Madam Speaker, yesterday and today we have experienced a rather unique situation, a somewhat historic moment, as we had the opportunity to speak freely on two issues. Yesterday we talked of Canada's role as peacekeeper and today we are discussing cruise missile testing over Canadian territory.
Yesterday we talked of Canada's peace efforts abroad, our contributions to this particular process. Today we are discussing cruise missile testing. It seems to me that the two go hand in hand.
When people talk to me about Canada's armed forces they always talk about our soldiers with a great deal of pride. They also ask, increasingly so, very tough questions such as: What is peacekeeping? What is peacemaking? Is there a difference between peacemaking and war? Do our soldiers have different terms of engagement under different circumstances? Are they secure? Are we doing everything we can to make sure that they can do the job they are being asked to do?
As I understand the situation, what Canadians are telling me is that they want us to continue to make that contribution but they want us to continue to make the contribution within a different context. They want to make sure that our soldiers, our armed forces, are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve because they are putting their lives on the line to create a better society and very often it is in very troubled countries.
When we talk about cruise missile testing it seems to me that we need to ask ourselves very fundamental insightful questions as well. I do not pretend that I know all of them but I am going to raise a few. What was the original rationale for this particular agreement and is it still valid? Some people will argue, and I can appreciate that.
We must honour our commitments. I totally agree but, clearly, when the situation changes, it is important that we review our commitment.
All I ask is, is the original rationale still valid, or is it equally responsible to sit down and ask whether the reasons that motivated that particular agreement are such that they necessitate that kind of response?
I want to ask another question. This is one that is troubling me as well. Can we ask other countries of the world to reduce armaments, perhaps not to manufacture certain kinds of armaments, and undertake such an initiative that is cruise missile testing? Is there not a potential contradiction if we were to do that? People will ask.
It is important as well before we reach a final decision to consider seriously not only what parliamentarians are saying in this House but what other elected people are saying to us, particularly those who are affected. I am talking about the provincial and territorial governments. I am talking about other governments where we have elected representatives. We need to consider very seriously what the people are saying, because this has an impact on them and we have a responsibility to at least listen to what they are saying.
I appreciate so much that we were given the opportunity yesterday to talk about our contribution to peacekeeping and peacemaking and that we are talking today about cruise missile testing, components of our defence policy. We have been promised a thorough review of where we are at and where we might go. I see this as the beginning of that particular process.
I am going to make one final comment because I know I have other colleagues who want to address this issue. We are being called upon to exercise leadership. Perhaps some people would characterize leadership as to lead, to build, perhaps to refine armaments-and I am not suggesting that there is not a role for that-but we need to consider it very seriously and with great sensitivity. We also need to lead to disarm, to promote peace. Clearly I prefer the latter.