Debates of June 8th, 2017

Opposition Motion--Nuclear Disarmament

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague for his sensible, thoughtful, and heartfelt speech.

The Liberal government is obviously trying to hide behind the fissile material treaty, which may reduce nuclear weapons proliferation or make it harder to acquire nuclear weapons, but that treaty should not prevent the federal government from participating in talks about nuclear disarmament. The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they go hand in hand. The government is actually contradicting itself. The left hand does not know what the right is doing.

This bears all the hallmarks of the Liberal hypocrisy we have seen on a number of issues so far. They say all the right things, but they never do a thing.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we need to be working on every possible front when it comes to nuclear disarmament. We need to show leadership by being at the table speaking against nuclear armament and for nuclear disarmament.

I agree that hiding behind the fissile argument does not do Canada much good in terms of the world stage and how we are perceived by people outside of Canada, and in Canada as well. My constituents from Kootenay—Columbia have long supported peace in various ways. We need to do much better as a country in demonstrating that we are doing everything we can to ensure peace.

[The Acting Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We have time for a very brief question.

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

Last year, at their party convention, the Liberals passed a resolution that was basically the same as our motion.

Can my colleague figure out why the government and the members on that side would turn their backs on their own party members?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Going even a little further than that, Mr. Speaker, back in 2010 the Liberals were in favour of a nuclear ban when they were in opposition. They voted for the ban both in the House and in the Senate. They followed that up at their policy convention in Winnipeg in 2016 by reaffirming their commitment to nuclear disarmament.

When we look at what is happening right now, the only conclusion I can come to is that they are once again looking to follow the lead of the United States and, quite frankly, there are a lot of things going on in the United States that we should not be following.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for raising the issue of nuclear disarmament in the House. Though the topic may not make the front pages, it is essential given its seriousness and potential consequences.

On August 6, 1945, and on August 8, 1945, humanity realized that it was capable of destroying itself with its own creations, with the weapons that it was able to manufacture. In my opinion, that was a turning point in the history of warfare because, until then, we were able to exterminate, to massacre, to make war, but not to the point of destroying all of humanity. Unfortunately, since 1945, we have had that collective ability, and things have not improved since.

There is no government in the world whose greatest responsibility is not to the safety of its citizens. They carry out this responsibility in many ways, through military and police forces, so we can live in the safety of our communities, with the least amount of violence possible, and where peoples' physical safety is not threatened.

However, if that is all we do and if international tensions mount to the point of all-out nuclear war, domestic security will be of little importance; we will have forgotten one part of the equation, international relations, the ability of states to make war and the types of weapons that can exist or be used.

At the risk of sounding old, I admit that I was born in 1973. My childhood and early teen years were spent in an era that no longer exists and that younger people can only imagine, the Cold War. There was the eastern bloc, a wall and the U.S.S.R., that was always looking for babies to eat and was threatening the world order.

I come from Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, where there was a military base with hundreds, even thousands of soldiers, which was quite impressive. There was also an arms factory that made armoured vehicles near the town, making it a potential target. The military base had sirens that could sound the alarm in the event of an attack. I still remember, as a child, being terrorized by the sound of those sirens, which could be set off during exercises in the evening and even at night. The threat was more tangible at the time; watching the news, we could begin to make sense of the international context in which we were living.

Then came the collapse of the Soviet bloc, something no one saw coming. We believe that we have since enjoyed greater international security, but I believe it was a false sense of security. The dangers of nuclear proliferation are real. We would not want more countries to have this terrible weapon that can wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, even entire regions, not to mention the known medium- and long-term effects of radioactivity.

We also do not want to go back to the time of the balance of terror, as it was called. There is a theory in political science that any power that has enough weapons to completely destroy another several times over would never dare to launch an attack, fearing mutually assured destruction. To date, that theory has proven to be true. The problem is that, if it should one day cease to hold, there will be no more political scientists left to figure out what went wrong.

I have always found the term “balance of terror” to be problematic because it implies that our lives and our societies are hanging by a thread and that, on the day the thread breaks, there goes all hope of any future political theory.

