House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.

Topics

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Answer the question, how much money?

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

The member is hollering now, Mr. Chair. He is hollering, how much money.

The fact of the matter is, and I know that the Minister of National Defence will confirm this, the Americans have not asked us to contribute financially to this.

He says that we are going to go cap in hand and we are going to be empty handed when we go. That is nonsense. Look what we have contributed in the past technologically as a nation. We have pulled our weight, way beyond our weight technologically.

What is it that we see every time they put something together in space? The Canadarm. Is there any recognition of that from that party? One would think that they were still involved back in the cold war with their statements about this. It is absolute nonsense.

We do not have to be contributing money. I have had the opportunity to be at Cheyenne Mountain. I have seen our Canadian Forces participate there in an equal partnership with the Americans in Norad. That is the way they are asking us to participate. They are asking us to support this initiative that will protect Canadians as well as Americans. I think that makes eminent sense.

That is why seven out of ten Canadians polled say that they support this initiative. Why is that? They see through the nonsense that that party is spreading about this. Canadians recognize that our sovereignty is more in jeopardy if we do not participate than if we do.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Chair, I have listened to my colleague's presentation most attentively. What I am trying to do in particular is to grasp the justification for Canada's getting involved in a defence shield.

The reason given is the fear of rogue states, the only reason. Unless my colleague can convince me that a missile defence shield could have stopped the three planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I think this is wrong. His identification of where the threats lie is incorrect.

There is in fact a far greater threat of a commercial aircraft hitting a tower. There is a far greater threat of a Cruise missile being launched from a ship 200 km off the coast of the U.S. There is a far greater threat of a weapon of mass destruction being brought into the port of Vancouver or Montreal and then detonated.

When they bring out the rogue state argument, it does not hold water. Many countries are unable to deliver an intercontinental ballistic missile, and those who are capable would see their country destroyed as a result. Do hon. members think North Korea is going to launch one on Washington? If it did, it would be wiped off the map afterward, totally eradicated from the planet.

This is, in my opinion, nothing but wild imaginings. Or a matter of swallowing all the arguments proposed to us by the military-industrial complex. They are the ones who stand to gain most from the missile defence shield, no one else.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Chair, I hope they do have an advantage so that they can prevent any future inbound missile from ever striking North America. I hope they do have an advantage. That is why I support our getting involved in this.

I had kind of hoped for better from my Bloc colleague than that type of rationale. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that because there are other threats out there, like a dirty bomb being smuggled in on a cargo ship or a cruise missile taking off from a deck of some ship just offshore, that because those are very real threats, which he is right about, that means we should not participate. Where is the logic in that? That is like saying there is a list of threats and fairly far down the list of threats is a rogue missile inbound to North America. It is still a threat.

As I said in my remarks, if anybody would have said that jet liners were going to slam into the World Trade Center before it happened, people would have said that it would be absolutely ridiculous and nobody would ever be able to orchestrate a terrorist attack like that, but it happened.

Therefore I do not think that is a valid argument against our supporting our allies in this effort.

The final point I would make, and again I agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is that the Americans are on their way to doing this anyway. If we want to have a voice, if we want to protect Canadian sovereignty, if we want to reinforce our opposition to weaponization of space, then let us be at the table and make sure that our voice carries some weight there. We are not going to do that if we opt out.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:40 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to take part in this evening's debate. First, I want to tell my colleagues that I have seen the statistics. I know that, as a general rule, 70% of Canadians, seemingly agree. However, I also want to tell my colleagues that I come from a part of the country that is quite different. I am from Quebec. That is where there were the biggest protests against the war in Iraq. I think that it is also where there will be the most opposition to the anti-missile defence program.

Quebeckers are extreme pacifists. I am not saying that they are angels and that they think that the military and all guns should be eliminated. I am saying only that Quebeckers are very critical when it comes to armed interventions and the purchase of weapons. Quebeckers will be with us on this.

If, in Canada, 70% of Canadians support partnering with the Americans on the anti-missile defence program, I would not be wrong in saying that the numbers are reversed in Quebec. About 30% of Quebeckers are prepared to partner with the Americans on this venture.

Since the Minister of Foreign Affairs has forced me in part to do so, I would also like to explain that, when we enter into a treaty with the Americans, we do so as part of an overall plan. The overall plan of the Americans is clear. It is not just to install a few interceptors in Fort Greely, Alaska. It is much more than that. It represents the installation of about 30 land and sea missiles, including in Fort Greely, in 2004; the deployment of 20 additional missiles in 2005; the installation at sea of giant detection radar; the installation of a fleet of detection satellites—we are already going into space—; space-based interceptors in 2012; and the famous laser-equipped Airborne aircraft. That is the American plan. We cannot say that Canada is going along with the American plan but that, when the time comes to go into space, we will pull out. It will be too late. That is the problem.

