Debates of Jan. 26th, 1994

Cruise Missile Testing

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, when this proposition surfaced for the first time in 1981 within the restrictions imposed by cabinet solidarity I opposed it tooth and nail. I still oppose it. I appreciate very much the opportunity the government is offering us to debate the matter on the floor of the House today.

The reason for opposing comes from two beliefs. One is that Canada is committed to arms control, to disarmament, and as a peace loving and peace promoting nation it should not lend its territory for the testing of weapons which could carry nuclear warheads and which could launch a disarming nuclear strike against another country.

We all know that Canada has a fine record in the world for opposing any form of nuclear warfare. We voluntarily refrained from using nuclear weapons. We eliminated from Canadian territory the stationing of nuclear weapons. Canada was among

the first nations to sign the non-proliferation treaty and the nuclear testing ban treaty.

Considering this record how can Canada lend itself to allowing the testing of a weapon which could be used to deliver nuclear warheads? In addition, now that the cold war is over the question must be asked who is the enemy, as I asked earlier the member for Beaver River. Why should such a weapon be used?

It is somehow ironic this debate should take place today when last night President Clinton said in his speech: "Russia's strategic nuclear missiles soon will no longer be pointed at the United States. Nor will we point ours at them". He went on to say: "Instead of building weapons in space Russian scientists will help us build the international space station". Mr. Clinton stressed last night that ultimately the best strategy to ensure security and to build a durable peace was to support the advance of democracy elsewhere.

I submit that cruise missile testing is a relic of the past. It is a relic of the cold war. It is from the days when there were potential threats to security from nuclear weapons in other countries, when Canada's terrain was considered a facsimile of Soviet Union geography. However today the political situation has changed considerably as other speakers have said before me.

My second reason relates to security in the nineties. The concept of security must change from an exclusive stress on national security to a much greater stress on the concept of people security as was indicated in the 1993 UNDP report on human development.

I suggest the real threat to security comes from other quarters. It comes from unsustainable management of natural resources, fisheries, forestry, water shortages, desertification, climate change, ozone layer deterioration, decrease of arable land and reduction of forest covers.

It comes from population explosion in some parts of the world at the total rate of 92 million people per year, with resulting pressures on finite resources coupled with increased insecurity of food production. It comes from lack of support for international proposed legislation such as the Law of the Sea. It comes from megaprojects in parts of the world which are launched without proper environmental impact assessment. Last but not least, it comes from chronic poverty in Africa, Central America, South America and so on.

It seems that rather than spending time and resources on testing missiles in 1994 national governments should devote energies to the agenda of our times, namely how to apply our energies against hunger, ignorance and poverty on planet earth.

Peace is not threatened by the lack of cruise missiles. Today global peace is threatened when governments pay attention to the wrong agenda, and this item today is part of that wrong agenda.

The agenda we should be paying attention to consists of how to achieve food security, how to achieve family planning in the developing world, how to achieve sustainable natural resources exploitation, how to achieve safe management of toxic waste, how to achieve the prevention of climate change and the concomitant consequences in many regions of the world, how to achieve the restoration of water quality, how to achieve the protection of biodiversity, and how to achieve the elimination of poverty in many nations of the world community and a better distribution of wealth. All these factors together could lead or contribute to global insecurity, to global instability, and possibly to conflict.

I repeat that global peace is not threatened by the lack of updated cruise missiles. That is not the issue. We must worry about the threats I mentioned a moment ago. In that report on human development of 1993 by the UNDP, you will find a quotation which I think is quite relevant to this overall discussion: "That preventive diplomacy is needed to defuse tensions around the globe before there are blow-ups".

It means that instead of lending support to archaic solutions and outdated agendas, the developed industrial world should instead invest its time and energies in eradicating the causes of potential conflict.

Therefore, in conclusion, I urge the Government of Canada to deal with the potential threats to peace. They have nothing to do with military hardware, but everything to do with environmental damage and social economic disorders which stem from increasing poverty, increasing dislocation and which could lead increasingly to threats to global security.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for the passion with which he spoke. He talked a lot about the environment and certainly his goals are admirable. I commend him for that.

I would like to touch on some of the points he made respecting the possibility of nuclear war. Who is the enemy? Why should we be testing a weapon that can carry a nuclear warhead? Is it not better to support the advance of democracy than it is to prepare for war? In many respects I believe the gentleman is right. Certainly liberal democracies do not fight wars against one another.

It is also a sad truth that many of the countries in the world are not liberal democracies. We still have many countries that are ruled by men who have no compunction about killing people and invading other countries.

In trying to answer some of those questions I think we have to test weapons that can carry nuclear warheads because we will also be, at some point in our future sad to say, faced with the possibility that we may have to intercept those types of weapons as they come into our air space. I think it is very important that we have defensive capabilities against those weapons.

I also point out that there are many places in the world, such as the former Soviet Union-the hon. member was talking about who is the enemy-and I think many places in the former Soviet Union, particularly now with the rise of Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russia, should all give one pause when we talk about how peaceful the world really is.

Having said all that, and considering there are many places in the world that are not likely to become liberal democracies any time soon, countries that have the capability to produce nuclear weapons and all kinds of other weapons, does the hon. member agree that we should be prepared to intercept those types of missiles that could come from some of those countries?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be glad to answer the question by the member for Medicine Hat.

If the cruise missile were a weapon of interception, he would have a valid question. But the cruise missile is not a weapon of interception, it is a weapon of attack, it is a weapon to deliver, if necessary, warheads. Therefore his question is invalid because he is addressing the wrong weapon.

