David Pratt

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has used the words “signed on”, that we have signed on. We have not signed on to anything.

That is why I get a little agitated to say the least in this debate, because the NDP has been purposely misleading Canadians. It has used language such as that used in the ad that Jack Layton placed in the Globe and Mail , $1 trillion. There is absolutely no basis in fact for that piece of non-information. The hon. member yesterday talked about the system using nuclear tipped missiles. That is absolutely absurd. Again, there is no basis in fact.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member draws his conclusions on what Canadians think. There has been some public opinion polling done on this issue. Canadians have demonstrated, I think, a fairly high level of common sense in wanting to deal with potential threats that are out there, as far as ballistic missile defence is concerned.

Canadians in general and Quebeckers as well have a lot more sense perhaps than the hon. member does on this issue.

The hon. member repeats on a regular basis that this is Mr. Bush's system. The fact is that it was President Bill Clinton who got the Missile Defense Agency up and running in 1999 as a result of a missile that was fired from North Korea over the Sea of Japan. Up until that point, the Americans were certainly not aware that the North Koreans had that level of technology. That is important to note this.

Therefore, this is a response to a threat. I think we are doing the right thing and the prudent thing in engaging in discussions with the Americans, and we will see what comes of these negotiations.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at this point that I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Yukon.

I am compelled to rise in the House and speak to the motion we have before us today.

The first part of this motion asks us to oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield.

I can assure members of the House that the Americans are not seeking our approval on matters that concern the defence of their territory and people. Just as we expect them to respect our sovereignty, they expect us to do likewise, and they will go ahead with this system with or without Canada.

Now I come to the second part of the motion which urges the government to cease discussions on possible Canadian participation in the missile defence system.

This too strikes me as nonsensical, for reasons I clearly outlined during the government-sponsored take note debate on Tuesday. Therefore, in response to this motion I will take the opportunity to once again dispel some of the myths concerning ballistic missile defence, myths that are being perpetrated by members who are bent on fearmongering rather than engaging in honest, informed debate, a debate of facts rather than a debate of myths masquerading as facts.

I would like to start by clearly stating that missile defence is not star wars. It never has been and it never will be.

First, star wars, or its real name, as it was known during the Reagan administration, the strategic defence initiative, was not technically feasible. What is now being put in place by the United States is a much more limited system, both in scope and intention. It will use only a small number of land and sea based missile interceptors, nothing like what President Reagan had in mind. Our preliminary assessment is that this system will in fact work.

Second, the strategic defence initiative was intended to defend against a massive nuclear strike, virtually the entire then Soviet arsenal. The system that we are talking about today will provide limited defence against a limited attack or an unauthorized or accidental launch. In my view there is a clear justification for considering ballistic missile defence. The fact is we are facing threats that we did not face even a decade ago, and it is our duty to explore all options for countering these threats and protecting the safety and security of Canadians in the best way possible. That is what responsible governments do.

Finally, the strategic defence initiative was prohibitively expensive, well beyond what is being projected in terms of this system.

That brings me to the next myth that is being perpetrated by some of my hon. colleagues who have said publicly that this system will cost more than a trillion dollars. We saw that in an ad that the NDP placed in the Globe and Mail a while ago. Again, this is both false and irresponsible.

At the current rate of expenditure, which is roughly $9 billion a year by the Missile Defense Agency, it would take more than a century to spend $1 trillion on ballistic missile defence, literally more than 100 years. Of course, one of the goals of our discussions with the U.S. is to see what participating in missile defence would cost Canada. I can certainly assure the House that we will not join if we cannot afford to do so.

Some people continue to equate missile defence to the weaponization of space. Quite frankly, it is time to put that misguided notion to rest. It is plain and simply false. The missile defence system we are talking about does not involve weapons in space. It involves a system of land and sea based missile interceptors.

Moreover, members of the House know that Canada has been long opposed to the weaponization of space. The Prime Minister has said that, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that, and I have said that. We remain opposed today. The Prime Minister has stated publicly that Canada will not participate in the missile defence system if it contravenes our position, as I mentioned.

The claim that was made in the House yesterday that this system would involve nuclear-tipped missiles is absolutely outrageous. It has no basis in fact and Canadians are not going to buy it.

Missile defence does not involve nuclear weapons in any way. The system will not use interceptors armed with either nuclear or conventional explosives. The technology quite simply is comparable to a bullet hitting another bullet, nothing more. It relies on an interceptor missile hitting a ballistic missile, relying on the kinetic energy of the two missiles hitting each other at high speed to essentially vaporize each other.

Some have said that missile defence will encourage other countries to build more and better missiles, thus sparking an international arms race. I would assure the House that there has been absolutely no evidence of this to date. In fact a number of nations have come forward to express their interest in ballistic missile defence, both in terms of participating in the system or in terms of research and development.

There is at least a chance that faced with the prospect of expending significant amounts of money to gain no advantage, those that might otherwise have decided to acquire missiles and nuclear weapons will desist from doing so once ballistic missile defence is available.

To those who claim that participation in this system is somehow un-Canadian I would ask this. Why is it un-Canadian to look at options to protect the safety and security of our citizens? Why is it un-Canadian to defend our only territory? Why is it un-Canadian to do our part to defend North America?

