Debates of Jan. 26th, 1994

Cruise Missile Testing

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I simply want to say that I understand the enthusiasm of my colleague regarding the fact that the Prime Minister has allowed this House to speak on an issue before the government policy is announced. I understand that the member has been here for a few years and this is the first time he has an opportunity to speak freely on a government policy before such a policy is made public. Consequently, I can certainly understand his enthusiasm.

However, what I object to is not this opportunity to express our views in the House on this issue, but rather the chronological process involved. To use a common expression, I feel that the government has "put the cart before the horse" to the extent that we start this debate without even knowing where the government is headed with its defence policy.

You will agree with me that if the government decides that the collective security system which has been in place since the late forties is no longer adequate and that we must withdraw from it, such a decision will have a major impact on the continuation of the cruise missile tests conducted over the Canadian territory. Consequently, we cannot discuss this issue without first undertaking a comprehensive review of the Canadian defence policy.

Therefore, the chronology of events is not perfectly logical. I agree that a debate had to be held, that it should be held, and I have no objection to that. However, this debate should take place once we know the general outline of the national defence policy.

Moreover, we are asked to participate in this debate with only a few days notice, and without any opportunity to have access to documents from the Department of National Defence. Consequently, we parliamentarians are not well prepared for this exercise. I hope that it was not the deliberate intention of the government to announce a debate at the last minute and to give instructions to the Department of National Defence to not provide us with documents which might be necessary for the purpose of the debate.

This is what I object to. I certainly have nothing against a debate as such. It is a good thing to allow members to express their views on a government policy, but we have to know what the general outline of that policy is, so as to see if what we are debating will still be part of the policy in a few weeks or a few months.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to thank the hon. member, my colleague and I hope, my friend, for his very fine maiden speech. Although he indicates that he did not have much time to be made ready, he certainly did a good job, especially on some of the technical details.

I have a hypothetical question to put to the member, Mr. Speaker, and if I could be forgiven for a hypothetical question I would be happy to accept a hypothetical answer. That is, if this test were to be taking place in northern Quebec rather than in the northwestern part of Canada, would the hon. member's comments, concerns and questions be the same?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

I want to thank the hon. member for his hypothetical question, and I will try to be as specific as I can in my answer.

The question is hypothetical to the extent that these tests are not scheduled to take place over Quebec territory. If that were the case, however, we would have to ensure, as has been done in the case of cruise missile testing since 1983, that the tests are carried out under the best possible conditions, which means, as I

pointed out earlier, within a corridor away from populated areas, where there would be very little impact on the environment.

If these conditions were met, I think that our answer would be the same as the one we give today for tests in western Canada.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for thousands of Quebecers who support the peace movement.

Personally, I am quite frankly disappointed, and I am even amazed at the position the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and other members of the Bloc, have taken on this issue. The Bloc had a chance to say yes to a new era and no to the cold war. Unfortunately, the voices of Quebec that are very loud in the peace movement in Quebec are not reflected in the Bloc's comments.

I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. I heard one of his colleagues who disagreed with the very conservative position taken by the Bloc Quebecois. I have the following question for my Bloc colleague. We are talking about nuclear missiles. Would he agree that this would be very destabilizing, as was even suggested by the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, when in 1988 he mentioned the destabilizing effect of cruise missile technology on the international strategic balance. And he was right.

Today, we have Mr. Zhirinovsky who is a threat in Russia. This would give Mr. Zhirinovsky a very important argument: "Look, they are testing cruise missiles in Canada!"

Why does the Bloc Quebecois not consider the peace movement's position on these changes and recognize the significance of a new strategy that would reject cruise missile testing in Canada?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Again I want to thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway for his question which seems to be about the conservative position of the Bloc Quebecois on the issue of cruise missile testing.

First of all, I get the impression that he did not listen properly to what I said, because we do not want to go back to the context of the cold war and use that as the basis for our policy. I made it quite clear in my speech that the Bloc's response to this particular question was based on a new global context, and I referred to the presence of Zhirinovsky in Russia and to the existence of new nuclear powers to justify continuing the tests.

I also pointed out that the purpose of the tests was basically to improve and refine the missile's remote control system and that consequently the tests had no direct impact on the nuclear arms race.

I would also like to say to the hon. member that if the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel makes contradictory remarks, that is his problem, not mine.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

It is a pleasure to rise on debate today. Yesterday when we had the first day of debate on national defence issues I was not able to formally get on debate. I was up and down like a jack-in-the-box on questions and comments so I think I got most of my comments in yesterday.

