Debates of Feb. 19th, 2004

Supply

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member who has just spoken and who has spoken the truth in a very direct way.

In the so-called official opposition, the Conservative Party, which absolutely supports, it seems uncritically, Canada entering into the participation with the U.S. missile defence program, or among the majority of her colleagues, there have not been very many members who have had the courage to stand up and say that the minister of defence's letter to U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in fact being misrepresented.

It clearly does say that it is about entering into not just an exploration; really, it clearly states the intent to participate and that what the negotiations are about is precisely the nature of that participation. I commend the hon. member for having the courage to stand up and speak the truth as she sees it.

I want to ask two questions. I think the comments of the hon. member calling for Parliament to be fully informed are useful and important, but as the former whip of the government party, this member knows that one has a great deal of difficulty getting to the details and getting a really solid grounding in what it is we are dealing with here if it is just through parliamentary debate. That is one of the reasons why committees are very important.

Probably the member will know that in the spring the foreign affairs committee voted to hold hearings on this issue so that we could inform ourselves of details and bring experts and so on before the committee before the end of the spring session. That did not happen. The session came to an end and those hearings were not held.

I wonder if the member would agree that at the very least the vote taken at the foreign affairs committee for those hearings to be held is as relevant as it ever was, perhaps even more relevant. Would she agree that it would be an important forum as well as the parliamentary discussion that goes on here?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compliments from the member for Halifax. I do want to respond to her point. I think in my remarks I did in fact refer to both Parliament and its committees.

It is not for me to tell the foreign affairs committee what it should or should not be doing. I do think that as this progresses perhaps joint meetings of the foreign affairs committee and the committee on national defence and veterans affairs might be a very good idea and might give the ministers involved the opportunity to have those discussions directly with the two committees that are most knowledgeable and most likely to have well informed opinions on the subject.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa West—Nepean. I would like to congratulate her because she spoke with her heart and soul. It takes a lot of courage, and I commend her for that.

However, she said at the beginning that she was concerned with the future of this planet; that meant a lot to her. I would like her to elaborate on her concerns about the future of this planet and peace on this planet.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may first go back to the comment of the member for Halifax who suggested that the letter from the Minister of National Defence to Secretary Rumsfeld had been misrepresented, this is not certainly not something I have said. I did say I had some hesitation about certain wording in the letter. That is hardly to say it has been misrepresented. That may be her opinion. It is not mine.

I thank my colleague opposite for his congratulations. Give me two hours, perhaps I will be able to begin explaining my perspective on the future of our planet.

Canada's position in international affairs has always been to work for peace on earth and for the regions that are the most in need. I hope that what we do in this situation will reflect the positions that we have always taken, that is, the reduction of armaments.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can be as eloquent as my colleague, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean, and I thank you for your great judgment.

First, I wish to inform you that I will be splitting my time with a young father, the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. I am convinced that this young father will be powerful in expressing his special concerns about this missile defence shield.

Normally in this House, we hear comments like, “It is a pleasure to rise to speak to” or “I am happy to address this issue today”. This afternoon, I dare say that, as a member of Parliament, I rise because it is my duty to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion.

Like the member for Ottawa West—Nepean and many other colleagues, I have reservations about that missile defence shield, especially regarding its impact.

As I begin my speech, I must explain my reasons for rising in the House. I feel it is my duty because of my age, and because of my wisdom, I hope; because, like you, I am a grandfather, except that I have only one grandchild whereas you have four already and you will have a fifth next week. I congratulate you on that.

That missile defence shield intrigues and worries me. What impact will it have on our grandchildren? On what kind of a planet will our children live?

Since September 11, 2001, the situation and mindset of people around the world have changed considerably. People have developed terrorism phobia. What is a phobia? It is an irrational fear caused by a person, a situation or an event. Is such an irrational fear or terrorism phobia at the origin of the missile defence program? Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes.

I have several points to make. For example, there is this phobia about terrorism. What are the implications? Among other things, flights of British Airways or Air France were cancelled. Why? Because someone presumed, suggested or believed that there was a terrorist on board the plane, and so, everything was cancelled.

Terrorism is being blamed for all sorts of unfortunate situations on this planet. Here is a case in point. There was an accident in Russia not too long ago. The roof of a busy aquatic centre collapsed, killing or wounding several people.

The first thing the Russian government did was to blame it on terrorism, but when the dust settled, it was determined that the accident was due to a terrible construction flaw. This is what terrorism phobia is doing.

Moreover, we are now using terrorism to try to put our minds at ease. I will give an example to illustrate my point. Countries conduct military aggressions on one another. There are also military aggressions within countries. And are these aggressions justified? By blaming terrorism. The number one excuse is “We are fighting terrorism”.

Even here, in Canada, we are feeling the impact of terrorism phobia. Think of the bills that were passed or out forward, such as the border control bill, the identity card bill which has yet to be passed, and the bill respecting military control over certain zones. Is the source of all these bills and all the past and future discussions about them not terrorism phobia? That is not a question for me to answer.

What fears and concerns should we have, my colleague who is a young father and myself, as a grandfather? Will the missile defence shield bring us back to the cold war era, when Russia had missiles pointed at the United States and the U.S. had missiles pointed at Russia, and the question was which would be the first to launch a missile.

The cold war was the time when all nations in the world underwent the most significant militarization. We have become armaments experts. We can almost hit a dime from very far away. Weapons are increasingly sophisticated and powerful. Just think about depleted uranium. The cold war gave birth to all kinds of weapons of mass destruction. Every nation in the world, from the United States to Canada, France and Great Britain, tried to get their hands on the most sophisticated offensive or defensive weapon.

Because of this shield, will we try to specialize and buy even more sophisticated weapons? Will the shield lead to the weaponization of space? Unfortunately, I think so, because the Americans have made it very clear. They said that weapons will be based in space. Weapons will be put in place to destroy other weapons in space. It is crystal clear. We are heading toward the weaponization of space.