What is the missile defence shield based on? I gave an initial argument to my Conservative Party colleague. It is first a poor threat assessment. It is not true that North Korea will launch a missile on Washington or New York. If that were true, than that country would be wiped off the face of the earth. This doctrine of mutually assured destruction continues. With regard to a massive strike, it is not complicated. The Americans themselves say that they will not be able to block a massive strike from Russia.

They are talking about something that is absolutely not part of reality. There is no country that would risk launching an ICBM against New York or Washington, knowing it would be wiped off the map. I repeat: there is a much greater risk that a commercial airliner would strike a tower, or that a Cruise missile would be launched from a ship 200 kilometres off the American coast, or that a container could come into a port carrying a weapon of mass destruction.

It is poor prioritization to invest between $60 billion and $1,200 billion in this project. We will talk about the figures later. These things are much riskier than an interballistic missile. It seems that some effort is being put into it, but not enough. The missile defence shield will have to come much later, perhaps in 2050 or so.

The threats have been poorly identified. Scientific feasibility has not come into the debate at all. Just think: they made nine attempts with a missile that leaves point X and another missile that waits for the first and then rises to intercept it. This test was successful five times out of nine; therefore they failed four times. Do you think that if someone were sending a missile, they would call the White House in advance to say that they had just sent off a missile from North Korea aimed at New York? That is not how things will work.

The scientific feasibility of this—even the scientists agree—is nearly impossible. So why are we clutching at this idea? It is simple; the military-industrial complex wants this. They will make money from it. At whose expense will Raytheon and General Dynamics make money? At the expense of the public who will foot the bill, as always.

Too bad for the poor Americans. If they put one-tenth of what they want to put into the missile defence shield into other things, the problems of the planet would likely be solved. No more malnutrition, probably no more problems in the world relating to health or education. But no.

The federal government's proposal is the new foreign affairs doctrine: total domination. Domination by air, by land by sea, and by space.

We can see how the Americans are developing their whole strategy at this time. There used to be talk of lunar conquest,l but now the American president dreams of planting the Stars and Stripes on Mars, which will then belong to him, as Earth is at risk of doing as well. That is the problem. Canada is in the process of jumping on the American bandwagon.

The U.S. government will perhaps not ask for a lot of money, but it will say—as it is already starting to—that the Canadians were on their side. That is what they are interested in.

The costs are astronomical, as I have said. The Americans are taking it slow, announcing that it will costs some $60 million to $100 billion. Nobel Economics laureate Kenneth Arrow says this is not so; the price will be between $800 billion and $1,200 billion. That is a lot of money.

This is a sovereignist talking. There is not just a monetary cost, but a cost to Quebec's sovereignty. The big risk for Canada is that it is getting hooked into U.S. foreign policy. Every time the U.S. will say it wants to do something, I can already hear the Conservatives and the Liberals to whom it is very clear. To them, the way to get closer to the United States is through the army. Moreover, to save our economy, we have to follow the U.S. foreign policy. That is what is happening to Canada in the missile defence case.

Personally, I think Canada is making a colossal mistake. The Bloc Quebecois is here to say so and will oppose to the end. We are handing out postcards. We started with 20,000 cards stating our objection to this. The Minister of National Defence and the people on his side of the House are probably going to be receiving some postcards. People in Quebec are opposed to this for the reasons I have just mentioned.

In our view, this is a fundamental error since the government will be obligated to follow through. They have started down a slippery slope. There is already a sum of $700,000 for interim contracts for radars. What will be next? Perhaps the Canadian government will be asked to install missiles on its territory.

We are told we are being dramatic. Of course the members opposite and the members of the Conservative Party of Canada think we are being hysterical and that we are trying to instil fear in people. Let me remind them that the role of the opposition is to tell the government that it might not be doing the right thing. Perhaps we should think about this, have a national debate, consult people, adopt a national defence policy and a foreign affairs policy. Perhaps we should ask the taxpayers whether they agree with spending money on this.

Do Canadians agree to having to follow the U.S lead from now on? At the interceptor phase of the space shield, we will be asked by the Americans if they can base one in our country. How shall we answer? “No, were are out. We do not want it anymore”. What will we do with respect to the space component of the program? Will we say we no longer want anything more to do with it? We made a commitment and will have to follow their lead. That is the fundamental danger.

