Debates of May 3rd, 2006

Norad

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member raises a very good point and in fact illustrates the importance of integrated intelligence sharing, so that the citizens of both countries are made aware of the exact extent of a problem or the fact that no problem exists. The argument the member is raising, which is that he wants to see more information shared, is in fact a further argument in respect of responding to the concern that an attack may come from the water rather than the air.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

As the member of Parliament for Nipissing—Timiskaming, I am pleased to participate in this evening's debate regarding the pending Norad agreement between Canada and the United States. This evening's debate is of particular interest and importance to my constituents given that the Canadian air defence sector of Norad is located at CFB North Bay in my riding.

As we know, the North American Aerospace Defense Command is a military organization established by Canada and the United States in 1958. It is responsible for North America's air space control and protects Canadian and American air space against possible aircraft, missile or space vehicle attack.

The major driving feature behind Norad at its inception was to provide a means of defending against Soviet bombers carrying nuclear bombs. Following the cold war, when the threat of nuclear conflict had subsided, there was a great debate over whether Norad was still relevant.

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Norad has taken on an even greater importance. Norad is now responsible for detecting and reacting to terrorist threats throughout North America. In August 2004, Canada signed an amendment to the Norad agreement to allow the organization to share its information with U.S. commanders running the country's missile defence system. This ensured the long term survival and effectiveness of Norad.

The current Norad agreement between Canada and the U.S. was due to expire on May 12. However, late last week, Canadians learned through American news sources that the Canadian defence minister and the U.S. Ambassador to Canada had already renewed the agreement at a meeting here in Ottawa.

Not only was there no notification of any signing ceremony, but when Canadian journalists questioned government officials about the agreement, officials at both the foreign affairs department and the defence department initially refused to confirm that the deal had been signed.

With Canadian officials saying nothing, it was left to U.S. officials to lay out the details of the renewal, whereupon Canadians learned that the new deal commits Canada to take part in Norad indefinitely, with added responsibility for terrorist attacks and the smuggling of drugs and people by sea.

The fact that we are finding out from American officials as opposed to our own government about major change to a treaty involving our military relationship with the United States is completely unacceptable. The fact that the agreement was signed before Parliament had an opportunity to discuss and debate the issue also sets a dangerous precedent.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs can say all he wants about how the deal has been signed but not yet ratified, but the truth of the matter is that Canadians have been kept in the dark.

While I intend to support the renewal of the Norad treaty, including its expansion into the realm of maritime surveillance, I find the Prime Minister's decision to craft this agreement under a veil of secrecy very troublesome. The Prime Minister campaigned on a platform of openness and accountability. So far, Canadians have witnessed nothing more than a conspiracy of silence, which both he and his government have given us.

As the MP for Nipissing—Timiskaming, I have a responsibility to determine how the new Norad agreement will impact the people of my riding. Given that MPs were not allowed to see the agreement or debate it in the House of Commons before it was signed, some very serious questions remain unanswered.

Norad is an integral part of CFB North Bay. I want assurances from the Prime Minister that a renewed commitment to Norad will also guarantee that the base remains in place well into the future. A new, state of the art, above ground facility was recently built to house Norad operations at CFB North Bay, replacing an aging underground installation built deep within the Canadian Shield in the 1960s, which was initially designed to withstand a nuclear attack.

As the new above ground facility was being constructed, the then minister of defence visited the complex, reiterated the Liberal government's commitment to CFB North Bay and emphasized its strategic importance to defending Canada and indeed all of North America.

This past January, just prior to the last election, the current Minister of National Defence visited CFB North Bay and pledged that a Conservative government would boost staff at the base as part of its party's commitment to increased military funding.

There are more than 800 military personnel, civilian staff and contract services currently employed at CFB North Bay, and I want to ensure that the Conservative government remains committed to each and every one of these people.

