Debates of May 15th, 2003

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not denigrate the action of the standing committee or its functions. Not at all. It serves a great purpose. I am talking about Parliament.

Parliament has been left out of the loop and the parliamentary secretary said that she was really glad we were here debating this. The only reason we are debating it is because the opposition moved the motion.

The government should move the motion and it should be votable but it is not. At least the opposition took the opportunity to have a debate. If it were not for the opposition, there would be no debate in Parliament.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Bloc Québécois for putting forward this motion today and providing the House of Commons with an opportunity to debate whether or not Canada should participate or for that matter whether or not Canada should begin a conversation with the United States of America on Canadian participation in what is sometimes called national missile defence but which is more appropriately called star wars. I will explain why that is so.

Unfortunately, and I think my colleagues from the Bloc would agree, even though we are grateful to them for bringing forward today's motion, this is not exactly what we would have preferred.

What we would have preferred and what I am sure they would have preferred is for the government to have the courage of its own convictions, if that is not a contradiction when we are talking about Liberals, to bring forward a motion that would have authorized the Canadian government to begin negotiations with respect to NMD. Then members of Parliament could have expressed themselves and we could have voted accordingly. Presumably if the government has the support of its own members, the motion would have carried. Then the government could have negotiated with the United States of America on this subject and claimed that it had the backing of Parliament to do so.

Why would the Liberals not do that? It seems to me either they have a congenital contempt for Parliament that prevents them from allowing Parliament to participate in a proper way in these kinds of decisions, or perhaps they are so divided among themselves that they fear the consequences of such a vote, or perhaps it is both.

I do not want to get sidetracked too much on matters of process, although I may have something more to say about that later. I certainly regret that the government has not agreed to the request of the Bloc Québécois that by unanimous consent we might permit this motion to be voted on.

The Prime Minister invited opposition parties to use their opposition days. The Bloc members have done so. It is only a procedural fact that they do not have any votable motions left. However if the government were really keen on Parliament being able to participate, it could have agreed that this become a votable motion. The fact it has not agreed shows just how insincere and hypocritical the remarks of the Prime Minister were when he encouraged the opposition to bring forward this matter.

I want to begin speaking on the substance of this matter by quoting Nobel laureate John Polanyi, who is a senior fellow at Massey College, University of Toronto. As reported in an article in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, May 7, he said:

It is evident that NMD points the world down the wrong path; it is the path of fortress-building, which, in the 21st century, is hopelessly anachronistic. Unchecked, weapons and counterweapons lead only to the development of further weapons. In the course of NMD, outer space will be weaponized. Satellites, now the vital eyes and ears of the world, will then become targets. The pursuit of security through unbridled armament will have led to a pandemic of insecurity.

This sums up the reasons the NDP and others see this step that the government appears about to take as the wrong decision. It is wrong to contemplate it in the first place. By agreeing to even discuss this with the United States we will be agreeing to an emerging doctrine, an emerging strategic defence doctrine, on the part of the United States that goes against everything Canada has stood for, for decades.

I am speaking here of our longstanding commitment to arms control through multilateral agreements. It is no coincidence that in order for the national missile defence plan to even be considered, the anti-ballistic missile treaty had to be abrogated by the United States.

A longstanding arms control treaty had to be abrogated unilaterally by the United States in order for the very thing the government wants to talk to the United States about to be able to happen. This should have been the first clue that what we are being asked to be a part of is contrary to Canadian tradition.

The government will say that geopolitical circumstances have changed. Mostly what it says is that now Russia and China do not have any objections, or particularly Russia, that somehow the United States has come to an accommodation with Russia on this. That may be true, but I would say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs that geopolitical circumstances can change again. I hope that is not so, but it could well be that five or ten years down the road there could be an antagonistic relationship between Russia and the United States once again and what would we have in place as a result of basing policy on what may well only be a snapshot in terms of geopolitical circumstances? We would have the very thing we have been trying to avoid for 40 years.

Let us not have so much confidence in the present that it will last forever. Let us be much more cautious than the government appears to be.

It is the wrong path because it repudiates decades of commitment to multilateral arms control. It is the wrong path because it is destabilizing, even if it is not star wars, and I contend that it is, for the very reasons so many people have outlined. This would be an encouragement to other countries to build similar systems or to arm themselves and to have even more missiles so that they could conceivably break through any missile defence the United States might have if they were to become enemies of the United States.

Mostly I want to say that it is an act of deliberate blindness on the part of the Liberal government to pretend that this is not star wars, that this is not part and parcel of a strategy at the Pentagon and on the part of the Bush administration to eventually create a world in which the very thing that we call star wars is a reality.

As evidence of what I am saying, let me cite from a document I have here, a report of the Project for the New American Century, September 2000. Incidentally this report was produced before September 11, 2001. So much of what happens today is supposed to be justified by what happened on September 11, 2001. The fact of the matter is that a lot of what we are discussing here today is not a response to September 11, 2001; it is something that had been in the works for a long time before the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

The report of the Project for the New American Century entitled “Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century”, is quite a lengthy document. It is recommended reading, I would say, for anyone who really wants to know what is going on because the people who wrote this report are the ones who are writing the script for American foreign policy at the moment at the Pentagon and in the White House. What does it say?

The section “Key Findings” talks about core missions for U.S. military forces and two of them are relevant to the debate here today. The first one says:

Develop and deploy global missile defences to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.

Even if one does not accept the fact that there is anything to defend against in terms of missiles, at least in principle the idea of defending the American homeland and American allies is not something one would want to quarrel with. But to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world, what does that mean?

The second one says:

Control the new “international commons” of space and “cyberspace,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service--U.S. Space Forces--with the mission of space control.