Are we preparing for future star wars, Star Trek and the likes? We all remember Jules Verne and his 80,000 Leagues Under the Sea . People thought he was crazy, but nowadays we take these things for granted.

Another concern that comes to mind is costs. How much is this going to cost to our taxpayers? Mr. Bush said it is no big deal; it will cost between $60 billion and $100 billion. However, according to one of his citizens, Dr. Kenneth Arrow, the Nobel Economics laureate of 1972 and a professor at Stanford University, the costs could reach between $800 billion and $1,200 billion by 2015. To use a figure the people in Quebec will understand, it will cost the United States $1.2 trillion.

I know that the federal government has no qualms about wasting public funds. But can the taxpayers afford spending millions of dollars on this?

Before I conclude, I would just like to remind the House that, for the people to be sovereign, the elected representatives—like you and me—must do what the people decide. Therefore, before voting, we should find out how the people want us to deal with the missile defence shield?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his speech. He is a proud grandfather.

I have been a member of the Canada-United States Association for eight years. We have had contacts with our American counterparts, both senators and representatives, during all those years. The missile defence issue was often on the agenda. We have had discussions on that subject. I can say that, in the United States, support for this program is not unanimous. Even among U.S. representatives and senators, many questions have been raised, there is obviously much concern about this program.

In the course of our discussions, a number of us have clearly said that we are against the missile defence program. It now looks like some are ready to get involved without further consultation. I know that members have asked for a free vote on this issue and the Prime Minister's answer was a definite no.

I would like my colleague to tell us if we always have to follow what the Americans are doing, without any consultation. We have to be allowed a free vote on this issue here, in our Parliament. We look for alternatives later.

The missile shield issue is a real Pandora's box that will never eradicate terrorism. This is what we are seeing now. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say on that.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Laurentides, who just finished my speech for me.

That was precisely one of my concerns. Why do we have to blindly follow the Americans? This is not a question of liking the American people or not. Before we make a decision, let us be open about this issue and consult our people about what they think about this missile defence shield. This decision is critical for the future of our children and grandchildren. As the member for Ottawa West—Nepean said earlier, we are talking about the future of the universe. Therefore, let us have consultations and ensure that a free vote is held in this House so that each and everyone of us can vote freely on this program.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, on this February 19, 2004, to this motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. I remind the House that I already spoke on this issue a few days ago, during the take note debate, late in the evening. I think that the motion that the Bloc Quebecois has put forward today in the House shows our real commitment and our real concern about an issue that Quebeckers take at heart.

During the take note debate, my colleagues indicated that, while quite often 70% of Canadians support discussions on a missile defence shield and its implementation, I am deeply convinced that, if a poll was taken on this issue in Quebec, the numbers would be reversed. There would be probably only 30% of Quebeckers who would favour this type of technology for the years to come.

This shows that the debate that we are having in the House of Commons is putting Quebec at odds with the rest of Canada, as Quebec has always been. This was true for the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, and it is also true about the deployment of a missile defence shield.

We must remember the recent conflict in Iraq; nearly 200,000 people rallied in the streets of Montreal, while only 5,000 in Toronto demonstrated against this type of conflict. This shows that we, in Quebec, are a peaceful nation and people in North America. We wish that the solutions to the different conflicts or to international relations with those the Americans call rogue countries, among others, can be brought in an atmosphere of negotiations, of discussions, and in a fraternal atmosphere.

The motion that the Bloc Quebecois put forward today reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield and, therefore, cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possible Canadian participation.

Why should we cease our discussions with the Bush administration on Canadian participation in this future missile defence shield? Because, if Canada thinks it is sovereign, its citizens should at least be consulted before it gets involved in these discussions. This is what my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles was saying earlier.

Let me remind you that, during the 2000 election campaign, the platform of the Liberal Party of Canada did not include the antimissile shield. That issue was never mentioned during the campaign in 2000. So today, how can we accept that the federal government, having received no mandate whatsoever from the citizens, would go to the United States to negotiate and talk with the Americans about this? That is exactly what the government is doing.

Also, the new Prime Minister said, on May 12, 2003, and I quote: “Our sovereignty as a nation means we’ve got to be at the table with the U.S.” . According to me, our sovereignty as a nation requires that the people give their opinion on the issue and that members express themselves freely on this very fundamental matter that will have an impact on the life of future generations.

Why should we be against the antimissile defence shield? For three reasons. First, it is useless; second, it implements a technology which could be considered as half-baked; and third, the costs for the development of that system, both for research and for the carrying out of the project, are absolutely stupendous.

Other countries and the United States want to launch a missile system to neutralize the rogue states as we call them, such as Iran, Libya and maybe even Syria, but can we seriously believe that Iran could send a missile all the way to American soil?

Do we really believe there are such weapons in Iran or Iraq, when we have not even found a single hint of weapons of mass destruction there? Today, the American government would be saying that it could be a possibility. I think the answer to my question is no.

There is North Korea, but even in North Korea there is a slim chance of finding such weapons because nothing is happening there.

That project is useless because, if the Americans want to prove that the antimissile defence shield will prevent events like those of September 11, 2001, we can all agree immediately that no antimissile shield could have prevented the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in New York.

Therefore, given the situation in those countries which the Americans call rogue states, no technology, no military equipment and no antimissile shield would help the Americans achieve their goals.

Besides, this technology is defective. Why do I say this? Because before it could be implemented, its reliability was tested. Only five of nine tests were conclusive, and they were carried out in conditions that were considered perfect. The targets the missiles were supposed to strike were known. We can conclude, on the basis of those tests, that this technology is defective.

Finally, we should also conclude, and everybody will agree, that this will represent for Canada and the United States astronomical costs that estimates place between $60 billion and $100 billion.