Norad has proven to be a very useful and valuable pact between Canada and the U.S. I am pleased that the negotiations that began under the Liberal government have led to an agreement that will see this partnership continue for many years to come. Furthermore, I believe that the decision to expand Norad's tactical surveillance functions to include maritime security functions is a positive one.

What is much less positive is the Prime Minister's penchant for secrecy. Canadians deserve to hear important defence policy initiatives from their own government, not someone else's. Is it any wonder that Information Commissioner John Reid, in his special report to Parliament, described the Conservative approach as “retrograde and dangerous”?

Perhaps the question that we as Canadians should be asking is this: if the Prime Minister cannot trust Canadians, why should we trust him?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming struck some of the same notes the member for Vancouver South did earlier, so I am going to ask the member a number of questions.

First, does he agree with the member for Vancouver South that this debate should not even be happening because it is improper in our constitutional process to put debates like this before Parliament?

In regard to the member's view of openness, does he agree with the member for Vancouver South that this debate should not be happening in that regard?

Also, could he point me to any agreement or any treaty that the last government put in front of this House for debate and approval by Parliament?

Furthermore, could he advise this House whether the 2004 amendments that the previous Liberal government brought into the Norad treaty, which deal with sharing of information for ballistic missile purposes, were brought to this House for a debate and a vote?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is, should this debate be happening? This debate should have happened a long time ago, before they agreed. What has happened with this government is that it went ahead and signed an agreement binding on the Crown. In the United States, when Congress makes a decision--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listen carefully. I do not heckle the other side. I would ask for the same respect from them.

[An hon. member]

You weren't here.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

That is a point of order, but anyway, when we look at the United States, we see that Congress gets its power from the people and so does the president. Two separate entities can make that decision. The Crown, the government of the day, has to make a decision but it gains its power from the House, and the decision has to be ratified by the House in order to take effect.

What we have here is a decision that was made by a very small group of people who have control of the House, or think they do, and they have actually bound the Crown to this agreement. What they have not done is get consent from the House, and I do not think that is right. That is something that could come back to haunt them should they not have the approval of the House. That is just not good process.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the member opposite.

The fact that this debate is even taking place tonight is precedent setting. The fact is that this government campaigned on this issue and said that any major treaties that were signed would come to this House for a debate and for a vote, and that is about to happen.

I can remember, in my past nine years here, many treaties being signed by the former Liberal government that never did come to this House for a debate or a vote.

I have served on the defence committee with the member opposite. I have a lot of respect for him, because I do believe his heart is in the right place when it comes to the armed forces. Over the years I think our committee has developed that rapport where we work together for the betterment of the armed forces in this country.

It seems to me it would be a little disingenuous for him to stand and complain about the fact that we are even having this debate. His ability to stand in this House and raise these issues is an opportunity that has not been granted to the other parties in the past by his own government.

I would like him to clarify his position on the fact that tonight we are standing in this House, we are having this debate and we will have a vote.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Lethbridge. We worked well together on the defence committee and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him.

I am not complaining about the fact that we are having this debate. It is a necessity. What I am complaining about, and do not like, is the fact that we are having this debate because the Conservatives got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. This is all happening after we found out from the U.S. government and U.S. media, not our own government, that this had gone on. That is where the problem lies.

If there were real transparency within the Conservative government, this would have happened a long time ago and we would have had this debate before anything was signed. That is what I have a complaint about. The debate on the other hand is a necessity.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

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.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for supporting the agreement. My concern is with the confusion that we have had coming from across the floor. Earlier this evening, we heard the member's colleague indicate that somehow the agreement should not be here in the chamber at all.

That is the prerogative of the Crown and Privy Council, and that is where the decision should be made. Just a few minutes ago, his other colleague stated that this is exactly where it should be, here in this chamber. I am wondering where this member stands on the issue of whether this ratification should take place within this chamber or it should not be ratified at all by the members in this House.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this ratification has already been agreed to by the current government and we would have liked, if possible, to discuss it before ratification. It is the first time it is done in this fashion by the present government. In the year 2003 we passed a motion in the House to go ahead with the modernization of Norad in a certain way because it needed to be modernized and there is no doubt that we should be part of Norad.