This is the context in which the decision the government is about to make has to be looked at. It cannot be looked at ahistorically, as if it is happening in some pristine, idealistic environment. It is happening in the context of opening up discussions with an American administration that has this in mind.

Further to what I am saying, I would also like to read this into the record. It is the United States “Space Command Vision for 2020”. Under a section called global engagement it states:

The proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction, WMD, requires an NMD.

So far, so good in the sense that this is the standard argument, although it is not something that we accept. Then it goes on to say:

NMD will evolve into a mix of ground and space sensors and weapons.

All I am asking of the Liberal government is to be straightforward with us, not to pretend, not to put its hands over its eyes or bury its head in the sand and pretend that somehow this is not part of a long term plan for the weaponization of space. Let us stop kidding the House of Commons, to the extent that the government consults the House of Commons.

Maybe government members are kidding themselves. They are certainly kidding the Canadian people. The Liberals are kidding them to the extent that, by entering into these negotiations they are in fact entering into negotiations to become part of a stage of something they have repeatedly said they are against, which is the weaponization of space.

They may want to argue that they continue to be against the weaponization of space and that is why they want to be at the table, that is why they want to be part of the negotiations. If that is true, then I invite them to make that a whole lot clearer than they have. I invite them to say clearly to the United States that not only are they against the weaponization of space in principle, but that a condition of the negotiations is that there will be no weaponization of space and that the United States will commit to hosting an international conference to develop a convention against the weaponization of space, as has been suggested.

U.S. congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has called on Canada, or perhaps also the U.S. government, to launch a conference to seek approval of an international treaty to ban weapons in space. A former defence minister, Paul Hellyer, said in the Globe and Mail today that we would be much better off, and contributing to a more peaceful world, if we were to support this call by Congressman Kucinich rather than entering into these negotiations, as the government is about to do, and pretending that somehow this is not part of an overall American commitment to the weaponization of space.

So, wrong path, but also the wrong set of reasons given by Canada or in some sense not owned up to by Canada. I firmly believe, as many do, that the rush to judgment on this is not due to some American timetable but is due to an overzealous desire on the part of the government to make up for the decision that was taken with respect to Canadian non-participation in the war in Iraq.

That was a decision on the part of the Liberal government that I welcomed, that we in the NDP welcomed. However, we will not be welcoming it in retrospect if it leads in every other respect to the Canadian government feeling that it has to make up for that brief shining moment of independence by agreeing to everything else that the American administration wants the Canadian government to do. It will not have been worth it if in the end we were independent for a few months and then dependent and obedient for decades to come as a result.

I hope, but I suspect otherwise, that what we see here in respect of the government's position on star wars is not a form of atonement, if you like, for the alleged sin of not complying with American wishes when it came to the war in Iraq.

I said wrong reasons. Here are some of the other wrong reasons: “Well, we have to be at the table”. Well, not if it is wrong. Not if it is wrong: surely the government is not counselling that wherever there is a table and somebody is discussing something Canada has to be there. We only want to be at the table if they are discussing something with which we agree. We certainly do not want to be there to legitimize something that we think is profoundly contrary to the long term security and peace of the world.

People may disagree about this. If the Canadian Alliance feels that this is in the long term interests of peace and security in the world and wants to be at the table, that makes sense. That is at least internally coherent, which is not always true of Canadian Alliance positions. But for the Liberals to say, “We are against the weaponization of space but we want to be at that table”, I think they could be sending a much stronger message by saying, “We know what NMD is all about and we know that it is going to lead to the weaponization of space. We see it in American document after American document and we are not going to pretend otherwise. We are going to tell the truth about what this is really all about”. That would be a much better thing to do.

This having to be at the table business just does not cut it. In fact, as even the Canadian Alliance member pointed out from a different point of view, this is an argument that the government rejected just months ago. If the government wanted to have influence on the war in Iraq, then it should have participated in the war in Iraq, but the Liberals thought that the war in Iraq was wrong, or that it was contrary to international law, or whatever the real reasons were that the Liberals did not participate. They did not want to be at that table. They did not want to be part of it. That is the way it should be with NMD.

Then there is the economic argument, which the Liberals have given to some extent, but the Canadian Alliance is more guilty of this: that somehow we have to consider what is good for our economy. I would agree that we have to consider what is good for our economy, but we cannot allow economic considerations to cloud what are ultimately judgments about the future of the planet. We cannot allow those kinds of economic considerations to cloud our moral judgment if in fact we believe that the weaponization of space is something to which we would want to object on moral grounds. I find these economic arguments very specious indeed.

I have talked about the wrong path. I have talked about the wrong reasons, particularly the Canadian reasons being given. I understand the American reasons. They are much more honest about what they are doing. We disagree with them, but they are very up front about what they are about. They are not completely up front because they are trying to pretend that this does not have to do with star wars, yet document after document shows that it does. We know that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been interested in the weaponization of space for decades, so to that extent they are not being completely forthright.

But they are being more forthright than the Canadian government, which suggests that this is just a limited thing, that there is nothing to worry about, that it does not even have to consult Parliament. It says, “We are going to have a complete departure from everything we have said for decades”, and even from what this government has said about the weaponization of space, “and we are not even going to have a debate in Parliament. We are going to leave that up to the opposition. We are just going to have a discussion among the Liberal caucus”. How many times have people stood up and said, “We are discussing this in the Liberal caucus”? The Liberal caucus presumably is being told by the government what is involved, or maybe not. Maybe the caucus is being asked to debate it in the kind of vacuum in which we are being asked to debate it.

