CONTENTS
Wednesday, January 26, 1994
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 379
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 381
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 381
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 381
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 382
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 382
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 383
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 383
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 383
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 384
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 384
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 384
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 384
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 384
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 384
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 384
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 385
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 385
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 385
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 385
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 387
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 387
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 388
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 390
Bill C-4. Motions for introduction and first reading deemedadopted 391
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 392
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 401
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 439
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 445
379
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, January 26, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to a distinguished Newfoundlander, G.
Campbell Eaton. Mr. Eaton passed away yesterday in St. John's.
He served with distinction in the 166th Newfoundland Field
Regiment Royal Artillery during the Second World War and
received the Military Cross for conspicuous bravery, coolness
and outstanding conduct under fire during action in Italy. After
the war, Mr. Eaton served as commanding officer of the
regiment and later was honorary colonel of the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment.
He was a prominent and respected business executive and an
energetic and devoted leader in community life in our province,
particularly in the fields of health, housing and education. He
was made Doctor of Laws by Memorial University, and as well
in recognition of his outstanding and distinguished service he
was installed as an officer of the Order of Canada in 1978.
I would describe Cam Eaton as a gentleman in every sense of
the word. He was a man who stood above the crowd with a quiet
dignity formed by wisdom and sound judgment. He was a rare
man and therefore leaves a void not easily filled.
I offer his widow, Betty, and his family deepest sympathy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker,
opposition to the distribution and sales of the serial killer board
game has become widespread across this country.
Parents and grandparents are asking to have this game, which
is manufactured in Seattle, banned from the Canadian market.
The game contains a body bag, 25 babies and four figures
representing the killers. The player who kills the largest number
of babies wins.
The council of commissioners of the Châteauguay School
Board, in the riding of Châteauguay, recently passed a
resolution to condemn products like these where the purpose is
to commit murders.
These products, which promote violence as a way of life,
should be banned at all costs. The federal government must act
to get rid of these products.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate
you on your election to the chair.
I would also like to inform the House that presently there are
over 500 interprovincial trade barriers which cost Canadians
over $6.5 billion annually. These barriers make it easier to trade
with Mexico and the United States than within our own borders.
Creating a single economic market in Canada would help
counter the nation's current regional drift and would allow
Canadians to work where they choose.
The federal and provincial governments signed an agreement
last week for the removal of many of the 500 barriers. This is
extremely encouraging.
The Reform Party caucus is supportive of these efforts and
applauds the provincial and federal governments for providing a
clear definition of interprovincial trade barriers. As well the
commitment of these governments to the June 30, 1994 time line
is most commendable.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to encourage members of the House to play a major role in
the reform of Canada's social security system.
380
The speech from the throne set out the government's
ambitious two-year schedule to complete the modernization of
our national social security system and to make it more
responsive to the economic and social realities of the 1990s and
beyond.
Our system was first put in place decades ago. It has served us
well but times have changed. Canadians will not accept and we
must not accept double digit levels of unemployment, signs of a
lost generation of youth and rising levels of child poverty.
Canadians realize that reforms are necessary. They also want
hope for a better future for themselves and their children.
I have already heard many excellent ideas from my
constituents and I hope others will come forward. I know the
minister has been consulting widely with provincial
representatives, social policy organizations, business and
labour representatives, academics and Canadians from all walks
of life.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
on September 13, 1993 a declaration in principle on interim
self-government between the Palestinian Liberation
Organization and the state of Israel was signed. It marked an
historic moment for both politics and the people of the Middle
East. It ushered in a new sense of hope to a region of the world
where bloodshed and despair continue to dominate the lives of
so many people.
The agreement was the direct result of efforts made by two
courageous individuals. They managed to overcome
insurmountable pressures from those groups that continued to
choose violence instead of peace.
Today I wish to inform my hon. colleagues that on January 20,
1994 I submitted a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize
Committee nominating both Mr. Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister
of Israel, and Mr. Yasser Arafat, PLO Chairman, for the 1994
Nobel Peace Prize.
As Canadians we must continue to play a leading role in
seeking peace and promoting peace. In so doing we advance the
efforts of men such as the late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.
* * *
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to join hon. members and all Canadians in marking
International Customs Day. As hon. members know our more
than 5,000 Revenue Canada customs officers are the first people
that visitors to our country and returning Canadians meet.
(1410)
This is the International Year of the Family. Revenue Canada
customs officers help reunite families by locating and returning
to parents or lawful guardians missing or abducted children.
They went above and beyond the call of duty all the while doing
their jobs inspecting commercial shipments, processing more
than 122 million travellers and seizing more than $1.3 billion
worth of illegal drugs last year.
I assure all members of the House and all Canadians that the
government is committed to maintaining and strengthening all
components of national revenue so it may be more responsive to
the needs of Canadians.
I call on all hon. members to join me in saluting our customs
officers on this 41st anniversary of International Customs Day.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, the
sport of curling is enjoyed by approximately 800,000 Canadians
and one-third of these Canadians are women.
I am very proud to announce that this weekend the Manitoba
Women's Scott Tournament of Hearts will be played in my home
town of Verdun, Manitoba. Of the 16 teams registered 7 of the
competing skips are former Manitoba provincial women's
champions and among them they hold 16 provincial, 3 Canadian
and 3 world titles.
There is no reason to doubt that this year's lead up
competitions to the Canadian crown and to the world cup
championships could be one of the finest ever.
I wish all 16 participating teams good luck and to the Verdun
organizing committee a full house.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to suggest that the House extend its
congratulations the Videotron Limited Group and five of its
partners who joined forces to develop and establish a
multimedia transaction network that will offer consumers direct
access to a wide range of services, 24 hours a day, from the
comfort of their own homes.
The project is known as UBI, which stands for Universal,
Bi-directional and Interactive. The consortium includes the
National Bank of Canada, Hydro-Québec, Loto Québec, Canada
Post Corporation and Videoway's classified ads services. The
consortium will offer a variety of goods and services that are
typical of the potential of an electronic information highway.
381
The services offered by UBI will be transmitted directly to the
homes of users via existing cable systems and a multimedia
terminal.
The new services, which will be carried by the Videotron
cable network, will be made available for the first time in the
Saguenay area.
All parliamentarians are aware of the important contribution
being made through this project.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, as many of my
fellow members know, Canada has the great honour of hosting
the leaders of the Group of Seven industrialized nations for a
summit in 1995.
It has come to my attention that the exact location in Canada
for the G-7 meeting has not as yet been chosen. As the site
selection process is scheduled to get under way shortly, Premier
Ralph Klein of Alberta and I would like to recommend the
Calgary-Banff-Canmore area as an excellent choice for the
summit. This region has gained international recognition in
hosting the 1988 Winter Olympics.
Alberta can also provide a vibrant backdrop to the meeting.
On September 1, 1995 Alberta will celebrate its 90th
anniversary as a partner in Confederation. To celebrate this
celebration with the prestige of an international summit could
only serve to highlight the country's strength. I encourage the
Prime Minister to accept the invitation of Albertans.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): Mr. Speaker, an issue I
wish to highlight is research and development. In my riding we
have an industrial research park, the University of Western
Ontario and University Hospital.
Long-term economic growth cannot be founded only upon the
exploitation of natural resources. The competitiveness of our
nation in today's global economy is influenced by its capability
to develop and apply new technology. This requires long-term
stable investment in R and D and strategic knowledge based
sectors.
Over the past decade spending on R and D in Canada as
percentage of gross domestic product was less than nearly all
other G-7 countries.
I encourage members of the House to support R and D
initiatives which will enable industry to compete effectively and
ensure future employment for Canadians.
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, hon. members
will remember that, yesterday, we talked several times about
cigarette smuggling in Quebec and eastern Canada, particularly
in Saint-Eustache and in the Mohawk territories of Kanesatake,
Kahnewake and Akwesasne.
I would like to point out in this House that the vast majority of
the Mohawk people in these territories, as well as Mohawks
living elsewhere in Quebec, Ontario and eastern New York, are
peaceful people who are also concerned about increased
cigarette smuggling and the violence associated with it.
The problem is caused by a small number of smugglers who
take advantage of the laxness of police forces, especially the
RCMP, in the Cornwall area and the Mohawk territory of
Akwesasne.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, last
November at the Canadian finals rodeo in Edmonton, the
Canadian saddle bronc championship was won by Rod Hay.
This successful young cowboy hails from the heart of
Yellowhead country, the town of Mayerthorpe. His parents, Fred
and Sharon, were born and raised in my home town of Onoway.
The whole family is involved in rodeo. Rod's sister is a
professional trick rider and is performing in Las Vegas. His
brother, Denny, also rides saddle bronc and their father led the
way.
But what makes last fall's ride so special was that it was the
third time in four years that Rod won this prestigious title.
Watch for the world championships this fall.
May I ask all members to join me in congratulating this
outstanding young performer.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great sadness that we heard about the vicious
murder, last weekend, of the young Sarah Dutil, a girl of 11 from
my riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul.
Personally, and on behalf of my constituents and all my
colleagues in this House, I offer my deepest sympathies to Mrs.
382
Lorraine Dutil, Mr. Frank Coculuzzi and all their relatives who
must live with the consequences of such a terrible deed.
I notice with satisfaction that yesterday, when answering a
question in the House of Commons asked as a result of that
murder, the Minister of Justice said that he intends to amend the
Criminal Code to ensure that a criminal jury trial can proceed
even if the presiding judge is transferred to another court.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of all Canadians I would like to recognize this as Victorian
Order of Nurses Week.
For nearly 100 years the Victorian Order of Nurses has
provided primary health care to Canadians in the home and the
community. The Victorian Order of Nurses is a unique nursing
agency in that it is national and a registered charitable
organization.
In 1992-93 the VON's 74 branches in all provinces
contributed to improved quality of life and health for over
250,000 Canadians and their families. VON registered nurses
are specially trained for complex, technological home care,
gerontological nursing, palliative care, rehabilitation and foot
care.
VON registered nursing assistants and home support workers
are critically important to the visiting nursing teams. Over 8,700
volunteers give willingly of their time and talents to VON
services.
I am sure all members of the House would want to
congratulate the Victorian Order of Nurses for its contributions
to the health of Canadians.
The Speaker: I wonder if I might put a very small suggestion
to my colleagues.
I know I have a very difficult time when I have to read quickly.
Could hon. members, if they have the time before they make
their statements under Standing Order 31, give the standing
order statements, if they are written, to our interpreters. It might
help a bit in the interpretation. If they would consider that I
would appreciate it.
_____________________________________________
382
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. While
governments are hesitating and passing the buck on this issue,
the revolt among shopkeepers is spreading to all regions in
Quebec. In the meantime, the implicit, albeit fundamental social
contract whereby citizens agree to pay taxes to the state is
unravelling. Shaken by the size of the movement, the Prime
Minister seemed prepared for the first time yesterday to act to
fight cigarette smuggling.
(1420)
My question is this: If he truly intends to take action, could he
tell this House today exactly what concrete measures he intends
to take to improve surveillance at the borders, an area over
which the government has exclusive jurisdiction and where it
does not need to wait for the provinces.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Solicitor General stated clearly in this House that for many
weeks now, the RCMP have been under orders to carry out their
duty across Canada and ensure that all Canadians obey the law.
That is the course of action we intend to follow. There is no need
for us to issue any additional instructions at this time. If any new
problems arise, we will give them the resources they need. But
for the time being, the RCMP are under orders to enforce the
law.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that after
consulting with the provinces, he would be prepared to lower
taxes. In light of the urgency of the situation, does he really
intend to wait for Mr. Johnson to return from Europe before
proceeding? What is the government waiting for to take the
action warranted, namely issuing an immediate ministerial
statement calling for lower federal taxes on cigarettes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
everyone agrees that it would be much more effective if all
governments would co-operate.
We are presently holding discussions with several provincial
governments. The Minister of Finance broached the subject last
Friday at a meeting of finance ministers and we will try to find a
solution that will please everyone. When we are ready, we will
take action. I am very pleased to hear that the Premier of Quebec
said he would act as soon as he got back. The federal government
is examining its options and as I said, we want to act in this
matter in concert with the provincial governments.
Mr. Johnson and I have discussed this subject several times,
even at a federal-provincial meeting prior to his becoming
premier. We talked about ways of solving this problem quickly
and permanently. It is better to act cautiously and methodically
than to rush in and make a rash decision.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I understand these honourable intentions stem from a
normal reflex to exercise caution, but we are not dealing with a
normal situation. Every evening, we see on television acts of
open deliberate defiance which foster bad feelings and entice
383
other taxpayers to take similar action. The problem here is not
just tobacco taxes. It has to do with all of the other taxes.
Since it has not always been made very clear what orders that
have been or will be given to the RCMP, could the Prime
Minister tell this House clearly once and for all and give us the
assurance that he has personally instructed the RCMP to lay
charges immediately against smugglers when it has the evidence
to do so?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): It is not up to
me to tell the RCMP what its job is. This police force has earned
an international reputation and when it has compiled valid
evidence, it takes quick action, as it must. I do not think the
Solicitor General needs to tell RCMP officers how to do their
job. They already know how to do it.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, since the
beginning of the week, the Official Opposition has been
questioning the government about the very serious events that
took place in Kanesatake last Friday.
The minister of defence answered that the matter was under
investigation by the Sûreté du Québec but, as we later found out,
this was incorrect. The Prime Minister trivialized the incident,
saying there were no bullet holes found in the helicopter. He
mentioned the use of a slingshot, as you probably remember. At
the same time, we are receiving very serious information from
reliable sources and we are concerned because it looks like the
government wants to keep the whole thing quiet.
(1425)
My question is for the Prime Minister. Now that five days
have gone by since the events took place, can he tell us whether
or not bullet holes were found on the CC-130 Hercules No.
130310 which took part in the operation over Kanesatake?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in
direct response to the hon. member, there are no bullet holes in
either the Labrador helicopter or the Hercules that were
involved in this incident.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, would the
Prime Minister agree to table in this House the journey log book
as well as the trip reports of the aircraft involved in the operation
over Kanesatake?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member should know that that kind of information is not
routinely available publicly.