As to intercepting weapons which come into our Canadian space, we would have to use other weapons but certainly not a cruise missile because that is not the intent or the qualification of that weapon. It is used to attack and deliver nuclear warheads to certain specific targets in other countries.

The member for Medicine Hat failed to demonstrate to us that this is the weapon he would rely on in order to intercept, but more importantly he failed to identify the enemy for us. He very vaguely mentioned that there could be an attack. I urge him to identify the enemy for us. I submit to him that collectively the enemy is us and our fear. It is time to stop talking like cold war cavemen and cavewomen because we are living in another decade.

The agenda has shifted very rapidly. It is no longer the agenda on how to prevent a strike or an attack that we should be concentrating our time and energy on. It is how to prevent the elements in the global community that have to do with, as I mentioned, poverty and environmental degradation, that have to be addressed and the energies of governments need to be focused on that agenda.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me once again to rise in this Chamber and take part in the debate on the policy of government which has implications for our defence policy.

First, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the leadership of the government for giving all members of this House the opportunity to express our views on this topic. Much has been said this afternoon about our defence policy. Some believe it might be redundant. Others say there should have been a policy set out which we could have debated.

I served some time in provincial legislatures and in this House and I believe this is what most members of the House with whom I have associated over the last number of years wanted to do. Today we are putting forward our views. We do not all agree. We all have different opinions. This is allowing us to state our opinions and hopefully to give the minister, the department and the government our ideas. It make it easier for them to come forward with a policy which at that time will be debated. That is what we are doing here today.

We all appreciate this new and open policy toward the House of Commons, this great institution to which we have all been elected. All hon. members agree that the respect being shown to us by the government is certainly in contrast to what we have seen here over the last number of years.

The question which has been put before us is a complex one, a question which cannot be answered in the course of a one day debate, or even in a week long debate. It is a question that arouses all sorts of passions in all hon. members and indeed in the public at large.

The question has been asked today, why we would talk about this when we have signed the agreement with the United States? We have an agreement that has been talked about here by people who are much more eloquent than I. If for some reason we cancelled the agreement or we agreed to let it go ahead without debate such as this I am sure that all hon. members who have been in public life any amount of time would realize the uproar this would cause in the media and in the public at large.

I mentioned yesterday during the debate on peacekeeping that the time has come when we must assess the role of our armed forces both in Canada and abroad. We must provide them with the direction which is necessary in a troubled world. We must have a multi-level approach in our defence policy and we must always be sure that our defence policy is sufficiently adaptable to conform to a changing world.

As I noted yesterday, the world has vastly changed from what it was five short years ago. When the Berlin wall came down and the communist regimes in eastern Europe fell there were those among us who proclaimed that peace was at hand and that total victory in the cold war belonged to us. Unfortunately not all of the world's problems have been solved these past five years.

World tensions which have come and gone in cycles seem again to be on the rise.

There are many places around the world today, as has been said, where military activity is going on. This has been mentioned many times today. Relations between some of the former republics of the Soviet Union are hostile to say the least. The situation in the Persian Gulf area is, as we all know, far from settled.

Several other trouble spots have appeared around the world causing all of us great concern. There is the new nationalism and old ethnic hatreds arising in many parts of the globe and who is to say in what place or by what spark a new and dangerous conflict may be touched off.

What I am saying is that the changes we approached with such optimism only five years ago have not automatically brought about a new world order, nor have they brought about a guarantee of peace in our time. We always hope that Canada will be at the forefront of seeking the diplomatic solutions to the world's problems, but we must, I fear, be prepared in case these solutions fail.

I do not envy the Minister of National Defence for the decisions which he will have to make in the coming year or two because the sad state of the Canadian economy and the huge deficit is going to cause problems with long-range planning and with maintaining the defence establishment which we have at the present time.

I know from his remarks over the past few days that the minister is struggling with the long-term defence policy and with the decision which he will have to make. That is why I urge on this matter that we take a long-term look at the question and not force precipitous action on the minister, action which may not be in the long-term interest of Canadians.

I spoke yesterday about the fact that the high point of Canadian prestige abroad came at the time of the Suez crisis in 1956. The high point of Canadian military power was at the end of World War II when this nation had mobilized and fought as a full participant in that conflict.

Since that time our military capacity has declined and we have come more and more to reply on the protection and the technology of others for our defence. We were from the beginning a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and a member of the North American Air Defence Command. However we have allowed ourselves to be more and more dependent upon others, particularly the United States, for the technology which we need for defence.

Looking back for instance at the cancellation of the Avro Arrow fighter plane in the late 1950s, we might be able to see a starting point toward our eventual military decline. Since that time our military technology has been tied m more and more to the United States and we have depended on them to provide us with the largest advances.

I do not intend to engage in a philosophical debate over whether or not we should be that dependent. What I am saying is that the practical realities of geography and economics dictate that our defence policy be tied closely to theirs. It is, in the words of a former Prime Minister, like sleeping with an elephant; you are very aware of every little move.

As we look over the deficit projections for the next year or two, it becomes rather obvious that we will be unable to start many new initiatives in the defence field ourselves. Therefore we will remain as long as we retain our present defence and diplomatic policies very closely tied to our American friends.

That brings me to the main point of this discussion: Should we or should we not allow the testing of cruise missiles over Canadian soil?

What I attempted to do by way of my introductory remarks was to establish my position rather pragmatically. We should allow the tests to continue while the Minister of National Defence, this House and the relevant committees study our overall defence policy. It would be folly to cancel these tests now when we do not know where our long-term policy is going and we do not know where the political situation around the world is leading us.

