Debates of May 29th, 2003

Supply

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not even mention the issue of industrial benefits because that is not the reason the government is taking this decision to pursue the discussions. Our reasons are twofold: to protect Canadian lives and to continue our 60-plus year old tradition of the co-defence of North America.

In response to the direct question from the hon. member, if we were to be a part of the missile defence program it is likely there would be some benefits for Canadian companies.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will oppose this motion. It is not because it does not entirely agree with having Norad as a defence organization, but it opposes the motion, which would make Norad:

—a viable defence organization to counter threats to North America, including the threat of ballistic missile attack—

The motion continues:

—support giving Norad responsibility for the command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot approve the U.S. administration's missile defence plan, particularly since this motion is very broad.

The Bloc Quebecois supported the decision not to take part in the war in Iraq, even if Canada found ways to soften the impact of its refusal on the United States by participating in other ways.

Now that Canada has shown the courage of its convictions, it should continue to do so and state that peace requires greater multilateralism, instead of signing up for something based on the use of force to ensure security.

That is, in fact, what we are talking about. The main problem with the missile defence plan, now that the 1972 treaty signed with Russia is no longer in effect, is that it wil renew the arms race at a time when funds available to the U.S. government, Americans and people around the world are needed to fight terrorism. There are breeding grounds where extremist groups promote hate and threaten security in many countries.

I first want to say that we do not believe that refusing to take part in the missile defence plan undermines Norad.

Why would the United States deprive itself of information from the 47 radar systems in the north, for instance, on Canadian soil? Far from diminishing the importance of Norad's air capabilities, it increases them. There have been ten thousand joint air missions since September 11, 2001. In 2001-02, Norad detected 2.5 million planes and intercepted 70 of these, 11 of which were suspected of transporting drugs. Suddenly, because Canada had refused to be part of the missile defence plan, Washington would decide to put an end to all that? We refuse to believe this.

In fact, since September 11, 2001, as foreign affairs critic, I have been concerned with peace and security issues.

I thought to myself, “The whole world, Americans in particular, saw 19 men with exacto knives take control of large American aircraft, point them at New York's twin towers—we do not really know if they were also targeting the Pentagon in Washington—and hit another target in Washington, without any outside help”.

After that happened, I thought, “Clearly this whole missile defence plan is going to be scrapped; they will be focusing on a threat that is no longer theoretical, but one that has been carried out suddenly and unexpectedly, provoking incredible shock everywhere, including in Montreal and here and around the world, killing some 3,000 people”. The exact number is not known, but 3,000 is a staggering figure. It was a great shock.

So by what trick of magic are we all of a sudden faced with this very real threat, the root cause of which we now know is fed by various sources, and bred for the most part in countries that are poor, rife with unresolved conflicts, humiliation and underdevelopment? Of course, the relationship is not as simple as that.

The World Bank just released a remarkable study that we should look at, which demonstrates that unprevented civil wars are causing dramatic damage everywhere. We need only look at the situation across most of Africa, unfortunately.

Let us look at what is happening in Iraq. The war itself caused significant damage, but what about the damage resulting from a society in disarray? There was all kinds of military planning involved, but clearly, the coalition was not prepared to re-establish the social fabric. The damage is not yet known, nor will it be for some time. However, we know that it will be felt in health, social services, security, education, culture and so on. And there will be a great many dead. There are the children, for example, who do not have access to drinking water and who will die of dysentery. There is talk of cholera in southern Iraq.

So as we can see, there are real threats, and here we have considerable financial resources being put toward this missile defence plan by the U.S. administration.

I would like to underscore that the missile defence plan, far from guaranteeing the security of the United States, Canada or the world, is a surefire way to threaten security, because it will renew the arms race and because it will militarize space with nuclear weapons, based on what we know.

First, we see that this technology is still unreliable, a fact that was just confirmed by a prominent scientist, who for the past 40 years has seen a succession of missile and missile defence technologies.

This scientist, Mr. Polanyi, has seen repeated scientific defence projects such as Sentinel and so on, that, after being praised by the defence community, are later thrown out. There have been many such projects in the past 40 years.

At this time, even the U.S. administration admits that fundamental elements of the first phase of the missile defence plan—which is supposed to be land and sea-based—are not ready. Not only are they not ready, the U.S. says they are not even ready to be tested.

We are talking about technology that has been confirmed to be unreliable. A look at the statistics from the past three years—approximately—shows that three out of eight tests failed even though the exact location, the time of liftoff, the trajectory and the final destination were known. All this cost more than $60 billion, U.S. of course.

By definition, a missile defence plan cannot know in advance where the threat might come from. I use might, because we are going to address potential threats shortly. So, on this level alone, we must admit that the technology is still dubious. Professor Polanyi went on to say that, judging by what he had seen, it is not even particularly promising. We will let him speak. We will hear from the scientists later.

I did not hear the minister speak, but I have heard enough of the arguments in favour of the plan to know that new threats from the rogue states, or failed states as they are sometimes known, and from terrorists have been used as a justification.

What can we say about this? It must be kept in mind that Iraq seemed to be the major world menace before the war. Now, two months after the fact, there is no trace of weapons of massive destruction to be found. After the war in Iraq—in which no trace of weapons of massive destruction were found—I said to myself, “Well, there you are, the missile defence plan will be dropped and energies will be focused on truly addressing terrorism and those that support it”.

In that context, we cannot help but be extremely disappointed that Canada is sanctioning it by committing to a series of discussions on which even our colleagues across the floor are far from unanimous, while realizing that this will discourage those in the U.S who are opposed to the project, not merely to the militarization of space.

How can anyone think of putting all these resources, all this energy, into waiting until North Korea, for example—which is far from having that capability—attains it? Will we leave North Korea alone and not do anything? Why do we not use the strongest weapon for peace, which is multilateralism?

On reflection, it seems to me that everyone ought to say that the inspectors were very effective in Iraq. Why do we not apply international pressure to force those states which have begun and undoubtedly will step up arms production to stop doing so, to disarm?

When I ask this question, I know full well that if Canada gets on the missile defence system bandwagon, it will confirm that there is only one thing for states to do, and that is to arm themselves. I can only remind the House that when there were two great powers, for many years their resources were used to prevent possible attack and to make themselves stronger before such an attack. They finally realized that this balance of terror was eating up an extraordinary amount of energy and money. They decided to sign a treaty to end all that and reduce defences.

The problem is that today we are faced with the American administration's initiative, as influenced by the powerful think-tanks which have invaded vast sectors of American society. At present, the pendulum has swung back to settling problems by force.

Even in Iraq, we have seen that Saddam is, in fact, gone. But when will that society, having already suffered greatly, again be able to take hold of its destiny, find its own leaders, and become democratic? It may be that when it does do so, it will elect the kind of leaders the Iranians elected. What will the American administration do then?

It is urgent to keep the need for multilateral action—including prevention—in the spotlight. We should heed the advice of the World Bank and prevent conflicts. The necessary funding has to be put into international development and the fight against AIDS. There are millions of people dying. Kofi Annan asked for $10 million to fight AIDS, which is pandemic in Africa. All he could get was $2 million.