I want to clarify one thing that was raised yesterday about the
involvement of the Sûreté du Quebec. They were involved last
Friday with search and rescue after the electronic emission
occurred.
Our people landed, conducted a search and determined there
was not an aircraft downed in the area. Just before they were
about to leave they were approached by the individual-I have
stated this in the House-who alleged that shots may have been
fired. They left because they did not want a confrontation and
were reasonably assured there was no downed aircraft in the
area. The Sûreté is not involved today but they were involved
last Friday.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
A memorandum to the Prime Minister from the Secretary to
the Cabinet obtained yesterday by the media refers to a serious
divergence of views among government ministers with respect
to the federal role in the national infrastructure program.
This memo reports that the minister responsible for
infrastructure favours a co-operative program where provinces
and municipalities would meet federal criteria, but the Minister
of Human Resources Development is said to favour much more
direct federal and ministerial control over the projects.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House how this power
struggle has been resolved and what he is doing to safeguard the
national infrastructure program from degenerating into the
pork-barrel politics of the past?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the memo was received. I read it and the problem was resolved.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): A
supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
That is hardly an adequate answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: Maybe I can be more specific. Will federal
ministers in each province have a veto over proposed
infrastructure projects in that province, even if the project has
nothing to do with their portfolios and is approved and
recommended by the provincial and municipal authorities in
that province?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the decisions are made by the minister responsible, the President
of the Treasury Board. He is receiving representations; he is
listening to ministers; he is listening to members of Parliament.
But he makes the final decision.
384
He receives representations from everybody, but he is the one
responsible because I am the Prime Minister and asked him to do
it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
that is an interesting reply from the Prime Minister, but my
question is a very simple and direct one. Perhaps you could try
again. I just asked, does the minister-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. With all respect I would ask the
questioner to please put the questions through the Chair.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, my question is just to get
clarification from the Prime Minister.
Do the ministers in each province have a veto, yes or no, on
these infrastructure projects recommended by municipal-the
answer is no.
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is n-o, no.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance has so far refused to respond to the
questions I asked him in this House about his intentions. But he
does not hesitate to make statements outside Parliament; in
particular, he said that Quebecers and Canadians told him
yesterday that they were willing to pay more taxes.
My question is for the Minister of Finance: Did Quebecers
and Canadians also tell him that they were fed up with unfair
taxes and expected him to eliminate the family trust system and
tax loopholes benefiting the very rich?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development - Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may
be referring to yesterday's conference. Canadians made it very
clear to us that they wanted to examine the whole tax base and
loophole issue and that they wanted jobs, as we said in our red
book.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
out of respect for this House, for the neediest of Quebecers and
Canadians and for middle-income earners crippled by federal
taxes, can the Minister of Finance make a commitment here in
this House to give all these people a break and tackle the real
problems, namely the tax shelters benefitting the very rich? That
is the real scandal of Canadian taxation.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, since these conferences started, we
have been talking about dealing with these tax loopholes. I do
not know where he is coming from- No, I know exactly where
he is coming from. We have said very clearly that we intend to
make the tax system more equitable than it is now, by
eliminating tax loopholes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
It was reported in the Gazette on January 22, 1994 that a
government member for Newfoundland had approached the
minister to ask him to change the Income Tax Act in order to
have the Governor General pay income tax.
I have received a number of angry phone calls in North
Vancouver concerning this report, in particular one from Mrs.
Elinor Ryan who was shocked that not only did the Governor
General not pay income tax but he could possibly be eligible for
a GST rebate cheque since he has no taxable income.
I would like to ask the minister what steps he is taking to
encourage the Governor General to pay income tax?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the salary of
the Governor General is set taking into account the fact that he
does not pay income tax. There is no net loss to fisc.
I would tell the hon. member that I have not discussed this
with the Governor General. I have not seen him since I was
sworn in and I did not think that the time was particularly
propitious at that moment.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I can
understand the minister's reticence in approaching this matter.
Last year, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth began voluntarily
paying income taxes. It does seem quite contradictory that the
Queen is paying income taxes and her representative in Canada
is not doing so.
Will the minister approach the Governor General with a view
to his voluntarily paying income taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues have suggested
that we look at the relative incomes of the Queen and the
Governor General.
I take the member's question as a representation and I assure
him that the next time I see the Governor General, which I
suspect may not be for a long time, I will bring this up.
385
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, in the
absence of the minister of Indian affairs, I will direct my
question to the Prime Minister. The Quebec Minister
responsible for Native Affairs, Mr. Christos Sirros, said two
days ago that native self-government could be achieved by
administrative agreement, that is, with no constitutional
amendment.
I would therefore ask the Prime Minister if he still shares the
Quebec minister's opinion that native self-government can be
recognized through administrative agreements alone.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
what I said in the House last week was that we can do it without
amending the Constitution. It is evident that Mr. Sirros has come
to the same conclusion.
[Translation]
It is a recommendation that was made by the commission of
inquiry on native rights chaired by two people, a judge from
Quebec and Mr. Erasmus, who said that we could achieve the
same goals without changing the Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister was at one time minister of Indian affairs. Does he not
agree that establishing native self-government on a sound
foundation requires amending the Constitution, as the chief of
the First Nations, Mr. Ovide Mercredi, maintains and asserts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think that there is a mood at this time to hold
constitutional conferences on any subject whatsoever. I think
that it would be very prudent to have a system of Indian
self-government; after several years, we would know exactly
how it operates and that it is working well. If we had to entrench
it in the Constitution at that time, we could do so.
It may be more prudent to act that way than to amend the
Constitution without knowing exactly all the long-term
consequences.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development and was
inspired by Mr. Bryan Dale of Willowdale, Ontario.
In Tuesday's Globe and Mail, the minister is reported as
saying that: ``an 18-year old dropout has as much right under the
rules of fairness to get access to a good secure job over time as
does the Queen's University economist who is working for a
stock firm''.
Will the minister agree that promising a job irrespective of
training is the wrong message to send to teenage students who
are considering dropping out of school?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the
idea that offering that kind of job opportunity without training is
not the proper way to approach it.
That is exactly the reason the government is committed to a
major apprenticeship program, a major youth service program, a
major revision and restructuring of our employment, training,
social assistance programs so we can get to all young people
regardless of their status in life real hope for the future. That was
the intent of my statement, to make sure everybody in this
society is treated and equally. That is the Liberal way of doing
things.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, as an instructor in a
technical institute for many years, I too value the concept of
fairness for students of all ability levels.
I would like to ask the minister how he proposes to ensure that
there is an incentive for 18-year old dropouts to return to school
and upgrade their skills and thereby assure that fairness?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I certainly look forward to
drawing on the hon. member's experience in the educational
field.
It will be very important as this Parliament addresses the
fundamental question of redesigning our training and
educational programs to eliminate the disincentives, the
problems and the barriers which now exist in many of our
income security programs. These barriers provide disincentives
to young people to get back into the work force and to get into
training programs.
I look forward to that member's and to all members'
participation so we can pool our best judgment and those of our
constituents to make sure that the many young people who are
denied opportunities now will have something to hope for in the
months ahead.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week, my
colleague, the hon. member for Lévis, alerted this House to the
catastrophic impact that the closing of
386
the MIL Davie shipyard would have for the whole region of
Quebec City. Some 10,000 direct and indirect jobs are at stake.
(1440)
The business plan calls for a reconversion from military
contracts to civilian contracts provides, among other things, the
awarding of the contract to build the ferry for the Magdalen
Islands.
This plan received the support of all the business stakeholders
in the Quebec City region, as well as of all the Liberal
candidates of Quebec City during the last election campaign,
including that of Mr. Jean Pelletier, the defeated candidate in the
riding of Québec and the current chief of staff of the Prime
Minister.
Therefore, I would like to know when and how the Minister of
Transport will fulfil the promises made by the Liberal Party,
which claims to support the business plan developed by MIL
Davie.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the issue of the Lucy Maud Montgomery, which concerns my
department, has been pending for a very long time. Of course,
the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that since he was a
minister under the Conservative government when the Lucy
Maud Montgomery was to be replaced.
As for us, our responsibility is very clear. The Lucy Maud
Montgomery will have to be replaced, either through buying a
ship built at the MIL Davie shipyard or elsewhere, renting one,
restoring the Lucy Maud Montgomery, or buying another ship
overseas. My department is currently reviewing all these
options.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, how can the
Minister of Transport still try to delay the review of this
important issue after just stating in answer to the previous
question that the federal government has been studying the
matter for two years already and that the Liberal government has
made a commitment to create jobs, while at the same time
shipyard workers in Lévis are very concerned about the
impending closure of their shipyard which should happen in a
few months, given the fact that preparations have to be made
before construction of the ferry gets under way. Given all those
facts, how can the minister explain why it is taking so much time
to reach a decision?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
it is of course very difficult to explain any delay in making a
decision. It is true that we have only been in power now for two
months and a half. The leader of the opposition was sitting on
this side of the House for several years, yet no decision was
taken.
I can assure the hon. member that the decision will be made
soon.
[English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
As the minister is no doubt aware many Canadians are
employed by companies that are operating subject to
undertakings given to Investment Canada.
The investment review division of Industry Canada is now
responsible for ensuring adherence to all undertakings filed
when Canadian companies are acquired.
What action will the government take to enforce compliance
with written undertakings given to Investment Canada?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member rightly points out that when investment proposals
are reviewed, very frequently undertakings or assurances in
writing are sought from the firms entering Canada usually with
respect to reinvestment, business employment levels,
performance of research and development, and so on.
The procedure followed is that usually about 18 months to two
years after the investment is completed, Investment Canada
officials meet with the company concerned and review the
performance of the undertakings.
Where there is non-compliance for reasons which may be
beyond the control of the company, efforts are made to redirect
and refocus the undertakings and assurances. Where these are in
turn not lived up to, remedies are available to Investment
Canada under the Investment Canada Act to discipline the
companies involved.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
During the election campaign this government promised to
reduce the annual deficit to 3 per cent of GDP within three years.
This promise was reiterated by the Minister of Finance in
December.
Last week on the first vote of the 35th Parliament each and
every government member voted against the motion to limit
spending.
Why should the people of Canada believe this government is
serious about deficit reduction and its own three-year goal when
it refuses to take the first step to reduce spending by just 6 per
cent this year?
The Speaker: The hon. minister can answer the question if he
wishes, but it calls into question all of the members.
387
(1445)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question.
We are going to hit our target through a combination of
growth, cutting unnecessary spending and building more equity
into the tax system. I can tell you that we are not and no one is
going to hit that kind of a target with the kind of savagery the
member has advocated.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question. In recent weeks the chartered banks
have not matched the decreases in the bank rate with similar
decreases in their prime lending rates. The banks say they are
reluctant to do so because of this government's lack of
commitment to specific deficit reduction targets.
Will the minister clearly state his deficit reduction targets for
1994-95 to help alleviate this problem?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, first of all this government has definite
deficit reduction targets. Second, the banks did not say that.
Third, what the banks said is that they were waiting to see what
was going to happen in the United States. Fourth, the differential
between the bank rate and the prime rate today is not by
historical standards out of line. Fifth, the fact is that as a result
of what this government has done the Bank of Canada is now
leading the trend down, not the federal banks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Monday we heard that construction on Canada's new embassy
in China will have cost taxpayers more than $78 million, twice
the amount initially budgeted 15 years ago.
Small luxuries for embassy staff include a swimming pool and
gymnasium at a cost of one million dollars, and a garden with
imported maples which cost five million dollars. The interior
decorating bill alone for this sumptuous embassy will total
nearly one million dollars.
In the light of current budgetary restrictions, at a time when
the government is about to make cuts in programs designed for
the neediest in our society, how can the Minister of Foreign
Affairs justify this kind of spending?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I must say I agree with the hon. member who asked the
question. I think some very serious mistakes were made when
this project was carried out. Unfortunately, there are now a lot of
people who want to be ambassador, just to be in this magnificent
building that was put there by the previous administration.
I have asked my officials to ensure that further construction or
repairs to government property abroad meet very specific
criteria, and that there be no cost overruns.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, the minister may recall that the decision to build the
embassy was made 15 years ago, under the Liberal government.
And am I to understand from the minister's answer that he is
formally committed to preventing future occurrences?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): The
answer is quite simply, yes, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday the minister admitted spending $172,920 of
taxpayers' money to deliver a speech at Harvard University. The
amount of $172,920 is approximately three to four times the
average annual family income in this country.
While I am new to this House I must admit that I have never
heard such a valuable speech. I was wondering if the minister
would be willing to redeliver this extraordinary speech for me
and my hon. colleagues.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
that was the cost of the trip.
(1450 )
However, I think we have to clarify something to be just
toward everybody. These planes have been there for a long time.
We are trying to spread the capital costs on every trip. The cost
was to go there and come back. When the plane is in the hangar
not being used the capital cost is there anyway.
It is just as if somebody were to get up in this House today and
say that the value of this building is more than a billion dollars
and that we have to spread the capital cost among every member
of Parliament. If that were the case, for the hon. member who
just got up in this House, it is costing us $3 million.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, obviously
we are not going to be able to hear this valuable speech which I
was wondering whether we would be able to.
Would the Prime Minister be willing to set a direction for his
cabinet ministers to stop such reckless spending when it is not
necessary?
388
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
of course we have given very strict instructions not to abuse the
utilization of these planes. But they are there for the service of
ministers and the government.
That was the case for me for example. I needed a little holiday
and wanted to travel on a commercial flight. I was told that for
security reasons I had to take a government plane. The headlines
in Le Nouvelliste were that I had spent half a million dollars to
go on holiday. That is very unfair because it is not true. If the
plane had been in Ottawa it would have cost exactly the same
amount of money.
We have to tell the truth to the Canadian people. When you
extrapolate like what has been done with the Auditor General's
report you come to that crazy type of opinion that for example
the cost to go to Vancouver is half a million dollars and you can
do it with a rented plane for $20,000. Something is not working
there.
The hon. member rather than use that type of extravagant
figure should be more realistic and look at the real cost of
travelling.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The standing committee of the Senate on fisheries and the
Fisheries Resource Conservation Council have both
recommended that with regard to the Atlantic inshore fishery
there is a need for more information on harvesting practices and
gear selectivity.
