Debates of May 15th, 2003

Points of order

[The Speaker]

I would not call it a footnote, but a clarification.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not rising to clarify or elaborate on my question of earlier today.

I had the opportunity this morning to attend at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, where the bill under consideration would alter the rights of Canada's first nations and the relationship with the Crown. It was an interesting meeting that ended rather abruptly.

Mr. Speaker, the transcript from the committee is not yet available to me but I want to reserve my right to raise both a question of privilege and a point of order with the Speaker when the records of the committee do become available.

[The Speaker]

I am sure there are reservations right, left and centre. The right hon. member certainly is entitled to reserve rights. I am not sure what the point of it is but if we need to hear from him later, I am sure we will and we will all look forward to it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[John McCallum, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

As I begin, let me say that I believe this is a very important issue for Canada. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it today. However, I would like to make it clear just where we are in this process.

We are simply discussing the significance of taking part in negotiations.

Many Canadians have already expressed their opinions on this subject. I am pleased that we can discuss it in greater depth today, and I will take this opportunity to explain why our government is planning to participate in negotiations regarding the ballistic missile defence system. It goes without saying that I do not support the motion currently before us.

The U.S. announcement last December confirmed what we have known for some time, that the Americans will deploy a missile defence system. In light of this decision, Canada stepped up discussions with the Americans to try to identify what implications this could have for us.

The most recent talks involving officials were held in Washington in January. For Canada the issue at this point is relatively simple: if missile defence may enhance our security, we should explore it. In fact, we have a duty to keep an open mind about any actions we can take that would better protect our citizens and our territory.

Timing is now a primary consideration, particularly if we want to examine options for having Norad play a prominent role. In my view there are a number of reasons for Canada to consider participating in BMD. By far the most compelling one is to protect Canada and defend North America. Before elaborating on this, I would like to set out some of the facts on what BMD is and what it is not and why it is such a priority for the Americans.

Canada, like the United States, believes that weapons of mass destruction and missiles are growing in number and falling into the wrong hands. Moreover, the range and accuracy of these missiles are constantly increasing.

Thus, there is an emerging threat against which the United States has decided to protect itself.

For the Americans, BMD has moved beyond the controversy that characterized it in the past. In fact, it has received wide bipartisan support. They know how much the world has changed and they are well aware of the new threats they face.

They also understand that BMD is not star wars of 20 years ago. It is a much more modest system designed to defend against a limited ballistic missile attack. For now the system will use satellites and radars to detect missile launches, with interceptors launched from U.S. territory or U.S. ships.

In 2004 there will initially be six interceptors, followed by 14 more land based interceptors over the next year or so. There will also be up to 20 sea based interceptors. It is not, however, the tens of thousands envisaged under star wars, which was aimed at defending against a massive Soviet missile assault.

Another reason that the Americans are more supportive of this initiative is they recognize that the strategic environment has changed. As we know, Russia does not perceive BMD as a direct threat. My colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs spent some time earlier today going into some detail on the changing geopolitical situation.

The United States has also shown great openness by approaching its friends and allies on the subject of ballistic missile defence, including Russia.

This is an issue which is gaining more and more support among the allies; some of them have designed their own programs to meet their own needs.

The issue has been studied very seriously by NATO. At the Prague summit last November, the NATO heads of state agreed to broaden their examination of the issue. That is why NATO has begun a new study on antimissile defence, in order to examine various options to protect people and territories against the whole range of threats related to missiles.

As I said, there is an increasing threat and the Americans will deploy a missile defence system in any event. Now it is up to us to consider whether it is in our best interest to explore the issue further through negotiations.

Specifically, what we have to consider is would this system help us to defend Canada and Canadians, help us to defend North America, and maintain our influence and protect our sovereignty.

While the ballistic missile threat to Canada itself may not seem to be high at the moment, it will become greater as the range and accuracy of missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction increase and as they proliferate. As we have seen, the rapidity with which potential threats can emerge, even with tight non-proliferation controls, is often surprising.

Ballistic missile defence could therefore be considered akin to an insurance policy against future threats. It could also be a defence against errant missiles aimed at the U.S. that could end up hitting Canada, as well as unauthorized and accidental launches.