We are in favour of Norad, but against the Alliance's motion. We will continue to speak out so that instead of restarting the arms race, the world will begin a multilateral race for peace.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking as the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, but rather as one grandfather to a grandmother, my hon. colleague from Mercier.

Fellow grandparents, in order to analyze, discuss and debate this matter, should we not try to imagine what the world will be like for our grandchildren in 30, 40 or 50 years. We will, unfortunately or fortunately, no longer be around.

I am extremely concerned about the missile defence plan. It almost makes me want to say, as a grandparent, that I can already picture star wars. Since this means allowing one nation to control space, enemies of that country will find weapons to decommission its satellite surveillance from above.

We are headed for star wars. This will be as terrible as nuclear war, world wars one and two and all the other wars we have had. We are headed straight in that direction.

I would like to have the hon. grandmother's comments in response to my concerns.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right to remind us that what we are talking about here is the future of the world. I am also very sensitive to this and that is why I have taken this position.

I would like to tell my colleague something I did not have time to include in my speech. What is feeding this missile defence shield frenzy is something that Eisenhower himself warned against: the existence of a powerful military industrial complex. After 1990, at the end of the cold war, this complex was forced to research civilian uses for all of its military capabilities.

It seems that the war in Iraq may have simply been a testing ground for new weapons. The war was an excellent opportunity to deploy new weapons; I myself heard someone from the industry explain this to the NATO Parliamentary Association. He explained to us that what we would see in the future would be a combination of all weapons, including weapons in space, with very powerful sensors to detect danger.

Yes, there is a powerful military industrial complex and it constitutes a very real danger. However, there is another danger, one that lies in the mind, according to which conflict resolution is accomplished by the use of force. Real prevention does not involve preemptive strikes, but the prevention of conflict, the signing of treaties, reducing the arms buildup. While this type of talk may have fallen out of fashion these days, when we think of our grandchildren, this is what we need to work toward and hope for.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a short while ago the Prime Minister said “We do not know exactly what will be the requirement. Perhaps the wise thing to do is to try to find out what they are asking of us, if they ask anything. Let us wait to know if they are asking something, or nothing”. That was said on April 30, 2003, a little less than a month ago. I understand that the minister is practically set to announce we will be participating in such a program.

I wonder if my colleague could tell me if she thinks we are not rushing the issue. Should Canadians generally and the members of this House not know a lot more about what we are getting into here, whether it is right or wrong, whether we support it or not? Should we not know a lot more? According to the Prime Minister, he knew very little a month ago and I doubt if he has learned very much since. Does she not think we should slow it down and find out what we are getting into before we get into it?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and I thank my colleague for it. In fact, if there is one area where we need to make haste slowly, this is it.

If the minister has new information, his first responsibility is to share it with the House and allow us to debate it. This is a very important issue that affects the future, much more important than the war in Iraq, in the end.

It makes no sense for the government to move ahead like this without sharing the information that it has so far. We need to have some guarantees first. Otherwise, this commitment will look like consent to go further.

So, yes, we must take our time and ask questions before doing anything.

[Rex Barnes, Progressive Conservative, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is a very complex issue. What we have heard in the House time and again is that Canada seems to depend on another country to defend us. We have talked about cutbacks in defence and that our military is not strong enough because we are not putting the tools in place to make sure we can defend our own country.

Many questions need to be asked about the missile defence system. It appears again that the government really does not know where it is going and, as the hon. member just stated, the minister is not sure where the government is headed.

We need an open forum across the country to get input from Canadians of all political stripes and from people who know whether it is good or bad. We need to listen to the groups. It is not for the Liberal government to bring it in and say that this is what it will be. If we are going to be involved we need to be involved on the ground floor. If we are not going to be involved the government should say so and then we can get on with the business of the country and of the world.

I will throw out some questions to show the things about which people have concerns. Will there actually be weapons in space? No one seems to know. What type of weapons will be determined? Who will manufacture these weapons? Are there plans to have nuclear weapons? No one seems to know. We have to move forward to try to get all these questions answered so that we are well-informed and we understand because it is, as I said before, a very complex issue.

In August 2001 the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada convened a policy round table to hear from experts and to discuss the merits of the missile defence system. I do not know if people remember that but it was done. Before I get into some comments I will just read some of the items.

If Canada becomes involved, Norad is expected to play a significant role in command and control. If Canada does not become involved, Norad may be marginalized as the U.S. gives the role to northern command. We have had ministers say that Canada remains firmly opposed to placing weapons in space. That was in the Globe and Mail on May 2, 2003.

The U.S. has been co-operating with the U.K. and Denmark in upgrading radar sites for the program. Australia has also been very supportive. Both Japan and Israel have their own joint missile defence programs. That was May 8, 2003.

I want to mention a few other items, such as the Prime Minister not knowing where the system will go. We have prime minster wannabes and leaders of parties taking the stand that they do not agree with a missile defence system. The Prime Minister has said that it will be debated in cabinet and that cabinet will make the decision, which it should. However we should be fully aware of what is being discussed so that we are not kept in the dark.

This is a very serious matter and if politicians of all political stripes are not totally involved in making a firm, realistic and an informed decision, then we will fail Canadians and we will fail the world.

During the policy round table in August 2001 some people argued that the deployment of a limited national missile defence system was merely a responsible response to a strategic environment of the post-cold war era. Others believed such a move would bring about another arms race, dragging in other countries.

We must be careful because we do not want to start a major war again. However, with the way wars are being fought today people are afraid that troops will no longer be able to fight a war the way they used to. It may be nuclear weapons.

The ballistic missile defence system falls into two main categories: the TMD, which is the theatre missile defence, and NMD, which is the national missile defence. The first one is designed to intercept short range missiles, while the latter is geared to the interception of long range missiles. Both systems have similar technologies: satellite based in-flare centres that detect and track missile launches; radar that follows incoming threats and guides interceptors to them; and the interceptor missiles themselves. In the future both may be a part of what we call the new era of technology in space.

I will go through some of the comments made during the round table discussions held on August 7 in Ottawa. Many people were afraid of the technology because no one really knew what people were talking about. There seemed to be very little middle ground between the opposing sides of the debate. Proponents dismissed opponents who were afraid of the technology, while the latter dismissed their adversaries as those who had not recovered from the cold war.

We need to make sure we fully understand what is happening. I believe many of us in the House do not understand what will be expected of Canada as a country in the world or what Canada is even thinking.

The overall debate basically was confusing because people were often talking about different things. Three aspects need to be kept distinct: the theatre missile defence is geared to local threats; the national missile defence is designed to defend the U.S.; and the SDI-2 is a worldwide protection system and one that the U.S. could offer to its allies and others.

Therefore we need to be part of a system as a united front for not only Canada but for the world. If we are going to be involved we need to say so and then get in there with the Americans and other countries for the protection of the whole country and democracy.