The question that begs to be asked is whether we should not rather invest this money to eliminate poverty in developing countries. Should we not try to fight against the poverty that is endemic in countries like Iran, and Iraq. That way, we may find peaceful solutions to eventual crises?

My conclusion is this: First, we should withdraw from discussions with the Americans and hold consultations with the public.

Second, we think this technology is defective, and its costs are astronomical.

Finally, we do not need this project in Canada because it is utterly useless.

Before I sit down, I would like to submit three questions to the hon. members for their consideration.

First, is there not a risk this antimissile defence system will reignite the nuclear arms race? We should not forget the reaction China and Russia had when the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty. A few days after that, the Americans announced their intent to implement this defence system. Let us not forget the reactions in China and Russia.

Second, would this defence system have been able to avoid the tragic 9/11 events?

Finally, do Quebeckers and Canadians support this initiative, essentially?

I hope members of Parliament will think about this and support the Bloc Quebecois motion.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note at this point that I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Yukon.

I am compelled to rise in the House and speak to the motion we have before us today.

The first part of this motion asks us to oppose the proposed American antimissile defence shield.

I can assure members of the House that the Americans are not seeking our approval on matters that concern the defence of their territory and people. Just as we expect them to respect our sovereignty, they expect us to do likewise, and they will go ahead with this system with or without Canada.

Now I come to the second part of the motion which urges the government to cease discussions on possible Canadian participation in the missile defence system.

This too strikes me as nonsensical, for reasons I clearly outlined during the government-sponsored take note debate on Tuesday. Therefore, in response to this motion I will take the opportunity to once again dispel some of the myths concerning ballistic missile defence, myths that are being perpetrated by members who are bent on fearmongering rather than engaging in honest, informed debate, a debate of facts rather than a debate of myths masquerading as facts.

I would like to start by clearly stating that missile defence is not star wars. It never has been and it never will be.

First, star wars, or its real name, as it was known during the Reagan administration, the strategic defence initiative, was not technically feasible. What is now being put in place by the United States is a much more limited system, both in scope and intention. It will use only a small number of land and sea based missile interceptors, nothing like what President Reagan had in mind. Our preliminary assessment is that this system will in fact work.

Second, the strategic defence initiative was intended to defend against a massive nuclear strike, virtually the entire then Soviet arsenal. The system that we are talking about today will provide limited defence against a limited attack or an unauthorized or accidental launch. In my view there is a clear justification for considering ballistic missile defence. The fact is we are facing threats that we did not face even a decade ago, and it is our duty to explore all options for countering these threats and protecting the safety and security of Canadians in the best way possible. That is what responsible governments do.

Finally, the strategic defence initiative was prohibitively expensive, well beyond what is being projected in terms of this system.

That brings me to the next myth that is being perpetrated by some of my hon. colleagues who have said publicly that this system will cost more than a trillion dollars. We saw that in an ad that the NDP placed in the Globe and Mail a while ago. Again, this is both false and irresponsible.

At the current rate of expenditure, which is roughly $9 billion a year by the Missile Defense Agency, it would take more than a century to spend $1 trillion on ballistic missile defence, literally more than 100 years. Of course, one of the goals of our discussions with the U.S. is to see what participating in missile defence would cost Canada. I can certainly assure the House that we will not join if we cannot afford to do so.

Some people continue to equate missile defence to the weaponization of space. Quite frankly, it is time to put that misguided notion to rest. It is plain and simply false. The missile defence system we are talking about does not involve weapons in space. It involves a system of land and sea based missile interceptors.

Moreover, members of the House know that Canada has been long opposed to the weaponization of space. The Prime Minister has said that, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that, and I have said that. We remain opposed today. The Prime Minister has stated publicly that Canada will not participate in the missile defence system if it contravenes our position, as I mentioned.

The claim that was made in the House yesterday that this system would involve nuclear-tipped missiles is absolutely outrageous. It has no basis in fact and Canadians are not going to buy it.

Missile defence does not involve nuclear weapons in any way. The system will not use interceptors armed with either nuclear or conventional explosives. The technology quite simply is comparable to a bullet hitting another bullet, nothing more. It relies on an interceptor missile hitting a ballistic missile, relying on the kinetic energy of the two missiles hitting each other at high speed to essentially vaporize each other.

Some have said that missile defence will encourage other countries to build more and better missiles, thus sparking an international arms race. I would assure the House that there has been absolutely no evidence of this to date. In fact a number of nations have come forward to express their interest in ballistic missile defence, both in terms of participating in the system or in terms of research and development.

There is at least a chance that faced with the prospect of expending significant amounts of money to gain no advantage, those that might otherwise have decided to acquire missiles and nuclear weapons will desist from doing so once ballistic missile defence is available.

To those who claim that participation in this system is somehow un-Canadian I would ask this. Why is it un-Canadian to look at options to protect the safety and security of our citizens? Why is it un-Canadian to defend our only territory? Why is it un-Canadian to do our part to defend North America?

Indeed, the right of self-protection is an integral part of the UN charter itself. Just as our participation in these discussions does not indicate any shift in our position on the weaponization of space, equally it does not alter our commitment to actively pursue international peace and security.

We remain committed to diplomatic engagement as a means of resolving conflicts, just as we remain committed to multilateral non-proliferation, arm's control and disarmament efforts and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, to those who continue to claim that a decision has already been made, I would ask them to look at the facts. Surely no one in the House would argue against the government's duty to defend our territory and our citizens. In my view this duty obliges us, at a minimum, to explore any option that might enhance our security, including ballistic missile defence. To do anything less would be to shirk our responsibilities to Canadians and to our American neighbour.

The fact is our presence at the table does not commit us to anything. What it does do is give us the information we need to make an informed and rational decision, although it appears those who sponsored the motion would be happy to make such decisions in abject ignorance.

