Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating you and your colleagues on your appointments. I assure you you can count on my full co-operation at all times.
I also want to give credit to the government for arranging this debate today and the debate on peacekeeping yesterday. This is a welcome departure in involving the whole House in policymaking before a policy decision is made or before an agreement is terminated as I hope the case will be in this instance.
I especially welcome the opportunity to speak on the question of cruise missile testing. As hon. members might know I have opposed the testing of cruise missiles from the very beginning in 1983 and on all previous occasions when this matter was before the House I voted against the testing.
Since the cold war is now fortunately no longer with us I am even more opposed than I have been in the past. Why is this so important and why am I so opposed?
First of all the cruise missile is an extremely dangerous weapon. It is small. It is easily concealed. It is mobile. It is accurate. It is capable of avoiding radar detection because it flies close to the ground under the general radar beams and pickup. It also can carry a nuclear or a conventional war head.
Since these missiles can escape detection by radar they can be used for a successful first strike and as a result totally knock out the opponent's weaponry.
I originally opposed cruise missiles because in my view they contributed in a very serious way to the arms race. They contributed to international instability and they were also, in my view, contrary to the principles of the non-proliferation treaty which was signed and heavily supported by Canada.
Canada originally agreed to test these weapons for the United States by an agreement concluded in February 1983. It was said at that time that the United States wanted to test these missiles in the northwest of Canada because the northwest of Canada had a terrain similar to that of the northern Soviet Union.
In February 1988 the testing agreement was automatically renewed for another five years and in 1993 it was continued by the former Conservative government for a new 10-year agreement. Since 1983 there have been 23 tests, about two or three per year, with the most recent test in March 1993.
I want to make clear however that this agreement between the United States and Canada is not part of our NATO obligations and was never part of the NATO agreement.
I said I was originally opposed to cruise missile tests and I am now more than ever opposed.
In the last Parliament on January 24, 1989, our Liberal Party took a position against further cruise testing. I quote the first paragraph of the document which was issued by our party on January 24, 1989: "The Liberal Party of Canada today called for the Conservative government to finally shake off its cold war mentality and cancel further cruise testing in Canada as a tangible and positive gesture to improving the climate of east-west relations and ongoing disarmament negotiations". This is under the sponsorship of the leader of the opposition at that time.
This was a change of policy. Up until that time the Liberal Party had supported cruise missile testing. I had not personally supported it-I opposed it-but the party did support it. I felt I had some part in bringing about this change in party policy.
I also want to point out that our party at a major policy convention in 1986 passed two important resolutions. I will not read them because time is short but they are in our resolution book of 1986 opposing cruise missile testing.
The reasons for the change in our party policy given by our leader in 1989 were the following:
First, the cold war was over.
Second, as a result, the requirement for terrain similar to Russia was no longer necessary since Russia was no longer our enemy.
Third, continued testing could contribute to a renewed arms race, not necessarily with Russia or the Soviet Union, but in other parts of the world including China, North Korea and other countries.
I must point out that there are 15 nations on the threshold of developing nuclear weapons. Missiles are the principal delivery system for those weapons. Both are essential to a successful strike.
How can the United States and Canada, if they continue to test these weapons, say seriously to these 15 nations that they should not develop these nuclear weapons? By the way, they are urging the 15 countries to sign the non-proliferation treaty. How can they urge those countries to do that when they are continuing to test new weapon technology themselves that can deliver a nuclear weapon? They cannot do that very well.
Not only will the continuation of cruise missile tests give justification to other countries to develop new dangerous weapons, but once tested and developed, they will become potential products in the international arms trade.
After the Iraq war we discovered that 90 per cent of the weapons used by Iraq against our own troops were sold to Iraq by the five great powers: the Soviet Union; China; France; the United Kingdom and the United States.
It is well known that most of the weapons purchased by poor Third World countries are developed, tested and sold to them by richer First World countries. They do so because in developing those weapons, such as the cruise, they have to develop a surplus of them to make it economically feasible and then they sell them to other countries that might want to buy them.
The United States and NATO now have a considerable military edge over the former east bloc countries and other countries that are their potential enemies. We do not need any new, improved cruise missile to maintain that edge. It will only justify as I said the development and spread of these weapons to other countries.
Some people have argued in this debate that the cancellation of this agreement will offend the United States. President Clinton and the United States government acknowledge themselves that the cold war is over. They have worked with Ukraine and the Soviet Union to reduce the weapons in those countries. As a matter of fact they have just concluded an agreement whereby they will no longer point weapons at each other. They have closed bases in the United States. I have been in various cities in the United States where Mr. Clinton is closing bases and they talk about the peace dividend.
When we co-operate in the furtherance of the arms race, which is what testing of cruise missiles is, we put in jeopardy our Canadian role as an honest broker internationally. We put in jeopardy our credibility as a peaceful nation.
Yesterday we debated peacekeeping and Canada has a long and very enviable role in peacekeeping. We are considered one of the outstanding nations of the world with respect to peacekeeping. We also have an excellent reputation with respect to international development. When we proceed again with cruise missile testing, we put the credibility of those other very good qualities into jeopardy.
I have here the hon. member for Nunatsiaq and I have spoken with the other hon. member from the Northwest Territories. It is over their territory that these missiles are tested. They are both very much opposed to these weapons.
Let me say this in conclusion. The Prime Minister said he wanted a free debate. Without a doubt, he is getting it on this side of the House. However, I have not seen very much freedom from the Reform Party which has spoken about a free debate. They have all sang the same party line from beginning to end. As a matter of fact in all the votes in which they have participated so far they voted as a group on every occasion. Today they are all singing the same song. I have a bit of doubt about their sincerity concerning free votes and free expression.
I was very much dismayed by the statements made by some of my Liberal colleagues, particularly those who were here with me in the last Parliament and who approved of the policy we adopted in 1989 to oppose cruise missile testing. I could understand if they put forward new arguments that would allow them to bury the policy that they were in favour of last year. However, I heard no such new arguments.
The continued development and testing of cruise missiles in Canada are no longer necessary. It will contribute to a continuing arms race and to world instability.
I urge the government in assessing this debate not simply to count heads but to assess the arguments that are made by hon. members in this case.
