Debates of March 14th, 2001

Business Of The House

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Order discharged and motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, an act to respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Shipping Act, 2001

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I directed some of my inquiries to my hon. colleague from the Bloc, regarding the kind of safeguards, remedies and procedures that we have in place to ensure foreign shipping companies which enter our waters meet our standards. It is one thing to put into a bill or into a piece of legislation that we will allow them in our waters provided they meet or exceed our standards.

However, I would like someone from the government side, who has some knowledge on this matter, to clarify this whole area. What safeguards do we have if we had a real situation, such as Canada Steamship Lines Inc. entering our waters? If they were registered in Liberia and something went wrong, what steps could we take to protect the public interest? I would be very curious to see what the government has to say on that matter. This is an area of this act that is defective.

Let me expand on this topic a bit. Let us say this hypothetical shipping company is registered in Liberia. It has a fleet of 15 ships and staff of 1,500. The shipowner hires employees from the Ukraine to staff the ships and pays them $2 or $3 a day, which is much less than our Canadian standards and what my Liberal friends would say would be a compassionate level of remuneration. However, the ships do not comply with our safety standards.

The Canadian safety standards, inspection requirements and so on of ships are very demanding. Our manufacturing requirements for building ships are extremely demanding. If these ships enter our waters, we need to make sure they meet our standards in terms of safety and quality.

We are also be concerned with environmental matters. It is very easy for shippers without ethics and tough standards to dump garbage and different things into our waters which could pollute and cause problems. That is a major concern as well.

I would not be a bit surprised that some of the companies which register in Liberia or the Bahamas do that in order to escape the responsibilities, the liabilities and the high standards which we have in Canada.

I guess another concern is, if they do enter our waters and the ship crashes or sinks because of a lack of proper manufacturing safety standards, or it dumps a whole bunch of toxic substances in the St. Lawrence or the Great Lakes, or their employees bring diseases into the country because of third world type working conditions, what precisely would the act do to protect the Canadian public? What steps can we take against such shippers? Do we send something off like the Italians did concerning the Mafia person in Canada? Do we send something off to Liberia and ask the Liberian authorities to step in and help us out? Do we go to Liberian court and start some sort of court action to try to collect damages from that country? I think these are serious questions.

Members on the government side ought to know these are serious matters and they cannot be dealt with in a trivial manner. The Canadian public safety and interest is too important. This aspect of the bill should be shored up. When it goes to committee I would encourage government members to really zero in on this area and address it because it is very skimpy. The act says “meet or exceed Canadian standards” but I do not see anything in it that says how we are going to ensure that.

Is the Department of Transport going to send people over to Liberia, like it did with the Brazilian beef issue, and check everything out to make sure that it has top insurance standards on its ships, that it has good humane standards for taking care of its employees, that it has collective bargaining rights and tough measures in regard to environmental measures? Is that what the act contemplates? I do not really see that in the act.

A lot of people have the impression that many important and powerful Canadians are evading our laws by simply going offshore. They might preach and talk about Canadian values, high standards and the Liberal way of doing things, but as soon as they have an opportunity for their own self interest they go outside the country. They will circumvent our laws to suit themselves. This is something that should not be overlooked in the act.

It is a good act with a lot of teeth in it to make Canadian owners comply with the law. It is lacking detail as to what we do with international shipping companies that are not registered in Canada but enter our waters. That section in the act is inadequate. We need much better clarification on that point.

There is a whole list of things that this section invites. I would suggest that if international shippers are going to come into our waters we should require them to register just like Canadian shippers. This, as it is, is too easy a procedure.

Shippers can go to Liberia, or the Bahamas or some other country that does not have the Canadian standards, set up operations, then come into our waters. If they can convince someone in the Department of Transport, we could have the buck passing that we saw in the House this afternoon among the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Prime Minister and others. They all said they could not tell so and so or they could not tell this department or that department. In the meantime, the public could be sitting with a disaster on its hands.

Maybe it is like a ship that sinks in the Great Lakes, in the St. Lawrence or off the coast of British Columbia and causes a lot of problems, environmental or otherwise. We would then find out that we really have no way of dealing with the owners and that we do not have any enforcement remedies along the line. I think that is a very serious matter.

I am surprised that a Liberal government, of all governments, would not have identified the need to really have tough measures in place in this area. It is a fairly major omission in the bill. It is very tough on Canadians. It seems to be somewhat slack for international shippers who would want to come into our waters.

I am a new member of parliament and have practised law for 25 years. My attitude, based on 25 years, is that I have been shot as the messenger. Bad laws are passed by governments and I have to be the messenger for them. I have to deliver the bad news to my clients and quite often I am the one who gets blamed for it.

I am in a place today where I thought I would be at the front end of the process. Based on some of the questions of privilege raised in the House today I am not so sure that I really am at the front end of the process. I am wondering if I am not back in Nipawin, Saskatchewan at the back end of the load again.

As a practitioner of law, this is the time to tell the government to get the legislation clear in this very important area and make sure it is tough. It should be tougher on foreign shippers who come in here. Just because they are registered in Liberia or the Bahamas and Canada is written on the shipping line, it should not be a licence to come into our waters and abuse our jurisdiction. We should have very tough shipping laws. That is a major loophole in the legislation and it should be tightened up.

This should not be like the family trust matter in the Income Tax Act. There was some window dressing on that but still the tax experts, with whom I am familiar, said that the door was still wide open for wealthy families to evade and escape the tax responsibilities put into place by the Minister of Finance. We certainly do not want to see the same sort of thing happening with shipping in Canadian waters.

We had some major accidents a few years ago, such as the sinking of the Exxon Valdez off the coast of Alaska. We saw the environmental damage and disaster that caused. It is important that we have stringent and tough standards on international shippers.

I am not happy about a shipper coming into our country who is paying people who are down and out and in desperate straits. I wonder where the Liberal compassion is on the issue. The shippers hire these employees to staff their ships and pay them $2 a day. I have no idea what the safety or environmental standards are for people working on those ships. I conjure up visions of shoe manufacturers going to Malaysia to find people who are down and out and then pay them starvation type wages and so on. They then come to Canada and say that they believe in high standards and the values of compassion and fairness for Canadians. I guess that does not apply to people elsewhere.

If they are not Canadians and they can get through the loopholes, why should they not exploit labour, why should they not forget about collective bargaining rights and all the other things that the Liberal government has put into place for Canadians? This is a serious concern.

