House of Commons Hansard #8 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was tests.

Topics

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The hon. member has about 30 seconds to respond.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Reform

Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB

Madam Speaker, I do not think that I can. I do not have the confidence to answer that question as I am sure the hon. member would want me to.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by complimenting the government on having this the second open debate which I presume is sincerely that, open and not as suggested by our colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway that the fix is already in. I choose to believe there is honour on the other side and that we are going at this in an open manner.

I would also like to address a word to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who alluded to the fact that maybe those in this corner of the House were in collusion and we were not having an open debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. In our debate yesterday on peacekeeping we had sincere differences of opinion even though there was some hanging together.

I assure the House it is entirely so with this current debate on the cruise missile. We each have our own opinion. It may happen that it sounds much of the same tune, but it is entirely our own version of what should be done.

The cold war is over. I have heard a lot of comments today about the cold war being over. Let us remind ourselves that we in the west won the cold war and we won it by being prepared. We did not have to shoot off weapons, missiles or anything of the sort. We won it through peaceful means but that meant being prepared and being armed and being armed better than the other side. So it is a successful strategy for peace.

Has the threat in the world diminished? Not on your life it has not. The world is in greater danger today. It is more unstable today than it has been for a long time.

I hear some debates in this House that are very idealistic in nature and I think we should preserve that to the degree that we can. Have our idealists. Have them say we should have peace. We all believe in peace. The soldier is the first one who will throw his arms on the pile if we can ever achieve that moment when we have agreement in the world to have peace. In the meantime the world is a rough place. Let us see how rough.

The Senate of this Parliament had put out a report, "Meeting new Challenges-Canada's Response to a New Generation of Peacekeeping" and I read from that: "The current crisis has its roots in the proliferation of states which followed the second world war. At the end of that war there were barely 60 states. Through decolonization that number increased to almost 160 states by 1988. With the break up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union the number is over 180 and climbing".

If you do not believe that, take a little tour of the world with me in your imagination. Let us go across the Pacific and look at the situation between northern Japan and Russia. It always has been tense. Move over a little to North and South Korea. They are still at odds. Look at all of China. We have not even begun to count the factions within China that are a potential problem. In fact look at the Chinas, the People's Republic as well as the other one.

If we go through Indo-China, Cambodia and Laos, what do we see? We see more potential problems. We could go to Indonesia and look at the problems it has had. If we flip over from there to Sri Lanka, we see a problem in Sri Lanka that has been there for a lot of years. If we go to India or Pakistan what do we see? Tension. We could go from there to the Middle East. I do not even have to describe the Middle East. It is there. It has been there over, over and over again. If we go from there to South Africa, the Republic of South Africa and all the countries of Africa, what do we see? We see potential for problems.

From there we can cross the Mediterranean and look at what we have in Europe today. We have the situation in the former Yugoslavia that we discussed yesterday. If we traverse the Atlantic Ocean, to finish our tour, and look at the Caribbean we still have trouble spots. We could look at Central America, a continuing problem, and even South America. Chile is quiet now. There is no war in Argentina. We do not hear much about the shining path in Peru, but we can bet our boots we will hear about it again.

The world is an unstable place. Until something magic happens to unite human beings to say that this is the way to peace, we must be prepared.

Let us go back in history a bit to look at our situations before World War I and before World War II. We have to relearn the lessons of history. We say: "This war is the war to end all wars. It is all done". It is not done. Until I see something very special come along I will know it is never done. Therefore let us be prepared.

We are talking about weapons systems such as the cruise. Several people have already differentiated between the fact that it can carry a conventional warhead and a nuclear one. Much of

the argument here has been concentrated on nuclear. It carries a conventional weapon and as such it is another excellent weapon in our total arsenal. We cannot predict which weapon in our arsenal we are going to reach for.

We could look at Vietnam. We saw the Americans bringing back C-47 aircraft and mounting Gatling guns in the open doorways. That tells us, if we look at that situation and at the gulf war, that we need a complete set of weapons in our arsenal. We do not know which one we will have to pick.

