Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into the debate this evening, a debate that is long overdue.
This of course is just a superficial scratching of the surface compared to what we have an obligation to undertake as members of Parliament, which is a thorough review of this whole question in the context of the foreign policy and defence review that the government claims to be committed to, and at the parliamentary committee level where it is absolutely imperative that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade follow through on a commitment made a year ago that we would do a full exploration and debate of this whole question of national missile defence before any decision is made by the government to commit to the course of action that I think at the moment we have reason to be afraid the government will embark upon come hell or high water.
I note that both on the government side and on the official opposition side we have again the attempt to demonize the New Democratic Party, to accuse our leader, Jack Layton, and others of fearmongering, exaggerating and generally just whipping Canadians into a storm about this for no good reason.
I want to say for the record that I am very proud of the work my leader, Jack Layton, has been doing on this issue. I think a great many Canadians are extremely grateful for the fact that they have a voice in this Parliament at least with one political party, namely the New Democratic Party, to voice their opposition to any further engagement by the government in the complete sheer lunacy of the Bush national missile defence program.
We need not depend on just New Democrats sitting in the House for informed views on this question. We need go no further than the clear, principled, informed statement made in the House today by the member for Davenport. It is no wonder the member for Davenport does not want anything more to do with the Liberal Party of Canada or this Liberal government. He gives a number of reasons but I will briefly cite two reasons as the basis for his absolute opposition to any Canadian participation in the proposed missile defence system.
He points out that there is ample evidence that the U.S. intends to weaponize outer space and furthermore, that once the Government of Canada enters into discussions and negotiations with the U.S. administration, it would be very difficult to extricate itself.
I commend to all Canadians that they read the statement made by one of the few remaining real Liberal members of the Liberal government when he concludes by saying “I urge the government to keep Canada out of the missile defence venture and to concentrate its energies instead on peace rather than on belligerent measures called defence systems. Canada's interests are best served by being at the disarmament rather than at the armament table”.
It is a shame that members on the Liberal benches have turned such a deaf ear to the message from the member for Davenport that he clearly no longer feels that he really belongs in that political corner of the House.
I think a gross insult has been hurled at Canadians when members on the government side and in the official opposition, who, we might point out, are indistinguishable from one another on the issue of missile defence, when it is clear that they are insulting Canadians when they talk about the NDP somehow preying on Canadians' ignorance about this issue by putting forth information that is not factually based.
I assume that members in the other parties in the House have been receiving the same kind of thoughtful, thorough submissions from a whole variety of Canadians, NGOs, think tanks, academic groups, all of whom have been diligently doing their homework on this issue and, no thanks to the government, have come to their own conclusions having done their own studies.
Let me quickly refer to a couple. Again it is obvious that the government either has not even bothered to familiarize itself with the important work that has been done by Canadians and for Canadians, or else it has familiarized itself and has completely rejected the kinds of conclusions reached.
Let me refer quickly to a couple. The Canadian Pugwash Group is a very fine group of Canadian thinkers, researchers and analysts who have made a detailed study of this question and have come clearly to the position that the Government of Canada should:
...desist from any participation in this endeavour. Participation in any aspect of NMD will undermine Canada's sovereignty and lock us into huge expenses hindering our ability to fulfill our other political and military commitments, in particular maintenance of properly equipped peacekeeping or intervention forces. Canada should, instead, be pursuing its priorities within the UN framework.
That certainly does not describe what it is the government is committing us to in terms of participation with the United States.
The Group of 78 is a group of some of the most distinguished former ambassadors, including two former ambassadors for disarmament representing the people of Canada, and a whole range of experts in the field of foreign policy, peace, defence and disarmament. The Group of 78 states categorically, “Canada should not participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence program”. It goes on to make the point that there has to be a full engagement with Canadians around this issue before any further steps are taken by the government to implicate us in the missile defence program. And this is even before it gets to the question of the weaponization of space.
I urge the government to begin to pay attention to the careful work that has been done by these organizations. The Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament Studies at UBC has a paper that has been authored by Ernie Regehr, the distinguished director of Project Ploughshares, but endorsed by the director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues, under whose watch the Simons Centre operates.
The former foreign affairs minister of the country for this government, Lloyd Axworthy, clearly stated his opposition to missile defence involvement by the government, as well as Gerry Barr, the president and CEO of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. Again, there are the two former ambassadors for disarmament in this country, the hon. Senator Doug Roche and Peggy Mason. Professor John Polanyi, a Nobel laureate, has been very clear on this. The list grows and grows.
Let me refer briefly to a forthcoming book that sadly is not available in its entirety yet so it could be referenced in this debate tonight. It is by Mel Hurtig and is entitled Rushing to Armageddon: Paul Martin and George W. Bush's Star Wars . He makes the point that the government is hiding behind bogus public opinion polls that say that something like 67% of Canadians favour participation by our country in the U.S. star wars program. They are bogus polls. Those who are using those polls know that they are bogus polls and I am sorry to say that it is not only government members who are doing that, but there are some members of the media who are prepared to use such bogus polls too.
This is not a distinguished chapter in Canada's foreign policy history. Let me just say in conclusion, as we will have time for further debate, that Jack Layton, my leader, and I spent a day and a half in Washington last week. We met with many members of Congress, NGOs and former military personnel, every last one of whom said that they consider there is no possibility whatsoever that the Bush NMD program will lead to anything but the weaponization of space.
They are desperate to see Canada not participate in this madness and in fact take a strong principled stand. I am not sure of the exact number, but 130 to 140 members of the American Congress have voted against the budgetary measures and have voted against the participation in star wars.
This is not just about 14 members of this House sitting in this corner in the form of the New Democratic Party caucus. There are very large numbers of Canadians who are looking for leadership on the issue and they want to see it from their government.
Let there be no mistake about this. If that leadership will not come from the government, and it is already clear that it is not, and it absolutely is not going to come from the Conservative caucus, then let this government understand that there is going be the same kind of mobilization against the missile defence madness that is going to lead to the weaponization of space as there was a mobilization against any participation by Canada in the war on Iraq.
In the final analysis, I think that it is that voice--