I would like to ask the minister what steps are being taken by
his department to respond to these recommendations.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent question.
In light of the survey results released in the last few days
showing a further decline in Atlantic cod stock biomass this
information which the member is seeking is indeed critical.
With respect to gathering more information about the
appropriate use of gear to conserve our cod stocks, I in
conjunction with the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced a pilot project just before Christmas.
We have hired and we have trained a number of fishermen
who have been displaced from the fishery, who are currently
carrying out a survey of their peers. Initially the pilot project, up
to 70 of them, was to call upon the experience and knowledge of
the fishermen themselves about gear, gear selectivity, and their
experience in the Atlantic.
That pilot project is now being assessed. In the middle of
February the Minister of Human Resources Development and I
will meet and assess it fully. If the process seems worthwhile,
and at this point it does, we may expand it beyond southwest
Nova Scotia and Cape Breton and look at further projects in New
Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, the province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We think it is time to draw upon the knowledge, the
experience, and the data base of the fishermen themselves in
making these kinds of conservation decisions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
During the last election campaign, the Liberals, under the
leadership of the present Prime Minister, committed themselves
to investing an extra billion dollars into research and
development over the next four years.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance repeated over
and over again that the future prosperity of Canada depended on
substantial investments in research and development. My
question is for the Minister of Industry. Can the Minister give us
his word that the government will effectively commit an extra
billion dollars to research and development?
(1455)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased that the hon. member would show such an
interest in research and development, as well as science, in
Canada. I can assure him, and the speech from the throne
confirmed it, that we do intend to set up a Canada Investment
Fund, as well as research networks and other means to stimulate
research in Canada.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did not answer my question, but I will
nevertheless remain his friend. I would like to ask him a
supplementary question. Will the minister make sure that there
is an equitable distribution of these funds between all regions of
Canada in order to correct past inequities, Quebec for example
receiving only 18 per cent of available funds while Ontario was
getting more than half?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
would assure the hon. member that when it comes to looking at
the application of funds that are made available for research and
development for science and technology in Canada, we will do
our best to ensure that every dollar of taxpayers' money is
applied so as to give the best possible results, both for the
389
science involved as well as to encourage the development of an
innovative economic base in all regions of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
It was reported in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday and again
today that the Department of National Defence has a staff of
over 100 military people to administer the household moves of
its personnel, yet the department pays more for its moves than
do private corporations. Furthermore, private companies exist
which say they can provide this administrative service at no cost
to the government and that the government would save 10 per
cent to 25 per cent on rates over those currently being paid.
What is the minister doing to investigate these cost-saving
opportunities at a time of deficit reduction?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): My colleague
from Cambridge posed this very same question last Friday and I
gave a pretty detailed answer. Perhaps the hon. member was not
here.
I do have some concerns that we are not getting the best deal. I
have asked my officials to make sure that the concerns of the
hon. member who just asked the question and my colleague from
Cambridge are addressed very soon.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): I would like to ask a
supplementary question of the minister. Would he at least give
the reassurance that he would reinstate the pilot project that
looked into cost savings which was set up in the last days of the
last administration?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): First of all, my
colleague is from Waterloo. I hope I did not upset my colleague
from Cambridge, who may disagree.
The pilot project the hon. member refers to was one-and I
addressed this last Friday-that was established by three
ministers of the previous Conservative government without
authorization. One of the first things we did when we took over
was cancel the pilot project.
I am not opposed to looking into the matter to try and get some
resolution to the situation to get the cheapest price possible
because the federal government does move, I believe, and is
responsible for 35 per cent of all moves in Canada. Therefore we
are talking about big business, more than $100 million.
We will certainly look into it, but the way it was done by the
previous government was totally unacceptable. As I said last
Friday we do not do business that way.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Human rights
are still being violated in El Salvador, in spite of the 1992 peace
agreements. Even the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada
recognized it on December 17 last when he talked about the
re-emergence of political violence in El Salvador. In spite of the
prevailing alarming situation, the Immigration and Refugee
Board rejected the request for asylum of about 50 Salvadoran
individuals who now face expulsion from Canada. My question
is this: Does the minister intend to do something about these
expulsion decisions which could endanger the lives of these
Salvadoran refugees if they were forced to go back to their
country?
(1500)
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
for his question and to congratulate him on having been chosen
by his party to be critic for citizenship and immigration.
[English]
In regard to the 30 or 50 individuals from El Salvador, I
should mention a fact that he knows and appreciates I am sure,
the privacy laws prevent me from going into the specific details.
These individuals went through a refugee board
determination hearing, had full appeal to the Federal Court,
have had reviews conducted. They wrote my office seeking a
meeting and officials in my department are currently in the
process of meeting with these individuals in Montreal-they
just provided us with the names a few days ago-in order to
receive the proposal they wish to make to us.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): I would like to ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Why has government suspended all deportations of Chinese,
Haitian and Somali nationals and why will they not commit to
doing the same for Salvadorans?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, concerning El Salvador, it is the
immigration refugee board that has the full right to make a
determination on who is not and who is a refugee. It is true that
individuals from the Republic of China and Iraq are not
returned.
390
We have information, from external affairs, from our mission
in El Salvador and from the UNHCR, the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, that individuals are being returned
to El Salvador.
Yes, there has been increased sporadic violence in the lead-up
to the March elections. Our officials are monitoring the
situation. If the situation deteriorates to the point that we
believe it is unfair, unhelpful and dangerous to return those
individuals to that country we will not fear on this side to make
that determination.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
It is reported that the justice department has ordered Canada
Customs to allow counterfeit documents found entering Canada
through the mail, including phony Canadian passports, to be
sent on to their destination. The reason given for this is that the
seizure of fake documents found during routine searches might
be violating the protection against unreasonable search or
seizure contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is
an outrageous use of the charter.
Will the minister explain to this House today what must be
done to authorize Canada Customs to seize phony documents
entering Canada and vigorously pursue the prosecution of those
responsible?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, not only have we also read the
same article but the officials of my department as well as the
department of revenue have been seized with an opinion from
the justice department, which we respect, concerning the letter
of the law.
Let me say quite clearly that despite the fact that we respect
the law, the impact of the circumstances is clearly unacceptable
to me and to my officials. I will seek, hopefully with the
co-operation of his party as well, among the officials of justice,
revenue and immigration at the earliest possible moment
amendments to both the customs and immigration acts so we can
protect Canadian borders to the fullest. In the meantime we will
work within the law to ensure that protection.
I might add to my answer to the member's question that any
one individual caught crossing the border with fraudulent
documentation, be it visa or passport, certainly is apprehended
and charged.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the minister of housing.
Would the minister please expand on the government's
promise, as outlined in the speech from the throne, to reinstate
the important program, the residential rehabilitation assistance
program?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to thank
and congratulate my colleague from Fundy-Royal on his first
question.
The RRAP program is comprised of three different elements:
the home owner program; the disabled; and the emergency
repair. The throne speech has confirmed once again another
commitment made by the Prime Minister during the election
campaign which is to provide $100 million over two years for
the RRAP. This will provide assistance to low income Canadians
in order to make repairs to their homes. It will also provide much
needed employment.
(1505)
The start up of the program will commence on the date of the
tabling of the throne speech, namely January 18.
_____________________________________________
390
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I
have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association to the European Bank for reconstruction and
development; the preparatory meeting with the Council of
Europe's Economic Affairs Committee for the annual OECD
debate by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and
the European Parliament held in London, Paris and Brussels
from June 23 to July 2, 1993.
I also have the honour to present to the House, in both official
languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary
Association to the European Bank for Reconstruction,
Development and the Council of Europe's OECD debate held in
London and Strasbourg from September 22 to October 2, 1993.
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House
the first report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary
Association concerning the North Atlantic Assembly spring
session which was held in Berlin May 20 to 24, 1993, and the
second report concerning the North Atlantic Assembly annual
session which was held in Copenhagen, Denmark, October 7 to
12, 1993.
391
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-4, an
act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition indicating that seniors' pensions do not reflect their true
needs. The cost of living index does not reflect their financial
needs. They believe that the current pensions, even with the
supplement, forces a lot of them to live either at or below the
poverty line. As a result many seniors are living in extremely
difficult situations.
(1510)
These petitioners request the government to look at the whole
of taxation in order to ensure that their pensions are adequate.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I have petitions
signed by residents of Naicam, Saskatchewan and area who wish
to draw to the attention of the House that the Senate is an
unelected, unaccountable institution which has become the
home of recipients of political patronage and has long since
discarded any notion of working in the interest of taxpayers.
They note that since sections 41 and 42 of the Constitution
Act of 1982 provides for amendments to the Constitution in
relation to certain matters such as this to be initiated by
resolution of the House, they request that the House pass such a
resolution and abolish the Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): I have the honour to
table a 20-page petition signed by 173 constituents in the
Châteauguay riding, asking the government to forgo any social
housing rent increases and lift the freeze on the Canadian
Mortgage and Housing Corporation's budget to allow for the
building of new social and co-op housing.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present to the House a petition from an
organization based in Calgary, Alberta, a voice for innocent
children with regard to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The petitioners state that those individuals convicted of first
degree murder are sentenced to life in prison without eligibility
for parole for 25 years, and further, that section 745 of the
Criminal Code allows murderers to apply for a reduction in the
number of years of imprisonment notwithstanding having been
tried, convicted and sentenced in a court of law; that those
individuals convicted of first degree murder or second degree
murder and sentenced to life imprisonment can be become
eligible for parole after serving only 15 years by virtue of
section 745. The petitioners therefore request that Parliament
pass a law that would remove section 745 from the Criminal
Code.
I should add that in the very near future I will reintroduce in
this House a private member's bill that would have the effect of
removing section 745 from the Criminal Code.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition
which has been duly certified by the clerk of the House of
Commons as to form and content.
The petition is signed by Canadians from my constituency of
Regina-Lumsden and from other parts of Saskatchewan,
including Saskatoon, Sedley, Cadillac, Ituna, Lumsden, Spirit
Wood, Anaroyd, Lanagan and Grandura, to name a few.
These petitioners are extremely worried about the impact of
Bill C-91 which was passed in the last Parliament extending the
patent on some prescription drugs for up to 20 years and
guaranteeing drug manufacturers monopoly prices and
substantial profits at Canadians' expense.
Prescription drug prices in Canada are the most expensive in
the world as a result of this bill. These petitioners are calling for
the repeal of Bill C-91 to reduce the financial burden on health
care consumers in need of prescription drugs and on provincial
government drug programs.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure, on behalf of the hon. member for Welland-St.
Catharines-Thorold, to table two petitions. The petitions are
on behalf of the grandparents in the riding who are deeply
concerned about the denial of access to their grandchildren in
cases where families are separated by virtue of death, separation
or divorce.
This concern was expressed by many of the colleagues in the
Liberal caucus in the previous Parliament and we remain firmly
committed to this cause.
(1515)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf
of my constituents. The efforts of Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy to have
392
the importation of killer cards stopped at the U.S.-Canada
border and seized to prevent distribution is supported by
numerous Calgary Northeast residents.
The concern about the cards which feature serial killers, mass
murderers and gangsters offer nothing positive for children or
adults but rather depict violence.
Therefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call
upon this Parliament to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the
importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in
law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product, if
destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I have
here a petition signed by more than 80 of my constituents from
Frontenac, Black Lake, Thedford and Saint-Ferdinand, who are
opposed to social housing rent increases.
Whereas the federal government froze the CMHC's budget
for the next five years, while asking it to save money,
supposedly to provide assistance to young couples, and whereas,
to do so, the federal government intends to raise low rents by 20
per cent, the undersigned ask Parliament:
-first, to forgo all social housing rent increases; and
-second, to lift the freeze on the Canadian Mortgage and
Social and Co-op Housing Corporation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
once again I would request that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
392
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That this House, recognizing that a bilateral Umbrella Agreement for Weapons
Testing exists between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United
States, take note of the domestic, international and bilateral aspects of allowing the
Government of the United States of America to conduct cruise missile tests within
Canadian territorial boundaries, and in particular, two cruise missile tests during the
first quarter of 1994.
He said: Mr. Speaker, following yesterday's highly successful
debate on peacekeeping this debate today will be crucial for the
government to help it in its decision-making process as to
whether or not we should continue cruise missile testing.
The Prime Minister made a commitment during the election
that Parliament would be more frequently consulted in matters
of this nature, general policy matters.
The minister of human resources when in opposition was
quite forthright in questioning the former defence minister to
say that these tests under the renegotiated agreement of 1993
should not occur before the matter was discussed in the House of
Commons. We are discussing that today.
One of the members opposite will waive the word ``hearing''
and will try to say that what we are going to do today, perhaps
until midnight again, is not a hearing. What better hearing than
to have all the members of the House of Commons participate
live on national television.
Let us not get caught on words. This is a hearing. It is a full
parliamentary debate on a very sensitive matter. I am sure the
minister of human resources, who led our party in foreign policy
in opposition, agrees, by his presence here today, with the
procedure we are undertaking.
Again, as with the debate yesterday there is no whip in our
party. The members have not been told what to say. I do not want
to prejudge any outcome.
The government has to take its own responsibilities and will
take those responsibilities in due course. The government wants
it fully understood that the views of the members of this House
will help it make up its mind when the final decision is taken.
(1520)
I would like to give a little bit of background for some of the
members who have not been in the House for many years. I had
the misfortune of not being here for the last number of years but
was here when the agreement was first negotiated by the Liberal
government of Mr. Trudeau.
A cruise missile test is essentially a small, pilotless aircraft
powered by a jet engine. Modern long range cruise missiles like
those the United States tested in Canada over the past number of
years have sophisticated guidance systems which enable them to
fly predetermined routes at various altitudes. Indeed, the tests of
the cruise missile in Canada have been designed mainly to prove
the accuracy of the missile's guidance system.
393
Cruise missiles can carry either conventional or nuclear
weapons but I want to emphasize that none of the missiles tested
in Canada has in any way been armed in a nuclear fashion.