Thus it is incumbent on us to allow the Americans to continue the testing of this specific weapon in case it is needed. We have the technological lead in the west. How long will we continue to have that lead? We do not know. There are all sorts of other countries or groups working to exceed what we have. If we have a lead, hang on to it.

Finally I ask this question: Has Canada contributed its share to democracy or the defence of the west over the last number of years? If I look at my time before and after being in NATO, I think the answer is no. We have been cheapskating. We have always been down around Luxembourg. This gives us a chance as a country to pay off some of our debts.

I will leave it at that except to reiterate the point made by the hon. member for Saint John concerning proliferation. This refinement of the missile is a means to prevent proliferation if that happens to us.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York—Simcoe, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member on the other side some questions regarding the statement about increased instability in the world and the need to use cruise missile tests as a way of reducing some of this instability.

As I said earlier, prevention is the only treatment for war. The Canadian people through their government have a remarkable opportunity to take a stand against the proliferation of the tools of war by refusing to continue cruise missile testing on Canadian soil.

Contrary to an earlier statement by a member on the opposite side of the House, we do not prepare for peace by preparing for war. In fact the mid-eastern war of 1991 showed that in preparing for war we prepare and encourage more war. Most of the weaponry used by Iraq was manufactured by G-7 countries. In fact, even though we are in a post cold war period, the military industrial complex of western world countries flourishes as the result of sales to Third World countries increasing global instability and jeopardizing the world peace the member on the other side of the floor has recently spoken to.

If we are suffering from so much tension and problems in the world, won't supplying more armaments and guns just be like adding fuel to the fire?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Madam Speaker, I understand the thrust of the argument of my friend across the way. We do not get rid of tensions by hiding weapons. If the world could find a way of disarming so that everyone disarmed, I would be totally in favour of it. I said earlier that all people who have borne arms would feel the same way. They would be the first to put them on the pile.

We have not arrived at that point yet, it is sad to say. As soon as we can see it coming we should do something about it. If we could start to reduce the arms in the world I would be the first to join the club, but we have not arrived at that stage yet.

[Translation]

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

I heard the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan say that we had won the cold war with arms but without using them.

The fact is, if we had not dared-perhaps with an incredible lack of judgment-if we had not tempted fate with nuclear weapons, if we had not chanced it to the point of madness, to the point of the "mutual mad" as they called it, if we had not implemented deterrents, maybe none of us would be here tonight to talk about peace.

Even though this weapons race may be foolish, at least it ensures the precarious parity that now exists and we must take that risk until our planet is completely free of violence. Unfortunately, that is not the case yet; we live in a violent world and if I let my guard down, if we as a country let our guard down, someone somewhere will seize the opportunity. Alas, this is not Disney World yet.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a real treat to participate on behalf of the constituents of Scarborough-Rouge River in a debate of this nature. Early in this Parliament our Prime Minister said to the House: "Please take this issue, debate it and tell me what Canadians think". I can see individuals in my caucus over here and in their caucuses over there with views on both sides of the issue. It is unlikely I will be able to address any issue which has not already been covered. I want to compliment all of my colleagues, especially those who have made their first interventions and speeches in the House.

What is the cruise missile? It is simply a delivery system. This was not the case 10 years ago. Ten years ago the cruise missile was seen as a delivery system but more importantly a delivery system for strategic nuclear capability. That did not make a lot of us in this country very comfortable.

I know the Liberal Party grappled with the issue for many years inside the party, not necessarily in the House, and in caucus. I can see that its position has changed from time to time over the last one or two decades.

Something happened a few years ago that changed my view in relation to the cruise missile. That was the gulf war. As a taxpayer, as an individual who cared a lot about what was happening at the time of the gulf war, for the first time I was able to see right in the opposition lobby something involving a cruise missile that did not involve nuclear or strategic nuclear warheads.

