Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to take part in this evening's debate. First, I want to tell my colleagues that I have seen the statistics. I know that, as a general rule, 70% of Canadians, seemingly agree. However, I also want to tell my colleagues that I come from a part of the country that is quite different. I am from Quebec. That is where there were the biggest protests against the war in Iraq. I think that it is also where there will be the most opposition to the anti-missile defence program.
Quebeckers are extreme pacifists. I am not saying that they are angels and that they think that the military and all guns should be eliminated. I am saying only that Quebeckers are very critical when it comes to armed interventions and the purchase of weapons. Quebeckers will be with us on this.
If, in Canada, 70% of Canadians support partnering with the Americans on the anti-missile defence program, I would not be wrong in saying that the numbers are reversed in Quebec. About 30% of Quebeckers are prepared to partner with the Americans on this venture.
Since the Minister of Foreign Affairs has forced me in part to do so, I would also like to explain that, when we enter into a treaty with the Americans, we do so as part of an overall plan. The overall plan of the Americans is clear. It is not just to install a few interceptors in Fort Greely, Alaska. It is much more than that. It represents the installation of about 30 land and sea missiles, including in Fort Greely, in 2004; the deployment of 20 additional missiles in 2005; the installation at sea of giant detection radar; the installation of a fleet of detection satellites—we are already going into space—; space-based interceptors in 2012; and the famous laser-equipped Airborne aircraft. That is the American plan. We cannot say that Canada is going along with the American plan but that, when the time comes to go into space, we will pull out. It will be too late. That is the problem.
What is the missile defence shield based on? I gave an initial argument to my Conservative Party colleague. It is first a poor threat assessment. It is not true that North Korea will launch a missile on Washington or New York. If that were true, than that country would be wiped off the face of the earth. This doctrine of mutually assured destruction continues. With regard to a massive strike, it is not complicated. The Americans themselves say that they will not be able to block a massive strike from Russia.
They are talking about something that is absolutely not part of reality. There is no country that would risk launching an ICBM against New York or Washington, knowing it would be wiped off the map. I repeat: there is a much greater risk that a commercial airliner would strike a tower, or that a Cruise missile would be launched from a ship 200 kilometres off the American coast, or that a container could come into a port carrying a weapon of mass destruction.
It is poor prioritization to invest between $60 billion and $1,200 billion in this project. We will talk about the figures later. These things are much riskier than an interballistic missile. It seems that some effort is being put into it, but not enough. The missile defence shield will have to come much later, perhaps in 2050 or so.
The threats have been poorly identified. Scientific feasibility has not come into the debate at all. Just think: they made nine attempts with a missile that leaves point X and another missile that waits for the first and then rises to intercept it. This test was successful five times out of nine; therefore they failed four times. Do you think that if someone were sending a missile, they would call the White House in advance to say that they had just sent off a missile from North Korea aimed at New York? That is not how things will work.
The scientific feasibility of this—even the scientists agree—is nearly impossible. So why are we clutching at this idea? It is simple; the military-industrial complex wants this. They will make money from it. At whose expense will Raytheon and General Dynamics make money? At the expense of the public who will foot the bill, as always.
Too bad for the poor Americans. If they put one-tenth of what they want to put into the missile defence shield into other things, the problems of the planet would likely be solved. No more malnutrition, probably no more problems in the world relating to health or education. But no.
The federal government's proposal is the new foreign affairs doctrine: total domination. Domination by air, by land by sea, and by space.
We can see how the Americans are developing their whole strategy at this time. There used to be talk of lunar conquest,l but now the American president dreams of planting the Stars and Stripes on Mars, which will then belong to him, as Earth is at risk of doing as well. That is the problem. Canada is in the process of jumping on the American bandwagon.
The U.S. government will perhaps not ask for a lot of money, but it will say—as it is already starting to—that the Canadians were on their side. That is what they are interested in.
The costs are astronomical, as I have said. The Americans are taking it slow, announcing that it will costs some $60 million to $100 billion. Nobel Economics laureate Kenneth Arrow says this is not so; the price will be between $800 billion and $1,200 billion. That is a lot of money.
This is a sovereignist talking. There is not just a monetary cost, but a cost to Quebec's sovereignty. The big risk for Canada is that it is getting hooked into U.S. foreign policy. Every time the U.S. will say it wants to do something, I can already hear the Conservatives and the Liberals to whom it is very clear. To them, the way to get closer to the United States is through the army. Moreover, to save our economy, we have to follow the U.S. foreign policy. That is what is happening to Canada in the missile defence case.
Personally, I think Canada is making a colossal mistake. The Bloc Quebecois is here to say so and will oppose to the end. We are handing out postcards. We started with 20,000 cards stating our objection to this. The Minister of National Defence and the people on his side of the House are probably going to be receiving some postcards. People in Quebec are opposed to this for the reasons I have just mentioned.
In our view, this is a fundamental error since the government will be obligated to follow through. They have started down a slippery slope. There is already a sum of $700,000 for interim contracts for radars. What will be next? Perhaps the Canadian government will be asked to install missiles on its territory.
We are told we are being dramatic. Of course the members opposite and the members of the Conservative Party of Canada think we are being hysterical and that we are trying to instil fear in people. Let me remind them that the role of the opposition is to tell the government that it might not be doing the right thing. Perhaps we should think about this, have a national debate, consult people, adopt a national defence policy and a foreign affairs policy. Perhaps we should ask the taxpayers whether they agree with spending money on this.
Do Canadians agree to having to follow the U.S lead from now on? At the interceptor phase of the space shield, we will be asked by the Americans if they can base one in our country. How shall we answer? “No, were are out. We do not want it anymore”. What will we do with respect to the space component of the program? Will we say we no longer want anything more to do with it? We made a commitment and will have to follow their lead. That is the fundamental danger.
This plan is not Canada. Canada is a peace loving country. We have had Nobel Prize winners in Canada, and I do not think they would be pleased with the current turn of events, with Canadian hawks joining American hawks
I am not sure either that the Americans are all that thrilled. If the Americans were the ones taking the money and giving it to poorer countries to eradicate poverty and terrorism, I think that the substantive question would be resolved. It would probably cost us significantly less than what it is going to cost us now.
I am from a country, Quebec, which is opposed to the weaponization of space, the space shield, and the kind of action that was taken in Iraq. We are being proven right.
I think that, in the end, the people of Quebec will follow the Bloc's lead and oppose the missile defence shield.
I urge the government not to rush. It is going much too fast. It should tell the U.S. that it will not be participating for the time being and will consider it in the future. But as far as we are concerned, weaponizing space is out of the question.