Madam Speaker, I had not planned on beginning my speech on the missile defence shield by saying what I am about to say, but I feel compelled to respond to the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, who gives credit to the government alone for the position it took on the war in Iraq and on landmines. I think that those who deserve to be congratulated are the people who took to the streets to make the government aware of their concerns about these important issues.
Members will remember that 150,000 people took to the streets in Montreal to protest against the war in Iraq. Even in my riding, 10,000 people took part in such protest. Therefore, it is the public that deserves credit for the foresight and prudence it has shown with regard to these issues.
The same thing goes for the missile defence shield. Certain members of this government say that people do not hear about this issue and that it is not their priority. We, in Quebec, sent a mailout to each family and each household to explain what the missile defence shield is and to inform them of Canada's unclear position on this issue. We received reply coupons. People told us that they were concerned and that they were saying no to this move toward a possible involvement in the missile defence shield.
I will remind members that the missile defence shield is a system of radar stations to detect enemy missiles, and of interceptors to destroy those missiles. In the long run, the American missile defence shield should include not only sea-based and land-based interceptor missiles, but also a fleet of satellites, orbital interceptors and an airborne laser-equipped aircraft.
We can see that it is a doctrine of total domination of space. We know full well that Quebeckers do not buy into that logic. There is a strong culture of peace that has developed in Quebec over the years. We saw it in action when the time came to bring the government back on the right track when its position was unclear as to its willingness to get involved in the war against Iraq. We know that artists and cultural communities as well as ordinary citizens and their children took to the streets to say that they were totally against Canada's participation in a military intervention in Iraq.
So let me tell you that we have doubts. As far as the issue at hand is concerned, they would have us believe that it is all about discussions, but that it is not the case. The dice have been cast. We know that there are numerous items in the action plan and the development plan for the missile defence shield. Two of those items raise concern and make us think that the objective is really to occupy space. They are talking about a fleet of detection satellites, up to 24, and space-based interceptors, which could be in orbit in 2012.
Clearly they have a detailed and specific plan. Some people even say that, as technology evolves, other elements could be added with each new discovery. I think that, once the big machine starts rolling, it will be hard to stop. Therefore, we do not believe that we are still at the discussion stage. For many reasons we think they are well beyond discussion already.
The President of the United States, Mr. Bush, will not listen to some scientists who question this device which would be used to detect missiles coming from enemy states. This is an American folly, and they want us to be part of it, part of their propensity to arm themselves whenever they fear someone or something—Blacks, the enemy.
Quebeckers do not buy that rationale. For example, we could explain why we think the reason given is false, and that the government might already have signed an agreement in principle behind closed doors.
The plan makes this clear. It goes much further than what the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence are saying. The defence minister's letter goes far enough to make us react. I will quote excepts:
We believe that our two nations should move on an expedited basis to amend the NORAD agreement to take into account NORAD's contribution to the missile defence mission.
This is a paradox. Supporters of this military initiative such as the minister argue that the cost of not joining the U.S is the potential marginalization of Norad.
The Minister of National Defence knows what he is talking about when he promotes cooperation within NORAD. He cannot risk making such a proposal and not have it come through. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has lots of doubts about the way talks should be the interpreted. We think there may be an agreement in principle.
Allow me to quote the minister again.
It is our intent to negotiate in the coming months a Missile Defence Framework Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current U.S. missile defence program—
The operative words are obviously participant and current. We may therefore want to exercise caution and to call this government to order.
Before I continue, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who will have the opportunity to express his views on the missile defence shield.
We may doubt that the government is acting in good faith. As reported in an article published in La Presse on Wednesday, February 18, the remarks of lieutenant-general Rick Findley, who heads the Canadian section of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defence Command, speak volumes about the government's intentions. These remarks go much further and the matter of discussions is pretext. He said:
I would not say that it is a done deal, added Mr. Findley yesterday. But it would seem to me that Canada is basically in favour of the initiative and intends to participate.
U.S. President Bush does not even want to listen to his fellow citizens. So, we are very concerned.
Canada claims to be very protective of its cultural sovereignty. To want to defend the antimissile defence project is not a good example of Canada's desire to protect its alleged cultural sovereignty. The government should clearly say no, we will not get involved in this.
Among those opposed to this project, are several government or former government members, including the leadership candidate who ran against the current Prime Minister and who said:
I see our country and I see our party as one that builds bridges. There are no shields strong enough to fight hate. What fights hate is the capacity to walk in another's shoes.
She was speaking against the antimissile defence shield.
Canadian Michael Moore produced a shock documentary on the tendency of Americans to want to arm themselves because they are afraid of being targeted and attacked. Indeed, the Americans have this propensity to buy guns to protect themselves from their neighbours.
In the opinion of Quebeckers, this is not a good way to send a message to the public. Why would we have so much against the Americans? Michael Moore provides several examples of how the Americans have interfered in the internal politics of other countries, where this led to the death of many women, children and men. For these reasons, we are opposed to the antimissile defence shield.
We will mobilize Quebeckers so that they too will know exactly what the Canadian government's intention to support the Americans and their antimissile shield project implies.