I really feel that any discussion should be held before a ratification is sought. This treaty is quite easy because both the government and the official opposition agree with the treaty in the sense that we support Norad. It is very important to support it in all its scope including the maritime aspect. However, in the future, I hope the government will come to the House for this discussion prior to ratification.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member chaired the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons in the previous administration and was part of the international policy statement review. I have two questions for him.

First, in the spirit of consultation with Canadians, I want to ask the member if he would support the notion that I put forward that Norad could be extended in its present form for 12 months in order to give Canadians an opportunity to come before a joint foreign affairs-defence committee on this proposal that was signed by the Minister of National Defence to expand Norad?

Second, the proposed new treaty includes the phrase: “Norad's airspace warning mission for North America shall include airspace warning, as defined in this paragraph, in support of United States national commands responsible for missile defence”. This language confirms the 2004 agreement entered into by the Liberal government. Does the member think that this aspect of our relationship with the U.S. should be revisited? Does he support or oppose Canadian participation in missile defence?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first question is in regard to the extension for 12 months of the current ratification. I disagree with this because it is just going to postpone the maritime security aspect. I think it is very important that the maritime aspect should be included in this Norad agreement.

As for the second question, I am one of the members who totally disagreed with BMD. I will always disagree with Canada's participation in BMD, with a liberal but. The wording may have been included, but I do not think that is what it means. The member may have a different opinion about it, but my party, the one I have been with since 1993, has always disagreed with Canadian participation in BMD.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for supporting Norad. It is very important to the defence of Canada and it is something of which I am very proud.

I am also very proud of the government for this debate in the first place, and the fact that this is going to come to a vote. I would like to point out to the member that it is very common in business and so forth for an article of intent to be signed. We certainly see this in real estate and we see it in the automobile industry. Where articles of intent are signed and if certain conditions are met, an agreement is reached. In this case, it would be ratified by a vote in the House and the agreement would come into effect.

Would the member not agree that this is very similar to what we see here, that we are going to respect the will of the House in ratifying this agreement?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member does not compare the ratification of Norad with automobiles or housing. When there is a discussion in government, we always prepare a memorandum of understanding. This is the first step. If we had this MOU here in the House before the ratification and discussed this MOU, I would then agree that this ratification would be a second step, but I--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

Over half a century ago, my family had a decision to make. They were refugees from Soviet tyranny. They had fled a war-torn Estonia, seeking freedom, hope, opportunity and democracy. While apparently initially safe in Sweden, they feared a bellicose and expansionist Soviet power, one that had imprisoned family members in Siberian camps and killed others in the family. That Soviet threat was a short distance away, in fact only minutes by plane.

My grandfather chose Canada as the place he would find that freedom, along with hope, opportunity and an enduring measure of security.

The Norad agreement, for the collective security of Canada and the U.S. from the threat that might reach our continent by air, is one of the reasons his choice of Canada as a place of freedom and democracy that would be secure from hostile threat has proven to be so prescient.

Much has changed since that time. Some good things have happened: democracy has spread; global conflicts are generally in decline; free markets are spreading; and people around the world are enjoying growing prosperity. The Soviet Union is no more and, remarkably, my grandfather's homeland of Estonia once again enjoys freedom and democracy.

However, there have also been less welcome changes in the world. We have seen unprecedented acts of terrorism in the air against both Canadian and American targets. Nuclear proliferation is altering our global system. The potential use of new weapons of mass destruction has emerged. Rogue states and authoritarian dictators have demonstrated increasingly belligerent attitudes. And, of course, all the traditional forces in the international system that make the ability to defend ourselves important remain today.