I am taking some excerpts from the conference. One of the primary concerns for the Americans was their national interest. Another possible driving force of course was identified by the defence research industry. Americans are very patriotic. They protect their own, no matter what the cost. We heard the Prime Minister taking a smack at the president. If we are to defend our country and defend it in the right manner we sometimes have to spend money.

Sometimes we can sit around and say that it is good to have a balanced budget, that it is good to slash and slash but there is a price to pay if we do not defend our country and there is a price to pay for protecting our country. The United States is very patriotic about that. As a result of that I think it is time for Canada to become more patriotic and do what is right for Canadians and what is right for the protection of our country.

Finally, in one section of the debate there were questions concerning what this would mean for Canada. What would be the implications of Canada's refusal to participate? What would be our role in Norad if we refused to participate? Would the U.S. quietly retaliate in areas such as trade? If we agree, how extensive would the benefits be?

We have seen the pain it has cost our country because we did not support the Americans, our closest neighbour and on whom we depend so much for trade, in the war with Iraq. We have seen the pain it has cost our business people and consumers. We have seen the consequences and we will probably feel the consequences for many years to come.

Again I say that if we are to be involved we need to have all the facts and the information so we can make an informed decision on what is in the best interests of Canada.

If we join with the United States and other countries, we should join at the ground level rather than wait until it is too late. We saw that during the Iraqi war. We waited until the last minute to make a decision and then it was too late.

From what I heard at the conference, the U.S. is motivated by three basic factors, which is probably what Canada should be looking at. First, there is a historic reluctance on the part of the Americans to take on a global role. They have always been in the forefront. It is time for someone else to play that role. It is probably time for Canada to come up to the bat. The Americans have been striking home runs for many years, so it is time for Canada to move on.

Second, the U.S. is fascinated with technology and will continue to do so.

Finally, there is a desire to keep military losses to a minimum.

Those three factors together will shape the Americans' approach to the national missile defence system and other arms control negotiations, and this is what it is all about. If we take some lessons from the Americans we probably will be better off as a country. There are some things where the Americans can take lessons from Canada and they will probably be better off. However as a unit we will work together.

What would we call an appropriate Canadian response? That question came up at the conference. People argued that if Canada is to have a say on the national missile defence issue, then we cannot simply stay on the sidelines. We should engage the Americans and find some appropriate way to participate. As I said earlier, we should not jump in when it is almost over. We need to get in on the ground floor so we can have a say on where it is going.

It was also suggested that it was very important for Canada to use its good offices to move the Americans toward adopting a multilateral approach. Canadians did not have much interest in engaging in debate. They were already being inundated with too much information that they could not analyze. The need is there for our political leaders to get the facts straight and make the right decisions.

It is also very important for us to meet with groups across the country and ask their opinions. It would be good for the defence committee to ask experts to give the pros and cons of it all. We must listen to both sides of the issue. To just listen to the side that is very important for one side of the House or the other side, then we do an injustice to Canada and to the citizens we represent because they depend on us to make the right decisions for the betterment of the country.

It is time for us to get the facts and to get as much information as we can so that we know where we are going.

As I said earlier, I am sure many members in the House do not have a clue as to what this is all about. I am also sure some people are well informed about this whole situation. It is a learning process. We, as parliamentarians, have to depend on the people who are for it and who are against it to put the facts, the figures and the information before us so we can have a clear understanding of where we are going or not going.

We should not get involved because the U.S. says that we should get involved. We get involved because it is the right thing for the country. If it is not the right thing for Canada and its people, then we do not get involved and we state why. However we do not hang back as we did during the Iraqi war. We do not put out the hook and as it gets closer to making a decision we haul in the line and all of a sudden the fish comes off as we did with the war in Iraq.

If we are going to make a decision we need to have all the facts and figures and all the pros and cons on the issue so we all have a general understanding of what it is all about.

We all know that Canada does not have a military constituency as it does in the U.S. Canada has no pro-military constituency, which is the biggest problem. We depend on someone else to do our work. If we are going to defend our country as the U.S. takes care of its people, then we have a decision to make. Are we a country of peace or are we a country that will defend our nation from any type of threat? If we are going to protect our country we have to spend money. If we are not going to protect our country and depend on the United States to do it, then let us say so and get on with it.

Also it was noted that the Americans will not wait for us to make up our minds. We need to give them a sign if we are going to be involved or we are not. It is no good to go to the United States, sit around the table and negotiate, negotiate, negotiate. The key is that Canada needs to say either we are in or we are out. In any type of negotiation, as people in this House know, if people are going to negotiate, people are going to negotiate. There are things people are going to like and things people are not going to like, but if we are going to be in this, we should say so. Right now no one in the House knows if we are going to be in or out, because the Prime Minister has even said that he does not know where it is going.

We will know soon enough, but sometimes it is too late when we do know. The problem is that the government makes a decision, we are the last to know, and then all of a sudden we are fighting with the government and telling it what it did wrong. Let us all get involved together. This is so important.

It also was stated as well that “it is important for us to determine whether or not [national missile defence] will in fact bring more stability than we now have”. We also need “to determine whether we can better accomplish our goals through multilateral diplomacy”. It was also concluded that “we already know that on major international issues we have no real influence. It is therefore time for Canada to speak in terms of a national interest” and be firm about what we are going to do.

There can be little doubt that the debate over national missile defence will be with us for some time. This reality will prove an expensive one for all participants. Whether we use the new-found technologies and capabilities for positive or negative purposes will depend in large part on the debate we have in the House of Commons, the debate we have across Canada and the decisions we make for our country and nation.

I will go back to questions that people are very concerned about, but before I do I want to talk about an article in the Star-Phoenix on April 29 about a person who is looking to be prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party and who stated, “To support this Star Wars scenario runs counter to everything the Liberal party has ever stood for”.

Then of course the Prime Minister said, like always, “We don't know exactly what will be the requirement. Perhaps the wise thing to do is to try to find out what they are asking of us--if they ask anything. Let's wait to know if they are asking something, or nothing”. That was in the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal on April 30.

That is the problem we have as well: We are waiting for them to come to us. It is time for Canada to say to the United States either “we are in and give us some information” or “we are out”. It is very simple: in or out. It is no big deal. But if we are going to make the decision to jump in, let us jump in on the ground floor.

I will end by saying that all sides of the House do not have all the information. We do not know from one day to the next what the government is going to do. I do not understand the situation clearly. I have managed to get some information together today and I can say that it is really interesting. I am hoping to get more information so that when I have to make an decision I will make an informed decision on the facts, on the pros and cons, and I will make a decision in this House based on what I believe is best for Canada and best for the protection of our country.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my participation in this debate today by saying that I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I was listening to the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke from the Canadian Alliance who started the debate.