I believe we have a duty to Canadians to be informed on this issue. We should know all the facts and make a principled decision based on our interests and our values.

Let us also be realistic about the fact that when it comes to continental defence, we cannot take an isolationist position. Contrary to what a Bloc member said on Tuesday night, we are not a pacifist country. Over 100,000 Canadian graves in Europe bear silent witness but speak volumes, in my view, about our national commitment to peace, security, justice and democracy.

If our neighbours to the south are at risk, we may very well be at risk too. Simply living on this side of the border does not allow us protection from a missile attack. We must never forget that this system is designed to prevent a potential nuclear explosion delivered by a ballistic missile and the unimaginable human tragedy that would result from such an attack.

My question then is this. Given the volatile international security environment, is it fair to Canadians to vacillate on this issue, to adopt a wait and see, bury our heads in the sand attitude without at least exploring our options? Can we afford to put off making decisions today about the defence systems we may need and want tomorrow?

To anyone who is serious about protecting Canada and Canadians, the answer is clear. We cannot. That is why we are engaged in discussions with the Americans on ballistic missile defence.

In closing, I would like to invite my colleagues to engage in an honest debate on this issue, based on the principles. It is important that Canadians have solid facts to take an informed decision on the issue.

Needless to say, I do not support the motion today.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found this speech even less reassuring than what we heard before from the minister.

We know that he wrote a letter to his American counterpart to tell him that Canada agreed to get involved. At the end of his speech, he suggested that we should have a real debate.

If we had wanted to be honest, we should have had a debate here before agreeing with the Americans. The minister has already sold Canada's position, he has already decided that Canada would participate, although no one wants it. I would bet that, in the debate over the war in Iraq, this minister thought that we should have been involved in that war. I am convinced of that.

Finally, it is the message of the President of the United States that is coming out of the minister's mouth. Does he not understand that Quebeckers and Canadians do not want to get involved? They do not want to get caught in the system, especially with the current American administration. These are commitments that we will deeply regret. To show his good faith, should the minister not write to his American counterpart to tell him that we have decided to have a discussion in Canada and that we would come back to this issue after having taken a position?

Today, the minister did the opposite. How can he explain this position that goes against the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which recommended that we do not deal with the missile defence shield, that we do not get involved in any way in this project? What is the minister saying to the young people who do not want a missile defence shield above their head?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member draws his conclusions on what Canadians think. There has been some public opinion polling done on this issue. Canadians have demonstrated, I think, a fairly high level of common sense in wanting to deal with potential threats that are out there, as far as ballistic missile defence is concerned.

Canadians in general and Quebeckers as well have a lot more sense perhaps than the hon. member does on this issue.

The hon. member repeats on a regular basis that this is Mr. Bush's system. The fact is that it was President Bill Clinton who got the Missile Defense Agency up and running in 1999 as a result of a missile that was fired from North Korea over the Sea of Japan. Up until that point, the Americans were certainly not aware that the North Koreans had that level of technology. That is important to note this.

Therefore, this is a response to a threat. I think we are doing the right thing and the prudent thing in engaging in discussions with the Americans, and we will see what comes of these negotiations.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the assertion of the Minister of National Defence that the national missile defence program does not equate to the weaponization of space and that those who say so should stop saying it.

Clearly, I am not one of those who would equate national missile defence to the weaponization of space. I think that is not the view of the overwhelming majority of people who oppose the government's decision to sign on to the negotiations that are now underway.

I have said, and more important many experts have said clearly, that it is not that national missile defence equates to the weaponization of space, but that it will inevitably lead to the weaponization of space, lead to the escalation of the arms race and, in particular, lead us into some very dangerous nuclear ground.

I want to briefly quote from two references in a letter from Canada's former disarmament ambassador, the hon. Senator Doug Roche, and second from a report that comes from the Liu Institute of which one of his colleagues, the former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, has been serving as the CEO and done exhaustive work in this area.

Briefly, with reference to the views expressed by Senator Roche, he has said:

The U.S. Missile Defence Agency plans, by 2008, to test intercepting missiles in space. The Agency intends to link the ground-based system with space capabilities through a “layered system,” which will require weapons in space. It is impossible for Canada to sign on to the initial--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I draw to the attention of the member that if the Chair is rising, it is because he is seeking the floor, and traditionally the Chair does get the floor.

I regret, but when members decide to split their time allocation, it also has the effect of reducing, cutting equally, the time for questions and comments. Instead of having 10 minutes we have 5 minutes.

If the minister has something to say in response, I will entertain it.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has used the words “signed on”, that we have signed on. We have not signed on to anything.

That is why I get a little agitated to say the least in this debate, because the NDP has been purposely misleading Canadians. It has used language such as that used in the ad that Jack Layton placed in the Globe and Mail , $1 trillion. There is absolutely no basis in fact for that piece of non-information. The hon. member yesterday talked about the system using nuclear tipped missiles. That is absolutely absurd. Again, there is no basis in fact.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents are split on this issue as they are on many issues. I have a very dynamic riding with constituents who have well thought out views. On this particular issue as on many others, they have expressed views on both sides. With due respect to those who are opposed to joining, I may actually vote for the motion before the House today. There are other members of my constituency who are strongly in support of Canada entering into discussions.

My riding probably has the most vested interest because it is right beside Alaska and some of the missiles are in Fort Greely, only seconds away from our territory. We have quite a vested interested in finding out exactly what is happening there. If we do not engage in discussions with the United States, we will not find out what is happening right next door to us.

We have a great interest in this. We want to know if the United States is going to shoot down missiles over Canada. We want to know what route the missiles are going to take. If a missile is aimed at a Canadian city, we want to know whether or not the system will shoot at it. Canadians would be interested in knowing a lot of things about this and we would find out by entering into discussions. A number of my constituents have that point of view.

