Debates of Feb. 17th, 2004

Electoral System

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Surrey Central and all my colleagues for their patience in making this motion much more effective.

As I said at the beginning, it is a motion which directs Elections Canada, in the federal domain, to work effectively and proactively with groups and individuals who are already encouraging young people to vote. It gives some specific direction on how they do that, but in particular it states that Elections Canada will report those election results and publish them following election. It also will report to this House, the House of Commons, through our standing committee.

I thank the member for Surrey Central, the member for Northumberland. I thank the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the member for St. John's West. We have support from all members.

I would remind those watching that some of the groups involved are listed on the reference list, which is part of the record of these proceedings today. They will also be listed on www.peteradams.org.

I thank all members. I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this very important motion to encourage our young people to participate in elections.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, February 12, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Government Business No. 3. I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

[Editor's Note: Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 3, Mr. Kilger in the chair)

Ballistic Missile Defence

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform]

moved:

That this Committee take note of ballistic missile defence.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Chair, we are here tonight to discuss a topic of great importance, the security of Canadians. It is a topic of deep importance, one which will enhance our security, one in which we seek to determine what is the best way to assure the defence of our people in our territory. It is also a subject about which there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and even misinformation, hence the importance of this debate.

What we are trying to do, and what we are presently engaged in with our discussions with the United States, is to determine how we can best assure the security of our country in the North American continent. In so doing, we will ensure that the best interests of Canada and Canadians will be protected. If we determine that the results of the discussions we are entering into are not in those interests, there is no need to sign any agreement with our American colleagues. However, we owe it to each other and to those we represent to engage in these discussions, and we owe it to ourselves to be accurate about what is at stake.

We have a long, outstanding cooperation with the United States in matters of defence. Any suggestion that entering into discussions with the United States about a defensive measure of this nature represents a shift in Canadian foreign policy, I would suggest to the House is completely misleading. On the contrary, it represents a continuation of a policy that has served us well for over 60 years.

In 1940 the Ogdensburg declaration, which President Roosevelt came here to enter into with Prime Minister Mackenzie King, committed our two countries to join together in the defence of North America. They established the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. Out of that came the agreement founding Norad, the North American Aerospace Defence Command.

Norad has been the foundation of defence cooperation between our two countries since that time. Since 1958, Canadians and Americans have been working side by side in ensuring aerospace defence of North America, the command decisions shared at every level by citizens of both our countries.

When I visited Norad, I was extremely proud to see our serving servicemen there working beside their American colleagues with no distinction as to who was American and who was Canadian, doing their jobs and working together for the security of North America. That, I would suggest to the House, is the model that we want to achieve as we go forward in our relations with the United States, but also as we consider what is the best way to guarantee our security.

Since 9/11, we have been active with the United States in looking at other ways to determine our security. We have established a binational planning group which looks to ways in which we can collaborate on many issues of joint security matters. We have established the joint smart border plan, which looks to the ways in which we manage our border in our relations with our American colleagues, guaranteeing both ease of access to the United States and ensuring security at the same time. We have even established integrated border enforcement teams. That is what I believe is the tradition we are building on as we now consider working with our American colleagues and discussing this issue.

Colleagues, this is not a question about a loss of sovereignty, as some have proposed. Canadians want closer cooperation with the United States in matters of security, but they also want our continued sovereignty, and that is what this discussion is about. That is why we are going into this discussion, the Minister of National Defence and myself on behalf of the government, with an assurance that we will enhance the security of our people, and we will only enter into it after we have learned all about it and have determined that it is in the best interests of Canadians.

We need to be perfectly clear what this is all about and what it is not about. It is not, contrary to the suggestions largely from the NDP, about star wars. Star wars was a strategic defence initiative proposed by President Reagan back in the 1980s. The star wars plan did contain plans for a huge number of space-based missile interceptors. It was designed to counter the threat of a massive attack from the entire nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union as it was then.

Since then, both the nature of the defence system and its wider context are different. The international climate is different. Agreement has been entered into with Russia in which mutual assurances have been given, and there is no suggestion that this plan has anything to do with measures against Russia, or destined against Russia, China or other states of that nature.

