Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me once again to rise in this Chamber and take part in the debate on the policy of government which has implications for our defence policy.
First, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the leadership of the government for giving all members of this House the opportunity to express our views on this topic. Much has been said this afternoon about our defence policy. Some believe it might be redundant. Others say there should have been a policy set out which we could have debated.
I served some time in provincial legislatures and in this House and I believe this is what most members of the House with whom I have associated over the last number of years wanted to do. Today we are putting forward our views. We do not all agree. We all have different opinions. This is allowing us to state our opinions and hopefully to give the minister, the department and the government our ideas. It make it easier for them to come forward with a policy which at that time will be debated. That is what we are doing here today.
We all appreciate this new and open policy toward the House of Commons, this great institution to which we have all been elected. All hon. members agree that the respect being shown to us by the government is certainly in contrast to what we have seen here over the last number of years.
The question which has been put before us is a complex one, a question which cannot be answered in the course of a one day debate, or even in a week long debate. It is a question that arouses all sorts of passions in all hon. members and indeed in the public at large.
The question has been asked today, why we would talk about this when we have signed the agreement with the United States? We have an agreement that has been talked about here by people who are much more eloquent than I. If for some reason we cancelled the agreement or we agreed to let it go ahead without debate such as this I am sure that all hon. members who have been in public life any amount of time would realize the uproar this would cause in the media and in the public at large.
I mentioned yesterday during the debate on peacekeeping that the time has come when we must assess the role of our armed forces both in Canada and abroad. We must provide them with the direction which is necessary in a troubled world. We must have a multi-level approach in our defence policy and we must always be sure that our defence policy is sufficiently adaptable to conform to a changing world.
As I noted yesterday, the world has vastly changed from what it was five short years ago. When the Berlin wall came down and the communist regimes in eastern Europe fell there were those among us who proclaimed that peace was at hand and that total victory in the cold war belonged to us. Unfortunately not all of the world's problems have been solved these past five years.
World tensions which have come and gone in cycles seem again to be on the rise.
There are many places around the world today, as has been said, where military activity is going on. This has been mentioned many times today. Relations between some of the former republics of the Soviet Union are hostile to say the least. The situation in the Persian Gulf area is, as we all know, far from settled.
Several other trouble spots have appeared around the world causing all of us great concern. There is the new nationalism and old ethnic hatreds arising in many parts of the globe and who is to say in what place or by what spark a new and dangerous conflict may be touched off.
What I am saying is that the changes we approached with such optimism only five years ago have not automatically brought about a new world order, nor have they brought about a guarantee of peace in our time. We always hope that Canada will be at the forefront of seeking the diplomatic solutions to the world's problems, but we must, I fear, be prepared in case these solutions fail.
I do not envy the Minister of National Defence for the decisions which he will have to make in the coming year or two because the sad state of the Canadian economy and the huge deficit is going to cause problems with long-range planning and with maintaining the defence establishment which we have at the present time.
I know from his remarks over the past few days that the minister is struggling with the long-term defence policy and with the decision which he will have to make. That is why I urge on this matter that we take a long-term look at the question and not force precipitous action on the minister, action which may not be in the long-term interest of Canadians.
I spoke yesterday about the fact that the high point of Canadian prestige abroad came at the time of the Suez crisis in 1956. The high point of Canadian military power was at the end of World War II when this nation had mobilized and fought as a full participant in that conflict.
Since that time our military capacity has declined and we have come more and more to reply on the protection and the technology of others for our defence. We were from the beginning a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a member of the North American Air Defence Command. However we have allowed ourselves to be more and more dependent upon others, particularly the United States, for the technology which we need for defence.
Looking back for instance at the cancellation of the Avro Arrow fighter plane in the late 1950s, we might be able to see a starting point toward our eventual military decline. Since that time our military technology has been tied m more and more to the United States and we have depended on them to provide us with the largest advances.
I do not intend to engage in a philosophical debate over whether or not we should be that dependent. What I am saying is that the practical realities of geography and economics dictate that our defence policy be tied closely to theirs. It is, in the words of a former Prime Minister, like sleeping with an elephant; you are very aware of every little move.
As we look over the deficit projections for the next year or two, it becomes rather obvious that we will be unable to start many new initiatives in the defence field ourselves. Therefore we will remain as long as we retain our present defence and diplomatic policies very closely tied to our American friends.
That brings me to the main point of this discussion: Should we or should we not allow the testing of cruise missiles over Canadian soil?
What I attempted to do by way of my introductory remarks was to establish my position rather pragmatically. We should allow the tests to continue while the Minister of National Defence, this House and the relevant committees study our overall defence policy. It would be folly to cancel these tests now when we do not know where our long-term policy is going and we do not know where the political situation around the world is leading us.
After saying that, I hope hon. members do not take my remarks as those of a hawk, to use that old term. Rather I hope they see them as the legitimate concerns of someone who watches the world scene and our armed forces with a great deal of interest.
We need to develop a clear direction and a clear defence policy. For the moment I think it would be in the best interests of this nation if the agreement were allowed to continue until such time as our government has decided on our future defence policies.
As I stated yesterday the fundamental cornerstones of Canadian foreign policy have not changed substantially over the years. We are still committed to defence and collective security with our allies. We remain committed to arms control and disarmament and we are committed to peaceful resolution of disputes.
We must not therefore take any hasty action which would fundamentally alter our policies without that careful examination I noted earlier. I know other hon. members hold strong views in this matter and I look forward to hearing them along with all the others.