It was at that point that I began to look at the cruise missile a little differently. We are talking about roughly 288 cruise missiles that were used by the United States as part of what was called the allied effort in relation to the gulf war.

Having formed a view that the cruise missile was not necessarily part of the nuclear capability, I began to look at it more as something capable of carrying a payload. In the gulf war it had carried a conventional warhead for very specific tactical purposes.

My colleagues and I realize that it did kill. As I stand here I do not know what the body count was, but there were many killed and presumably many maimed by the Tomahawk cruise missiles used in the gulf war. It was not intentional but there still was death and the attendant destruction.

Is not the cruise missile simply an increasingly sophisticated product of research, development and delivery capability? What if the cruise missile simply carried a camera? What if technologically we got the cruise missile to go out and come back?

I know we can take pictures of the earth from satellites. We do not really need an unmanned capability all of the time, but what if there is cloud cover or what if we are talking about a volcano with all kinds of cloud cover? Perhaps the cruise missile could have the benefit of the doubt in being seen in a more benevolent or kinder content in great contrast with what it has been used as, a weapon of war.

In saying that I want to articulate my general acquiescence in the agreement that permits testing of the cruise missile in Canadian territory. I say that knowing the agreement permits the sharing of the test results with Canada. I am making an assumption, I hope not too naively, that the technology is known to the appropriate elements of our armed forces as a technology that they can work with.

There are three sensitivities that I have to put on the record and I am sure some of them, if not all, are shared by all my colleagues here.

First, I have listened intently to the remarks of our colleague, the member for Nunatsiaq. I am very sensitive to the issue put that the testing of the cruise missile over northwestern Canada has to be subjected to the scrutiny of residents there. The long term residents there include the Dene and the Inuvialuit and if they have something to say to us through their members then we have to listen. We must listen. There are elements of safety, environment and morality.

Second, this next item of sensitivity has been mentioned by the previous speaker and was articulated very well. It is that Canada must continue to make its contribution to global stability. It must continue to do its part in terms of ensuring our defence capability and our ability to be there at times when the world needs us as a country. We must participate in that. We must foster that.

I do not think we have been carrying our load internationally in that regard. There were times when we did not really want to when it was a cold war battle between two or three nuclear powers. Times have changed. We know that from time to time the world needs what our country has to offer in terms of global stability.

Third, we have a moral obligation to those who will follow us in this world to do everything possible on our end to remove the nuclear threat from the entire world.

I know there is an overlap here with the way we used to look at the cruise missile, but something tells me that the nuclear threat to this world does not relate so much any more to the cruise missile. It relates more to stockpiles and of previously built nuclear weapons and the potential nuclear weapon to be built that is in a steamer trunk somewhere in the world where it should not be. God only knows what might happen should we go down that road.

Those three sensitivities I leave on the record. In the end, having analysed this and attempting to articulate what I think are the views of my constituents in Scarborough-Rouge River, I am, along with other colleagues in the House who may feel this way, acquiescent and accepting that Canada should stay as part of the current cruise missile testing agreement with the United States.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:20 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Waterloo, ON

Madam Speaker, the previous member who represented this Waterloo riding was the Hon. Walter McLean who was preceded by Max Saltzman. In some ways I reflect some of their thinking and the thinking of the community that I represent.

We have to ask this question. When do we have enough armaments?

I heard the hon. member talk about an almost benevolent cruise missile, one which does not have to have nuclear capability.

If one looks at what initially instigated the development of the cruise missile, which was the Soviet Union, and if one looks at the Soviet Union today and its break up into many different states, one cannot help but think of Ukraine that has nuclear weapons and the world desperately wants it to give them up. In some sense I wonder how Canada as a nation that faces virtually no threat from Russia can tell the Ukrainians that they should

give up their nuclear weapons when we are acquiescing to the testing of the cruise missile.