After saying that, I hope hon. members do not take my remarks as those of a hawk, to use that old term. Rather I hope they see them as the legitimate concerns of someone who watches the world scene and our armed forces with a great deal of interest.

We need to develop a clear direction and a clear defence policy. For the moment I think it would be in the best interests of this nation if the agreement were allowed to continue until such time as our government has decided on our future defence policies.

As I stated yesterday the fundamental cornerstones of Canadian foreign policy have not changed substantially over the years. We are still committed to defence and collective security with our allies. We remain committed to arms control and disarmament and we are committed to peaceful resolution of disputes.

We must not therefore take any hasty action which would fundamentally alter our policies without that careful examination I noted earlier. I know other hon. members hold strong views in this matter and I look forward to hearing them along with all the others.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is the first speaker today to look at the issue from an angle that is close to my heart.

The hon. member said we need a multilevel approach in our defence policy.

Which brings me to a concern I have that I would like the hon. member to address.

We know that these cruise missiles will be guided by a computerized system that will recognize terrain and shapes thanks to artificial intelligence technologies. This extremely sophisticated software is under research and development in the United States. The tests to be conducted over our territory will allow Americans to check the quality of their programs. In return, contracts will be awarded to suppliers of the U.S. armed forces.

Talking about a multi-level approach in our defence policy-I am coming to my question-I think we should focus not only on the military but also on the economic aspects of all this. Jobs are tied to these technologies. Will the Liberal government ensure that some of these jobs are created here in Quebec and in Canada?

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

I thank the hon. member for his comments and question and the point he has raised.

We talk about sharing our territory for testing. Two years ago Canada sent troops down to California to train for the Somalia peacekeeping mission. As the hon. member says, they have developed this sophisticated equipment and the money goes to the American contractors to build it.

In the new global community that has developed over the last decade I believe it would be possible for us to get involved in this or other types of operations to get Canadian companies some of the contracts to build the sophisticated high-tech instrumentations. That is where our future lies. We talked about this on another matter, an economic matter. Canada's economic future is in things like these high-tech, innovative telecommunication systems. Yes, I believe that Canada should have a part of that on a multilevel. Other countries are going to want it too. I believe it is as much ours as it is anybody else's.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his clear comments on this. It seems that many of the speakers tend to get confused on the issues or some of the rationale they are using.

The previous speaker whom we heard from that side of the House seemed to want to make this into a nuclear issue. I hasten to point out to the hon. member that we have many delivery systems in our own military capable of delivering nuclear weapons, if it was the choice to do so. It does not have to be just the cruise missile.

The cruise missile is not a nuclear weapon. It is simply a deliverance system. We saw it being used in the gulf war for conventional weapons in such a way as to be deadly accurate so that innocent people did not get injured.

Earlier we heard the hon. member for Mississauga West speak emotionally. I understand and I accept that she spoke from the heart and not necessarily to the facts of the matter.

What particularly interests me and is kind of curious is that yesterday we heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway speak with regard to the Bosnian issue where it was suggested that we should have air strikes in defence of our humanitarian aid in order to ensure that it gets through. Yet today the same member spoke against cruise missile testing and it is the very system that can make accurate delivery of the kind of strikes he was calling for.

I would like to thank the hon. member who just spoke for being clear and concise and for not trying to cloud the issue.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke for his remarks. I believe, as I said earlier when I opened my remarks, that there are some very different opinions here. I have my opinions and am very pleased to be able to bring them forward.

The argument can be made that the cruise missile does or does not carry nuclear weapons. My point is that we have an agreement. We need our allies and we need to make exchanges with them. Until this House, this country and this government decide down the line how our defence policy is going to go forward, I do not think we need to get into any arguments with our neighbours.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, allow me to join my colleagues in congratulating you on your new position and wishing you all the best. You can count on the co-operation of the entire Bloc Quebecois.

Before getting to the core issue, I would like to say a few words about the relevance of this debate. I have been constantly surprised since the beginning. First surprise, the minister's speech. During the first five minutes, we were led to believe that he supported the tests and then, for the next five minutes, that he had doubts and later, that he did see the tests as useful after all. In the end, he said he would abide by the wishes of the House.

But behind all this wondering on the part of the minister, one could detect a desire to gain time. So I wonder.

On one hand, I had only praise for the government yesterday with respect to yesterday's debate because of the need to re-evaluate our peace commitments by April. But in this case, it seems to me that we could have had a more global debate on our military role, our international commitments and especially our agreements with the U.S. I cannot help but wonder, because the government does not seem to have a definite policy in that

respect and it is gaining time by holding this debate to sound out the House. We have people asking us: "Where are those Liberals who, during the last campaign, were waving their little red book as if they were disciples of Mao and, whatever the question, invariably answered, and their leader was the first to it: It is in the red book. Check in the red book for economic matters. Check it for defence issues. It is all in there"? The red book contained all the answers.

Here we are now, and both the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois start off by saying that we are open to a change in the member participation process, but let us not go overboard in the other direction and have day-long debates like yesterday and today. And there are three more planned for next week. Three months have gone by since the election, and the people are still waiting for the red book to be implemented. We have had a very vague, non-specific throne speech, yet the government has no bills to table.