My reading of the act is that there is only one section that deals with the matter and it simply states that a foreign owned company can enter our waters for shipping if the authorities are satisfied that it meets or exceeds our standards.

Today and over the last few days I heard a lot of buck passing concerning a Mafia individual who is in Canada. Nobody wants to accept the responsibility for him being here. People were saying that they were not in charge of what happens in their departments and that other people were in charge. I hope that does not happen in a Valdez-type situation where there could be a major environmental problem or in a situation where someone is possibly hauling a banned toxic substance. This could be garbage from some other country which could be dumped in the St. Lawrence, on our shores or something along that line.

We should look at our immigration laws and how people look at Canada. They see our country as an easy place to escape their responsibilities and liabilities. We are seen in the world as the country to come to. If people are criminals somewhere else and the authorities are hot on their path, Canada is the country to come to. Our supreme court and our government have sent those signals out. If they can get to Canada, they will probably have three square meals a day and, if they are lucky, they might get out to Mission, B.C. and do some golfing with Colin Thatcher before it is all over, or go to the riding academy.

I think there is a problem with the bill. We see examples in other areas but the government says things are different here. There is only one way to make sure it is different. We must get the bill right the first time. It should have very tough standards in this area. The standards should be detailed and not contain just one clause that is a kind of platitude.

The bill contains very extensive details on the registration requirements but for an international shipper, it is pretty much a blank cheque. It seems to me we are giving the Department of Transport authorities an awful lot of room for discretion but with little direction.

I suppose the minister and the department could get together and have a briefing session to decide what kind of policy they would put in place. We in the opposition could then wait three or four years until one of those ships had a major calamity in our waters. We would again be embarrassed as opposition members because we would not know what had taken place behind closed doors or in starred chambers.

I encourage government members to take a very serious look at this area. I understand why some government members might be a bit intimidated to move into this area, especially ones who sit further back from the front row of the House, but it is important and they should not let the intimidation factor enter the picture. We must do our jobs and make sure that we pass good quality laws. We should not let our personal feelings toward other members enter the discussion.

This subject also raises the issue of foreign type international law questions. I do not know if there are any members here from Prince Edward Island, but authorities found, or thought they found, some sort of disease on one-quarter or 60 acres of land in P.E.I. so they totally killed the potato crop industry in P.E.I. They did this without checking it out and caused terrible harm to the people of P.E.I..

We almost did the same thing to Brazil. The government decided, in the context of a trade fight between Brazil and Bombardier and other matters, that the way to get the message across to the Brazilians was to hit them where it hurt, which was to shut down their beef export industry. The government came up with some sort of bogus allegation and said that in the name of public safety, it was shutting down that industry until it was satisfied that the beef was safe. We then send a bunch of people over there who find out there was really nothing wrong with the beef and the ban is lifted.

I feel we may also have a lot of problems with the shipping arrangement. The bar has been set very low for shippers coming into our country and international shippers who do not meet our standards come in under the bar. A disaster could happen and we would end up checking it out afterward. That is not the way to do things. We should make sure that the legislation is tight and that it does not have any loopholes. We have enough loopholes in our laws. We must address this area so it does not become a major problem.

My hon. colleague from the Bloc made some very good comments and I encourage the government to take a look at the concerns he raised. Details will kill us on these sorts of things but this area has no detail. The devil is in the detail and there are no details in this area. It is wide open. To me it is almost like giving a blank cheque to get into our waters.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have followed the hon. member's speech for the last 20 minutes. He opposed everything in the bill but did not propose any concrete solutions to the problems that he saw. I know his job as an opposition MP is to oppose whatever the government proposes, but I wonder if could propose some constructive solutions for the government to look at.

The member mentioned that we have to meet and exceed standards. If he is not happy with the in the way we meet and exceed standards, what would he propose? How much more does he expect the government to do? I wonder if he would comment on those two points.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, being from the prairies, rail transportation is an area that I am much more of an authority on than marine shipping. It seems to me that we should look at the safeguards other jurisdictions have in place to deal with this particular problem. They may have found a new and better way to deal with this sort of problem.

We have committees to look at those things. Hopefully a good transport committee could look at this sort of thing. We could then put down our political caps, quit playing games and look at some good solid proposals.

Why do we not make international shippers comply with our requirements? Why does one section of the legislation allow them to come into Canada under the bar even when they do not meet our standards. Maybe we should look at that.

When a business or a company wants to do business in Canada they must comply with all our requirements. We do not impose a bunch of requirements on Canadians and then allow foreign entities to come in and do business and bypass the requirements that apply to the rest of us. This would be one obvious answer to the question.

I hope my points in this area will be of some help to the government. I would welcome the opportunity to be on the transport committee where we could roll up our sleeves and look at creating a good tight law in this area.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said in his speech that the bill does not demonstrate the responses. He said that the bill is not tough enough. Let me take him through a couple of passages in the bill.

Let me just take him through a couple of passages in the bill very quickly. I know he is a lawyer and I know the bill is 200 pages long, but in fact, were he to look at section 172, just looking at pollution, he would see that a pollution officer can board any vessel. If he looked at section 176 he would find that a pollution officer can demand to enter the premises on any vessel, can demand that equipment be seized and can demand to make photographs. He will see in section 176, subsection (4), that with a warrant he can arrest people on board. He can demand to come aboard and use force.

The minister can seize the vessel and destroy the vessel. That is section 180. The minister can remove and actually destroy the vessel if it is deemed to be polluting.

Finally, subsection 183(2) reads:

Every person who—commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months—

That is punishment. Did he not read those sections before he prepared his speech?

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague raised those points. Those are the enforcement provisions which would certainly apply to Canadian owned steamship operations or to other shippers in our waters. There is no doubt about it.

The ambiguity in the legislation is what we do with someone who is not in Canada. The hon. member mentioned the $1 million fine. If the owner is in Afghanistan and registered in Liberia and causes $10 million worth of damage in the St. Lawrence River, what will we do? Will we send the Canadian army over to Afghanistan, round this guy up and bring him back just like we are dealing with the Mafia man here? These are not the answers Canadians are looking for.

Seriously, given this gentleman's background and knowledge as a journalist and so on, he ought to know better than to come up with an answer like that. He knows the public wants higher standards and clear laws, not dancing around or looking for technicalities, not lawyers and courts with technicalities to get wealthy people off fines and charges, because they can afford it. The wealthy people, whether it is through family trusts or steamship lines, can hire the army of lawyers. He ought to know that. He has a wealth of experience in the journalistic world and he should know that.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a number of questions, as have others. In committee, I think every effort will be made to respond to them.