Norad is a critical vehicle for ensuring Canadian security in the current context. Taken together with NATO, we have the two key elements of collective security upon which Canada relies.

Defence cooperation has become a key requirement of our security and prosperity in an interdependent world. More than any other defence organization, Norad embodies the binational teamwork that is needed to counter today's transnational threats.

Canada is a country blessed with vast territory. Such a vast territory demands corresponding vast defence efforts. Since 1958 Norad has contributed to those efforts by serving as North America's first line of defence against an aerospace attack.

Norad detects and warns of attacks against North America from aircraft, missiles or space vehicles, and participates in the surveillance and control of Canadian airspace. These two missions provide Canada and the U.S. with the means to ensure an appropriate level of air sovereignty by ensuring the surveillance and control of North American airspace; attack warning; and assessment of aerospace attack against North America by manned bombers, cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles and defence against bomber and cruise missile attack.

The benefits to Canada have been significant.

Norad has strengthened Canadian sovereignty and, for nearly 50 years, has given us an important voice in the defence of North America.

Norad has enabled Canada to protect its sovereignty and influence American decisions about the defence of North America, especially when Canadian interests are at stake.

Thanks to Norad, Canada and the United States are full partners in continental air defence.

In short, Norad provides Canada with an extremely cost effective capability to exercise surveillance and control over Canadian airspace. The decision to enhance Norad by incorporating a maritime warning function will provide increased protection against emerging maritime threats, such as terrorism, and will enhance the ability of Canada and the United States to respond to those threats from both outside and inside North America.

The renewal of Norad further strengthens Canada's extensive and long-standing defence relationship with the United States and the tradition of cooperation between our two countries. The continuation of Norad to meet the security challenges of today is therefore in Canada's fundamental national security interest.

We are fortunate in Canada to have as our next door neighbour the United States, a great power that shares our commitment to freedom and democracy. For 200 years we have lived peacefully side by side. Through two great wars we have stood together for freedom and democracy against authoritarian powers, even if the Americans were a bit late to the fight each time. Our shared commitment to freedom and democracy has given us the mutual benefit of confidently relying upon one another for our common defence. For Canada it has been a particularly good value.

We bring to the table over half the terrain to be defended, yet contribute less than 10% of the cost of Norad. We share an equal partnership in the command and operation of Norad, yet we enjoy the protection of significantly larger American air force assets to protect our continent, including Canada. The degree of authority Canada enjoys as an equal partner in Norad was demonstrated on September 11, 2001. On that transformative day a Canadian was at the helm at Norad.

Norad is a robust defence agreement that uniquely ensures our sovereignty in a way unlike any other bilateral defence treaty in the world, and Norad has served Canada well. The new aspects of Norad under this treaty are also welcome, although they do not significantly alter the agreement that has served so well.

The maritime warning element responds to the new threat of hostile activities reaching our shores by water, but even so, this new innovation is modest. Both the surveillance and the command control response aspects of maritime defence will remain exclusively under Canadian command in Canadian waters.

The most dramatic and historic change resulting from this new Norad treaty is in fact the very debate that we are having tonight and the vote that will follow. Throughout Canada's history, ratification of treaties has been the exclusive prerogative of the executive, the governor in council. The constitutional framework in Canada has put treaty ratification firmly in the hands of cabinet.

In fact, there are some learned academics, and we have heard some members across the way say it tonight, that view the behind closed doors traditional approach to Canadian treaty ratification as superior to the messier ratification processes one might find elsewhere.

This new government has chosen a different path. As the throne speech committed, the government will submit significant treaties to Parliament for a debate and a vote before ratification is finalized. With the greatest of respect to my friend from Pierrefonds—Dollard, ratification has not occurred. We have had the signing of a treaty. We are now having the debate and the vote. Ratification will occur at the later stage.