This plan is not Canada. Canada is a peace loving country. We have had Nobel Prize winners in Canada, and I do not think they would be pleased with the current turn of events, with Canadian hawks joining American hawks

I am not sure either that the Americans are all that thrilled. If the Americans were the ones taking the money and giving it to poorer countries to eradicate poverty and terrorism, I think that the substantive question would be resolved. It would probably cost us significantly less than what it is going to cost us now.

I am from a country, Quebec, which is opposed to the weaponization of space, the space shield, and the kind of action that was taken in Iraq. We are being proven right.

I think that, in the end, the people of Quebec will follow the Bloc's lead and oppose the missile defence shield.

I urge the government not to rush. It is going much too fast. It should tell the U.S. that it will not be participating for the time being and will consider it in the future. But as far as we are concerned, weaponizing space is out of the question.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:50 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Liberal

David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my good friend and colleague from the Bloc Quebecois a few questions on this issue.

He made the point that he wanted to distinguish himself as a sovereignist. I must say that being a sovereignist, as far as I am aware, does not allow someone to violate the laws of logic or to be inconsistent from one day to the next.

The issue that the member raised yesterday in the House during question period was one that was of great interest to me. He asked me a question in relation to a contract for $700,000 that the Department of National Defence was sponsoring in connection with the high frequency surface wave radar that is produced by one of Canada's defence companies.

This radar is able to see over the horizon and extends to a range of about 320 kilometres. It is normally used for the purpose of tracking ships and low flying planes, as well as ice floes and icebergs and that sort of thing, but it could potentially be used for detecting cruise missiles.

The member opposite was very categorical in asking why we were potentially participating in these missile detection trials. By the way, we have not made a decision to participate in these missile detection trials, formally in any event.

However he was very critical of the testing of radar systems for cruise missiles and yet tonight we hear him say that he has more concerns about cruise missiles launched from cargo vessels than he does about ballistic missiles.

I would suggest to the hon. member, and maybe he could respond to this, that he be a bit more consistent in terms of his arguments. He cannot say on one day that he is not concerned about cruise missiles and on the next day suggest that they present more of a threat than ballistic missiles.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Chair, obviously I am much more worried about a cruise missile attack on the United States or on Canada than an attack by an intercontinental missile; I admit it.

Yesterday I wanted to say that even the Raytheon corporation that is developing this radar was surprised to hear that it might be given another mission.

The story of the $700,000 is not clear. I will take the minister's word for it. In return, why does he not let us know what he asked of Raytheon, including plans and estimates? Why would he not allow us to go and look at these on site?

I am the national defence critic. I want to go and see the radar installations and I want someone to explain to me what the purpose of the $700,000 is.

The minister also knows that the Americans will be carrying out tests this summer with missiles, as they begin to test the system. We think that it is obvious what it is for.

It is the first step on the slippery slope. This is the first money the Canadian government has spent on this. It is also, probably, a loss of sovereignty. Our radar will also serve American purposes. I am not saying that this should not be done. Norad is the classic example.

Nevertheless, the moment when we move into another phase to try to go into the field of ballistic missiles, in my opinion, that is one step too far, and that is what will lead us into full negotiations with the Americans and complete surrender by Canada to the Americans.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Chair, I do not know where to begin with my Bloc colleague.

If a person were to look at Hansard and review his remarks of a few minutes ago I think they would think he was in the U.S. congress. His remarks were more appropriate to being in opposition to what the Americans are doing and to President Bush and the Bush administration than they were in opposition to anything in the Canadian Parliament.

If I heard him correctly, he also said that he did not understand where the Conservative Party was coming from on this issue because the role of opposition was just to oppose. That is not the role of this party and it never has been. We weigh each issue on its own merit and make a decision as to whether we are going to support the government in its initiative. Obviously, there are times when we would do things differently.

If the member were to check the voting records, as I have, he would see that I, as a Reform Party member of Parliament, and then an Canadian Alliance Party member and now a Conservative Party of Canada member, have voted with the government about half of the time in my 10 year history as a member of Parliament. The reason for that is that we weigh each issue individually.

The reality is that we do not oppose for the sake of opposition. The reality is that we should be debating the merits of or the opposition to this particular issue. I respect the member for raising concerns about it.

The member also talked about the testing--

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jerry Pickard Liberal Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

The pot calling the kettle black.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

7:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Chair, the member will have a chance to speak a little later. The great thing about this type of debate is that everyone has a chance to get involved and jump up. There are lots of questions and comments. Members do not have to holler.

