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

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, once again I would request that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Shall all questions stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Don Valley East Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

moved:

That this House, recognizing that a bilateral Umbrella Agreement for Weapons Testing exists between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States, take note of the domestic, international and bilateral aspects of allowing the

Government of the United States of America to conduct cruise missile tests within Canadian territorial boundaries, and in particular, two cruise missile tests during the first quarter of 1994.

Mr. Speaker, following yesterday's highly successful debate on peacekeeping this debate today will be crucial for the government to help it in its decision-making process as to whether or not we should continue cruise missile testing.

The Prime Minister made a commitment during the election that Parliament would be more frequently consulted in matters of this nature, general policy matters.

The minister of human resources when in opposition was quite forthright in questioning the former defence minister to say that these tests under the renegotiated agreement of 1993 should not occur before the matter was discussed in the House of Commons. We are discussing that today.

One of the members opposite will waive the word "hearing" and will try to say that what we are going to do today, perhaps until midnight again, is not a hearing. What better hearing than to have all the members of the House of Commons participate live on national television.

Let us not get caught on words. This is a hearing. It is a full parliamentary debate on a very sensitive matter. I am sure the minister of human resources, who led our party in foreign policy in opposition, agrees, by his presence here today, with the procedure we are undertaking.

Again, as with the debate yesterday there is no whip in our party. The members have not been told what to say. I do not want to prejudge any outcome.

The government has to take its own responsibilities and will take those responsibilities in due course. The government wants it fully understood that the views of the members of this House will help it make up its mind when the final decision is taken.

I would like to give a little bit of background for some of the members who have not been in the House for many years. I had the misfortune of not being here for the last number of years but was here when the agreement was first negotiated by the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau.

A cruise missile test is essentially a small, pilotless aircraft powered by a jet engine. Modern long range cruise missiles like those the United States tested in Canada over the past number of years have sophisticated guidance systems which enable them to fly predetermined routes at various altitudes. Indeed, the tests of the cruise missile in Canada have been designed mainly to prove the accuracy of the missile's guidance system.

Cruise missiles can carry either conventional or nuclear weapons but I want to emphasize that none of the missiles tested in Canada has in any way been armed in a nuclear fashion.

Unarmed cruise missile tests are conducted under a Canada-U.S. agreement called the Test and Evaluation Program. The agreement, signed in 1983, originally covered a 10-year period. It allowed the United States to test and evaluate their weapon systems and other types of equipment on Canadian soil.

The agreement was renegotiated by the previous government in February 1993 and extended for another 10 years.

[English]

For the first time the agreement is reciprocal and that is something new. Canada has obtained parallel access to American military test facilities. Furthermore, the same incremental cost recovery procedures now apply to both countries potentially yielding substantial savings for Canada.

Last spring the United States submitted its routine annual test forecast to the previous Canadian government asking permission for two cruise missile tests in the early part of 1994 within Canada.

It is very crucial to understand the sequence of events. In August 1993 the previous government advised American officials that the two tests were approved in principle and that they could proceed with planning. The planning did continue after our government took office.

However, before Christmas an official of the Department of National Defence conveyed to his opposite number in Washington that there could be a problem because of the commitments our party had made previously. The debate today reflects that caution that we gave to the United States.

The U.S. has sought to test unarmed cruise missiles over Canadian territory because our test corridor provides the most challenging operational environment for these systems. Our territory as we all know provides a unique set of conditions for testing not available in the United States. These include high latitude and Arctic temperatures as well as the range and topography needed to fully test the navigation system. Consequently the U.S. has attached a great importance to these tests as well as to the overall testing regime provided by the test and evaluation agreement.

The United States is mindful that a new government is in office in Ottawa that could indeed want to do things differently. All members of this House will recognize that cruise missile testing has always been a controversial issue for Canadians and I am sure some of that controversy will surface today in the House.

I would like to go back a little bit to retrace some of the recent history to give a better sense of how it has evolved in the last 10 years. When the government first agreed in 1983 to test these missiles, the context was quite different than that of today.

First, the cruise missile test was a cold war issue. It was in the early 1980s that east-west relations were at a low ebb. It was characterized by such things as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the downing of the Korean airlines flight 007 and the controversy over the deployment of medium range missiles in Europe. In this context the Government of Canada justified at the time cruise missile testing as an important contribution to collective defence against the Soviet threat.

