Bill Graham

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have not consulted with the House leader about the nature of the vote on this issue.

Our new Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants two things to happen. He wants members of Parliament to be more engaged, more able to make up their own minds and vote, and, at the same time, he wants the government to have the ability, through a structured series of votes, to carry out its business. Those are the guiding principles before the House leader in deciding the nature of the vote that will take place on Tuesday night.

I appreciate the support of the member for Peace River on the principle. I am confident that the majority of the members of the House support the notion that we should enter into discussions with the United States of America on this issue.

I think the majority of members in the House recognize that this is a serious issue, one that the government must enter into negotiations and discussions with the United States to see whether it is in Canada's interest to participate. Those are the discussions and that is what will be before the House next Tuesday night.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Jean on his speech. Like other members, including the member for Peace River, I am pleased to have the opportunity for the second time this week to discuss a topic of such great importance to Canada and Canadians.

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to discuss this, although it is the second time this week. However, I think it is very important that we have an open and frank discussion among ourselves, that we also try to demystify some of the issues around this and that we talk about the real facts. We should talk about what we plan to do, what we do not intend to do and how we intend to go about it.

What is the nature of the issue about which we are talking about? As members know, and I pointed out the other night, what we intent to do on the government side of the House is to enter into discussions with the United States of America about an issue in which it is committed.

The member for Saint-Jean and various other members of the House have given extensive reasons why they believe this is not an effective system, that it is will be too expensive, that it will be technologically unfeasible and that the greater threat from terrorism comes from containers, from ships and from other forms of threats.

There is a great deal of validity in all of that. We accept that and that is a debate taking place in the United States of America, as well. Americans are very educated people. Members of Congress and of the Senate are discussing this. They have had that same discussion. It is their treasury they are putting into this, so they are having those discussions. If they put too much money into this, they will not have the resources to deal with other issues.

The first thing we have to start with is to recognize in this debate that whatever reserves we might have about this system, the United States of America has decided to do it in a bipartisan way. This is not an initiative of the Bush administration, as this resolution would seem to suggest. Rather, this begun under Mr. Clinton and had extensive bipartisan support in both the House and Senate of the United States of America.

The first premise we have to start with, as Canadians, is the United States of America is committed to doing it. The Americans will discuss the reservations, how to go about doing it and whether its a major expense or not. However, at the moment they are committed to do it.

Then we have to ask ourselves, as Canadians, how we are being neighbours. We share the continent with our colleagues in the United States of America. We have a long tradition of working with the United States on matters of defence. We have to consider the context of the subtleties of the relationship between this country and their country, the links between our families, the link between our universities, the extensive trade on both sides of the border, the environment and other links.

We are a neighbour. It is as simple as that. In some respects, when it comes to nations, we have an unique relationship. We are probably the closest neighbour ever demonstrated in the history of the world. That is the unique nature of our relationship.

Our neighbour, after careful reflection about its security, about the menaces that threaten it, have come forward and told us that it intends to examine the possibility, as remote as it may be, of having a defence against something that it believes threatens the lives of Americans.

Members of the House would have us, the government of the country, say that we will not even discuss that with our neighbour, that we will turn a deaf ear when our neighbour comes to us and says that it sees a menace and wishes to take protective action, and if this menace comes, it will also happen to hit Canada. Neighbours being neighbours, if the U.S. house is on fire, Canada's house will likely go up with it. Any nuclear, biological weapon or weapon of mass destruction that happens to go off in Buffalo or Seattle, will affect Toronto or Vancouver, and vice versa.

Therefore, does it not behoove us to at least sit at the dining or kitchen table with our neighbours and discuss what the measure is, what they are doing and is there a way in which we can or cannot participate?

I come from the perspective that we are close neighbours of the United States. We have a long tradition, and I spoke of this the other night in the House, of cooperation with the United States in matters of defence. That cooperation has been extended now, since the terrible events of 9/11, to include our binational planning group, working on the border to ensure it is enforceable and to ensure we do not have to worry about security on the border. Now we are working outside with the United States on other initiatives.

For example, the other night I referred to the recent non-proliferation security initiative in which we have joined. We have done this to ensure that North America is secure, not only by securing ourselves here and taking reasonable measures here, but even beyond that, outside.