It has been suggested that this is about Canada eventually getting involved in putting weapons into space. There is a suggestion out there that there is an inevitability of this leading to the weaponization of space.

We have to be straightforward. The idea of weapons in space has been discussed by certain voices in the United States, but is this policy for U.S. missile defence? No, it is not. There is no inevitability to this trend. In fact the trend is in the other direction.

As recently reported, the Missile Defense Agency has requested a relatively small amount of funds to research a space based test bed. It is not being advanced. It has been pushed back from 2008, in the minds of their planners, to 2012 and there is far from any guarantee that it will be approved by congress at any time. As put by a disappointed U.S. observer, “a program without adequate funding is not a vision, it's an hallucination”. Therefore, let us not be hallucinating over star wars when it does not exist.

I suggest that the weaponization of space is as controversial within the United States as it is within Canada. The cost and technological challenges of it are immense. Therefore, what matters for this debate and our decision is that our participation in the weaponization of space is not something that Canada will be a part of nor that the Minister of National Defence or myself envisage being involved in.

The missile defence program the U.S. is launching involves only land and sea-based interceptors. That is what it is and that is what we are discussing with the Americans.

Moreover, we do not envisage enormous costs for Canada. No financial contribution has been asked of us and we shall not commit to this program unless we can afford the cost.

Also, it will not lead to an arms race. Today we see a growing proliferation of ballistic missiles and that is a real threat for Canadians. This system, which is exclusively a defensive system, has no offensive capability. The interceptors must prevent the arrival of hostile missiles. How can that contribute to the arms race?

Furthermore, the scope of our security initiatives has not changed. We have no thought nor intention of abandoning our policies of protection against terrorism and in favour of human security. In all these areas, action must continue. We have no intention of substituting this particular defence for any others.

In closing, I want to assure the House that non-proliferation arms control and disarmament remain pillars of our foreign policy. Canada remains as a signatory and proponent of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the missile technology control regime, the Hague code of conduct on ballistic missiles, the biological and toxin weapons convention, the chemical weapons convention, the G-8 global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction, and we continue to work with other states to make these measures more effective.

We recently joined the proliferation security initiative which seeks to deny and restrict the flow of weapons of mass destruction around the world.

When we hear from members of the opposition to this measure, all I ask of them is to stick to the facts. The facts are these. The missile defence program we are discussing with the United States is not about star wars. It is not about the weaponization of space. It does not represent an abandonment of Canadian commitment to peacekeeping and disarmament and multilateral arms control measures. It does not represent a shift in government spending priorities on security as a whole or in our overall priorities.

The United States is committed to developing this program. There are those who say in this House that if we join the Americans, we will be contributing to the decision to make this happen. There is no fact in that. It is going to happen whether we participate or not.

What we need to do is discuss it with our American partners and ascertain whether there is a way in which we can participate that increases the security of Canadians and is consistent with our commitment to disarmament and the containment of weapons of mass destruction. That is what the Minister of National Defence and myself propose to do.

We and the United States are closely linked together in many ways: in geography, through families, through trade and the environment. However, in matters of the defence of North America, we are particularly linked. It has been said we are like Siamese twins.

We therefore are called upon to search in every way we can to guarantee the safety of our citizens. We owe it to our American colleagues with whom we share this North American space to discuss such measures. That is what the government is doing in this case. It will discuss, analyze and determine if this is in the best interest of Canada and Canadians. There is nothing more at stake here and nothing less.

[The Chair]

There are 10 minutes of questions to the minister, so I seek the cooperation of members to allow as many members as possible to ask those questions.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will therefore keep my remarks and questions short.

I find myself in complete agreement with everything that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated in his remarks tonight. The only question I have for the minister is, what took so long?

In his summation he said that the mandate he and the Minister of National Defence have is to discuss this issue. I would suggest that they have had eight years to discuss this issue, he and his predecessors and the Minister of National Defence and his predecessors. Surely to goodness in eight years we could follow the lead of a lot of countries, which I could name if I had more time, and actually support our allies in this effort.

