Debates of May 3rd, 2006

Norad

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am in great support of what the hon. member said and the agreement. The minister mentioned the threats that are in place today would be in place for a long time to come. Would he give us more detail and his thoughts of what those threats are and in particular the maritime threats and how they were handled in the past? I would also ask the hon. minister, if the maritime threats were handled correctly in the past, then why are we adding this part to the agreement?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it raises an important issue of why the addition of maritime security. Suffice it to say that in recent years we have come to recognize in Canada, as I would suggest the Americans have as well, that one of the largest vulnerabilities of the continent right now is on the water. Currently, there is a lack of surveillance at our ports and there are challenges that exist in terms of the amount of container traffic coming in to both countries right now. The water is an enormous, vast expanse of territory to cover.

Having the Norad capacity and ability to oversee incoming threats on the water is a great advantage and great security to our country. As for the source of those threats, I need not list them but only say that the terrorist threat is ever present. Sadly, we know of the existence of al-Qaeda operations on the continent and the source of terrorism can come from many corners of the globe.

I would suggest that having this added dimension of maritime security, coupled with the importance and the stress that we place on surveillance of any incoming ballistic missile, is the type of agreement that we need to be a part of. We need to be at the table. We need to be able to give input on important decisions that affect our national security.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister clarify some issues? I am not sure that everyone in this chamber or those listening understand the full, intricate details of what the Norad mission is and what the future of it will mean.

I have a definition for the minister to respond to if it is possible or, if not, he can get back to us later. It says:

--our two governments agree that Norad''s aerospace warning mission for North America also shall include aerospace warning, as defined in Norad's Terms of Reference, in support of the designated commands responsible for missile defence of North America.

The minister knows the House voted in the last Parliament that Canada would not be part of missile defence. I wonder if this does not in any way preclude Canada's possibility or even acceptance that we may in some way be part of the U.S. missile defence shield.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the House has pronounced itself. This country has made it clear that we have no intention of being part of this system of which the hon. member is referring.

I would tell the member that this amendment reinforced the Canadian and U.S. commitment to preserve the existing functions of the binational command that has served both countries for well over 50 years.

Norad is not about ballistic missiles. I would suggest it is not involved in a U.S. missile defence system. The U.S. northern command is charged, however, with a ballistic missile defence mission for the continental U.S. and Alaska, of which we are not a part.

We may share information. We may in fact share the type of information necessary to make important decisions in the future, but this new Norad agreement does in no way alter the existing relationship that we have had in place for many years, nor has it given the authority for the Americans to override our sovereignty in any way, shape or form.

I hope that answers the hon. member's questions. I look forward to his participation in the debate this evening.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government for the steps that it has taken to give Canadians the security and stability that they look for.

Would the minister enlighten us a little more with regard to how the review will work? There is the fact that we are now tied to Norad on a permanent basis, which I think most people understand the importance of, but how will the review work? Is this a review that will come before Parliament every four years? Is this a review that is just an automatic grandfathering? What type of mechanism is there to review in four years?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alberta. I know that he has a very strong interest in support of our armed forces and an interest in this subject matter.

I am glad he asked the question because it does allow for a further explanation. While this agreement will, in principle, come again before the House potentially in four years, both parties, the United States and Canada, have the opportunity, should they desire such a debate at that time and should circumstances require, to bring it back before their respective houses or simply exchange the type of diplomatic letters that are often used to renew this agreement.

However, it does put in place a more permanent agreement. It does allow for review. It does allow, in fact, for either party to pull out of the agreement, giving 12 months notice. To that extent, this Norad agreement is on much more stable footing today and will be when it passes through this House.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to remind all hon. members that this is a regular debate, so in order to partake in questions and comments, I would ask that they stand in their proper places.

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be participating in today's debate on the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defence Agreement.

The defence of North America is something this government takes very seriously and we know that the militaries of Canada and the United States do so as well. The pilots, aircraft technicians, radar operators and air controllers, and the men and women who keep a close eye on our continent and work 24 hours a day to ensure our safety, will tell us that Norad is not just another agreement between two countries. It is a reflection of their commitment to protect their loved ones and their fellow citizens.