It has become a joke among the jobless in my riding. The joke goes like this: What is the difference between a federal Liberal member and an unemployed Joe? The answer is: Unlike the Liberal member, the unemployed once had a job. Has it come to the point where our elected Liberal members do not put pressure on their government any more? Have they lost faith in their red book? What is happening? In the debate today, they are contradicting one another. Where are the big guns of the party? They are quiet. What is the use of debating? The opposition has a clear position. The Reform Party has a clear position and so does the NDP. Incidentally, I am surprised that they are not taking part in this debate. Perhaps are they going to later. I certainly hope so.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to tell the hon. member that we have been trying to participate in this debate for three hours; consequently, it is not right to suggest that we do not want to participate. We are trying. We want to participate because we are the only ones who oppose the cruise missile tests, since the Bloc supports the government's position.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion, it is not a point of order from the hon. member.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can understand the hon. member's position since I had to go through this for three years. I sincerely hope that he will express his views because he represents a party which, over the past three years, has left its mark in the history of our country and, on occasion, of Quebec as well.

I want to conclude by discussing the relevancy of this debate, and especially the lack of a government position. When I refer to the government, I mean the ministers concerned. I am surprised that there is no information from the department of National Defence. We submitted requests to the public affairs service of that Department to obtain documents. The department was willing to provide us with all the required documents. Yet, because of government directives, we were not able to obtain those documents. I therefore ask the minister-I see one sitting over there-to convey this message to the Prime Minister's Office. If you decide again to hold such a debate, on this issue or any other one, I would hope that you will be more open-minded so that we can have access to all the necessary documents to have a real debate. We are not playing for time. We really want to express our views and we want the government to do the same. Both sides must give their opinion, but they must also have the opportunity to refer to all the documents which can influence our national defence policy.

I will now get to the subject of this debate. I would like to recall the excellent comments made by the hon. member for Saint-Jean when he referred to the old line and the new line on letting the Americans do their tests. At the time, and in fact today, the NDP has not changed its position although the world situation has changed dramatically-there was still a nuclear threat, and allowing such tests was seen as encouraging arms proliferation. Today, we have to look at this from an entirely different angle. The global context has changed, as was said earlier by members for the Reform Party and our own leader. It has changed in that we no longer have two blocs confronting each other but the occasional isolated conflict.

As the hon. member for Saint-Jean said earlier, if we use these tests to enhance our security and concentrate more on ways to defend our democracy, we are less likely to put the lives of men, women and children and our armed personnel at risk.

Earlier today, the hon. member for Portneuf compared the tests and giving the Americans permission to proceed with the seat belt in a car. You may never have an accident, but it always better to put on your seat belt. We approve of the tests as a way to maximize the security of our territory and also on the basis of our military agreements with the Americans and important economic and security considerations.

I could also have quoted what was said by the hon. member for Champlain or the hon. member for Lotbinière, who told me last night that he was reading a very important paper on the subject, so we have the hon. member for Champlain and the hon. member for Berthier, who is also a member of our regional caucus, and we had time to outline a five-point agenda with which I will conclude my speech.

I would like to get back to what was said by the hon. member for Verchères, when he made a connection between Canada's sovereignty and permission for these tests. He said, and I quote: "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."

And he went on to say: 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. 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."

That is what the hon. member for Verchères said in his speech earlier today, reflecting what was said by the leader of our party, who also referred to the connection between these tests and environmental issues.

I quote: "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."

Referring to the political aspect of the decision, and I think that is very important, he went on to say:

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. . .but 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.

That is what our leader had to say this morning about the political aspect.

He also made a very interesting comment on the strategic aspect, which was well received by our caucus, when he said:

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.

These were some short and straightforward comments made by our leader and a number of new Bloc members, either in their 20-minute speeches or in pertinent questions to members upon conclusion of a speech.

Since I have five minutes left, I would also like to consider some statements made by other members. I am surprised they are not in the House. The statements were made when they were in the opposition, but it seems as soon as people sit on the other side, there is a kind of alchemy that takes place which turns red books into blue books.

It happened to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who said: "End cruise missile testing now. There, I have said it." It is as though he regretted having said that, back in March 1987. Does he still feel the same way? If this debate is so important, why do these people who took a stand not rise in the House today to reiterate their commitment or explain their reasons for taking a new approach to these agreements?

There is also the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the leader of the Liberal Party, who said: "Will the government confirm"-he was referring to the Conservative government then in power-"that Canadians are diametrically opposed to using Canadian territory for these dangerous tests?" Does he still feel the same way? If he does, that is the position the government will take. So why bother with a debate? Is it just window dressing?

I am surprised that the party's so-called big guns are not taking a position. However, I did see the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who has always taken a stand, and I am glad to see he is about to do so again.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who embodied Liberal party policy when he was in the opposition, is not taking a position today in what was announced as a crucial debate.

Madam Speaker, since I have three minutes left, I will wind up my speech with three main arguments in favour of cruise missile testing.

First, Canada has always considered cruise missile tests as an opportunity to demonstrate our support for collective defence.

In the past, Canada authorized these tests because it felt that our security was inseparable from that of our allies within NATO.

Second, the agreement for weapons testing is an important element of our relations with the United States, which are close, complex and unequalled in scope. We are partners under the most important bilateral trade agreement in the world. We share a whole gamut of political, social and cultural values, and we are allies in the defence of North America and Europe.

Third, these tests bring financial benefits to Canada. The cruise missile tests are the raison d'être of the weapons testing agreement. The agreement now includes a clause on additional costs, whereby Canadian taxpayers could save thousands of dollars each year by reducing the costs of tests conducted by Canada in the United States.

In my opinion, those are three conclusive arguments which confirm that the position set forth by our leader in his speech this morning, which was again a remarkable speech and which my colleagues supported throughout the day, is a clear and logical position which is in the best interest of Quebec and Canada.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very impressed with the speeches that have been given on this issue so far, both on the pro and the con. I want to thank the hon. member who has just finished speaking.