On a bit of a lighter note, I remember that, in the 1980s, peace activists had a bumper sticker that said, “One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day”. It does not take many bombs to ruin a day.

I think it is important that we fully participate in the worldwide effort to come up with an international convention that focuses specifically on nuclear disarmament. That is everyone's responsibility, especially Canada's, because we used to be a leader in that regard. I think that the current Prime Minister could learn from some of the prime ministers of the past, one of whom he must know quite well, to find the inspiration needed to make the right decisions about Canada's role in these talks.

After spending decades playing a leadership role in nuclear disarmament, the fight against nuclear proliferation, and the fight against other types weapons, such as landmines, Canada should be ashamed of coming off as the lapdog of the American government and the Trump administration.

Negotiations are taking place at the United Nations for a new nuclear disarmament treaty and Canada is not at the table. Canada is boycotting the talks. That is absolutely incomprehensible and I would like to hear my Liberal colleagues explain to us the strategy behind not taking part in such important discussions involving dozens of countries. Not only are we not taking part in the discussions, but we also voted last year against a United Nations resolution on nuclear disarmament. That is a complete contradiction of Canada’s traditional position—one it should keep, in my opinion.

There is neither precedent nor explanation for such a position. My Liberal colleague spoke of context earlier. The context is precisely that there are 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world, that nine countries have nuclear weapons, officially or otherwise, and that the current U.S. President wants to renew, modernize and reinvest in America's nuclear arsenal. That could launch a new arms race with other countries. To make matters worse, North Korea has officially lost control and is threatening its entire region, Asia. It has, or is trying to obtain, nuclear weapons and the ability to launch them over fairly long distances.

The urgency of the current context should compel us to get through these talks and negotiations as fast as possible and to work toward a plan to ban nuclear weapons. It has been a year since the NDP and my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie asked the government to take part in these discussions. I think that today is an important day to tell all Canadians what the Liberal government’s position really is and to demonstrate its inaction, which is isolating us from the majority of countries around the world.

It does not make sense given our goal of having a safe and secure planet free from nuclear weapons. Moreover, from a policy standpoint, the Liberal government is looking to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council. We agree, but choosing to sulk in a corner instead of taking part and being content to simply follow the new American administration is not the way to get us the votes we need to obtain that seat, which we sadly lost in the past.

I would like to read an excerpt of a letter that was recently sent to the Prime Minister of the Liberal government. It is in English, so I will quickly read a few passages.

REMEMBERING HUMANITY

In their famous 1955 manifesto, Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell called on us to “remember our humanity and forget the rest”, so in that humanitarian spirit, we call on your government to...

Respect and support multilateral efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons by ending Canada's boycott of the current UN General Assembly negotiations of a treaty to ban all nuclear weapons and by joining the next session of talks....

That letter was signed by no fewer than 100 recipients of the Order of Canada, who feature among the most illustrious of our fellow Canadians. These people, who have received awards from the federal government, are now making a formal appeal to the government.

I hope that the government will heed the call and change its position, that it will contribute in a positive way to meeting one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie knows, I come from the riding of Laurentides—Labelle. In the northern part of the riding is a former nuclear base with silos for Tomahawk missiles. The nuclear issue is real. Canada was a nuclear nation in a sense because it housed U.S. missiles. I completely agree that the world should get rid of nuclear weapons.

I have a question for my colleague: how does he plan to force North Korea, Russia, and the United States to get rid of their nuclear weapons?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

What is the NDP's plan to get Russia and North Korea to get rid of their nuclear weapons? It is simple. Canada needs to get involved in the talks, the negotiations, and the drafting of a new international nuclear disarmament convention. We are not going to come up with a solution by staying in our corner doing nothing. The solution involves multilateralism and getting engaged in the process instead of isolating ourselves like we are now. For the Liberal Party the solution entails respecting its vote on a motion in 2010 in this Parliament and respecting its own party and its supporters.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very strong speech, which I complete agree with.

I am one of the officers of the Order of Canada that signed the declaration calling on Canada to join these essential negotiations for the security of the planet.

I just have come back from the United Nations for work on the Ocean Conference. The subject of Canada's absence in these nuclear disarmament talks came up. I was asked by other delegates why Canada was not participating, as under the new Liberal government it had been seen that Canada was back.