This is an important debate. As I just said to my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and the Official Opposition, this is a different House. We started off this term in government with this Liberal government trying to uphold the rhetoric we had spouted while in opposition. That was that this House had to act differently and if we wanted to put some respect back into the way this place worked, we had to recognize that the 295 men and women who were elected to be here had the right to speak on issues that affect them and convey wherever possible the interests and points of view of the people they are here to represent.

It is quite clear that today's debate on cruise missile testing is another example of the commitment given during the campaign. The issue of cruise missile testing, as my colleague from Rosedale indicated earlier, is a new debate. Many people who would have been getting up during the course of the day to support at least in the short term the continued testing of U.S. cruise missiles over Canadian soil, just a few short years ago may have been getting up and saying something quite different in debate.

We have to recognize that the world has changed dramatically in the last five years. We have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union. The cold war has ended. I remember just a few short years ago listening to many of my colleagues, mostly from the New Democratic Party, who time and time again were preaching about a peace dividend and how the government of the day should withdraw, downsize, even do away with whole aspects of the defence establishment.

I wish that their comments had borne fruit. But the reality is that the world has changed. The cold war is over, but the world today probably is even a less safe place than it was during the cold war.

Previous debates that the public and parliamentarians have been seized with dealing with cruise missile testing in Canada are quite different from the debate today. The debate was whether or not the Canadian government by allowing cruise missile testing over Canadian soil was adding to or aiding in the escalation of the nuclear armament between the two superpowers. Indeed, it was a consideration and a concern we all shared, even though we had different points of view on it.

However, today's debate is not on that at all. We saw just two years ago in the gulf war that the U.S. technology, the cruise missile technology, can also be used in delivering strategic surgical, very precise blows to the arsenals of the opposing forces, in that particular case the Iraqis. I dare say that the technology that was developed yes, initially to deliver tactical nuclear weapons was used with conventional weapons in a way that minimized the loss of life and probably decreased the length of that war.

The reality is that as Canadians, as parliamentarians, we are now facing a crisis in Canada. We are trying to develop, and we are inviting input from all members from all sides, a national defence policy, not just for this year or next, but for the future.

The reality is that for a long period of time we have relied on our membership in international organizations like NORAD and NATO to provide us with collective security as a nation. I would go so far as to say that as a nation we probably spend very, very little on a per capita basis for our defence in comparison to other countries that are in the NATO alliance or NORAD.

As part of a team, there is give and take. Yesterday we heard a lot about the give. Canada has given to the world a thing called peacekeeping in the great Pearson tradition. We debated that yesterday. We are the country with a small population which has excelled around the world and has gained support and credibility from our neighbours through the United Nations for our military efforts, not at making war or being an aggressor state, but as peacekeepers. That is the contribution we have made through the international community and through our NATO and NORAD agreements to peace and security. Let us be fair. The Americans, the giant that lives next door provides us, because it is in their strategic interest, with most of our national defence. We have to give something in return for that. What they have asked for in the past, and which has caused great concern among Canadians, was that we allow them to test the cruise missile on Canadian soil.

What we are being asked to debate is whether it is the opinion of members of this House that the 10-year agreement which was renewed last year by the previous government should be upheld. Indeed we should try to stimulate debate in this place about what type of defence policy we do want.

It is fairly clear. It was the Leader of the Opposition who quoted physicist Kosta Tsipis. The quote he used is important. It deals with the available technology that is used in the cruise missile itself. Mr. Tsipis indicated that any country that can manufacture simple aircraft can construct a cruise missile that can carry a ton of cargo at least 300 miles and land no more than 30 feet from its target.

It is clear that we are dealing with the second generation of testing of cruise technology by the United States. We know that other countries have the technology to develop cruise type missiles. We know that some of those countries which have the technology to have cruise type missiles are not friendly or stable countries.

We know with the collapse of the Soviet Union that much of the arsenal which was at least protected by the former communist government through force is now or perhaps will be up for sale. It would be foolhardy in seeking to maintain some type of international peace for the Canadian government not to at least in the interim until the defence policy is fully fleshed out through a review to uphold the commitment to allow the American government to come in and further test the cruise missile.

What are they testing it for? Are they testing it because they want to put a nuclear warhead on it? No. That is not why they are doing it. From all I read this round of testing is basically to ensure that the United States will be able to develop some methods to better detect cruise missiles and similar technology from other countries.