As members know, one of our defence missions is to cooperate with the United States in the defence of North America. In this regard, negotiating on BMD would be consistent with our cooperation to date.

I will repeat here what I said when I announced the creation of the Canada-U.S. Joint Planning Groupwithin NORAD. To envisage this option would mean real progress in the evolution of our defence relationship with the United States and in our joint efforts to adapt to the new security environment.

Canada has been a full partner with the U.S. in the defence of North America for over 60 years. It could be argued that ballistic missile defence would be a natural extension of this partnership.

There are also some other practical bilateral reasons that would underlie such negotiations. Canadian participation could build on the role of Norad. We would want to explore the option of having command and control for BMD reassigned from Northcom to Norad which, from our perspective, is the main pillar of the North American defence relationship. If we are not partners in BMD, we may not have access to sensitive information and intelligence to the extent we do now.

In addition to enhancing our security, which in my view would be the most compelling reason to participate, there are some other important considerations.

Participating in BMD could provide some degree of Canadian influence over the development and functioning of the system. It would give Canada a say in the defence of its territory. The alternative could allow the U.S. to make all the choices concerning the missile defence of the continent on its own with implications for our sovereignty.

It should be noted that Canada is not the only country studying this issue. Some NATO countries and other allies may soon announce their intention to play a part in the ballistic missile defence.

The United Kingdom, in fact, has already agreed to modernize its radar installation at Fylingdales, and Denmark has just announced that it will permit the United States to modernize a radar station at Thule.

In conclusion, it is for all of these reasons that we should consider entering into negotiations with the United States. Let me be clear on this point: these negotiations would not mean that we have agreed in advance to take part in missile defence.

Committees of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and I would like to put before the House a motion for travel authorization. There was all party consultation on it. This was initially a two part motion, but one part has been removed because there was only unanimous agreement for the first part. That is the only part I am putting before the House right now. I mention that so everyone is clear.

I move:

That, in relation to its comprehensive study on a National Identity Card and review of the implementation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, six (6) members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel to London, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome, Athens and Madrid from June 21 to July 6, 2003 and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

And those are not the original dates.

[The Speaker: The Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister make his comments and all of a sudden it sounds as if the government is on side with missile defence.

We have been encouraging the government for three years to say to our American friends and neighbours that this sounds like an interesting idea because it will provide security for Canada and that we will sit down and work something out. The government has responded to that by making statements like the one from the foreign affairs minister that terrorists are not going to get their hands on ballistic missiles except in James Bond movies and things like that. The government has said that we do not need it, that we are being alarmists in raising the issue of a possible ballistic missile attack. It has said that we are just catering to the Americans and that anything they say we want to go along with. That has been the government's defence over the past three years.

Now the government is saying that conditions have changed, but it has not given one example of what condition has changed in the last few years. Before September 11 the terrorist problem was well known. That was no surprise. It was widely debated around the world. I attended meetings for six years at the OECD where we discussed the terrorist threat. That is not new.

What has changed all of a sudden to make the government come on side with what the Canadian Alliance has been proposing for three years? Why did the government wait three years? Now the benefit to this country will be less than it otherwise would have been and the harm to our relationship will be greater than what it would have been.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I would like to clarify that the government is not on side with missile defence at this time. The government has not taken a decision, but the government is considering the possibility of entering into discussions or negotiations with the United States.

As for the hon. member's question as to whether anything at all has changed in the last three years, I suggest he must have been asleep if he has not noticed. The whole geopolitical context has changed in ways that were ably explained earlier by my colleague the Minister of Foreign Affairs and which a number of us have been talking about for some considerable time.

For example, three years ago the anti-ballistic missile treaty was still in place and many believed that the ballistic missile defence system would cause an arms race. Since that time, that situation has evolved to the point, as we have discussed many times, that Russia no longer considers that the system is destabilizing. That is just one example of many things that have changed.

I can only conclude that the Canadian Alliance must have its head in the sand if it thinks that nothing at all has changed in the last three years. Things have changed to the point where the Democratic Party in the United States is solidly on side, which was not the case before, as evidenced by the fact that it voted in the senate 97 to 3 in favour of ballistic missile defence in 1999.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. Why would he want to enter into negotiations at this time?

