in these countries. Targeted foreign aid can assist in this regard. I have long argued that foreign aid should be targeted to assist in reducing corruption and strengthening democracy and an independent judiciary.

Fighting terrorism and preserving Canadian security is more than just attacking terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. Although the war on terror is a critical component, we must also do what we can to alleviate poor conditions around the globe.

When nations are shown that we are better allies than enemies, we take away threats before they ever develop. We also deny terrorists countries in which they can seek refuge. We need to do more by ensuring that countries with less corrupt regimes receive proportionately more funding. Unfortunately, aid agencies like CIDA do not recognize corruption as a principal trait in determining aid priority.

History has shown that corrupt governments provide a breeding ground for violent political organizations. While we fight terrorism in conventional military ways, we could also be removing the conditions that create terrorism.

In conclusion, these alternative measures will not be enough. Members in the House who pretend they will be are doing Canadians a disservice. Nor would it be prudent to suggest that the missile defence system alone would guarantee our safety in a changing world. However, we would clearly not be as secure without it.

The United States has very patiently waited for our interest for over seven years. If we wait much longer, we risk being left out all together. Distancing ourselves from the United States will not grant us immunity from the actions of rogue states and terrorists. The very idea that we would want to appease countries like Syria and North Korea and spurn our own allies is impossible for me to understand.

There are countries in the world that wish to harm us. There are terrorist groups that want to harm our citizens. Nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile technology is not going anywhere. Countries and terrorists alike are trying to obtain this technology and improve on it. These are the facts.

Currently no rogue state could launch a nuclear equipped ICBM at North America with any likelihood of success. However, national defence is not just about addressing current threats. It is about anticipating future areas of concern.

Canada under the present government has done next to nothing to keep our country secure into the future. We act as though World War I has just ended and there will be peace on the earth forevermore. Frankly, that kind of sentimentality is 80 years out of date.

Putting faith in Norad is something we have done for many decades with good results so far. Let us have a voice in the design of the missile defence system. Let us demonstrate that Norad is still a vibrant organization and the right place for any such system to be located. Let us stop relying on the dreamy-eyed moral relativism of the political left. Let us have some control over our own destiny.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I noted with some interest that the member opposite talked about some of the root causes of terrorism and the way to deal with those things.

The member and I were in Europe last fall. We visited the European Union and heard about the creation of the European Union and its very roots. One of the reasons behind that was to do away with future conflicts. The way they that was to fuse the war-creating industries into one common market. In this way when they became trading partners, they would no longer want to take up arms against each other.

The member opposite noted in his speech that when we make allies out of some of those individuals they stop being our enemies. Unfortunately when we look at the huge amount of money that is going to be put into this project, we are talking about billions and billions of dollars. A huge sucking sound is going to be heard in our collective treasuries as we try to fund it.

As the huge sucking of all that money out of our national treasuries goes on, it is hard to understand how we are going to increase money to CIDA, to increase money for overseas development assistance, to increase opportunities for economic linkages and turn enemies into allies through trading and other means so that we do not get into future conflicts. Could the member opposite tell us how we would deal with that huge sucking noise as all of those resources are drawn out of our national treasuries?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the sucking noise, I think the member is referring to the actual cost that is going to be put on revenues. Actually, the amount we spend on defence in this country has dramatically decreased since the government came to power some 10 years ago.

I made it quite clear in my speech that we do not want to put all of our eggs in one basket. It is important when we look at giving out foreign aid and CIDA money that we base it on making sure that the places that are getting it do not have corrupt governments. We must base it on countries that are willing to change to become more democratic, as we have just seen in Iraq. Hopefully that will develop into a very democratic country and can become a strong ally and a strong economic trading partner.

I am also saying that we cannot be naive. There are rogue states that are developing this technology. They are developing the capability of long range nuclear warheads. We would be naive not to prepare for that, especially a country as large as Canada is.