I would say the time for discussing is over. Yes, we need to have this debate in the House of Commons because it is the first of its type. I welcome this debate. As he said, and I agree, let us stick to the facts. Let us not resort to fearmongering as the NDP has been doing on this issue for quite some time, especially its absentee leader, Jack Layton.

Having said that, I think it is incumbent upon the government to get on with things, take a stand on this issue, communicate that to Canadians and let the Canadian voters know what that stand is and what they are voting on before the next election.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was somewhat concerned when my hon. friend started out by saying he was in agreement with what I said, but he quickly allayed my concerns by moving to the attack so I feel more comfortable now.

I want to share with the hon. member and with other members of the House the fact that I do not believe we have been dragging our feet on this at all. This is a matter which we have been considering carefully. This is a matter which, as the hon. member knows, is technologically a long way from being demonstrated yet as to whether it would be accurate. There have been serious considerations about whether or not this matter would go ahead.

We looked at it wisely and said we will consider it when it is appropriate. The time has come now that it is appropriate. As I said in my remarks, we believe very strongly that this, if housed in NORAD, will have the way in which it can protect Canadians best. It will continue to preserve NORAD, which we believe is an extremely important institution for the defence of North America.

We believe there are very concrete potential benefits to our participating in negotiations at this time, which did not exist earlier. Those potential benefits are there and we need to explore them, but we need to have our reserves about weaponization of space and we need to make sure that this is not taking us in directions we do not want to go.

We will approach it from that point of view. I think that is the way that Canadians want us to approach this: in an honest interest, to have a good agreement with the United States, but at the same time recognize that Canada has its priorities in defence and we want to respect those as well.

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

Mr. Chair, from the beginning the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been trying to keep things calm. He seems to be saying we will wait and see, we will look at what they propose and then we will decide. However, his colleague from National Defence is much more aggressive in his approach.

I would like to know what the Minister of Foreign Affairs thinks about this because the Minister of National Defence is saying we have to amend the Norad agreement. I imagine he cannot amend this agreement without going through the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Does the latter agree with amending the Norad agreement to take into account Norad's contribution to the missile defence mission? In other words, add to its current mission, which consists only in surveillance, something much more specific such as missile defence. That is what the Minister of National Defence wants.

He also says we intend to negotiate a framework memorandum of understanding with the United States. This is much more specific than the minister, who says we are only going there to hear what they have to say.

The Minister of National Defence is looking at the feasibility of defining the possibilities and mechanisms for such consultations with respect to Canada's contributions.

Contributions also mean money. I would like to remind him that the Minister of National Defence just awarded interim contracts to the tune of $700,000. I did not say $700 million yesterday. I said $700,000.

This is a slippery slope. We have started getting involved with the United States, but the decision has already been made. I would like the minister to respond to my concerns and perhaps deny what I just said.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

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.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Chair, I noted that the foreign affairs minister stated quite strongly that it is important for Canada to state and restate our opposition to the weaponization of space.

In view of the fact that Canada's commitment to enter into negotiations to participate in Bush's national missile defence program totally and utterly failed to make a single reference to Canada's opposition to the weaponization of space, I am wondering how Canadians can take any comfort in the statement that the minister has made here tonight.

This was the letter from our defence minister to Donald Rumsfeld to basically say sign us up, we are signing on, we are going to negotiate our participation. Not a single word in that letter made reference to the weaponization of space, let alone Canada's opposition to the weaponization of space. Yet the press release that the Minister of National Defence sent out to Canadians to report on having sent this letter to the U.S. administration referred in what we would have to say is a footnote, like an afterthought, to saying “but of course Canada retains its opposition to weaponization of space”.

How does the foreign affairs minister explain that kind of duplicitous, hypocritical action of saying one thing to the U.S. administration and another thing to Canadians?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am sure the Minister of National Defence will have an opportunity to address the letter, but let us not exaggerate. The hon. member said that we have signed up, we are on board and we are already there. She sees us somehow riding around out in outer space in a capsule together. We are a long way from there. We are into discussions, so please do not exaggerate. Let us not exaggerate the position and let us not exaggerate the dangers of where we are going.