For the record I would just like to point out that Canada, as a port state, is permitted to board any foreign vessel regardless of the status and currency of its safety certificate and regardless of its flag.

In fact, in 1999, over 1,000 vessels from 86 different countries were inspected. Where there were deficiencies, whether they were with respect to the safety of the workers on those boats or the marine environment, actions were taken. The bottom line is that this legislation goes further in modernizing environmental and safety provisions and will do a better job for all Canadians when it comes to our offshore and Great Lakes waters.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good answer. It is part of the answer.

Let us say we have the guy from Afghanistan who has his ships registered in Liberia and who brings a ship into Canadian waters. He owns 14 other ships. He has not posted a bond or put anything in place in Canada. Let us say we find his ship in our waters with a toxic substance, maybe nuclear waste, and we know it is going to be dumped in our water because he does not know where else to take it. It is brought into Canadian waters. We seize it and it becomes our problem.

How do we track down this individual who owns these ships and bring him into this country and make him accountable for the damages? That is the real question. I can assure everyone that the wealthy people of the world, whether they are Greek tycoons or a Canadian family heavily involved in shipping, want to use these loopholes. These are the very kinds of problems we get into when a disaster takes place: hunting down these people and finding an effective enforcement remedy to deal with this.

This is something I think we should take a good, long, hard look at. We should not just rubber stamp the act, put it through and hope the system works. In the House today we heard about a number of cases in regard to the immigration department, where people were bound and determined to get into Seattle and caused major damage. They roamed around our country for seven years. There is another guy who, from what I gather, Hollywood could make a movie about. He is a dangerous person and he has been in our country for two years.

I am a member of parliament for Prince Albert trying to get some answers as to how this could come about. All I find is a bunch of buck passing. Quite seriously, it is just buck passing from one department to the other. No one accepts any responsibility.

I do not want a major environmental disaster to happen with an international shipper in our waters and have this sort of episode take place here. Now is the time to make sure we have good laws in place and a system that will get the outputs we want.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from Prince Albert. He of course hails from the area one of our previous right hon. prime ministers, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, and he is obviously upholding the tradition of statesmanship and speaking up for important issues across Canada. I applaud him for that.

Hon. members on the other side are congratulating the member from Prince Albert, and I congratulate them for being so receptive to a new member. That shows they are willing to work with the Alliance, and we in the Alliance appreciate that.

I would like to talk about Bill C-14. There are many parts of the bill that have to do with the protection of our environment. Those are the parts of the bill that caught my attention and I had the opportunity to look through them. The Alliance is, of course, the party that cares about the environment. We in the Alliance care about our environment and we are looking for ways to work with others in the House, with members from other parties and from the government side, and to work together on important issues like the environment.

The environment is of great concern to us. We need to leave our country in a good state for those who are coming behind us, our children and future generations, and I would like to give some recognition to the government for including some issues having to do with the environment in the bill. I think that is a good thing.

We are looking for ways to work together in the House. When a good idea comes forward, even if it is from the government side, we will make mention of it. We would also do the same in relation to other parties and hope that others in this place would work with us in a spirit of co-operation so that we can tackle the important issues of the country. That is exactly what we are doing.

The member from the Liberal side who used to be a Conservative says it makes good sense and I appreciate what he says. Again, I agree with him on that point.

In terms of the shipbuilding industry, we do have word that the government will possibly move forward in helping to re-establish the shipping industry in our nation. We do have some concerns about that particular topic and the government's approach to that industry, such as whether it will be working on subsidizing that industry and using taxpayer dollars to support an industry which might have difficulty competing on the world market.

I hear my colleague from the other side once again commending me for my good points and I thank him for that. I truly thank him for that and for working in the new spirit of co-operation which the Alliance has initiated. We in the Alliance truly appreciate it.

We do have some concerns about the way the government might proceed on that particular issue, but we will save that for another day because I do want to make my comments pertinent to Bill C-14, the bill before the House right now.

I see that my comments are sparking great debate, ringing with agreement around the House. At this late hour of debate in the House, it is reassuring to us that government members are so attentive and in agreement with us.

When looking through Bill C-14 I did not see any mention of double hulling of ships. As a member from British Columbia, not too far away from the coast, I think it is an issue that should be explored in committee in regard to the bill, in order to protect our environment and provide protection to our marine coastal areas, which are so important to the economy on the west coast, the east coast and throughout the nation. I would like to see that point perhaps pursued in committee.

There is something in part 8 of the bill in reference to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which reminds me of an issue in my own riding. There is an area referred to as the Codd Island wetlands, in Pitt Meadows in British Columbia. It is a very important and sensitive ecological area. Some experts are saying that it is one of the last remaining intact wetlands in the lower mainland area of Vancouver.

Right now there is concern that the area might be developed and turned into a cranberry bog. That is a concern to many people in the community. They are working to rally together to see if there might be some other solutions in order to maintain and protect this important ecological wetland. I believe there have been and will be letters to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to the Minister of the Environment, both of whom are ministers of the crown from British Columbia.

We hope that members of my riding would have the ear of the ministers for their concerns and that a possibility might arise for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment to work co-operatively with the province, the local jurisdiction of Pitt Meadows and concerned citizens. We are looking for opportunities to build together to protect that area.

I know I have digressed a little from Bill C-14, but when I saw part 8 of the bill regarding the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I saw it as a good opportunity to bring up this very important issue of the Codd Island wetlands.

Also in the bill there is a reference in clause 173 to the need to report to parliament every five years in regard to this particular bill. We think reporting to parliament is a good thing.

[An hon. member]

What about the Titanic ?

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

The member on the Liberal side who was a Conservative is saying that his former party—or maybe he is saying his party—is going down like the Titanic . I am not sure that all members would agree with him on that. Perhaps some would.

The point about reporting to parliament is an important one. We saw in this place today an example of what happens when a minister of the crown does not report to parliament and does not present a piece of legislation first in this place before holding a briefing and giving information about an important piece of legislation, in this case Bill C-15, the justice bill. The minister's department gave information to the media first, excluding members of parliament from attending the briefing, saying that it was an embargoed briefing.

I know that Mr. Speaker will be ruling on the matter, but I think it is worth mentioning again in this place that the government needs to follow the proper procedures and process to restore people's faith in this place and that we are in fact the leaders in terms of what we are doing with legislation and moving forward together.