[Translation]
Unarmed cruise missile tests are conducted under a
Canada-U.S. agreement called the Test and Evaluation
Program. The agreement, signed in 1983, originally covered a
10-year period. It allowed the United States to test and evaluate
their weapon systems and other types of equipment on Canadian
soil.
The agreement was renegotiated by the previous government
in February 1993 and extended for another 10 years.
[English]
For the first time the agreement is reciprocal and that is
something new. Canada has obtained parallel access to
American military test facilities. Furthermore, the same
incremental cost recovery procedures now apply to both
countries potentially yielding substantial savings for Canada.
Last spring the United States submitted its routine annual test
forecast to the previous Canadian government asking
permission for two cruise missile tests in the early part of 1994
within Canada.
It is very crucial to understand the sequence of events. In
August 1993 the previous government advised American
officials that the two tests were approved in principle and that
they could proceed with planning. The planning did continue
after our government took office.
However, before Christmas an official of the Department of
National Defence conveyed to his opposite number in
Washington that there could be a problem because of the
commitments our party had made previously. The debate today
reflects that caution that we gave to the United States.
The U.S. has sought to test unarmed cruise missiles over
Canadian territory because our test corridor provides the most
challenging operational environment for these systems. Our
territory as we all know provides a unique set of conditions for
testing not available in the United States. These include high
latitude and Arctic temperatures as well as the range and
topography needed to fully test the navigation system.
Consequently the U.S. has attached a great importance to these
tests as well as to the overall testing regime provided by the test
and evaluation agreement.
The United States is mindful that a new government is in
office in Ottawa that could indeed want to do things differently.
All members of this House will recognize that cruise missile
testing has always been a controversial issue for Canadians and I
am sure some of that controversy will surface today in the
House.
I would like to go back a little bit to retrace some of the recent
history to give a better sense of how it has evolved in the last 10
years. When the government first agreed in 1983 to test these
missiles, the context was quite different than that of today.
First, the cruise missile test was a cold war issue. It was in the
early 1980s that east-west relations were at a low ebb. It was
characterized by such things as the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan, the downing of the Korean airlines flight 007 and
the controversy over the deployment of medium range missiles
in Europe. In this context the Government of Canada justified at
the time cruise missile testing as an important contribution to
collective defence against the Soviet threat.
Second, cruise missile testing was a nuclear issue. I
emphasize that it was a nuclear issue. The air launched cruise
missile that was being tested in our air space, AGM-86B was its
code name, was a nuclear weapons system, unarmed of course,
during the testing within Canada.
(1525 )
Testing then had to be within a context of Canadian policy, not
only with respect to deterrents in defence, but also arms control
and disarmament. Over time the context of the cruise missile
testing has begun to change or it did change most notably when
the cold war came to an end. Confrontation evolved into detente,
which in itself was rapidly transformed into east-west
co-operation on a full range of issues. We have witnessed one of
the most remarkable political transformations in modern
history. In the space of two short years revolutions in central and
eastern Europe gave way to the collapse of the Warsaw pact,
German unification and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
We also saw remarkable progress in arms control. Certainly
the state of U.S.-Soviet nuclear balance has improved
dramatically with the signing of the strategic arms reduction
agreements which mandate deep cuts in these arsenals.
[Translation]
Of course, the changes made in the last 10 years were not all
so positive.
The end of the cold war resulted in new security problems,
including ethnic conflicts and disputes over the appropriation of
resources which were unheard of during the cold war.
Moreover, throughout the last 10 years, hostile governments,
in Libya, Iraq and North Korea for example, regularly
challenged the international community.
As the situation evolved, so did the test program as well as the
reasons justifying its very existence.
394
[English]
In 1989 the government agreed to test a new variant of the
cruise, which was the advanced cruise missile. This missile
represents a refinement of the original system. It is more
accurate, able to fly farther and harder to detect by radar. In
addition, cruise missiles have become significant as part of the
conventional weapons inventory of many countries. I will take
us back a couple of years to conflicts such as the gulf war. There
is an illustration that conventionally armed weapons may be
more important in terms of weapons systems than their nuclear
counterparts. As we can see, cruise missile testing has never
been a static issue.
In case one thinks that in the remarks I have made this
afternoon I am justifying the future testing of the cruise missile,
that is wrong. What I am trying to do is to put squarely before
you-I understand I am supposed to talk to you, Mr. Speaker,
and that was always the practice so please do not take
offence-how we are trying to underscore the reasons why the
cruise has been tested in the past. We want to underscore why the
United States would seek to test cruise missiles again.
However, my remarks will in no way reflect upon our
government's decision to deal with the specific matter of cruise
tests in 1994 in the context of the test and evaluation agreement.
In other words, whether or not these tests may proceed in the
first quarter of 1984 will be a decision that cabinet will take after
the deliberation today.
Mr. Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. minister would be willing to accept a very brief
question on this issue.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would require
unanimous consent from the House. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the issue being debated today concerns one of the most
significant aspects of relations between Canada and the United
States. It concretely involves the framework in which we have
developed a system of co-operation for our common security,
but it also raises questions related to peace and disarmament.
These questions of peace and disarmament are more current
than ever. The world is now painfully torn between the hope for
lasting peace and the horror of atrocious massacres, even in
Europe, the cradle of civilization. Nevertheless, real hope has
been raised by the new order which has seemed to emerge. This
hope was fed mainly by the efforts and successes, albeit partial
but encouraging, it must be said, in disarmament achieved by
the United States and the former Soviet Union, later confirmed
by Russia.
(1530)
All peoples earnestly hope that this effort will intensify. It
will go even better and more surely if it is done in an orderly
fashion, with each gain consolidated by realistic measures that
can assure everyone's security. Disarmament must go together
with security, which must still be maintained with a minimum of
deterrence.
There is first of all the question of the many solid
long-standing ties between Canadians and Americans. Along
with the United States, Canada has been a member of NATO
since 1949 and of NORAD since 1958. Our mutual
commitments therefore bind us both to an integrated defence of
North America and of other countries in the North Atlantic
region. Under these treaties, our air force, navy and army have
for a long time had common modes of operation. Military
equipment is often interchangeable and the officers of the
various armed services have close working and even personal
relations. Training, testing, exercises and manoeuvres go on all
the time, and they are all done jointly, as a rule. In short, no two
military organizations in the world are closer to each other, so
much so that other countries often have difficulty breaking
through this close embrace when it comes to selling military
equipment to Canada, for example.
In this spirit, a Liberal government in 1983 concluded a
10-year agreement with the United States called CANUSTEP in
their awful jargon. It allowed the United States to test weapons
on Canadian territory. Each series of tests had to receive
permission from the Canadian government to go ahead.
Canada's commitments to strategic deterrence are basically a
part of co-operation between allies. Canada has no strategic
weapons in its forces. However, in that its defence is based on
the agreement among allies and it benefits from collective
security, it must voluntarily co-operate in implementing this
strategic deterrent force if required. This is an integral part of
the national defence policy as found in the 1971 and 1987 white
papers on defence and the 1992 defence policy statement.
The arms in question include cruise missiles that, in
practically every year between 1983 and 1993, were tested many
times in the Canadian north, more precisely inside a 2,200
kilometre corridor including parts of the Northwest Territories,
British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. These missiles,
that have a 3,000 kilometre range, are launched from bombers
and guided to their target by a sophisticated homing device.
Because of its size and topography, Canada was and is the only
place in the world where the Americans can conduct these tests.
In 1983, the reasons behind the Canadian government's
acquiescence obviously had to do with the cold war between the
American and Soviet superpowers. It was the era of the nuclear
dissuasion strategy in a bipolar world.
395
The cruise missile met all the requirements of the time as it
could carry either a nuclear or a conventional head, thus offering
the advantage of flexibility. However, the 1983 agreement
formally excluded any possibility of testing missiles equipped
with nuclear heads.
As we know, the geopolitical environment went through
substantial changes after 1989. The dismantling of the Warsaw
pact, set up against NATO, deeply altered the strategic map.
Of the two organizations, only NATO survived. But the
political thaw gave new life to the disarmament movement so
that the START I and START II treaties negotiated in 1991 and
1992 imposed cuts in the number of missiles and nuclear heads
deployed by the United States and Russia. Since then, the ceiling
imposed on both parties rules out the production of new cruise
missiles, except to compensate for attrition. They can only
improve the missiles' performance by making guidance systems
more precise and reliable.
(1535)
That is why, in 1993, the United States asked the Canadian
government to renew the 1983 agreement for another 10 years,
to 2013. The Canadian government agreed to do so.
Last year, in its policy statement on security, Canada took a
slightly different stand on strategic issues stating that it no
longer viewed the strategic scene as bipolar. Since the new
nuclear powers were considered unstable by nature, it was
becoming problematic for Canada and its allies to dissociate
themselves from nuclear deterrence, so nuclear deterrence was
dropped from the new policy statement.
[English]
One might therefore wonder why the government has opened
up the discussion today as Canada, after assessing the
circumstances prevailing at the time, has made a commitment in
principle which binds it until the year 2003.
What has happened is that the United States, pursuant to the
recently renewed agreement, is requesting the Canadian
government for authorization to proceed with the testing of an
improved guidance system with which they intend to equip the
cruise missiles. Now several senior members of the Liberal
Party have already attacked those tests.
Is the government trying today to find allies in the House in
order to support its refusal which it is already preparing in
response to the American request? As a matter of fact certain
remarks in the minister's aseptic speech might provoke the
prognosis that it will be so.
The Bloc Quebecois for its part considers it imperative to
examine closely and with objectivity setting aside all abstract
theory and preconceived judgments where the real interests and
responsibilities of Canada lie in this matter.
Those who are opposed to the resumption of the tests base
their argument mainly upon the danger of proliferation of this
type of missile, particularly at a time when the nuclear deterrent
can no longer be justified. It is true that the basic technology for
manufacturing these weapons could conceivably become
available to many countries. The Russians have already
produced their own version of this weapon, the AS-15 missile,
and they do not have to ask permission from anybody when they
want to perfect the system because they can carry out their tests
over the vast Siberian steppes.
Professor Kosta Tsipis of MIT drew attention in 1992 in the
New York Times to the risk involved in the proliferation of this
weapon. He wrote:
Any country capable of manufacturing an elementary airplane can construct a
cruise missile able to transport a charge of one ton over a distance of at least 300
miles and to plant it within 30 feet of its target.
[
Translation]
In fact, the threat of proliferation does not come from
American testing in Canada. It should be stressed that the tests
the American government is requesting permission to conduct
do not involve any new nuclear technology. These tests
contravene neither the letter nor the spirit of the START treaties,
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or the missile technology
control regime; thus, they do not contribute to the build up of
strategic nuclear forces. In July 1993, the manufacturing of new
air-launched stealth cruise missiles was restricted to 460 units,
that is 1,000 fewer than initially planned. It is also important to
note that, for the past few years, tests have been related to
detection, interception and missile guidance. In that sense, any
test that enhances the target-acquisition and interception
capability of these weapons helps to limit the threat posed by the
manufacturing and use of other types of cruise missiles
developed in other countries. The capability to detect and
destroy such weapons in flight is the only effective means of
retaliation.
It should be noted in that respect that the Americans are not
the only ones to benefit from any improvement in guidance
technology flowing from this testing. Canada also benefits from
it since our pilots take part in monitoring and detection
operations.
The changes on the international scene were not all positive.
For one thing, the political climate in Russia by no means
guarantees stability. The recent election revealed the rapid
emergence of a strong right-wing movement. Statements made
by the Russian leader, Mr. Vladimir Jirinovski, do not bode well
for the future of detente in the event of a return to power of the
military.
(1540)
This would not be the first time an opposition party formed
the government following an election.
396
While the break-up of the U.S.S.R. may have helped to ease
international tensions, it has also had a secondary, more
worrisome effect. With the crumbling of the Soviet empire, new
nuclear powers have emerged. The resistance of the Ukraine is
telling in this regard, although it has shown some signs of
co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, there have been doubts about how effectively the
weapons stockpiles inherited by these republics are controlled
and how they are used. As well, a number of other countries
either have nuclear weapons or are doing everything they can to
become nuclear powers. China, India and Pakistan already have
nuclear arms. Newspapers regularly report on the efforts of
several other countries, including Iraq, to develop nuclear
weapons. We should not dismiss the potential threat of all of
these countries deploying short-range cruise missiles armed
with nuclear warheads.
The best way to counter this threat is still to refine detection
and interception methods and this is one of the positive aspects
of the testing process we are discussing here today.
You may recall that the cruise missile can be used as a
conventional load delivery vehicle. The focus should be on
developing it for this purpose. The planned tests are particularly
interesting since, according to the information supplied by the
Americans, they will focus on a new guidance system designed
to improve strike reliability and accuracy. There is hardly a need
to improve the accuracy of weapons of mass destruction such as
nuclear arms. To the extent the new geopolitical reality demands
alternatives to nuclear strikes, there is a greater need to develop
more effective conventional arms.
In that field, to perform better means to be more accurate.
Strategists are doing more and more to provide their armies with
the means to intervene safely but firmly from a distance. This is
the only way to hit a limited but strategic target while sparing
the neighbouring civilian populations. The cruise missile is the
perfect weapon for the job. During the gulf war, we were able to
see the dramatic results obtained with the Tomahawks, those
cruise missiles carrying conventional weaponry. Any test aimed
at improving this very accurate weapon is therefore part of a
strategy especially suited to post-cold war requirements, and I
do mean post-cold war.
Moreover, there are practically no direct economic costs
related to the cruise missile tests conducted within Canadian
territorial boundaries. If such costs exist, they are met by the
American government under existing agreements. Conversely,
these tests help, at least indirectly, the Canadian Department of
National Defence to have access to facilities where military
technologies developed here in Canada can be tested.
What about environmental costs? Those costs are, for all
intents and purposes, non-existent if one considers the very low
frequency of the flights, merely a few over the course of one
year, and over 3,000 kilometres of a nearly empty territory.