One would expect this sort of motion from the Canadian Alliance, but when I heard the member say this motion was about fresh thinking and when she talked about the nationally acclaimed defence policy of the Canadian Alliance, I really actually cracked up and started to laugh. It seems to me that the defence policy of the Canadian Alliance has been thoroughly discredited right across the country. This idea of fresh thinking in the motion before us today in that somehow we are going to kick-start Norad into star wars is not fresh thinking; it is being trapped in the cold war. That is the kind of mentality that was prevalent during the cold war. Apparently the Canadian Alliance is still back there several decades ago, so that sort of sent me off chuckling.

Then, when I heard the minister of defence make his remarks on behalf of the government, I was actually truly alarmed and shocked. On the one hand, this motion is clearly setting the stage for star wars. That is what this motion from the Alliance is about and its members have been very clear about that. Then we had the Liberals walking right in, taking centre stage and saying, “We want to be in that tent too. We want to be with the U.S. in that tent”. I truly was horrified to hear the minister of defence say that Canada is now going to enter into discussions with the U.S. government on the missile defence system, or what is commonly known as star wars. What a disastrous decision.

How was that decision made? What kind of input was there? In fact, what role has Parliament played? We have not played any kind of role in such a major policy change from the Canadian government, and certainly the Canadian people have not been involved in any way.

As other members have pointed out today, for months and months we have been quizzing the federal government, the Prime Minister, the provisional government in waiting and the former finance minister to find out where the Liberal government stands on this issue. Even as recently as last month we heard the Prime Minister saying that he really did not know, that the U.S. had not asked anything and we could not respond to anything. But all of a sudden here we are today with an announcement by the defence minister that we are now ready to enter into negotiations.

This is a very bad day for Canada historically, because in my own opinion and in the opinion of the NDP and I think that of many Canadians, this decision by the government today is nothing more than a repudiation of decades of policy in terms of the international community around arms control and around international treaties that have actually sought to keep us out of the militarization of space and out of weaponization. The government has given a clear signal today that it is willing to set all of that aside and now embark on a totally insane, disastrous course being charted by George W. Bush.

It is ironic to note that as the debate was taking place in the House today, at the very same time in the foreign affairs committee two witnesses, Dr. John Polyani and Lloyd Axworthy, the former foreign affairs minister and still, I hope, a very well respected member among Liberal colleagues, were at committee speaking on this very issue of national missile defence.

Our member for Halifax, the former leader of the NDP, who is our representative on that committee, said she was really outraged because at that committee this morning no Liberal members were present for a whole period of time. In fact, when one or two Liberal members did wander in, they were so disdainful and so arrogant in terms of what was being said that they went to the back of the room and had various little conversations. There were two superb witnesses who were spelling out and laying out the dangers of what it would mean if we engage in this course of action and there were no Liberal members present to hear that debate. I find that truly arrogant and completely unparliamentary in terms of what our committee system is meant to be about.

We should be very clear about what is taking place here with this motion from the Alliance, which is just a knee-jerk reaction to what George W. Bush wants. All the American government has to do is say jump and the Alliance says how high and how fast do you want us to do it? Let us be very clear. What the U.S. is really doing here is seeking the political legitimization of the national missile defence program. This has been very well spelled out by Senator Douglas Roche, who has done a lot of research and has been very outspoken on this issue.

This issue of political legitimization is something that we now can see the Liberal government has just walked right into. Any person in their right mind would know that this kind of expenditure on a national missile defence system, which will lead us to the militarization and the weaponization of space, is going to cost at least a trillion dollars.

Most of us, and in fact all of us, cannot even visualize what that expenditure means in terms of the resources it will take up. Most people understand the insanity of that kind of approach. I think probably Mr. Bush himself understands that, and his job has been to somehow provide the political rationale for engaging in this kind of absolutely idiotic restart of an arms race. People are seeking to do that by the political legitimization of star wars. We are seeing all the measures and the stage being set in terms of the whole stage that was set around the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when really, at the end of the day, did they find any? They did not exist and then it became a regime change and on and on this story goes.

Now we are looking at this rationale of protecting ourselves. We hear the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former finance minister, talk about protecting Canadian sovereignty from these ballistic missiles. What ballistic missiles? What threat are we speaking of? Are we prepared to spend a trillion dollars for a threat that has never been identified? Are we prepared to allow our universe, our space, to be used for militarization and for weaponization? That is what is being suggested here.

I would say that the former finance minister, the person who hopes he will become prime minister of Canada, is really playing a very dangerous game. When we look at the interviews, the quotes and the comments that have been made, it seems to me that the concern, the issue that is really being expressed by the Canadian government, whether it is by the defence minister today or whether it is by the former finance minister, is really about appeasing the American government.

We heard the defence minister today saying that if we are not in the tent our influence will be nil. What does that actually mean? What does it mean to be in that tent? What kind of influence is he speaking about? Does he actually believe that Canada would have some kind of influence by just putting up our hands and saying, “Me too, me too, we are in your tent”? There is nobody else in that tent.

I really find it very disturbing that significant public policy, foreign policy, is being dictated by this rationale of political legitimization in terms of our relations with the U.S., as opposed to a critical analysis of whether or not the missile defence system and star wars and using Norad as the cover is actually a course of action that will send the globe into a very dangerous area. Those of us in the NDP are deeply concerned about the announcement by the defence minister today, and I know there are members of the Liberal caucus as well who are probably expressing a lot of concern about where the government is going.

I can say that within the NDP--where we have done our homework and looked at the issue--there is no other conclusion but to come to the fact that the missile defence system and the use of Norad to promote a missile defence system is an utter waste of important public resources that are badly needed in terms of developing stability for human security. It is a fundamental threat to multilateralism and a set of international laws that have been developed over decades, that have tried to move the world away from a new arms race.

We have seen the U.S. unilaterally abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty that was adopted in 1972. President Bush did that in December 2001. We have seen the Americans with their ridiculous nuclear posture review. We have seen the statements and the plans they have made for a first strike policy.

All of these things that have been unfolding in the last couple of years should be of enormous concern to Canada. We should not get into the tent and say that is where we will have a bit of influence. We should be part of an international community that will stand up to that kind of insane public policy. We should be working within international law and strengthening these international treaties, and bringing back the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We should be seeking to implement the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and working with what is called the new agenda which is a number of smaller countries that have tried to play a progressive and critically independent role in promoting that kind of agenda.

Why is the Canadian government not putting its political capital and resources into legitimizing that agenda because it is the right kind of agenda that we should be moving toward?

The NDP is so concerned about star wars that it has actually been conducting campaigns with its members. We have a petition on our website, ndp.ca, and we are encouraging Canadians, even more so today given the news we heard from the defence minister, to sign our petition and to make it absolutely clear to the government that the policy that it is enunciating has had no debate in the House. It has been behind closed doors, presumably in the cabinet room. I do not even know if there has been a debate in the Liberal caucus about this or whether there was any resolution about this.

However, the issue is so important that we must call upon Canadians to stand up and make this very clear, just as they did in opposing the war on Iraq. We have to stand up and say to our federal government that this is really a completely mistaken path to take. It is a path that will lead us to the weaponization of space and greater inequalities in our world.

