Debates of Jan. 26th, 1994

Cruise Missile Testing

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in addition to areas like the Persian Gulf there is also the danger of threats from people who have snow on the ground for a reasonable portion of the year. I mentioned earlier the volatility of areas in the former U.S.S.R. I do not in any way claim they are contemplating attack on the west but it is possible that by some aberration this could happen.

I think that the testing, both in desert conditions and in the north in snow conditions, is a valid project.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue which is certainly one that affects all of us in Canada. More specifically, it affects the constituency which I represent, Beaver River, which includes CFB Cold Lake where the cruise missile lands when it completes its flight.

I have witnessed this first hand from the very beginning in my teaching career when the testing first started in the early eighties.

Let us all realize that an extremely important function of any government is to provide for security for the state and its people. Security for Canadians is determined by several geopolitical factors, the principal one being our close proximity to the United States. The deterrence of future threats, no matter how remote they may now appear, can best be accomplished with the help of allies and Canada must be seen as a reliable, effective team player in such alliances.

In short, our security remains bound up with that of our alliance partners. No matter what anyone may say or think, it is essential that we keep the bond we have with the United States.

While the end of the cold war and of the east-west confrontation may offer us unique opportunities to move toward a more peaceful world, regional conflicts and violent nationalism should cause us to pause and reflect.

Let us talk about the actual cruise itself for a few minutes. This is an unmanned self-guided aerodynamic vehicle, continuously powered by air breathing jet engines. This is a vehicle which can travel all on its own. I had a student who saw it come over the trees and came to me and said: "Miss Grey, you can't imagine what I just saw". It was an incredibly moving experience for him. This was several years ago when he was still in high school.

Flying at low altitude, the cruise missile is difficult for radar to spot in ground clutter. The detection requires expensive systems with sophisticated processing capabilities. This complicates developing an effective defence against the cruise missile, which is one of its greatest strengths.

Conventionally armed cruise missiles are equipped with terminal homing systems to achieve even greater accuracy. It is important that we note that because the cruise can employ radar or laser returns to fix on the target. Terminal homing provides improved guidance where the nature of the target or warhead is delivered very accurately wherever it is aimed. Future versions of the cruise missile can be expected to display higher speeds, greater manoeuvrability, longer range, lower radar and other signatures, and penetration aids such as electronic counter measures.

We see there has been a life and a history to the cruise missile. Even though the cold war is officially over, I think we realize there are still some hot spots, which we touched on yesterday, around the world. We have not achieved peace world wide.

Cruise missiles appeal to the military because they have an incredibly broad range of application. Its possible deployment in large numbers is something that makes it very effective as does its potential to combine quality and quantity in one weapon system and its ability to be modified. So you see it is not just a one-system vehicle, it has all kinds of assets of which military analysts speak highly.

The Department of National Defence listed the following objectives for this particular project, and I name some of them.

"They could fly this over a route of realistic length and width with a representative standoff launch distance to the landfall. Also they could fly the cruise over relatively smooth terrain with various types of surface cover to include snow and ice."

My hon. colleague addressed this earlier in questions and comments. They need to be able to look at the terrain and they need to fly the cruise missile in winter over ice-covered and snow-covered lakes. They need to fly the cruise missile and test it in operationally realistic weather conditions.

Let me assure all hon. members in this House that during the period of January 1 to March 31 in northeastern Alberta, Beaver River in fact, they will find realistic weather conditions. I live exactly one hour south of CFB Cold Lake where the cruise lands. I can guarantee that when they evaluate their missile radar altimeter operation over snow, trees, and ice-covered lakes, that is exactly what they get in Beaver River.

The flight path, as was mentioned earlier perhaps, includes a corridor that is 2,600 kilometres long through the Northwest Territories down through the Mackenzie Valley and through the

northeastern corner of B.C., across Alberta and into Saskatchewan over the Cold Lake-Primrose air weapons range.

I have just mentioned the timing of it but I will stipulate between the two. When it is launched from a B-52 and goes into its free flight and is operating strictly on its own, the cruise missile has to operate within that time element of January 1 and March 31. Captive-carries, that cruise missile which flies all the way attached to the B-52 bomber, is not restricted to that timeframe so it can take place at other times without that narrow window of January 1 to March 31.

They are allowed six flights per year. So when people say the cruise missile is always flying over northern Canada that is simply not true. Under this particular agreement of Canada and the U.S. they are only allowed six per year.

Let us take a couple of minutes and talk about the chronology of this. The first flight was in March 1984. To date 23 cruise missile tests have been conducted in Canada. In February 1986, a couple of years after this program got started, a cruise missile crashed immediately after launch from a B-52. The engine did not start. The federal government imposed a temporary halt to the cruise missile testing program.