My colleague referred to the testing of this. The technology for this has actually been called hitting a bullet with a bullet. It is very finite technology and very difficult to do. He referred to the test and said that it was only successful five out of nine times. If there were nine incoming ballistic missiles, I would far sooner have five of them shot down than none of them.

My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this but what is his alternative? Is it to maintain the present huge nuclear missile deterrent? As I said in my remarks, the only other option is to maintain the mutual annihilation. What is he proposing as an alternative?

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Chair, I will answer my colleague as though I were in the U.S. Congress tonight; I will say the same thing.

I will give this speech in Canada while Quebec is still a part of Canada because the government wants to copy exactly what the U.S. wants to do. That is what the Canadian government wants to do. It wants to adopt the same attitude that the U.S. government has because it thinks it will get closer to the United States with this type of issue, but that is absolutely not true.

Does Canada currently wield a lot of control within Norad? No, the U.S. controls 90% of Norad leaving a measly 10% to show the international community that they have left something for the Canadians.

The truth is, everyone knows that the U.S. controls Norad. It is unlikely that if a Canadian general were to say at Norad that we do things differently that the U.S. would listen.

It is the same thing with the space shield. The U.S. will decide because they know they are powerful. Moreover, Canada's contribution will be no different than that of the U.S. If we could have stepped back and said things are going too fast, we will wait, this would have been more consistent with Canadian policy. That could have provided much greater dividends for Canada internationally than saying that from now on we will follow the U.S. on military matters.

In my view, that is the fundamental issue and they are going to miss the boat.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into the debate this evening, a debate that is long overdue.

This of course is just a superficial scratching of the surface compared to what we have an obligation to undertake as members of Parliament, which is a thorough review of this whole question in the context of the foreign policy and defence review that the government claims to be committed to, and at the parliamentary committee level where it is absolutely imperative that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade follow through on a commitment made a year ago that we would do a full exploration and debate of this whole question of national missile defence before any decision is made by the government to commit to the course of action that I think at the moment we have reason to be afraid the government will embark upon come hell or high water.

I note that both on the government side and on the official opposition side we have again the attempt to demonize the New Democratic Party, to accuse our leader, Jack Layton, and others of fearmongering, exaggerating and generally just whipping Canadians into a storm about this for no good reason.

I want to say for the record that I am very proud of the work my leader, Jack Layton, has been doing on this issue. I think a great many Canadians are extremely grateful for the fact that they have a voice in this Parliament at least with one political party, namely the New Democratic Party, to voice their opposition to any further engagement by the government in the complete sheer lunacy of the Bush national missile defence program.

We need not depend on just New Democrats sitting in the House for informed views on this question. We need go no further than the clear, principled, informed statement made in the House today by the member for Davenport. It is no wonder the member for Davenport does not want anything more to do with the Liberal Party of Canada or this Liberal government. He gives a number of reasons but I will briefly cite two reasons as the basis for his absolute opposition to any Canadian participation in the proposed missile defence system.

He points out that there is ample evidence that the U.S. intends to weaponize outer space and furthermore, that once the Government of Canada enters into discussions and negotiations with the U.S. administration, it would be very difficult to extricate itself.

I commend to all Canadians that they read the statement made by one of the few remaining real Liberal members of the Liberal government when he concludes by saying “I urge the government to keep Canada out of the missile defence venture and to concentrate its energies instead on peace rather than on belligerent measures called defence systems. Canada's interests are best served by being at the disarmament rather than at the armament table”.

It is a shame that members on the Liberal benches have turned such a deaf ear to the message from the member for Davenport that he clearly no longer feels that he really belongs in that political corner of the House.

I think a gross insult has been hurled at Canadians when members on the government side and in the official opposition, who, we might point out, are indistinguishable from one another on the issue of missile defence, when it is clear that they are insulting Canadians when they talk about the NDP somehow preying on Canadians' ignorance about this issue by putting forth information that is not factually based.

I assume that members in the other parties in the House have been receiving the same kind of thoughtful, thorough submissions from a whole variety of Canadians, NGOs, think tanks, academic groups, all of whom have been diligently doing their homework on this issue and, no thanks to the government, have come to their own conclusions having done their own studies.

Let me quickly refer to a couple. Again it is obvious that the government either has not even bothered to familiarize itself with the important work that has been done by Canadians and for Canadians, or else it has familiarized itself and has completely rejected the kinds of conclusions reached.