What happened here today is an example of why it is important to follow process. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice did not do that. We are disappointed with that.

My time is growing short. I will wrap up my comments knowing that I will have more time at another sitting of the House to discuss this important bill.

I thank my Liberal colleagues for their agreement with what I have said today and for their comments and congratulations. We hope to see them working together with us on many other issues.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

American National Missile Defence System

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Canada does not participate in the research, development, or production of components for use in the proposed American National Missile Defense System.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I thank the hon. member for Halifax, the national leader of the New Democratic Party, for seconding this motion. I also thank all my colleagues in the House of Commons for the work they have been doing across the country to try to bring to the attention of Canadians, and in particular to our government, the profound importance of Canada finally and urgently taking a strong and clear stand in opposition to the U.S. national missile defence system.

I pay a particular tribute to my colleague, the spokesperson on defence for the New Democratic caucus, the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. He has worked tirelessly on this issue for many years. His predecessor, Gordon Earle, the former member for Halifax West, also did an outstanding job in pleading with the government to show leadership on the issue. It is an issue literally of life and death not just for Canada but for the planet.

The essential elements of my motion are, first, that the government should speak out strongly in opposition to the proposed national missile defence system of the United States in view of the fact that it represents a very grave threat to international arms control agreements and raises the serious possibility of a new nuclear arms race.

Second, it is very important that Canada refuse all participation in the research, development or production of components for use in the NMD.

Finally, and in many respects just as important, Canada should work with other governments to strengthen and deepen existing arms control agreements toward the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. That must surely be our fundamental goal. It is in that light that we approach the issue of the proposed U.S. national missile defence program.

We all recall an earlier version of the program, the so-called star wars proposal of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Even the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney spoke out against that incredibly destructive proposal by President Reagan.

The tragedy today is that we look across at a Liberal government that remains on the fence. It refuses to take a strong and clear stand now in opposition to the proposed national missile defence system. The system clearly threatens the current international framework of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament agreements, areas in which Canada has historically shown leadership.

Canada along with 186 other states has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Canada has formally undertaken, along with those states:

—to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.

That was the commitment made by 187 states less than a year ago in May 2000.

In February of last year United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said that the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation agenda was in a state of deplorable stagnation and that it was difficult to approach the NPT review conference with optimism given the discouraging list of nuclear disarmament measures in suspense, negotiations not initiated and opportunities not taken. He said that a dangerous nuclear arms race looms on the horizon.

There is no question whatsoever that a decision by the United States to proceed with a national missile defence system would dramatically escalate that nuclear arms race. We know that this would be a clear breach of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty between the United States and Russia.

That treaty is a cornerstone of the international arms control regime. The United States would simply rip up the treaty. President Bush would rip it up and indeed President Bush's vision for star wars goes even further than that proposed by former President Clinton.

There is no doubt that in many respects it is part of an agenda to militarize space itself which, as we can all appreciate, would have a devastating impact again in terms of the nuclear arms race.

There is no doubt as well that deployment of the NMD would provoke other nuclear weapons states to counter it by building more nuclear weapons rather than keeping their NPT promise to eliminate their own nuclear arsenals.

We know the possible impact in terms of China. The Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, Hu Xiadi, warned recently that once the NMD is deployed the treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, the ABM treaty, will be dead.

To seek complete missile defence capable of protecting all a country's territory is tantamount to seeking unilateral security so as to gain freedom to threaten others. As a result, the threat of nuclear war will loom again and international relations will become turbulent and unstable.

We know as well the potential implications on other countries in the region, for example on India, Pakistan and Taiwan among others. We cannot allow this escalation to take place.

We know as well that the current proposal has already stalled the negotiation of nuclear disarmament agreements in the UN conference on disarmament. That again is a tragedy because we must be moving in the opposite direction for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

That is why we are calling on our government to show leadership, to speak out clearly and forcefully to the United States against the NMD. We would not be the only country to do so. Indeed, a number of European countries have raised very grave concerns about the deployment of the NMD, and indeed the Australian senate just recently passed a motion strongly opposing it.

Countless groups in Canada that support nuclear disarmament, including the Canadian Peace Alliance, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, les Artistes pour la paix, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, Project Ploughshares, Physicians for Global Survival and many religious groups and others have appealed to our government to show leadership and to finally speak out.

We know as well that there has been a number of threats, some of them not so veiled threats, by our United States allies that we must get on board on this. Indeed, the deputy Canadian commander of the joint U.S.-Canada NORAD scheme told Liberal MPs last year that the longer Canada delays its support the less influence it would have on the system. He said that we must participate. As my colleague the defence critic has pointed out, the U.S. deputy commander of space command threatened that the United States would be under absolutely no obligation to defend Canada unless it joined the missile shield.

The U.S. ambassador to Canada, Gordon Giffin, has warned Canada. He said a refusal by Canada to support the NMD would mark a significant evolution in the historic defence relationship between Canada and the U.S., and that if the defence relationship ends it could affect the fabric of the whole relationship. We as New Democrats say it is time our government rejected those kinds of threats from the United States and stood up for peace and nuclear disarmament.

I want to close by once again appealing to the government to listen to the voices of Canadians, 92% of whom in a recent public opinion survey called on our government to lead in the struggle to abolish all nuclear weapons.

That should be the position we take. We should not in any way participate in NMD itself. I call on members of all parties to support the motion. I appeal to the Alliance which has recently stated that it supports the U.S. national missile defence system. The Leader of the Opposition was in Washington speaking to the vice-president in strong support of NMD, which is very sad.

We are waiting to hear the position of the Conservatives. They say they are not sure exactly where they stand. I look forward to clarification on that position.

We are looking most of all for clarity and leadership from the Government of Canada, from the Minister of National Defence and from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We want them to speak out clearly and say no, no, no to the U.S. national missile defence system.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot support this motion, and I would like to explain why.

First of all, and this is a key point, we do not yet know which system the United States will put in place or what the international strategic context will be. How can we make a decision when we were missing such key information?

It is true that the new administration in the United States clearly indicated that it will establish a national missile defence system. The American legislation says that the government will deploy such a system when it is technologically feasible. But the US government was also very clear on the fact that it intends to look at all the options available and consult its NATO allies as well as Russia and China. We need to know more about all this before we can make a decision.

My colleague mentioned the word leadership. This does not mean that we are staying idle. Our government has been having serious discussions with the United States and other countries involved to look at the repercussions of such a system. Our prime minister and President Bush have talked about this issue, and so have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence and their American counterparts. The prime minister has also discussed this issue with the president of Russia, the president of China, the British prime minister and the French president.