My colleague raised this question, but I have a theory and I would like the minister to tell me if it makes any sense at all. Could it be that he is afraid that the Americans are going to tell him, “Either you negotiate with us or you have no place in NORAD any more”?

Debris are also a cause for concern. In fact, a study by the Department of National Defence emphasized the danger of debris. To ensure that debris do not come down on Canada, would the minister not consider positioning missile interceptors above the ice cap, in the High Arctic?

Are these two concerns—exclusion from NORAD and the need to prevent debris from coming down on Canada, hence the need to intercept above the ice cap—not his main reasons for wanting to enter into negotiations with the United States?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained, there are several reasons for the government to consider entering into negotiations.

The first one I mentioned was the security of Canadians, the public at large, and of Canadian territory. The member failed to mention it, but I think it is important.

He also spoke of the binational defence of the continent, which we have been ensuring since 1940 at least. Canada has been participating in a real way in continental defence. One might argue that continuing in that role, perhaps with NORAD, is another good reason to enter into negotiations with the Americans.

So, there are several reasons to want to do so. Another one is to have access to more information. The member raised the question of debris. If we start discussions with the Americans, we may have more information on that subject, among others.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, like many others, I have had a lot of information and input on this topic, especially as I am the chair of the foreign affairs caucus. I will try to present some of the points I have heard from each side.

Unfortunately, I have not been here for much of the debate today, so I will be repeating points. However, to ensure that some points are not missed, I will try to mention them now and if we get a chance to debate this matter again, I hope to get more of my points registered.

I listened, with a lot of respect, to those people during this and other debates who presented viewpoints on the benefits to Canada of either staying in the defence plan or not participating. It shows that they have looked at both sides of the situation. There are benefits of joining and benefits of not joining the system. It is probably the reason why my constituents have approached me from both sides of this issue. Some think there are greater benefits to Canada if we join. Others some think we should not join. There was even one demonstration to that effect in Whitehorse.

There are a number of things upon which everyone is in agreement. First, we need more information. The member who just spoke mentioned the technical application of the system. On our side of the House, it has nothing to do with our decision on Iraq, of which we were all supportive. The decision on whether we should join will be made by determining what is most important for the defence of Canada.

Many of us, including myself, agree that whether we join the program or not, we should enhance and continue our efforts with full vigour on multilateralism. We are involved in all sorts of forums such as non-proliferation and efforts toward disarmament. Those are very important contributions to the world scene. We should continue those with full vigour.

People should note that whatever way we decide to go, the proponents of joining or not joining suggest it will affect our sovereignty. If we were to become involved in such a system, the proponents for not joining suggest that the larger partner would be controlling our sovereignty. The proponents for joining say that we should have some control over the defence of our skies, not just leave it to another nation, to maintain our sovereignty. We should have more influence on whether the Americans weaponize space.

It is pretty clear to everyone that the Americans will proceed. In fact they have already started with the first stage, which is a limited stage of a few ground missiles and some missiles from ships. The Americans have started and they will proceed. Our decision will be based on the scenario that they will go ahead and on the advantages or disadvantages to Canada to be involved. In the latter stages of their plans they have included the possibility of the weaponization of space. Our decision to be involved or not to be involved depends on how we think we can influence those decisions most. Can we influence them more from inside the tent as a part of the system in the initial stages which are not related to space? Or, if we are not involved at all, will we have more influence to prevent them from weaponizing space? There are people who want to prevent the Americans from weaponizing space, including many Canadians. In other words, will we have more influence outside the tent?

Most people agree that Norad has been quite a successful system to date. No one has said to me that the system does not work or is not a benefit to Canada.

Right now we are talking about the initial system of maybe 14 to 16 land based missiles at Fort Greely Alaska, and perhaps a few others.

In theory, and hopefully it will never get to this, if someone were to launch missiles intentionally or by accident, they would explode high in the atmosphere, 100 to 200 kilometres, and would most likely be pulverized to powder or into small pieces, most of which would burn up on re-entry into the atmosphere. Anyone who I have spoken to feels that would be preferable to an atomic bomb or a biological bomb landing in their community or city.

