Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reiterate a lot of what has been said because it is covering old ground. However I would point out that this agreement was signed originally in 1983. It was renewed for five years in 1988 and was renewed in February of last year for a further ten years. This is an agreement in support of a mutual defence pact which is of great value to Canada. It means a lot to our stability.
The U.S.S.R. by and large has disappeared and is no longer an obvious threat. The area is certainly not under control. There is a lot of volatility there. When we think back to the Russians having constructed a very similar weapon to the one that is proposed to be tested over Canada, we have to consider that there are many countries in that region which have cash balance problems, foreign exchange problems. They are very vulnerable to offers from various agencies that are willing to pay large sums to gather the ability to threaten or to create terror.
The fact that the weapons were used with great effect in the gulf war is indicative of what they can do. I refer to what the leader of the opposition has said, that any country with the ability to build a simple airplane can construct one of these weapons which will carry a tonne of dynamite or explosives for a distance of at least 300 miles and explode with great accuracy.
There is another spin-off benefit from the testing taking place in Canada. It provides a platform for our air crews to practice their technology, their interception against this type of threat. This could be invaluable not only within Canada but should we find our forces committed in some other theatre in the future.
There is a spin-off. Ancillary to this agreement, Canada is able to benefit from mutual testing programs with the United States. It pays dividends in information exchanged. It is a productive program.
To my knowledge our constituencies, many of which lie in the path of the overflights, have received no complaints from the constituents who reside there. There are people who are concerned about the overflights and have complained about them but we have not in our constituencies received any direct input on this matter. I believe there is minimal, if any, environmental impact caused by these missiles overflying the country.
If I may go back to my personal experience when I was base operations officer at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, I was in charge of the range there. It was a rectangular area some 100 by 60 miles.
On that range live an awful lot of animals: moose, caribou, grizzly bears and so on. I overflew it regularly and I have seen moose in my flight path that stood with its head in the water and completely ignored my overflight. In fact, he was more bothered by a helicopter when I went up to check what was going on than he was by the jets flying over. The jets were flying at an altitude of 50 feet at speeds exceeding 600 knots, over 700 miles an hour. Animals do adapt.
To further exemplify the fact that animals adapt, when I went there in 1976 a herd of eight buffalo were living within the range. By the time I left in 1979 the herd had grown to 13 animals.
In this instance there is a limited window within which these tests can be conducted. It is my understanding that the tethered flights, that is with the missile attached to the wing of a B-52, are conducted in the period between October and December.
Only two of the free flights that we are now discussing take place between January and the end of March. The reason for this, as I understand it, is in case of an accident and the missile crashes. The missile might start a forest fire if it happened outside that timeframe when the snow was off the ground.
It is of great concern to the United States military that wishes to conduct the test that we are procrastinating and delaying approval. These tests are in Canada's best interests and should be allowed to proceed.
The agreement was signed in good faith. Canada should honour the agreement to which we have committed and should allow the tests to proceed.