Is that a valid observation? I think it is and it is something that we have to agree to. If we look at where our Canadian troops are currently serving, we do not know if in a year, six months, or two years time that we are not going to see an aggressor force or some radical group in a civil war somewhere where our troops are using cruise technology against us.

In this case the best defence is an offence, to look and see what it is we can do to aid the Americans in developing the second tier of technology in order to be able to detect low-level cruise type missiles that are coming from other countries.

It is also important to look at what is going on today as a prelude to a much larger and much more necessary debate that will take place in this House.

During the course of the campaign, the military and military expenditures became a major issue. One question kept being asked. I represent an area where we have all kinds of people that work in the Canadian military, probably over 10,000 or maybe 15,000. We have the Canadian navy. We have CFB Shearwater. There are lots of individuals who are in the Canadian military.

With the changing geopolitical situation, the Canadian government must seize the initiative and ensure that we have a modern defence policy. What we said during the campaign is that as a government we would initiate and conclude through broad consultation, not just the parliamentarians but all Canadians, what it is we should be doing through the United Nations in the interests of global peace and security and also in the interests of protecting our national sovereignty.

Until that review is completed I would submit to the House that it is in the interests of international peace and security and it is in the interest of Canada's standing in the world community through its adherence to international agreements that the

decision made by the previous government to continue to allow the American forces to test cruise missiles on Canadian soil be upheld. The decision to uphold it should be subject to the results of a comprehensive cross-Canada debate on what we want for our Canadian forces as a national policy in the future.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just gave a speech with which I am in agreement for the most part. However, shortly before him, the hon. member for Rosedale, who is seated a few rows behind, used an expression with which I disagree, and I will ask his opinion on that.

The hon. member for Rosedale was talking about the testing of a new weapon. I disagree with that, because this is not a weapon, at least that is what I understand from the hon. member's speech: It is not a weapon, it is a delivery system. In fact, it could probably deliver anything, even the mail for Canada Post. I can already see the name "cruisolator".

What I am trying to say is that it could lead to civilian applications of the guidance system. Let us look at that element. It is a computer that knows the ground and can therefore find its way across land.

We are already talking about cars that could follow a given itinerary with the help of automated guidance systems. We are told that the systems could even work within cities, not just in the countryside. This would be very convenient to come to the House every morning; we would not have to watch all this traffic on the bridges. I mentioned bridges because, as you might know, I live on the other side of the river.

My point is: Has the hon. member considered the civilian applications that could possibly result from these cruise missile tests?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite raises some very interesting observations about the technology. I think he is right. We are talking about the testing of technology as it is embodied in the cruise missile, a jet-propelled unmanned rocket, with a guidance system on board.

I am sure he would agree that most of the innovative technologies developed by the defence establishment have most times found applications within the civilian industrial complex.

I am pleased he raised that. One of the things the Liberal Party, which is now the government, clearly indicated during the campaign is that we would have a program of defence conversion. Many of the industries that relied during the cold war on defence procurement and research and development on defence will get the necessary government assistance now that there is a change in the geopolitical situation around the world. We will give some assistance to those industries to take new and innovative technologies that have been developed for a military purpose and help find applications for a civilian purpose.

We on this side of the House believe by doing that we will ensure that the technologies that have been developed will not be lost as a result in the changing political situation around the world and that jobs for Canadians will be found with government assistance in bridging the gap between defence industries and civilian industries using defence technology.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while I agree with his conclusion that we should continue within the framework of this agreement as passed by the previous government, he seems to be contradicting himself when he says: "Let us continue until we review it". The agreement is supposed to be in place until 2003.

Is the hon. member suggesting that we just agree to it for a year or two, or for six months? Do we have to go through this debate again in another 10 months to make another decision about whether or not we should continue? Are we putting this to rest for the whole term or are we just putting it to rest until the government gets a chance to review it further?

I do not think the Americans would appreciate that kind of a decision.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will make it very clear. The debate today is about policy direction. We have a legal agreement with the United States but I am quite certain that a sovereign Government of Canada, if it felt it was the will of the Canadian public or part of an overall framework on defence policy that they could not fulfil a commitment, our neighbours to the south would understand and hopefully allow us to abrogate it.

I am saying I support this agreement. However I do not want to prejudice the debate that will follow. It has to be an unencumbered debate that will take place during the defence review. I do not think you walk into a defence review saying we have decided ahead of time that 14 of these things are sacred cows so they cannot be touched, that 22 bases cannot be touched and you cannot talk about cruise missile testing in Canada.