In January 1990 a test was designed to test the capability of the Canadian F-18 aircraft to intercept cruise missiles, certainly an important part of the test regime. Also the American U.S. F-15s and F-16s were involved in this. Unfortunately as probably most members in this House will recall, in January 1990 upon take off one of the Canadian F-18s exploded causing critics again to renew their calls for an end to cruise testing in Canada. I remember that well because of course that CF-18 had taken off from CFB Cold Lake to do the intercept. It certainly was a tragedy.

As with all things and of course with the debate we had yesterday, do we cancel these projects because one tragedy occurs?

Again, as was mentioned earlier, in January 1991 there were several cruise missiles used and deployed in the gulf war. The Iraqi conflict demonstrated that guided weapons were very precise and damage to civilian structures was much less than in previous conflicts. We need to realize very strongly that just because the cold war has ended does not mean that peace has broken out across the world. I think we need to be preventive in realizing that some of these hot spots do still occur and therefore we need to realize that testing is essential.

We could ask the rhetorical question: Can this cruise missile be used without testing it at all? I think not. I would like to pay tribute to the communities of the tri-towns of Cold Lake, Grand Centre and specifically CFB Cold Lake. They work hand in hand with the Americans regularly. We have a military procedure in the spring called maple flag where any number of Americans come up and participate in a rendezvous or military exercises at CFB Cold Lake. We have experienced good relations with the Americans. It is also good for our area's local economy.

Further as a member of the G-7, Canada is obligated to take part in some of these things. We need to realize that as a member of the G-7 we cannot simply slide in under the arm of the Americans and say we will let them do everything, that we will take no part and no responsibility.

Again may I re-emphasize in closing how important it is for our Canadian pilots to be involved in this testing of the cruise missile and that it is essential for the proficiency of our intercept systems in our F-18s.

Finally I would just like to pay tribute to Colonel Dave Bartram, the base commander, and the members of 4 Wing at CFB Cold Lake for a job they do well. We must understand how important our military is and so we take our hats off to them. I think it would be wise for the government to continue this good relationship which we have with the Americans.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read for the hon. member for Beaver River an argument the defence minister of the day made in April 1993 in a letter to Project Ploughshares. As an extract it states:

If collective security is to work. . ..the international community must have effective. . ..military means at its disposal in order to dissuade potential aggressors and, should the use of force be necessary, to ensure that it is effective and that the risks to allied military personnel are minimal. Over the past three years, our support for collective security has taken Canadian forces personnel into harm's way. It is likely that they will continue to be deployed in dangerous situations which cannot always be predicted in advance and, due to the spread of sophisticated weaponry, our personnel will continue to be at risk as they try to prevent war or restore peace to unstable parts of the world-.Given these circumstances, the renewal of the Canada-United States Test and Evaluation Agreement serves Canadian interests. Cruise missile testing, part of our long-standing tradition of defence co-operation with the United States, is a contribution that Canada can make towards ensuring that the international community has at its disposal the military means to support collective security. Testing in Canada provides a unique set of conditions and will help to ensure that these weapons are effective and reliable.

I suggest to the member that this is an extraordinary statement which clearly implied that the Canadian government was willing to envisage the possible use or at least the threat of use of nuclear weapons against states that in most cases do not even possess nuclear weapons. This would be a blatant contradiction of Canada's official nuclear non-proliferation policy which includes support for negative security assurances, that is, international commitments not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

I wonder if the member for Beaver River would care to comment on that position.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a better memory so that I could remember all that the member said, but I did take a few notes.

It is important for us each to realize in this House that Canada is not going to be in the business of firing off the cruise missile. Canada is offering its unique terrain, the ice, bush, and snow-covered lakes, to be able to give assistance to the Americans so that they can test these things.

Yes, there have been a couple of dreadful crashes in the history of the cruise missile. But when we think about that, how much safer is it to happen in a very sparsely populated area in northern Canada than to have it happen in a very densely populated area where there may be risk of life?

The hon. member also mentioned that Canadian personnel are in danger. There is not one person in Canada's military today who does not realize that his life is always in danger. When one is in the military one prepares for that risk. Many of our military members are far too young to remember World War II, but when they got a chance to participate in the gulf war it came home to them very quickly, very soundly that their lives always hung in the balance. Our Canadian military are absolutely prepared and know that there is a risk involved in anything.

I do not think the member's argument holds true that we should just completely negate any relationship we do have with the United States. Canada is not going to be taking a forward or aggressive role in this but we are helping as a member of G-7 with our allied countries so that we can work together on their behalf.

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I must say that her reasoning seems rational to me, just as rational as the reasoning of my leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. In a certain perspective, they seem to make a lot of sense.

It is difficult to argue against what was said in either speech. Given the military capabilities of Canada, its striking power, it is clear that should we come under attack we would require American support. We do have agreements with the American defence and an almost perfect co-operation with them, and I am pleased about that.

However, there is a moral side to war, and that is what bothers me a little. Clearly, from a technical point of view, given our mutual agreements, our defence capability in co-operation with the United States, it is logical, defensible and coherent.