Some of the speeches tonight have been very vivid and to the point. I would like to address part of the speech given by the hon. member for Davenport when he asked a very important question. He referred to the threat to our security and he asked who is the enemy.

Who is and what is the threat to the security of the child who has been molested? What is the threat to the security of the women who has been raped or the senior citizen who has been murdered?

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all respect to the hon. member, I think the rules provide that the 10-minute question and answer period is to comment on the previous speech or to ask questions of the member who has just spoken, not to comment on speeches that took place earlier in the day.

I respect the fact that the member is new member, but I think the purpose of the 10-minute question period is to deal with the speech that has just been given and not with an earlier speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is quite right. Would the hon. member for Crowfoot care to continue discussions and comments on the prior speaker's remarks.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that this debate or this discussion is open for all comments.

The real threat to our security that we must guard against lies in the unwillingness of the individual to respect the legal and human rights of others. As long as we have people like Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin and the other tinpot dictators we have seen through the annals of history, we will have to protect ourselves against their unwillingness to respect the rights of the human individual.

That begins right here in the House. I have watched the operation of this House on television for a number of years and I have watched it since I have been here.

When hon. members in this place do not have the tolerance to respect the rules of this House and then violate those rules, that in fact is the threat to the security of the individual. It is simply a degree. One magnifies that degree and it becomes the real threat to the security of individuals, communities and nations.

I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken this question. It is on a different issue. During the cold war we had the two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. They controlled the majority of the nuclear weapons in the world. Since there has been the break up of the Soviet Union, I would like to ask the the hon. member if he feels that there is a greater threat of nuclear attack upon the nations of the world now or before?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

I first wish to thank my colleague for his comment and for his question.

I think that he has touched on a point that can divide people and bring some to ask themselves questions.

Are we still in a cold war and, if not, since the Russian empire has disintegrated, why should we allow these missiles? Some are asking themselves this very question. Others will wonder whether we should pursue a kind of technological race to make war when we should spend our money elsewhere. It is always a question of war versus peace. But, when the hon. member talks about the cold war, we must never forget that, instead of two blocs facing each other, there are now around the world several potential hot spots, often plagued by fanaticism.

I do not need to remind you of the Iraqi leader's behaviour during the gulf war or of certain statements made in Lebanon. Those countries, which happen to lie very close to each other, have nuclear weapons that can be launched instantly.

Is the threat immediate? I would say no, but this guarantee of security can only serve the interests of democracy in Canada, Quebec, the United States and the rest of the western world.

In that sense, the two opposing blocs have been replaced by several localized conflicts that are not controlled as strictly. Ten

years ago, each of the two blocs controlled half of the world, but today, in some places, there is no control from one bloc or the other.

That is why, as my colleague from Saint-Jean was saying about the old and the new way of thinking, we must look at these tests in the new global perspective. We must see this testing not as a yearly event that pushes us closer to a nuclear war but as a way to enhance security, since the missiles tested are not necessarily equipped with nuclear heads.

Also, civilian applications are eventually found for the sophisticated technologies often developed by the military. Will there be civilian applications in this case? We can hardly see any at the present time, but could the computerized systems, the maps charted and the aerial photos taken from satellites tracking these low-level missiles be used for other than military purposes?

This does not represent, like it did in the past, a stepping up of the confrontation with the communist bloc. It is not as far reaching since, as a result of disarmament initiatives and various treaties signed recently, the number of missiles is limited to 460. This is a thousand less than previously. They will be replaced as they become obsolete, but the number will never exceed 460. In that sense, the tests are done more to refine the missiles, to make them more effective, better targeted, and therefore better able to spare human lives.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by congratulating you and your colleagues on your appointments. I assure you you can count on my full co-operation at all times.

I also want to give credit to the government for arranging this debate today and the debate on peacekeeping yesterday. This is a welcome departure in involving the whole House in policymaking before a policy decision is made or before an agreement is terminated as I hope the case will be in this instance.

I especially welcome the opportunity to speak on the question of cruise missile testing. As hon. members might know I have opposed the testing of cruise missiles from the very beginning in 1983 and on all previous occasions when this matter was before the House I voted against the testing.

Since the cold war is now fortunately no longer with us I am even more opposed than I have been in the past. Why is this so important and why am I so opposed?

First of all the cruise missile is an extremely dangerous weapon. It is small. It is easily concealed. It is mobile. It is accurate. It is capable of avoiding radar detection because it flies close to the ground under the general radar beams and pickup. It also can carry a nuclear or a conventional war head.

Since these missiles can escape detection by radar they can be used for a successful first strike and as a result totally knock out the opponent's weaponry.

I originally opposed cruise missiles because in my view they contributed in a very serious way to the arms race. They contributed to international instability and they were also, in my view, contrary to the principles of the non-proliferation treaty which was signed and heavily supported by Canada.

Canada originally agreed to test these weapons for the United States by an agreement concluded in February 1983. It was said at that time that the United States wanted to test these missiles in the northwest of Canada because the northwest of Canada had a terrain similar to that of the northern Soviet Union.

In February 1988 the testing agreement was automatically renewed for another five years and in 1993 it was continued by the former Conservative government for a new 10-year agreement. Since 1983 there have been 23 tests, about two or three per year, with the most recent test in March 1993.

I want to make clear however that this agreement between the United States and Canada is not part of our NATO obligations and was never part of the NATO agreement.

I said I was originally opposed to cruise missile tests and I am now more than ever opposed.