We want to engage parliamentarians and Canadians, both inside and outside the defence establishment, to develop a defence policy which first and foremost looks after the sovereign needs of Canada. I would hope that defence policy would focus quite heavily on things such as fisheries patrol, on drug interdiction in our coastal waters and on our commitment to the international community through the UN on peacekeeping.

From my view what we have to do is say that the agreement that is in place is one we will uphold but let our American counterparts know there will be an open and free debate in this country about what it is we want to do as a nation with our defence policy.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the residents of Mississauga West for seeing fit to honour me by electing me to come to the House. Mississauga West is the second largest riding in the country and I am beginning to feel as though winning over 140,000 residents was probably a lot easier than winning over my colleagues in the House. I feel like a dove among a lot of hawks.

I am speaking today on a matter which I believe to be of great importance not only to the people of Canada but to Canada's enviable reputation in the world of international relations. I am speaking from my heart today rather than from a position of profound technical detail.

As we know, for many years the American government has had ready access to Canadian airspace to test cruise missiles. Testing has been ongoing and evidently without conclusion. Every year we and our American neighbours continue to co-operate in this project despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians are fundamentally and vehemently opposed to our participation in the arms race.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his openness and willingness to discuss this important issue in the House of Commons. Canadians everywhere are watching this process and judging us on our commitment to parliamentary reform.

The cruise missile testing question, despite some of the concerns, is an excellent example of this new process because I am, in fact, speaking against the majority of my party, from what I can gather.

I urge all members of the House to carefully consider the facts, the implications and the future possibilities associated with cruise missile testing. In the 10 years since the testing agreement was signed, the world is a profoundly changed place. It is hard to imagine even as recently as five years ago the fall of the Soviet empire, the return to democracy of much of eastern Europe or the new freedoms finally beginning in South Africa.

Nearly everywhere there is a sense of excitement and hope and a belief in a future which is finally free from the prospect of global war. Against this backdrop the American and former Soviet governments have pulled back from mutual mistrust and the daily brink of confrontation. The Americans have a elected a new president, a president committed to world peace, the reduction of the military and the pursuit of domestic improvements in health, infrastructure and education. The resulting peace dividend will likely finance these new, more human programs in the United States.

At no time in the recent past have both the governments of the United States and Canada been so similar in their stated goals of improvements in health, infrastructure and education. Our government must support these objectives which are the dividends of peace and real global security.

The cruise missile and other related nuclear weapons belong to a bygone time in world politics. It is doubtful that they ever really belonged in our nation. Since the beginning of such testing Canadians have been wary if not opposed outright to all forms of nuclear weapons and warmongering. Previous Liberal and Conservative governments have refused to accept nuclear warheads on Canadian soil.

Since the end of World War II Canada has been an independent, sensible and trusted middle power nation with an unassailable record for fairness and participation in world peacekeeping. At a time when Americans were busily hunting down suspected communists, destroying reputations and lives in the process, Canadians were serving in the middle east working toward a peaceful settlement in the Suez. In the 1960s Canada led the world in opening trade with China and the Soviet Union at a time when Americans were embroiled in the Vietnam war.

Throughout our history Canadians have cherished our reputation and our independence. Right now we need once again to assert that independence and sovereignty over our domestic affairs and over our territory. It is time to cancel the cruise missile testing agreement with America. It is time to send a positive message of support and solidarity to people of such fragile democracies as Russia and Ukraine, nations which need positive reinforcement in their struggles to establish a democracy.

We ask the members of the former Soviet Union to dismantle their nuclear weapons. We ask them to work toward peace and democracy. Yet we continue to send very mixed messages when we continue to allow missiles to be tested over our territory.

Cruise missiles are designed to be used against the nations of the former Soviet bloc. That is why they are being tested over our land which is supposedly similar in terrain and weather to the former Soviet Union.

The hypocrisy of preaching peace and demanding universal disarmament while continuing to test fundamentally offensive nuclear weapons is unacceptable to many Canadians. At a time when we should be leading by example we are instead blindly following the policies and practices of another time and another political reality.

It is time to set a better example, to answer a higher call and to extend a hand of peace and friendship to our global neighbours. There are no winable nuclear wars. There are no good wars. There is no such thing as them and us. We are all part of an ever-shrinking world where weapons of the past and the policies of hate, mistrust and propaganda must now be put to rest forever. Canada has always been a world leader in peace. We must not

lose this opportunity to make a fresh commitment to a safer future.