It is always a two step process, as anybody who has looked at Kyoto or the landmines treaty knows. Parties sign them but they do not always ratify them. Nations do not always ratify those treaties. In fact, many treaties provide for in force mechanisms only when a certain proportion have actually taken the step of ratifying the treaty. To not understand that is to not understand the dramatic nature of the precedent setting evening we are having tonight with this debate.

Those participating in tonight's debate are thus truly making history. So will every member of Parliament make history when voting on this treaty either to support its ratification or not. All members of the House of Commons will be participating in a historic debate and vote.

For that reason, I urge all members in the House to recognize the importance of Norad to Canada's defence and security, its value in safeguarding democracy and maintaining our sovereignty. Norad is a genuine partnership that has served Canada and the United States well. The decision to strengthen and continue that partnership will be a cornerstone of ensuring a Canada strong and free for the generations of the future.

None of my family that came to Canada seeking that freedom, hope and opportunity are with us today, but my mother and grandmother lived to see the astonishing end to the Soviet Union and the restoration of Estonian freedom. It was something that sadly my grandfather did not live to see. Although he wished fervently for that day to occur, in his heart he probably really doubted it possible. But what he never doubted, what none of them doubted was that living in North America, my brother and I and the generations to come would enjoy freedom and democracy safeguarded by the collective security arrangements of NATO and especially Norad. It is why they made their lives here.

Norad has worked well in the past. Norad continues to work well today. With the support of this House we can ensure that Norad will work well for Canada for years to come securing the freedom and democracy that are the Canadian values we treasure most of all.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important issue and an extremely important debate, and I am surprised and quite appalled that there are no members of the Liberal Party here in the House this evening to debate this issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member is experienced in this House and knows that this is not one of the things we mention.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my comments about the hon. member's speech. He raised a couple of points that deserve to be clarified.

First is the issue of growing prosperity in the world. As the member well knows, even Statistics Canada tells us that 60% of Canadian families are earning less now than they were earning 15 years ago. What we are seeing is an increase in concentration of wealth in this country. We are also seeing it worldwide. In fact, two billion citizens of this planet are trying to get by on $1 to $2 a day. That is an important point because it leads into a second conclusion that the member made.

He spoke very eloquently about the history of his family after the second world war. It is important to note that terrorism peaked after the second world war at a time of great disparity of wealth. There were terrorist groups in eastern Europe, Nazi and Fascist groups that were terrorizing the populations. A very enlightened American administration at that time took the care to invest in the Marshall plan to invest in economic development right throughout Europe. We are not seeing that kind of enlightened American administration today.

At the same time, what we are seeing is the Conservative government, with the support of the Liberal Party, moving to further military and defence integration with the United States.

We have here in this document issues that our critic, the member for New Westminster--Coquitlam, and our foreign affairs critic, the member for Halifax, have been raising questions on all evening. Those questions have come without any responses.

They have been asking about the issue of missile defence and its inclusion in this Norad treaty. They have been asking about the issue of internal waterways. They have been asking about the permanent nature of this document, the fact that we are no longer talking about renewal dates, that indeed what we are talking about is a document that would exist in perpetuity unless we choose to move in some other direction.

I know the member is a learned lawyer. Is he used to proposing documents where he does not, and clearly the government does not, understand all the implications of what is being put before this House?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by responding to the issue of prosperity. We do not have quite the prosperity we would like in the world today but there is no doubt that there is more than there used to be. In eastern Europe, where they used to have socialism, which I know my friend is a proponent of, having cast off socialism they are enjoying the fastest growth rates in the world today. That is thanks to having abandoned the wayward ways that some over there have not yet abandoned. Enough on prosperity and on to the issue about understanding the agreement.

We are very fortunate in having this treaty before us because rarely do we have a treaty that actually reflects basically half a century of practice. The changes to it are very minor and there is nothing like the past practice of what the treaty has shown us to know what it will mean for the future. What it will mean for Canadians is safety, security and the comfort that we have a collective defence arrangement that keeps Canadians safe, that protects us from military threat and does so at a minimal cost.