But the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party are not Canada. The Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus are not Parliament. The Liberal Party and the Liberal caucus are not the entire political world of Canadians. Quite apart from the issue of star wars, regarding the answers we have received that “we are discussing it among ourselves”, I have not seen any evidence so strong in a long time that shows just how arrogant and self-contained the Liberal collective ego is with respect to how they see the country and their relationship with the country.

All of us here, all Canadians, both opposition parties and citizens and others, we are just dross. We are just props to create the illusion of democracy, because the real decisions are being made in the Liberal caucus, and if things are being discussed there why should any of us even be concerned about it? We should just feel reassured that the best minds in the country are gathered at the feet of the Prime Minister. The rest of us have nothing to worry about.

Wrong path, wrong reasons, wrong process, contempt for Parliament: there is a lot to talk about but I think my time has almost expired. Certainly we in the New Democratic Party are adamantly opposed to NMD. We call it star wars. We call it stars wars because in the end that is what this is about. It is a funny thing. Star wars in its former incarnation was the SDI, the strategic defense initiative. Even Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, not noted for his independence of mind when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, was able to say to the United States when it came to SDI and star wars, “No. We are not going to be a part of that”.

All we are asking of the government is that it have at least the independence of mind that prime minister showed with respect to SDI, which is what star wars was called then. Star wars is now called NMD. The government should stop pretending that it is just some limited thing, that it is not part of an overall strategic doctrine inimical to everything Canada has ever stood for. The government should stop pretending that. It should be honest with Canadians. If the government still wants to go ahead, then it should at least be answerable for what it is really doing, instead of getting away with pretending it is doing something else.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the views of member, as I did to the former speaker, views that are well expressed and articulate as ever, but naive also, and dismayingly so. No matter how he might say that he is not indicating what I believe he is indicating when he says that by even agreeing to discuss this it signals an acceptance on our part or it signals a diversion from the foreign policy tenets that have underlined our foreign policy, he is. Even while saying that he is not saying that, he is saying that. I listened very carefully. In my view, the conclusion he draws is that we should pull our hats down over our eyes and ears, assume the prenatal position and hope to God nothing happens.

However, if we are part of a continent so dictated by geography and if we want to learn, which the hon. members would have us believe they want to do, then we have to participate in the usual human discourse called conversation. If we want to gain the answers that he and his Progressive Conservative colleagues want to have, then we have to communicate. This is what we are discussing. This is what the government is discussing here in the House, in committee, in caucus and in cabinet.

I am appalled to hear him imply that perhaps we should deal in a way with a country such as North Korea by not assigning diplomatic relations because that might imply approbation. No. It merely means we had better talk and we had better set up the vehicle by which we can talk.

Only then can we learn whether what he worries about is star wars or not. In our view it is not. There has been a progression and we have learned about the progression and the changes on the part of the American administration by communiqué. How can one come to the House of Commons and say we will not communicate? It is incredible to listen to a man with his reputation send that message to this eminent place.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ, obviously. I think the truly naive people in this debate are in the government. The government members are the ones who are curled up in a prenatal position saying, “Please do not tell me that it is related to star wars. Please do not cause me to face up to the fact that it has to do with the ultimate weaponization of space. Please, we do not want to hear anything about that because we are in this bind, we have to do something to please the Americans, and this is the thing that is on the table right now. The last thing we want to hear is that what we are about to do is against everything we stood for”.

These are the people who are in the prenatal position. It is not the NDP. I think the real naiveté is on the part of anyone who believes that this is not part and parcel of a long term plan to weaponize space.

If people want to be for that, then they are not in a prenatal position; they are out front debating it. But if they want to pretend that it is not about that, in the final analysis those are the people who are being truly naive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his speech and perhaps draw his attention to one point—I think he raised it, but I would like him to elaborate a little further--that is the definition of star wars.

I think that we are already into the process of “The Empire Strikes Back”. I believe that the Americans drove the point home to Canadians that, following their non-participation, it was now the time for us to help them and to take part in the missile defence plan.

In fact, I have felt for some time that the Liberal Party was allergic to the words star wars. I would like my colleague to tell me if he has the same feeling. Indeed, we want to get away from everything that is called weaponization of space, but I think that the Americans are smart enough to use a concept that will lead to the weaponization of space.

If Canadians have taken part in the first stages of this project and if we pursue negotiations, this will inevitably lead them to the weaponization of space.

I would like the member to give me his opinion on the fact that the words star wars have now been banned by the Liberal Party, because this is exactly the purpose of the project.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He refers in his last comments to the fact that apparently the cabinet has chastized the Minister of Canadian Heritage for referring to NMD as star wars. I think the Minister of Canadian Heritage has got it right on this one. I wish she had it right on a few other things, but she got it right on this one. The cabinet's disapproval of her use of the words star wars is part and parcel to what I was talking about earlier, this wilful blindness on the part of the Liberals when it comes to this issue. It is what they call in the Bible “eyes that will not see and ears that will not hear”. This is what we have on the part of the government.

There may be people who are for NMD and ultimately for the weaponization of space. We can disagree in principle and in substance with those kinds of people, but once again we have a Liberal government that is not being forthright with Parliament and the Canadian people and preventing a real debate from taking place. That really is ultimately a great sin against democracy.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing on which I agree with the member it is the democratic process in this place. There ought to be open transparency in all of these issues. There should be some involvement from every side of the House with regard to this particular main issue of the future.

I believe that when somebody denies or just says no, that it will not be made votable, that person should have to spend at least one minute defending why they are saying no. The truth of the matter is that we just do not operate under a democracy in this place and we really need some serious changes. I agree with that.