Let me refer quickly to a couple. The Canadian Pugwash Group is a very fine group of Canadian thinkers, researchers and analysts who have made a detailed study of this question and have come clearly to the position that the Government of Canada should:

...desist from any participation in this endeavour. Participation in any aspect of NMD will undermine Canada's sovereignty and lock us into huge expenses hindering our ability to fulfill our other political and military commitments, in particular maintenance of properly equipped peacekeeping or intervention forces. Canada should, instead, be pursuing its priorities within the UN framework.

That certainly does not describe what it is the government is committing us to in terms of participation with the United States.

The Group of 78 is a group of some of the most distinguished former ambassadors, including two former ambassadors for disarmament representing the people of Canada, and a whole range of experts in the field of foreign policy, peace, defence and disarmament. The Group of 78 states categorically, “Canada should not participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence program”. It goes on to make the point that there has to be a full engagement with Canadians around this issue before any further steps are taken by the government to implicate us in the missile defence program. And this is even before it gets to the question of the weaponization of space.

I urge the government to begin to pay attention to the careful work that has been done by these organizations. The Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies at UBC has a paper that has been authored by Ernie Regehr, the distinguished director of Project Ploughshares, but endorsed by the director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues, under whose watch the Simons Centre operates.

The former foreign affairs minister of the country for this government, Lloyd Axworthy, clearly stated his opposition to missile defence involvement by the government, as well as Gerry Barr, the president and CEO of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. Again, there are the two former ambassadors for disarmament in this country, the hon. Senator Doug Roche and Peggy Mason. Professor John Polanyi, a Nobel laureate, has been very clear on this. The list grows and grows.

Let me refer briefly to a forthcoming book that sadly is not available in its entirety yet so it could be referenced in this debate tonight. It is by Mel Hurtig and is entitled Rushing to Armageddon: Paul Martin and George W. Bush's Star Wars . He makes the point that the government is hiding behind bogus public opinion polls that say that something like 67% of Canadians favour participation by our country in the U.S. star wars program. They are bogus polls. Those who are using those polls know that they are bogus polls and I am sorry to say that it is not only government members who are doing that, but there are some members of the media who are prepared to use such bogus polls too.

This is not a distinguished chapter in Canada's foreign policy history. Let me just say in conclusion, as we will have time for further debate, that Jack Layton, my leader, and I spent a day and a half in Washington last week. We met with many members of Congress, NGOs and former military personnel, every last one of whom said that they consider there is no possibility whatsoever that the Bush NMD program will lead to anything but the weaponization of space.

They are desperate to see Canada not participate in this madness and in fact take a strong principled stand. I am not sure of the exact number, but 130 to 140 members of the American Congress have voted against the budgetary measures and have voted against the participation in star wars.

This is not just about 14 members of this House sitting in this corner in the form of the New Democratic Party caucus. There are very large numbers of Canadians who are looking for leadership on the issue and they want to see it from their government.

Let there be no mistake about this. If that leadership will not come from the government, and it is already clear that it is not, and it absolutely is not going to come from the Conservative caucus, then let this government understand that there is going be the same kind of mobilization against the missile defence madness that is going to lead to the weaponization of space as there was a mobilization against any participation by Canada in the war on Iraq.

In the final analysis, I think that it is that voice--

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:10 p.m.

The Chair

Regrettably, I ask the hon. member to now take questions because I have let the time go well beyond.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Chair, I will keep it short because I see that my colleague from across the way would also like to pose a question.

I take exception to the member for Halifax stating that her leader, Jack Layton, is contributing factual information to the debate. The simple truth of the matter is that he has been fearmongering. He has been raising the legitimate concerns of Canadians to a higher level through the use of terminology like star wars, son of star wars, weaponization of space and all this type of nonsense.

I would draw her attention to a guest editorial that was written by Jack Layton. It appeared in a number of newspapers across the land, I believe, including the The Globe and Mail . This example is from the Ottawa Citizen , in which he states:

The cost of a fully operational Star Wars exceeds $1 trillion US. Were Canada told to contribute only one per cent of the cost--and it's unfathomable given Bush's fiscal situation we'd be told to pay nothing--we would have to pay $10 billion U.S.

That is the type of nonsense that her leader she is bragging about is putting out there in national newspapers in Canada. There is no foundation in fact for that type of information.