We were here all day yesterday debating the war in Bosnia and what role this House should take. I really believe that these debates are very refreshing. I am glad to see that the Reform Party is not sticking together on the issue. They are expressing genuinely different points of view and I think that can be said about the House as a whole.

I guess at some point in time we have to say that we have enough weapons of mass destruction. We are just dealing now with the cruise, but there are biological and chemical weapons that exist on this fragile plant. To take a phrase from Project Ploughshares from my community it is time to turn some of that weaponry into ploughshares. It is time to turn some of those swords into ploughshares.

If a country like Canada, with our special standing in the world as a middle power and really of little threat as an aggressor, is unable to do that then my question has to be this. What country is going to take the first step?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:25 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes a wonderful point here. The issue of the nuclear stockpile is out there and is unresolved by the entire global community. As I understand it I think the Ukraine has reached an agreement to liquidate, store away, give away or trade away its nuclear stockpile. That was a real plus. I hope they get to the end of their inventory.

However, I fall back on the remarks I made earlier that I view the cruise missile as a delivery system. Maybe it will be the very best delivery system we have ever developed. Maybe the cruise missile and developments of the cruise missile will become the flying saucer of the planet earth because of its ability to move in an unmanned way and guide itself. Let us forget about the sausage shape for now. It does not have to carry a nuclear warhead.

Canada has insisted that none of the cruise missiles in Canada will carry nuclear warheads. Canada is in the forefront in the world in convincing countries to abandon their nuclear capability. I point out the regional dispute between India and Pakistan involving their own alleged nuclear capabilities and the arguments about delivery systems also.

I hope that my children's children will have fewer nuclear warheads to worry about than that which the hon. member and the rest of us have to worry about now.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:30 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

I am pleased to participate as the member for Richmond-Wolfe in this debate on cruise missiles and I would like to send warm greetings to all the voters in my constituency of Richmond-Wolfe who placed their trust in me last October 25 and gave me a clear mandate.

Obviously, we must examine this particular issue within a broader context. The Bloc Quebecois would have liked the government to undertake a comprehensive review of national defence policy. Nevertheless, for a sovereigntist member of Parliament and member of the Bloc Quebecois, the Canada-US Test and Evaluation Program, or if you prefer, the agreement on cruise missile testing, is critically important. This kind of debate on the relevance of allowing new tests to take place over Canadian territory during the course of this year highlights in particular the role of a sovereign Quebec with respect to western agreements on military strategy.

There are three distinct types of cruise missiles, namely the surface, sea and air varieties. The cruise missile tested in Canada falls into the third category of weapon. It is primarily the vehicle, or delivery system, which determines whether these weapons will or will not be subject to disarmament agreements or nuclear weapons verification control. The most stringent control measures of all have been adopted in the case of the air and sea version of these missiles.

One of the means available for verifying nuclear arms during the cold war and for maintaining a certain balance between the superpowers was the National Technical Means, that is a verification technique based on information obtained by superpowers about the weapons of foreign countries.

For instance, if a superpower formally announces that it is going to test a specific type of weapon and if the other superpower discovers, through its verification techniques, that the weapon in question is not consistent with the formal announcements made, then the whole balance of deterrence is called into question and the mutual trust of the two superpowers is shaken. And we know how importance trust is in such matters.

Therefore, it is extremely important that Canada, as an ally of the United States, stand by its commitment and guarantee its co-operation in the area of strategic weapons testing so that it does not impede international disarmament procedures and in the process fuel the nuclear race.

All of the verification, monitoring and voluntary disarmament techniques to which the superpowers agreed under the SALT I and SALT II treaties have since been superseded by new agreements such as the INF, which stands for Intermediate Nuclear Force, and START I and START II. Today these verification techniques still form the basis of arms control. Canada cannot disregard them. It must ensure compliance with these agreements to limit the nuclear threat.

Cruise missiles launched from bomber aircraft are considered strategic if their range exceeds 600 kilometres. The missile tested in Canada has a range superior to 600 kilometres. Accordingly, the Canadian government cannot, under the terms of international arms control and strategic weapons verification treaties, dissociate itself from the strategic nuclear mission of the air version of the cruise missile.

