Paul Szabo

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his first speech. I know this is a productive House that we are working in.

I want to make the general comment that continued cruise missile testing in Canada will contribute neither to the prevention of nuclear war nor to the further limitation of nuclear arsenals. Those were the reasons why this agreement was renewed in February 1993 by the previous government. In fact, this continued testing will instead serve only to undermine Canada's nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Under our present policy for nuclear proliferation, the Canadian government supports negative security assurances which means that we have international commitments not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

On December 16, 1993 this government, of which I am a member, reaffirmed its support for negative security assurances when it voted to support the UN General Assembly resolution 4873.

Would the member care to consider whether or not this agreement, which in fact is a 10-year agreement and requires 12 months notice to cancel, should continue to be supported given the developments over the last few years? Ten years seems to be an inordinate amount of time for this government to have an agreement. Would the member consider amending this agreement or shortening its terms by direction of this House now?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read for the hon. member for Beaver River an argument the defence minister of the day made in April 1993 in a letter to Project Ploughshares. As an extract it states:

If collective security is to work. . ..the international community must have effective. . ..military means at its disposal in order to dissuade potential aggressors and, should the use of force be necessary, to ensure that it is effective and that the risks to allied military personnel are minimal. Over the past three years, our support for collective security has taken Canadian forces personnel into harm's way. It is likely that they will continue to be deployed in dangerous situations which cannot always be predicted in advance and, due to the spread of sophisticated weaponry, our personnel will continue to be at risk as they try to prevent war or restore peace to unstable parts of the world-.Given these circumstances, the renewal of the Canada-United States Test and Evaluation Agreement serves Canadian interests. Cruise missile testing, part of our long-standing tradition of defence co-operation with the United States, is a contribution that Canada can make towards ensuring that the international community has at its disposal the military means to support collective security. Testing in Canada provides a unique set of conditions and will help to ensure that these weapons are effective and reliable.

I suggest to the member that this is an extraordinary statement which clearly implied that the Canadian government was willing to envisage the possible use or at least the threat of use of nuclear weapons against states that in most cases do not even possess nuclear weapons. This would be a blatant contradiction of Canada's official nuclear non-proliferation policy which includes support for negative security assurances, that is, international commitments not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

I wonder if the member for Beaver River would care to comment on that position.