Second, cruise missile testing was a nuclear issue. I emphasize that it was a nuclear issue. The air launched cruise missile that was being tested in our air space, AGM-86B was its code name, was a nuclear weapons system, unarmed of course, during the testing within Canada.

Testing then had to be within a context of Canadian policy, not only with respect to deterrents in defence, but also arms control and disarmament. Over time the context of the cruise missile testing has begun to change or it did change most notably when the cold war came to an end. Confrontation evolved into detente, which in itself was rapidly transformed into east-west co-operation on a full range of issues. We have witnessed one of the most remarkable political transformations in modern history. In the space of two short years revolutions in central and eastern Europe gave way to the collapse of the Warsaw pact, German unification and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

We also saw remarkable progress in arms control. Certainly the state of U.S.-Soviet nuclear balance has improved dramatically with the signing of the strategic arms reduction agreements which mandate deep cuts in these arsenals.

Of course, the changes made in the last 10 years were not all so positive.

The end of the cold war resulted in new security problems, including ethnic conflicts and disputes over the appropriation of resources which were unheard of during the cold war.

Moreover, throughout the last 10 years, hostile governments, in Libya, Iraq and North Korea for example, regularly challenged the international community.

As the situation evolved, so did the test program as well as the reasons justifying its very existence.

In 1989 the government agreed to test a new variant of the cruise, which was the advanced cruise missile. This missile represents a refinement of the original system. It is more accurate, able to fly farther and harder to detect by radar. In addition, cruise missiles have become significant as part of the conventional weapons inventory of many countries. I will take us back a couple of years to conflicts such as the gulf war. There is an illustration that conventionally armed weapons may be more important in terms of weapons systems than their nuclear counterparts. As we can see, cruise missile testing has never been a static issue.

In case one thinks that in the remarks I have made this afternoon I am justifying the future testing of the cruise missile, that is wrong. What I am trying to do is to put squarely before you-I understand I am supposed to talk to you, Mr. Speaker, and that was always the practice so please do not take offence-how we are trying to underscore the reasons why the cruise has been tested in the past. We want to underscore why the United States would seek to test cruise missiles again.

However, my remarks will in no way reflect upon our government's decision to deal with the specific matter of cruise tests in 1994 in the context of the test and evaluation agreement. In other words, whether or not these tests may proceed in the first quarter of 1984 will be a decision that cabinet will take after the deliberation today.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. minister would be willing to accept a very brief question on this issue.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I would require unanimous consent from the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Lac-Saint-Jean Québec

Bloc

Lucien Bouchard BlocLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the issue being debated today concerns one of the most significant aspects of relations between Canada and the United States. It concretely involves the framework in which we have developed a system of co-operation for our common security, but it also raises questions related to peace and disarmament.

These questions of peace and disarmament are more current than ever. The world is now painfully torn between the hope for lasting peace and the horror of atrocious massacres, even in Europe, the cradle of civilization. Nevertheless, real hope has been raised by the new order which has seemed to emerge. This hope was fed mainly by the efforts and successes, albeit partial but encouraging, it must be said, in disarmament achieved by the United States and the former Soviet Union, later confirmed by Russia.

All peoples earnestly hope that this effort will intensify. It will go even better and more surely if it is done in an orderly fashion, with each gain consolidated by realistic measures that can assure everyone's security. Disarmament must go together with security, which must still be maintained with a minimum of deterrence.

There is first of all the question of the many solid long-standing ties between Canadians and Americans. Along with the United States, Canada has been a member of NATO since 1949 and of NORAD since 1958. Our mutual commitments therefore bind us both to an integrated defence of North America and of other countries in the North Atlantic region. Under these treaties, our air force, navy and army have for a long time had common modes of operation. Military equipment is often interchangeable and the officers of the various armed services have close working and even personal relations. Training, testing, exercises and manoeuvres go on all the time, and they are all done jointly, as a rule. In short, no two military organizations in the world are closer to each other, so much so that other countries often have difficulty breaking through this close embrace when it comes to selling military equipment to Canada, for example.

In this spirit, a Liberal government in 1983 concluded a 10-year agreement with the United States called CANUSTEP in their awful jargon. It allowed the United States to test weapons on Canadian territory. Each series of tests had to receive permission from the Canadian government to go ahead.