We have all seen the terrible pictures from Bosnia and Ethiopia. We have heard the stories of torture and hate. Canadian peacekeepers are routinely caught in difficult situations where their lives and safety are in jeopardy. Who knows from day to day when the goodwill of foreign powers will run out? Who can predict when Canadian peacekeepers will suddenly not be welcome on that foreign soil? We need to do everything possible to ensure the overall safety of our soldiers no matter where they serve.

The banning of cruise missile testing sends a strong message of disarmament and peace. In the eyes of the world we will be asserting our sovereignty and our commitment to global peace.

In addition, our native people who have been overlooked during the past testing will finally enjoy the peace of mind that comes with not worrying about a missile buzzing overhead. Past governments have ignored native leaders. Their complaints have been trivialized and their legitimate environmental and safety concerns have been overlooked. We talked loftily about native self-government. We pat each other on the back whenever a dispute is settled with indigenous peoples. Yet we destroy whatever goodwill has been established by routinely violating their airspace with foreign aircraft and missiles. Over the Mackenzie Valley and delta and Beaufort Sea and over the lands of the Dene, Inuit and Métis cruise missiles fly at low levels in outrageous military war games.

I wonder how long Americans could test missiles over the cities of southern Ontario. Can one imagine the outrage? Of course it is an unfair example but it does illustrate my point. Native people despite being vastly dispersed have a right to enjoy their lives and their environment without the potential of a disaster. We should be applying the same principles across all of Canada for all of our people.

I ask that all members of this House carefully weigh the arguments put forward in this debate, consider the current global situation and weigh the concerns of environmentalists, native Canadians and others who have a vital interest in peace. The world is watching and we should be providing a strong leadership now and not some time in the future when everything is tested and perfect and we are fully armed.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member who spoke before me and who mentioned the sovereignty and independence of our territory. I think that in the Bloc Quebecois we all accept this.

Canada's primary mission in the world is peacemaking, peacebuilding or peacekeeping.

May I first mention that before today's debate on missiles, we had yesterday, in this House, an extensive special debate on Bosnia and the peacekeepers' mandate in that country. The purpose of that debate, which lasted over 14 hours, was to find out whether Canada should extend the peacekeepers' mandate in Bosnia after March 31, 1994, in spite of the tremendous cost of such a mission. Are we going to listen to our heart or our wallet?

I think that we will listen to our heart for the following reasons: to protect senior citizens who are defenceless; to protect fathers and mothers whose role is to provide food and shelter to millions of children; and also to protect millions of children who are in danger.

Regarding cruise missile testing, will we listen to our heart or our wallet? Maybe our heart, but then again maybe our wallet. Testing on Canadian territory is done at no cost to Quebec or Canadian taxpayers. Canada cannot afford an army the size of the United States' or Russia's.

Should Canada be unfortunately dragged into war, its main ally would certainly be the United States. For a reason close to our heart, the cruise missiles are being refined to render them more efficient and to weaken the enemy with greater precision, without costing thousands of human lives.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, a point of order. I think the member should have the floor following the Bloc member. She had the floor for 10 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, I believe the hon. member is right.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my difficulty is that I am only conversant in English so you will have to be patient with me.

There was talk of protecting millions of children and families and about the Americans as our protector. I believe if there is a real war that involves Canada and the United States then nothing will protect us. I believe the Americans have an enormous army and an enormous capacity to be the traditional peacekeepers for the free world. They have done so and I am very grateful to them for this.

I believe it is time we changed. I think to protect the millions of people and children and the next generation and the environment that we have to begin the business of not having standing armies and not having war and not threatening each other with weapons. The true protection, whether it costs money or does not cost money, is complete disarmament. I do not mean what

looks like disarmament but in fact is the laying down of all arms in this world for the next generation.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, as this is the first opportunity I have had to address this House I would like to congratulate the Speaker for his election to Speaker of this House as well as those designated as deputy and acting speakers. I am sure your jobs will be challenging and rewarding and I pledge my full co-operation with the House rules and proceedings.

My congratulations also to all members on their election or re-election to this Parliament. I look forward to meeting and debating with them on the important issues concerning Canada in a civil and productive manner.

Also I would like to thank the constituents of my riding of Athabasca for entrusting me with this most important job during this most important and changing time in Canadian political history. I truly feel honoured by the great responsibility with which they have entrusted me and they can be assured that I do not take this responsibility lightly. I will do my best to represent their needs and Canada's needs in this new Parliament.

I would like to send a special thank you to my wife, Evelyn, who has provided so much support and encouragement to me in meeting and accepting the challenges in this new role as member of Parliament.