Norad is about protecting people. It is about providing for the safety and security of our citizens. That is why we worked with the United States to renew the Norad agreement, an agreement that has been revised to meet the specific challenges of today, and an agreement that demonstrates the longstanding friendship that exists between Canada and the United States and stands as an enduring symbol of the willingness of the two nations to defend their shared continent in an unstable and dangerous world.

When the first Norad agreement was signed in 1958, North Americans were facing the terrifying prospect of attack by nuclear armed Soviet long range bombers. Developing a joint air defence system to protect Canada and the United States became a clear necessity.

Throughout the Cold War, Norad was on guard against the Soviet aircraft that would enter North American airspace to test Norad readiness, conduct attack simulations, and undertake electronic snooping.

I am reminded of one particular incident on a summer night in 1985 when Norad detected three Soviet bombers flying off the coast of Labrador. Norad responded by scrambling a CF-18 fighter from Bagotville, Quebec. Within minutes, the Canadian CF-18 pilot had located those Soviet aircraft and ensured that they ventured no further.

Norad has shown great flexibility over the decades, keeping pace with evolving weapons technologies from nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles in the 1960s to air and submarine-launched cruise missiles in the 1980s.

Norad continues to keep pace today. The traumatic events of September 11, 2001, underscored Norad's continued relevance in the new security environment. As events unfolded that day, Norad became our first line of defence and Canadians played a critical role. The person in charge of Norad's response that morning was a Canadian general and a Canadian navy captain was the command director in the Cheyenne Mountain Operations Centre at Norad.

Norad increased its alert-readiness measures, scrambled combat and surveillance aircraft, and in conjunction with U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and NAV Canada, coordinated the rerouting and grounding of every single commercial aircraft in North American skies.

Norad then launched Operation Noble Eagle, an ongoing internal air defence mission. As part of this operation, our two countries' air forces have flown more than 42,000 sorties and scrambled fighters more than 2,100 times.

Today, Norad is also working in close collaboration with other government security agencies.

For example, last February, Norad fighters—including CF-18s from CFB Bagotville, Quebec—worked with the FBI, RCMP, US Coast Guard and local police forces to secure the Windsor-Detroit area during the Super Bowl.

As a CF-18 pilot said on the day of the Super Bowl, “We want to let people know we are there and ready.” That is exactly what this government wants Norad to do—to be there and be ready to defend the citizens of Canada, and our neighbours to the south.

The renewal of Norad clearly supports this government's Canada first commitment to protect Canadians and defend our national sovereignty. It is the most cost effective and logical, common sense way to exercise control over our vast airspace. In fact, Canada bears only 10% of the total cost of providing aerospace defence for North America.

Norad gives us access to valuable training opportunities with our American allies, as well as to important defence related information and intelligence. Norad ensures that we have an important voice and influence in the continental aerospace defence issues.

Through the last half century, our participation in Norad has never inhibited us from making independent choices. Norad's unique bi-national command structure allows both of our governments to exercise exclusive control over our respective territories and command over our national forces.

Norad is not only being renewed, it is also being enhanced. First of all, the new agreement will renew Norad indefinitely. Norad will still be subject to review at least every four years, if not requested sooner or by each party, and it can be cancelled on 12 months' notice. But we are dedicated to a permanent agreement. The new agreement also includes a maritime warning mission.

North America is not shielded by the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Recent events have shown that terrorists can strike in unexpected ways. Keep in mind that some of our largest cities and population centres are located along our shorelines. Millions of tonnes of freight pass through North American ports every day. A terrorist strike against the ports of Halifax, Montreal or Vancouver, or even on the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence Seaway, would be catastrophic.

That is why we must do everything possible to prevent this from happening—to make sure that North America and its citizens are safe.