I have been very proud to stand with my colleague Colin Powell at international meetings and say that Canada is with the United States in trying to ensure that non-proliferation takes place. I am proud to say that Canada is with the United States in ensuring that containers coming to North America are not loaded with weapons. Canada is with the United States as we go out into the world to make it a safer place. This is not only for us but for everyone. That is the context in which it seems to me we have to approach this motion.

I would urge the member from Halifax, who talks about this administration and star wars and all this rhetoric, that this is not the way neighbours discuss things with one another, at least not neighbours who wish to have neighbourly relations, neighbours who genuinely respect one another. Even if it is only a matter of respect, do we not owe it to our neighbours and friends in the United States to say that even though they have an idea, we may have some problems with it, but we will discuss it them, then take it from there? Let us not start by creating a sense of what it is not.

I said the other night in the House that it is not star wars. The member for Halifax repeats this over and over again. This is a deliberate attempt to try and confuse people to believe that this is something like what President Reagan proposed years ago. It is nothing like that, and many members have pointed it out. It is a defence system that is in a totally different international climate. It is a series of interceptors based on land and on sea which will go up and deal with the missile that is coming in.

There is no reason to suggest that this will result in the weaponization of space. Canada being involved in the discussions can make that case more coherently and cogently than if we are not. Our colleague recently asked the member for St. John's if he did not think we could have more influence on this if we were sitting there talking to them, than if we refused to discuss it with them. If we are concerned about the weaponization of space, then let us be there. Let us be in Norad. Let us make it a part of what we are doing. Someone who is not a partner will have no influence at all.

There are voices in the United States that talk about the weaponization of space. As I said in the House the other night, it is clear those voices are losing ground at the moment, not gaining ground. Their ideas for doing some research has been pushed off from 2008 to 2012. This is simply the research that has been pushed off to 2012.

To point this out as being the weaponization of space is not helping us and Canadians come to a rational way of analyzing the nature of the issue and the problem.

We also do not know anything about the issue of cost, which is not on the table, or the issues raised by my colleagues.

To conclude, I will come back to my proposal.

The United States is committed to developing this program. After all the reasons put forward as to why it may or may not make sense, the Americans, under Clinton and the current President, have decided to go ahead. I respectfully suggest that it will happen whether we participate or not. If we do participate, we can influence its development. If we do not, all the issues that have been referred to will be dealt with and we will not be there at the table.

Let us discuss it with the United States. If we have significant problems with it, we do not need to go ahead. I suggest, given the climate, the context of North American defence and our relationship with our United States neighbours, we owe it to them and we owe it to ourselves to discuss these measures with them. That is what the government is doing in this case, nothing more and nothing less.

[Foreign Affairs, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the reputation of Canada is enhanced by the way in which this Prime Minister frankly has stepped forward. Every country on this globe has its problems of governance. Each is judged by the way it handles it, and this government is handling it with transparency, openness and frankness by the Prime Minister and are--

[National Defence, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why Canadian citizens do not think that the government is lying about star wars is that the Canadian people are wise enough and smart enough to see behind the rhetoric and know the facts.

There is no star wars. We are not engaged in discussion with the United States about star wars. As the debate in the House last night revealed very clearly, and most members of the House understand that, we are discussing and only discussing with our American colleagues the possibility of a missile defence system, land and sea based, for North America which might eventually be of benefit to Canadians.

Let us pursue--

[National Defence, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the facts of the hon. member's question are totally out of whack with the reality, as the debate in the House last night demonstrated.

In so far as the government is concerned, she has been attacking us for the fact that the defence minister did not mention the weaponization of space in one single letter to the defense secretary of the United States when we have voted on this in the United Nations and when we have raised this continually in every single international disarmament organization of which we are a member.

The member knows full well that Canada is on the record as being against the weaponization of space. The United States of America knows it, and every member of the House too.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Madam Chair, I totally agree that we must have a serious debate about this issue; however, I would ask the hon. member if we cannot at least get the basic facts straight.

When we talk about a missile defence shield, as if this were going back to the time of trying to defend against the Russians, the Chinese, and everything else, surely the hon. member and his party will recognize that is not what this is about. This is a limited land and sea based system which is designed to deal with rogue states and would deal with a very limited form of attack.

All these strategic theories that were put forward which would be destabilizing in fact persuaded me some years ago that we should be engaged in this type of thing. The world has moved on and 9/11 has occurred. Things have occurred and we have moved on. There is a different strategic atmosphere today.