In the last Parliament on January 24, 1989, our Liberal Party took a position against further cruise testing. I quote the first paragraph of the document which was issued by our party on January 24, 1989: "The Liberal Party of Canada today called for the Conservative government to finally shake off its cold war mentality and cancel further cruise testing in Canada as a tangible and positive gesture to improving the climate of east-west relations and ongoing disarmament negotiations". This is under the sponsorship of the leader of the opposition at that time.

This was a change of policy. Up until that time the Liberal Party had supported cruise missile testing. I had not personally supported it-I opposed it-but the party did support it. I felt I had some part in bringing about this change in party policy.

I also want to point out that our party at a major policy convention in 1986 passed two important resolutions. I will not read them because time is short but they are in our resolution book of 1986 opposing cruise missile testing.

The reasons for the change in our party policy given by our leader in 1989 were the following:

First, the cold war was over.

Second, as a result, the requirement for terrain similar to Russia was no longer necessary since Russia was no longer our enemy.

Third, continued testing could contribute to a renewed arms race, not necessarily with Russia or the Soviet Union, but in other parts of the world including China, North Korea and other countries.

I must point out that there are 15 nations on the threshold of developing nuclear weapons. Missiles are the principal delivery system for those weapons. Both are essential to a successful strike.

How can the United States and Canada, if they continue to test these weapons, say seriously to these 15 nations that they should not develop these nuclear weapons? By the way, they are urging the 15 countries to sign the non-proliferation treaty. How can they urge those countries to do that when they are continuing to test new weapon technology themselves that can deliver a nuclear weapon? They cannot do that very well.

Not only will the continuation of cruise missile tests give justification to other countries to develop new dangerous weapons, but once tested and developed, they will become potential products in the international arms trade.

After the Iraq war we discovered that 90 per cent of the weapons used by Iraq against our own troops were sold to Iraq by the five great powers: the Soviet Union; China; France; the United Kingdom and the United States.

It is well known that most of the weapons purchased by poor Third World countries are developed, tested and sold to them by richer First World countries. They do so because in developing those weapons, such as the cruise, they have to develop a surplus of them to make it economically feasible and then they sell them to other countries that might want to buy them.

The United States and NATO now have a considerable military edge over the former east bloc countries and other countries that are their potential enemies. We do not need any new, improved cruise missile to maintain that edge. It will only justify as I said the development and spread of these weapons to other countries.

Some people have argued in this debate that the cancellation of this agreement will offend the United States. President Clinton and the United States government acknowledge themselves that the cold war is over. They have worked with Ukraine and the Soviet Union to reduce the weapons in those countries. As a matter of fact they have just concluded an agreement whereby they will no longer point weapons at each other. They have closed bases in the United States. I have been in various cities in the United States where Mr. Clinton is closing bases and they talk about the peace dividend.

When we co-operate in the furtherance of the arms race, which is what testing of cruise missiles is, we put in jeopardy our Canadian role as an honest broker internationally. We put in jeopardy our credibility as a peaceful nation.

Yesterday we debated peacekeeping and Canada has a long and very enviable role in peacekeeping. We are considered one of the outstanding nations of the world with respect to peacekeeping. We also have an excellent reputation with respect to international development. When we proceed again with cruise missile testing, we put the credibility of those other very good qualities into jeopardy.

I have here the hon. member for Nunatsiaq and I have spoken with the other hon. member from the Northwest Territories. It is over their territory that these missiles are tested. They are both very much opposed to these weapons.

Let me say this in conclusion. The Prime Minister said he wanted a free debate. Without a doubt, he is getting it on this side of the House. However, I have not seen very much freedom from the Reform Party which has spoken about a free debate. They have all sang the same party line from beginning to end. As a matter of fact in all the votes in which they have participated so far they voted as a group on every occasion. Today they are all singing the same song. I have a bit of doubt about their sincerity concerning free votes and free expression.

I was very much dismayed by the statements made by some of my Liberal colleagues, particularly those who were here with me in the last Parliament and who approved of the policy we adopted in 1989 to oppose cruise missile testing. I could understand if they put forward new arguments that would allow them to bury the policy that they were in favour of last year. However, I heard no such new arguments.

The continued development and testing of cruise missiles in Canada are no longer necessary. It will contribute to a continuing arms race and to world instability.

I urge the government in assessing this debate not simply to count heads but to assess the arguments that are made by hon. members in this case.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I want to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for his remarks. I congratulate him on standing by the position he has held since 1983. I was surprised, however, by some of his arguments and I will quickly explain why. But I do nevertheless have a question for him.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce began by listing the reasons why he is opposed to cruise missile testing. He described the cruise missile as a very dangerous, highly accurate weapon that is difficult to detect and that can carry nuclear warheads. I am somewhat surprised by this description because weapons are supposed to be dangerous. I do not think his is a strong argument because what makes a weapon effective is its

mobility, its ability to quickly reach its target, the enemy, its strike power and its invulnerability to enemy attacks. I fail to see how one can object to testing on the grounds that the weapon itself is dangerous. If the weapon were not dangerous, would anyone object to it?

Second, the hon. member claims that since the cold war is now over, there is no further need to develop weapons. But the cold war ended four or five years ago. One could quibble about the dates. The thaw came fairly quickly and if we look at the international situation, it is quite possible that the freeze could be on again, as happens quickly in Ottawa, judging from what I have seen.

The hon. member argues that allowing cruise missile testing will restart the arms race. I think this is somewhat of an exaggeration because we are talking here about allowing something that has gone on for the past ten years. We are not talking about an escalation here, merely about allowing our American allies with whom we have an agreement to conduct a certain number of tests each year. Our duly elected government renewed this agreement last year for a period of ten years. I do not see this as any kind of escalation in the arms race.