However, when I consider that the cold war has recently ended, that we are entering a period of disarmament, that we should strive to achieve peace, I have some doubts about allowing the tests we are talking about today, and that will be conducted over the Northwest Territories. Before I can be convinced that we should accept those tests, I will need to hear more arguments.

There is also the environmental side which remains an unknown quantity to me. When will we deal with the environmental aspect of this issue? You are asking me to hurry up, Mr. Speaker. I would like the hon. member to comment on the environmental issue and on the cost of airplane crashes and losses of military personnel.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is very little time left in the question and comment period, so I will ask the hon. member for Beaver River to be brief.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked for my response. Unfortunately, he took all the time for my response.

Let me just finish this up by saying that if we are going to achieve peace we must be prepared for war. This almost seems like an anachronism sometimes but it is very, very true that we must be prepared. The enemy is world-wide.

As we heard last night in our debate we realize that it is not just conflict from state to state. There are internal rumblings. In fact, my friend is causing internal rumblings within this country. So we see that the enemy perhaps is from within. Let us make sure that we are ready for conflict thereby hoping that we never have to engage in it.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I rise to debate this issue of the cruise missiles I find myself in some senses caught in a historical time warp. The cruise missiles almost never existed. They were discussed during the Nixon-Brezhnev Moscow exchanges in 1972. You will find them covered in detail in the Vladivostok summit discussions between President Ford and Mr. Brezhnev in 1974. They are included in the unratified SALT II treaty which, signed by the United States and the then Soviet Union, has probably entered into customary international law, even though not ratified.

I mention the almost or what might have been simply because the proposal then was to trade the cruise missile in which the Americans had advanced testing skills, against the Soviet Backfire bomber in which the Soviets had a considerable advance over comparable American weapons. In fact modifications were made on both sides and under the SALT II treaty the cruise missiles were limited to missiles not having a range in excess of 600 kilometres and launched from land-based and sea-based launch devices.

The issue came as you may remember, before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985. The Supreme Court ruled in essence though on procedural grounds rather than substantive grounds that cruise missile testing was not unconstitutional. It is back again now and it comes against a backdrop of Canada's achievement as a world leader in disarmament. There has been a move since World War II when the use of nuclear weapons clearly was not illegal, was licit under the rules then existing to a situation where to a very large extent many jurors feel that the use of nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.

There is a law case that is sought to be raised by a group of American lawyers, graduates of President Clinton's law school, testing this issue before the World Court and the Canadian government, I believe the previous government, was asked if it would intervene in the case if it should develop.

I am mentioning simply the background, which is the world movement for the progressive development of international law achieved through UN general assembly declarations in which Canada led through a series of multilateral conventions such as the Moscow test ban treaty, the non-proliferation treaty and the moon treaty and outer space treaty which Canada contributed to signally, as well as a series of bilateral treaties between the United States and the then Soviet Union. SALT I is one of these, of course, but most recently there was the intermediate range nuclear forces agreement of 1987 between President Reagan and Secretary Gorbachev.

It reached the stage where, in a work published in 1989 by me and my distinguished friend the then president of the World Court, Nagendra Singh, we posed the question whether the user of nuclear weapons was illegal per se. That is an issue that may come before the World Court shortly.

This is simply a preface to the fact that the present American President has made massive steps since his election to fill in the uncompleted gaps in the outlawing of nuclear weapons. He is moving to extend the IMF treaty to short range nuclear weapons and to the intercontinental ones which are only covered to a certain extent laterally by SALT I and its interim agreement on protocols limiting the numbers of strategic warheads. President Clinton is a man of peace and committed to nuclear disarmament.

This brings me to the present issue that nuclear warheads are not involved in the testing of the cruise missiles in Canada's northern territories. Clearly there is no violation of international law involved.

The issues of political choice and wisdom are what is involved here. I hesitate to draw on my experience as a 19-year old airman and flyer. I have always understood that the tests were authorized in Canada simply because we replicated the northern approaches to the then Soviet city of Leningrad. I have flown over these northern approaches from Archangel to Leningrad in a civilian capacity. The comparison to northern Canada is very close.

However, that is all gone. The cold war is gone. What we have is an agreement entered into in good faith with a friend and ally whose fulfilment is being asked by that friend and ally at this stage. There is a case, the strongest of cases, for observing agreements if one has entered into them: pacta sunt servanda.

On that basis, unless there were an issue of violation of international law or some other high policy reason, I would say one should observe international agreements. I would hope that our government will speak to President Clinton, would encourage him in his move towards completing nuclear disarmament and raise the questions about whether the tests are necessary.

I would warn against any temptation to a unilateral repudiation of an engagement made because it invites unilateral reactions of the same nature. There are American senators who wish to make changes in American law to cut down on obligations that the United States and Canada have entered into in trade and other matters. Retaliation in these sorts of unilateral actions is something one has to bear in mind.

There is a case for the Canadian government to speak candidly to its friend, the United States, and say: "Do you really need these? We will go along nevertheless in good faith if you do".