I was just speaking with one of our members earlier and thinking about the situation in Africa where millions of people every day die of AIDS or are living with AIDS, and probably will die because they cannot gain access to the kinds of medicines that are available to us in the west. They cannot gain access to that because of the restrictions around drug patent laws. That is a shocking contrast because on the one hand we see the U.S. developing its agenda with a possible expenditure of one trillion dollars and on the other hand we see a continent where millions of people are suffering needlessly because of a lack of political will. The resources that are needed there, often a few dollars a day on a per capita basis, would alleviate the great suffering that takes place on that continent but also in many other places around the world.

It is that sense of outrage from people, not just in Canada, but globally as well, that has made people feel cynical about the political process. When people read about the tragedies that take place, whether it is Congo, AIDS on the African continent, Rwanda, the sanctions in Iraq or what happened after the war, is it any wonder that they feel this horrible sense of cynicism about politicians and about the political process? They see what the real priorities are on our planet in terms of protecting the environment and meeting human security needs in a basic fundamental way through fresh water, housing and protection from diseases like AIDS.

Yet, our Canadian government has apparently made the decision to get in the tent. I cannot even imagine what that tent is like and what kind of discussions go on. However I do know that if the minister believes that by being in the tent he and the Canadian government have some kind of influence, I would say he is seriously fooling himself.

We must look at the reality of the political relations and dynamics that are taking place. I was reading an interesting report recently from the Polaris Institute written by Stephen Staples. In a chapter looking at the drivers of military spending, he states:

In a remarkable admission on September 4, 2002, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, revealed that when he was appointed ambassador his only instruction from the Bush Administration was to work on increasing Canada’s military spending.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Exactly, shame.

Everything we have heard come out of his mouth, acting as though he were a politician himself and not an ambassador, has been peddling this kind of line about pressuring Canada to adopt closer relations and harmonization with the U.S. foreign and military policy.

It has been heartening to see some of the resistance come from the Prime Minister over the war on Iraq, for example. We were all hugely relieved to see that decision made. Canadians were relieved to see that decision made, even though the former finance minister was out there champing at the bit while his provisional government waited to get in there. He made it clear that he certainly did not adopt that line.

It was announced today that we will get into the missile defence program. I am deeply disappointed and concerned about where this will take us. What should Canada do? First, we should clearly be saying no to star wars. We must be involved in a principled and vigorous way to hold up international treaties like the non-nuclear proliferation treaty and the anti-ballistic missile treaty to eliminate weapons. We should be working with countries on the new agenda. We should be working to uphold international law, not chart a course of unilateralism and this “me too” policy aligning ourselves with the U.S. Norad should not be part of any star wars program.

Finally, we should be focusing on the real priority that we have, which is basic human security that comes from food, shelter, education, a clean environment, housing, and the basic things that are required to truly bring global security to our planet.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member for Vancouver East, a member for whom I have considerable respect. I had the privilege of working with her on a special committee of the House on the non-medical use of drugs. Her commitment to many issues is well known. I certainly learned a lot from working with her.

By way of a comment I wish to correct the record. In her opening remarks she referred to the testimony of a former member of the House, the hon. Lloyd Axworthy, a distinguished former minister, and Dr. John Polanyi . She made the assertion that there were no Liberal members at that committee. Obviously the chair, the distinguished member for Nepean--Carleton, is a Liberal. I was at the committee when it was called to order and stayed for the duration. I was accompanied at the table at all times by at least two other colleagues. I am not even sure that we could have a quorum and call the committee to order if her assertion were true, but I am not an expert on parliamentary procedure.

I attended the committee this morning and enjoyed Mr. Axworthy's presentation immensely. It was nice to see him back in this building. At the time that I was at the committee I did not see the member for Vancouver East. I thought it was important to correct the record.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I did say in my remarks earlier that before this debate I spoke to our representative on the committee, the member for Halifax, and she was very distressed. Obviously the chair was in the room, but other members of the committee, Liberal members, were not at the table. They were wandering around at various points and she felt that it was very disrespectful to the important witnesses who were there.

The member says he was there. I take his word for that, but there was a clear indication that there was no interest in participating in the questioning or what was taking place at that committee. It may be because Liberal members there already knew what the defence minister was going to say and they were already on board. Perhaps they decided that the foreign affairs committee was not the place where the debate was going to take place and did not particularly want to hear what those witnesses had to say, particularly the one who was a former foreign affairs minister.

I have not seen the blues yet, but in speaking with our member for Halifax she relayed to me that his comments were very critical of star wars. Mr. Axworthy strongly believed that Canada should not be participating in star wars. In fact, he likened it to a conveyor belt. Once we get on and away we go, it is very hard to turn it off, particularly when the switch is controlled by George W. Bush.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, for her excellent speech and to ask her to elaborate on the new developments before us today. I would like her to comment on the spectacle of a government that has indicated its apparent support today for the U.S. missile defence program, at the same time claiming that it is against the weaponization of space.

As the member has pointed out and others have said, the connection is clear. A commitment to missile defence is a commitment to the weaponization of space and a commitment to the weaponization of space contradicts Canada's long held policy and values. That point has been made by others. I want to reference the article by Jeffrey Simpson in The Globe and Mail on May 7. He wrote:

Just as the conquest of Iraq was not fundamentally about weapons of mass destruction, so the U.S. anti-ballistic missile system is not about protecting the United States from missiles. It's about placing weapons in space. If Canada joins the U.S. system--which it might do for economic reasons or because the [Liberal] government feels we have no choice--it will be approving what it has always opposed

The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has said that for missile defence to be effective there must be flights in space. It has indicated that there will be weapons systems including space-based lasers and that the space-based laser system will be composed of a constellation of high energy laser platforms operating from space. Given all of that documentation, could the member comment further on the announcement today by the Minister of National Defence?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre because has hit the nail right on the head.

I am a big fan of George Orwell. I really enjoy reading his books. Even today they have a sense of reality about what takes place in our society. I was thinking that had George Orwell been in this chamber today and heard the Minister of National Defence say that on the one hand we are going to enter into discussions with the U.S. to get into star wars but we are doing this under the rationale that we are still opposed to the weaponization of space, he would have been nodding his head and saying “See, I told you so. That is a really good example of doublespeak”. The comments from my hon. colleague really outline this.

A fundamental contradiction is being put forward on the rationale of somehow protecting Canada's sovereignty. I really feel that this is just a horrible joke because the threat is not from ballistic missiles. To develop a trillion dollar system that allegedly is going to protect us from this, is a complete illusion.

The member has pointed out that it has more to do with economic issues in the U.S. and Canada's apparent desire to appear to be willing. Maybe because of what took place in Iraq there is now a rush to appease the American government and Mr. Bush and say that we have to kind of go along with this.