Neither myself nor anyone I have talked to wants Canada to invest large amounts of money in this. Our interest is not in the huge investment but more in finding out what it is about and being able to give our input once we see the plans. It is hard to give suggestions such as we do in Norad if we do not know what is actually planned in the system.

For those who may be watching today's debate on TV and are not sure what we are talking about, we are not talking about putting offensive weapons in space. We are talking about some missiles on the ground in the United States which would shoot down a missile headed for a Canadian area. It would blow it up in space. It would be pulverized. I will talk later in my speech about how that missile might get there in the first place.

If a missile was not shot down, it could hit a community and kill thousands of people by way of an explosion. If it was a nuclear missile it would have a much more devastating effect. The speed of the missile that shoots it down pulverizes it in space and any debris burns up in the atmosphere. There is no result on the ground and certainly not thousands of deaths.

If we look at this in the long run, we should ask ourselves what the nature of defence will be in North America in the coming years. We have always out of geographic necessity partnered with the other countries in North America to defend ourselves. That makes obvious sense. In the future we must know what the nature of military action will be, whether it will involve terrorists or other types of military action. World events are always changing. What will be the nature of the technology that will be involved?

It seems evident that technology is progressing away from manned planes. Right now we have an agreement with the United States in Norad which is very useful in protecting North America. We coordinate on the use of planes and the costs to Canada are reduced because of the synergies of that partnership.

If the defence systems move away from that type of technology and Canada is not involved at all, think of the massive expenditures we might have to make in protecting our own borders. Those expenditures could otherwise be used for health, education or social programs.

I talked earlier about whether a missile happened to be coming at us, which of course a number of people said might be problematic. I do not think anyone has suggested that in today's context, as one never knows about the future, anyone is going to launch a full out missile attack on North America. As people have said, the United States have some fairly substantial deterrents. No sane thinking person would do that, although there are a lot of people who do not think quite logically and engage in all sorts of actions in this world. We only have to watch the news. They are not in their best health.

It is unlikely that it is going to be raining missiles and if it were, the system envisioned would not protect people anyway. It is only a few missiles to shoot down a missile that might happen to have been fired by accident or by a rogue terrorist or by a split-off military group that might have got hold of a missile in another country.

One would have to be pretty naive to think there were not thousands of terrorists in the world. It has been well documented. We see them on the news every night. There are military coups all around the world. Missiles are used substantially now in international warfare. It is not inconceivable that criminals, terrorists, nationalists or religious fanatics could come into possession of such a missile and aim it at the United States.

My colleague from Davenport, who spoke very eloquently on this topic, suggested that Canada has no enemies in the world at this time that might aim a missile at us. I would agree with him on that, but as I said, it probably would not be a nation that attacked us. It would probably be an illogical terrorist. Canada, as everyone knows, has had a number of terrorist attacks inside its borders. In fact, one of the largest terrorist attacks in history before September 11 was a terrorist attack in Canada, so it is not inconceivable.

A missile could for whatever reason be aimed at the United States. Terrorists and rogue groups are constantly attacking the United States. The technology is not so precise and it is conceivable that a missile aimed at Seattle or Buffalo could hit Vancouver or Toronto by accident. Certainly if there was fallout involved, that could go into both Canada and the United States.

As I said, out of respect for a number of my constituents I may at this time vote for the motion that is before us today. However, I need a lot more convincing as to how it would be in Canada's best interests to not participate in something that in certain circumstances would certainly protect Canadians.

All of us as members of Parliament with responsibilities for our ridings have to think of a situation, which is not very likely but certainly is conceivable in today's world, as conceivable as September 11 was, that there could be a missile headed for our riding for whatever unfortunate reason possibly causing human suffering in our ridings. Do we want to eliminate that possibility with a system that is not perfected, that works in some cases and does not in others? It would certainly be a heavy weight of responsibility on all our shoulders to protect our constituents.

We must do what we can and at least enter discussions to find out how the system would work, how it would affect our constituents. We must have the ability to provide any input that we as a sovereign country would like to make into the suggested set-up of the system so that it is most beneficial for Canada.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a principle in law called stare decisis and it means what is decided before. Much of what we are talking about is the Canadian character and who we are.

We have to look at what we have decided. I recall that this House was nearly torn apart in the debate over the Bomarc missile and whether the Bomarc missile was going to have a nuclear warhead on it and what was the involvement of Canada. Eventually we decided to have the Bomarc and the government of the day decided to put nuclear heads on those missiles at some point.

We developed the DEW line in the north to defend North America. We entered into Norad. The House will recall that on September 11 it was a Canadian that was in charge of the big button at Cheyenne Mountain.

We are already engaged because we have decided in the past that it is the Canadian character to defend North America and participate. Of course, when there is a new envelope, a new frontier, we must carefully look at that.

However, if we are looking at the Canadian character, we must also look at where we have been, who we are, and what we have previously decided. Is the future question in character with who we are? I think that is the essential question. What is the technical point of the philosophy of the Canadian character? What are we really deciding?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed at the thoughtful intervention of my colleague.

It has always been the Canadian character to strive for peace through diplomacy, then through peacekeeping if it has to. However, in the long run, if we have to have peace through force, we have illustrated ourselves to be quite capable in joining with our allies to protect our citizens and create a world where citizens in countries that are not protected by their own can also be protected.

Therefore, in this particular case, once again, we have a potential threat and we have a method of defence where we could go and join our allies.

However, is this the biggest threat to Canada and is it the wisest use of our money? We have very limited moneys for defence, having a very small population. There are a lot of demands on that money.

Is there enough threat of a missile that this is the best use of our defence money, because there are other threats from terrorism and from international crime? Maybe there are investments that would be more likely to protect Canadians.

That is one of the reasons why this is such an intense debate. There is no one in the House who does not want to protect Canadians, but the question is, what is the best technological method of doing that?