I became involved in politics and became a member of Parliament because of a great concern I have for the future of our country, the greatest country in the world to live in. Also I have a great concern for this country because of the apparent out of control public spending and spiralling debt at a time of declining of natural resources and high unemployment.

Although this is my maiden speech, I wish to focus on the proposed cruise missile testing by the U.S. Although the Primrose Lake air weapons range, which will be the final destination for these exercises, is not in my riding, the flight corridor over which these missiles fly is in fact in my riding. Therefore these tests are of concern to my constituents and anything that could affect my constituents affects me as their representative in this House.

I would like to commend the government for allowing this debate on such an important topic. I hope that this government will have the same open forum in the future when this government reviews its defence policy as promised.

Before I speak to this issue let me tell a bit about my riding. The riding of Athabasca is in the northeastern part of Alberta and is approximately 196,000 square kilometres which makes it one of the largest ridings in Canada. To put this in perspective, if one combines the area of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island then the area of the riding of Athabasca would still be larger. These provinces have 25 representatives between them in this House compared to one for Athabasca. You can imagine the enormity of my task in representing the constituents of Athabasca, however, I am ready and eager to accept all the challenges that await me.

The principal industries of Athabasca are agriculture, forestry, mining, oil and gas and tourism. More specifically, the diversity of my riding includes ALPAC, the largest bleach kraft pulp mill in the world. It will soon include a paper mill. Also, some of the most productive conventional oil and gas fields in Canada are located through Slave Lake and High Prairie in the northern areas of my riding. The Fort McMurray tar sands projects are in the northeast corner of my riding. These companies add enormously to the economic viability of the country.

For example, the companies that work the tar sands make a huge contribution to both the federal and provincial governments. These companies employ thousands of people, all of whom pay taxes to support this government's programs. Syncrude, which is only one of the consortiums working the tar sands projects, employs 10,500 people directly or indirectly from which $1.5 billion has been paid out in corporate and personal income taxes. These tar sands deposits are very significant to the energy needs of Canada. In fact, it is estimated that there are enough oil reserves in my riding to provide self-sufficiency for Canada's oil needs, given the current consumption of 1.5 million barrels per day, for centuries to come.

For example, the four known oil sands deposits are located in Alberta, two of which are in my riding. The total estimated bitumen contained in these four deposits is 1.7 trillion barrels. Of that, 307 billion barrels of bitumen recoverable with today's technology from the tar sands alone could supply Canada's energy needs for 475 years.

My riding of Athabasca also has a large aboriginal population with 12 bands, about 50 reserves and a number of Métis settlements. This large population has led to my interest in native self-government and it is why I sit on my party's aboriginal committee.

My riding also contains some of the most productive agricultural areas in Canada. The Westlock-Athabasca area has well known producers and exporters of high quality grain, oilseeds, pork and beef. I have been involved for many years in beef ranching and am proud to say that this is one of the least subsidized sectors in agriculture. It should be a model of free enterprise and free market operation for other areas of agriculture.

I agree with the comment my hon colleague from Essex-Windsor made in the House this past Monday when she said that a country that cannot feed itself is soon not a country and is at the mercy of every other nation.

Taking this one step further, I also believe and history proves that a nation that cannot protect its sovereignty cannot long survive. This brings me to the topic of discussion before the House today.

In 1983 the current Minister of Human Resources Development and Western Economic Diversification, who was then minister of defence, signed the original test evaluation agreement with the U.S.

Recently this minister claims that Canada no longer needs these tests because the cold war is over. The cold war may be over but this world is still if not more unstable than during the cold war period.

Instead of having one major threat, we now have many smaller threats. Although the Iron Curtain has fallen and they have opened their arms to us, this does not mean we live in a Utopian world. The recent gulf conflict in which both the Canadian Armed Forces and the cruise missile took part in made us astutely aware of that fact.

Canadian participation in these tests enables us to fulfil our obligations under the NORAD alliance but also to keep abreast of the latest developments in defence technologies. By participating in these tests our forces gain valuable operational experience that would otherwise not be available.

Also, if Canada is to be a member of such organizations as NORAD and NATO, my constituents and I believe we must be willing to participate in these organizations simply because we currently do not have the capacity without the support of our allies to defend our national sovereignty. I am not only speaking for myself but also for my constituents who are in the flight path of these exercises.

The records which I have researched do not contain one complaint, one petition or one letter opposing these exercises from the constituents of Athabasca. My constituents are also aware that there is no environmental threat to them.

