Alexa McDonough

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's refusal to deal with the facts leaves Canadians speculating. Canadians want some straight answers.

Fact: the U.S. has budgeted for space based interceptors. Fact: the U.S. has unveiled plans for missiles in orbit. Fact: Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic missile defence busting weapon. The facts are clear for everyone except the hawks in the government.

Given the minister's refusal to deal with the facts, can he not understand why Canadians fear that he is lying?

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence, who keeps thumbing his nose at Canadian values. Now he tells us he may approve American controlled missile bases on Canadian soil. This flies in the face of Canadian independence and Canadian values. How dare he make these commitments without permission from Canadians?

Does the Prime Minister support the defence minister's position, or did the minister clear it only with the White House?

[National Defence, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the defence minister.

One trillion dollars is the total cost for a space based weapons system according to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. If the minister has not heard of the threat of nuclear tips, he is even more out of touch than even we have feared.

If Russia's testing of hypersonic weapons and the Americans' putting weapons into orbit is not a new arms race, what in the name of heaven would the Minister of National Defence call it?

[National Defence, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the government does not intend to see space weaponized, then why will it not stand up and condemn the plans of George Bush to do exactly that?

Today's Ottawa Citizen reports that Bush's plan, and I quote, “echoes [the] former U.S. president's...Star Wars scheme”. Yesterday Russia tested a hypersonic weapon designed to penetrate missile shields. Yet when New Democrats raise these concerns, Liberals accuse us of scaremongering.

I ask the minister again: If this is not a new arms race, what is?

[National Defence, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, President Bush is weaponizing space. New evidence makes that clearer than ever. The U.S. federal budget has allocated funds for space based missile interceptors. The U.S. air force has unveiled its plans to put weapons into orbit. That means space.

The new arms race is underway and Liberals remain silent. Will the minister of defence stand in his place today and condemn George Bush's plans for weaponizing space?

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the assertion of the Minister of National Defence that the national missile defence program does not equate to the weaponization of space and that those who say so should stop saying it.

Clearly, I am not one of those who would equate national missile defence to the weaponization of space. I think that is not the view of the overwhelming majority of people who oppose the government's decision to sign on to the negotiations that are now underway.

I have said, and more important many experts have said clearly, that it is not that national missile defence equates to the weaponization of space, but that it will inevitably lead to the weaponization of space, lead to the escalation of the arms race and, in particular, lead us into some very dangerous nuclear ground.

I want to briefly quote from two references in a letter from Canada's former disarmament ambassador, the hon. Senator Doug Roche, and second from a report that comes from the Liu Institute of which one of his colleagues, the former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, has been serving as the CEO and done exhaustive work in this area.

Briefly, with reference to the views expressed by Senator Roche, he has said:

The U.S. Missile Defence Agency plans, by 2008, to test intercepting missiles in space. The Agency intends to link the ground-based system with space capabilities through a “layered system,” which will require weapons in space. It is impossible for Canada to sign on to the initial--

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member who has just spoken and who has spoken the truth in a very direct way.

In the so-called official opposition, the Conservative Party, which absolutely supports, it seems uncritically, Canada entering into the participation with the U.S. missile defence program, or among the majority of her colleagues, there have not been very many members who have had the courage to stand up and say that the minister of defence's letter to U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in fact being misrepresented.

It clearly does say that it is about entering into not just an exploration; really, it clearly states the intent to participate and that what the negotiations are about is precisely the nature of that participation. I commend the hon. member for having the courage to stand up and speak the truth as she sees it.

I want to ask two questions. I think the comments of the hon. member calling for Parliament to be fully informed are useful and important, but as the former whip of the government party, this member knows that one has a great deal of difficulty getting to the details and getting a really solid grounding in what it is we are dealing with here if it is just through parliamentary debate. That is one of the reasons why committees are very important.

Probably the member will know that in the spring the foreign affairs committee voted to hold hearings on this issue so that we could inform ourselves of details and bring experts and so on before the committee before the end of the spring session. That did not happen. The session came to an end and those hearings were not held.

I wonder if the member would agree that at the very least the vote taken at the foreign affairs committee for those hearings to be held is as relevant as it ever was, perhaps even more relevant. Would she agree that it would be an important forum as well as the parliamentary discussion that goes on here?

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Lloyd Axworthy.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to refer, as the member opposite did, to the former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy.

I am sure that the member is aware that the former minister is absolutely and totally opposed to the initiative that the government has now launched. I do not have time to quote extensively from the excellent report on “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence”, issued by the institute which he has had the privilege to head up.

First, I how can he reconcile his favourable comments about the government's leadership and acknowledge Lloyd Axworthy on the peace and disarmament issues of the past, and the fact that he is absolutely condemning what the government is doing?

Second, he invoked Russia in his comments. Could the member indicate whether he is aware that Russia is in opposition to Canada's participation in the U.S. missile defence? Could he comment on that?

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to honour your intervention but I must tell you, and I say this in all sincerity, that I do not know how one expresses the behaviour that the government is exhibiting when the facts are one thing and what the Liberals are saying about the facts is something fundamentally different, other than to call it a misrepresentation of the truth or playing fast and loose with the truth. Maybe I need some help from the Speaker in finding the right language to describe that despicable behaviour.

I am not addressing an individual member when I say that they are playing fast and loose with the truth. I am saying that the government, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the former minister of defence are all playing fast and loose with the truth when they say that this is only about a discussion around a kitchen table, for heaven's sake, about whether we might participate in something in the future, when there is a letter that shows otherwise. The letter is the proof that they are playing fast and loose with the truth.

They say that this has nothing to do with the weaponization of space but evidence has been presented to them in this debate. I do not believe for a minute that have only received this information from the NDP over the last couple of days. They must have the evidence, and if they do not, that would be the most terrifying thing of all.

What do we call that other than being less than fully truthful? Maybe the Speaker could give some guidance on how one describes what is happening here that will in fact be within the rules of Parliament of civility in debate.