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for taking a stand and saying that he will vote for today's motion. During his speech, he said that there would be no weapons in space. Let me quote for him an excerpt from The United States Post Cold War Military Space Policy: “The Bush administration has broader,more grandiose plans for a tiered, multilayered architecture, potentially including weaponsdeployed in and from outer space”.

This means that the new shield will be equipped with weapons capable of intercepting the incoming missiles but, if we read between the lines, it can also mean that attacks could be launched against sites on earth, airplanes or ships.

In general, one does not use a baseball to destroy a ship, aircraft or missile; one uses missiles. Therefore, we can easily conclude that missiles will likely be based in space, ready to intercept missiles that may eventually be launched against the U.S. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. First, I did not categorically say that I would vote with the member. I said there was a good chance I would. I will still be listening to feedback that comes from my constituents.

The point he made about space is definitely true. The United States is certainly researching that as one of the options. Everyone in the House has said that they are against that part of any system. No one in this particular House has said that they support the militarization of space.

The part that we are discussing with the United States is in regard to ground missiles located in the United States that would go up and if there was a missile that happened to be coming over Canada, with perhaps a nuclear warhead, it would pulverize it. We have said that we want no part of that system; we would not participate in that. That has been the government's position so far.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Science and Technology; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Firearms Program.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois which reads, “That, in theopinion of this House, the government should oppose theproposed American antimissile defence shield and, therefore,cease all discussions with the Bush administration on possibleCanadian participation”.

Of course, this is a votable motion. We will see how the Liberal Party will react. Clearly, if we want to ensure democratic transparency, there should be some form of freedom of expression that all the parties in this House can respect, thereby allowing a free vote on that issue.

First, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean, whose riding includes the Saint-Jean military base. There also used to be a military college there, but we know that the government has cut that program too. However, I am told that the military base is doing very well, that there are a lot of activities there and that it is improving all the time. My colleague from Saint-Jean is very close to what is going on in the military and everything that concerns Quebec. He is always keeping the House, and of course the Bloc Quebecois caucus, informed of everything that is going on in the military. We thank him for that.

I would like to come back to the defence minister's speech, because I am fundamentally a pacifist, like the majority of the Bloc Quebecois members, I would even say all Bloc Quebecois members, at least all those I have talked to. Some of them understand how the military system can work in Canada. But the fact remains that we are fundamentally pacifists. I am thinking about my colleagues from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles and from Laurentides.

I would say that, in Quebec, the majority of Quebeckers are fundamentally pacifists. What surprises me are the comments of the Minister of National Defence, who said, “We are not a pacifist country”.

I am stunned by the defence minister's statement but, at the same time, it gives me an idea of what the new Minister of National Defence thinks. When we talk about him, those colleagues of mine who follow a little more closely military activities in Canada and around the world tell me that the minister is a hawk. In theory, a hawk is an animal that is always prepared to attack, and I am told that the new defence minister is a hawk, as we find in the United States. So, he appears to be one of those who think that Canada should become an increasingly militarized country, and he is proposing this shield. But that is not all. Again, the minister said, and I will repeat his words a number of times, “We are not a pacifist country”. I am stunned by this statement.

Of course, Canada is engaged in missions to restore peace. We want all the countries of the world to fully enjoy freedom but, to my knowledge, Canada is not a belligerent country. I have never felt that I was living in a belligerent country, even though I hope that, some day, Quebec will become a country and will be able to truly show the deeply pacifist nature of Quebeckers. I am stunned to be told today that we are not really a pacifist country.

I am stunned and very concerned. In that same message, the minister said, and I quote, “Missile defence is not star wars. It will use only a small number of land and sea based missile interceptors. Nothing will happen in space”. This was totally contradicted by Lloyd Axworthy, who appeared before the committee. Later on, I will repeat the sentence used by the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I am concerned. On the one hand, the message says that the government simply wants us to take part in an operation using interceptors in case of an attack against us, but on the other hand, we are told in the same breath that “we are not a pacifist country”.

If Canada were not a peaceful nation then I could understand that we risk being attacked, but that is not the image I would want the minister of defence to convey, especially in speeches in this House that are heard by all Quebeckers and Canadians.

I cannot believe he said that. I had a hard time understanding why he was considered a hawk, but now I see that the minister of defence is saying it is time for Canada to go to war. Since we are not really a country of peace and we should be a country of war, that must mean he thinks the United States is not a country of peace. What the United States tries to defend all over the world is an attempt to restore balance on the planet.

If allies said, like our minister of defence, that we are not really pacifist, that we are warriors, then I could understand why we would have to gear up to prevent being attacked. If we thought of ourselves as a country of warriers then of course we would have to be able to defend ourselves. That is not how we see it.

That is why I have a great deal of difficulty accepting his explanation that they are only missiles for ground and sea based interceptors, that there will never be nuclear warheads and that this will never have anything to do with star wars.

Earlier, the Minister of National Defence said that Bush did not start this debate, it was Clinton. I will read what Lloyd Axworthy said in his brief to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. As far as I know, he is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois. He used to be a Liberal minister. He said, “Unlike the very limited, Alaska-based 'national missile defence' (NMD) that the Clinton administration had reluctantly agreed to develop, the Bush administration has broader, more grandiose plans for a tiered, multilayered architecture, potentially including weapons deployed in and from outer space”.

The minister says we should not worry because they are only looking at what Mr. Bush is doing with the project Mr. Clinton had developed. However, experts, with Lloyd Axworthy at the forefront, say that what Bush is contemplating is not at all what Clinton had developed. It will be much more elaborate and will even be space-based.

We are told that there is no mission and no equipment in space, that the interceptors will be on land and sea; well, I am sorry, but I say to the minister quite simply that he is not telling us the whole truth. However, later he said that we would participate in the discussions but it would not commit us to anything. It means he knows already that the project could go all the way to interceptor missiles being based in space, to the building of a real antimissile defence shield, but that his taking part in the discussions does not mean he will say yes.