When a country like the United States is inviting us to participate in a North American missile defence system, it would be a very irresponsible thing for us not to be a player at the table. We could voice our concerns and make sure we are at the table. It is important that we develop these strategies the member talked about as far as trading, but we cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that these other threats do not exist, because they do. We cannot just wait for them to happen; it is something on which we have to be ahead of the curve.

I think it would be very wrong for us not to participate in the missile defence system at this time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to the member the voices of those on the other side of the issue, those who oppose the resolution that the Alliance has presented to us today, those who are opposed to sabre rattling and gunboat diplomacy. I want to put on the record for the member the words of Peter Peters from Winnipeg, who said:

Why should Canadians buy into the insecurity the Bush administration wants to foist on us? Our future lies in cultivating strong trusting relationships with family of nations. We do not need the bullying of certain officials to the south of us.

I want to put on record the words of Val Werier, a well-known columnist with the Winnipeg Free Press , who said:

A macho image won't win us applause. For half a century Canada has been a symbol of fairness and reason without the might of a military machine.

I want to reference the words of Douglas Roche, former Conservative MP, who said:

I am outraged that Canada is apparently going to give its approval to join the U.S. system.

There are the words of Stephen Lewis, currently the UN special envoy for HIV-AIDS, who calls this ballistic missile defence a “spurious” program and one that is bereft of morality.

Ernie Regehr, the director of Project Ploughshares, said:

The American strategy now says we are not going to disarm any time soon. In fact, we are finding new uses for nuclear weapons.

Ernie Regehr, Val Werier and others have gone on to say that Canadian support for Washington's missile defence system will put Canada into active support of its doctrine of pre-emption.

My question for the member is very simple. On what basis should Canada disregard its history and its tradition in a peacekeeping role, our devotion to the rule of international law and our reputation for integrity?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's letters that she read into the record. It is disturbing that a lot of them have such an anti-American underlying tone. I find that very troubling, and of course we have heard it from members across. It has been very damaging to the Canadian relationship with the United States.

What is the first country that the world calls upon when they need the peacekeepers? What is the country that comes to the rescue of many other countries? What is the country that has gone into Afghanistan and liberated a country where women were not allowed to get an education and did not have the same rights, and where there is now hope for them? What is the country that went in and liberated the people in Iraq? It is the United States that gets called upon in these very difficult circumstances around the globe, yet we hear so much of the anti-American rhetoric.

That is a tragedy in itself. That is so wrong. The United States is our best friend, our closest ally, our closest neighbour. We should be honoured to participate in this, not just because it is the U.S. but because it is the right thing to do. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we are living in a glass bowl and that we are safe from all of these potential threats in the rogue states.

Supporting the missile defence system is the right thing to do, as well as pursuing relationships with other countries, countries that are not democratic, trying to push them into becoming more democratic. At the end of the day I hope that all members of the House would support the United States in getting involved in the missile defence system.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, an important part of the member's argument rests on the way in which we deal with rogue states. Here is the problem I have with the way in which this argument is presented.

On the one hand it is argued that these rogue states are so irrational that the traditional method of deterrence, that is to say, wiping them off the face of the planet by sending back intercontinental ballistic missiles, will not do. That is not good enough. They will not listen to that because they are irrational. On the other hand it is argued that once we develop a national missile defence system, it will serve as some kind of deterrence, that they will then become all rational all of a sudden and they will not feel that they have to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I would like to ask the hon. member, are they so irrational that they consider it a worse fate to have their missiles shot down than to have their country wiped off the planet?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Gary Lunn Canadian Alliance Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring the member back to some very straightforward facts that all members know. There are absolutely irrational people in this world and we have seen it many times over. We have seen the consequences of some terrible wars where tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered by people in their own country. We saw it in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. There are people that we cannot predict what they are going to do. It is absolutely impossible, but we do know for a fact that they are developing these technologies for long range nuclear missiles, and yes, I think it would be prudent to develop defences against these, very much so.