I get the impression when I listen to an NDP speaker, and this member is no different, that the only ones who are the beholders of the truth are members of the NDP, that everybody else is all wet but the NDP has all the answers.

I wish I were so confident in my support or non-support of a particular issue. I want to know more about it. I want to have an open debate. I want full discussions. I want to see some good, honest disclosure. I do not want to listen to a speech that says, “If you think it is not about this, then you are just barking up some tree, because we know that is what it is all about”. I am sorry. If NDP members base it on their socialist documents or whatever documents they base it on, that is not good enough for me. I do not think that is any more convincing than the Liberals and some of their arguments.

I would like to ask the member, first and mainly, does he not believe for a moment that a democratic process can take place by having open, honest discussions with the United States about this issue? I would also like him to know that defence has weapons as well as there being offensive weapons. This project is always talked about as being the offensive project of star wars, but I keep hearing more about the defence of a nation and of a people.

The constitution of the United States says that the President of the United States is responsible for the safety and protection of all its citizens. I assume that is what we want in Canada. I believe that the discussions need to go far beyond comments such as those I have heard today. I do not have the capability of understanding fully what this is all about, but I would like to have the opportunity to do so. I will not take the hon. member's word for everything any more than I would take anybody else's; I want to get right down to the meat of it. We can do that with open debate and being at the table with our American allies where we can ask them what it is they are really up to, and to please get it down to my kind of language so I can understand it.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the member for Wild Rose would be the last person to be critical of someone because that person was sure of what he or she was saying and said it with conviction, as if other people who disagreed with that individual were wrong.

This is our position. The member has his position. On this issue, unlike a great many others that the member speaks to in the House, perhaps he is not absolutely sure what the right position is, in which case that is fair enough. Certainly, the member speaks on many other matters as if anyone who disagrees with him is to be cast into the sea of fire or something. Let us not have too much of that from the member for Wild Rose.

I agree with him when it comes to the whole question of the democratic process. The member gives me an opportunity to read one more thing into the record, again, talking about the current and long term context in which we have to see this issue. I am quoting from the document called “United States Space Command: Vision For 2020”. There is a very interesting comment here. What is really worrisome is the extent to which the United States assumes that it will not have an antagonistic relationship with the rest of the world. On what basis would it be doing that? I have sometimes wondered about that. In future trends, as part of this document, it states:

Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally

It then goes on to say:

The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between “haves” and “have-nots”.

It is the have-nots that are ultimately the threat to the United States. It is the current corporate model of globalization which is creating the have-nots, the insecurity, and the antagonism toward the United States and the global economic model that it is imposing on the rest of the world through the WTO and elsewhere. If the Americans want peace and security, and a peaceful world they should start to rethink their commitment to the corporate model of globalization instead of star wars.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the motion which reads as follows:

That this House urge the government not to take part in the United States' missile defence plan.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Champlain.

I would like to commend the hon. member for Saint-Jean on his motion. It comes from a member who, as defence critic, is very respectful of military issues but who also has been very clear about knowing exactly what the government wants to do with the Canadian armed forces. Today, by raising this issue in the House of Commons—and that is another reason I support it—he is making the government face the fact that it has put the cart before the horse once more.

We ought to ask questions about the kind of international action we want Canada to take in all fields, including defence. With regard to defence, in order to define what kind of armed forces we want, these questions must be answered—not randomly, one at a time, but with the knowledge, right from the start, of what choices have been made.

On this subject, we are very worried about the current federal government's attitude. On missile defence, its attitude suggests that it wants to be forgiven for positions it previously took vis-à-vis the Americans.

I say to the people who are listening, and to the Americans who may be listening, that we understand very well the reflexive need for security after the events of September 11, after the war in Iraq that the U.S. government decided to wage without the UN's approval, after what has just happened in Saudi Arabia, where high-ranking Americans have been subject to terrorist attack after terrorist attack. We can understand the American reaction.

But, when we say we are good friends with the Americans, we must also be able to tell them that the solution does not necessarily lie in erecting a very costly wall around America. Maybe there are other solutions that would be less expensive and that would also be more profitable in terms of reinvestment. We know that, traditionally, investments in the defence sector may be spectacular, but the impact is not always what one might expect.

Let us remember that when Clinton was President of the United States, he decided to invest less in the military. During his term, the U.S. economy grew a lot as a direct result of his choice. It is worth noting.

I am very happy to support the motion because it clearly asks the government not to blindly buy into the idea that developing new weapons will make the world a safer place. That is one point of view. Current events are proving it wrong. I think everyone on the planet has understood that or should have understood it. There will never be a fool-proof defence system, if all one does is defend oneself. If we do not reach out, if we do not get our act together and solve problems in this world, we will never get anywhere.

In our system in Quebec and Canada, we do not throw people in jail for just about anything or for the slightest breach of the law. It would cost an awful lot, and there would be no rehabilitation. The same applies to international relations. We must behave responsibly.

The whole issue begs the following question. In view of what this projet might cost, is it the best way to spend money? Would it not be better to invest in other areas? Incidentally, Canada has just set aside $200 million to help in the reconstruction of Irak. The Bloc Quebecois leader applauded that move, saying that this had to be done multilaterally, of course. We recognized that move as a positive one.

However, by blindly buying into the missile defence plan, the government is being totally irresponsible, I believe. On December 17, 2002, President Bush announced the start of the deployment of the missile defence plan with the installation of the first 10 interceptor rockets within two years to protect the United States against possible attacks from rogue states. He was referring to North Korea or terrorist groups, among others.