Members of the House know that the Canadian policy about weaponization of space has been clear in our votes in the United Nations and in our speeches in Geneva. In every conceivable forum, Canada has said that we do not believe it is in the interests of the United States or any country to weaponize space, that this would be a disastrous mistake. I have said it. My predecessors have said it. We have said it at the United Nations.

In international negotiations, not everything goes into one document. The United States, contrary to the perception of the hon. member and others, and the United States Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State are perfectly capable of knowing what Canada's position is. We have stated it 100 times. We do not need to state it over again in a letter that was about another issue.

This is an issue that Canada is committed on. I assure the House that this is a red line issue for us. It is a red line issue for the government. We are committed to it and the United States knows it and has always known it. There was no need to put it in the letter. It is so clear that everybody has it. When I have talked to my colleague Colin Powell about it, he makes it very clear he understands that it is our position.

There is no need for us to have to reiterate everything in a letter. It is there. It is Canadian government policy. It always has been and it will remain so.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Chair, I want to ask a question, but first I want to say to the minister that I am glad to hear he is careful and deliberate about this. One can be on either side of the issue and have a lot of serious concerns and questions.

My question really has to do with this. When it comes to missile defence, where is it as a priority in the whole range of priorities? I would think that there are other arrows in our quiver where we as Canadians can provide some enhancement to world security, maybe through diplomacy, maybe through disarmament. Perhaps there are even better ways. Missile defence is perhaps one, but I am wondering, from the minister's point of view, what other track the government is following to enhance security around the planet?

[The Chair]

The Chair will ask the hon. minister for a brief response, please.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because it is a very good question. Clearly, missile defence, as I believe I tried to say in my speech, is a very small proportion of what we are trying to achieve in terms of the security of Canada. We have other measures of security. We have taken innumerable anti-terrorism measures and others.

In addition to that, we recognize that Canada has an important role to play out there to argue in favour of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament. In my speech I pointed out our participation in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the missile technology control program, and the Hague code of conduct. The list is long, Mr. Chair, and I can see you looking at me to say that you will not allow me to read the list so I will not.

I want to assure the hon. member that entering into this agreement in no way will impair either our ability or our determination to press for multilateral means of controls of weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical, biological or nuclear.

That is the core of Canada's foreign policy, Mr. Chair and hon. members, and we will continue it. It is an equally important part--if not a more important part--as this one measure we are talking about tonight.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to address the issue that the member for Halifax raised in her intervention a moment ago. She said it was incumbent upon us and our government to state and restate our opposition to the weaponization of space.

It is not just the New Democratic Party that is opposed to the weaponization of space. That party throws these terms around, like star wars and son of star wars, to win some support out there among the general public and to fearmonger on this important issue. I want to state for the record that I think all political parties, to my knowledge, are opposed to the weaponization of space. All Canadians are opposed to it. The New Democratic Party has tried to seize on this issue and spread misinformation.

I am pleased to debate the merits of the ballistic missile defence program. In fact, I have been very eager, as I said earlier in my intervention, for the opportunity to discuss this issue with my colleagues in the House of Commons. Many Canadians carry justified and legitimate concerns about Canada's involvement in developing a missile defence shield for North America, and why would they not be concerned? When it comes to matters of personal, national and international security, Canadians want to know the facts and they want to know where their government and elected representatives stand.

Missile defence is an especially critical decision to debate because it has both a short term and a long term impact upon national security and our foreign affairs policies. In other words, the decisions and commitments made by the government today about missile defence this year, and even this month, will resonate throughout the next several decades, even as governments come and go.

I am concerned, however, that although the government has set the stage for this debate tonight, I question its motives. By conducting a take note debate, I suspect the government is attempting to thwart attempts by the New Democratic Party to bring the subject of missile defence to a recorded vote in the House of Commons. Having a vote is certainly an initiative I support, yet the government does not seem equally as keen to have each of its members stand in their places and vote yea or nay for missile defence on the record.

This is an issue that should be decided by Parliament after a thorough debate and a free vote by all members. It was with some concern that I read in yesterday's news reports that the Department of National Defence has already issued tentative contracts to test Canadian radar technology in U.S.-run trials of the missile shield this summer.