Canada's commitments to strategic deterrence are basically a part of co-operation between allies. Canada has no strategic weapons in its forces. However, in that its defence is based on the agreement among allies and it benefits from collective security, it must voluntarily co-operate in implementing this strategic deterrent force if required. This is an integral part of the national defence policy as found in the 1971 and 1987 white papers on defence and the 1992 defence policy statement.

The arms in question include cruise missiles that, in practically every year between 1983 and 1993, were tested many times in the Canadian north, more precisely inside a 2,200 kilometre corridor including parts of the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. These missiles, that have a 3,000 kilometre range, are launched from bombers and guided to their target by a sophisticated homing device. Because of its size and topography, Canada was and is the only place in the world where the Americans can conduct these tests.

In 1983, the reasons behind the Canadian government's acquiescence obviously had to do with the cold war between the American and Soviet superpowers. It was the era of the nuclear dissuasion strategy in a bipolar world.

The cruise missile met all the requirements of the time as it could carry either a nuclear or a conventional head, thus offering the advantage of flexibility. However, the 1983 agreement formally excluded any possibility of testing missiles equipped with nuclear heads.

As we know, the geopolitical environment went through substantial changes after 1989. The dismantling of the Warsaw pact, set up against NATO, deeply altered the strategic map.

Of the two organizations, only NATO survived. But the political thaw gave new life to the disarmament movement so that the START I and START II treaties negotiated in 1991 and 1992 imposed cuts in the number of missiles and nuclear heads deployed by the United States and Russia. Since then, the ceiling imposed on both parties rules out the production of new cruise missiles, except to compensate for attrition. They can only improve the missiles' performance by making guidance systems more precise and reliable.

That is why, in 1993, the United States asked the Canadian government to renew the 1983 agreement for another 10 years, to 2013. The Canadian government agreed to do so.

Last year, in its policy statement on security, Canada took a slightly different stand on strategic issues stating that it no longer viewed the strategic scene as bipolar. Since the new nuclear powers were considered unstable by nature, it was becoming problematic for Canada and its allies to dissociate themselves from nuclear deterrence, so nuclear deterrence was dropped from the new policy statement.

One might therefore wonder why the government has opened up the discussion today as Canada, after assessing the circumstances prevailing at the time, has made a commitment in principle which binds it until the year 2003.

What has happened is that the United States, pursuant to the recently renewed agreement, is requesting the Canadian government for authorization to proceed with the testing of an improved guidance system with which they intend to equip the cruise missiles. Now several senior members of the Liberal Party have already attacked those tests.

Is the government trying today to find allies in the House in order to support its refusal which it is already preparing in response to the American request? As a matter of fact certain remarks in the minister's aseptic speech might provoke the prognosis that it will be so.

The Bloc Quebecois for its part considers it imperative to examine closely and with objectivity setting aside all abstract theory and preconceived judgments where the real interests and responsibilities of Canada lie in this matter.

Those who are opposed to the resumption of the tests base their argument mainly upon the danger of proliferation of this type of missile, particularly at a time when the nuclear deterrent can no longer be justified. It is true that the basic technology for manufacturing these weapons could conceivably become available to many countries. The Russians have already produced their own version of this weapon, the AS-15 missile, and they do not have to ask permission from anybody when they want to perfect the system because they can carry out their tests over the vast Siberian steppes.

Professor Kosta Tsipis of MIT drew attention in 1992 in the New York Times to the risk involved in the proliferation of this weapon. He wrote:

Any country capable of manufacturing an elementary airplane can construct a cruise missile able to transport a charge of one ton over a distance of at least 300 miles and to plant it within 30 feet of its target.

In fact, the threat of proliferation does not come from American testing in Canada. It should be stressed that the tests the American government is requesting permission to conduct do not involve any new nuclear technology. These tests contravene neither the letter nor the spirit of the START treaties, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the missile technology control regime; thus, they do not contribute to the build up of strategic nuclear forces. In July 1993, the manufacturing of new air-launched stealth cruise missiles was restricted to 460 units, that is 1,000 fewer than initially planned. It is also important to note that, for the past few years, tests have been related to detection, interception and missile guidance. In that sense, any test that enhances the target-acquisition and interception capability of these weapons helps to limit the threat posed by the manufacturing and use of other types of cruise missiles developed in other countries. The capability to detect and destroy such weapons in flight is the only effective means of retaliation.

It should be noted in that respect that the Americans are not the only ones to benefit from any improvement in guidance technology flowing from this testing. Canada also benefits from it since our pilots take part in monitoring and detection operations.