Incidentally, if a decision is made to invest in the fight against terrorism, huge weapon systems may not be the best approach; it may be worthwhile to look into how to ensure that 18 or 20 individuals do not get to board commercial planes to commit acts like the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Even with the greatest missile defence system, in the absence of preventative measures to deal with such behaviours, the problem will not have been solved, and piles of money will have been spent for nothing. The CIA and the FBI have money. They have spent a great deal of money on a daily basis, yet did not achieve the desired result of preventing the events of September 11. We must keep this in mind in connection with the missile defence system.

We are told that the Pentagon was given a free hand in June 2002, at the expiration of the 1972 ABM treaty, which dated back to the cold war and banned national missile defence systems. Since 1999, five trials in the land-based mid-course intercept missile program have been successful, but the latest one was not. That is what we were told on December 11, 2002.

This whole debate goes way back. Things have evolved since 1956, particularly the phase of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan's star wars I project, in which the government chose not to participate. What we have today, under President Bush, is almost star wars II.

In fact, the substance of this project has come under heavy criticism. There are many concerns about the technologies and astronomical costs involved, the questionable usefulness of the system and its impact on the nuclear threat.

Instead of taking the attitude of favouring disarmament by negotiating hard with other nations to achieve a certain result, the attitude is, “We will have the best missiles and the best missile defence plan; so, you had better arm yourselves well if you plan to attack us”. We must be keenly aware of the fact that this will start off an arms race.

Those who were around in the 1950s and 1960s will recall the intense feeling of insecurity among the population during that period and how long it took to get over this feeling and find ways of promoting freer trade between nations and try to slowly build a more lasting peace.

So we are in a situation where, until now, the Government of Canada has adopted a very closed attitude. As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister said some things that are completely unacceptable, “We will discuss this issue in cabinet and in caucus only”. The only party that would be consulted on this issue is the government party caucus. That is incredible. During question period, the Prime Minister said, “If the opposition wishes to discuss this issue, it can make it a matter of debate on an opposition day. As a government, we believe that it is not important to have a debate on this issue. We do not wish to hear what the people think about this”.

The Bloc Quebecois took him up on his suggestion. The member for Saint-Jean brought forward an interesting motion. Worse even, the Prime Minister himself, who invited us to ask for a debate at the House, personally refused that the motion be made votable. There is a degree of machiavellianism behind that, and it is unacceptable. We are not in a state where we only have to move pawns on a chessboard to win the game. We have to make choices that will have a profound impact on future generations.

Yesterday I was in Rouyn-Noranda. We talked about a lot of different subjects. Young people of an age to be attending CEGEP are concerned by these questions. People may wonder why we in Rouyn-Noranda have such concerns. Because we live in an era of globalization. We know that important decisions can be made in the United States or here in this Parliament. It is no longer easy to pull the wool over people's eyes. They are very much aware that parliamentarians must assume some responsibility.

I do not think that a single Liberal member said, during the last election campaign, that if the missile defence plan became an isusue, he or she did not want it talked about in the House and would support the Prime Minister so it could all be dealt with in secret. I am sure no Liberal MP said such a thing. Their approach would instead have been to focus on the importance of defence, saying, “We will carry out the necessary studies. We must be sure, before going ahead, that our positions are solid ones and that we know where we are headed”.

But today we are faced with the reality of a motion calling upon this House to set aside its intentions, to not participate in the U.S. missile defence plan. We are dealing here with something of great concern to us, the impacts of which we do not fully comprehend.

I think it is far more responsible to say “Let us maintain the attitude of previous Canadian governments, of the people who want to see peaceful solutions in this world”. By so doing, let us send a clear message to the government that the U.S. missile defence plan, a plan hardly anyone in Canada really knows anything about, apart from the Prime Minister and cabinet, perhaps, must be dropped. There is very little information available now on which to base any involvement in this plan. And any involvement must be supported of this House.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments, but I still have a small problem.

He says that the United States must choose other areas on which to spend their money. However, the Americans have already made their decision. Canadians certainly cannot tell the American government what its priorities should be.

The Canadian government must now ponder how it will reply. We believe that we should discuss both the process and the system with the Americans. This is their choice. As I said, they have reached a decision. Right now, we are thinking about our answer. We can choose to disregard reality, as some members said earlier, or we can take part in the negotiations to learn more about this whole project.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. We have to be clear. I understand that the Americans have made their choice. The problem is that we also have to make choices. We cannot make a choice just because the Americans have made one and hop on the same train without asking any questions and without knowing what is going on.

I will answer her question with another. Is it right that on a bill that will have such important consequences for the future of all Canadians, the Government of Canada is not giving any real information to the opposition members? Is that how democracy works? Is that the kind of democracy we want in this country?

There is another important element to consider. In the position that Canada adopts, there is also a message to the international community. Is our way of looking at this really the same as the Americans' or is there another way? Do we not have a responsibility in the multilateral approach that we are developing to take into consideration the views of all the countries concerned, namely all the countries on the planet, in order to find appropriate and democratic solutions? In this respect, we have a responsibility regarding the message that we want to send to the Americans and to the rest of the world, while being very aware of the economic importance of our neighbour, the most powerful nation in the world.

The responsible attitude is not to say yes without knowing what the bill will contain, but rather to ask questions about what it will contain. At this point, with what we know, the Bloc Quebecois cannot support this plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He was very articulate. I will ask him to elaborate on this issue.

This morning, I concluded my speech by saying: “we must ask ourselves what kind of world we want to live in”. The member said something similar earlier when he asked if the solution would be to have the best missiles and the best antimissile shield to protect ourselves.

Could we not adopt an international point of view and think about distributing wealth more equitably so that all nations on earth, including the United States of course, feel respected, and live in a world where we lean towards pacifism instead of militarism?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Jean for his question.