I would ask the member to defend the number he states: that Canada would be forced to contribute $10 billion U.S. to this. We have not been asked to contribute a dollar to it.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Chair, I have to say that I am extremely pleased that this question has been raised, because among the numerous concerns so eloquently expressed to us by Canadians from all over the country, one is the highly suspicious and deeply worrisome notion that has been perpetrated by the government, that is, the U.S. actually does not want any money for this. It is not going to cost us anything. We are just being asked to kind of sign on.

I have to say that person after person and organization after organization who have approached us, written to us and made submissions to us are asking, “Who is the government kidding?” The notion is that Canada would be invited to participate in something that is so fundamentally important, supposedly, to our future security--what a notion of security--that it is not going to cost us anything.

Let me say that there have been numerous attempts, and it is not easy to do, to calculate what the full cost may be of this program that is mapped out, the twenty-twenty vision for the next 20 years by the American government. Numerous attempts have been made to calculate what the potential cost is and $1 trillion is the figure that is put forth again and again by American defence experts, analysts and academics. The figure that is cited, if Canada were just asked to pay 1% of that trillion dollars, leads to a $10 billion figure.

I cannot state strongly enough how irresponsible it is, given the constant citing of scarce dollars by the government, to commit us to $10 billion for something that is not going to work, is going to escalate the arms race in this country and for certain will lead to the weaponization of space.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:15 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Liberal

David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Chair, I think what we have in the corner here is what my friends in the military would describe as a target rich environment from the standpoint of arguments.

I am just flabbergasted by what the hon. member said in terms of this $1 trillion figure. I do not know where the mathematicians are in the NDP, but the current spending of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is approximately $9 billion per year. At that rate of spending, it would take over a century to spend $1 trillion.

The hon. member should know as well, and should appreciate the fact, that if the NDP wants to take the high moral ground on this issue, if that is what the NDP members are seeking to do, then they owe the people of Canada the truth on this issue in terms of giving them the straight facts without trying to embellish this, without trying to gild the lily as far as the arguments go.

On the basis of the facts, so many of the arguments that the NDP members have just do not stand up.

I would like the hon. member to respond to that issue, but I would also like to have her respond on the issue of the threat that exists, because implicit in the NDP's position is the fact that there is no threat. But the facts are--and we know what the facts are--that there are countries out there like North Korea. They pay absolutely no regard to human rights. They have starved their own people for the sake of a weapons program. The North Koreans actually lowered the height requirement for soldiers in their army because they are so undernourished. The people of Korea are so undernourished that they just have not grown.

We have been prepared to launch missiles across the Sea of Japan; that was five or six years ago. Is the NDP saying that there is absolutely no threat out there, that we need not concern ourselves with the fact that there are countries that are ready, willing and potentially able to launch ballistic missiles directed at free democratic countries like Canada and the United States or even South Korea and Japan?

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Chair, I am not sure I am going to have enough time to answer all those questions.

Let me quickly address the first on cost. Let me quote directly the spokesperson from the coalition for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

By the way, I should say it continues to be a source of great frustration to that coalition that it has not been able to get a hearing with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I hope that is going to change since everybody agrees that this is a very critical issue for us to be addressing.

On that issue, the president of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Bev Delong, said the following:

What will be the cost to the public purse of our participation in missile defence? Will we pay 10% as with NORAD or 40% as with the construction of the North Warning System? If there is no cost, what will we 'owe' to the U.S. in upcoming trade discussions? Must we kowtow for ever? Will that political debt ever be paid?

Let me go on to the second question that was raised. It was about whether we do not recognize that there are some threats, that there is some basis for people feeling insecure in our world.

This is an e-mail that I received today from a representative of the Voice of Women for Peace, one of the finest peace building, peace educating groups in this country, with a very distinguished record. Eight answers are offered to that question. Let me very briefly cite three of them.

BMD will not protect North Americans from terrorism. Terrorist acts such as the attack on the World Trade towers tragically demonstrate that Cold War defence strategies will not work in the 21st century and instead will provoke rather than deter attacks.

Second, human security is dependent upon respect of internationally recognized human rights and an equitable distribution of the world's resources. Defence policies must recognize that peace will come from justice, not from military might.

Finally, human security would be greatly assisted by diverting monies from ill-conceived weapons to social programs, environmental solutions, international human rights protection, disaster assistance and development aid.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

The Chair

The hon. member for Halifax's time has elapsed.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of National Defence.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:20 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Liberal

David Pratt LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Chair, I am very proud to take part in a debate on such an important national issue.

I would also like to offer my congratulations to my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for his excellent contribution to this debate.