There are over 20 nations in the world that have missiles and over 20 nations that have the capability to add nuclear warheads or biological or chemical warheads to these missiles. The recent interception of a ship in Yemen showed that such incidences and such threats are out there. As has happened on numerous occasions, it is not uncommon for states, which we would consider unbalanced, to support terrorism in various ways or give things to terrorists. Also, missiles have been used in over six conflicts since 1980, so it is not impossible.

Probably there is a two or three month window to decide which part of the American command structure the Americans will put this into, considering they have started already: one where Canada would have some say or involvement, like in Norad, or in U.S. Northcom where we are not involved.

It is also important to note the context it would go into if we were to join. Canada has dozens of military agreements with the United States. Being adjacent to it, being on the same continent, geographically having the same defence problems, challenges and objectives, we have all sorts of agreements and this would just add another one. However there is no invitation from the States at this moment.

My time is running out faster than I would have hoped. I have probably a couple dozen reasons for and against. To try to be balanced, I will present some of the leading ones.

Remember, this is just a defensive system. It is only to defend Canada. It is clearly not star wars, which was back in Reagan time and was designed to defend us from Russia and hundreds of missiles. Russia is not a threat. It is not to defend against hundreds of missiles. It is in case of an accidental launch or if an unbalanced state launches an attack, and it is only a few missiles. However if we can protect against a few, would an enemy then try to produce more offensive missiles to overcome that?

In the world's view, it could link us to the United States again and therefore it would be hard to maintain our distinct Canadian foreign policy and values, at least visually and perceptionally. It could diffuse our efforts toward multilateralism and drain resources which we use in our disarmament campaign and global protection. There are perhaps other things on which the United States and Canada could use their weaponization.

I am presenting points people have brought to me. I am not saying I support all of these points.

One of the major advantages is we always cooperate on intelligence gathering over our skies. We want to know what is happening in our skies. That comes through Norad and there would be a lot more through this new system. For little investment, we would maintain a partnership. We would have technology transfer and would be working in the same system. We would have control over input into the system, into missile trajectories, into who is computerized and how it is defended.

There are those who say we would have more influence on these things being inside the tent and being part of the system, rather than being outside the tent. We would have significant control like we do at Norad. Therefore, we could protect ourselves.

I just spoke to the American ambassador a few minutes ago. In such instances if North Korea sent a missile, it could easily hit Canada instead of the United States, Vancouver instead of Seattle, Toronto instead of New York. They are not always that accurate and this is what people say we should defend against.

I look forward to carrying on with much more input the next time we debate this.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I appreciate his remarks. They are very thoughtful. My question is the following.

This need for a missile defence system has been known for some years, as has been discussed in the House. The very facts that the member mentioned have been known in the House for some years. Why now all of a sudden is the government finally grappling with this issue and why is it still being so indecisive?

It is not content with having delayed this important issue for several years. It is now saying that it is not really deciding but is going to talk about it. Where is the leadership? What does it say to Canadians and to our neighbours when all we can do is shuffle our feet, drag our heels and make these tentative little baby steps, instead of getting with the program one way or the other, taking a stand and letting everyone know what is going to happen?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent question. First, what has changed that we would be reacting now instead of before? The member has suggested the need has been known for a long time. There are needs for a lot of things that have been known for a long time, but it does not necessarily mean that we had the priority or the ability to invest in them.

In particular, I was not saying that if we were the United States, and it is not up to us to tell it what to do, we would consider this the most important investment by it. Just like all countries, the Americans have needs for poverty, education and health care. Perhaps there could be other things for this investment.

We are not saying this is the highest priority need, but given the fact that the U.S. has decided to go ahead, there are a number of things that have changed just recently. First, the Americans are going ahead with the project. Now we are being pushed to a decision. As I said, we have two or three months to decide what part it goes into.