I am persuaded by two further arguments. One is the dependence, the settled expectations, of communities in the north that have built local economies and local employment on the continuance of these testings. There is a concept of due process that settled expectations should not suddenly be displaced unless there is a good reason to the contrary. I do take note of the economic interests and concerns of people in those northern regions who are represented by some of the members opposite.

I also take note of the views of our colleague, the member for Western Arctic, whose views as published I have read. It is clear that there objections by native communities to these tests and on the usque ad coelum principle. To translate simply, if they own part of the terrain below then they own the air space above. To that extent the tests, as an unnatural user without the prior courtesy of asking permission, are something to be avoided at all costs.

I would suggest strongly that if the tests continue the Canadian government should consider asking the United States to provide compensation for the infringement of the property rights of the native people through whose territory it passes. I understand the objections of the native people. It may not have been relevant in 1983 but the juridical conscience of the

Canadian people and others has evolved and I think we should be respectful of property rights of this sort.

My message is very clear on this. We are committed. It has been one of the main points in Canadian foreign policy formed by a succession of Canadian foreign ministers and distinguished ambassadors for disarmament. I recall General Burns, Doug Roche from the Conservative side and Alan Beesley, my friend who is a career civil servant. We led in nuclear disarmament. We should lead. We should encourage the American president who has a forward looking and constructive view there.

On the cruise missile test, I do not think it is a major issue. For nuclear disarmament groups I would recommend attention to the potential World Court project launched by the Ileana group. I would recommend attention to the concerns of our native peoples and on that basis I am prepared to continue to support the continuance of the missile tests at this time.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member opposite for a very well crafted and informative presentation. I do not have a question. I merely wanted to rise and tell him it was a very illuminating and very well crafted presentation.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra. He gave a partial answer to my question but I still do not know if he is for or against those tests. Since he is from the Vancouver region, I would like him to tell us if his constituents gave him their opinion on that issue. Did he speak with them, did he get any information, can he tell us if yes or no his constituents agree with such testing?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I spoke about this very often with my constituents. On that point, I can tell you that I had agreed, before I was elected as member of Parliament, to be legal counsel before the International Court of Justice of The Hague if ever there were legal proceedings on that issue. And that does not go against what I just said. I tried to bring a balanced contribution to the debate; yes or no is too radical. Under the present circumstances, I think we should be allowed to say: "Yes, respect the agreement with the United States; it does not violate international law and does not go against our foreign policy objectives." If we want to change the international policy on disarmament, I believe there are better, more efficient ways of doing so. And I still hope Canada would take legal steps before the International Court of Justice of The Hague, and enter into what would be the case of the next century, to determine if nuclear testing is legal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and I would like to point out first of all that while I welcome this parliamentary debate, I think that certainly what the member for Winnipeg South Centre promised one year ago and committed the Liberal Party to and called on the Conservative Party to implement was in fact public hearings to enable members of the public to be heard, whether it was peace groups, aboriginal peoples or northerners, on this important issue. While it is important that politicians be heard, I would have hoped that the Liberal government would have given an opportunity to ordinary Canadians to be heard.

There is a more fundamental issue here and I want to put the question directly to the member for Vancouver Quadra. It is a question about political integrity and political honesty.

I have a document which was sent out by the Liberal Party of Canada dated September 15, 1993. It is a document which is in response to a questionnaire from End the Arms Race. In this document is this question: "Canada is allowing the United States to test its nuclear capable cruise missiles in Alberta as well as low level flight training by NATO in Labrador. Will your party cancel further testing of the cruise missile and low level flight training in Canada?" The answer of the Liberal Party of Canada, presumably including the member for Vancouver Quadra, was as follows: "Liberals have opposed further testing of the cruise missile since 1987. We will bring this testing program to an end".

I want to ask the member for Vancouver Quadra what happened to that promise?

We know very well that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of cruise missile testing.

What happened to that promise of the Liberal Party of Canada to bring an end to these tests and what happened to the integrity and the honesty of the Liberal Party of Canada in making that commitment to the people of Canada?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I see no contradiction there. It may be an issue of tactic, including diplomatic usage. It would be in my view a voie de fait, or tort unilaterally to denounce an agreement duly made and continued by predecessor governments with a foreign government.

I place great stress as my party does on friendly persuasion. We are not faced with George Bush as the president of the United States. We are faced with a president who had the same teachers I had and who is committed to nuclear disarmament and with all due speed. We will use friendly persuasion in Washington. We have a new relationship with Washington that is not one of

subservience or of following the line. We will be the candid friend as we were in the days of Lester Pearson.

My answer is that while honouring the obligation, duly established and conserving international law in that respect, we will use friendly persuasion with the United States and I think we will have a friendly reception.

The nuclear weapon tests in my view are anachronistic in military terms. They are out of date. They are not armed with nuclear warheads. I respect that there are consequences for local populations. I have tried to ascertain the views of the native peoples. I have suggested correcting what I think was a deliberate oversight, a discourtesy to them, by the providing of compensation.