We have played a constructive role in the Paris negotiations. The absence of Canada in these talks makes people wonder why. This is a role Canada traditionally had played. Lloyd Axworthy led the negotiations for the landmines treaty, the Ottawa process, for an example. It baffles me that we are not at the table.

Does my hon. colleague have any theories as to why Canada is staying away from these talks?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I also thank her for signing the letter to the current Prime Minister. I obviously congratulate the Green Party for the efforts it has been making these past few years in the fight for world peace.

First, the Liberal government’s response was to hide behind the fissile material cut-off treaty. Working on adopting this treaty is fine. However, the negotiations on banning the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons are not a substitute for the efforts needed to achieve nuclear disarmament.

It also seems as though the Liberal government is hiding behind Canada’s membership in NATO, and right now it is giving in to pressure from the United States, which told its NATO allies to oppose the negotiations.

Canada has no reason to follow President Trump on this issue. Canada’s membership in NATO does not mean that it must vote only with the nuclear states.

Canada should learn from the Netherlands. They also belong to NATO, but they are taking part in the negotiations.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his presentation. He has been very clear as to the government’s intentions.

Starting in 1984, and for two decades, I took part in various international forums and multilateral negotiations. This all happened even before my colleague was a teenager. There was a time when Canada was respected and listened to; it used to have some degree of influence with other countries, but no longer.

I find it hard to explain how, on the one hand, we can decline to participate in these negotiations, and, on the other hand, we can be trying to get a seat on the Security Council.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has 45 seconds or less for his reply.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try. I thank my colleague for his question. I find it hard to explain this kind of strategy on the part of the Liberal government, which refuses to participate in good faith in these crucial negotiations even though it intends to seek the support of those same countries to get a seat on the Security Council. It is completely contradictory. Just because an objective is difficult to achieve does not mean we should not have the political will to achieve it.

We have seen Canada play a leadership role in the past, as it has with the Ottawa convention or the creation of the International Criminal Court. It is time for Canada to make a comeback.

If we are back, we should be back for real.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. 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 Banff—Airdrie, Taxation; the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, Health; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate, and I am also pleased to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

Make no mistake. All of us in the House wish that we could live in a world that was free of nuclear weapons. Facing the reality of the Cold War, the former British prime minister, the late Margaret Thatcher, said, “a world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” She said that during the Cold War.

Is the world today even more unstable than in Margaret Thatcher's era? Today we have jihadi terrorism all around the world. Today we have rogue nations, like Iran, trying hard to build themselves nuclear weapons. There are terrorist groups that want nuclear devices to commit heinous acts of mass murder. It is believed that North Korea has nuclear weapon capability and is working diligently to develop missiles that will deliver a nuclear arsenal. We see every week a new test from North Korea. South Korea is concerned about what is happening in North Korea. The world is concerned about what is happening in North Korea.

Many countries around the world are vulnerable: Israel, South Korea, Ukraine, and many more. However, many nations continue to thrive and survive, because their enemies know that nuclear retaliation would follow an assault on any of these states.

During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union was assured that any nuclear assault it committed on the western world would have resulted in a nuclear weapon response from the west, and not necessarily equal to what they sent to the west. Undoubtedly, a larger attack would have been unleashed. This was known as mutually assured destruction, or as many have referred to it, MAD. The MAD doctrine not only worked to deter the initial use of nuclear weapons but was designed to limit the continued use of nuclear weapons, should they ever be used in a conflict.

Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state in the Nixon administration, always insists that the United States' nuclear weapon arsenal and the MAD policy has provided the world with more decades of continuous peace than any other time in recorded history. Kissinger maintains that a greater proportion of the world has been engaged in conflict throughout history than we have had since the end of the Second World War. There continue to be conflicts, of course, and in fact there are wars going on right now, yet the longest period of world peace for the greatest proportion of humans has existed since the end of the Second World War and the introduction of nuclear weapon capability. This is the cold reality. It is a peaceful time for the world in this respect, yet the thought of the destructive capability of nuclear weapons is much of what keeps the peace. In fact, it brought an end, some would argue, to World War II.