But we must also take into consideration of the political side
of the issue. Who is asking us to conduct these tests? We must
not forget that the United States is Canada's best friend, its only
neighbour, its safest ally, its major trading partner, and a great
nation which speaks the same language as that of most
Canadians. Let us not forget that the United States is the pillar of
NATO and NORAD, the two pacts which ensure our security. If
there ever was a nuclear threat to Canada, something we hope
will not happen and probably never will happen, though there is
a risk, to whom would Canadians and Quebecers turn? I do not
even have to give the answer, because that answer is so obvious.
Should such a situation occur, we would be quite relieved to be
able to rely on an ally equipped with cruise missiles which it
would have developed at its own expense.
Moreover, abrubtly ending the long sequence of tests
conducted since 1983 would adversely affect the value of our
commitments. I wonder how the Prime Minister would explain
this change of attitude to our old friends the next time he goes to
Washington. Even if he were accompanied by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, I think he would have a hard time to provide an
explanation.
(1545)
I can understand and share this will to distance ourselves from
the Americans when it is in our interest to do so, but that is not
the case in this instance. Quite the contrary, we have everything
to gain by co-operating with the United States to ensure our own
protection at no cost to us.
I respect the arguments put forward by those who oppose
these tests on the grounds that detente is here to stay, but I do not
agree with them. I hope they are right, but I would like to be sure
of that. And since no one can be sure, we must consider the issue
of security. In any case, I do hope that whatever decision the
government makes, it is a decision based on rational and
well-thought out motives. Many would be concerned if the
government simply tried to say no to those tests, to please an
anti-American lobby which still has some roots in certain parts
of the country.
More importantly, to decide to oppose the tests would be a
sudden and inconsistent move.
We are still waiting for the white book on our defence policy
which the government promised to table. Where is this review of
our military and international role? What will be the duties
assigned to our air force? What will be the role of the navy?
What will be the mandate of our army? What will be the nature
and the level of our involvement with NATO and NORAD? What
will be the level of our commitment in Europe? Are we going to
maintain our peacekeeping operations? If so, under what
conditions, with what equipment and by which criteria? What
contribution are we going to ask of the United States regarding
the
397
protection of our security? Are we going to continue to stay
under its protection?
All these questions and many others are still without an
answer. So, why make an isolated and hurried decision which,
by breaking the continuity of our commitments and by being
totally out of character, would look like a sudden impulse and
would be considered as such.
Therefore, the Bloc feels that under the present
circumstances, there is no need to put an end to the co-operation
which characterizes our relations with our neighbours. A review
of all those issues will have to be undertaken, a detailed and
comprehensive exercise which, I hope, will also include a large
public consultation.
Mr. Robinson: Question and comment, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent to allow the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway to
ask a question?
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since there is no
unanimous consent, we will resume debate.
[English]
In the spirit of fairness and co-operation in the House, the
Chair will ask members of the Reform Party who will speak.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, it was our understanding that the
next period is to go to the Liberal Party. Do you wish us to speak
at this point?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Yes.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I do
not want to reiterate a lot of what has been said because it is
covering old ground. However I would point out that this
agreement was signed originally in 1983. It was renewed for five
years in 1988 and was renewed in February of last year for a
further ten years. This is an agreement in support of a mutual
defence pact which is of great value to Canada. It means a lot to
our stability.
The U.S.S.R. by and large has disappeared and is no longer an
obvious threat. The area is certainly not under control. There is a
lot of volatility there. When we think back to the Russians
having constructed a very similar weapon to the one that is
proposed to be tested over Canada, we have to consider that
there are many countries in that region which have cash balance
problems, foreign exchange problems. They are very vulnerable
to offers from various agencies that are willing to pay large sums
to gather the ability to threaten or to create terror.
(1550 )
The fact that the weapons were used with great effect in the
gulf war is indicative of what they can do. I refer to what the
leader of the opposition has said, that any country with the
ability to build a simple airplane can construct one of these
weapons which will carry a tonne of dynamite or explosives for
a distance of at least 300 miles and explode with great accuracy.
There is another spin-off benefit from the testing taking place
in Canada. It provides a platform for our air crews to practice
their technology, their interception against this type of threat.
This could be invaluable not only within Canada but should we
find our forces committed in some other theatre in the future.
There is a spin-off. Ancillary to this agreement, Canada is
able to benefit from mutual testing programs with the United
States. It pays dividends in information exchanged. It is a
productive program.
To my knowledge our constituencies, many of which lie in the
path of the overflights, have received no complaints from the
constituents who reside there. There are people who are
concerned about the overflights and have complained about
them but we have not in our constituencies received any direct
input on this matter. I believe there is minimal, if any,
environmental impact caused by these missiles overflying the
country.
If I may go back to my personal experience when I was base
operations officer at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, I was in
charge of the range there. It was a rectangular area some 100 by
60 miles.
On that range live an awful lot of animals: moose, caribou,
grizzly bears and so on. I overflew it regularly and I have seen
moose in my flight path that stood with its head in the water and
completely ignored my overflight. In fact, he was more bothered
by a helicopter when I went up to check what was going on than
he was by the jets flying over. The jets were flying at an altitude
of 50 feet at speeds exceeding 600 knots, over 700 miles an hour.
Animals do adapt.
To further exemplify the fact that animals adapt, when I went
there in 1976 a herd of eight buffalo were living within the
range. By the time I left in 1979 the herd had grown to 13
animals.
In this instance there is a limited window within which these
tests can be conducted. It is my understanding that the tethered
flights, that is with the missile attached to the wing of a B-52,
are conducted in the period between October and December.
Only two of the free flights that we are now discussing take
place between January and the end of March. The reason for this,
as I understand it, is in case of an accident and the missile
crashes. The missile might start a forest fire if it happened
outside that timeframe when the snow was off the ground.
398
It is of great concern to the United States military that wishes
to conduct the test that we are procrastinating and delaying
approval. These tests are in Canada's best interests and should
be allowed to proceed.
The agreement was signed in good faith. Canada should
honour the agreement to which we have committed and should
allow the tests to proceed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I take the
parliamentary secretary's point of order, I would like to ask the
assistance of the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. Is the
Chair to understand that members of the Reform Party will be
splitting their times to ten and five?
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I apologize for not
having made that point earlier.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. It is our intention
on this side of the House to split our time into 10 minute
speeches with five minute question and answer segments
because there are so many speakers who want to get on. It is my
humble suggestion and I regret I have not had time to consult
with the other side of the House. We know where the Reform is
coming from.
(1555)
I would suggest that if there is agreement, consideration be
given for all sides of the House to go immediately to 10 and 5
which would allow considerable discussion and more speakers
who feel quite strongly on both sides of this issue and that would
be facilitated.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, does the parliamentary
secretary speak on behalf of all parties when he proposes a 10-5
split until 10 o'clock or midnight, depending on whether the
sitting is extended or not?
As far as we are concerned, we have no objection to the other
parties proceeding that way, but our first three speakers will
make 20 minute speeches that will each be followed by a 10
minute question and comment period.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will say to the hon.
member for Richelieu that the Bloc Quebecois can certainly
proceed any way it chooses.
On the government side, the parliamentary secretary tells us
that the length of speeches will be 10 minutes, followed by a 5
minute question and comment period and I think the Reform
Party will proceed in the same manner.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, since it is very clear that, in the
opposition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of
cruise missile testing and so is the Reform Party, I hope that the
NDP will be heard early in the debate, otherwise we will hear
only from those who say yes to the Americans and yes to cruise
missile testing.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not believe that is a
point of order. I believe that is more a matter of debate.
If I could resume now with questions and comments for five
minutes.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his presentation.
I have two questions to raise. First, a number of people have
been telling me that the original rationale for cruise missile
testing is now passe. I wonder if he would care to comment on
that.
The other question I want to raise, which is equally important,
is with respect to complaints. I must confess that I do not have
the whole picture necessarily but I was led to believe that there
had been some concerns voiced by the Government of the
Northwest Territories and some people in the territories. There
may have been others.
If that were the case and recognizing that the Reform Party is
unusually sensitive, according to their spokespersons, in
listening to the people, how would he react to that.
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question. I very much appreciate it.
He is probably fairly accurate in saying that the original
reasons for which the missile was conceived are now passe.
However, I think the experience in the gulf war demonstrated a
very valid and useful purpose for this type of weapon. It enables
the intrusion of the weapon into the area in question. There is
reasonable assurance of destruction and it does the job without
risking a pilot. If it is necessary for the missile to be committed
that is a good reason for having it in the arsenal.
With regard to complaints I take very much to heart what the
member is saying. When I made my comments about no
complaints from constituents I was referring to constituents
which are represented by Reform Party members of Parliament.
I understand there are complaints from the Northwest
Territories and I am already on record as saying that if the people
who are complaining about the missile test wish to present their
complaints to a parliamentary committee I would be more than
willing to participate in such a hearing so that I could hear both
sides of the story directly from the people concerned. We should
take their complaints and concerns into account.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
the reason originally for the cruise missile testing in western and
northern Canada was because the terrain of that particular part
of Canada closely resembled that of the Soviet Union.
399
Since the Soviet Union no longer exists and since the war
areas in the world have been comparable to that of Iraq, being
deserts, would it not be more appropriate for cruise missile
testing, rather than being in Canada to be in areas comparable to
that in Nevada.
(1600 )
Mr. Frazer: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in addition to areas
like the Persian Gulf there is also the danger of threats from
people who have snow on the ground for a reasonable portion of
the year. I mentioned earlier the volatility of areas in the former
U.S.S.R. I do not in any way claim they are contemplating attack
on the west but it is possible that by some aberration this could
happen.
I think that the testing, both in desert conditions and in the
north in snow conditions, is a valid project.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue which is
certainly one that affects all of us in Canada. More specifically,
it affects the constituency which I represent, Beaver River,
which includes CFB Cold Lake where the cruise missile lands
when it completes its flight.
I have witnessed this first hand from the very beginning in my
teaching career when the testing first started in the early
eighties.
Let us all realize that an extremely important function of any
government is to provide for security for the state and its people.
Security for Canadians is determined by several geopolitical
factors, the principal one being our close proximity to the
United States. The deterrence of future threats, no matter how
remote they may now appear, can best be accomplished with the
help of allies and Canada must be seen as a reliable, effective
team player in such alliances.
In short, our security remains bound up with that of our
alliance partners. No matter what anyone may say or think, it is
essential that we keep the bond we have with the United States.
While the end of the cold war and of the east-west
confrontation may offer us unique opportunities to move toward
a more peaceful world, regional conflicts and violent
nationalism should cause us to pause and reflect.
Let us talk about the actual cruise itself for a few minutes.
This is an unmanned self-guided aerodynamic vehicle,
continuously powered by air breathing jet engines. This is a
vehicle which can travel all on its own. I had a student who saw
it come over the trees and came to me and said: ``Miss Grey, you
can't imagine what I just saw''. It was an incredibly moving
experience for him. This was several years ago when he was still
in high school.
Flying at low altitude, the cruise missile is difficult for radar
to spot in ground clutter. The detection requires expensive
systems with sophisticated processing capabilities. This
complicates developing an effective defence against the cruise
missile, which is one of its greatest strengths.
Conventionally armed cruise missiles are equipped with
terminal homing systems to achieve even greater accuracy. It is
important that we note that because the cruise can employ radar
or laser returns to fix on the target. Terminal homing provides
improved guidance where the nature of the target or warhead is
delivered very accurately wherever it is aimed. Future versions
of the cruise missile can be expected to display higher speeds,
greater manoeuvrability, longer range, lower radar and other
signatures, and penetration aids such as electronic counter
measures.
We see there has been a life and a history to the cruise missile.
Even though the cold war is officially over, I think we realize
there are still some hot spots, which we touched on yesterday,
around the world. We have not achieved peace world wide.
Cruise missiles appeal to the military because they have an
incredibly broad range of application. Its possible deployment
in large numbers is something that makes it very effective as
does its potential to combine quality and quantity in one weapon
system and its ability to be modified. So you see it is not just a
one-system vehicle, it has all kinds of assets of which military
analysts speak highly.
The Department of National Defence listed the following
objectives for this particular project, and I name some of them.
``They could fly this over a route of realistic length and width
with a representative standoff launch distance to the landfall.
Also they could fly the cruise over relatively smooth terrain
with various types of surface cover to include snow and ice.''
(1605)
My hon. colleague addressed this earlier in questions and
comments. They need to be able to look at the terrain and they
need to fly the cruise missile in winter over ice-covered and
snow-covered lakes. They need to fly the cruise missile and test
it in operationally realistic weather conditions.
Let me assure all hon. members in this House that during the
period of January 1 to March 31 in northeastern Alberta, Beaver
River in fact, they will find realistic weather conditions. I live
exactly one hour south of CFB Cold Lake where the cruise lands.
I can guarantee that when they evaluate their missile radar
altimeter operation over snow, trees, and ice-covered lakes, that
is exactly what they get in Beaver River.
The flight path, as was mentioned earlier perhaps, includes a
corridor that is 2,600 kilometres long through the Northwest
Territories down through the Mackenzie Valley and through the
400
northeastern corner of B.C., across Alberta and into
Saskatchewan over the Cold Lake-Primrose air weapons range.
I have just mentioned the timing of it but I will stipulate
between the two. When it is launched from a B-52 and goes into
its free flight and is operating strictly on its own, the cruise
missile has to operate within that time element of January 1 and
March 31. Captive-carries, that cruise missile which flies all the
way attached to the B-52 bomber, is not restricted to that
timeframe so it can take place at other times without that narrow
window of January 1 to March 31.
They are allowed six flights per year. So when people say the
cruise missile is always flying over northern Canada that is
simply not true. Under this particular agreement of Canada and
the U.S. they are only allowed six per year.
Let us take a couple of minutes and talk about the chronology
of this. The first flight was in March 1984. To date 23 cruise
missile tests have been conducted in Canada. In February 1986,
a couple of years after this program got started, a cruise missile
crashed immediately after launch from a B-52. The engine did
not start. The federal government imposed a temporary halt to
the cruise missile testing program.
In January 1990 a test was designed to test the capability of
the Canadian F-18 aircraft to intercept cruise missiles, certainly
an important part of the test regime. Also the American U.S.