In fact, there is an underlying issue to this whole debate and it has to do with the choices we want to make. Earlier today, a NDP member quoted a document which said that, given the wide gap between the poor and the rich of this world, we must build all sorts of barriers to protect ourselves from the have-nots.

I do not think we should go that way. We should choose openness. Let me make a quick comparison. We suffered through two world wars before we discovered that free trade could help us expand markets without our having to resort to political wars.

Could we not promote another type of process and could the Government of Canada not champion that process instead of agreeing with an antimissile system whose content and impacts we know nothing about? I call upon the Government of Canada to meet that challenge.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like others before me, I want to thank the member for Saint-Jean for bringing forward this motion that deals with a most important issue.

If we are elected to this House to speak on behalf of our constituents, we should have the right to speak to these kinds of issues. I am always outraged to see the government make decisions without giving us the opportunity to debate the issues, as is the case today since it is not the government party that brought this issue forward, even though it should have done so.

I was a provincial MP in Quebec and I remember that, when there were fundamental issues to be discussed, René Lévesque always told us, “We will discuss it on the floor of the National Assembly; that is where the representatives of the people are and that is where we should have the right to express our views on behalf of our constituents”. Mr. Lévesque was a person who truly believed in democracy.

Personally, I think that the last question asked by the member for Saint-Jean is fundamental. What kind of world do we want to live in? We are globalizing poverty and imbalance. We have to protect ourselves more and more because there are people in other countries who will live in poverty because of our wealth, and we are letting it happen.

This morning, I think someone raised the matter of the U.S. president's discussion paper. The document says that the number of poor people will increase and that there will be fewer and fewer rich people, but that they will be increasingly rich, and that they will need to protect themselves against the poor. It is quite alarming to hear such comments and to know—on top of that—that it is true. That is where we are headed.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the 9th Conférence de Montréal, which brings together all of the countries of the Americas to discuss various themes and subjects. I went along with two ministers from the House and there were also other members there. There are always experts who speak at these conferences. This time, there were experts from the World Bank who told us that unless we woke up, we would basically put an end to this world as we know it.

They showed us, for example, that 20% of the world's population, 20% of the world's countries, do not have electricity. This figure will surprise many people. As population increases, more and more hard energy is used, such as coal and wood, because it is cheap energy. We are in the process of polluting the planet in certain areas.

I am not making this up, this comes from an expert from the World Bank who gave a presentation. In some parts of the world right now there is a cloud of pollution that filters out between 10% and 15% of the sun's rays. This expert told us how to make you aware of this problem and to tell you that now is the time to act.

He told us that with approximately $600 billion, we could provide clean energy for the whole world. Six hundred billion dollars over 15 years would solve the problem. Otherwise, we are headed to our demise. I did not make this up. Ask some of the Liberal members who were at the same presentations as I was.

Obviously these people who are invited to show us problems as they are do not come there to lie to us. They come to tell us the truth because they are scientists who travel the world over in their work with the World Bank.

We are now talking about a missile defence plan that will cost somewhere between $60 and $100 billion, or one sixth of what we would need to solve a major part of the global energy problem, to solve a major part of the pollution problem that we are responsible for because we do not take action and we wait until tomorrow, because there is not enough of a financial advantage for us, because we do not give a damn about the people who live in misery and poverty.

Every time I attend such conferences, I wonder what we can do to get some response. I asked a Liberal member who was with me, “Do you think that the Prime Minister and Mr. Bush listen to these speakers? Do they ask them questions?” He said, “I am sure they do not. And even if they listened to them, they would not believe that they are telling the truth”.

However, these people are our leaders; they are making decisions about our future. We were talking about young people. My colleague was saying that yesterday he met some young people who are concerned. They are right to be concerned, not because we would not be able to change things, but because we do not have the courage to change things, because we do not have the guts to change things, because we live as though we are the last people who will walk on this planet. I find this quite discouraging.

When the government tells us, “We have no choice; the Americans have decided this”, I say, “No way. We are a country. We are able to take our responsibilities”. We should be able to tell them what is wrong—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You are right, we are a country. I am pleased to hear that, coming from the Bloc.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

That is a fact. Until further notice, it is still a country, at least I hope so. We are quite capable of taking our responsibilities. Why be followers? Why buy their pitch? Why not tell them they need to take a different approach?

[An hon. member]

We must act like a country, not a branch office.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

That is right, we must act like a country, and not like a branch office, as we are doing right now.

Recently, in an interview with young people from my riding, I said, “At my age, I for one have polluted enough. I am from the generation that got rich destroying our resources. It is time we realized this kind of thing no longer makes sense”.

What will it take? Since September 11, 2001, we keep hearing that things have changed. What has changed? I recall a message from the so-called world leaders following September 11. In this message, Tony Blair said, “We are going to have to give thought to a better distribution. We are going to have to really think about poverty. We are going to have to think hard, or else we will be planting the seeds of terrorism”. Weapons will not rid us of terrorism, but rather a change in attitude; we must seek a more balanced distribution of wealth. Talk is cheap unless it is backed up by action. And we could take action nationally. For example, we could help the poorest in society by giving them the money that is owed to them. I am thinking of those seniors who are deprived of the guaranteed income supplement. That is one action that could be taken.

Since I am getting the signal that my time is up, I will just add that I will keep repeating in every forum that this situation does not make sense. Indeed, it does not make sense that we, in Canada, are encouraging the Americans and taking our lead from them when unpardonable mistakes are being made.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made an excellent speech that goes to the core of his concerns and those of the Bloc Quebecois.