The cruise missile satisfies different objectives in terms of U.S. strategy. The air and sea versions are at the very heart of the United States's strategy of deterrence based on the concept of the tripartite retaliatory force or triad.

This offensive triad brings together land-, sea- and air-based strategic weapons. Canada's commitments to the strategic deterrent force are basically a part of co-operation between allies. To the extent that Canada bases its defence on agreement among allies, it must voluntarily co-operate in implementing this strategic deterrent force if required. This is part of the national defence policies of 1971 and 1987 and the defence policy statement of 1992.

Like my colleagues and my leader, I recall that under this approach, Canada was asked in 1983 to accept air-launched cruise missile tests on its territory, although this nuclear deterrence strategy was not officially based on NATO's strategy.

In its 1992 security policy statement, Canada revised its position on strategic issues, recognizing that the world was no longer bipolar. The new nuclear powers were considered inherently unstable and so it became difficult for Canada and its allies to get away from nuclear deterrence.

Cruise missiles made a key contribution to the offensive against Iraq. The non-nuclear air-launched cruise missile was used, showing the need for this missile in local conflicts, although it is not always perfectly accurate in hitting the target. The advantage of using such a weapon is that massive bombing is made unnecessary, thus saving many civilian lives. Strategic flexibility and tactics make the cruise a weapon better suited to the present strategic environment. This flexibility is why the development programs for these new missiles need to be extended. Canada, like our party, must be aware of the different uses to which these weapons can be put.

From what we know, the missile that the Americans want to test in 1994 would have new electro-optical guidance technologies.

International relations are extremely complex and cannot be analyzed from just one point of view. The issue of national defence is revealing in this regard. In 1993, Canada extended a formal commitment with the United States to facilitate the testing of certain types of weapons. Remember that the agreement runs for ten years, so this commitment will end in 2003. Canada would find itself in a sensitive position with its partners if it broke its commitments, whatever their nature. Canada must act as a responsible state which respects its international commitments. These values are particularly important for the sovereigntist members of the Bloc Quebecois.

It is essential to state clearly that the Bloc Quebecois, while not agreeing with the continuation of the arms race, cannot totally distance itself either from the unstable international environment which has existed since the former Soviet Union broke up and from the potential dangers which unfortunately threaten our world. The Bloc Quebecois's sovereigntist thrust must not mean a kind of isolationism, heedless of our responsibilities to our strategic allies. On this score, it is important to send a clear and unambiguous message to the rest of the world: Canada and Quebec must respect their international commitments, with the possibility of renegotiating them with their allies once these agreements expire, using the appropriate procedures when the time comes.

Another argument for accepting cruise missile tests over Canadian territory is the devastating effect of massive bombardment on civilian populations. For example, in the gulf war, massive conventional bombing would have been extremely costly in civilian lives since most of the sites destroyed were located in inhabited Iraqi territory. Surgical strikes such as those carried out by cruise missiles have shown the effectiveness of such weapons, considerably limiting the loss of human life.

The tests which the American government wants to conduct do not involve new nuclear technologies either. Thus they do not escalate strategic nuclear forces. Furthermore, a ceiling has already been set for the total number of missiles deployed under the START I and START II treaties. The cruise missile tests on Canadian soil are only to improve the guidance system. They cannot and must not be considered destabilizing under international arms control or disarmament agreements.

Finally, one question arises: should cruise missile tests be related to the issue of converting military industry and to the lower military spending advocated by the Bloc Quebecois? I say no, they should not. First, very few military companies in Quebec and Canada are involved with this type of weapon. The economic, industrial and technological impact is minimal since a ceiling has been set for the number of units to be built. Therefore no increase in the budget of the Canadian Department of National Defence is involved.

Thus, it would be wrong for the Liberal government to make a connection with the lower military spending advocated by the Bloc Quebecois.