The only problem is that he did not consult the public about the issue. That is why my colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, is presenting this motion; he is saying that we have to vote immediately on the issue to send a clear message to our Minister of National Defence, a hawk always ready for war, and tell him that we do not want that antimissile defence shield. We are telling him today so that, if ever he sits at a table, he will be able to tell the Americans that we will never partake in that antimissile defence shield the Bush administration is developing. That is the message we must send out today. Otherwise, we will continue to sit, as he does, and wonder and talk.

We will tell the House what happened recently. This are not news from the distant past. On February 16, 2004, the newspapers talked about interim contracts made public by the defence minister, our Minister of National Defence, our hawk ready to go to war, worth $700,000, to enable us to get involved in tests conducted by the United States with Canadian radar.

The minister is not only taking part in discussions, as he is telling us. On February 16, there was a statement. Some $700,000 of taxpayers' money, a quarter of which is paid by Quebeckers, will go for testing.

The government may say that it is only having discussions, but it is doing more than that. It is now dipping into our pockets without the authorization of this House. This is the reality.

On February 7, we were told that the budget estimates of the Missile Defence Agency clearly provided for the investment of funds in the development of space interceptors as early as 2005. Moreover, on February 7, before the announcement of $700,000, we had read many times that possible investments would be made as early as 2005. This is 2004.

And today, quite candidly, the minister, the great hawk ready to go to war, is telling us that we are only discussing. I do not accept this and will never accept it.

I might have accepted this from a national defence minister who wanted to be a fundamentally peace loving person. However, I know now that our national defence minister is a warring hawk, who tells us in his speech in this House, today, on February 19, 2004, “We are not really a peaceful country”. I am sorry, but I do not believe him when he is telling us that he will sit at the table just to discuss. I really believe what is written in the newspapers, that $700,000 are now invested by the Government of Canada, without Parliament being able to decide on this issue.

In closing, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean. At least we will have the chance, in the Bloc Quebecois, to vote on a motion to say no, never. For the Quebeckers that we represent, with my colleagues from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Laurentides, Saint-Jean and all the other colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, we will vote against any involvement and any investment in the missile defence shield.

It is not true that we will let our hawkish Minister of National Defence represent us at any table and continue to say of Canada that “We are not really a pacifist country”. We will not let him continue his discussions with the Americans. I will continue to repeat what he said in his speech, “We must protect the safety of Canadians”.

He is talking on behalf of Quebeckers when he says, “We are not really a pacifist country”. It is for the sake of security. That is what he said earlier. Public safety must be ensured.

Naturally, if our country truly wants to go to war, we must protect ourselves. I can understand that. The only problem is that I consider myself to be a pacifist at heart. I will never allow the hawkish Minister of National Defence to represent me.

Obviously, I will vote in favour of the Bloc's motion. I will tell this Minister of National Defence that I will never agree to have him say of Canada, at any table anywhere in the world, “We are not really a pacifist country”. I will never agree to this. I will never agree to him saying it on my behalf.

I am a Quebecker and a pacifist, as are most Quebeckers. I hope that we will be able to send this message. Our only strength is our ability to put forward motions in this House. I hope that the Liberal Party will allow its members to vote freely tomorrow so they will understand the message the Minister of National Defence is sending on their behalf in the name of public safety.

I will continue with this. I agree that there have been serious problems with public safety in Canada since September 11. However, the Liberal Party, which has governed the country for 27 of the past 40 years, has been a part of these problems. It chose not to invest in domestic security. The RCMP, which handled airport security, was relieved of that responsibility in the 1990s for financial reasons. Private companies were given this responsibility.

We have been soft on border protection. We have thousands of kilometres to protect, but we decided not to make the investment. A choice was made. The United States tried to warn us. They kept asking us to deal with national security issues. But because we are a pacifist country, the Liberals believed it was pointless to invest in national security. We were not under any threats, because we never attack anyone and we are not a belligerent country.

After 9/11, we realized that we are not immune to terrorist attacks. The problem the Government of Canada is facing is more a visibility issue. Although it refused to invest in domestic security, it was trying to sell Canada, as we are seeing now with the sponsorship scandal. Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in ads instead of national security.

If the government had done its job and invested in national security, if it had bought adequate uniforms for our men so that they would not stand out like so much greenery in the middle of the desert, Quebeckers and Canadians would probably feel better protected by the federal government and enjoy more effective homeland security.

But that is not the case. Since 2001, we have been the laughing stock of the whole world. There were news stories about our army. If we do not fund our troops properly, we will lose them. That is the reality. We do not have an army. We have a group of people trained to take part in missions and try to restore peace.

I hope that we will give them the money they need to do their work, which is to participate in peacemaking missions, because we want every country in the world to be able to live in freedom and safety. This is what we want, freedom for every man and every woman on this planet.

This is why we are prepared to participate and to invest in this. It is not a matter of going to war. It is not a matter of giving a mandate to a national defence minister who, I will never repeat it enough in this House, has told us “we are not a pacifist country.” It is not by giving money to a defence minister who is ready to go to war that we will get what we believe in, which is world peace.

The last thing we need to do in order to achieve peace is to prepare for war. This is the message that the Bloc Quebecois wants to send. All that I and my colleagues from Saint-Jean, from Laurentides and from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles want to say to Quebeckers is that we cannot support the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, that could well turn into several billions of dollars, in a missile defence system.

All we want is to be able to regain a little bit of our domestic security, so as to feel safer, and to be able to invest in something useful. Earlier, of course, I was talking about land borders. There are also naval borders. We have to be able to rely on a certain level of security in our ports and on internal security in our airports.

This is what we have to work on. We have to invest in people, in men and women who work to ensure security within the country before we invest enormous amounts of money trying to help the Americans.