If we had to do the same kind of military build-up to protect ourselves, if we did not have the enjoyment of the shield that Norad gives us and which we share in, we simply would face ruinous expenses.

For us, we know what the treaty means. We have seen how it has worked in practice. It has been very good for Canada. It has been very good for Canadians. That is why we are pleased to endorse it and ask this House to endorse it for the next four years until there is a quadrennial review. In four years there is a review and that is the way it should happen. It can be ended at any time by any party on 12 months' notice, and that seems to me better than waiting five years if we decide we do not like it anymore.

In the unlikely event that the NDP ever forms a government, I have no doubt it will give that 12 months' notice and will walk out of the arrangement. The NDP would then either have to do a great big military build-up for Canada, or perhaps it would simply leave us unprotected, but that is a question the member will have to wrestle with.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be participating in tonight's debate on the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defense Command agreement, or Norad.

As the hon. members are well aware, Canada and the United States have a longstanding friendship. No two countries could have stronger political, economic, social and cultural ties.

Our security and defence relationship remains the closest and the most highly developed in the world. There are few other countries that have such trust and confidence in each other.

Norad is a key element of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship and is a symbol of our shared commitment to the defence of North America. However, our military cooperation does not end with Norad. For decades we have been working together in a wide range of other defence activities.

I would like to put the renewal of the Norad agreement into context by reviewing the Canadian-American defence relationship.

We have maintained a strong defence and security relationship between our two countries for over 60 years. In 1938 American President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in a speech at Queen's University that the people of the United States would not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil were threatened by any nation. A few days later Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King replied that Canada would not permit enemy forces to attack the United States by land, sea or air from Canada.

Both countries agreed then, as they do now, that they would never become a security liability to the other. This commitment was reaffirmed during the second world war with the Ogdensburg Agreement of 1940, the first bilateral defence agreement between Canada and the United States, which created a permanent joint board on defence to oversee the defence of “the northern half of the western hemisphere”.

Over the years, new bilateral agreements and arrangements have been negotiated between our two countries, and Norad is the best known of these.

Our military partnership includes a long list of treaties and memoranda of understanding that covers all aspects of our military activities, ranging from joint planning, operations, logistics and combined exercises to defence production, research and development, and intelligence. In total, our partnership includes roughly 145 bilateral fora which provide regular consultation between our two countries.

Canadian-American defence cooperation also extends to the field of defence production, research and development. The Defence Production Sharing Agreement signed in 1956 has defined the terms of our bilateral defence trade and has provided the Canadian defence industry with significant opportunities, including access to the American defence market.

At the same time, the Defence Development Sharing Agreement, signed in 1963, has helped Canadian companies develop products used by the American armed forces while promoting research and development in Canada.

Trade in defence goods between Canada and the United States amounts to over $3 billion annually. The long-standing industrial cooperation between our two countries has resulted in a highly integrated North American defence industrial establishment supporting some 50,000 aerospace and defence jobs in Canada.

There is also the Canada-U.S. test and evaluation program which allows our countries to use each other's defence facilities for the testing and evaluation of weapons systems and military equipment. And of course, Canada and the United States are linked to a wide range of multinational organizations, including NATO and the United Nations.

Our troops work together on the national and international scenes. About 600 members of the Canadian Forces are serving in the United States at present, about half of them assigned to Norad duties, and more than 150 Americans are serving in Canada. Of course, our troops are working together on the mission in Afghanistan, alongside other allies.

In times of national emergency our military forces have always been there to help each other. Such was the case on September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck the United States. On that terrible day, Canadian CF-18 fighters worked closely with their American counterparts in Norad to defend North American airspace from further terrorist attacks. Our disaster assistance response team and HMCS Preserver, Iroquois and Ville de Québec were all put on standby in case of further emergency.