That is why, for the first time in its history—building on nearly five decades of aerospace defence cooperation—Norad will work on developing an ability to contribute to the monitoring of our maritime approaches and our internal waterways.

Norad will process available data and advise the national commands of each country—Canada Command and US Northern Command—on issues of concern. Responding to maritime threats, however, will remain the responsibility of each of these national commands.

Canada and the United States have also agreed to let the Bi-National Planning Group expire. Established in 2002 to facilitate information sharing and coordinate contingency plans for defending against potential threats to North America, such as disasters or terrorist attacks, the Bi-National Planning Group has fulfilled its original mandate and recently issued its final report. Its functions will instead be integrated into a number of other bodies, such as the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, Canada Command, U.S. Northern Command, the Military Cooperation Committee, and of course, the new enhanced Norad.

At this very moment the men and women of Norad, Canadians and Americans, are maintaining a silent but effective vigil to keep our country safe. These often unseen sentinels are committed to protecting the lives of their fellow citizens, to protect us all 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Their work is critical for the defence of our national sovereignty and for the protection of our citizens.

We are now presented with the opportunity to make Norad a stronger organization. Norad has evolved considerably over the years keeping pace with the times and it must continue to do so. It is in the interests of North America. It is in the interests of our relations with the United States. Above all, it is in our national interest. A renewed and enhanced Norad is a clear indication how this government is putting Canada first.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as I said I am a big supporter so the member does not have to worry, but he might want to get his pen out because I have four quick questions. Before I ask them, for the record, my riding of Yukon is right beside Alaska, a few seconds from a missile base in Alaska and we had students who went to that base and protest. They are quite against that operation.

First, there is a huge expenditure in the budget for the military. Out of that money, which specific equipment would be for things that could be used in Norad, maritime and air equipment, and if interoperability is going to be used, what would be the specifications because of Norad in the contracts?

Second, it was great to hear the minister mention the word “Arctic”. That was fantastic and I thank the minister, but what out of that military budget is related to the Arctic?

Third, does the minister foresee any time when American ships would be in Canadian waters related to this agreement and could he give us an idea of how that would work?

Last, as the Bi-National Planning Group is disbanding, does that mean there is no further discussion related to land troops of a similar nature?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the member's four questions as clearly as I can, starting with the last one.

The Bi-National Planning Group that was set up in 2002 is closing down. I mentioned a number of organizations that will take up its responsibilities, but essentially Canada Command and Northern Command are going to cooperate to see where they can combine on doctrine and agreement so that we have a seamless border if we have problems on it. We are not worried about closing down the Bi-National Planning Group.

With respect to American vessels in our waters, the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of North America is divided. Canada has an area of responsibility and the United States has an area of responsibility. It is the same on the Pacific coast. The idea of this warning system is that if vessels were entering our area, we would note right away what they are. If they indicated that they were going to the U.S., we would then inform the U.S. that vessels had entered our waters and in two days they should enter U.S. waters, or whatever. The U.S. would do the same thing so that we could keep track.

Especially on the east coast, the tracks from Europe cross through both of our waters. Nearly all vessels go through both of our waters so it helps to keep track of which vessels are in the waters to add security.

With respect to the Arctic, yes, the $5.3 billion in the budget above the Liberal government's financial commitments will include a lot of activity in the Arctic, as we mentioned in our campaign last January.

With respect to equipment, yes, once we have the final plan from the military and it is approved by cabinet, we will be bringing forth equipment for the air force, the army and the navy. Where possible, we try to standardize with NATO on various technical aspects of equipment. Yes, equipment will be available for all three.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just two questions for the Minister of National Defence.

Clause h of the proposed new treaty says that there will be the sharing of all information and intelligence relevant to the Norad mission. This is a rather broad idea. I want to know if there is any limit to what information and intelligence could be relevant to the Norad mission.