F-15s and F-16s were involved in this. Unfortunately as
probably most members in this House will recall, in January
1990 upon take off one of the Canadian F-18s exploded causing
critics again to renew their calls for an end to cruise testing in
Canada. I remember that well because of course that CF-18 had
taken off from CFB Cold Lake to do the intercept. It certainly
was a tragedy.
As with all things and of course with the debate we had
yesterday, do we cancel these projects because one tragedy
occurs?
Again, as was mentioned earlier, in January 1991 there were
several cruise missiles used and deployed in the gulf war. The
Iraqi conflict demonstrated that guided weapons were very
precise and damage to civilian structures was much less than in
previous conflicts. We need to realize very strongly that just
because the cold war has ended does not mean that peace has
broken out across the world. I think we need to be preventive in
realizing that some of these hot spots do still occur and therefore
we need to realize that testing is essential.
We could ask the rhetorical question: Can this cruise missile
be used without testing it at all? I think not. I would like to pay
tribute to the communities of the tri-towns of Cold Lake, Grand
Centre and specifically CFB Cold Lake. They work hand in hand
with the Americans regularly. We have a military procedure in
the spring called maple flag where any number of Americans
come up and participate in a rendezvous or military exercises at
CFB Cold Lake. We have experienced good relations with the
Americans. It is also good for our area's local economy.
Further as a member of the G-7, Canada is obligated to take
part in some of these things. We need to realize that as a member
of the G-7 we cannot simply slide in under the arm of the
Americans and say we will let them do everything, that we will
take no part and no responsibility.
Again may I re-emphasize in closing how important it is for
our Canadian pilots to be involved in this testing of the cruise
missile and that it is essential for the proficiency of our intercept
systems in our F-18s.
(1610 )
Finally I would just like to pay tribute to Colonel Dave
Bartram, the base commander, and the members of 4 Wing at
CFB Cold Lake for a job they do well. We must understand how
important our military is and so we take our hats off to them. I
think it would be wise for the government to continue this good
relationship which we have with the Americans.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): 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.
401
I wonder if the member for Beaver River would care to
comment on that position.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a better memory so that
I could remember all that the member said, but I did take a few
notes.
It is important for us each to realize in this House that Canada
is not going to be in the business of firing off the cruise missile.
Canada is offering its unique terrain, the ice, bush, and
snow-covered lakes, to be able to give assistance to the
Americans so that they can test these things.
Yes, there have been a couple of dreadful crashes in the
history of the cruise missile. But when we think about that, how
much safer is it to happen in a very sparsely populated area in
northern Canada than to have it happen in a very densely
populated area where there may be risk of life?
The hon. member also mentioned that Canadian personnel are
in danger. There is not one person in Canada's military today
who does not realize that his life is always in danger. When one
is in the military one prepares for that risk. Many of our military
members are far too young to remember World War II, but when
they got a chance to participate in the gulf war it came home to
them very quickly, very soundly that their lives always hung in
the balance. Our Canadian military are absolutely prepared and
know that there is a risk involved in anything.
I do not think the member's argument holds true that we
should just completely negate any relationship we do have with
the United States. Canada is not going to be taking a forward or
aggressive role in this but we are helping as a member of G-7
with our allied countries so that we can work together on their
behalf.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I must say that her
reasoning seems rational to me, just as rational as the reasoning
of my leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. In a certain
perspective, they seem to make a lot of sense.
(1615)
It is difficult to argue against what was said in either speech.
Given the military capabilities of Canada, its striking power, it
is clear that should we come under attack we would require
American support. We do have agreements with the American
defence and an almost perfect co-operation with them, and I am
pleased about that.
However, there is a moral side to war, and that is what bothers
me a little. Clearly, from a technical point of view, given our
mutual agreements, our defence capability in co-operation with
the United States, it is logical, defensible and coherent.
However, when I consider that the cold war has recently
ended, that we are entering a period of disarmament, that we
should strive to achieve peace, I have some doubts about
allowing the tests we are talking about today, and that will be
conducted over the Northwest Territories. Before I can be
convinced that we should accept those tests, I will need to hear
more arguments.
There is also the environmental side which remains an
unknown quantity to me. When will we deal with the
environmental aspect of this issue? You are asking me to hurry
up, Mr. Speaker. I would like the hon. member to comment on
the environmental issue and on the cost of airplane crashes and
losses of military personnel.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is very little time
left in the question and comment period, so I will ask the hon.
member for Beaver River to be brief.
[English]
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked for my
response. Unfortunately, he took all the time for my response.
Let me just finish this up by saying that if we are going to
achieve peace we must be prepared for war. This almost seems
like an anachronism sometimes but it is very, very true that we
must be prepared. The enemy is world-wide.
As we heard last night in our debate we realize that it is not
just conflict from state to state. There are internal rumblings. In
fact, my friend is causing internal rumblings within this country.
So we see that the enemy perhaps is from within. Let us make
sure that we are ready for conflict thereby hoping that we never
have to engage in it.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
when I rise to debate this issue of the cruise missiles I find
myself in some senses caught in a historical time warp. The
cruise missiles almost never existed. They were discussed
during the Nixon-Brezhnev Moscow exchanges in 1972. You
will find them covered in detail in the Vladivostok summit
discussions between President Ford and Mr. Brezhnev in 1974.
They are included in the unratified SALT II treaty which, signed
by the United States and the then Soviet Union, has probably
entered into customary international law, even though not
ratified.
I mention the almost or what might have been simply because
the proposal then was to trade the cruise missile in which the
Americans had advanced testing skills, against the Soviet
Backfire bomber in which the Soviets had a considerable
advance over comparable American weapons. In fact
modifications were made on both sides and under the SALT II
treaty the cruise missiles were limited to missiles not having a
range in excess of 600 kilometres and launched from land-based
and sea-based launch devices.
402
The issue came as you may remember, before the Supreme
Court of Canada in 1985. The Supreme Court ruled in essence
though on procedural grounds rather than substantive grounds
that cruise missile testing was not unconstitutional. It is back
again now and it comes against a backdrop of Canada's
achievement as a world leader in disarmament. There has been a
move since World War II when the use of nuclear weapons
clearly was not illegal, was licit under the rules then existing to a
situation where to a very large extent many jurors feel that the
use of nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.
There is a law case that is sought to be raised by a group of
American lawyers, graduates of President Clinton's law school,
testing this issue before the World Court and the Canadian
government, I believe the previous government, was asked if it
would intervene in the case if it should develop.
(1620)
I am mentioning simply the background, which is the world
movement for the progressive development of international law
achieved through UN general assembly declarations in which
Canada led through a series of multilateral conventions such as
the Moscow test ban treaty, the non-proliferation treaty and the
moon treaty and outer space treaty which Canada contributed to
signally, as well as a series of bilateral treaties between the
United States and the then Soviet Union. SALT I is one of these,
of course, but most recently there was the intermediate range
nuclear forces agreement of 1987 between President Reagan and
Secretary Gorbachev.
It reached the stage where, in a work published in 1989 by me
and my distinguished friend the then president of the World
Court, Nagendra Singh, we posed the question whether the user
of nuclear weapons was illegal per se. That is an issue that may
come before the World Court shortly.
This is simply a preface to the fact that the present American
President has made massive steps since his election to fill in the
uncompleted gaps in the outlawing of nuclear weapons. He is
moving to extend the IMF treaty to short range nuclear weapons
and to the intercontinental ones which are only covered to a
certain extent laterally by SALT I and its interim agreement on
protocols limiting the numbers of strategic warheads. President
Clinton is a man of peace and committed to nuclear
disarmament.
This brings me to the present issue that nuclear warheads are
not involved in the testing of the cruise missiles in Canada's
northern territories. Clearly there is no violation of international
law involved.
The issues of political choice and wisdom are what is
involved here. I hesitate to draw on my experience as a 19-year
old airman and flyer. I have always understood that the tests
were authorized in Canada simply because we replicated the
northern approaches to the then Soviet city of Leningrad. I have
flown over these northern approaches from Archangel to
Leningrad in a civilian capacity. The comparison to northern
Canada is very close.
However, that is all gone. The cold war is gone. What we have
is an agreement entered into in good faith with a friend and ally
whose fulfilment is being asked by that friend and ally at this
stage. There is a case, the strongest of cases, for observing
agreements if one has entered into them: pacta sunt servanda.
On that basis, unless there were an issue of violation of
international law or some other high policy reason, I would say
one should observe international agreements. I would hope that
our government will speak to President Clinton, would
encourage him in his move towards completing nuclear
disarmament and raise the questions about whether the tests are
necessary.
I would warn against any temptation to a unilateral
repudiation of an engagement made because it invites unilateral
reactions of the same nature. There are American senators who
wish to make changes in American law to cut down on
obligations that the United States and Canada have entered into
in trade and other matters. Retaliation in these sorts of unilateral
actions is something one has to bear in mind.
There is a case for the Canadian government to speak candidly
to its friend, the United States, and say: ``Do you really need
these? We will go along nevertheless in good faith if you do''.
I am persuaded by two further arguments. One is the
dependence, the settled expectations, of communities in the
north that have built local economies and local employment on
the continuance of these testings. There is a concept of due
process that settled expectations should not suddenly be
displaced unless there is a good reason to the contrary. I do take
note of the economic interests and concerns of people in those
northern regions who are represented by some of the members
opposite.
I also take note of the views of our colleague, the member for
Western Arctic, whose views as published I have read. It is clear
that there objections by native communities to these tests and on
the usque ad coelum principle. To translate simply, if they own
part of the terrain below then they own the air space above. To
that extent the tests, as an unnatural user without the prior
courtesy of asking permission, are something to be avoided at
all costs.
(1625)
I would suggest strongly that if the tests continue the
Canadian government should consider asking the United States
to provide compensation for the infringement of the property
rights of the native people through whose territory it passes. I
understand the objections of the native people. It may not have
been relevant in 1983 but the juridical conscience of the
403
Canadian people and others has evolved and I think we should be
respectful of property rights of this sort.
My message is very clear on this. We are committed. It has
been one of the main points in Canadian foreign policy formed
by a succession of Canadian foreign ministers and distinguished
ambassadors for disarmament. I recall General Burns, Doug
Roche from the Conservative side and Alan Beesley, my friend
who is a career civil servant. We led in nuclear disarmament. We
should lead. We should encourage the American president who
has a forward looking and constructive view there.
On the cruise missile test, I do not think it is a major issue. For
nuclear disarmament groups I would recommend attention to the
potential World Court project launched by the Ileana group. I
would recommend attention to the concerns of our native
peoples and on that basis I am prepared to continue to support
the continuance of the missile tests at this time.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to commend the hon. member opposite for a very well
crafted and informative presentation. I do not have a question. I
merely wanted to rise and tell him it was a very illuminating and
very well crafted presentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): I listened
carefully to the speech by my colleague, the member for
Vancouver Quadra. He gave a partial answer to my question but I
still do not know if he is for or against those tests. Since he is
from the Vancouver region, I would like him to tell us if his
constituents gave him their opinion on that issue. Did he speak
with them, did he get any information, can he tell us if yes or no
his constituents agree with such testing?
Mr. McWhinney: I spoke about this very often with my
constituents. On that point, I can tell you that I had agreed,
before I was elected as member of Parliament, to be legal
counsel before the International Court of Justice of The Hague if
ever there were legal proceedings on that issue. And that does
not go against what I just said. I tried to bring a balanced
contribution to the debate; yes or no is too radical. Under the
present circumstances, I think we should be allowed to say:
``Yes, respect the agreement with the United States; it does not
violate international law and does not go against our foreign
policy objectives.'' If we want to change the international policy
on disarmament, I believe there are better, more efficient ways
of doing so. And I still hope Canada would take legal steps
before the International Court of Justice of The Hague, and enter
into what would be the case of the next century, to determine if
nuclear testing is legal.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech
and I would like to point out first of all that while I welcome this
parliamentary debate, I think that certainly what the member for
Winnipeg South Centre promised one year ago and committed
the Liberal Party to and called on the Conservative Party to
implement was in fact public hearings to enable members of the
public to be heard, whether it was peace groups, aboriginal
peoples or northerners, on this important issue. While it is
important that politicians be heard, I would have hoped that the
Liberal government would have given an opportunity to
ordinary Canadians to be heard.
(1630)
There is a more fundamental issue here and I want to put the
question directly to the member for Vancouver Quadra. It is a
question about political integrity and political honesty.
I have a document which was sent out by the Liberal Party of
Canada dated September 15, 1993. It is a document which is in
response to a questionnaire from End the Arms Race. In this
document is this question: ``Canada is allowing the United
States to test its nuclear capable cruise missiles in Alberta as
well as low level flight training by NATO in Labrador. Will your
party cancel further testing of the cruise missile and low level
flight training in Canada?'' The answer of the Liberal Party of
Canada, presumably including the member for Vancouver
Quadra, was as follows: ``Liberals have opposed further testing
of the cruise missile since 1987. We will bring this testing
program to an end''.
I want to ask the member for Vancouver Quadra what
happened to that promise?
[Translation]
We know very well that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of
cruise missile testing.
[English]
What happened to that promise of the Liberal Party of Canada
to bring an end to these tests and what happened to the integrity
and the honesty of the Liberal Party of Canada in making that
commitment to the people of Canada?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I see no contradiction there. It
may be an issue of tactic, including diplomatic usage. It would
be in my view a voie de fait, or tort unilaterally to denounce an
agreement duly made and continued by predecessor
governments with a foreign government.
I place great stress as my party does on friendly persuasion.
We are not faced with George Bush as the president of the United
States. We are faced with a president who had the same teachers
I had and who is committed to nuclear disarmament and with all
due speed. We will use friendly persuasion in Washington. We
have a new relationship with Washington that is not one of
404
subservience or of following the line. We will be the candid
friend as we were in the days of Lester Pearson.
My answer is that while honouring the obligation, duly
established and conserving international law in that respect, we
will use friendly persuasion with the United States and I think
we will have a friendly reception.
The nuclear weapon tests in my view are anachronistic in
military terms. They are out of date. They are not armed with
nuclear warheads. I respect that there are consequences for local
populations. I have tried to ascertain the views of the native
peoples. I have suggested correcting what I think was a
deliberate oversight, a discourtesy to them, by the providing of
compensation.