The missiles used in these exercises are not armed. In fact, section 8 of the original Test and Evaluation Agreement states: "In no case shall nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare material be brought into Canada, and that the Cruise Missiles shall be unarmed".

Furthermore, the Department of National Defence has informed me that an extensive initial environmental assessment was conducted in 1983 and reviewed in 1989 and 1992. These studies showed that the cruise missile testing has no significant or adverse environmental impact.

Furthermore, section 13 of this same agreement states that the flight corridors in Canada which are used for testing cruise missiles shall be selected in consultation with Canadians to ensure minimum disruption to civil aircraft operations and minimum disturbances to people on the ground.

If this government were to rescind this agreement, an agreement that was signed by the Conservative government only last year, Canada as a participant in organizations such as NORAD would lose credibility as a nation that can be depended upon by our allies to co-operate in the preservation of peace and sovereignty in North America and the free world.

As I stated earlier in my speech, I have consulted with my constituents. They are willing to accept their responsibility as a member of NORAD. I believe Canada should do the same.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his first speech. I know this is a productive House that we are working in.

I want to make the general comment that continued cruise missile testing in Canada will contribute neither to the prevention of nuclear war nor to the further limitation of nuclear arsenals. Those were the reasons why this agreement was renewed in February 1993 by the previous government. In fact, this continued testing will instead serve only to undermine Canada's nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Under our present policy for nuclear proliferation, the Canadian government supports negative security assurances which means that we have international commitments not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

On December 16, 1993 this government, of which I am a member, reaffirmed its support for negative security assurances when it voted to support the UN General Assembly resolution 4873.

Would the member care to consider whether or not this agreement, which in fact is a 10-year agreement and requires 12 months notice to cancel, should continue to be supported given the developments over the last few years? Ten years seems to be an inordinate amount of time for this government to have an agreement. Would the member consider amending this agreement or shortening its terms by direction of this House now?

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the debate in the House today is not about nuclear weapons. It is about the testing of a specific weapon known as the cruise missile which is quite capable of carrying non-nuclear weapons as was demonstrated quite effectively during the gulf war, in particular the guidance system of that particular weapon. Therefore, I do not think it in any way affects our commitments of non-proliferation of nu-

clear weaponry. I support the continued testing of the cruise missile and the guidance system thereof.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciated the speech by the member for Athabasca. Several points he raised are also concerns of mine. I am all the more happy as the member for Mississauga West, who spoke before him, mentioned that she would rather see the world disarm than go on with the testing.

I would like to share a thought with the member for Athabasca and ask his comment on the matter. Let us compare the present situation to a car with a safety belt. I know I am a cautious driver but I know as well that other cars could skid and bang into mine. That is why, even though I am a careful driver, I buckle up and I am awfully happy to know that this device underwent the appropriate testing.

This is my question to the member for Athabasca: Would he agree that, in the present context, this testing is giving us a better guaranty of safety, even if we know that we will never live in a perfect world?

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I very much agree with the hon. member that in a perfect world there would be no need for armed forces and there would be no need for weaponry. Unfortunately, we are in a far from perfect world and as long as there are greedy people in this world with aspirations to conquer other countries and take over territories we will always need a means of defending ourselves. I support the testing on this basis.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech in this House, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his election and as well, to you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment.

I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate all members who have just been elected to this 35th Parliament of Canada. It is a historic time for all of us and a new era. I am certainly looking forward to the opportunity to participate with some humility.

I certainly want to thank the constituents of the Peace River riding for their confidence in me and also my family who has given me a great deal of support in the two years it has taken to achieve the goal of becoming a member of Parliament. I would also like to thank a number of friends in the riding.

I would just like to relate the story of when I was home at Christmas. Somebody asked me how I was making out and I said I was starting to feel a little bit more comfortable in the House. However, they reminded me that I should not really get to feel too comfortable here. I think that is a good piece of advice.

I just want to tell the House a little bit about the Peace River riding. My colleague from Athabasca has told us about his riding. We share a boundary. Together we represent sort of the northern half of Alberta. It is an extremely big riding, one of the largest ridings in Canada. The border on the west is the British Columbia border and on the north the Northwest Territories.

Just a little bit of history about the Peace River riding: Some 200 years ago there were two warring Indian tribes. They had gathered on the banks of the Peace River, a river that was not named at that point, for peace negotiations and therefore the name came about as the Peace River.