Is the NDP willing to talk about that new strategic atmosphere in which we operate, in which Russia has said that it does not have a problem with this. China is looking at it with a totally different attitude. We are trying to deal with the possibility, it may be narrow and difficult to foresee, it may be in fact something that a lot of people have trouble conceiving, but it is a possibility, and our American friends are willing to do it and we are looking at whether or not we should discuss with them the possibility of looking after North America in this remote possibility?

Should we not at least be willing to be engaged in that discussion? Or does the hon. member think we should just turn our back on this possibility and say that we do not want to be there because there is some sort of religious principle that would oppose it?

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I was interested to hear the hon. member's observations about our historical participation. However, he will surely agree with me, because I listened intently earlier this evening to the member for Peace River about why his party is supporting our approach to this issue, that it is a very calibrated approach.

It is an approach which recognizes that Canada has had an independent voice in foreign affairs. It has had a way in which we have contributed to peace, a way in which we want to contribute to North American defence but bring a Canadian perspective.

I know that the hon. member will want to reiterate what his colleague said when he said that his party is not in favour of weaponization of space. He approves of the government going into these discussions in a way that represents and focuses on Canada's interests in a North American defence with our American allies, which we have been doing since the Ogdensburg agreement, since he is so interested in history. However, it would be in a way that would also preserve a Canadian perspective.

The hon. member and the members of his party have been critical of us for not rushing into this more quickly. I want to ask the hon. member, does he not think that we want to ensure that when we go into these arenas, when we enter into these arrangements with our American colleagues, that we do so in a way that is consistent with Canadian traditions, and that we bring our own perspective on peace in the world?

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I wish to thank the hon. member for his thoughtful remarks and observations. I would take it from what you said that the position of your party would be similar to the position which I laid out. The government's position is that if, in fact, this measure is going toward weaponization of space, then it is not something which should be entered into on behalf of Canada and Canadians. This is a bedrock policy that is supported.

I take it from your comments, and from those of all parties in the House, that there is certainly strong support from other parties as well.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank the hon. member for his question because it is a very good question. Clearly, missile defence, as I believe I tried to say in my speech, is a very small proportion of what we are trying to achieve in terms of the security of Canada. We have other measures of security. We have taken innumerable anti-terrorism measures and others.

In addition to that, we recognize that Canada has an important role to play out there to argue in favour of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament. In my speech I pointed out our participation in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the missile technology control program, and the Hague code of conduct. The list is long, Mr. Chair, and I can see you looking at me to say that you will not allow me to read the list so I will not.

I want to assure the hon. member that entering into this agreement in no way will impair either our ability or our determination to press for multilateral means of controls of weapons of mass destruction, be they chemical, biological or nuclear.

That is the core of Canada's foreign policy, Mr. Chair and hon. members, and we will continue it. It is an equally important part--if not a more important part--as this one measure we are talking about tonight.

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I am sure the Minister of National Defence will have an opportunity to address the letter, but let us not exaggerate. The hon. member said that we have signed up, we are on board and we are already there. She sees us somehow riding around out in outer space in a capsule together. We are a long way from there. We are into discussions, so please do not exaggerate. Let us not exaggerate the position and let us not exaggerate the dangers of where we are going.

Members of the House know that the Canadian policy about weaponization of space has been clear in our votes in the United Nations and in our speeches in Geneva. In every conceivable forum, Canada has said that we do not believe it is in the interests of the United States or any country to weaponize space, that this would be a disastrous mistake. I have said it. My predecessors have said it. We have said it at the United Nations.

In international negotiations, not everything goes into one document. The United States, contrary to the perception of the hon. member and others, and the United States Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State are perfectly capable of knowing what Canada's position is. We have stated it 100 times. We do not need to state it over again in a letter that was about another issue.

This is an issue that Canada is committed on. I assure the House that this is a red line issue for us. It is a red line issue for the government. We are committed to it and the United States knows it and has always known it. There was no need to put it in the letter. It is so clear that everybody has it. When I have talked to my colleague Colin Powell about it, he makes it very clear he understands that it is our position.

There is no need for us to have to reiterate everything in a letter. It is there. It is Canadian government policy. It always has been and it will remain so.