Russia and China have reduced their objections to the program. We have had the interception of the ship at Yemen. There are a lot of things that have occurred. Therefore under the scenarios where we have to act, as opposed to being indecisive I would describe our action as thoughtful because we have had very many meetings and we are getting input from both sides. I only put a microcosm of them forward today to show that there are very cogent arguments on both sides of the issue. I think Canadians would like all those arguments viewed and weighed before we made such a serious decision.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague from Yukon has indicated that some of the things he is saying are not his views, that he is just repeating them. I am getting somewhat of an impression that he supports the process.

As we all go through the information we have, I want to read a little from the information I have. This came out of the United States Space Command, Vision for 2020, General Howell M. Estes, III. It states:

The increasing reliance of US military forces upon space power combined with the explosive proliferation of global space capabilities makes a space vision essential. As stewards for military space, we must be prepared to exploit the advantages of the space medium. This vision serves as a bridge in the evolution of military space into the 21st century and is the standard by which the United States Space Command and its components will measure progress into the future.

It does not sound too hot in my books. The rest of it states:

US Space Command--dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.

It does not talk about the world or Canada or anyone else and it does not sound like any effort to keep a peaceful world.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I said in the first part of my speech that the United States was pursuing the weaponization of states as one of its options. What we have to decide over and above the first stage, which is just land based, is whether we can affect those trends that we are against more by being inside the system and being a partner with the United States in the early stage and can we convince it that such steps are not what we are in favour of and not the direction we think would bring peace and security to the world.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I am pleased to take part in this debate initiated by the member for Saint-Jean, a member of the Bloc Quebecois.

My feelings are a mix of joy and fear, in expressing my concerns about this motion. The motion asks that this House “urge the government not to take part in the United States' missile defence plan”.

When people talk about missile defence, I think of my grandsons, who watch the movies from the Star Wars series and go on and on about them. Sometimes I sit down with them and ask them, “Is this reality?” It is unbelievable.

What we in the Bloc Quebecois want is to talk about this. We know that government members are talking about this together at this time. However, democratically elected members from all of the other parties in Canada are being excluded from this debate that is being held in camera. Several times last week and this week, the Bloc Quebecois questioned the Prime Minister of Canada about what is happening and why negotiations were being held, if indeed they were, without Canadians, and elected members in particular, being informed.

The Prime Minister told members of the Bloc Quebecois to use their opposition days to have a debate. Let it not be said that opposition members do not heed the Prime Minister's good suggestions. We moved a motion for the Bloc Quebecois' opposition day.

I do not think the Prime Minister was being serious. If he were happy to have this debate, he would have allowed the motion to be votable. Yesterday, when the member for Saint-Jean asked for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable, the Prime Minister did not even rise to respond. He let the government House leader answer.

There is an old saying we have back home. No one has ever died of ridicule. However, if ridicule did kill, it would certainly have killed the Prime Minister, because right now, he is not really saying what he is thinking. This is serious. Quebeckers do not understand. I do not know if Canadians understand. I think that members from the other parties in Canada will talk to us about it.

Quebeckers do not understand the federal government's sense of urgency here. We supported Canada's decision not to take part in the war in Iraq. I conducted a poll in my riding of Jonquière. Some 85% of my constituents opposed any Canadian participation in the war in Iraq. We supported the government because everyone was consulted.

But this is a new way of proceeding. I would not want the government to give in to the reasoning that developing new nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place. There are currently two opposing viewpoints. Is it true that new ways of developing weapons will provide greater security or is it the opposite?

The debate started with the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States. I also believe that a Pandora's box is being opened with this American missile defence plan. It would be normal for the members of the House, who represent the people, to ask them if they agree or not with what the members would find out and that could be debated frankly. They could be consulted.

That way, the Prime Minister of Canada could say that the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers agree with his position. But no, everything is being done behind closed doors.

I am very surprised at the statement by the Minister of National Defence. He appears to be in favour of this decision. That is odd. How can he be in favour when he also says that we are just at the preliminary stages, that we do not know?

There is a lot of money involved here. It is said that missile defence would cost a minimum $60 billion to $100 billion, in U.S. dollars. This is not peanuts.

If the government is involved in the discussions but does not know what is going on, because the Americans are the ones who are going to take the lead in this issue, what will happen when it wants to pull out, when to wants to say that it disagrees?