It is important for Canada and Quebec to strengthen these strategic commitments; therefore the Bloc Quebecois is in

favour of military agreements with its allies to ensure the security of Canadian and Quebec territory.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Waterloo, ON

Madam Speaker, a number of members have referred to the cruise and they picked on the war in Iraq as an example of how advanced technology in weapons of destruction can save lives. We looked at the situation in the Middle East, we looked at star wars in Bagdhad. Those were weapons, granted not of the most sophisticated kind, supplied basically by the superpowers.

How does producing more deadly weapons, with also the export that is involved in arms, help world peace? How does that make us as a nation more secure? We have to look at the weapons that were used in the Middle East. For the most part they were produced by advanced technologies, the United States, the Soviet Union, France. The list goes on and on.

What invariably happens is that the military says we have to have more advanced weapons than other countries have to deal with our own security. I guess this is a never-ending race.

When does the member see this vicious cycle stopping?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:40 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First of all, I must remind the hon. member that what I suggested in my speech was to allow experiments relating to electro-optical guidance technology.

I totally agree with the member on that. We are totally against any arms race or war. I did mention in my speech however that destabilisation is occurring in certain regions and, as we know, a country where democratic principles are completely disregarded is a country with a potential for and threat of aggression against which we must react. It is mainly in that perspective that we should look at the development of technological know-how.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a specific question to the member in light of what is the immediate challenge before us. He alluded to the agreement that exists for a 10-year period and in this agreement is stated a provision that it may be terminated upon 12 months' notice in writing by either party.

The question I would like to pose is this. Would the hon. member favour giving notice today, saying that yes, we will terminate it and in fact we would further request that any testing be held in abeyance until the Government of Canada has completed its full defence policy review by the end of this year. This is an approach that I favour.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

Madam Speaker, I did say in my speech that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are committed to fundamental values. Clearly, the agreements passed with our allies and friends must be abided by. These considerations having to do with the value and observance of agreements must be maintained. Of course, as far as we are concerned, what really matters is to get to consider in its entirety the national defence policy, which has not been tabled yet. I call upon the hon. member to urge his government to table as soon as possible their White Paper on Defence that we have heard so much about.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:45 p.m.

St. Boniface Manitoba

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Madam Speaker, yesterday and today we have experienced a rather unique situation, a somewhat historic moment, as we had the opportunity to speak freely on two issues. Yesterday we talked of Canada's role as peacekeeper and today we are discussing cruise missile testing over Canadian territory.

Yesterday we talked of Canada's peace efforts abroad, our contributions to this particular process. Today we are discussing cruise missile testing. It seems to me that the two go hand in hand.

When people talk to me about Canada's armed forces they always talk about our soldiers with a great deal of pride. They also ask, increasingly so, very tough questions such as: What is peacekeeping? What is peacemaking? Is there a difference between peacemaking and war? Do our soldiers have different terms of engagement under different circumstances? Are they secure? Are we doing everything we can to make sure that they can do the job they are being asked to do?

As I understand the situation, what Canadians are telling me is that they want us to continue to make that contribution but they want us to continue to make the contribution within a different context. They want to make sure that our soldiers, our armed forces, are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve because they are putting their lives on the line to create a better society and very often it is in very troubled countries.

When we talk about cruise missile testing it seems to me that we need to ask ourselves very fundamental insightful questions as well. I do not pretend that I know all of them but I am going to raise a few. What was the original rationale for this particular agreement and is it still valid? Some people will argue, and I can appreciate that.

We must honour our commitments. I totally agree but, clearly, when the situation changes, it is important that we review our commitment.

All I ask is, is the original rationale still valid, or is it equally responsible to sit down and ask whether the reasons that motivated that particular agreement are such that they necessitate that kind of response?