Let us face it. There is a new wind in Washington. It is not
George Bush, it is not the revived cold war. Let us go to work and
ask them to change and using friendly persuasion in the Lester
Pearson way I think we can achieve it.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe
there is still time remaining in the period for questions and
comments. I would like a very brief supplementary question to
the member.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time has expired. The
members on the government side are splitting their questions
into 10 and 5. I realize for all members that 5 minutes is not a
lengthy time but we have certainly exhausted that 5 minutes of
questions and comments relative to the last speaker.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, it is with some
pride that I rise for the first time in this House. I would like to
thank the electors of Rosedale for confiding in me the
responsibility for speaking in this House and for this first time
on such an important motion. I will not take the liberty of the
traditional introductory speech for members to speak of the
characteristics of my riding. I hope my constituents will forgive
me that liberty, but I understand that the rules of this debate are
that we are to restrict ourselves to the question at hand.
I would like to begin by saying it is clear from all the debate,
from everyone in this House, that we are all concerned with the
same matter. That is to say the peace and security of this country
and the security of Canadians wherever they may be in a world
which is becoming increasingly interdependent and in many
ways more complicated and in some ways more threatening.
(1635)
In that context it seems to me we have two debates before us
today. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra referred to a time
warp. I would say there is an element of a time warp here. There
is the old debate about the cruise missile, the one with which we
are all familiar. That debate is about whether we will allow
territory of our country to be used to further the development of
a nuclear weapon for our neighbours to the south.
Many of us were very troubled by such a concept. With what
we can seriously call the end of the cold war we saw no need to
pursue such an agenda. I personally would not argue in favour of
such an agenda even if it were to support the position taken by
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in terms of respecting
international agreements. The hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra is a sophisticated international lawyer. He knows that
agreements may be interpreted and discussed.
I would put it on a somewhat different ground. I would
suggest there are new considerations we must look at. There is a
new agenda. There are new issues which we must examine in the
House to decide whether it is opportune today to permit
continued cruise missile testing. I would like to review those
considerations.
For me the end of the cold war has not made an easier, simpler,
safer world in which to live. Various members have referred to
that in their speeches today. I see a world in which we have new
forms of dangers to our country and to our citizens.
Let me put it in terms of our country. There are new countries.
There are new threats. There are the Libyas and the North
Koreas which have been mentioned before today. In addition
there are whole groups of people, I would suggest, in this new
technological age who have access to sophisticated weaponry
which in previous times was restricted almost exclusively to the
great powers. It was mentioned by one former speaker in this
debate that many smaller groups with less sophistication and
with less money can have access to technology which could
represent a serious threat to the integrity of Canada and, I would
suggest, to our soldiers who may be serving in conflicts around
the world.
I listened with great interest to the debate yesterday on
Bosnia-Hercegovina. One clear point from that debate was that
Canadian troops, men and women, would be engaged in world
enterprises for a long time in the future. The United Nations is
developing its format for the way in which we will continue to
participate in peacekeeping activities. We owe it to those men
and women to ensure that they have the best training and the best
technological information available to them to defend
themselves.
That raises the question which I think is really the one we
must have before us today. In the new environment in which we
live where threats are different from what they were before, in
this time when there are threats from new forms of enemies, will
the testing of this unusual and very sophisticated weapon, which
is no longer restricted to nuclear capacity but to conventional
405
capacity, enable Canadians to defend themselves better from the
threat of the use of such weapons against them in the future?
From the reading I have been able to do there is a double
reason for these tests. One is directed toward enabling the
United States to perfect this weapon. The other equally
important one about which we must ask ourselves or draw
attention to today is to enable us to understand how these
weapons work and to provide adequate defences to them.
All of us in the House watched the gulf war, saw the defence of
Tel Aviv against the Scud missiles and watched the Patriot
missiles work. If by watching this missile work and
participating in these tests we would enable Canadian forces
either in this country or elsewhere in the world to defend
themselves against a similar attack by a similar missile, would
not the test of such a missile have been worth while? That is the
question that I ask myself. That is the question I would direct to
the Minister of National Defence.
(1640)
I urge the government, the minister of defence and cabinet to
consider this matter. The minister of defence has clearly said
that they are considering the matter. If they can assure the House
and assure themselves on the best technological and military
advice they have that as a result of these tests we will be
obtaining information that will enable us to defend ourselves in
this country or our troops to defend themselves elsewhere in the
world, we should allow this testing to go forward.
It seems to me that would be in the spirit of what I would call
the new agenda of defence that is necessary in a world where
new threats are evolving with which we are not yet familiar from
sectors with which we are not familiar and from technologies
that are being developed and falling into the hands of many
disparate groups about which we have no idea in today's
context.
That is the new agenda of the debate. It is no longer a debate in
respect of the cold war and the testing of a missile device which,
in the sort of star wars concept, is to deliver a knockout blow to
the Soviet Union. It is the testing of a sophisticated weapon in
order to determine our own ability to defend ourselves against it.
It is my personal belief that testing will enable us to do that. I
believe it would be in our interest as Canadians both in our own
country and in respect of our troops serving in the United
Nations or other capacities abroad.
Finally I would like to leave members of the House with one
last thought. As other members have pointed out this is a global
issue. It is a matter of geopolitics and our relationships with our
American neighbour to the south. I will cite the member for
Western Arctic, the hon. Secretary of State for Training and
Youth. In 1989 she said: ``What Canada needs is a defence
policy, not in terms of cruise missile tests or nuclear submarines
but in service of an overall security strategy emphasizing
economic, environmental and non-military elements of
security''?
It seems we have an opportunity, if we expect to allow the
Americans to continue these tests, of recognizing that we will
get benefits from them. Let us press them as part of that package
to participate in the Arctic council proposed by the government,
by this party. Let us propose to the Americans, who are the ones
presently blocking it, the development of an Arctic council that
will recognize the participation of the peoples in the north who
must live with northern developments. They should participate
in their future and have a say and thereby enable this as a
peacemaking, as a defensive measure to go forward and
enabling Canada to participate more fully in a area of the world
where we are fortunate enough to have an important border and
important neighbours.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the hon. member for his remarks with which
I generally agree. I think he is right in saying that there are two
debates: the old one and the new one in the context in which we
now find ourselves.
I must admit that, in the old debate, I was personally and
completely opposed to cruise missile testing because, at the
time, they were only adding to a nuclear arsenal already horrible
and terrifying for the whole planet.
In those days, in that old debate, as soon as something new
happened in the area of armament, there was always someone in
the intelligentsia, in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada, who
rose in disgust claiming that we should stop pouring huge
amounts of money into armament. That was part of the old
debate and at that time, you would have found me on the
barricades or marching to protest against cruise missile testing.
In this new debate, with the end of the cold war, there still
remain areas of the world which pose a threat for democratic
nations like ours. There are countries that rule through
terrorism, choking off democracy. We saw an example of this
during the gulf war and we saw that with the kind of
interventions called for by the UN, we can avoid massive killing
of civilian populations. This kind of equipment and its
sophisticated guiding mechanism makes it possible to hit a
target dead on, with a minimum of civilian casualties.
(1645)
I now think, in this new debate, that to protect democracy as
such, in our country and everywhere else, it is important to be
equipped with the proper tools, no longer aimed at massive
destruction, but at delicate surgery to excise those threats to
democracy.
My question is this: After what I have said, do you agree that
some countries should increase their activities against terrorism
on the international level by using this type of surgical tool to
strike down those anti-democratic offenders? Do you think that
406
such a tool could be more useful rather than less useful in the
present debate?
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to say how much I am
glad of the support that the member of the Bloc has given my
argument, but I can tell him that he is following my own line of
thought.
I was rather of the same opinion. In the old debate, I was
completely against the tests but the situation has now become
much more delicate and complex. One of the complexities that
must be taken into account is precisely the element of terrorism
linked to the multiplication, the proliferation of sophisticated
weapons, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in his
speech before the House.
So I come back to my proposition: Can the government give
members of this House in the present debate the assurance that
the tests in question will improve that type of defence against
those weapons? If the government can give us this assurance, I
think it would be our duty to accept its explanation and to carry
on with the tests until we have the best possible defence in a
world which has become more complex, more difficult and to a
certain point much more dangerous.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With less than two
minutes remaining for questions and comments, I recognize the
hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, I had hoped to be able to take a bit more than two
minutes, but I will not abuse the rights of the Chair and will
summarize a letter I received today.
My riding is in northwest Saskatchewan on the border with
Alberta and contains the Saskatchewan side of the Primrose
Lake weapons range, as well as the home of the Canoe Lake
Indian Band which some years ago placed a claim on the lands
now occupied by the Department of National Defence for the
testing of various weapons and training systems.
The member talked about involving northerners and I assume
aboriginals in the decision making, et cetera. Therefore I would
like to ask him a question relating to a letter sent to the Prime
Minister of Canada yesterday by the Chief of the Canoe Lake
Band.
The chief indicated that the Government of Canada rejected
the claim of the band to those lands but that the Indian Claims
Commission established to inquire into this claim and others
had recommended the acceptance of the Canoe Lake claim on
the Primrose Lake land.
The letter to the Prime Minister today asks the government, in
addition to considering the testing of the cruise missile, to
consider the report and recommendations of the claims
commission that the claim be accepted. The chief of the Canoe
Lake Band indicates that as in similar situations in Canada the
Primrose Lake air weapons range testing program has been very
detrimental to the people who live nearby the Primrose Lake air
weapons range and therefore this program is quite detrimental to
them.
(1650)
Would the member indicate whether he is prepared to accept
the invitation, put on the table by the Canoe Lake Band, to
approach the Prime Minister to discuss as participants in this
process the acceptance of their claim?
Mr. Graham: Mr. Speaker, there are two elements to the
member's question and I would like to start by going back to the
finish of my talk which, given the time constraints, I did not
have time to address properly.
The thrust of what I was trying to say about the Arctic
Council-and I would recommend this to the hon. member
because it does not directly relate to the Canoe Lake Band to
which he refers-is that it is a proposal which has been espoused
in Canada for a long time. It would involve the Soviet Union,
Alaska and all the countries and participants in the Arctic
Circle. It would enable the peoples of that area, including the
aboriginal peoples of the Soviet Union and other countries in the
Arctic area, to get together and co-operate.
As a backbencher what I was urging on the government was
that if the testing was to go forward an opportunity might be
seized to say to our American counterparts that if they proceed
with these tests we would like to see some movement on the
development of the Arctic Council. This might go some way
toward addressing the concerns of the member for Western
Arctic to which I referred in my talk.
Forgive me but I am not familiar with the specific concerns of
the Canoe Lake Band and the facts to which the member
referred. Therefore just in the light of what he told me, it would
seem that the position is more than reasonable to say that we
should pursue with all vigour an examination of the legitimacy
of the claims and do our best to make sure of the result in the
light of the debate and see if we can make sure that anybody
living in the area where the missile might or might not be tested
would be ensured of the full preservation of their rights as was
suggested by my hon. friend, the member for Vancouver Quadra,
in his intervention.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): On my first formal
speech in this House, I am pleased to extend to you, Mr. Speaker,
my most sincere congratulations on your election to this
distinguished position.
407
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who
have been appointed to be your substitute in the Chair. I can
assure you all of my full support and co-operation as well as that
of the other members from my party.
Allow me to also take this opportunity to pay my respects to
the constituents of the federal riding of Verchères who, by
putting their trust in me on October 25, have given me the
privilege of representing them in this House.
I have been a fervent sovereigntist since I was 15-and as we
saw earlier, sovereigntist is used by the hon. member for Beaver
River as a synonym for ``enemy within''. In those days, I never
imagined that some day I would be representing my fellow
citizens in the House of Commons, the symbol par excellence of
the Canadian federal system. But I have the pleasure of
belonging to a political party, namely the Bloc Quebecois,
whose raison d'être happens to be to advance the cause of
Quebec sovereignty in this House.
Of course, Quebec has not achieved the status of sovereign
state yet. It is still part of this vast country we call Canada. And
if I start my speech on cruise missile testing by emphasizing this
concept of sovereignty so dear to my heart, it is simply because
in certain spheres the testing issue is viewed as an attack on the
sovereignty of Canada.
There are people who claim that renewing the Canada-U.S.A.
umbrella agreement and periodic authorization regarding cruise
missile testing within Canadian territorial boundaries is akin to
an unacceptable surrender to the imperatives of the foreign and
defence policy of our neighbours to the south, an infringement
upon the political sovereignty of Canada.
An hon. member: Exactly.
Mr. Bergeron: But since any sovereign state must be able to
protect its borders, we must recognize that Canada's political
and territorial sovereignty depends to a large extent on its
participation in the collective security system provided under
NATO and NORAD.
(1655)
We must recognize that Canada does not have the resources
required to defend its huge territory by itself.
Canada has been a member of NATO since 1949 and of
NORAD since 1958. Cruise missile tests are not strategically
tied to NORAD since this organization's mandate, namely the
surveillance of North America, is essentially defensive in
nature. The use of the cruise missile must be seen in that context
mainly as a counter-offensive measure. However, cruise missile
tests improve detection and interception techniques that fall
under NORAD's mandate.
Since Canada does not stockpile strategic arms and bases its
defence policy on the collective security system put in place
under NATO, it must volunteer to co-operate with its allies in
putting in place a strategic deterrent force if necessary.
Under this approach, Canada was asked in 1983 to approve
cruise missile tests on its territory despite the fact that this
nuclear deterrence strategy was not directed linked to NATO's
strategy. This was aimed at maintaining a strategic balance
between the two superpowers in a then bipolar world.
The international situation has changed since the dismantling
of the Warsaw pact and the Eastern Bloc. Nevertheless, the
nuclear threat has remained and become even more complex
with the arrival of new nuclear powers. I am thinking of Ukraine
and Kazakhstan, for example. In its 1992 defence policy,
Canada recognized that the geopolitical environment had
changed considerably and that the global balance of power was
no longer based on a bipolar structure. We have witnessed the
gradual emergence of new nuclear powers, which are often very
politically unstable. Under such circumstances, it was risky for
Canada and its allies to question the collective security system
their defence policy had been built on since the days of the cold
war. The cruise missile is a weapon perfectly suited to the new
strategic context and illustrates our current collective security
system.