Unfortunately, the hon. member did not have enough time to talk about the democratic dimension of this issue and what is happening in the House right now. I would like to hear his comments on this.

Last week, the Prime Minister was asked questions on missile defence. We were asking for a debate on this issue, and the Prime Minister answered that we had opposition days and we should use them for that purpose.

We are taking up the challenge. We are using one opposition day. The Prime Minister even said that we had supply days when the House can vote on the opposition motion. In our case, we have run out of days when we can have a vote on our motion.

What does the hon. member think of the way the debate is evolving? We are being told repeatedly, “This is going on in the Liberal caucus, in cabinet, in the offices of Liberal members, but opposition members do not have a say”.

Thus, we are forced to use an opposition day to discuss the missile defence plan. Is this not a problem with democracy in Parliament?

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Indeed, there is something drastically wrong with democracy if we cannot debate this kind of issue. It is not only about putting our views on the record but also about voting on the issue. If ever there was a topic worthy not only of being looked at in depth by all of us together, but also of being voted on, it is this one.

I would like to know how many members across the way support this plan? Why is the government not willing to let us vote on it? Because it knows full well there is a lot of dissension.

Apart from the members whom I met at a conference last week and whom I identified, I personally know several others who are in total disagreement with the decision the government is about to make. They are totally opposed to decisions of this kind being made behind closed doors, at the prime ministerial level, without any consultation. Is this a democratic country, supposedly the best country in the world?

Why could we not have a debate and make a decision, that is at least vote on the issue to know exactly what the elected representatives of the people think about it? As someone said earlier, nobody was elected for saying, “Do not worry, the major decisions will be made by the Prime Minister and I will not have a say on it”. This is not true. When we are out there on the campaign trail, we say, “I will be there to defend your interests, represent you and inform you”. If we were in a true democracy, an issue as important as this one would be brought forward for debate by the Prime Minister himself, and voted on.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

To begin, I want to say how delighted I am that we are having the debate. This is Parliament at its best. This is what we are supposed to in here.

I also would like to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence for their willingness, not only to participate in this debate but to extend that courtesy in private meetings with members of Parliament and to take the time to consider this important step at which we are looking.

Finally, I would like to thank the Prime Minister himself for encouraging the debate both within caucus and in Parliament, for urging us to take the time necessary so we can satisfy ourselves about some questions.

I think everybody in the House shares a common view about the war on terrorism. Our repugnance, our horror at what happened in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001 has demanded and evoked from Canadians an appropriate response, a response to fight terrorism wherever it is, a response to defend our continent with the United States against terrorist attacks and a response which has seen our participation in Afghanistan, which has served as a launching pad, a staging ground, for terrorism. That commitment to Afghanistan will continue this coming summer as we try our best to ensure that Afghanistan does not slip back into a state in which it would be once again a failed stated and, hence, a potential home for terrorists. I think we are all on the same page on the war on terrorism.

The problem is there is a bit of a dispute, I suppose, among our friends, the Americans, as to what constitutes a clear and present danger.

We can see, as recently as this week's news, that is the horrific bombings in Saudi Arabia, that the enemy has not disappeared. We have no evidence of the deaths of Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar. We have a lot of evidence that the network continues and it will need all our attention. That is where we need to concentrate our resources immediately. That is why, in his state of the union speech in January 2002, I think Canadians were genuinely puzzled that the President seemed to be taking his eye off the ball against the war on terrorism and moving it onto some other subject, which is called the axis of evil. At that point we were puzzled.

We now see that is part of a larger doctrine, which is known variously as the project for the new American century, or the Bush doctrine, or the national security strategy of the United States of America, as announced last September. We now have some sense of what was animating Mr. Bush when he made the shift in his state of the union speech, and we have seen the Bush doctrine in action in the war in Iraq.

One of the questions we have to ask ourselves is, how does this new context work? That is to say the context of the Bush doctrine, a doctrine which supposes unilateralism, military superiority in every sphere without any other country challenging, a doctrine which encourages unilateral interventions and pre-emptions of attack to occur, as was the case in Iraq, a new doctrine in which the context of national missile defence has to be seen.

One of the arguments put forward in order to ask questions is that we need to have a dialogue, or talks or conversations with the United States and that this is something different from negotiations. If one were to look back over 40 years of defence talks with the United States, one would find that inevitably they led to negotiations. There is a continuum, there is no point at which this suddenly ceases to be a conversation and becomes a negotiation. We have to see this as a continuum and we have to admit it.

There are those who argue quite persuasively, and I put the Minister of Foreign Affairs in that category, that we cannot ask the questions unless we have the conversations, and I accept that. Conversations have taken place with other officials and will continue to take place, but conversations at the level of ministers are important. However those conversations leading to potential negotiations have to have two qualities.

One is we have to be able to ask questions and get satisfactory answers. The second is based on what we learn. We need a negotiating position which sets out some preconditions. Just as the Minister of Foreign Affairs today has indicated, as I hear him and I hear him loud and clear, a deal breaker would be that national missile defence would contain an element of the weaponizing of space. At that point Canada would not participate.

It is in that spirit that I would like to raise 25 questions, if I can get them out, that would form part of that conversation and which would in turn lead to the negotiating position which would have some preconditions. Let me group them.

One would be about rogue states, the rogue state doctrine. What is the rogue state doctrine which is affecting us so much? This is the definition from the American Cato Institute:

The rogue state doctrine is predicated on the claim that those states act irrationally, and therefore cannot be deterred with America's offensive nuclear arsenal. Armed with ballistic missiles, they may strike the U.S. at any time. Therefore, the argument goes, the U.S. must deploy an [national missile defence system]...