At the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, the PJBD, over which I have the honour of presiding, we have been following that issue for several months.

We want to pursue our dialogue with all of our friends and allies and most particularly, of course, with the United States, in order to be totally aware of the U.S. plans as they develop.

Moreover, we are trying to influence the United States in their decision-making process on that critical issue in order to find a solution that would allow for world strategic stability while strengthening the security of the United States, Canada and our allies.

The United States are trying to develop a missile defence system because they feel the threat to their national security has changed fundamentally because of the proliferation of missile technology in the so-called “high-risk” countries, namely North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

Work on research and development of missile defence has been going on for a long time in the United States, both for the protection of troops in theatres of operations as well as to protect larger areas. Members will recall, for example, that the United States used “Patriot” missiles during the Gulf war to protect Israel, with moderate success.

According to a report from the American Intelligence Services published in 1999 under the direction of the current defence secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, high risk nations would be able to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles within five or ten years, which is much sooner than expected. That and the missile tests made that same year by North Korea forced Bill Clinton, who was then president, to sign the National Missile Defence Act in July of 1999. Since then research has increased in this sector.

A lot is at stake for allies of the United States and all the countries on this planet.

A national missile defence system would have enormous consequences on world strategic stability, and we fear it could start a new arms race. National missile defence systems are presently not allowed under the 1972 treaty between the United States and Russia dealing with restrictions on ballistic missile defence systems.

This treaty, better known as the ABM treaty, ensures that United States and Russia stay vulnerable as far as their respective nuclear weapons are concerned, to dissuade both countries from using them. The strategic stability ensured by this treaty also led to other measures regarding the control of arms and disarmament. The treaty can be changed, and it has been changed in the past, but, up to now, Russia has objected to any new changes.

Canada shares the concerns of Americans about new threats to international and national security, including those resulting from internal conflict, terrorist attacks, and the proliferation of mass destruction weapons. We will continue discussing with the United States about the best way to counter these threats, through bilateral or multilateral agreements, involvement in operations promoting peace, diplomacy, or some form of antimissile defence.

Canada is at the forefront of international efforts to stop the proliferation of missiles and missile technology. I am thinking about the missile technology control regime and initiatives promoting a multilateral standard against proliferation, especially principles, commitments, confidence building measures, and incentives that could evolve into a code of conduct.

We wholeheartedly support the resumption of weapons inspections in Iraq by the UN under the UNMOVIC, and we encourage North Korea, with which Canada has recently established diplomatic relations, to abide by the treaty. We also encourage all nations which have not done so, the United States and China included, to sign or ratify the treaty on the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons tests. Such multilateral agreements have an essential dampening effect on proliferation.

We are concerned about the impact the proposed national missile defence system would have on strategic stability and the potential arms race it could lead to, which would undermine current efforts toward non-proliferation and arms control.

We are anxious to maintain and reinforce the relationship of co-operation on issues of security between the U.S. and Russia, that led to the ratification of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We shared our concerns with the U.S. government and urge them to take all the time they need to seriously consider the impact their decision to deploy a national missile defence system would have.

President Bush and his team have clearly stated that they will keep listening to what we have to say. They made themselves very clear on at least two issues: first, they do not intend to go ahead without fully consulting with NATO and their allies; second, the missile defence system that will ultimately be deployed will be used to protect not only the United States, but also their friends and allies. They have also indicated that they will be consulting with Russia and China. We therefore encourage Moscow and Beijing to accept the invitation extended by Washington.

Until the new administration adopts its action plan on a national missile defence system and all these consultations have been carried out, it would be premature to take position on the American initiative.

With respect to participation in research, development and production activities concerning parts that would be used in this defence system, missile defence research activities that Canada is involved in with the United States, estimated at about $1 million, are primarily aimed at supporting traditional missions carried out by the Canadian forces.

All antiballistic missile defence systems do not necessarily have an impact on global strategic stability. Such systems are also used to protect troops in operational theatres and are a major component of defence systems in conflict situations.

The 1994 white paper deals explicitly with this matter; it emphasizes the importance of the antiballistic missile treaty and supports research co-operation on missile warning systems and antiballistic missile defence, provided that the costs of this co-operation are efficient and affordable, that this research helps to meet Canadian defence needs and that it builds on missions already carried out by the Canadian forces. The current co-operation between Canada and the United States is aimed at this.

Given the considerations that I have just mentioned in broad terms, the government cannot support Motion No. 86.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in the debate on the private member's motion brought forward by the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. I know of my colleague's work in the foreign affairs portfolio. We have served together on the committee since 1997. The member is an experienced member of the House and has led many personal crusades, some being very controversial. I have learned to work with him on an issue by issue basis.

In the House hardworking members bring forward private members' bills and motions. I appreciate very much their hard work and the intent behind their bills and motions. The motion today calls on the government to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Canada does not participate in the research, development, or production of components for use in the proposed American national missile defence system.

It is my understanding that America's missile defence system is still mostly only a part of the imagination or planning of U.S. military strategists. They think they can do something to protect North America from a nuclear weapons attack. They are not yet sure what is possible in this regard, but they have pledged to the world that they would continue in their tradition as defenders of the free world to develop a missile defence system.

My colleague seems to be seeking to shut down all Canadian consultations and research. He would shut down exports to the U.S. of technology, wire, aluminum, pencils or anything else that the Americans might use in their quest to protect North America from nuclear weapon attacks. I have read the motion carefully. We have just heard from the hon. member his intention with respect to the motion, but I am concerned that he is overreacting.

Let us look into the background of the whole issue. During the cold war, effective arms control agreements between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union acted as a deterrent to the Soviet threat to deploy missiles in western Europe. Though it never went beyond the theoretical stage, the American strategic defence initiative, SDI of the 1980s, has been acknowledged as a factor that forced the Soviets to the arms agreement table. Now, 20 years later, the United States is on the verge of deploying the national missile defence system, known as the NMD program.

From what little the U.S. has told the world, its current missile defence system proposal, the NMD, is not as grand in scope as the SDI. It is more easily deployable, tactically as opposed to strategically focused and extremely practical. George W. Bush has made it clear that he endorses the program and plans to proceed with its implementation. Everyone knows that he would like Canada to be part of that implementation.

