Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Halifax.
It is with some reservation that I speak in the debate tonight. I firmly believe this debate is not in keeping with our democratic traditions and is, therefore, unparliamentary. I want to explain why.
First, this is a debate on a motion that cannot be amended, what the Conservatives are now calling an “up or down vote”. This terminology cannot be found in any of the procedural texts of our Parliament. This is terminology that emerged in the U.S., particularly with regard to the appointment of judges.
It is an ancient right of Parliament to debate as it sees fit and to amend the motions before it. The Conservatives would only allow the House to consider this motion to hold this debate if we waived that right.
A second unparliamentary aspect of this debate is that it is limited by time and not, as is traditional, by the full and complete expression of parliamentary views. It is a longstanding, fundamental parliamentary principle that a question is not put to a vote in the House until the debate on that issue is over.
The Conservatives have essentially invoked closure over this debate before it even started. I ask, why? Why limit debate? What is it about debate that so terrifies the government?
Stanley Knowles, the NDP House leader for the better part of a half century and a distinguished member of Parliament from Winnipeg, said:
Debate is not a sin, a mistake, an error or something to be put up with in Parliament. Debate is the essence of Parliament.
We learned last week from the U.S. Department of State, from a foreign government, that the Conservative Minister of National Defence signed a treaty in secret. The secret treaty was tabled only two days ago in the House. It has not been distributed to the public at large, no citizen consultation and no parliamentary hearings. It is likely that many of the people who voted for the Conservatives on January 23 saw that party's commitment to parliamentary review of treaties as a genuine attempt to engage Parliament and citizens in foreign and defence policy. This hollow exercise tonight, with no opportunity for an amendment, is not a genuine attempt to do those things.
When we scrutinize this treaty we see a sellout of our country. This secret treaty allows for the instantaneous sharing of maritime surveillance information with the U.S., including surveillance over internal waterways, such as the Great Lakes and the Northwest Passage.
A constituent of mine, Derek Wilson of Port Moody, British Columbia, wrote to me on Monday. He said:
I would suggest that the primary reason for including maritime surveillance, from the point of view of the United States, is to have a justification for their military and “support” ships to ply Canada's Northwest Passage without the need to obtain Canadian authorization.
He went on to say:
At some time in the future if there was a Canadian public protest about American vessels transiting the Northwest Passage, as there undoubtedly would be, the American response will simply be, “You guys gave us blanket approval in the perpetual Norad agreement in 2006”.
During and immediately after the last election, the Conservatives made a great deal out of their commitment to Canadian sovereignty in the Northwest Passage. Why, if they have been negotiating to share maritime surveillance concerning the Northwest Passage with the United States, did they not seize the opportunity to secure, in return, U.S. recognition of Canada's sovereignty claim?
Another equally disturbing section of the treaty states, “--arrangements shall be maintained to ensure effective sharing between the Parties, of information and intelligence relevant to the NORAD missions”.
Considering that other provisions of the secret treaty already cover all aerospace and water in North America, what missions are being alluded to here? Is there any intelligence that will not be shared with the U.S.?
The present administration in Washington has recently been caught illegally spying on its own citizens. How does this bode for the honest and sensitive treatment of any information about Canadians transmitted to the U.S.?
This secret treaty also allows for the instantaneous transmission of surveillance information to the U.S. for the purposes of ballistic missile defence. I know there are some members who will doubt this but allow me to quote from the document itself. It states:
NORAD's aerospace warning mission for North American shall include aerospace warning...in support of United States national commands responsible for missile defense.
The NDP opposes Canadian participation in U.S. missile defence and the use of Norad assets for missile defence is but one small step away from Canadian participation. It is clear that the Conservatives, by signing this treaty, are joining their Liberal predecessors in inching slowly but surely toward signing Canada up to U.S. missile defence.
This is just the beginning. The recent report of the Bi-national Planning Group, which actually deserves a debate all on its own, spells out where the American-Canadian defence establishments see us going. The Bi-national Planning Group proposes a wholesale merger of the Canadian and U.S. militaries with joint commands and shared operational control.
The bi-national planning group states in its report that integration must be achieved in an incremental way because of the “small but vocal minority” of Canadians who are worried about losing our sovereignty. The bi-national planning group even recommends much closer cooperation in both security and foreign policy. I am not making this up. The report states:
--Canada and the United States must continue to act as partners; indeed, that the partnership must be expanded, to shape the future of North American defense and security, using all of the instruments of diplomatic, economic, informational and military power.
The treaty before us tonight takes us on to the slippery slope of full continental integration. It deserves to be studied very carefully in committees before being voted on in the House. For this reason, the NDP makes the following proposal. Instead of closing down the debate prematurely and rushing to a vote, why not simply conclude a 12 month extension of the existing unmodified Norad agreement and then refer the proposed new treaty to the standing committees on foreign affairs and defence? To do otherwise would be unparliamentary. To do otherwise would risk compromising Canadian sovereignty and independence.
Canadians need to take note of this debate and of our respective opinions in the House. They need to ask themselves who in fact is standing up for Canada.