I would like to make it clear that I am personally very supportive of Canada's participation of the North American missile defence initiative for reasons that I will outline in a moment. However, as supportive as I am, I find it troubling that a government department appears to be pushing full steam ahead on the same project for which the Prime Minister and his government claim to be weighing the options and seeking further public input. These claims do not seem credible if at the same time a federal department has been given the go-ahead to proceed on missile defence.

I also felt it important that this issue be brought to the floor of the House of Commons because I fear that Canadians have been inadequately informed and even misinformed about many aspects of the missile defence program.

I was pleased when the Minister of Foreign Affairs said exactly the same thing a few moments ago. In fact, it has been apparent that the New Democratic Party leader, Jack Layton, has chosen this particular issue to gain considerable political mileage. Unfortunately, he has done so by engaging in fearmongering and sensationalism.

Therefore, I welcome the opportunity today to refute the myths and misleading comments he has personally advanced. We must always be conscious of our obligation to inform Canadians as factually and as responsibly as possible, and that is what I would like to do this evening.

I believe the missile defence program is the most peaceful option available to counter the threat of ballistic missile attacks. Given the campaign of misinformation currently being operated by opponents of the program, I realize that some Canadians might find peace a bizarre justification in support of Canada's participation in the program, yet let us take a closer, realistic look at the two options available.

Mr. Layton has lamented the demise of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. There is little to mourn since the principal foundation of this arms treaty was to maintain the effectiveness of ballistic missiles by ensuring that no nations were able to defend themselves against an attack.

During the cold war era, it was only the threat of mutual annihilation or blowing each other off the face of the earth that kept ballistic missiles in their silos. Obviously, this concept is far more adversarial than a system designed to defend against a successful attack in the first place. The threat of massive retaliation inflicting more death and revenge remains the primary defence against missile attacks from world nations or terrorist organizations.

As the minister has stated, times have changed. This is not the cold war era. It is the post-September 11, 2001, era where unprecedented terrorist acts are no longer a potential scenario, but a reality. In this era of suicide attacks, the threat of retaliation is no longer an effective deterrent.

For those that refuse to accept the possibility that a ballistic missile could be launched at any time to anywhere in the world, I would remind them that just over two years ago it would have seemed incomprehensible that large passenger jetliners would be used to inflict death upon thousands on North American soil.

The whereabouts of some weapons that belong to the former Soviet Union is unknown. The access and control over these missiles are also unknown. We do know for certain, however, that an increasing number of nations, North Korea and Libya, for example, have either well established or emerging ballistic missile capabilities.

What exactly is the plan to defend against such threats? Canadians deserve to know the facts. It is counterproductive, misleading and irresponsible to use such sensational misnomers like star wars and son of star wars to describe the missile defence shield. Far from it, the ballistic missile defence program currently being developed by our allies will include 20 ground based interceptors, none of them on Canadian soil, and eventually up to 20 sea based interceptors.

Let me describe the exact nature of the interceptors that will be used for the missile defence shield. As their name implies, these interceptors would intercept and hit to kill incoming ballistic missiles within minutes of launch. The interceptors contain no warhead, meaning no explosive contents. Upon physically hitting the inbound missile, the high speed impact would vaporize all material involved, eliminating threats to any people or buildings.

Opponents of the missile defence program have also claimed it is not worth pursuing because it has not yet been proven to work. With an attitude like that, man would never have made it to the moon and many of the other scientific and technological advances made throughout the past century would never have succeeded.

I would like to address a major point of contention and concern for many Canadians and that is the possible use of space based interceptors. Let me point out that space based interceptors are at this point a concept still very much on the drawing board. The United States floated the funding to study the design of this potential component of the missile defence program only last week. Space based interceptors are a long way off. Until then, the only space aspect of missile defence is the radar and satellite technology used for tracking incoming missiles.

I agree that we cannot simply ignore the potential for space based interceptors. Canadians have a right to have their concerns heard. However, the government is denying Canadians that right by failing to ensure that Canada takes its place as a full partner in the missile defence program.