As hon. members are aware, the Bagotville base is in my riding. I have questions as a result. Will there be nuclear weapons on these bases? My area is in northern Quebec, so a lot closer to the North Pole than the South Pole. So what is the position, as a NORAD member? Will it remain within NORAD? Will there be changes in my area, in my riding, as far as nuclear weapons are concerned?

As hon. members will recall, from the days of the debate on importing MOX from European countries, people in my area were against it. I would like them to know we are all civilized people here. We are going to participate in the debate, examine what it is all about, and then make informed decisions. I do not think, however, judging by this government's actions, that there is any openness for a debate that would allow us to tell our constituents, “This is going to cost the government a lot of money”. Yes, the Canadian government will have a say, but what is our involvement? What can we expect from it? What will the cost be? Let us not lose sight either of the issue of fallout, of debris. Where will that all go? What is going to be done to protect us from it?

There are all manner of questions. The greater the secrecy, the greater the feeling of insecurity. Much is made of the need to make people feel more secure in the aftermath of September 11 in the United States. This government, however, is doing the opposite just now: making people feel less secure.

When we do not know something, we are not receptive to this particular thing. Instead of giving people a feeling of security and telling them what is really going on, the government is keeping them in the dark. It is also keeping parliamentarians in the dark. And when we ask questions, it feigns ignorance. It hides its head in the sand and says that it is none of our business. Strangely enough, all parties in this House were democratically elected by the people they represent.

There is a lot of talk about democracy, about transparency, about all we can do to make people feel secure. People in my riding are always telling me that they are afraid of the unknown.

This plan is bizarre. I do not think that we should be part of it. I support the position of the Bloc Quebecois; we should not be part of it. I am feeling insecure and I am making my constituents feel insecure.

Therefore I am asking the government to put everything on the table, to tell us what is really at stake, what the implications are, what we can do, what is going on right now and what it is actually negotiating.

Was the government told, “You refused to join us in the war against Iraq and if you do not join us this time, we will retaliate”? We should never let fear and ignorance influence our decisions. But, right now, these are the only cards that the government is playing. I would ask it to show transparency, accessibility and accountability.

Even though this motion will not be voted on—which I find very sad—I hope that the government will listen to members of the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Jonquière. This is typical of her commitment. She is very involved, very close to her constituents. She is also a fighter and she understands that there could be implications, even in her own riding. I think that she has raised an important issue. We have to recognize that things could be happening in our own communities.

Indeed, when it comes to the plan before us, if the government tells us that it does not want to weaponize of space, it means that antimissile missiles could be launched from ships or aircraft. In her riding, F-18s sometimes take part in operations in the far north to see if Russian aircraft are not coming a bit too close. They have done so before. So they might be asked to play some role.

I know also that she is very committed. I find that the debate that we are having—and few people have talked about this—has to do with a societal choice. The technology being proposed to us—it is not reliable and will be hugely expensive—is characterized by a militaristic and belligerent vision. Is this the government's priority or should we not look instead for a society that would be much more just and based on mutual responsibility?

This would lead to other types of expenditures that would perhaps be more useful. So we have a choice. This is perhaps the reason why the Bloc objects to this technology. It is not only unreliable and costly, but the need for mutual responsibility probably lies elsewhere.

I would like the member to give us briefly her thoughts on this.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean. His question goes straight to the heart of what a society should be thinking about at a certain point in its evolution.

Yes, this is a social vision. It is a social discussion that we must have for the sake of the future. The future is ever more with us, but we are not a part of it. It worries me. It is true that in my riding we are going to be affected. I remember that at one time there were nuclear weapons at the military base in Bagotville. People were very worried. They got rid of them and sent them somewhere else.

I do believe our society is sufficiently evolved and aware to be able to be fair and just. But this vision is under wraps for now. It is discussed in Liberal back rooms, at cabinet meetings, and in the Liberal caucus. The Prime Minister even told us that all we needed to do was participate in their caucus meeting.

I am proud to be a member of the Bloc Quebecois. I am here to advance the cause of Quebec's sovereignty. I am not here for the Liberal Party. I ask the minister to have enough respect for the people I represent to be able to say that it is transparent, that yes, we have a new social vision, but we need to discuss it together.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has, on numerous occasions, mentioned the somewhat secretive way in which the government has acted about Canada's future participation in the missile defence system. I would like her comments on this.