As the House is aware, I have exchanged letters of intent with the U.S. Secretary of Defense confirming that it is in the interests of both of our nations to discuss cooperation in the ballistic missile defence of North America. I want to be very clear that while we have taken the decision to discuss this issue, we have not taken a final decision on Canadian participation. This will only be done once discussions are complete and Parliament has been consulted. When the time comes, we will take a principled decision based on our national interest and based on our values.

We recognize that this is an important issue for Canada and Canadians. That is why we have gone to great lengths to encourage informed discussion on missile defence. For example, the government responded in an open and frank manner during the two debates that took place on missile defence in the House last May, as well as when we announced the beginning of discussions with the United States on May 29, 2003.

The government has also heard from parliamentary committees that have examined various questions surrounding missile defence. The government has engaged security and defence experts, non-governmental organizations and individual Canadians interested in this issue. Internationally we have been engaged with our allies in seeking to address the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology.

As you can see, Mr. Chair, the government has not only welcomed the diverse views it has received on this issue, it has actively sought them out.

I want to be clear about what is at stake and why the government has taken such a measured and methodical approach. First and foremost, this is an issue concerning the safety and security of Canadians, the most important responsibility of any government, and it is one that we take very seriously.

As we made clear in the recent Speech from the Throne, “there is no role more fundamental for government than the protection of its citizens”. Canada remains committed to a comprehensive approach to protecting Canadians with emphasis on multilateral non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament processes, as well as effective diplomatic engagement. A responsible government, however, must be prepared to look at any measure, any system that could protect the lives of its citizens today, tomorrow and in the future. Certainly a responsible government must be prepared to look at a system designed to prevent a potential nuclear explosion delivered by a ballistic missile and the unimaginable human tragedy that would result from such an attack.

The second reason Canada is proceeding with negotiations on ballistic missile defence for North America is to safeguard our sovereignty. To many this may seem like an abstract concept, but it is not. The United States has announced that it will have an initial missile defence system in place no later than the fall of this year, and we know that the Americans are moving ahead and working hard to make this a reality.

Canada's participation in ballistic missile defence would involve Canada in decisions concerning the missile defence of our continent. The alternative would be to allow the United States to make these important decisions on its own with all the implications this would have for our sovereignty. This would not be prudent, nor would it be responsible. Indeed responsible nations want and demand a seat at the table when matters affecting their security and defence are being considered.

Some would have Canadians believe that we have proceeded with discussions on missile defence in an attempt to mend fences with the United States. This is patently false. After careful analysis and thought, and after taking into account the diversity of views on this issue, we have proceeded with discussions with the goal of protecting the safety and security of Canadians, and with the goal of protecting Canada's sovereign interests.

Some have attempted to confuse Canadians by referring to missile defence as star wars. This is a false characterization and it only takes away from informed and honest debate. Star wars was prohibitively expensive, technologically unworkable and in the end, strategically unnecessary. The missile defence system that is now being put in place by the U.S. is not star wars. It is a much different system than the one envisioned by the United States 20 years ago. It will employ land and sea based missile interceptors. It does not involve in any way weapons in space.

Canada continues to oppose the weaponization of space. We have made this point very clear to the United States.

Some have said that the missile defence system will not work. This is certainly not our preliminary assessment, nor is it the assessment of the United States. Again, we are looking at the facts, not myths, not speculation and not, as we have heard from the NDP tonight, third and fourth hand information.

Some have said that the missile defence system would encourage other countries to build more and better missiles, thus sparking an international arms race. There has been absolutely no evidence of this to date. In fact, the evidence seems to discount this argument entirely.

Finally, some have argued that it would be un-Canadian to support missile defence. I would like to know why it is un-Canadian to look at ways to enhance the safety and security of our citizens. I would like to know why it is un-Canadian to look to protect our sovereign ability to take decisions on the defence of our own territory.

The current government recognizes that there is no unanimity on this issue.

It is important, however, that we at least discuss and debate the facts surrounding missile defence. We must not allow falsehoods and fearmongering to cloud the issue. Missile defence involves the safety and security of Canadians and it involves the exercise of Canadian sovereignty.

We certainly believe that it deserves passionate debate, but we also believe that it deserves reasoned and factual debate.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:30 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Chair, since the debate began this evening, both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have been trying to make us believe that the American anti-missile defence plan does not constitute the weaponization of space.

But, when we look at current anti-missile defence development plans, about 30 land and sea interceptors are to be installed by fall 2004, with about 20 additional missiles to be deployed in 2005, as well as giant sea-based detection radar to be installed. No problem so far. However, a fleet of up to 24 detection satellites and space-based interceptors are being considered for 2012 and are included in the development plan.