Let us face it. There is a new wind in Washington. It is not George Bush, it is not the revived cold war. Let us go to work and ask them to change and using friendly persuasion in the Lester Pearson way I think we can achieve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe there is still time remaining in the period for questions and comments. I would like a very brief supplementary question to the member.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time has expired. The members on the government side are splitting their questions into 10 and 5. I realize for all members that 5 minutes is not a lengthy time but we have certainly exhausted that 5 minutes of questions and comments relative to the last speaker.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some pride that I rise for the first time in this House. I would like to thank the electors of Rosedale for confiding in me the responsibility for speaking in this House and for this first time on such an important motion. I will not take the liberty of the traditional introductory speech for members to speak of the characteristics of my riding. I hope my constituents will forgive me that liberty, but I understand that the rules of this debate are that we are to restrict ourselves to the question at hand.

I would like to begin by saying it is clear from all the debate, from everyone in this House, that we are all concerned with the same matter. That is to say the peace and security of this country and the security of Canadians wherever they may be in a world which is becoming increasingly interdependent and in many ways more complicated and in some ways more threatening.

In that context it seems to me we have two debates before us today. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra referred to a time warp. I would say there is an element of a time warp here. There is the old debate about the cruise missile, the one with which we are all familiar. That debate is about whether we will allow territory of our country to be used to further the development of a nuclear weapon for our neighbours to the south.

Many of us were very troubled by such a concept. With what we can seriously call the end of the cold war we saw no need to pursue such an agenda. I personally would not argue in favour of such an agenda even if it were to support the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in terms of respecting international agreements. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is a sophisticated international lawyer. He knows that agreements may be interpreted and discussed.

I would put it on a somewhat different ground. I would suggest there are new considerations we must look at. There is a new agenda. There are new issues which we must examine in the House to decide whether it is opportune today to permit continued cruise missile testing. I would like to review those considerations.

For me the end of the cold war has not made an easier, simpler, safer world in which to live. Various members have referred to that in their speeches today. I see a world in which we have new forms of dangers to our country and to our citizens.

Let me put it in terms of our country. There are new countries. There are new threats. There are the Libyas and the North Koreas which have been mentioned before today. In addition there are whole groups of people, I would suggest, in this new technological age who have access to sophisticated weaponry which in previous times was restricted almost exclusively to the great powers. It was mentioned by one former speaker in this debate that many smaller groups with less sophistication and with less money can have access to technology which could represent a serious threat to the integrity of Canada and, I would suggest, to our soldiers who may be serving in conflicts around the world.

I listened with great interest to the debate yesterday on Bosnia-Hercegovina. One clear point from that debate was that Canadian troops, men and women, would be engaged in world enterprises for a long time in the future. The United Nations is developing its format for the way in which we will continue to participate in peacekeeping activities. We owe it to those men and women to ensure that they have the best training and the best technological information available to them to defend themselves.

That raises the question which I think is really the one we must have before us today. In the new environment in which we live where threats are different from what they were before, in this time when there are threats from new forms of enemies, will the testing of this unusual and very sophisticated weapon, which is no longer restricted to nuclear capacity but to conventional

capacity, enable Canadians to defend themselves better from the threat of the use of such weapons against them in the future?

From the reading I have been able to do there is a double reason for these tests. One is directed toward enabling the United States to perfect this weapon. The other equally important one about which we must ask ourselves or draw attention to today is to enable us to understand how these weapons work and to provide adequate defences to them.

All of us in the House watched the gulf war, saw the defence of Tel Aviv against the Scud missiles and watched the Patriot missiles work. If by watching this missile work and participating in these tests we would enable Canadian forces either in this country or elsewhere in the world to defend themselves against a similar attack by a similar missile, would not the test of such a missile have been worth while? That is the question that I ask myself. That is the question I would direct to the Minister of National Defence.

I urge the government, the minister of defence and cabinet to consider this matter. The minister of defence has clearly said that they are considering the matter. If they can assure the House and assure themselves on the best technological and military advice they have that as a result of these tests we will be obtaining information that will enable us to defend ourselves in this country or our troops to defend themselves elsewhere in the world, we should allow this testing to go forward.

It seems to me that would be in the spirit of what I would call the new agenda of defence that is necessary in a world where new threats are evolving with which we are not yet familiar from sectors with which we are not familiar and from technologies that are being developed and falling into the hands of many disparate groups about which we have no idea in today's context.

That is the new agenda of the debate. It is no longer a debate in respect of the cold war and the testing of a missile device which, in the sort of star wars concept, is to deliver a knockout blow to the Soviet Union. It is the testing of a sophisticated weapon in order to determine our own ability to defend ourselves against it.

It is my personal belief that testing will enable us to do that. I believe it would be in our interest as Canadians both in our own country and in respect of our troops serving in the United Nations or other capacities abroad.

