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said that Canada should be strengthening our position within the United Nations and not working within this absurd and outdated framework.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.