Today, the debate addresses whether Canada should participate in this American plan or not. Yet, the Canadian government has not waited for Parliament to vote. The government neither waited nor even permitted the House to vote on this question since it refused consent for the motion be votable.

However, by January 2003, it had already sent a Canadian delegation of military personnel and diplomats to the U.S. to begin discussions on Canada's possible participation. Does the hon. member not consider the government's behaviour in this matter to be unacceptable and high-handed? It is completely sidestepping the House of Commons to hold discussions directly with the Americans.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his question. Obviously, I will not have enough time to give a complete answer.

In this day and age, information is readily available 24 hours a day. So, everyone knows what the government is doing, like when the government negotiates with the Americans. But the strange thing is that it sent people to negotiate in the U.S. without informing the duly elected members of Parliament.

Luckily no one has ever died of ridicule. Otherwise, there would be no more government and no more Liberal Party in the House.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the member for Jonquière, for her excellent speech and for her realistic portrayal of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I would also like to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, who has worked very hard to bring this debate to the House today. The men and women across Canada and Quebec who are following this debate do not understand why we cannot discuss a certain subject.

Is this one such subject? We shall see; it does not augur well. This illustrates just how the Liberal Party politicizes all debate in the House.

The debate started with a question from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, on Wednesday May 7. I will read the question so people can follow. He said:

—while the government is leaving parliamentarians and citizens completely in the dark when it comes to the American missile defence shield, the Prime Minister is already talking about the need to negotiate the terms of the shield with the Bush administration.

Before deciding and negotiating, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the government has a responsibility to explain its position to the country and to debate the details of the missile defence shield project in the House?

The question was clear. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois was asking the Prime Minister if he was going to tell Canadians what his position was on the issue of the missile defence shield.

The Prime Minister's answer was the following, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like there to be a debate on the issue, that would be just fine with us. There are opposition days that are specifically designed to discuss this type of problem. We are in the process of discussing it within our party and our government, and we would be very happy, if the opposition deems it important enough, to use one of their days to debate it in the House. The ball is in the member's court.

That is already recognition of the work accomplished by the opposition. The Prime Minister said, and I quote him again:

We are in the process of discussing it within our party and our government—

He did not go to the public or to anyone with that, only to his Liberal friends. And he told the opposition that, if it wanted the public informed, all it had to do was to make it the topic of an opposition day. We did. We asked for an opposition day and got it, and we have made it our topic of discussion. The hon. member for Saint-Jean has put the motion forward, and this is where we are at today. We have set out our recommendation.

Our motion is being debated. It reads as follows:

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

That is pretty simple. The motion before the House should at least be votable. Yesterday, the hon. member for Saint-Jean asked the government whether it would agree, with unanimous consent, not only to debate the motion but also to vote on it. We are all elected members representing the people in our ridings. As parliamentarians, since we are speaking on behalf of our constituents, the men and women whom we represent, it would have been logical that we vote on this today.

But no. The government decided that there would be no vote, that this is not an important enough issue. We can debate, but we cannot have a vote. Yet the Prime Minister himself suggested we bring the issue to the House for debate. He would not do it. He had discussions behind closed doors, with Liberal members, not Liberal supporters, only cabinet members. That was the choice.

So, today, we are debating this motion on which we cannot vote. I want those listening to know that we will not get to vote and find out where each member stands on an issue as important as not taking part in the United States' missile defence plan.

Our recommendation follows a certain logic. The Bloc Quebecois did not just wake up one morning and say, “Today, we are against missile defence”. A House committee has issued a unanimous report. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the House of Commons has addressed the missile defence issue. The critics for all the parties, the most competent in each party to understand the issue, met several times, called witnesses, made recommendations,and issued a unanimous report. One of the recommendations was as follows, Recommendation No. 12:

The government should not make any decision concerning the anti-missile defence systems being developed in the United States, because the technology has not yet been proven and the details on deployment are not yet known. It should, however, continue to monitor developments in the program in conjunction with the Government of the United States and continue to oppose the weaponization of space.