Finally I would like to leave members of the House with one last thought. As other members have pointed out this is a global issue. It is a matter of geopolitics and our relationships with our American neighbour to the south. I will cite the member for Western Arctic, the hon. Secretary of State for Training and Youth. In 1989 she said: "What Canada needs is a defence policy, not in terms of cruise missile tests or nuclear submarines but in service of an overall security strategy emphasizing economic, environmental and non-military elements of security"?

It seems we have an opportunity, if we expect to allow the Americans to continue these tests, of recognizing that we will get benefits from them. Let us press them as part of that package to participate in the Arctic council proposed by the government, by this party. Let us propose to the Americans, who are the ones presently blocking it, the development of an Arctic council that will recognize the participation of the peoples in the north who must live with northern developments. They should participate in their future and have a say and thereby enable this as a peacemaking, as a defensive measure to go forward and enabling Canada to participate more fully in a area of the world where we are fortunate enough to have an important border and important neighbours.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his remarks with which I generally agree. I think he is right in saying that there are two debates: the old one and the new one in the context in which we now find ourselves.

I must admit that, in the old debate, I was personally and completely opposed to cruise missile testing because, at the time, they were only adding to a nuclear arsenal already horrible and terrifying for the whole planet.

In those days, in that old debate, as soon as something new happened in the area of armament, there was always someone in the intelligentsia, in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada, who rose in disgust claiming that we should stop pouring huge amounts of money into armament. That was part of the old debate and at that time, you would have found me on the barricades or marching to protest against cruise missile testing.

In this new debate, with the end of the cold war, there still remain areas of the world which pose a threat for democratic nations like ours. There are countries that rule through terrorism, choking off democracy. We saw an example of this during the gulf war and we saw that with the kind of interventions called for by the UN, we can avoid massive killing of civilian populations. This kind of equipment and its sophisticated guiding mechanism makes it possible to hit a target dead on, with a minimum of civilian casualties.

I now think, in this new debate, that to protect democracy as such, in our country and everywhere else, it is important to be equipped with the proper tools, no longer aimed at massive destruction, but at delicate surgery to excise those threats to democracy.

My question is this: After what I have said, do you agree that some countries should increase their activities against terrorism on the international level by using this type of surgical tool to strike down those anti-democratic offenders? Do you think that

such a tool could be more useful rather than less useful in the present debate?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to say how much I am glad of the support that the member of the Bloc has given my argument, but I can tell him that he is following my own line of thought.

I was rather of the same opinion. In the old debate, I was completely against the tests but the situation has now become much more delicate and complex. One of the complexities that must be taken into account is precisely the element of terrorism linked to the multiplication, the proliferation of sophisticated weapons, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in his speech before the House.

So I come back to my proposition: Can the government give members of this House in the present debate the assurance that the tests in question will improve that type of defence against those weapons? If the government can give us this assurance, I think it would be our duty to accept its explanation and to carry on with the tests until we have the best possible defence in a world which has become more complex, more difficult and to a certain point much more dangerous.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With less than two minutes remaining for questions and comments, I recognize the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to take a bit more than two minutes, but I will not abuse the rights of the Chair and will summarize a letter I received today.

My riding is in northwest Saskatchewan on the border with Alberta and contains the Saskatchewan side of the Primrose Lake weapons range, as well as the home of the Canoe Lake Indian Band which some years ago placed a claim on the lands now occupied by the Department of National Defence for the testing of various weapons and training systems.

The member talked about involving northerners and I assume aboriginals in the decision making, et cetera. Therefore I would like to ask him a question relating to a letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada yesterday by the Chief of the Canoe Lake Band.

The chief indicated that the Government of Canada rejected the claim of the band to those lands but that the Indian Claims Commission established to inquire into this claim and others had recommended the acceptance of the Canoe Lake claim on the Primrose Lake land.

The letter to the Prime Minister today asks the government, in addition to considering the testing of the cruise missile, to consider the report and recommendations of the claims commission that the claim be accepted. The chief of the Canoe Lake Band indicates that as in similar situations in Canada the Primrose Lake air weapons range testing program has been very detrimental to the people who live nearby the Primrose Lake air weapons range and therefore this program is quite detrimental to them.

Would the member indicate whether he is prepared to accept the invitation, put on the table by the Canoe Lake Band, to approach the Prime Minister to discuss as participants in this process the acceptance of their claim?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two elements to the member's question and I would like to start by going back to the finish of my talk which, given the time constraints, I did not have time to address properly.

The thrust of what I was trying to say about the Arctic Council-and I would recommend this to the hon. member because it does not directly relate to the Canoe Lake Band to which he refers-is that it is a proposal which has been espoused in Canada for a long time. It would involve the Soviet Union, Alaska and all the countries and participants in the Arctic Circle. It would enable the peoples of that area, including the aboriginal peoples of the Soviet Union and other countries in the Arctic area, to get together and co-operate.