One, does Canada accept or reject the rogue state doctrine, as laid out in that argument, and the assumption that rogue states are irrational and, thus, undeterrable by conventional means, if one can describe nuclear retaliation as such?

I would only ask members to consider the problem with the rogue state doctrine because any land based missile always has a return to sender address and any rogue state attacking the United States could expect swift, massive and total retaliation. Is this the way of the dictators of the sort we have seen, whether it is Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-il, or do they actually seem to enjoy the perks and pleasures of power, the palaces and the special trains. I will not go into the other inappropriate perks and pleasures power, but do we think they have behaved that irrationally or do they actually enjoy being dictators? That is a big question.

Two, if Canada accepts the rogue state doctrine, is this not an argument for the United States and others to expend more energy on disarmament and non-proliferation? How do we intend, if we join the national missile defence, to have some equal energy put into non-proliferation? How do we ensure that this stuff, the fissile material, does not fall into their hands? Will we abandon that part or will we give extra effort to that part? How do we ensure that countries which are marginal are on our side right now? We wink at them when they acquire the stuff, but we have to recognize that they may in turn become a rogue state one day and will always have the bomb.

Three, does Canada believe that national missile defence will give other states more or less incentive to develop long range missiles?

Four, does Canada believe that national missile defence will increase or decrease the likelihood of U.S. interventions abroad, particularly in the context of the Bush doctrine which is an interventionist doctrine? That is what is different from the situation we found ourselves in with the Clinton administration when we did not sign it either.

The next set of questions has to do with Canada's continental national security.

Five, does the current and projected ballistic missile threat to Canada, as determined by Canada, justify involvement in the U.S. deployment of national missile defence?

Six, how does the current and projected ballistic missile threat to Canada compare to other risks to national security? What is the risk analysis, in our view, compared to the sorts of things that may be entering our harbours today and going forward to New York tomorrow in some container? How do we make that assessment?

Seven, based on that assessment, how does the estimated return on investment in national missile defence compare to the estimated return on investments of other homeland defence measures?

Eight, if Canada does not participate in national missile defence, how would we interact with the United States government in regard to friendly and enemy missiles over our territory?

The next set of questions have to do with Canada's missile defence, and I have a feeling I will not make it to the end.

Nine, what specific role is Canada considering playing in national missile defence? What role will the United States allow us to play under the Bush doctrine?

Ten, what is Canada bringing to the table by way of potential contribution to national missile defence negotiations?

Eleven, would Canada consider the placement of interceptor missiles or NMD-specific radar on its territory?

Twelve, what is an acceptable debris zone for Canada? And it will not be Don Valley West if I have anything to do with it. We hear talk of this Orwellian phrase “debris acceptance”. Are we allowed to reject it?

Thirteen, what are the odds that an intercepted warhead might detonate when it falls back to earth?

Fourteen, what is the risk of collateral damage to Canada from an NMD intercept?

Fifteen, how will Canada define national missile defence technology as successful, especially if we are counting on it for some purpose?

Sixteen, what are the current and potential long term financial costs of participation in NMD? We are told today that no one has asked us for any money. There is a bill before the U.S. congress called the missile defence burden sharing act from a democrat representative from Maine that asks that all who are protected should pay their share. How do we know they will not come back to us?

Seventeen, what is the range of estimates of financial benefits to Canadian companies if Canada joins NMD?

Eighteen, what is the opportunity cost of joining national missile defence? Would joining diminish Canada's capacity to take a leadership role in restoring multilateralism and promoting nuclear disarmament?

Those are but a few questions and I will post the rest on my website.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking the right questions. Besides, in most of the speeches that we are going to hear today, thanks to the Bloc Quebecois, we will certainly find this kind of question. Answers will certainly be given, or there will be some speculation, as we were told this morning.

The basic question I have for my colleague is that he must have a very clear idea of this whole issue. If he has taken the time to think about all the 25 or 29 questions, he must have a clear idea of the whole plan. Is this plan in the interests of Canadians?

I would not want to see him hide behind the excuse that as long as he does not have an answer to his 29 questions, he will not judge the concept. I think that he has a clear idea as to Canada's participation in this plan. My question is this. Does he think, overall, with all the information that he has, that the space shield is in the interests of Canadians?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we are having this debate today.

We have to ask the right questions, demand the right answers, and then come up with negotiating position with the Americans and so on, if we want to talk, to ask questions to the Americans. But the beginning of wisdom is asking the right questions. I think that this is what this debate, this conversation, is all about.

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns regarding this national missile defence. The U.S. is moving forward with this, regardless of what Canada does. Does the hon. member not believe that instead of being outside of the house looking in at the table, we should actually be in the room at the table with them as this process goes forward? We cannot impact the decision to move forward because it is going forward. Does he not feel that we should be at the table as this process moves forward?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. No more than I felt we should have been at the table as the inevitable attack on Iraq moved forward. If it is inevitable, that does not mean that we have to join in because if it is inevitable, it may be that there is no table. A table implies two people negotiating and that something fundamental will change.

Everyone seems to agree that it is inevitable. The Americans will do it and they will do it their way. The first phase is already set. It starts in 2004 with missiles in California and Alaska. Nothing we can say or do will change that fact.

The only thing that our participation in this process will do is to undermine our position as independent negotiators in the world with another point of view about the importance of disarmament, fighting proliferation, and being able to make our judgments when we participate with the Americans, as we should on issues like smart borders and doing our bit in Afghanistan.

While exercising sovereign judgment, we cannot, as a sovereign state, come to that decision without having better quality answers to the questions I was beginning to put forward.