The proposed new treaty extends Norad's mandate to include the sharing of maritime surveillance over internal waterways. Does the agreement therefore include the sharing of maritime surveillance in the Northwest Passage?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it includes internal waters. If there were vessels going through the Northwest Passage, I am not certain we would report that to the United States. That is up for question. Certainly, if vessels were in the St. Lawrence Seaway or the Great Lakes, we would probably share that information back and forth, but we may not necessarily send information to the United States that we had detected vessels in the Northwest Passage.

With respect to the member's other question regarding limits of information, the information would be relevant to the Norad mission, that is, intercepting either missiles or aircraft or basic information on which vessels are entering or leaving our waters. That is the kind of information that would be transferred.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Egmont.

I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the official opposition in support of the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defense command, known as Norad.

Norad has long been an anchor of Canadian security and defence policy. Established in 1958 at the height of the cold war, Norad is an expression of our shared resolve with the United States to defend North American air space against all threats. It is also emblematic of the shared interests that make Canada and the United States the best of friends and the strongest of allies.

While the cold war rationale for Norad no longer exists, both of our nations understand that the world remains a very uncertain and dangerous place, rife with constantly evolving threats against which we must remain always on guard.

For proof, we need only recall the awful events of September 11, 2001. Out of the clear blue sky, commercial airliners were turned into flying bombs and thousands of innocents were slaughtered. In the space of a few hours, North American air space was thrown into complete chaos and then shut down completely. It was an unprecedented event that required unprecedented cooperation between Canada and the United States that managed the crisis.

In the post-9/11 world, Norad is as relevant as ever. The Liberal Party is pleased to reaffirm today our support for a modernized Norad framework. The renewal of Norad equips it to deal with a broader range of threats than before. The inclusion of existing maritime surveillance mechanisms into the Norad monitoring framework is just common sense.

While the official opposition supports the new Norad treaty itself, we are, however, concerned with the sloppy and secretive manner in which the government has handled a security and defence issue that is of paramount importance to Canadians.

When our party formed government and we signed international agreements, we had formal signing ceremonies which were public knowledge and which were often open to the media. But Canadians found out that Norad had been renewed not from their government but from the United States Department of State, and not with a formal public signing ceremony announcement but with a secret signing behind closed doors.

Representatives of the Conservative government will tell us that signing a treaty in secret is not a problem given that the treaty was earmarked for this debate in the House with a vote to follow. They will say that the treaty is not finalized until a formal exchange of diplomatic notes between our two countries, but that, with respect, is beside the point.

The troubling fact is that the Government of Canada entered into an agreement with another state and expressly decided not to inform the Canadian public. Worse still, the government actively endeavoured to conceal the decision.

According to the Toronto Star on April 28, the Prime Minister's office would not return phone calls asking if the agreement had been signed, and when first asked, government officials refused to confirm that the deal had been signed. I quote the article:

With Canadian officials saying nothing, it was left to U.S. officials to lay out the details of the renewal.

The Prime Minister made no public mention of the treaty signing until cornered afterward by journalists.

Since when does the Government of Canada allow a low level spokesperson from another country the prerogative of informing Canadians about international treaties into which their government has entered? What does it say to the United States of America, our most important ally, when the Canadian government refuses to publicly admit that a treaty that has formed the bedrock of our security partnership for nearly 50 years has been renewed?

It says that we have a government elected on the facade of openness and accountability which in office has revealed its true obsession with secrecy at all costs, no matter how embarrassing such secrecy may be to the country. It tells the United States that it is dealing with clumsy amateurs.

There is no doubt that the House will vote in favour of the new Norad treaty, and we should, but I question the Conservative government's clumsy handling of this matter.

What if the House did not vote in favour of the agreement the government has already signed? Would the government then make a mockery of the honour of the Crown and of our country internationally by refusing to follow through on an agreement already signed? This is not how a responsible and competent Canadian government conducts international security relations.

The government's handling of this matter also reinforces its growing reputation for ducking accountability with Canadians. It is a government which, for shabby public relations reasons, now prevents the Canadian public from witnessing the repatriation of the remains of our fallen heroes to Canadian soil.