That does not mean that we should not also pursue the other track, trying to force these countries into becoming more democratic and trying to push the people of these countries into becoming more democratic, but we cannot pretend that we would be isolated, that the people of Canada are somehow insulated from a potential attack, not at all.

It is prudent for us to participate. We are part of the continent of North America. This is a North American missile defence system. We have a very large country and it would be very wrong for us not to participate in this. History speaks for itself. We just have to look at the history books to see what has happened over this last decade.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York North, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate to hear people in the House and outside the House, particularly in the media, suggest that when one is standing up for the sovereignty of Canada and speaking out against an acceleration of the arms race one is somehow un-American. I wanted to make that point in this House.

Today's motion concerns giving Norad responsibility for the command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles. Like the member for Don Valley West, I too support Norad. I give strong support to Norad, its history, its development and the current role it plays in the protection of North America.

However, I cannot support this motion. Before any decision is made to go along with this new ballistic missile defence project, there are many questions that need to be answered and issues that need to be addressed.

A fundamental concern is that today's global situation is very different from the one that brought about the birth of Norad. George W. Bush himself stated two years ago during a speech to the National Defense University's students and faculty:

I want us to think back some thirty years ago to a far different time in a far different world. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a hostile rivalry...Our deep differences were expressed in a dangerous military confrontation that resulted in thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on hair-trigger alert. Security of both the United States and the Soviet Union was based on a grim premise: that neither side would fire nuclear weapons at each other, because doing so would mean the end of both nations...Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The Wall is gone and so is the Soviet Union. Today's Russia is not yesterday's Soviet Union.

The guiding principle of the cold war, mutually assured destruction, was to deter the use of nuclear weapons by either side. However, the enemies the United States identifies today as rogue states or states of concern, like North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, et cetera, do not currently possess missiles capable of hitting the United States or Canada.

While Norad was conceived to deal with the strategic bomber threat of the cold war, today's missile defence project puts the United States in a position to initiate a nuclear strike without fear of devastating retaliation. Does missile defence then become a plan that can be perceived by the world as a front for a first strike winnable nuclear war?

There is another question we must address before engaging in such a project. Will missile defence work? Thomas Christie, the Pentagon's top evaluator of weapons, reported that the anti-missile system “has yet to demonstrate significant operational capability”.

Furthermore, it has long been recognized that it is relatively easy to fool an anti-ballistic missile system simply by using decoys that accompany a bomb. Even if the missile were able to hit its intended target, when a bomb loaded with numerous sub-munitions of chemical or biological weapons is destroyed in the atmosphere during its boost phase up to 100 pounds of carcinogenic plutonium rains down upon the population, causing long term havoc and mayhem. There is also the very realistic danger that intercepted nuclear weapons could accidentally explode when intercepted.

I think we can all agree that even if some of the technical problems of the missile defence system were remedied, it will never be perfect, and any success rate against nuclear attack that is not 100% perfect could mean countless deaths.

There is yet another question. How much will this program cost?

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the potential cost of a three-site system of missile defence could be between $158 billion and $238 billion. However, a report compiled by the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and the Economists Allied for Arms Reduction finds that the likely cumulative costs of a “layered” missile defence system would be between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion. One of the authors of this report is economist and Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow.

When resources of such an unfathomable amount are directed toward a technically questionable method of defence, what does that mean for the ability of governments to provide essential services to citizens? I hear a great sucking sound in the treasury of our nation. It also seems that the billions of dollars forecast to be spent on this system may be more effectively applied to other means of preventing terrorism.

Some have suggested that Canada will be a partner in this project without having to pay its share. It is disingenuous to suggest that those nations that fall under the umbrella of the missile defence system will not be asked to contribute their share.

Clearly the weaponization of space is the next step in the U.S. plan for missile defence and one which Canada and most of the world are fundamentally opposed to. There is a strong movement within the U.S. military establishment to expand the military use of space to include war fighting capabilities.