As a backbencher what I was urging on the government was that if the testing was to go forward an opportunity might be seized to say to our American counterparts that if they proceed with these tests we would like to see some movement on the development of the Arctic Council. This might go some way toward addressing the concerns of the member for Western Arctic to which I referred in my talk.

Forgive me but I am not familiar with the specific concerns of the Canoe Lake Band and the facts to which the member referred. Therefore just in the light of what he told me, it would seem that the position is more than reasonable to say that we should pursue with all vigour an examination of the legitimacy of the claims and do our best to make sure of the result in the light of the debate and see if we can make sure that anybody living in the area where the missile might or might not be tested would be ensured of the full preservation of their rights as was suggested by my hon. friend, the member for Vancouver Quadra, in his intervention.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

On my first formal speech in this House, I am pleased to extend to you, Mr. Speaker, my most sincere congratulations on your election to this distinguished position.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who have been appointed to be your substitute in the Chair. I can assure you all of my full support and co-operation as well as that of the other members from my party.

Allow me to also take this opportunity to pay my respects to the constituents of the federal riding of Verchères who, by putting their trust in me on October 25, have given me the privilege of representing them in this House.

I have been a fervent sovereigntist since I was 15-and as we saw earlier, sovereigntist is used by the hon. member for Beaver River as a synonym for "enemy within". In those days, I never imagined that some day I would be representing my fellow citizens in the House of Commons, the symbol par excellence of the Canadian federal system. But I have the pleasure of belonging to a political party, namely the Bloc Quebecois, whose raison d'être happens to be to advance the cause of Quebec sovereignty in this House.

Of course, Quebec has not achieved the status of sovereign state yet. It is still part of this vast country we call Canada. And if I start my speech on cruise missile testing by emphasizing this concept of sovereignty so dear to my heart, it is simply because in certain spheres the testing issue is viewed as an attack on the sovereignty of Canada.

There are people who claim that renewing the Canada-U.S.A. umbrella agreement and periodic authorization regarding cruise missile testing within Canadian territorial boundaries is akin to an unacceptable surrender to the imperatives of the foreign and defence policy of our neighbours to the south, an infringement upon the political sovereignty of Canada.

[An hon. member]

Exactly.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

But since any sovereign state must be able to protect its borders, we must recognize that Canada's political and territorial sovereignty depends to a large extent on its participation in the collective security system provided under NATO and NORAD.

We must recognize that Canada does not have the resources required to defend its huge territory by itself.

Canada has been a member of NATO since 1949 and of NORAD since 1958. Cruise missile tests are not strategically tied to NORAD since this organization's mandate, namely the surveillance of North America, is essentially defensive in nature. The use of the cruise missile must be seen in that context mainly as a counter-offensive measure. However, cruise missile tests improve detection and interception techniques that fall under NORAD's mandate.

Since Canada does not stockpile strategic arms and bases its defence policy on the collective security system put in place under NATO, it must volunteer to co-operate with its allies in putting in place a strategic deterrent force if necessary.

Under this approach, Canada was asked in 1983 to approve cruise missile tests on its territory despite the fact that this nuclear deterrence strategy was not directed linked to NATO's strategy. This was aimed at maintaining a strategic balance between the two superpowers in a then bipolar world.

The international situation has changed since the dismantling of the Warsaw pact and the Eastern Bloc. Nevertheless, the nuclear threat has remained and become even more complex with the arrival of new nuclear powers. I am thinking of Ukraine and Kazakhstan, for example. In its 1992 defence policy, Canada recognized that the geopolitical environment had changed considerably and that the global balance of power was no longer based on a bipolar structure. We have witnessed the gradual emergence of new nuclear powers, which are often very politically unstable. Under such circumstances, it was risky for Canada and its allies to question the collective security system their defence policy had been built on since the days of the cold war. The cruise missile is a weapon perfectly suited to the new strategic context and illustrates our current collective security system.

The tests requested by the U.S. administration are not designed to encourage the escalation of new nuclear technologies. The START I and START II treaties already limit the number of deployed missiles. This ceiling cannot be exceeded either in terms of the number of missiles deployed or in terms of striking force, that is the size of nuclear heads.

It must be pointed out that this type of missile can be used for conventional-type missions, which is certainly not without importance. Even though nuclear weapons were not used in the Persian Gulf, that conflict demonstrated the effectiveness of very localized attacks on well-defined targets. We saw cruise missiles used to destroy armed command posts, conventional or chemical weapons storage sites and even conventional, chemical and nuclear, or should I say potentially nuclear, weapons manufacturing plants. Had it not been for these missiles, massive bombing strikes would undoubtedly have been undertaken to destroy these targets. Heavy conventional bombing strikes would have exacted a very high toll in human lives since the majority of the sites destroyed were located in densely populated areas. Because this type of weapon was used, the heavy bombardment which could have resulted in a great many civilian casualties was not necessary.