Let us look at the issue strategically. The application of the NMD is intrinsically tied to North American aerospace defence, NORAD. It was an alliance forged between Canada and the U.S. in 1958 and has been the focal point of Canada's air defence policy ever since. With headquarters in Colorado Springs, NORAD is the most sophisticated air surveillance system on earth and monitors potential airborne threats to Canada and the U.S. It is in constant communication with U.S. air force and Canadian air force units designated as primary NORAD interception units.

Originally tracking stations in Canada along the distant early warning line, the DEW line, provided primary intelligence but were replaced by satellites in the 1980s.

Because NORAD remains charged with defending North America's continental air space the NMD program falls into NORAD's mandate and the alliance is expecting to be formally tasked with administering the program. For Canada not to participate in NMD would be problematic to the joint intelligence, security and military efforts that NORAD accomplishes.

How could Canada be privy to a portion of the NORAD operation and be excluded from NMD activities? The tension inherent in such a relationship could very well cause a serious reappraisal of the NORAD partnership or indeed an end to the defence alliance. This potential consequences would be devastating for Canada.

We cannot protect our airspace, gather the degree and volume of intelligence currently amassed by NORAD, or provide the air force training opportunities currently afforded by membership in NORAD. In the interest of our own defence we should allow the Americans the opportunity to ask us how, if and when they want us to participate. Moreover, we should allow them to develop their efforts to the point of a formal proposal before we condemn them.

I will indicate the reasons the Canadian Alliance believes that Canada should support and be an early partner in the NMD. The NMD is a land based system that is easily deployable and relatively simple in design and scope. It is primarily tactical in scope and is not viewed as an absolute defence against a massive missile attack against North America. It is designed to prevent accidents and aggression from rogue states. It is not a grand strategic plan that is aimed at eradicating all missile threats at all times. The NMD will not result in any escalation or renewal of the arms race.

Therefore arguments that it will nullify the anti-ballistic missile treaty are specious since the ABM treaty can be amended at any time. The NMD offers at no cost tremendous security, intelligence and military benefits to Canada. Like our membership in NORAD where club dues are basically waived, participation in the NMD will not have any financial impact upon Canada. Rather it will enhance, not reduce, Canadian security.

The program will proceed with or without Canadian involvement. We would be well advised to participate at the ground level in order to gain the maximum benefits possible. Canadian military leaders are overwhelmingly committed to the plan, including Lieutenant General George MacDonald, the deputy commander of NORAD who sees grave consequences for Canada if we choose not to participate in the program.

For these reasons we will endorse the plan in principle. We continue to encourage the government to participate fully in the NMD and cease its unfortunate habit of alienating our best friend, closest ally and largest trading partner, the United States. Canada could only benefit from this far reaching plan. Canada must see what the NMD system will be once fully developed. If it is as presented, we must support it and give the U.S. the benefit of the doubt while it works out options for missile defence.

In the post-cold war era there is a new, real and growing threat since the world is confronted with a more diverse, less predictable and more risk prone group of states armed with increasingly capable weapons of mass destruction used as tools of terror, blackmail and aggression.

There is always a risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch of an existing ballistic missile. Therefore, we as an ally of the U.S. have a moral imperative to allow the use of all reasonable tools available to deal with this threat. Missile defence will be a necessary element of deterrence and an opportunity for a collective approach to enhancing security for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas for instigating this debate on the space shield. He is a parliamentarian with a lot of experience. He does not hesitate to deal with core issues or often to provoke discussions.

I have to give him the credit for having initiated this debate on the space shield. This is not the first debate he has initiated, but this one is particularly important at the present time. This debate is just a starting point. We will need many more discussions over this issue.

The space shield is not a new issue. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas had no qualms telling me that when he was invited to make a speech in the House of Commons Ronald Reagan quipped that there was a lot of echo in the House of Commons when some heckling came from the NDP benches.

The position the NDP is taking today does not come as a surprise. It is consistent with the position it has sustained for many years.

In those days George Lucas, a great Hollywood producer, was having a big box office hit with his movie Star Wars . Ronald Reagan was said to promote a kind of star wars at an astronomically high cost for the time. The cost of developing such a system would probably be just as astronomical today.

What has been done so far? Some testing has been done. In fact two tests, which were far from being conclusive. I think the great American pride was somewhat hurt by these tests because they were far from being conclusive. Finally they were cut short so the Americans could say “It has been a success. We have intercepted a missile”. On the contrary, they missed the mark.

Let us look at the geopolitical issues as well as those regarding current treaties. Already international powers such as Russia and China are saying “We are party to a treaty. We often hear about the anti-ballistic missile or the ABM treaty, but we will simply withdraw from this treaty because it is our understanding that the defence system you are putting in place will give you an offensive capability, with us being unable to retaliate”.

There are important geopolitical issues to consider. It is the same thing with the non-proliferation treaty or NPT. International powers such as Russia and China say they will withdraw from such treaties, which means we could see a revival of the arms race. I will come back to this later, because it is important to understand the impact on various treaties.

With regard to geographical considerations, it is normal that Europeans be against this project given the way it has been designed. By Europeans I mean the European governments. The private sector, and members will see where I am going with this, has a totally different point of view since it is aware of all the potential economic spinoffs this could have.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, this is an election promise made by its new president, George W. Bush. It is far from being a done deal. The United States Congress and Senate have yet to say they agree with this. Need I remind the House that there is a very small Republican majority in congress and a one seat Republican majority in the senate. The President of the United States may have some plan in mind, but he still has to deal with American democratic and parliamentary entities. As we can see, it is far from being a sure thing.

I have already spoken at length about Russia and China. They are totally against this project. The position of Canada is questionable. The Prime Minister travels to China and says “We will just have to wait and see how things will go”.

A few weeks later he meets with President Bush and things start to change. He gets a little mellower and starts opening doors.

The foreign affairs minister says that it is okay as long as there is consultation and that Russia and China agree, which basically means that we are against the project. There are somewhat contradictory indications coming from the government right now.

All that to say that as far as ideology and economy are concerned, this debate will never be over. I remember I was a great pacifist and I had problems when we talked about the cruise missile tests over the Canadian territory. To me, it made no sense at all, but I had been told “Sure, but from an economic point of view if contracts are awarded in your constituency people will not be happy”. It is always the same dynamic.

The member who spoke before me referred to ties with NORAD. We must bear in mind that the NORAD agreement provides for the joint defence of the North American territory.