General Joseph Ashy, former commander in chief of the U.S. space command, made the following comment about the weaponization of space. He stated:

It's politically sensitive but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but--absolutely--we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the U.S. has developed programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We will engage terrestrial targets someday--ships, airplanes, land targets--from space. We will engage targets in space, from space.

Keith Hall, the air force assistant secretary for space and director of the National Reconnaissance Office, had this to say: “With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going to keep it”.

I have several questions about the potential weaponization of space. For instance, what will happen if America proceeds with its plan to militarize space? How will anti-satellite warfare, space based killer lasers or nuclear explosions affect our daily lives? Does any country have the right to invade space for its own nationalistic purposes?

Another concern is the potential threat to the multilateralism of the International Space Station. The ISS goals include finding solutions to crucial problems in medicine, ecology and other scientific areas and fostering peace through high profile, long term international cooperation in space. Will unilateral exploitation and control of space by a single nation not reverse many years of international cooperation?

There is a great deal of international concern about the armament of space. In November 1999, 138 nations voted at the United Nations for a resolution titled “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space”, which recognized “the common interest of all mankind in the exploration and uses of outer space for peaceful purposes”. Only the United States and Israel refused to support the resolution.

In closing, I would like to share a quote by M.W. Guzy that I believe sums up the issue of missile defence very well:

We enter the 21st century locked in a mortal arms race with ourselves. Though the needs for more advanced weaponry are at best unclear, we proceed on the premise that “if we build it they will come”.

As a sovereign country, Canada must continue to act in the best interests of Canadians and the world by promoting multilateral agreements and persevering with unwavering support for disarmament.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dick Harris Canadian Alliance Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, of course nations that value the freedom and safety of their citizens are going to always continue to achieve a peaceful world through negotiations and through multilateral talks with other countries, in particular those countries perceived to pose a threat to peace in our world.

It is one thing to be in denial of the dangers that exist in our world today from nations that obviously do not think the way we do or appreciate the freedoms we do. It is quite another situation to be sort of Pollyannaish about it and believe that everything is right with the world if we just smile and think good things about it.

This missile defence system is not to replace mechanisms already in place, such as our relationships with other countries and the ongoing diplomacy. This is to augment anything we are currently doing in the event that something we are currently doing fails.

When the member talks about going back to another time when the only defence we had was to threaten annihilation of any aggressor, and this still exists, this method alone means that if someone has a nuclear aggression against us we may very well annihilate that country, but at the expense of the tens of millions of lives in our country lost because their missiles got through. I personally would like to try to save some of those tens of millions of lives. While we do not have the technology perhaps exactly right today, there was a time when we did not know how to make a microwave work. The technology, the research, is in progress to make an accurate missile system work.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members in the House do not appreciate some of the anti-American rhetoric present in that last member's statement.

I just want to ask the member, as I asked the previous member, does she really believe that by just being nice to people who are by nature not nice we can preserve peace forever in this country or in this world?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand who is not nice here.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

An hon. member

The same thing as evil.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York North, ON

Or evil. There are lists; show me the lists. The problem here is that we are witnessing a ratcheting up of fear.

I hold to the original principle of Norad and why Norad was created in the first place. If I may, I will reiterate that it was the situation of mutually assured destruction, a situation in the world where there are two forces, and if one pulls the trigger, the other will pull the trigger and it will be over. As a result, there is some rationality in the system.

With a hyperpower, we are now in a position where there is a lot of finger pointing as to who the enemy is and I am trying to understand that. As I said in my speech, North Korea and these other countries do not have missiles capable of landing in North America.

I want to point out for the members opposite that Amnesty International has come out with a report saying that human rights protection has been badly set back by measures taken in the name of global security. Yes, it is important to ensure that people in our countries are safe and secure, but the reality is that there are situations which have been pointed out in developing countries where security concerns are used as an excuse by governments to crack down on opposition politicians, journalists and religious and racial minorities.

The member opposite was talking about how to go forward on world peace. This report talks about the fact that what has been happening has deepened divisions among people of different faiths and origins--