Although some cruise missiles launched during the Persian gulf war did in fact miss their targets, there is no question that they proved to be an effective weapon. But the fact remains that certain flaws inherent in the design of the cruise missile resulted

in targeting errors. New technologies have been developed to correct these design flaws and the United States now needs to conduct tests, and hence extend new missile development programs. The purpose of the testing over Canadian soil is to improve and perfect the cruise missile guidance system.

These tests are conducted no more than two or three times a year over sparsely populated areas. The impact on the ecosystem and on local populations is therefore minimal.

It should also be pointed out that these tests do not involve any outlay of Canadian public funds, since under the terms of the umbrella agreement, the United States covers all costs associated with tests of this nature. Therefore, the testing would not lead to any increase in our national defence budget.

The Bloc Quebecois, while firmly opposing the continuation of the arms race, cannot ignore the unstable international environment since the dismantling of the former U.S.S.R. and the potential threats now facing the world. NATO recently wanted to show this spirit of co-operation which should normally exist in the aftermath of the cold war, by making a gesture of openness to the countries of eastern Europe. Mr. Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in Russia, replied that admitting these countries to NATO could only lead to a third world war. The rise of the extreme right in Russia and the growing number of nuclear powers mean that it would be imprudent and irresponsible to lower our guard and not to follow global strategic developments closely.

Under these circumstances, Canada cannot afford to call into question its defence commitments to its allies. Its international credibility would be greatly affected as would its special relationship with the United States. A deterioration in political relations between Canada and the United States could have negative economic and trade consequences, at a time when it is already rather difficult for us to have the spirit of the free trade agreement respected and its various provisions enforced.

The present international environment therefore requires us to maintain the collective security system structures to which we belong and as a result Canada must keep its commitments in this regard. Nevertheless, we should follow international developments and adapt our defence policy to new global realities if necessary. On the basis of these new realities, we might even be called upon to review our international defence commitments. It is therefore essential that the government make a formal commitment to repeat annually the exercise in which we are participating today and to submit the question of cruise missile testing to Parliament for discussion and approval every year.

In closing, I wonder about the government's intentions for Canada's defence policy. The speech from the throne announced that Canada's defence policy would be redefined. Barely a week after the speech from the throne was read, even before the government's defence policy has been defined and a public debate has begun on this new defence policy, the government is asking Parliament to deal with two issues that directly concern Canada's defence policy, namely the presence of Canadian UN troops in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia and the authorization of cruise missile tests on Canadian territory. Does the government intend to make a decision on these two important questions before defining a new defence policy or is it just trying to sound out the opinion of the House of Commons on two fundamental aspects of this defence policy before it says where it stands? Although we are glad that the government is consulting parliamentarians on these two important issues, we can well wonder why this exercise is going on at this particular time. This government initiative smells of improvisation and seems like a diversionary tactic.

This debate on cruise missiles is only meaningful to the extent that it is directly related to the Canadian government's defence policy. Since we do not know what the government intends to propose for redefining Canada's defence policy, we think that no real debate can take place and no final decision on cruise missile testing on Canadian territory can be made until the government tables its white paper on defence policy.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member of the Bloc Quebecois for the remarks that he just gave. I have a few comments on the back part of the speech and perhaps a question or two.

The member has indicated clearly his position and the position of his party as enunciated a little earlier by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the Leader of the Opposition.

However he asked a question at the end of it. Specifically he said: "Why are we going through this exercise now? Why the consultation at this period of time?" It is fairly clear that during the election campaign the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, which is now the government, indicated that this would be a different type of Parliament.

I have been here since 1988. This is only my second term, but I can certainly tell the members that the type of consultative approach that has been taken in just the first 10 days of this Parliament is vastly different than what this place has seen in the past. This is an effort by this government to try to change the way this place does business.

Yesterday we had a debate in this House concerning the role of Canada's peacekeepers specifically in Bosnia-Hercegovina. I think it was extremely productive.

The first item on the news last night was that this place, which had been far too partisan in the past, far too pro forma in just rubber stamping government policy that was decided in the PMO and in that inner circle of the cabinet, was going to be a little different now.

The consultative process which started yesterday and allows members from this side of the House, backbenchers who are not members of the cabinet to voice differences of opinion on key policy areas is refreshing.

We are having this debate today because the Prime Minister has indicated that as we develop our policy on issues such as this and put our legislative framework together, members from all sides of this House will have a right to input. That is vastly different from what I have seen in my last five years in this place.

I conclude by indicating that the comments the hon. member and others in this House made today will go a long way in deciding the process by which we develop a long-term policy.

The comments the member made that perhaps we should have a defence white paper is an issue that has seized members of this House and the Canadian public in the past. I believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have indicated that in these matters of defence policy it is not good enough to wait until the entire review is done. Some time early in the session we must ask the members of this House for some input.

I am pleased to see that the hon. member believes in the consultative process. I look forward to his comments as the government gets under way with committees on the comprehensive review of national defence policy.