The motion the NDP has brought forward has six parts. The first part reads:

(a) recognize the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons, and recognize those consequences transcend national borders and pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security, and for the health of future generations;

The Conservative Party does not disagree with that statement. In fact, we kept that in mind for the last three parliaments we governed.

Second, the NDP motion says that we should:

(b) reaffirm the need to make every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances;

Well, we have heard a few people use the word “utopian” today. This clause, most believe, is unrealistic, given the reality of nations possessing or trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea continue to develop their nuclear weapon capacity even today. India and Pakistan achieved the development of nuclear weapon capability. North Korea, Iran, India, and Pakistan have all stated clearly the circumstances under which they would use their nuclear weapons. Therefore, “under any circumstances” in the NDP motion, we believe, is unachievable.

Third, the NDP wants the House to recognize previous motions passed by the House or by the United Nations. The motion reads:

(c) recall the unanimous vote in both Houses of Parliament in 2010 that called on Canada to participate in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention;

The House is aware of that motion from 2010, yet the current international negotiations, we believe, will not lead to a nuclear weapons convention, because Russia, the United States, and China are not participating. They are not talking the talk.

The NDP also wants the House to:

(e) express disappointment in Canada’s vote against, and absence from, initial rounds of negotiations for a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons;

This is where we also disagree with the motion. There is no point in commencing negotiations leading to a convention to prohibit nuclear weapons without including the nations that actually have those nuclear weapons. It is a waste of time, money, and effort.

The final part of the NDP motion asks the House to support the initial draft of the convention prohibiting nuclear weapons. Again, the nations that have nuclear weapons have already made it clear why they have them, and until the threats they live under are eliminated, these nations will keep their weapons. Some of these nations are Canada's allies, and they are, in some cases, protecting Canada as well.

The question is what we can do. It is one thing to say whether we agree or disagree with the Liberal approach, but what can we do?

Our previous Conservative government worked to achieve further decommissioning of the still huge arsenals of nuclear weapons that exist in Russia and the United States. The official opposition recognizes the government's action to contain fissionable material. Meaningful talks continue with our nuclear weapon possessing democratic allies and others in the enduring hope of one day having a nuclear free world.

The coercive exercise the NDP is calling for Canada to participate in is not a good way to work toward a nuclear weapon prohibition. Our Conservative government worked hard over our 10 years as the government to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the possession of foreign governments and other international actors. We worked to prevent not just nuclear weapons but chemical weapons and biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction. We worked with our allies.

Conservative and Liberal governments have signed treaties and international agreements at the UN and a number of organizations, including NATO, the G8, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Conference on Disarmament, to reduce the number of nuclear weapons available in the world. We continue to work toward reducing nuclear proliferation and making sure that fissionable material is not available to rogue states and terrorist organizations to produce nuclear warheads.

The reality is that an all-out prohibition is not on the horizon in the foreseeable future. Supporting the NDP motion is unrealistic, when our NATO allies, western democracies, and other major UN nations that possess nuclear warheads are not participating in these talks. When the main world powers are in agreement, then there can be a prohibition, but we do not have that agreement when it comes to nuclear weapons. We have a situation where China, and Russia in particular, continue to build up their arsenals, not reduce them.

As Canadians, we must continue to do what we have in the past. We must always use diplomatic means to assist world powers in the de-escalation of conflict. We must work with our allies and partners in the non-proliferation of nuclear arms to make sure they are effective, safe, and responsibly used. We can work toward a prohibition of nuclear weapons that will be accomplished, we hope, in the future. However, arbitrarily trying to coerce nuclear weapon states into giving up these arms we know does not work.

The NDP is asking Canada to sign up for negotiations that do not include our allies. These negotiations do not include the powers that possess nuclear weapons. There can be no discussion or dialogue when they are not at the table.