If that does happen, we are the ones who will receive the fallout. If things are shot down, it will be on Canadian soil that this plays out. We have to be hugely concerned about Norad's involvement in this. That is the best reason to turn down this motion today and say that in no way should Norad be engaging in an exercise around star wars and the missile defence system. That is not what its purpose is. This is just about a strategy to somehow kickstart Norad. It is a very dangerous policy and we should have no part of it.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations with all parties in this House and I believe that you will find consent for the following order. I move:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, June 3 at 3 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to one comment. The member said regarding potential ground based missiles interfering or stopping missiles flying over our country that if we ever got into a horrible situation or scenario like that, one way or the other Canada would be involved. It sounded as if the logic was that we will not have any defensive sensors or missiles or anything on our ground so that any potential missiles will just fly over Canada and then explode in the United States. Her option is to sacrifice American lives for her socialist principle.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is so ridiculous. I do not want to see any of these missiles flying around over any country. I do not want to see any lives lost, military or civilian. To suggest that somehow we are saying that Canada should be set aside and that missiles should be sent to the U.S. and that people should be killed as a result of that is absolutely absurd.

The point here is to work for international treaties that will prevent these missiles from even being developed. We should be eliminating nuclear missiles, ballistic weapons, all weapons of mass destruction.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the Canadian Alliance motion which reads:

That this House affirm its strong support for Norad as a viable defence organization to counter threats to North America, including the threat of ballistic missile attack; and support giving Norad responsibility for the command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles.

Seven years into the U.S. missile defence program the Liberal government until quite recently had no position on the issue. The Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister have opposed the plan in the past. Then they simply dismissed it, saying that Canada had not been asked to participate.

Now the Liberal leadership contenders, cabinet ministers and the caucus members seem divided on the issue. The frontrunner for the Liberal leadership race, the member for LaSalle—Émard, soon to have his coronation as the next prime minister of Canada, has been waffling on this issue, as usual, as he has in the case of Kyoto, the Iraq war, SARS, mad cow disease and so on.

The U.S. ambassador and a top Canadian general have warned that Norad could be at risk if Canada does not cooperate on this issue.

Throughout the cold war Canada played an important role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, commonly called NATO, and in the North American Aerospace Defense Command, called Norad. In particular, Canada has been a close partner of the United States in defending North America's and western Europe's airspace from Soviet aggression.

At various times during the cold war, the U.S. considered building an anti-ballistic missile system, called ABM, to defend against Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. In 1972 the anti-ballistic missile treaty was signed by the U.S.S.R. and the United States banning ABM systems, with the exception of one site to protect the capitals or ICBM field.

Russia currently maintains an ABM site around Moscow. In the mid-1970s the U.S. dismantled its ABM sites in Grand Forks, North Dakota because it was believed the system would not be entirely effective.

In the early 1980s President Ronald Reagan appealed to the American people for support to build a space based ICBM interceptor system using high intensity lasers and particle beams, called the strategic defence initiative, SDI. The system seemed far-fetched, but billions of dollars were poured into the program and some significant technological advances were achieved.

Although Reagan's idea never materialized, there continued to be billions of dollars allocated to missile defence each year within the U.S. defence budget. Even as the cold war wound down and the Soviet Union collapsed, money earmarked for missile defence was reduced but not eliminated. President Bush Sr. and President Clinton also continued to provide funding for missile defence.

The result of the research and investment in the last 20 years will soon materialize into a missile defence system for the United States and perhaps the allies of the United States.

The Bush administration plans on having an anti-missile system up and running by the end of September 2004. Construction is already underway in Alaska. Construction crews are busy at work at a former military base a mere 400 kilometres from Dawson City, Yukon. They are carving holes 25 metres deep for missile silos and erecting about a dozen state of the art military command and support facilities. It will be the home of a vanguard force of rocket propelled interceptors for defending the United States against ballistic missile attack.

If Canada chooses not to go along with the U.S. on BMD, it will likely mean the end of Norad, or at least the effective Norad currently in place. Norad has been a longstanding component of Canada's aerospace defence and a key area of U.S.-Canada defence cooperation. While Norad's role has changed since the end of the cold war, its importance for Canada has remained.

The deputy commander of Norad has always been a Canadian, allowing significant influence and expertise within the realm of air defence for North America. The former deputy commander, Lieutenant General George Macdonald, believes that the proliferation of nuclear and missile technology will present a threat to Canadian security in the coming years. He has asked some important questions that have a direct bearing on whether or not Canada should join the BMD effort. He has asked, can the world's remaining superpower risk the possibility of being held hostage to a ballistic missile threat, and more important, can Canada disassociate itself from this possibility?

As it currently stands, Norad can only provide limited defences against threats coming through North American airspace. Norad can only defend against air breathing or jet powered threats. The United States and some Canadians would like to incorporate BMD through Norad because it possesses a great deal of the infrastructure that would be needed to track and monitor threats.

The problem for Canada is that if it refuses to participate in BMD, it will likely mean the end of Norad. The U.S. already has a backup system to Norad called U.S. Spacecom. If Norad were to end, Canadian military personnel would lose access to information that would be virtually impossible for Canada to obtain without it.

One of Norad's key functions is integrated tactical warning attack assessment, ITWAA. If Canada was not a partner in BMD, Canadian personnel at Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs could not participate in ITWAA, which they currently do. There would also be ripple effects that would be felt throughout the U.S.-Canadian cooperation on defence.

An American general has warned that if Canada does not participate in BMD, then it should not anticipate being protected under BMD either. That seems to be fair. However, due to the close proximity of most major Canadian cities to the United States, it is likely that many populated parts of Canada would be protected regardless of Canada's participation.

Free riding on American investment and expense would not help diplomatic or military relations between the two countries. We know the downside of the diplomatic relationship between Canada and the United States.

Norad's dissolution would cause Canada's standing in the western alliance to be damaged as well. Canada has participated in security matters in Europe and elsewhere frequently with the United States. The United States, along with the British, often assists Canada in lift and supply capabilities.

As the Canadian military is stretched thinner and thinner, the United States may be somewhat less enthusiastic about helping Canada participate in interventions or peacekeeping missions around the world. Indeed, despite what the government might say, Canada has been far more active in NATO missions than in the UN missions.

Although the United States may not retaliate against Canada overtly for not participating in BMD, as Joel Sokolsky points out, “Americans would no longer go out of their way to include Canada” in some aspects of defence.

The costs to Canada for participating in Norad are low in respect of the benefits in intelligence and interoperability that are gained by joining Norad.

If Canada were to go along with BMD, Canada's defence spending would most likely have to increase, but there is a possibility that the United States would fund 100% of the program. The most likely scenario would involve Canada shouldering 10% of the cost. This would be a relatively small price over a number of years when considering the technological and intelligence payoff that would result.

Canadian policy makers struggle with this question. Who would ever target Canada with a nuclear weapon? From our experience in the cold war, we know that the Soviet Union definitely targeted Canada and the Russian Federation still does, although probably far less than what the USSR probably did.

There is also the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used against Canada as a warning to Americans, our neighbours, to show the capability to strike North America exists.

For states that have just developed ballistic capabilities, like North Korea, it is extremely likely that their missiles are very inaccurate. Thus, the possibility of a warhead going astray and impacting British Columbia or Alberta is quite possible.