Our economy is so integrated with the American economy and there is such a large scale integration in our North American territorial defence policy with the Americans that it seems to me that it would be very difficult for us to stay out of all this if the President of the United States were to suddenly convince the congress and the senate to go ahead.

There would be a problem for us. However, at the moment, the concept is far from being clear. I mentioned the inconclusive tests earlier, but what concept will the Americans put forward? Everybody is waiting to know.

In English we often talk about the national missile defence program, which is really the American missile defence program, a program designed only for the United States.

The Americans, having noted the hesitation, are now saying that it could be a global anti-missile program. What does that mean? I think Canada being a close neighbour of the United States would certainly be included. What about European countries? Could the concept be expanded so that the system would protect all friendly territories against enemy attacks?

We know nothing about the American concept. Who would be included in a global program? Should Japan, Europe and Canada be included? In a strictly national program, the span would be totally different. The existing concept is one known as balance of terror.

I have a bit of a problem with arguments like “You know, Iraq could launch a missile attack on the United States”. If it launched a single missile aimed at the United States, Iraq would be wiped from the face of the earth. I fail to understand how there could be any mistake, with Iraq attacking the most powerful country in the world with a missile. I also have a hard time understanding the explanations given by the Americans.

It is clear the Americans have not totally developed their concept yet. They are sending trial balloons to see how their allies will react. Canada has not stated its position either; it is taking a wait and see approach.

We in the Bloc Quebecois would like to see what is coming, what concept the Americans want to introduce, before saying we agree. We do concede, however, as neighbours that from the economic point of view aerospace and aeronautics are established industries in Quebec. Obviously we want to wait and see, and should we decide to support the Americans we will have our say.

At this point, however, I would like to ask the government one thing. Our colleague has initiated the debate, but if decisions are to be made the government would have to commit to coming back to the House of Commons so that there may be a thorough discussion of the matter.

For the moment we can unfortunately not support the position of our colleague from Burnaby—Douglas even if we do concede that he has brought the matter before the House and that the discussion is far from over.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very controversial subject and something Canada will need to deal with as it goes forth. I appreciate the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas who has always been able to bring controversial issues to the House to ensure that they are discussed. I am sure that is his purpose today.

When I read the motion a thought came to mind. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Canada does not participate in the research, development, or production of components for use in the proposed American National Missile Defence System.

I thought perhaps it should be rewritten considering how much I disagree with it. I thought it would be more appropriate if it read:

That, in the opinion of this House, we should bury our heads even deeper in the sand, pretend that the real world does not exist and refuse to participate in the future.

We are opposition critics. I respect the member for Burnaby—Douglas and I know he worded the motion in such a way as to create controversy and generate debate, which he has done. I believe that as opposition critics we should put some thought into these issues and make sure we have the information before we blindly criticize. That is the point we are at now. We are still gathering information.

This is law in the U.S. It will happen, but it will only happen as part of a more involved system of defence from foreign missiles, be they rogue missiles or missiles from other countries. The United States has a tri-level plan to prevent missiles from harming its country and this will be only a part of it.

It is not nuclear. It is not spaced based. It is not star wars. It is not a whole lot of things that some people think it is. However we still do not know a lot about it. We are gathering information, and more and more information is becoming available all the time.

Surely we should not say that we will not listen, that we will not look at it, that we will not consider it or that we will not allow our young people and scientists and technical people to participate in it. We cannot blindly say no and rule it out. In that way I believe the motion is wrongly placed. It is not applicable, it is not practical and it is not appropriate.

As I have said, it is law in the U.S. The Americans will proceed with it, but they have not invited Canada to participate. They have sent messages that they would perhaps like us to participate, but they have not invited us to participate at any senior level. It is totally an American initiative.

It will involve a great deal of technology and research, and a lot of the technology and research will bridge over from missile defence to the civilian industry. It would be wrong to rule it out without considering the impact on the civilian aerospace industry, which is huge in Canada and has enjoyed a $25 billion surplus over the last 10 years.

To blindly refuse it without any basis in fact, without knowing anything about it, without knowing what the issues are and without even considering the impact on Canada is wrong in the opinion of members the Conservative Party.

Our entire aerospace industry is almost all export driven. It is a key component of our export business and of our entire economy. We cannot allow it to be threatened by a blind decision. To say that we do not want anything to do with it no matter what, that we do not want to listen or participate or hear anything about it, is definitely wrong.

The aerospace industry in Canada employs 60,000 people and those people could be very much a part of it. If it is in our interest we could play a key role in helping to develop the program. Again, if we say we are not interested in even listening or talking about it, the whole program and its benefits to Canada are doomed.

Earlier I said that the national missile defence system is not star wars. It is not a nuclear system. It is not even a spaced based system. It is a smaller, downgraded system from the star wars proposal. It appears very practical at first look and certainly we will be analyzing it as it goes forward.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Where is Brian Mulroney when we need him?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Good question. The Russians have something like 3,500 missiles they could launch on us. This system will involve perhaps 100 or 200 when it is fully implemented. It is not possible to consider this part of a nuclear missile system or anything like it. It is a small system that will have a lot of practical use and may also have benefits to Canada as far as economic development goes.

Our position, which we are developing now, although we need to get more information, is that we think Canada could use this opportunity as a bargaining tool to encourage the United States government and the Russians to enter into more strategic arms talks to reduce nuclear arms more than they are reducing them now. We are down to approximately 3,000 to 3,500 missiles per side. Perhaps we could use this opportunity to get them to start anti-ballistic missile talks, START talks, to try to get them to agree to a level of maybe 1,000 or 1,500 as a condition of being involved with this program. We will be presenting that position to the government when we get more information on the exact details of the proposal.

In summary, we are not widely opposed to this. Our minds are open and we want to base our decisions on the facts when they become available. When that happens, we will base our decision on facts. In the meantime, we are going to encourage the government to use this as a bargaining tool to try to really do something positive in the missile defence system and the anti-missile defence talks because there is an opportunity now to do that.

Our position is that of having an open mind. I would have to say that we are leaning in favour of it because of the tremendous benefits from technology, from training and from experience. To just say that we are not going to be involved with any of this will turn the brain drain into the brain train.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate this evening. I want to congratulate my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for introducing the motion and launching a very important debate around the sheer madness of Canada being associated in any way, shape or form with the proposed U.S. national missile defence system.

Before I get to the position of the government or, I guess more accurately, the non-position of the government, I want to just say a word or two about what I have heard from the other parties in the debate this evening.