We can do things, including the enforcement of a Sergei Magnitsky law. We can have sanctions and global isolation of those state players and individuals that are responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

There is opportunity to work within the G7, to work through NATO, to work through other forums, and I hope that we continue to do it, whether it be through economic sanctions, travel bans, or engagement with our allies. We can make sure that we are partners with them on the world stage, but if we are to speak, let us make sure the ones who have the weapons are there at the table.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's threat assessment would be very similar to my own, which is that the threat of nuclear capability is actually increasing rather than decreasing, whether it is cruise missiles, ICBMs, ballistics, or a whole variety of platforms, whether they are submarine platforms or land-based platforms or whatever, and that only seems to have increased rather than decreased.

The real issue here is whether we can walk and chew gum at the same time, given the reality posed by the threat from North Korea. China does not seem to be able to rein in its client state, and Iran is a clear and present danger to all those in the region, including Israel, where the relationship is an existential threat.

Given his threat assessment, which I would say is similar to my own, and given the necessity and the need to continue to negotiate, would it be his view that the debate and the concerns on the ballistic missile defence need to be addressed realistically?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, that is the direction we should be going, maybe now more than ever. We see rogue states and terrorist organizations trying to get equipment and material so that they can have a dirty bomb or something that can even be carried in a suitcase. Russia and China—both nuclear powers, both veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council—are not participating in the nuclear weapon ban talks.

The Russian foreign minister has said that 120 countries are participating in the talks, and are trying to coerce nuclear powers into abandoning nuclear weapons, but as the member asked in his question, is there a greater risk? Yes, and it is not because we see that one of the superpowers is ready to use it, but because we see countries like North Korea with an itchy finger. We see countries like Iran feverishly trying to get not just the technology but the equipment and the material to make a bomb.

Again, the threat is very clear. Whether one is President Trump or former President Obama, all have spoken about an increased threat to this type of war—not even war, but attack. We do not withdraw from everything, but certainly some exercises are very futile in accomplishing much.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot will not be surprised that I disagree. This is not an NDP motion to engage the world in action; this is a United Nations negotiation that is taking place. It is being led by Austria, Ireland, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, and Sweden, countries with whom we have strong relationships, countries with whom we are in strong trading relationships. It is not far-fetched that we start the negotiations and bring others in. I note that Iran is actually in these negotiations. I also note that Canada started out in the lead on land mines and cluster munitions when the countries that used land mines and cluster munitions were not in the room.

While the United Nations negotiate, what possible advantage is there for Canada? As a country, we want to show leadership in the world and not ignore negotiations when there is even a chance that the process of negotiation would bring in those countries that are now, as he said himself, modernizing their nuclear weapons and endangering our entire world.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government today has determined there is not a lot of benefit to being at those kinds of exercises. I am not certain why the government decided not to be engaged in them. The Liberals went to their convention where they said they were going to be involved in those kinds of exercises, and today they are saying they are not worthwhile.

In preparation for this debate, I went back to 2007 to a meeting that we had with my good friend Doug Roche, a previous Alberta member of Parliament and senator Ernie Regehr from Project Ploughshares. In response to my hon. colleague from Toronto, who spoke prior to the question by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the concerns they talked about that day seemed in some regard to already have taken place, so the threat is even greater. When the threat becomes greater, we must be vigilant in what we do, but we should not be spending time on things that perhaps may not be effective.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate, and speaking to the motion tabled by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, with whom I have the distinguished pleasure of working on the foreign affairs committee.

To begin, I will go through different subsections of the motion to give some brief commentary and get deeper into it. I also have a lot Reagan quotes today. I find a lot of the positions taken by the New Democrats today almost make them sound like Reaganites at times. I want to draw to the attention of the House that this is where I will be focusing many of my comments today.

The motion says that the House should do some things, and then goes into details, none of which any reasonable person here would disagree with. We all know the consequences and dangers of the use of nuclear weapons, including the humanitarian consequences. There will be no disagreement from me or from others in the House.

Subsection (b) states, “reaffirm the need to make every effort to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances.” The principle and sentiment behind it is absolutely reasonable, but it is simply unrealistic, especially in an age where there are many more rogue nations that possess nuclear weapons, along with the proliferation of the technology and knowledge, and the ability to track them being very difficult.

