Mr. Chair, I have listened to my colleague's presentation most attentively. What I am trying to do in particular is to grasp the justification for Canada's getting involved in a defence shield.
The reason given is the fear of rogue states, the only reason. Unless my colleague can convince me that a missile defence shield could have stopped the three planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I think this is wrong. His identification of where the threats lie is incorrect.
There is in fact a far greater threat of a commercial aircraft hitting a tower. There is a far greater threat of a Cruise missile being launched from a ship 200 km off the coast of the U.S. There is a far greater threat of a weapon of mass destruction being brought into the port of Vancouver or Montreal and then detonated.
When they bring out the rogue state argument, it does not hold water. Many countries are unable to deliver an intercontinental ballistic missile, and those who are capable would see their country destroyed as a result. Do hon. members think North Korea is going to launch one on Washington? If it did, it would be wiped off the map afterward, totally eradicated from the planet.
This is, in my opinion, nothing but wild imaginings. Or a matter of swallowing all the arguments proposed to us by the military-industrial complex. They are the ones who stand to gain most from the missile defence shield, no one else.