I suppose it is not surprising that we hear from the Alliance the same usual knee-jerk, uncritical embracing of American defence initiatives. According to the Alliance, we want to Americanize our political system, Americanize our economy and certainly Americanize our health care system and our education system. Why would anybody be surprised at the Alliance's commitment to further throw in our lot with American defence initiatives, no matter how mad and irresponsible they really are?

I have to say I was somewhat more disappointed and frankly surprised at what I heard from the Bloc member who essentially said “Actually, I tend to be a bit of a pacifist myself but gee, what can you do? It is going to happen anyway”. Besides, said the member, there might be some economic advantages to us if we get in on this madness that has been condemned from every corner of the world.

Again, I am not entirely surprised. Maybe it underscores the basis for some reuniting of the Alliance and Tory interests here. Essentially, we have an uncritical view coming from the Tory Party as well, which I think is disappointing and really an abandonment of what one has from time to time seen of a more enlightened nature from this party on similar issues in the past.

I want to turn now to the government's position or, as I say, non-position. What is that position? Essentially the government claims that it does not yet know enough to take a position. What is it about the government that it is so committed to sitting squarely and firmly on the picket fence on an issue such as this one, which cries out for leadership? The excuse given is that the government does not really know enough yet or that it does not really know whether the technology is going to work. For the love of God, what does this mean?

Why is it that the German defence minister was absolutely unequivocal in stating that Germany was not prepared to be part of what essentially becomes the dismantling of the international architecture of arms control? That is the implication of going ahead with the national missile defence system. It has been recognized that what will absolutely go up in smoke is the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. That is the architecture.

I know some have said that it is sort of an old treaty since it is from 1972, but we heard the member for Burnaby—Douglas remind us again that as recently as May 2000, I believe, 187 countries, including, by the way, the U.S. and Russia, all acknowledged that we have to build on that anti-ballistic missile treaty in order to move forward with meaningful disarmament.

What is it that makes it impossible for the government to take a moral stand here when we see, for example, that the prime minister of Italy had no difficulty in saying that he had enough information? He was persuaded on the basis of what we know: that the NMD poses a risk to the indivisibility of NATO. In February, the French president, Jacques Chirac, said very clearly that the NMD cannot fail to relaunch the arms race in the world.

How much more do we need to know than that every major peace group in the world and major research bodies have clearly taken a stand that this is madness? We used to have a tradition in this country. We had a deserved reputation for taking leadership in such matters. What happened to the Pearsonian tradition? What happened such that Canada is willing to cower and to hide out from taking leadership on something that literally threatens to relaunch a major arms race in the world and threatens the future of peace and security worldwide?

I appeal to those members who are sort of playing around with this as if it were star wars. I have to say that one of the difficulties with the image, which was made to stick to the Reagan era but is now out there as a sort of questionable description of what the NMB would mean for the future of the human race, is that we now have a whole generation of young people, and actually I think the whole Canadian population, who actually think that star wars is something that is just in the movies. It has a kind of positive notion about it. There is nothing positive about a proposal of the U.S.A. to relaunch nuclear proliferation and to relaunch a massive arms race, because once the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty goes up in smoke, then we are talking about a free-for-all. We simply have to re-establish Canada as a leader in these matters. The government has congratulated itself, with good reason, for taking some leadership on the issue of landmines.

Let me make this my final point. Surely if government members will not listen to the pleas of opposition members, major scientists, other leaders and peace activists around the world, would they not be willing to listen to the pleadings of the former minister of international affairs in the government, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who now has thrown off the shackles of being part of the madness of this Liberal government? He is prepared to take a stand and say that we must not be part of this madness. I appeal to members to listen to that message.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of those who participated in this debate. In particular, of course, I thank my colleague, the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Halifax, for her comments.

I must say I was very saddened to note that spokespersons from each of the other parties all spoke out in opposition to this motion.

Frankly I was astonished by the position expressed by the spokesperson for the Bloc Quebecois. He has said very clearly that the space shield exists and that Quebec wants to profit from contracts arising out of Canada-U.S. co-operation.

What is going on with members of the Bloc Quebecois? In the past they were occasionally the voice of progress, but now they are speaking out in support of the spate shield because of the profits it will bring? This is truly shameful and unacceptable.

I recall that in the past they also supported France's nuclear testing. I presume that was for the same reason.

It is very interesting to note that two weeks ago today the Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking from Brussels, said that there was some urgency to the community of nations making their views known with respect to the proposed national missile defence system. He said in an interview from a NATO meeting:

I think the message there is that those of us who feel we should influence what comes out ought to be talking to them now.

He went on to say:

I think they are very much at the stage now of really putting their facts together and deciding what their plans are and what their options are and now is the time for their allies to indicate what their concerns or interests may be.

For heaven's sake, that is exactly what we are appealing to the government to do. It should get off the fence, as the leader of my party said, and make our views known now clearly and unequivocally to our allies that this is unacceptable.

We have heard talk about NORAD and Canada's involvement in NORAD. I sometimes wonder when I hear this talk whether this is not the desperate pleas of the generals and the arms manufacturers to allow them to continue their jobs.

What is the enemy? Surely to goodness the real enemies that we should be confronting are the enemies of environmental destruction, of poverty, of homelessness and of injustice, not these theoretical enemies that NORAD has created to try to counter. That is why we have said that Canada should be strengthening our position within the United Nations and not working within this absurd and outdated framework.

My colleague referred to the words of the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy. I want to refer to the very eloquent words of a member of the House of long standing, the member for Davenport, who spoke out very recently in opposition to the national missile defence and appealed to his own government to take a stand.

He talked about the fact that this so-called rogue state scenario was in fact ludicrous. He said that this absurd hypothesis omitted the fact that none of these states had nuclear weapons nor long range missiles, that these countries were very poor, and that their leaders did not want to provoke retaliation. Moreover, experts agreed that terrorist attacks, weapons stuffed in briefcases or trailer trucks, posed a greater danger to national security than ballistic rockets.

I appeal to the members on the government side to listen to their colleague from Davenport who has pleaded with his government to say no, to take a clear stand now.

Medical students in British Columbia have just launched a campaign called www.bombsaway.ca, appealing to the government to speak out against missile defence. They said the nuclear arms race is one of the greatest threats to global health and security.

New Democrats strongly support the attempts to try to convince the government to say no to NMD and to say yes to the abolition of all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The motion was not selected as a votable item and is therefore dropped from the order paper.

I have also been informed that there will be no proceedings on the motion to adjourn the House this evening.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)