Lastly, in referring to statements made recently by U.S. President Clinton, the hon. member argues that the Americans will not be upset if we refuse to allow the testing to proceed.

I find these arguments somewhat debatable. Given the fact that these tests are restricted, that we are not dealing here with a new weapon that has suddenly been added to the world arsenal, does the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce not think that he is being a little alarmist in raising all of these arguments when similar tests have in fact been conducted in recent years?

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, while the cold war is over with the Soviet Union, as I pointed out there are 15 nations called threshold nations and North Korea is one of them. They are on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.

None of these 15 nations are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty. The United States for many years has been trying to encourage China, North Korea and other countries to sign the non-proliferation treaty.

My argument is this: How can we ask these countries to renounce nuclear weapons, renounce the development of new technology with respect to the delivery of nuclear weapons when we continue to fine-tune cruise missiles? By the way the cruise missile they are testing now or have tested in recent years are not the same as the ones they tested years ago. They continually improve on this cruise missile.

I am saying that while the cold war is over with the Soviet Union, there are still countries that want to develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver those nuclear weapons. We do not help the situation by saying on the one hand "don't you do it" but by God we are going to do it ourselves. That does not help. It only contributes to the arms race.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the outset I believe we should acknowledge that this is a debate that has no right or wrong side or answer. Whether this government endorses or refuses to endorse the acceptance of cruise testing over Canadian territory is, whatever the outcome, neither right nor wrong.

We are discussing today on one level our national role in contributing to the aggregate military technological base of our American neighbours. These tests are part of their military research and development. On another level it affords Canada the opportunity to define these tests, having regard to our national values.

With the end of the cold war arguments either for or against cruise missile testing have quite simply lost much force. Hon. members here will recall the history of the modern day cruise, that it evolved from the buzzbombs of second world war Germany and that the Americans and Soviets engaged in a protracted period of technological one-up-manship which resulted in this low level flying missile.

From the development of the cruise has evolved a technology which has military and technological applications which are quite simply American based. To allow this testing to proceed will without doubt and I say this without putting forward a positive or a negative opinion, ensures that the United States continues in its position of pre-eminence in terms of being the number one military power.

From a perspective of fortress North America it could be suggested that the agreement with the United States in 1983 to allow cruise testing was correct. That agreement was renegotiated, as we heard, in 1993 for another 10-year period, putting us through to the year 2003.

The reason for choosing this Canadian corridor as a test site was quite simple. The terrain and weather conditions in the 2,200 kilometre long corridor is similar to that of the Soviet Union, as the speaker before me noted.

In 1983 NORAD was vitally concerned about the security of North American having regard to the then perceived Soviet arsenal. I would like to pose this open-ended question to members present here today: Are we as North Americans threatened by the former Soviet military?

To allow this test to proceed in my opinion is simply to confirm the political reality which existed in 1983 but has vanished in the intervening years.

From a military perspective what can be the logical explanation for this testing? There is the argument that other countries can and are developing cruise capability which then, by implication, requires the United States to continue to be technically superior. If we, and I say this as a Canadian and as a member of this House, want to allow this testing to proceed then I suggest we should also ask what is the perceived or real benefit to Canada. Is it to counter the former Soviet Union and maintain the security of North America? Alternatively, is it to facilitate the very specialized American-based industries which are dependent upon military programs for their very existence?

The global political reality of 1983 has substantially changed. Canadians must therefore acknowledge this in determining whether these tests should proceed.

These musings of mine reflect the politics of another era, a time when there was an arms race, a time when there was a perceived threat to our national security and a time when NORAD had some continental importance. These factors today have simply either vanished or diminished to the point where they are meaningless.

The other factor I would suggest requires consideration is quite simply this: As Canadians, is it beneficial in any way from a security or economic perspective to allow these tests? This is not a matter of abrogating a bilateral agreement, as has been suggested here today. The agreement dictates the technical and financial terms but states specifically that each test must be approved by the Government of Canada. I ask: "What is the perceived benefit to Canadians?" or more directly and simply, "What is in it for us?"

Yesterday in the House several speakers discussed the humanitarian aspect of peacekeeping, that is in certain circumstances Canadian military peacekeeping represents a positive influence in areas of the world. Many of the opinions put forward yesterday reflected a desire to improve the plight of many people in countries undergoing conflict. Those are very laudable and humanitarian objectives which we, as members of the United Nations, have collectively stated in a global perspective are in the best interests of all nations.

These peacekeeping roles mesh or coincide with the common values shared with other member states of that body. Yet as a Canadian I ask: Where does the testing of a cruise missile fit into the objectives of the Canadian government? Is there a national interest which is being served if these tests proceed?

American governments over a period of several administrations have quite overtly inserted a quid pro quo into their relationships with other national governments. Foreign aid, whether it be monetary or technical, is often tied to events occurring in the other state. For example, the extension of American aid to China was jeopardized by China after the Tiananmen Square incident. The interventions by American forces in Grenada and Panama in the late eighties are also examples of a more direct nature. These actions were simply as a result, in my opinion, of serving the national objectives of the United States.

I therefore ask members present today to reflect on the broader issue of our relationship with the United States and with the Americans. I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue and though I cannot say that I am a member of the third party, I can quite safely say that my opinion is here reflecting the greater consensus that I am hearing in my constituency that in our dealings with our American neighbours in the broadest and most general sense of the word and of the idea, that we must become more self-centred, even more specifically that we must ask "Is it in the Canadian interests"; in the most basic sense "What's in it for us?"

