Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate tonight about the ratification by the government of the North American Air Defence Command Agreement, Norad. To begin, I will say that I welcome that ratification, particularly because the previous agreement will expire on May 12, in nine days.
Certainly the government can be accused of signing this agreement by stealth, and then afterward having it ratified by Parliament.
Nonetheless, Canada and the United States cannot do without Norad, and our two countries, more than ever, must work hand in hand to provide for our continental defence. That defence must include the maritime component, because since the events of September 11, 2001, no one can predict where, when and how another attack will occur. No matter who is in government, we have a moral duty to protect our country and our continent against all attacks.
Canada has been a party to Norad since it was created in 1958, and because of the cost, but also the exchange of information, it cannot decide to go it alone.
Some members have said that this agreement should first be studied by the defence committees of both Houses, but the members of those defence committees have visited the Norad facilities in Colorado several times in the past. The Liberal members were more than satisfied with the importance of Norad and the role it plays in combating terrorism and protecting our country.
However, it should be said, parenthetically, that Norad’s role must not be confused with the role of antimissile defence.
On August 5, 2004, Canada and the United States amended the Norad agreement to allow the American command units responsible for ballistic missile defence to perform a function that the organization had performed for nearly 30 years.
The Minister of Defence at the time said then that the agreement did not mean that Canada was joining the missile defence program. On the contrary, the Liberal government’s position at that time was that they had agreed to the amendment because the Americans were about to construct an air space defence system that would have made Norad obsolete.
In early 2004, Ottawa discussed Canada’s possible participation in an anti-missile defence program. One of Canada’s conditions for joining such a program was that Norad should play a major role in its implementation. These negotiations followed a motion passed in the House of Commons in 2003 aimed at conferring on Norad the responsibility for creating “any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles”. Some Liberal members voted against this motion at the time because the word “any” left the door open to the weaponization of space.
It is important to note that the amendment made to the Norad agreement on August 5, 2004 preserved its function as a missile warning institution that should not be confused with its missile defence functions.
On February 24, 2005, the previous Liberal government informed the United States that Canada would not participate in the American missile defence initiative. The Prime Minister of the day had said that Canada would only join a missile defence program if it served our interests, specifying that he was against the weaponization of space.
The modernization of Norad involves two major changes: first, the agreement will be perpetuated and a four-year evaluation period established, rather than the usual modernization which takes place every five years; then, as I mentioned, the tactical warning and surveillance functions will be expanded to include maritime security.
The Liberal Party supports the expansion of Norad's missions to include the defence of maritime regions. Last year, the previous Minister of National Defence stated before the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs in Syracuse, New York:
We believe that it is an appropriate time to consider the possibility of expanding our current defence cooperation to include maritime and land-based elements.
That is why the members of the official opposition will support this ratification.