Only by being at the table can our nation and our people realistically expect to have influence over the future of this initiative. Should Canada opt out in protest because of the potential for future use of space based interceptors, we will have absolutely no voice in the decision to forge ahead with their development. That is what our allies are asking us to do.

Canada is being asked to become a cooperative and collaborative partner in this defensive security initiative. Australia, Japan, Britain, South Korea, India, Israel, Russia and other NATO European nations have already indicated their support for the U.S. led missile defence initiative. Where has the government been for the past eight years? It did not even bother to enter into formal discussions until just recently. It is time to get off the fence and for the Prime Minister and his government to take a stand.

Canada is not even being asked to commit funding to missile defence. Our input and cooperation is being sought as part of our existing role in protecting North American airspace through Norad. That is the mandate of Norad and its very existence. Current operations and relevance are at risk should Canada refuse to participate in missile defence.

I have heard from many Canadians by phone, mail and e-mail who believe the stakes are very high in any decisions made about missile defence, and they are right. The Canadian government has an obligation to actively involve itself in that decision. Yet the Prime Minister and the NDP are more concerned about fighting over potential voters on the left than about the future security of this nation and our role in international security.

It is time for the government to fulfill its obligation to actively involve Canada in this crucial matter. The Prime Minister should unequivocally state his convictions and intentions on missile defence to Canadians and to the world before he calls an election.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the hon. member for his thoughtful remarks and observations. I would take it from what you said that the position of your party would be similar to the position which I laid out. The government's position is that if, in fact, this measure is going toward weaponization of space, then it is not something which should be entered into on behalf of Canada and Canadians. This is a bedrock policy that is supported.

I take it from your comments, and from those of all parties in the House, that there is certainly strong support from other parties as well.

[The Chair]

I wish to remind colleagues participating in the debate this evening that, although we are in a more informal setting in committee of the whole, interventions must still be made through the Chair. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, I note that Canada was a signatory to the 1967 outer space treaty which established a basic legal framework for general space exploration and utilization. It condemned at that time the possible future weaponization of space. I think that we still stand by that treaty.

To my knowledge, all parties in the House of Commons, and probably all 301 MPs and even the independent MPs, would support the fact that we rigorously oppose the weaponization of space.

That is certainly the position that we will be taking. Having said that, as I indicated earlier in my questioning of the minister, the only fault that I find with the position that he laid out here tonight is the timeline.

It is incumbent upon the government to get on with it. I have said that in the past ever since becoming the national defence critic for the official opposition. I have said, since last summer, we should get on with this. I said it to the predecessor to the current Minister of National Defence and he is here tonight to participate in the debate and so I say it again. Unlike some of my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP that seem to be hesitant about this, I do not know how much more we need to study it.

I think that we need to debate it. All of us have to put forward our concerns in representing our constituents who are concerned about this issue. Ultimately it is incumbent upon the government to make a decision. Let us get on with it and let us be vigilant as we move forward.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, one of the biggest concerns I hear from Canadians is the duplicity of the government's message saying one thing and doing another. A good example that can be applied to this situation is the fact that Canada has signed a comprehensive agreement to stop the production of landmines in the world.

However, at the same time the government is allowing our Canada pension plans to fund the production of those landmines that are killing children, soldiers, and people across the world. We do not know where they are and where they are going because they are doing it indirectly with companies that produce these materials and weapons. We wonder about the skepticism of Canadians when they do not have these things in print because it is a bad practice.

My questions are quite simple. How can the Conservative Party come to the table and say to the Americans that we are going to participate with them, but we are not putting any resources and we are there with nothing. What type of partnership and message is that saying? Is that really being honest with Canadians to say that we are going to be a partner in this, we are going to be involved, and we want to be at the table, but we have nothing to offer?

What I want to know specifically is how much financial resources is the Conservative Party willing to contribute to this program? Or is it willing to go to the table with the United States and say we have nothing to provide other than our thoughts?

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would say to my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party that is very sad and I think that is indicative of the problem we have with members of the NDP on this particular issue. They let emotion and their desire for a sound bite or to be on television dictate what they say on this issue.