It was an area that was a main artery to opening up western Canada. Alexander Mackenzie used that route to the Pacific Ocean in 1793, some 200 years ago.

The area in general was settled in the early 1900s by immigrants from Europe, the United States, as well as people from eastern Canada developing a new territory. They were looking for new opportunities.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

All maritimers out there.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Some from the Ottawa area I believe as well.

They were very innovative people. As a result of living in the northern climates they have had to be. Agriculture is probably the main industry, oil and gas is the second and forestry is very important to the riding as well.

The city of Grand Prairie is the biggest centre in the riding. It is a city of some 30,000 people.

The discussion today is very pertinent to my riding in that the cruise missile test does take place over a major corridor within the riding. Although, as somebody said earlier, the northern area is sparsely populated this is the most populated area along the cruise missile test route.

I also want to say that this area is very similar to the area that the Americans were looking at in their test, It has a similar climate to that of Russia, particularly Moscow. We are on the same latitude.

I just want to remind hon. members that I read the other day that Canada has the coldest capital of anywhere in the world so although I live in northern Alberta and we have a climate similar to Moscow that still makes it warmer than the climate here in Ottawa.

The terrain is very similar as well.

I would just like to say that the major debate over the cruise missile testing really took place 10 years ago. I really think to some degree this is a bit redundant today. The matter was raised and discussed to a great degree in 1983 before the testing took place and I do not think things have changed significantly since that time. As a matter of fact when the treaty was renewed in

February 1993 the debate should have taken place at that time if it were that important.

I do not hear any complaints or any concerns from people in my riding. I just came through an election campaign where I campaigned extensively and this issue was not raised on one single occasion. I do not know anyone who is opposed to the testing. There was little support in the riding for the ban of testing in 1983 and I think there is even less now.

I do want to say that I welcome the review of defence policy that is coming up. We certainly encourage the government to do that, but we do have commitments that have to be met in the meantime. We have to honour those commitments. We signed a renewal in February and I believe we are bound by it.

We heard yesterday in the peacekeeping debate that there still are trouble spots in the world, trouble spots that could develop into something major. The former Yugoslavian republic was the area where World War I started and that is a trouble spot again. We know it has the potential for growing.

We know there is some potential for problems in Russia although we certainly hope that democracy has taken firm root there and is going to continue to develop. However I do believe we have to be prepared.

I wanted to say as well that we have relied heavily on our neighbours and friends to the south for help with our defences in the past. We need to continue to do that. We do have partners in NATO that we rely on. We are part of greater defence organizations and I believe we have to honour these commitments.

It is my view the people of the Peace River riding support cruise missile testing in our area and in Canada. It is part of our defence. It is a deterrent. We have seen that deterrent used in Iraq very effectively. The UN had a mandate to go in and Canada was part of that UN mandate in that situation. The cruise missile was a big part of that deterrent.

I support the continuation of the cruise missile testing in the riding. In my view that is backed up by the people in the Peace River riding as well.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been dealing with the concept of sovereignty on the opposition side for some time now and obviously we are in a good position to place the debate in the context of protecting Canadian sovereignty. Our concept of sovereignty is not, however, fragile or timid, but open to the world. Our vision of sovereignty would allow us to get along with our neighbours and friends, and particularly in this instance, with the United States.

Because we have a great deal in common with the United States, Quebec sovereigntists can easily understand why the Americans did what they did two centuries ago. We too will soon be taking similar action, that is clear. We also understand that the defence of a country cannot be confined to geopolitical boundaries that begin at a certain parallel. The issue here is the defence of a continent which we share with the United States of America and we will continue to defend it and be good friends with the U.S. when we achieve sovereignty.

This being said, I have a question for the hon. member for Peace River. I did not quite understand the thrust of his remarks in support of cruise missile testing. I got the impression that he was in favour of allowing testing to continue simply because we have already signed an agreement.

Can the hon. member for Peace River tell me if he agrees with some of the substantive arguments put forward in support of continued testing or if he simply feels bound by the legal and technical aspects of the question and believes we must respect the existing agreement with the United States?

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good question. I want to leave with him the reassurance that I believe strongly in the reasons for the testing. It is part of a deterrent that we need to continue to develop in terms of our own sovereignty and of peacekeeping roles we as Canadians undertake throughout the world.

I also believe in it because we signed a commitment in good faith and I think we need to honour it. I very strongly want to say that I believe it is an important part of our defence. It is something that should be part of the overall review when defence is reviewed. I would make the case that I support it on the basis of a strong defence of Canada and a need for peacekeeping.