It is a government that in its budget ducks its responsibility to make needed procurement decisions for the armed forces, possibly because the Minister of National Defence is mired in outdated cold war thinking that is at variance with the views of General Hillier about the needs of a modern military.

It is a government that refuses to fess up that it cannot afford the pricey and unnecessary polar icebreakers that it promised during the election.

And it is a government that has put the capacity of the Government of Canada to make needed military purchases at risk by abandoning the Liberal tradition of fiscal prudence and returning to the irresponsible budgeting practices of failed Conservative governments of the past.

Throughout my time in public life I have conducted myself with one main principle, and that is that governments should be as open and transparent as possible with those they have been given the privilege of governing.

While the official opposition will certainly support Norad, we lament the way the government has handled this file. Let me warn them that a government that allows secrecy to seep into all manner of its operations, that thinks it can pick and choose the facts it acknowledges and the promises it keeps, will not long be in a position to exercise the authority with which it has been entrusted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified to hear the member opposite indicate that he and the Liberal Party will strongly support the new Norad agreement, which is a positive thing.

However I was very concerned to hear what I thought was a very shallow grasp of the law of treaties and how treaties are entered into. I thought perhaps in response the member could share with us whether he has an appreciation of the difference between the signing of a treaty and the ratification of a treaty.

Those who are familiar with international law are aware that obviously the people who sign treaties that are sent abroad by governments are not the same ones who ratify treaties and treaties do not come into force until ratification. The government has not yet ratified this treaty. We are having a debate tonight in the House and then a vote. Ratification comes at a later point and it is only with ratification that a treaty comes into force. It seems the hon. member has missed that point.

I wonder if the member appreciates that difference. If he does, would he like to share with Canadians that he does understand the difference between signing a treaty and ratifying it?

I was hoping he could also add for us a list of all the treaties, since he was a fan of openness, in the time the Liberals were in government that were subject to a debate and a vote in the House by the members of the House of Commons. That would show us how open the Liberal Party was with foreign treaties when it was in government.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when a government attempts to impose American processes on a parliamentary form of government, that is the kind of distorted thinking we get.

In the past, when a government signed a treaty it signed the treaty after full cabinet consultation. There is absolutely no doubt that diplomatic notes would be exchanged.

What the government says now is that it has earmarked this for debate. That is wonderful. However, in the United States of America, where Congress has the right to ratify treaties, it has a different system of government. In our system of government, if I might let the hon. member know, we derive our authority from the House based on the confidence of the House, not on ratification of individual issues that come before the House.

Whether it is a majority or a minority government does not matter, if the government has the confidence, then government, on behalf of the Crown in this country, has the right to sign those treaties and ratify those treaties.

I just want to advise my hon. friend that I do understand and appreciate the differences. When we try to bring American processes into a parliamentary form of government, then we have the kind of bastardization that occurs in the process where it is still maintained that we dishonour the Crown and we do not keep in mind the honour of the Crown if the House votes against the treaty. If the House were to vote against the treaty, we would dishonour the Crown. The government would not be able to actually keep the honour of the Crown intact, which is very important. When the Crown signs a treaty, that means the Crown will ratify that treaty.

I am happy the matter is here for debate but I think we need to understand that we are trying to graft on to our system of government something that is alien, which is from the United States. It is an Americanization. It is a different process. It does not jibe with our system. We may have to make some changes to make it jibe with our system. I am happy it is here for a vote and for debate.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made a number of interesting points, not the least of which is that bringing new processes into play do often cause a little consternation. The Charter is a perfect example. That, in and of itself, was not something that was particularly in line with the British North America Act and the Westminster system which we have followed for years in this country.

However, my colleague opposite neglected to answer the very straightforward question posed by the Parliament Secretary for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which was: In the last session of the last Parliament did the government, in which he was a member, partake of this type of openness? Did his government allow the Parliament to engage in a debate and have a vote?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question is a red herring. The fact is that during the time I was here there was no treaty signed. This is a treaty negotiated by us and this is a treaty that was to be signed.