Subsection (c) states, “recall the unanimous vote in both Houses of Parliament in 2010 that called on Canada to participate in negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.” I do not think the motion binds the government today to undertake any talks, or any type of negotiation at the international level. That was seven years ago now. In my case, I was not a member of the House then, and I do not think parliaments are bound by such motions that direct a particular parliament's intent or will.

Subsection (d) states, “reaffirm its support for the 2008 five-point proposal...” It is not that it is pointless, but simply put, we are supporting allies in the NATO military alliance. I have many more comments about NATO's policy document, where it talks about what its nuclear deterrent will and will not do.

Subsection (e) states, “express disappointment in Canada’s vote against, and absence from, initial rounds of negotiations for a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons.” I do not agree with that particular subsection. It is not egregious, I just disagree.

Finally, subsection (f) talks about the release on May 22, 2017, of the Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. I disagree with that mostly because of the other subsections leading up to it. I just do not think it would be all that useful.

There is a Yiddish proverb, which states, “The world is big, its troubles still bigger.” Since 1945, we can all agree that the world has faced many troubles. One of the leading ones was nuclear proliferation, and the dangers of an all-out nuclear war between the two superpowers at the time, until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

I grew up in Poland. When I was very little, my parents were able to come to Canada and take us away from there. My parents would not talk about it as a point of discussion, but they remembered the drills they would have at school, which they would talk to us about. They would tell us what they had to do in case of a nuclear war.

There were these funny infomercials on Polish television telling people to cover themselves with newspapers in the case of nuclear war. The thinking was that the initial flash would burn the paper, but not skin, and people were somehow supposed to crawl somewhere. Polish people have very macabre, dark humour, and would say that after that moment, people could crawl to the cemetery. Dark humour is very common in Poland. It is still common today among Polish expats, but it gives the feeling that people had about it. This imminent danger that people felt was quite common.

I have a specific point on why some of the subsections in the motion are quite troublesome. NATO, on deterrence and defence, says in its policy document listed on its website, “Collective defence is the Alliance’s greatest responsibility and deterrence remains a core element of NATO’s overall strategy...” It goes on to list what is being defended: liberty, democracy, human rights, the rule of law. It goes on to state, “NATO’s capacity to deter and defend is supported by an appropriate mix of capabilities...” Then it goes on to list them. It concludes, “Nuclear, conventional and missile defence capabilities complement each other.” This is a core part of what NATO provides in its military alliance to all members who participate in it. Through article 5, Canada ensures our own sovereignty and national protection, but also that of our allies.

Although Canada is not in possession of nuclear weapons, our allies are. It forms what I would call a complete package of protection. That is what NATO says here. It continues, “NATO also maintains the freedom of action and flexibility to respond to the full spectrum of challenges with an appropriate and tailored approach, at the minimum level of force.”

As always, western powers, western countries, liberal democracies have never been the ones to threaten nuclear war. We have never been the ones to say that this should be the first line, that it should always be used as the first response to all types of aggression. It is always “use minimum level of force required”.

Many countries, if not most or all NATO countries, see nuclear weapons the way the population does, which is absolute last resort, preferring that under no circumstances should they be used.

In the British House of Commons, on January 2015, the secretary of state for defence, Michael Fallon, said, “It is Faslane that is truly Britain’s peace camp. Whether we like it or not, there remain approximately 17,000 nuclear weapons globally. We cannot uninvent those weapons.”

I think it speaks to the reality we live in today. The simple fact is that these weapons were invented, produced, manufactured, deployed, and now they sit as part of the nuclear deterrence that many countries use. This is not to say that the sentiment behind the motion is not appropriate. It is not to say that the principle, the thought, the idea is not something shared by many members of the House, and hopefully all members of the House.

I did say at the beginning of my intervention that I would be bringing up a lot of Reagan quotes, because Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist. I see members on the opposite side starting to smile.

On November 17, 1982, Reagan said, in an address to the nation on strategic arms reduction and nuclear deterrence, “I intend to search for peace along two parallel paths: deterrence and arms reductions” He goes on to say, “I believe these are the only paths that offer any real hope for an enduring peace.”

Reagan's example, thoughts, and his active participation in attempting to abolish nuclear weapons through different means is an example. The motion actually speaks to that sentiment as well. Again, when I read it, I immediately thought Reagan's activism.