My riding is a narrow wedge of real estate on the Ontario-Michigan border. I would venture to say that 75 per cent of the people in my riding live about a three-minute car ride from the United States. I would also point out that in my riding anyone can purchase a Detroit News , a Detroit Free Press at any corner variety store just as easily as I could buy the Globe and Mail . My riding is the third busiest crossing along the Canada-U.S. border, in fact 15 per cent of all trade between Canada and the United States crosses the border in Sarnia or Point Edward in my riding. Yet despite this overwhelming presence, which we call the American influence, it is abundantly clear to me that we are not Americans. My constituents tell me that. We are not anti-American, we are simply not Americans.

Through a process of national evolution we have stated that our priorities are not always identical to their priorities. We have stated that our national values are not the same as their national values.

As a result, I am aware of Americans attempting to enter some of the health clinics offered by the local health unit in my riding in an attempt to take advantage of the health services and treatment programs offered anonymously to walk-in clients.

Obviously our priorities are not their priorities. I am aware of the significant collection of hand weapons seized daily by our customs officials from American vehicles entering Canada in my riding. Obviously our values are not their values. As a result I must ask once again: Where does the allowance of cruise missile testing over Canadian territory as an objective of American military policy coincide with Canadian priorities and values?

It has been stated that the role of the Canadian military-and I stress Canadian-must and will be reviewed during the course of this Parliament.

As an extension of this objective, I would state that the Canadian government must also examine our national objectives under the 1993 bilateral agreement with the United States relative to cruise testing. Notwithstanding that agreement, as stated previously, we reserve the right to say no.

In the 1992-93 fiscal year the Department of National Defence spent some $148 million in modernizing our air defence systems as well as an additional $175 million for low level air defence systems.

It is possible to conclude that by allowing these tests to proceed we will constantly find ourselves in need of more sophisticated air defence systems as a result of the technologies we are allowing to be tested by the Americans over Canadian territory.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for affording the members of this House the opportunity to speak on this important national issue, knowing that when a decision is made he will have heard a broad cross-section of views from all of Canada.

[Translation]

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, since the early afternoon, I have been listening carefully to all the speeches on the need for these tests to be conducted within the Canadian territorial boundaries. Before putting a question to the hon. member, I would like to say a few words about the debate.

I think this piecemeal approach to Canada's national defence that we have had since yesterday could be dangerous. We should have a much broader outlook. It is always better to set a problem in a global context than to narrow our focus too much. This prompts me to say that I hope that eventually the Minister of National Defence will undertake a comprehensive defence review.

We are presently dealing with a more specific case. Earlier, the hon. member for Portneuf clearly described in his speech the technical aspects of the testing to be conducted over Canadian territory. It is aimed mainly at developing a technology that does not increase the power derived from nuclear energy. It is a guidance system that could have applications in other areas.

I think we must be careful not to get side-tracked on the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons. That is not the point. Of course, missiles can have a nuclear capability. That is true, but from the point of view of wanting to achieve disarmament someday-and no one can have anything against being virtuous-we should not ignore the power of our American allies in most of the military operations we take part in. We must also work extremely closely with them. Co-operation could take such a form. Their power of deterrence has been tremendous.

This leads me to my question: Would we not be sending out a dangerous signal to the whole world if we were to object to and oppose these tests, perhaps weakening our alliance with our American friends? I am neither pro nor anti-American. I am just pro-peace and realistic. Would we not be sending out a dangerous signal if we were to say that we do not want this kind of testing to be conducted over our territory because we are for the peaceful resolution of conflicts? Has the U.S. policy not succeeded to some degree in recent years in advancing the cause of disarmament?

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises an interesting point and makes an interesting quotation, that is that with respect to the Americans we must co-operate with them.

I do not know in terms of Canadian objectives that we must in all cases co-operate with the Americans. Certainly recent history has indicated to us that the Americans do not reciprocate with Canada. I can think of many examples the hon. member may not be aware of.

For example, about a year and a half ago the American border patrol at all crossing points decided that it would take direct action against Canadian trucking firms. The method of doing that was simply to check the record of every driver crossing the border. It happens that a number of Canadian truck drivers have rather insignificant criminal matters in their past, such as the smoking of cannabis, impaired driving, or minor theft and assault charges. In any event, under American law the American border patrol can prevent them from entering the United States. That is one very trite example of the Americans not co-operating with us.

We heard about numerous trade matters during the election, including the seven appeals regarding pork bellies made by the United States. There are many times when we do not agree with the Americans.

The suggestion that we must co-operate with the Americans on military matters is not necessarily correct. I also believe that recent history, recent in terms of world history, specifically World War II, would indicate that the Americans did not co-operate with us in the sense that they did not enter into the battle until well after Canada did. So I do not think we must follow blindly.

I suggest to the hon. member opposite that he should consider that there are times when we can and we ought to say no to the Americans and this is probably a time when it should be a very definite no.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. In listening to this debate today I am becoming increasingly

alarmed with the use of the 10-minute period following the 20-minute speech. I refer to Standing Order 43 which says:

Following each 20-minute speech, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.

On several occasions this afternoon I note that members are using the 10-minute period to make a new speech and to make comments which are not relevant to the speech that just came before them.

Many hon. members have talked about setting a new tone in this Parliament and respecting the rules of the House. I hope in future that the comments and questions as the standing order says will be brief and relevant to the speech that has just been made. It is not an occasion to make a new speech. It is supposed to be brief comments or questions relevant to the speech that has just been made.

I hope that the Chair will enforce that rule.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I trust that other members in this place will adhere to the standing order.