Similarly, many question the accuracy of Chinese ICBMs. Despite the technology that was allegedly stolen from the United States, some people still doubt that the Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles are accurate. It is also quite possible that Chinese missiles are targeted at western Canada as well because it is the closest ally of the United States.

If a Russian missile were accidentally launched or launched without authorization, there is also the possibility of the warhead falling short of the United States and detonating over Canada. The trajectory of Russian missiles is directly over Canada because it is the shortest route, similar to the way American missiles would be launched at Russia in case that happens.

Do not forget that British Columbia and Yukon is between Alaska and mainland United States of America.

Even if no missiles were targeted at Canada, or even if the threat to Canada were non-existent, a nuclear explosion on the mainland of the United States would have profound impacts in Canada, environmentally, economically, politically, as well as militarily. The cost of losing a city and thousands of lives would likely far outweigh the cost of building any missile defence system.

National missile defence is a limited system, designed to deal with small numbers of incoming ballistic missiles. While missile tests have not been completely successful, there have been a number of successful results showing substantial progress in the reliability of the system.

NMD is not a solitary system. It involves space based interceptors using exo-atmospheric kill vehicles . Theatre missiled defence through THAAD, Theatre High Altitude Air Defence, Boost Phase Interceptors, BPIs, and more local systems such as Patriot missile batteries like the new PAC-3 were amazingly successful in the recent war against Iraq.

A new arms race will not result. First, in economic terms, no other state can afford to engage in an arms race with the United States. Second, Russia has accepted the United States withdrawal from the ABM treaty and still desires to go ahead with the START treaties.

Other allies such as Japan, Britain, South Korea and others have expressed support for national missile defence. It is incumbent upon us to take it seriously.

Should Canada not sign on to NMD, we risk losing Norad, as I said. Although American military planners have expressed the desire to run NMD from Norad headquarters, the system could also be deployed through the U.S. space command. The U.S. does not need Canada but it does want Canada on board.

Canada gains nothing by not signing on to NMD. However we risk losing military contracts and military ties to the United States through Norad, an important bilateral defence institution that has survived the end of the cold war, even September 11 and a number of other strategic changes in world affairs.

Not participating in NMD would further deepen the rift in Canada-U.S. relations which has been complicated by softwood lumber, the Iraq war issue, wheat tariffs, anti-Americanism from Liberal MPs and the protectionist tendencies of some U.S. congressmen.

We have to give it serious thought. The loss of Norad would have a severe impact on Canada's military capabilities and intelligence gathering capabilities. The United States could easily go ahead with BMD without Canada and without Norad. In such a scenario Canada would gain nothing economically, diplomatically or politically except perhaps for a thanks from Moscow and China that would continue in fact with motivation to aim their missiles at Canadian targets.

At the end of World War II Canada had the fourth most powerful military in the world. Under successive Liberal governments, Canada's military strength has deteriorated to the point where today we have surrendered the country's defence to the United States. While this has brought about significant cost savings, freeing up money for the $1 billion gun registry and the like, there are two important consequences.

First, Canada's lack of military weight renders it a peripheral player in international affairs. Unlike in the 1950s or early 1960s, we are now no longer a player on the world stage.

Second, our dependence on the United States of America for Canada's military defence must be taken into consideration when making diplomatic calculations. This is the price we must pay for scrimping on our military budget.

A recent SES/Sun media poll found that 61% of Canadians supported Canada playing a role in the ballistic missile defence system. Certainly all Canadians will be thankful if the capabilities that are developing today successfully avert an attack tomorrow.

For tomorrow's safety, the government has to act today. The Canadian Alliance's thoughtful motion is just that time reaction

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of a Torontonian law student studying at Michigan State University who is an intern in my office and who has contributed in this research. His name is Jonathan, and he has done a good job in researching this topic. I would like to encourage this youth who has been participating in voluntary work in our Parliament.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it utterly inexplicable that the official opposition would try to link Norad and the missile defence system.

The issue of Canada's participation in Norad—a longstanding, reasonable, fair and justified involvement—does not mean that because we agree with Norad, we have to automatically accept a missile defence system, as proposed by the U.S.

I find this completely illogical. The official opposition is trying to corner us. They are going to say that if we vote against the resolution, we are voting against Canada's participation in Norad, which is not at all true.

We are certainly in favour of participating in Norad, but we certainly also have the right, as a sovereign country, to decide for ourselves, upon review of all the issues involved, whether or not we support a missile defence system as proposed by the U.S.

These are two entirely different matters that they are trying to link in order to trap us. If we vote against the resolution—which we will, I hope—they will be able to say that the Liberal government is against participating in Norad, which is completely illogical.

If tomorrow morning the United States, as a major player in Norad, decided to launch a weapons system that was even more repugnant than the missile defence system, by introducing more nuclear weapons for instance, would we automatically agree, or would we take our own decisions after reviewing all the facts?

Many knowledgeable people who base their opinions on all the statements made at the most senior levels of the Pentagon or the U.S. administration, say that the missile defence system means launching weapons into space.

It is interesting to see reference in the resolution by the Canadian Alliance to any system against ballistic missiles. Does that include weapons in space? It will be interesting to hear from Alliance members whether they officially and clearly back the inclusion of weaponry in space. By putting their motion forward the way it is phrased and referring to any system, if we voted for the motion, it means we would have to accept any system, including weapons in space.

Alliance members will probably say in reply that of course they are not talking about weapons in space and that the Americans have only proposed a ground based anti-missile system. Yet the pressures and the numerous statements coming from the highest level at the Pentagon, within the administration itself, by Rumsfeld and others and sometimes by the President himself, give us very good grounds for believing that in the end the anti-missile system proposed by the United States must include weapons in space.

I would like to read from an article, which I think is a cogent, profound article by Jeffrey Simpson, in the Globe and Mail of May 7, 2003. He puts this question:

What link exists between missile defence and weaponizing space? A missile defence system must depend on satellites for surveillance and communications. Any threat to these capabilities would weaken the anti-missile system. Therefore, the logic of an anti-missile system must drive the designers to protect it. This means producing weapons in space that can protect satellites and attack any threat to them.

He goes on to say:

Anti-missile defence without weaponizing space is like being half-pregnant. Joining the missile defence scheme without understanding where it must lead is to misunderstand the stakes.

He is not the only one to have given us a warning that joining the anti-missile defence system is a path toward weaponry in space.

It is interesting to hear our friends from the Alliance tell us about all these missiles that will rain on us if we do not protect ourselves, that the Americans will suffer enough to defend us and that they will rain on Vancouver, Seattle and Montreal. At the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union, if any country had the power to have ballistic missiles that could travel across the ocean, we did not have an anti-missile ballistic defence system. Who are these countries now? From where is this threat coming?

The axis of evil was Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Already Iraq is completely disabled and it has been proven that the so-called weapons of mass destruction and all the famous armaments it used to have in secret have not been found still, months after the end of the war. Today there was another article saying that they could not find a threat anywhere. It leaves Iran and North Korea.