In 1984, in an interview, he expressed the following sentiment, “I just happen to believe that we cannot go into another generation with the world living under the threat of those weapons and knowing that some madman can push the button some place.” It goes on. Again, he expresses the sentiment, the principle that New Democrats have encapsulated in their wording with some problematic kind of “what would we do with that sentiment” and “how do we make that a reality”, and then not really addressing today's reality.

Reagan was a nuclear abolitionist, but he was also a clear-eyed realist who accepted that the world was as it was. He was an unapologetic supporter of the strategic defence initiative, also known as Star Wars, and he went as far as he could. With his partner, the Soviet Union, he did what was possible.

I will just mention another idea from Reagan. With these considerations firmly in mind, he said, “I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” Again, the same type of principle, the same type of sentiment behind the motion. He just believed that the reality we lived in required us to act upon it.

On some of the sections that we have in this motion, where it talks about an agreement and talking at the United Nations, Reagan said in his 1982 UN address on disarmament, “Agreements on arms control and disarmament can be useful in reinforcing peace, but they're not magic.” Therefore, we should not confuse talking at UN cocktail dinners or the signing of agreements with solving and resolving problems.

The paper castle suggested by talk shops the world over are blown away, typically by lax enforcement and aggressive rogue regimes.

Reagan never abandoned what some authors have terms as his hatred of nuclear weapons and his desire to eliminate them. If we look at Reagan from his first term to his second term, he was a strong abolitionist from the beginning, and he made it reality in the only way he knew how. It was not eliminating completely, but he did what he could with the Soviet Union, with the powers that were available to him, leading to arms reduction.

Today, though, we do not have such a situation. Proliferation is far beyond that, to countries that simply do not want to negotiate. I do not believe we should implement parts of this motion, that we should believe talk shops are enough. Aggressive enforcement of current treaties and NGOs are the way to do this. I do not think the motion achieves many of the sentiments and principles behind it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question based on what the previous speaker said. The member brought up the name of Doug Roche, a former Conservative senator and a former Canadian ambassador for disarmament. The previous speaker implied, I think, that Mr. Roche agreed with his view on the world situation and that these talks were useless.

However, with respect to this, Doug Roche said that the current government was showing irresponsible leadership for skipping the nuclear ban negotiations at the UN. Could the member comment on that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on what Mr. Roche has or has not said in comparison to what the previous member had alluded to because I am not familiar with the commentary.

I will bring it back to Reagan. I know for the New Democrats that is sometimes a difficult comparison to make, but the principles behind the sentiment of the motion was shared by President Ronald Reagan. He actually worked actively on nuclear abolition.

This is a quote that I did not include in my remarks. In his 1984 state of the union address, Reagan admitted that, “The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used.” It is valuable to the discussion to remember that different political leaders have expressed the right sentiment, the right belief, yet they have different ways of going about the process toward that achievement.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleague's participation at the foreign affairs committee, where we spend a lot of time together. He is thoughtful, as well as a pragmatist, which is what I want to discuss here today, pragmatism with respect to dealing with these issues.

Participating in an agreement that brings none of the holders of nuclear weapons to the table requires a pragmatic approach. Our government is taking the lead in bringing 159 countries toward a UN resolution for a fissile material cut-off treaty. Do you not feel this approach will require pragmatism, working with the countries that are involved in holding nuclear weapons and showing leadership in the international community, with the hope of one day bringing this under control?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to address their questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with any type of agreement, we would hope the parties that are the most affected by it would be the ones leading the charge to make it happen, such as with international treaties with respect to water or migratory birds, or any of the other many issues that have transnational implications that go across international boundaries. Countries most implicated in either the pollution or water problems, and the same for the possession of nuclear weapons used as a deterrent, have to lead the charge.

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the reason the different START agreements and the arms reduction talks were so successful between President Reagan and Gorbachev was because they were the two primary powers involved. It has to start with those most affected by it. They have to be leading it. This cannot simply go down to a talk shop, like Reagan warned us in 1982 in his UN address. It is not magic, but it does take hard work.