With respect to the Charter, the Charter was an amendment to the Constitution. It came to this chamber and it went to the provinces for ratification. That was important. The member cannot say that an amendment to the Constitution is the same as ratifying a treaty within our current framework.

This has now been changed. I am happy that it is here for debate and a vote. I am not opposed to that. I like the spirit of that but we need to understand that when we try to graft different alien processes on to an existing parliamentary system where we function differently, there will be some problems and we will have arguments coming at us that make no sense.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Vancouver South and I am glad that he is arguing for more openness, more transparency, more debate and so on.

However I know he was a member of the cabinet over the last couple of years before the Liberal government was defeated. I assume he was aware that there were many months of negotiations going on between his government and the U.S. government over the agreement that is now before the House.

It is not just members in opposition who are shocked to find this week that we are now faced with an agreement that only came to the light of day because American officials made it public.

Could the member tell the House whether there was any transparency between those who were negotiating this on behalf of the Government of Canada and the very cabinet on which he was a member? Did his cabinet make its colleagues aware?

However, my real concern, which is one of many, is that Canadians are truly astounded to realize that we are now looking at an agreement that clearly deepens the integration, militarily in terms of foreign policy, between Canada and the U.S. We have an agreement that, by the officials' own description, is now a permanent agreement, which is a very different situation from the kind of agreement we had in the past. The member for Vancouver South sat at the same briefing session as we did earlier this week.

I wonder if the former minister, the member for Vancouver South, could address these questions, please.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of External Affairs mentioned earlier, this is a long term, permanent agreement that is reviewed every four years. It can be reviewed at the behest of either party even prior to four years. It also can be terminated with 12 months' notice. It is not something that if tomorrow we believe as Canadians that it is not in our best interests that we are stuck with. We can obviously get out of it with 12 months' notice.

I believe that all the work, in terms of maritime surveillance, has been done, is currently being done. No more work is going to be done than what has been done. It will simply be coordinated and put together with the rest of the surveillance that Norad does. I think that is an appropriate way to go.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to rise in the House to offer some thoughts on the renewal of the Norad agreement. I will attempt to avoid as much as possible the comments made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Even though I agree with the remarks he made, I would like to concentrate on other aspects of the debate.

The North American Aerospace Defence Agreement between Canada and the U.S. is a long-standing 52-year-old partnership. This agreement is reflective of a special and unique relationship in the shared defence of North America.

Norad is a binational information sharing and surveillance agreement. The system monitors the airspace of North America, warning of potential attacks by aircraft, missiles or space vehicles, as well as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States.

Tonight I want to focus my comments mainly on the issue of maritime and waterway security, which represents an expansion of the previous Norad agreement. It is critical that the House recognizes the importance of an integrated North American aerospace and maritime defence system.

Five years ago we saw how the tragic events of September 11 shut down North American airspace. As the hon. minister stated, on that day there was a Canadian in charge of Norad in Cheyenne Mountain and he performed very well under extreme pressure. Unfortunately, with the current threat of global terrorism, international drug smuggling and the accessibility of weapons of mass destruction, an agreement like this is more crucial than ever.

Canada currently maintains sovereignty over more than 200,000 kilometres of coastline. This is a vast amount of exposed territory. Lessons from the past concerning maritime threats affirm that it is essential for us to adequately protect Canada and North America. This issue is of particular concern to me as a resident of Prince Edward Island.

Being surrounded by water, Islanders and Atlantic Canadians grew up with stories from our history books about attacks being launched from the water. There are true stories of German U-boats being in Canadian waters and sinking ships in Canadian waters during World War II. In fact, the Empress of Ireland near Rimouski is an example of that. Identifying and responding to potential threats by land, air and sea is crucial to the defence of any nation.

Expanding the Norad agreement to integrate maritime surveillance and early warning represents a logical step forward in North American defence. It opens up the possibility that issues at sea can be dealt with in a much more efficient fashion than previously. As well, including maritime warning under Norad strengthens Canada's maritime security, a goal identified in the national security policy unveiled by the Liberal government in 2004. This renewed agreement demonstrates a commitment to national security and binational coordination, and adds to the over 80 treaty level defence agreements we already have with the United States.