The changes on the international scene were not all positive. For one thing, the political climate in Russia by no means guarantees stability. The recent election revealed the rapid emergence of a strong right-wing movement. Statements made by the Russian leader, Mr. Vladimir Jirinovski, do not bode well for the future of detente in the event of a return to power of the military.

This would not be the first time an opposition party formed the government following an election.

While the break-up of the U.S.S.R. may have helped to ease international tensions, it has also had a secondary, more worrisome effect. With the crumbling of the Soviet empire, new nuclear powers have emerged. The resistance of the Ukraine is telling in this regard, although it has shown some signs of co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, there have been doubts about how effectively the weapons stockpiles inherited by these republics are controlled and how they are used. As well, a number of other countries either have nuclear weapons or are doing everything they can to become nuclear powers. China, India and Pakistan already have nuclear arms. Newspapers regularly report on the efforts of several other countries, including Iraq, to develop nuclear weapons. We should not dismiss the potential threat of all of these countries deploying short-range cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads.

The best way to counter this threat is still to refine detection and interception methods and this is one of the positive aspects of the testing process we are discussing here today.

You may recall that the cruise missile can be used as a conventional load delivery vehicle. The focus should be on developing it for this purpose. The planned tests are particularly interesting since, according to the information supplied by the Americans, they will focus on a new guidance system designed to improve strike reliability and accuracy. There is hardly a need to improve the accuracy of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear arms. To the extent the new geopolitical reality demands alternatives to nuclear strikes, there is a greater need to develop more effective conventional arms.

In that field, to perform better means to be more accurate. Strategists are doing more and more to provide their armies with the means to intervene safely but firmly from a distance. This is the only way to hit a limited but strategic target while sparing the neighbouring civilian populations. The cruise missile is the perfect weapon for the job. During the gulf war, we were able to see the dramatic results obtained with the Tomahawks, those cruise missiles carrying conventional weaponry. Any test aimed at improving this very accurate weapon is therefore part of a strategy especially suited to post-cold war requirements, and I do mean post-cold war.

Moreover, there are practically no direct economic costs related to the cruise missile tests conducted within Canadian territorial boundaries. If such costs exist, they are met by the American government under existing agreements. Conversely, these tests help, at least indirectly, the Canadian Department of National Defence to have access to facilities where military technologies developed here in Canada can be tested.

What about environmental costs? Those costs are, for all intents and purposes, non-existent if one considers the very low frequency of the flights, merely a few over the course of one year, and over 3,000 kilometres of a nearly empty territory.

But we must also take into consideration of the political side of the issue. Who is asking us to conduct these tests? We must not forget that the United States is Canada's best friend, its only neighbour, its safest ally, its major trading partner, and a great nation which speaks the same language as that of most Canadians. Let us not forget that the United States is the pillar of NATO and NORAD, the two pacts which ensure our security. If there ever was a nuclear threat to Canada, something we hope will not happen and probably never will happen, though there is a risk, to whom would Canadians and Quebecers turn? I do not even have to give the answer, because that answer is so obvious. Should such a situation occur, we would be quite relieved to be able to rely on an ally equipped with cruise missiles which it would have developed at its own expense.

Moreover, abrubtly ending the long sequence of tests conducted since 1983 would adversely affect the value of our commitments. I wonder how the Prime Minister would explain this change of attitude to our old friends the next time he goes to Washington. Even if he were accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I think he would have a hard time to provide an explanation.

I can understand and share this will to distance ourselves from the Americans when it is in our interest to do so, but that is not the case in this instance. Quite the contrary, we have everything to gain by co-operating with the United States to ensure our own protection at no cost to us.

I respect the arguments put forward by those who oppose these tests on the grounds that detente is here to stay, but I do not agree with them. I hope they are right, but I would like to be sure of that. And since no one can be sure, we must consider the issue of security. In any case, I do hope that whatever decision the government makes, it is a decision based on rational and well-thought out motives. Many would be concerned if the government simply tried to say no to those tests, to please an anti-American lobby which still has some roots in certain parts of the country.

More importantly, to decide to oppose the tests would be a sudden and inconsistent move.

