Mr. Chair, I am not surprised that the hon. member is finding the dialogue between myself and the Minister of National Defence somewhat different. After all, the defence minister is dealing with war, while we at foreign affairs deal with love. We make love and they make war. Naturally, there is a difference between us.
There is a difference, but also convergence in areas where it is in the interest of Canadians to preserve the well-being of Canada and Canadians. There lies our ground for convergence. I do not think the Minister of Defence is more aggressive than I am when it comes to protecting the interests of Canada and Canadians.
On the contrary, we both want to make sure this measure is good, in concrete terms, for Canada and does not represent a threat to our own disarmament policy. We are ensuring that we are not headed for the weaponization of space and similar scenarios. That is why we are stating very clearly that we have requirements as part of our discussions.
I can assure the hon. member that, as far as I am concerned, the preservation of Norad is a key issue in our discussions. I think the hon. member will agree that this would be the best. Housing this system in Norad would be the best way for Canada to maintain a certain control over it.
Let us not forget that the Americans are determined to proceed with or without us. Without us, they will be free to do exactly as they please, without any consideration for what we want. With us, this will mean we will have the opportunity and right to voice our opinion, assert our values and participate. By participating, we have a better chance of controlling this measure than if we leave everything in the hands of the Americans.