Indeed, the right of self-protection is an integral part of the UN charter itself. Just as our participation in these discussions does not indicate any shift in our position on the weaponization of space, equally it does not alter our commitment to actively pursue international peace and security.

We remain committed to diplomatic engagement as a means of resolving conflicts, just as we remain committed to multilateral non-proliferation, arm's control and disarmament efforts and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, to those who continue to claim that a decision has already been made, I would ask them to look at the facts. Surely no one in the House would argue against the government's duty to defend our territory and our citizens. In my view this duty obliges us, at a minimum, to explore any option that might enhance our security, including ballistic missile defence. To do anything less would be to shirk our responsibilities to Canadians and to our American neighbour.

The fact is our presence at the table does not commit us to anything. What it does do is give us the information we need to make an informed and rational decision, although it appears those who sponsored the motion would be happy to make such decisions in abject ignorance.

I believe we have a duty to Canadians to be informed on this issue. We should know all the facts and make a principled decision based on our interests and our values.

Let us also be realistic about the fact that when it comes to continental defence, we cannot take an isolationist position. Contrary to what a Bloc member said on Tuesday night, we are not a pacifist country. Over 100,000 Canadian graves in Europe bear silent witness but speak volumes, in my view, about our national commitment to peace, security, justice and democracy.

If our neighbours to the south are at risk, we may very well be at risk too. Simply living on this side of the border does not allow us protection from a missile attack. We must never forget that this system is designed to prevent a potential nuclear explosion delivered by a ballistic missile and the unimaginable human tragedy that would result from such an attack.

My question then is this. Given the volatile international security environment, is it fair to Canadians to vacillate on this issue, to adopt a wait and see, bury our heads in the sand attitude without at least exploring our options? Can we afford to put off making decisions today about the defence systems we may need and want tomorrow?

To anyone who is serious about protecting Canada and Canadians, the answer is clear. We cannot. That is why we are engaged in discussions with the Americans on ballistic missile defence.

In closing, I would like to invite my colleagues to engage in an honest debate on this issue, based on the principles. It is important that Canadians have solid facts to take an informed decision on the issue.

Needless to say, I do not support the motion today.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

That is not what I said. We may not go ahead with the test.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Madam Chair, since my name was raised in the context of the debate, I feel compelled to respond. It is not uncommon for the NDP to use all sorts of figures in terms of this debate. The $1 trillion figure is one that it uses with abandon, in terms of how often it is used and how little credibility that particular number has. We know that.

From that standpoint, the NDP members are always throwing out different figures and if I have not heard them, chances are most Canadians have not either because they pick them out of their back pocket and just throw them out in terms of trying to scare people about the sort of system we are contemplating and are about to engage in discussions with the Americans.

That is obviously a concern, but the other issue that the hon. member raised was the issue of the $700,000 contract of the Department of National Defence. For the third time tonight I will try to explain this to the hon. member.

This involves high frequency surface wave radar. From our perspective, it is based on the capability of the radar to look over the horizon. It would be particularly well suited for cruise missile defence. We have not made a decision within the Department of National Defence as to whether or not we will go ahead with these missile detection trials.

However, to go back to the figures that the hon. member talked about, we have to concentrate on what the Americans have spent. They have spent $14 million in the last year on space based research out of a budget of $9 billion. That $14 million is the equivalent of about four armoured personnel carriers. It is not enough to get us to space, it is not even close.

The position of the government has been made clear by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The position has been made clear by many speakers in the House as one of opposition to the weaponization of space. The NDP should know that. It refuses to believe it for some reason. The same applies to the Bloc. I would urge the NDP to be honest with Canadians. All of this talk of star wars is not true. Canadians by now should know that it is not true. Why is the NDP scaring people with this talk of star wars? It is not a fact.

The Americans talked about a star wars system in the 1980s. I mentioned this in my speech. It did not go forward because it was extremely expensive. It was technologically impossible and it became strategically unnecessary. It is my personal view that this is likely going to happen with the space based research that is going on right now. It will probably be proven to be technologically impossible, financially very crippling for the United States, and strategically unnecessary.

What we are contemplating is a land and sea based missile system to protect Canadians and North Americans. Why is that so controversial? I do not understand. Why is it so difficult for the NDP to understand that we are trying to protect Canadians and North Americans, and that we are not doing this alone if the discussions with the Americans are successful. The Japanese and the Australians are involved, the South Koreans are involved, and so are the British. These are not war happy people that we are talking about. These are our allies and our friends.

If the NDP would at least be honest with Canadians, we could raise the level of this debate. We would end up with a much more satisfactory result in terms of the understanding that Canadians would have as to what this system is all about.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, we have to separate what has been requested by the President in past budgets and what has been approved by congress. The figure of about $14 million being approved in this year for missile defence is based on a $47 million request by the President. Congress ended up approving $14 million, which is .15% of the overall missile defence budget.

What the administration asks for and what it gets from congress are two different things. Let us deal with the facts rather than speculation. That is all I am saying.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

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.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

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 Defence, February 17th, 2004]

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 Defence, February 17th, 2004]

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.