We are still waiting for the white book on our defence policy which the government promised to table. Where is this review of our military and international role? What will be the duties assigned to our air force? What will be the role of the navy? What will be the mandate of our army? What will be the nature and the level of our involvement with NATO and NORAD? What will be the level of our commitment in Europe? Are we going to maintain our peacekeeping operations? If so, under what conditions, with what equipment and by which criteria? What contribution are we going to ask of the United States regarding the

protection of our security? Are we going to continue to stay under its protection?

All these questions and many others are still without an answer. So, why make an isolated and hurried decision which, by breaking the continuity of our commitments and by being totally out of character, would look like a sudden impulse and would be considered as such.

Therefore, the Bloc feels that under the present circumstances, there is no need to put an end to the co-operation which characterizes our relations with our neighbours. A review of all those issues will have to be undertaken, a detailed and comprehensive exercise which, I hope, will also include a large public consultation.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Question and comment, Mr. Speaker.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway to ask a question?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Since there is no unanimous consent, we will resume debate.

In the spirit of fairness and co-operation in the House, the Chair will ask members of the Reform Party who will speak.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, it was our understanding that the next period is to go to the Liberal Party. Do you wish us to speak at this point?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Yes.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

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.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Before I take the parliamentary secretary's point of order, I would like to ask the assistance of the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. Is the Chair to understand that members of the Reform Party will be splitting their times to ten and five?

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I apologize for not having made that point earlier.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Liberal Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. It is our intention on this side of the House to split our time into 10 minute speeches with five minute question and answer segments because there are so many speakers who want to get on. It is my humble suggestion and I regret I have not had time to consult with the other side of the House. We know where the Reform is coming from.

I would suggest that if there is agreement, consideration be given for all sides of the House to go immediately to 10 and 5 which would allow considerable discussion and more speakers who feel quite strongly on both sides of this issue and that would be facilitated.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC

Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary secretary speak on behalf of all parties when he proposes a 10-5 split until 10 o'clock or midnight, depending on whether the sitting is extended or not?

As far as we are concerned, we have no objection to the other parties proceeding that way, but our first three speakers will make 20 minute speeches that will each be followed by a 10 minute question and comment period.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I will say to the hon. member for Richelieu that the Bloc Quebecois can certainly proceed any way it chooses.

On the government side, the parliamentary secretary tells us that the length of speeches will be 10 minutes, followed by a 5 minute question and comment period and I think the Reform Party will proceed in the same manner.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Mr. Speaker, since it is very clear that, in the opposition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of cruise missile testing and so is the Reform Party, I hope that the NDP will be heard early in the debate, otherwise we will hear only from those who say yes to the Americans and yes to cruise missile testing.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I do not believe that is a point of order. I believe that is more a matter of debate.

If I could resume now with questions and comments for five minutes.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

St. Boniface Manitoba

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his presentation.

I have two questions to raise. First, a number of people have been telling me that the original rationale for cruise missile testing is now passe. I wonder if he would care to comment on that.

The other question I want to raise, which is equally important, is with respect to complaints. I must confess that I do not have the whole picture necessarily but I was led to believe that there had been some concerns voiced by the Government of the Northwest Territories and some people in the territories. There may have been others.

If that were the case and recognizing that the Reform Party is unusually sensitive, according to their spokespersons, in listening to the people, how would he react to that.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I very much appreciate it.

He is probably fairly accurate in saying that the original reasons for which the missile was conceived are now passe. However, I think the experience in the gulf war demonstrated a very valid and useful purpose for this type of weapon. It enables the intrusion of the weapon into the area in question. There is reasonable assurance of destruction and it does the job without risking a pilot. If it is necessary for the missile to be committed that is a good reason for having it in the arsenal.

With regard to complaints I take very much to heart what the member is saying. When I made my comments about no complaints from constituents I was referring to constituents which are represented by Reform Party members of Parliament.

I understand there are complaints from the Northwest Territories and I am already on record as saying that if the people who are complaining about the missile test wish to present their complaints to a parliamentary committee I would be more than willing to participate in such a hearing so that I could hear both sides of the story directly from the people concerned. We should take their complaints and concerns into account.

Cruise Missile TestingGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

Mr. Speaker, the reason originally for the cruise missile testing in western and northern Canada was because the terrain of that particular part of Canada closely resembled that of the Soviet Union.

Since the Soviet Union no longer exists and since the war areas in the world have been comparable to that of Iraq, being deserts, would it not be more appropriate for cruise missile testing, rather than being in Canada to be in areas comparable to that in Nevada.