Who in a sane mind could believe that Iran or North Korea or another so-called rogue state, which has not been identified, could rain missiles on the United States or Canada, for that matter? It is almost a farce because if they even attempted, surely the intelligence of the world community would signal before hand that Iran or North Korea was ready to rain missiles on us. However even if they did by surprise, does anyone think they would take a chance with the power and might of the United States and the world at large? They would be annihilated in just a matter of days. They would never risk it, even if they had the power to do so, which most informed observers say they do not.

So where is the need for this?

The irony of it is that terrorism today has been conducted by people who have used unsuspected means such as suicide bombers mostly, using low tech technology and not high tech technology. It happened in the 9/11 tragedy, again in Saudi Arabia, the other day in Morocco and it is always the same pattern, suicide bombers using low tech technology.

It really is scary, this new way or talk of militarism and more and more weaponry when we have so much of an arsenal already at our disposal.

I read an article from the San Francisco Chronicle dated May 20. It said:

As Congress moves closer to a vote on repealing a ban against developing smaller, more usable nuclear warheads, a group of prominent scientists issued a letter Monday urging that the prohibition be kept in place.

The Senate Armed Services Committee has already voted in favour of a total repeal of the prohibition, passed 10 years ago as a means of preventing the use or proliferation of nuclear weapons. But the House Armed Services Committee voted on a compromise version that would permit design work but stop short of production of low-yield warheads.

The Bush administration and many Republicans in Congress have said the law should be repealed because, in a world of dangerous new threats, the U.S. needs a new generation of low-yield weapons for pinpoint strikes...

They do not have enough. The scientists wrote this:

“It is counter to U.S. interests for the United States to pursue new nuclear weapons at a time when the highest U.S. priority is preventing other countries or groups from obtaining them”, the authors said. “The perception that the United States is pursuing these weapons and considering their use would give legitimacy to the development of similar weapons by other countries.

They added, “The United States should be seeking to increase the barriers to using nuclear weapons, not decreasing them”.

The article goes on to say:

A low-yield weapon refers to a warhead with a force of five kilotons or less, about a third of the force of the warhead that killed 140,000 people when dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Where do we stop with this weaponry? Where does the United States stop? It already has so much in the way of armaments that it can annihilate any country in the world just in a matter of days if it wants. It has nuclear warheads in profusion, ballistic missiles, ships and warships of all kinds, technology of the latest as we saw in the Iraq war but that is not enough. Now we need low-yield nuclear weapons and we need the star wars deal which will lead to weaponry in space.

Meanwhile, credible observers like Lloyd Axworthy, our ex-foreign affairs minister, with a reputation for peace, peacemaking and peacekeeping, and Nobel Laureate John Polyani have warned us that star wars is a slippery slope. What does the world really need? Does it need star wars? Does it need more nuclear weapons, low-yield or otherwise? Does it need more ballistic missiles or anti-ballistic missile missiles?

What it needs really is more concern for the areas of the world that are totally neglected. Three million people are dying in the Congo right now as we speak and I think a few troops are there. To help this small United Nations force would be really a far greater service to the world than spending billions and maybe trillions on a star wars defence system. What we need is to really check our conscience.

Malaria, AIDS and TB are devastating millions and millions of people in Africa. They say that just AIDS alone devastates something like 27 million people in Africa. We really need to change course, to abandon weaponry in space and to say to ourselves, yes, we can be participants in Norad but, no, to any system that would lead to star wars.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about weapons in space as an emotional hot point, but we must talk about the global positioning system that we have around the world now. It is a military device, created by the military. It is now of course used by boaters, recreational people, hikers, and it is even at my golf course to tell me how far I am from the hole, but it is a military satellite system. We must also remember that we have had satellite recognizance for military purposes for years. It was used in war, the last one of course.

Let us just think of the great case when the satellite information was given to the British by the Americans to sink the Argentinian ship, the General Belgrano . That was using the satellite system specifically for direct offensive action. Secret military launches into space have been going on since the 1960s.

What is his definition when he talks about so-called weapons in space? If he is going to make the political point to create some kind of emotion on the issue for political purposes, he has to be very precise on what he is talking about when he says weapons in space. That is my first point.

Second, I want to ask him this very clearly. Is he contradicting the Minister of National Defence, who came into the House and made a statement today? I want him to clearly state his view about what the minister said in the House just an hour or so ago. In general, the minister said that Canada will be in the tent for discussions.

I would like a comment on both of those questions.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, we all know there are spy satellites in space and that space is being used for spying by countries, by giving observations to armies to act. I will not contradict the facts that are brought up by my colleague.

At the same time, the question to be asked is whether this is not enough already. Is it not too much already? Should we weaponize space even more, as Rumsfeld and all the others are predicting they will? There have been several statements. I do not have the time now but I am sure my colleague will refer to them because he has a whole slew of statements from people at the Pentagon, from people in the administration who say that the anti-missile defence system will lead to more weaponry in space.

We do not need an organized system of weaponry in space because if the United States starts to arm in space, certainly another nation will do it tomorrow, whether it is China or Russia or somebody else. What we need are less armaments, not more armaments on the pretext that we are defending against terrorism in rogue states.

As to what the Minister of National Defence said, I did not hear his speech. However we happen to be in a democratic party on this side of the House. It may be funny for them to talk about democracy and laugh. I do not laugh. This is why I am able, as a member of the Liberal Party, to state my case because this question is still open. The government has not made a final decision as to whether it will. Until it does, we on this side will say our piece. Those of us who are for our joining the anti-missile defence system will say so. I just happen to disagree.

If the defence minister says today that his position is we should join it to find out what it is, that is his position. I have a different position, and until a decision is made, I will continue to hold that position because we just happen to be a party that is not cheap. Thank the Lord.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the hon. member's talks. They are always very thoughtful and I am very interested in hearing them. I wonder if he could comment on two things.

I did not hear the minister's speech either but my understanding is he basically said that he was only going to enter into discussions to find more information. Does the member have any comments on that?

Second, could the member give us some of the details of Mr. Axworthy's presentation, at which most of us were not present?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear Mr. Axworthy speak. I wish I could have been there, but I read his article in the Globe and Mail and I know his feelings about this issue. He wrote an extensive article in the Globe and Mail some time ago. I endorse his views 100%.

He is warning us that we are falling more and more in the orbit of the United States in military defence and that we should be most careful, especially in regard to this new star wars. People do not want to call it star wars because that evokes weapons in space and they want to avoid that, but he and John Polanyi and many other observers are saying that is really what it means.

In regard to the Minister of National Defence, I did not hear his speech. If it is a matter of just discussing with the United States without any precondition and leaving the options open to us in Parliament to vote yea or nay, then there should be discussions certainly. Why not? Before doing that however, we should be sensitive to the point of view of many of us who do not want the discussions just to be a forerunner to a decision. We want the chance to debate this issue as it is a fundamental issue for our country. I hope that this is the spirit in which the Minister of National Defence has spoken and I am sure it is.