Finally, the major problem with the Liberal Party is that it believes, like the new Minister of National Defence, who is a hawk ready to go to war, that it can satisfy the Americans, who only want one thing, and that is to make us pay part of the costs. It cost them a lot to go to war in Iraq. Now, they hope that Canada will pay its share, because we said no to war, and we Quebeckers are proud of that decision.

Of course, the Americans are trying to make Canada pay. Their new approach to achieve that goal is to get Canada to pay its share in the antimissile defence system. They will then save money and this will allow them to pay off the deficit incurred with the war in Iraq.

That was not my choice. We are not the ones who decided to go to war in Iraq. Therefore, we should not have to indirectly pay for something that we never wanted to do directly. This is what the new Minister of National Defence is trying to convince us to do, in the name of public protection and security, by making all Canadians worried.

I listened to the minister today. He told us that we have to protect ourselves from attacks. He is saying that there are currently missiles pointed at us. I cannot believe what I am hearing.

When he tells us that we are not really a pacifist country, I can understand that if he thinks we are a warlike country, he will tell the public “We are not really a pacifist country, so that means we are a warlike one. Watch out, we are open to attack”.

That is his message. In order to avoid attack, we will take part in the creation of this missile defence shield, which starts out with a system of land and sea based missile interceptors. After that will come missiles in space. That is what it is all about, in the long run.

For those who are listening to us, the picture is this: we start with land and sea based missiles, then move on to missiles in space. That is the Bush plan. Once he has us hooked, of course we will have to keep paying at every stage of this plan, what I would call Bush's machiavellian plan.

When we pull out, we will be accused of all manner of wrongs by the Americans for not taking part. Why not settle it right away? Why not say “Let us make it clear. We are not taking part. We will not put one red cent into the missile defence shield”. I would add that our reason is pure and simple: to protect our internal security.

Major amounts of money need to be spent on the men and women responsible for our internal security. We are short staffed. Our army is badly paid, underpaid, ill equipped. We need to start by bolstering what we have, before putting big money into new projects just to please President Bush. Bush is out to save money because the war in Iraq is costing him a lot more than expected.

What is more, things are going badly for him in the polls. This shows that the Americans are also rethinking their position on how President Bush decided to take his country to war.

In closing, let me just say that I will never accept the Minister of Defence for Canada telling other countries in the world what he has told us today in this House: that we are not really a pacifist country.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me congratulate my colleague, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. He was quite convincing. I would like him to comment further on a topic he did not develop at length and that is the whole issue of democratic deficit in this debate.

The defence minister spent $700,000 or will do so shortly, so that we can take part in this project. He goes everywhere saying that we agree with the whole thing. He wrote a letter to his American counterpart which was perfectly clear . He even wants to change Norad's terms of reference. He says we want to take part in the project. Even his general in charge at Norad, the Canadian general, said, and I quote:

I would not say that the whole thing is a done deal, but it seems that Canada essentially agrees with the project and wants to be part of it.

The problem is that a handful of civil servants and military people are establishing the national defence policy and the foreign affairs policy. This is quite a break from before when we could affirm our credibility with the peacekeeping missions the member referred to earlier.

The Bloc Quebecois had to bring the issue to the House. Does my colleague not agree that there must be a serious democratic deficit when the Bloc Quebecois has to do the work, has to show us that what is happening here is that they are modifying the defence policy and the foreign affairs policy?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his question. Just in the way that he asks his question and elaborates on it, it is clear that he knows this issue very well, that as the member for Saint-Jean, with the military base, this is familiar ground to him. I congratulate my colleague for keeping up on this issue and having such a clear understanding of it.

With respect to the democratic deficit, things are getting clearer and clearer. The government may tell its members to vote with their conscience, but the defence minister, who has responsibility for the issue, must tell them the truth. I hope that the Liberals will choose to hold a free vote on the Bloc Quebecois' motion. As for me, I hope that we will have been able to convince them that we must immediately bury this project and tell the Americans that we are not interested in investing in the missile defence shield. I hope we will be able to do so.

As for the rest, I hope that the defence minister will not be successful in convincing the members. I have learned today what a hawk is. He is someone who is ready to go to war. Now I understand. The only problem I have as a Quebecker is that I am basically a pacifist. I have never shared the views of the minister who said, and I quote him again, “We are not a pacifist country”. I never believed that. I am sure a lot of Quebeckers never thought they would one day hear a defence minister say, in this House and throughout the world, that Canada is not a pacifist country.

I do hope democracy will prevail, that democratic balance will be restored among the Liberals, who would then be able to support the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise but I really do have to because what we may have here is a difference of opinion on the meaning of the word “pacifist”.

If the member means that Canada is a peace-loving nation, then I would agree with him. If the member means pacifist in the sense that we will do anything to avoid conflict, even setting aside our principles, then I would greatly argue with him.

This country has shed blood many times in the past to do what is right and to stand up for people who could not defend themselves around the world, and we continue to do that. We are doing it right now in Afghanistan. Anybody who thinks the mission in Afghanistan is peacekeeping is fooling themselves. However our soldiers, our young men and women, are willing to go there and put their lives on the line because they know what they are doing is right. They are trying to help people who cannot defend themselves.

When I hear any member in the House trying to argue that we are a nation of pacifists, that is absolute nonsense. He should talk with veterans who gave of themselves, who came home missing limbs, who were torn apart emotionally as well as physically, and who put everything on the line for this country in the first world war, the second world war and in many conflicts since. Our military continues to do so in engagements like the one presently underway in Afghanistan.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I would point out to him that Canada is always prepared to get out there and restore peace anywhere in the world. But when the Minister of National Defence rises in this House and says that we are not really a pacifist country, I have a problem with that. If we are not a pacifist country, then we are a belligerent country, and never will I accept that.