The Canadian Forces also responded quickly to the demands of more than 200 rerouted commercial aircraft grounded in communities across Canada. Within hours, Canadian Forces transport aircraft worked closely with local airports, government agencies, Red Cross workers and countless volunteers to help cope with the heavy influx of travellers.

Just last year, as the images of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina flashed across our television screens, Canada responded by sending three naval vessels filled with medical supplies, water and other essentials to New Orleans and the devastated areas along the Gulf of Mexico.

This is what neighbours do. This is what friends do.

And we will continue to work together to protect our continent.

Canadian-American defence cooperation has lasted for more than 60 years and continues to thrive today. This government believes that this relationship serves the fundamental interests of our two countries and that it is consistent with our commitment to put Canada first.

The world has changed dramatically since the cold war ended, and we are faced with new threats now, from international terrorism to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The events of September 11, 2001 underscored the need to adapt our defence relationship in order to be equal to these new security challenges.

One of the strengths of the Canadian-American defence partnership has always been its flexibility. On countless occasions over the years, we have adapted our mutual defence arrangements to meet new security challenges. We must continue to do so.

That is exactly what the new Norad agreement aims to do. Under the new agreement, in addition to pursuing its traditional mission of aerospace warning and airspace control, Norad will also help monitor our maritime approaches.

As the Minister of National Defence said in his speech, recent events have made it all too clear that terrorists can strike at us in unexpected ways from unexpected places. Adding the maritime warning mission to Norad's function is the prudent thing to do. We are showing due diligence in the face of this unpredictable threat.

The defence partnership between Canada and the United States is extraordinary. We know each other well. We trust each other. We have a long history of working together. Our shared commitment to provide for the defence of the North American continent is constant.

We have taken concrete action when our neighbours to the south have needed our help in emergencies.

We know and understand that the details of our defence and security relationship must be flexible, that they must evolve with the changing times we are witnessing together. Alfred North Whitehead, a British philosopher who lived through the turn of the last century, said, “The art of progress is to preserve order amid change, and to preserve change amid order”.

The proposed renewal of the Norad agreement preserves the continental order to which we have become accustomed and which has served us so well, but also brings about the change that is required to adapt our relationship to today's evolving security threats, security threats that we face together as neighbours in North America, security threats against which we will continue to stand strong, side by side.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his position. It is very important. I had the opportunity to serve in the role of parliamentary secretary, and the work parliamentary secretaries do is very important, not only in support of our government but in answering to Canadians, speaking with them and meeting them.

I have no difficulty in supporting this renewal of Norad. I think it is very important. Expanding it to look at maritime threats is quite appropriate in today's world if we consider the ensuing threats that could come to Canada, to the United States, to our continent. I think it is quite reasonable that we work together and see how we can improve our relationship in the future.

Through Norad we have worked together on areas such as drug interdiction, where we have been able to use the resources of both countries, the resources of our allies, to see what is happening in the air space of the Americas and to see what is happening in the waters of the Americas. Modernizing that and looking specifically at our waters and in maritime areas is quite reasonable, I think.

Where Canadians have some concern, and I would ask the member to speak about this, is where we would go beyond that, where there is the potential that we would leave inner space and use tools such as Norad to foster a partnership with our principal ally into outer space. I mean not only in the area of surveillance, because I think in the area of surveillance we quite understand that is where we are now and that is quite necessary, but in the area that would have weapons of interdiction, where we would have what we commonly call weaponization. I would ask the member if he has any comments on that. Does he see this agreement leading us there?

If it is going in that direction and if there are negotiations at that time, would the government commit to coming before Parliament to deal with this, maybe not in this House but in camera at committee? I would be happy to deal with this in camera at committee. If we get to this situation, then I think it should be done in an area that is respectful of the secrecy that sometimes has to happen in discussions among nations. There must be a way of engaging parliamentarians in a responsible fashion so that we are aware of discussions like these or what necessities there are.

Would the government commit to such an enterprise?