Does the Minister of National Defence not agree that, given the development plan provided, which we have here, contrary to what he would have us believe, this does in fact constitute the weaponization of space?

This is in the development plan. Can the minister state that what I have said this evening is false? Does the development plan include a fleet of up to 24 detection satellites and orbiting interceptors as of 2012?

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:30 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is simply wrong. I cannot emphasize that enough. I cannot say it loud and long enough that he is wrong in terms of what he is suggesting.

There are sensors in space. There have been sensors in space since the early days of Norad. We have used them. They have been part of the system of missile warning and attack assessment. That is part of the existing system. That is what has been referred to as the militarization of space, not the weaponization of space. These are two very separate issues.

The other argument I would address is the issue of weaponization of space from the standpoint of what has been spent on this issue. There is some research being done.

Out of a $9 billion budget in the United States, approximately $14 million has been spent on space related research. That is .15% of the overall missile agency defence budget. That is a minuscule amount. Those who think that at that rate of spending the Americans will be able to put space based weapons into place any time soon are deluding themselves completely.

This is not about the weaponization of space. The existing system is based on a land and sea based interceptor system. As other hon. members have said, it will be based in Fort Greeley, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It has no space based weapons in the system. As far as we know, there may and likely never will be any space based weapons. That would certainly be my guess, but who knows what the future holds in that respect. We cannot predict out 50 years, 100 years. That is impossible. That is absurd. We should not even be engaged in that sort of speculation when we are talking about the system that is under consideration right now.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Chair, since we have been invited by the minister to engage in facts, could we have some from him as to what his defence department has done. Has it issued these contracts worth about $700,000, and I am quoting now from the Ottawa Citizen , “to try out Canadian radar technology in U.S.-run trials of the missile shield this summer”? Have we in fact committed $700,000 to that? Who is in control of those tests? If we have committed, then I have a supplementary question.

The radar system is one that was developed by Raytheon here in Canada. I think it was mentioned earlier by my colleague from the Bloc that Mr. Jim Graaskamp is quoted as saying, “We have no idea what this is about, whether it can carry out this task”. Then he went on to say, “The specific product designed for Canada is not designed for missile detection. There is no demonstrated capability that this technology can be used for ballistic missile defence”.

If we have committed to it, how does the minister justify it when in fact the producer of this product is saying it has no capability to do what is proposed to be done?

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Chair, I tried to explain this earlier to another hon. member, but I will take another whack at it and hopefully, we will be able to get some information out there for the hon. member.

Raytheon produces what is known as a high frequency service wave radar. It is intended to detect things like ice floes in the north Atlantic. It is intended to detect low-flying airplanes. It is intended to detect ships. It is an over the horizon type of radar. That is what the spokesperson for Raytheon was talking about. It is not intended for ballistic missile defence, but potentially it could be used in a cruise missile type detection scenario. That is what the defence department is interested in exploring with companies like Raytheon. For that matter, the defence department has not decided whether we even want to participate in these trials.

The nature of the radar system that is produced by Raytheon would lend itself to cruise missile defence, not ballistic missile defence, which I think explains what the hon. member is trying to get at.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Chair, I want to cite further from one of the e-mails that I received in my office today in anticipation of tonight's debate. It goes as follows:

While Minister Pratt has dismissed the issue of the weaponization of space... President Bush has presented a budget to the U.S. Congress that specifically funds the space-based portion of BMD. The Pentagon's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request contains substantial funding in three space-based mission areas: Force projection and space control... Space-based elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System... and Space-based command, control, and intelligence.... Taken together, the budget request seeks almost $3 billion in 2004 for strategic war fighting from space, and more than $30 billion over the [next five-year] timeframe.

I wonder if the minister could explain the contradiction between his insistence that the NMD is not about the weaponization of space yet we see that there are three space based components that are without a doubt tied in with the 20-20 vision already set out by the Bush administration to move to the weaponization of space.

Ballistic Missile DefenceGovernment Orders

8:35 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Chair, I think the one thing that the NDP has been hanging its hat on in this entire debate is documents that typically are background papers. They are certainly not policy documents.

One has to look at where the money is actually being spent, where the money is being spent within the United States, within the missile defence agency. As I just mentioned a few moments ago, the fact is that the U.S. is spending about $14 million out of a $9 billion budget. It is a minuscule amount.

Look at the amounts that are being spent, not the amounts that are proposed by various groups. I think that is an important consideration and it is something that the NDP seems to completely ignore.