I want to ask another question. This is one that is troubling me as well. Can we ask other countries of the world to reduce armaments, perhaps not to manufacture certain kinds of armaments, and undertake such an initiative that is cruise missile testing? Is there not a potential contradiction if we were to do that? People will ask.

It is important as well before we reach a final decision to consider seriously not only what parliamentarians are saying in this House but what other elected people are saying to us, particularly those who are affected. I am talking about the provincial and territorial governments. I am talking about other governments where we have elected representatives. We need to consider very seriously what the people are saying, because this has an impact on them and we have a responsibility to at least listen to what they are saying.

I appreciate so much that we were given the opportunity yesterday to talk about our contribution to peacekeeping and peacemaking and that we are talking today about cruise missile testing, components of our defence policy. We have been promised a thorough review of where we are at and where we might go. I see this as the beginning of that particular process.

I am going to make one final comment because I know I have other colleagues who want to address this issue. We are being called upon to exercise leadership. Perhaps some people would characterize leadership as to lead, to build, perhaps to refine armaments-and I am not suggesting that there is not a role for that-but we need to consider it very seriously and with great sensitivity. We also need to lead to disarm, to promote peace. Clearly I prefer the latter.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Speaker, it was very interesting listening to the debate today and I stand to participate. I would like to suggest that Canadians want peace and non-violence, as evidenced by the peacekeeping activities. We have some 4,700 Canadian men and women involved in peacekeeping. Should we not then encourage those values in our international affairs? Should we not encourage other countries to seek peaceful and non-violent solutions to problems?

While this may sound idealistic, and I have heard that said earlier, it is up to us to set an example for the international community in which we belong. It is up to us to teach by doing. We cannot preach to other countries that they should not develop their nuclear arsenals while we allow cruise missile testing on our northern lands. We cannot preach to other countries that they should solve their problems by peaceful and non-violent means, when we in effect justify using weapons.

To allow cruise missile testing is to say there is still a need for nuclear weapons and that North America has a nuclear ability to resolve any dispute.

We should remember that by our actions not only do we set an example for the rest of the world, we set an example for our children.

Crime among Canadian youth is ever increasing. If we hope to change this reality, we must show that we are a society that values peaceful solutions. We must show our youth that violence is not the way to solve problems but that they should seek non-violent solutions. I do not believe we would be setting that example if we continue to allow cruise missile testing in Canada.

Times change. Today our needs have changed. We heard earlier about the different uses for the cruise missile. However, I want to say to this House that the world around us has changed and it is time for us to recognize those changes.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

Madam Speaker, I thought that the period following the speech by the hon. member for St. Boniface was reserved for questions and comments. I think that the hon. member has joined the debate itself.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I think the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore may have misunderstood after the debate from the hon. member for St. Boniface. The hon. member was actually to make comments and/or ask questions.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I understand that the debate, by agreement among the parties, is to end at ten o'clock. There are a number of us on this side of the House who are therefore not going to get the opportunity to speak on this most important issue.

Given that only one woman from the government benches has spoken on this issue-the three remaining speakers who will not get an opportunity are also women-I wonder if all members in the House might agree to allow the member to continue her remarks and to use the remaining five minutes.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Do we have agreement?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Augustine Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the members across the way.

I am sure that the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are presently following this because I have had faxes and notations from individuals who have been watching this debate all afternoon and all evening.

I appreciate the few minutes left to me to express what we heard from the member from the Northwest Territories about the wildlife situation and the environment, keeping the territories safe for the individuals who are presently there, for ourselves and for our children.

As I said earlier, the important point is the example that we as Canadians give to the rest of the world.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

January 26th, 1994 / 9:55 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

Madam Speaker, may I direct my question to the hon. member for St. Boniface as I refrained from making more interventions in order not to disrupt the hon. member's speech?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Agreed.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

9:55 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

In his speech, the hon. member for St. Boniface asked questions and suggested alternatives. Was it to give a different spin to his presentation in this House? Did he say that his answer to the question the government is asking us would be no and that he is not favourable to continued cruise missile testing?