The mechanisms for monitoring maritime activities, approaches and area threats have already been established and are currently functional. As a result, this will facilitate the quick and efficient integration of a maritime warning system with Norad.

It is clear that information sharing can be beneficial for Canada's national security. The more we know about a ship prior to it docking in Canada the better it is for the safety of Canadians and North Americans in general. This agreement also represents a useful weapon to counter drug smuggling business in North America.

I believe that Canada should be an active participant in Norad because it is better to be at the continental defence table rather than not, and to pull our weight at that table. As an active participant, we can remain well informed and maintain a voice in the security of North America.

While fully supportive of this agreement, I want to acknowledge several concerns that were briefly mentioned by the member for Vancouver South. I want to be clear about what the full implications and ramifications are or will be for the maritime regions.

I want to be certain that an expanded Norad will not compromise Canada's control over its military or potentially lead to U.S. warships patrolling Canadian waters. We must recognize the importance of our ability to exercise sovereignty while devoting our utmost attention and concern toward the security and protection of Canada and North America.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend on the other side of the aisle for a very substantive speech, 95% of which I agree with completely. I want to put on the record that I did partake, when his party was in government, in a mission to Cheyenne Mountain to observe first hand our men and women in uniform working hand in hand with the United States personnel. I wish every Canadian could take that trip.

As our Minister of National Defence mentioned, the fact that there was a Canadian ostensibly in charge of North American airspace on the day that the Americans were attacked on September 11 shows how much confidence they have in us. It is a wonderful arrangement for this country in terms of the benefits we get out of it.

I want him to perhaps expand upon the fact that we pay approximately 10% of the cost, but as he eloquently said, we are very much at the table and it is better for us to be part of this continental security than not to be there. Could he perhaps expand upon the fact that Canadians, and for Canadians watching today, should realize that we not only get our money's worth but get a sense of protection out of this continental security, which is priceless? Would the member opposite comment on that?

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly was a proud day for Canada even though it was a devastating day for North America, particularly to our American friends, but it did show that the United States and Canada, who worked together for so long since the second world war on the protection of not only North America but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as I said in my speech, have also signed over 80 bilateral agreements between the two countries. That really binds us together in the defence of North America and, by extension, to the world.

We pay 10%. I am not sure what the new expenses will be on the maritime side of the NATO agreement. Maybe the hon. minister could give that information, but paying 10% is a small price to pay to be involved in Norad and participate in the defence of our continent.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1958 Norad has always been renewed for three to five year periods only. This tradition allowed the Canadian government to regularly reaffirm Canadian sovereignty in our relationship with the world's most militarily powerful state. Does the hon. member consider that the Conservatives now wish to make Norad a permanent organization to sacrifice the opportunity to reaffirm Canadian sovereignty in the future? I would like to have his opinion on this.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the way I understand it, even though it is a more permanent longstanding agreement, it can be reviewed every four years. So in that respect, this country and the United States can review the agreement and make or propose changes, and bring those changes to the attention of this. It is not an exclusively permanent unchangeable agreement. It is an agreement that can be reviewed every four years and in that way it makes it more permanent, but it is not an absolutely permanent fixture between the two countries.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to comment on the openness and the transparency of this process. The entire agreement has been laid on the table of the House and, in fact, it was his party and part of the legacy of the Liberal Party that there was participation in the original debate in 1958. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker consulted with then leader of the opposition, Lester B. Pearson, who was to become external affairs minister. Paul Martin Sr. also took part in that historic debate in 1958. There was a discussion then as there is tonight of the importance of the protection of both countries within this continent.

Is this debate tonight not very much in keeping with the spirit of openness and discussion about the Norad agreement, and a continuation of a legacy that allows Canadians, allows parliamentarians on behalf of their constituents, to have input and discussion into this important matter?