Mr. Chair, I am very proud to take part in a debate on such an important national issue.
I would also like to offer my congratulations to my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for his excellent contribution to this debate.
As the House is aware, I have exchanged letters of intent with the U.S. Secretary of Defense confirming that it is in the interests of both of our nations to discuss cooperation in the ballistic missile defence of North America. I want to be very clear that while we have taken the decision to discuss this issue, we have not taken a final decision on Canadian participation. This will only be done once discussions are complete and Parliament has been consulted. When the time comes, we will take a principled decision based on our national interest and based on our values.
We recognize that this is an important issue for Canada and Canadians. That is why we have gone to great lengths to encourage informed discussion on missile defence. For example, the government responded in an open and frank manner during the two debates that took place on missile defence in the House last May, as well as when we announced the beginning of discussions with the United States on May 29, 2003.
The government has also heard from parliamentary committees that have examined various questions surrounding missile defence. The government has engaged security and defence experts, non-governmental organizations and individual Canadians interested in this issue. Internationally we have been engaged with our allies in seeking to address the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology.
As you can see, Mr. Chair, the government has not only welcomed the diverse views it has received on this issue, it has actively sought them out.
I want to be clear about what is at stake and why the government has taken such a measured and methodical approach. First and foremost, this is an issue concerning the safety and security of Canadians, the most important responsibility of any government, and it is one that we take very seriously.
As we made clear in the recent Speech from the Throne, “there is no role more fundamental for government than the protection of its citizens”. Canada remains committed to a comprehensive approach to protecting Canadians with emphasis on multilateral non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament processes, as well as effective diplomatic engagement. A responsible government, however, must be prepared to look at any measure, any system that could protect the lives of its citizens today, tomorrow and in the future. Certainly a responsible government must be prepared to look at a system designed to prevent a potential nuclear explosion delivered by a ballistic missile and the unimaginable human tragedy that would result from such an attack.
The second reason Canada is proceeding with negotiations on ballistic missile defence for North America is to safeguard our sovereignty. To many this may seem like an abstract concept, but it is not. The United States has announced that it will have an initial missile defence system in place no later than the fall of this year, and we know that the Americans are moving ahead and working hard to make this a reality.
Canada's participation in ballistic missile defence would involve Canada in decisions concerning the missile defence of our continent. The alternative would be to allow the United States to make these important decisions on its own with all the implications this would have for our sovereignty. This would not be prudent, nor would it be responsible. Indeed responsible nations want and demand a seat at the table when matters affecting their security and defence are being considered.
Some would have Canadians believe that we have proceeded with discussions on missile defence in an attempt to mend fences with the United States. This is patently false. After careful analysis and thought, and after taking into account the diversity of views on this issue, we have proceeded with discussions with the goal of protecting the safety and security of Canadians, and with the goal of protecting Canada's sovereign interests.
Some have attempted to confuse Canadians by referring to missile defence as star wars. This is a false characterization and it only takes away from informed and honest debate. Star wars was prohibitively expensive, technologically unworkable and in the end, strategically unnecessary. The missile defence system that is now being put in place by the U.S. is not star wars. It is a much different system than the one envisioned by the United States 20 years ago. It will employ land and sea based missile interceptors. It does not involve in any way weapons in space.
Canada continues to oppose the weaponization of space. We have made this point very clear to the United States.
Some have said that the missile defence system will not work. This is certainly not our preliminary assessment, nor is it the assessment of the United States. Again, we are looking at the facts, not myths, not speculation and not, as we have heard from the NDP tonight, third and fourth hand information.
Some have said that the missile defence system would encourage other countries to build more and better missiles, thus sparking an international arms race. There has been absolutely no evidence of this to date. In fact, the evidence seems to discount this argument entirely.
Finally, some have argued that it would be un-Canadian to support missile defence. I would like to know why it is un-Canadian to look at ways to enhance the safety and security of our citizens. I would like to know why it is un-Canadian to look to protect our sovereign ability to take decisions on the defence of our own territory.
The current government recognizes that there is no unanimity on this issue.
It is important, however, that we at least discuss and debate the facts surrounding missile defence. We must not allow falsehoods and fearmongering to cloud the issue. Missile defence involves the safety and security of Canadians and it involves the exercise of Canadian sovereignty.
We certainly believe that it deserves passionate debate, but we also believe that it deserves reasoned and factual debate.