That was a unanimous recommendation, so why are we discussing this question today in the House, moving:

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

Because the situation that has changed within the Liberal Party of Canada. It has changed since the report was released by the House committee. The Liberal members who were on that committee had given their unanimous support, but the situation has changed because the Government of Canada is at the mercy of the Americans.

Yet the situation was clear. Since September 11, 2001, there has been a war against terrorism. Bills were passed here in this House. What we want to attack is terrorism, not other nations. It is the Americans who decided to attack other nations. It was their choice to go to war in Iraq.

The people of Quebec and a majority of Canadians have told the government they did not want to take part in this unilateral war the United States was waging on Iraq. That is a clear position. The Americans got the message.

Why did we take that position? Because we, in Quebec, for instance, are a peace-loving people. We are against terrorism. We will do everything in our power to eradicate terrorism from Quebec and Canada, but we will not condone attacks on other peoples around the world. That position is simple enough. That is the reality. That is what the government had to explain to the Americans, that the Quebeckers and Canadians are essentially peace-loving people.

That was the reality. It has not changed, and it was the same in the report of the standing committee mandated to look into the question of missile defence systems. We are a peace-loving people. The United States have made a different choice.

In this respect, I will give an overview of the latest developments concerning the missile defence system. That is the reality and that is why we are discussing this motion now.

On December 17, 2002, the President of the United States announced that the fielding of missile defence capabilities was beginning, with the first 10 interceptor rockets to be put in place within two years, to protect the United States against a potential attack by a rogue state like North Korea or by terrorists. President Bush's news release read, and I quote, “—the United States will take every measure necessary to protect our citizens against what is perhaps the greatest danger of all—the catastrophic harm that may result from hostile states or terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver them”.

To the best of my knowledge, evidence has yet to be found, even in Iraq, of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. The American decision to attack was based on the assumption that these people had weapons of mass destruction, but none were found.

This is what Quebeckers and many Canadians are concerned about. If we get involved with the Americans again, they will demonstrate their strength towards other nations. This is not what Quebeckers want. We are a fundamentally peaceful people. We want to be able to guarantee our children and grandchildren that they will be safe on this planet.

We do not want to get involved in the American approach, especially when a report of a standing committee of the House of Commons tells us that it is too early, that we must not get involved in this because there is still room for improvement. I just read the recommendation a few minutes ago.

So why did the government change its mind? It is because it wants to try to please our big businesses in Canada who may think that they lost some money in terms of economic relations with the Americans since the war in Iraq.

I was reading recently that things are getting better. Economic relations and trade are going very well. Why is that? They will always go well, because we are a neighbouring country.

Because we are a neighbour, this does not mean that we have to shamelessly follow the Unites States if they decided to fight against all the people on earth. We have a right to tell the Americans, “Yes, we are ready, we are able to do business with you. The only thing that you have to understand is that we are a peaceful people. Quebeckers and Canadians are peaceful and we will never support you when you want to set up, as you are doing now, an antimissile system that could upset the balance of the planet”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague made a brilliant speech on this government's change of direction. He also raised a basic concept of Quebec society to which I want to return, namely pacifism.

It is true that Quebeckers are pacifists. In fact, the largest demonstrations in favour of peace and in favour of Canada's non-participation in the war against Iraq took place in Montreal. This had repercussions everywhere, even in schools, where we are not usually invited.

I received several invitations from teachers to meet with young students, even at the elementary level, to listen to the messages and see the drawings that they wanted to send the Prime Minister when he made the decision not to go to Iraq.

I want to return to pacifism because it is a choice that was made by Quebec society. We have heard a lot about societal choice since this morning. I would like my colleague to elaborate on this subject.

It seems to me that being a pacifist means being in favour of a better world built on solidarity and mutual cooperation, whereas the plan being debated here has nothing to do with pacifism and solidarity. It is an attempt at invulnerability by a power, which may make it even more categorical.

I think that Quebeckers have made up their minds on this issue, but I would like my colleague to elaborate on this and tell me if he shares my view on the peaceful nature of Quebeckers.