The tests requested by the U.S. administration are not
designed to encourage the escalation of new nuclear
technologies. The START I and START II treaties already limit
the number of deployed missiles. This ceiling cannot be
exceeded either in terms of the number of missiles deployed or
in terms of striking force, that is the size of nuclear heads.
It must be pointed out that this type of missile can be used for
conventional-type missions, which is certainly not without
importance. Even though nuclear weapons were not used in the
Persian Gulf, that conflict demonstrated the effectiveness of
very localized attacks on well-defined targets. We saw cruise
missiles used to destroy armed command posts, conventional or
chemical weapons storage sites and even conventional,
chemical and nuclear, or should I say potentially nuclear,
weapons manufacturing plants. Had it not been for these
missiles, massive bombing strikes would undoubtedly have
been undertaken to destroy these targets. Heavy conventional
bombing strikes would have exacted a very high toll in human
lives since the majority of the sites destroyed were located in
densely populated areas. Because this type of weapon was used,
the heavy bombardment which could have resulted in a great
many civilian casualties was not necessary.
Although some cruise missiles launched during the Persian
gulf war did in fact miss their targets, there is no question that
they proved to be an effective weapon. But the fact remains that
certain flaws inherent in the design of the cruise missile resulted
408
in targeting errors. New technologies have been developed to
correct these design flaws and the United States now needs to
conduct tests, and hence extend new missile development
programs. The purpose of the testing over Canadian soil is to
improve and perfect the cruise missile guidance system.
These tests are conducted no more than two or three times a
year over sparsely populated areas. The impact on the ecosystem
and on local populations is therefore minimal.
It should also be pointed out that these tests do not involve any
outlay of Canadian public funds, since under the terms of the
umbrella agreement, the United States covers all costs
associated with tests of this nature. Therefore, the testing would
not lead to any increase in our national defence budget.
(1700)
The Bloc Quebecois, while firmly opposing the continuation
of the arms race, cannot ignore the unstable international
environment since the dismantling of the former U.S.S.R. and
the potential threats now facing the world. NATO recently
wanted to show this spirit of co-operation which should
normally exist in the aftermath of the cold war, by making a
gesture of openness to the countries of eastern Europe. Mr.
Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in
Russia, replied that admitting these countries to NATO could
only lead to a third world war. The rise of the extreme right in
Russia and the growing number of nuclear powers mean that it
would be imprudent and irresponsible to lower our guard and not
to follow global strategic developments closely.
Under these circumstances, Canada cannot afford to call into
question its defence commitments to its allies. Its international
credibility would be greatly affected as would its special
relationship with the United States. A deterioration in political
relations between Canada and the United States could have
negative economic and trade consequences, at a time when it is
already rather difficult for us to have the spirit of the free trade
agreement respected and its various provisions enforced.
The present international environment therefore requires us
to maintain the collective security system structures to which
we belong and as a result Canada must keep its commitments in
this regard. Nevertheless, we should follow international
developments and adapt our defence policy to new global
realities if necessary. On the basis of these new realities, we
might even be called upon to review our international defence
commitments. It is therefore essential that the government make
a formal commitment to repeat annually the exercise in which
we are participating today and to submit the question of cruise
missile testing to Parliament for discussion and approval every
year.
In closing, I wonder about the government's intentions for
Canada's defence policy. The speech from the throne announced
that Canada's defence policy would be redefined. Barely a week
after the speech from the throne was read, even before the
government's defence policy has been defined and a public
debate has begun on this new defence policy, the government is
asking Parliament to deal with two issues that directly concern
Canada's defence policy, namely the presence of Canadian UN
troops in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia and the authorization
of cruise missile tests on Canadian territory. Does the
government intend to make a decision on these two important
questions before defining a new defence policy or is it just
trying to sound out the opinion of the House of Commons on two
fundamental aspects of this defence policy before it says where
it stands? Although we are glad that the government is
consulting parliamentarians on these two important issues, we
can well wonder why this exercise is going on at this particular
time. This government initiative smells of improvisation and
seems like a diversionary tactic.
This debate on cruise missiles is only meaningful to the extent
that it is directly related to the Canadian government's defence
policy. Since we do not know what the government intends to
propose for redefining Canada's defence policy, we think that no
real debate can take place and no final decision on cruise missile
testing on Canadian territory can be made until the government
tables its white paper on defence policy.
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend the member of the Bloc Quebecois for the remarks
that he just gave. I have a few comments on the back part of the
speech and perhaps a question or two.
The member has indicated clearly his position and the
position of his party as enunciated a little earlier by the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois, the Leader of the Opposition.
However he asked a question at the end of it. Specifically he
said: ``Why are we going through this exercise now? Why the
consultation at this period of time?'' It is fairly clear that during
the election campaign the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party,
which is now the government, indicated that this would be a
different type of Parliament.
I have been here since 1988. This is only my second term, but
I can certainly tell the members that the type of consultative
approach that has been taken in just the first 10 days of this
Parliament is vastly different than what this place has seen in the
past. This is an effort by this government to try to change the
way this place does business.
409
(1705)
Yesterday we had a debate in this House concerning the role of
Canada's peacekeepers specifically in Bosnia-Hercegovina. I
think it was extremely productive.
The first item on the news last night was that this place, which
had been far too partisan in the past, far too pro forma in just
rubber stamping government policy that was decided in the
PMO and in that inner circle of the cabinet, was going to be a
little different now.
The consultative process which started yesterday and allows
members from this side of the House, backbenchers who are not
members of the cabinet to voice differences of opinion on key
policy areas is refreshing.
We are having this debate today because the Prime Minister
has indicated that as we develop our policy on issues such as this
and put our legislative framework together, members from all
sides of this House will have a right to input. That is vastly
different from what I have seen in my last five years in this
place.
I conclude by indicating that the comments the hon. member
and others in this House made today will go a long way in
deciding the process by which we develop a long-term policy.
The comments the member made that perhaps we should have
a defence white paper is an issue that has seized members of this
House and the Canadian public in the past. I believe that the
Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have
indicated that in these matters of defence policy it is not good
enough to wait until the entire review is done. Some time early
in the session we must ask the members of this House for some
input.
I am pleased to see that the hon. member believes in the
consultative process. I look forward to his comments as the
government gets under way with committees on the
comprehensive review of national defence policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. I simply want to say that I understand the enthusiasm
of my colleague regarding the fact that the Prime Minister has
allowed this House to speak on an issue before the government
policy is announced. I understand that the member has been here
for a few years and this is the first time he has an opportunity to
speak freely on a government policy before such a policy is
made public. Consequently, I can certainly understand his
enthusiasm.
However, what I object to is not this opportunity to express
our views in the House on this issue, but rather the chronological
process involved. To use a common expression, I feel that the
government has "put the cart before the horse" to the extent that
we start this debate without even knowing where the
government is headed with its defence policy.
You will agree with me that if the government decides that the
collective security system which has been in place since the late
forties is no longer adequate and that we must withdraw from it,
such a decision will have a major impact on the continuation of
the cruise missile tests conducted over the Canadian territory.
Consequently, we cannot discuss this issue without first
undertaking a comprehensive review of the Canadian defence
policy.
Therefore, the chronology of events is not perfectly logical. I
agree that a debate had to be held, that it should be held, and I
have no objection to that. However, this debate should take place
once we know the general outline of the national defence policy.
Moreover, we are asked to participate in this debate with only
a few days notice, and without any opportunity to have access to
documents from the Department of National Defence.
Consequently, we parliamentarians are not well prepared for
this exercise. I hope that it was not the deliberate intention of the
government to announce a debate at the last minute and to give
instructions to the Department of National Defence to not
provide us with documents which might be necessary for the
purpose of the debate.
This is what I object to. I certainly have nothing against a
debate as such. It is a good thing to allow members to express
their views on a government policy, but we have to know what
the general outline of that policy is, so as to see if what we are
debating will still be part of the policy in a few weeks or a few
months.
(1710 )
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
too wish to thank the hon. member, my colleague and I hope, my
friend, for his very fine maiden speech. Although he indicates
that he did not have much time to be made ready, he certainly did
a good job, especially on some of the technical details.
I have a hypothetical question to put to the member, Mr.
Speaker, and if I could be forgiven for a hypothetical question I
would be happy to accept a hypothetical answer. That is, if this
test were to be taking place in northern Quebec rather than in the
northwestern part of Canada, would the hon. member's
comments, concerns and questions be the same?
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: I want to thank the hon. member for his
hypothetical question, and I will try to be as specific as I can in
my answer.
The question is hypothetical to the extent that these tests are
not scheduled to take place over Quebec territory. If that were
the case, however, we would have to ensure, as has been done in
the case of cruise missile testing since 1983, that the tests are
carried out under the best possible conditions, which means, as I
410
pointed out earlier, within a corridor away from populated areas,
where there would be very little impact on the environment.
If these conditions were met, I think that our answer would be
the same as the one we give today for tests in western Canada.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, today is a very sad day for thousands of Quebecers who
support the peace movement.
Personally, I am quite frankly disappointed, and I am even
amazed at the position the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, and
other members of the Bloc, have taken on this issue. The Bloc
had a chance to say yes to a new era and no to the cold war.
Unfortunately, the voices of Quebec that are very loud in the
peace movement in Quebec are not reflected in the Bloc's
comments.
I have a question for the hon. member who just spoke. I heard
one of his colleagues who disagreed with the very conservative
position taken by the Bloc Quebecois. I have the following
question for my Bloc colleague. We are talking about nuclear
missiles. Would he agree that this would be very destabilizing,
as was even suggested by the hon. member for
Papineau-Saint-Michel, now Minister of Foreign Affairs,
when in 1988 he mentioned the destabilizing effect of cruise
missile technology on the international strategic balance. And
he was right.
Today, we have Mr. Zhirinovsky who is a threat in Russia.
This would give Mr. Zhirinovsky a very important argument:
``Look, they are testing cruise missiles in Canada!''
Why does the Bloc Quebecois not consider the peace
movement's position on these changes and recognize the
significance of a new strategy that would reject cruise missile
testing in Canada?
Mr. Bergeron: Again I want to thank the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway for his question which seems to be about
the conservative position of the Bloc Quebecois on the issue of
cruise missile testing.
First of all, I get the impression that he did not listen properly
to what I said, because we do not want to go back to the context
of the cold war and use that as the basis for our policy. I made it
quite clear in my speech that the Bloc's response to this
particular question was based on a new global context, and I
referred to the presence of Zhirinovsky in Russia and to the
existence of new nuclear powers to justify continuing the tests.
I also pointed out that the purpose of the tests was basically to
improve and refine the missile's remote control system and that
consequently the tests had no direct impact on the nuclear arms
race.
I would also like to say to the hon. member that if the hon.
member for Papineau-Saint-Michel makes contradictory
remarks, that is his problem, not mine.
(1715)
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): It is a pleasure to rise on
debate today. Yesterday when we had the first day of debate on
national defence issues I was not able to formally get on debate.
I was up and down like a jack-in-the-box on questions and
comments so I think I got most of my comments in yesterday.
This is an important debate. As I just said to my hon.
colleague from the Bloc Quebecois and the Official Opposition,
this is a different House. We started off this term in government
with this Liberal government trying to uphold the rhetoric we
had spouted while in opposition. That was that this House had to
act differently and if we wanted to put some respect back into the
way this place worked, we had to recognize that the 295 men and
women who were elected to be here had the right to speak on
issues that affect them and convey wherever possible the
interests and points of view of the people they are here to
represent.
It is quite clear that today's debate on cruise missile testing is
another example of the commitment given during the campaign.
The issue of cruise missile testing, as my colleague from
Rosedale indicated earlier, is a new debate. Many people who
would have been getting up during the course of the day to
support at least in the short term the continued testing of U.S.
cruise missiles over Canadian soil, just a few short years ago
may have been getting up and saying something quite different
in debate.
We have to recognize that the world has changed dramatically
in the last five years. We have seen the collapse of the Soviet
Union. The cold war has ended. I remember just a few short
years ago listening to many of my colleagues, mostly from the
New Democratic Party, who time and time again were preaching
about a peace dividend and how the government of the day
should withdraw, downsize, even do away with whole aspects of
the defence establishment.
I wish that their comments had borne fruit. But the reality is
that the world has changed. The cold war is over, but the world
today probably is even a less safe place than it was during the
cold war.
Previous debates that the public and parliamentarians have
been seized with dealing with cruise missile testing in Canada
are quite different from the debate today. The debate was
whether or not the Canadian government by allowing cruise
missile testing over Canadian soil was adding to or aiding in the
escalation of the nuclear armament between the two
superpowers. Indeed, it was a consideration and a concern we all
shared, even though we had different points of view on it.
411
However, today's debate is not on that at all. We saw just two
years ago in the gulf war that the U.S. technology, the cruise
missile technology, can also be used in delivering strategic
surgical, very precise blows to the arsenals of the opposing
forces, in that particular case the Iraqis. I dare say that the
technology that was developed yes, initially to deliver tactical
nuclear weapons was used with conventional weapons in a way
that minimized the loss of life and probably decreased the length
of that war.
The reality is that as Canadians, as parliamentarians, we are
now facing a crisis in Canada. We are trying to develop, and we
are inviting input from all members from all sides, a national
defence policy, not just for this year or next, but for the future.
The reality is that for a long period of time we have relied on
our membership in international organizations like NORAD and
NATO to provide us with collective security as a nation. I would
go so far as to say that as a nation we probably spend very, very
little on a per capita basis for our defence in comparison to other
countries that are in the NATO alliance or NORAD.
As part of a team, there is give and take. Yesterday we heard a
lot about the give. Canada has given to the world a thing called
peacekeeping in the great Pearson tradition. We debated that
yesterday. We are the country with a small population which has
excelled around the world and has gained support and credibility
from our neighbours through the United Nations for our military
efforts, not at making war or being an aggressor state, but as
peacekeepers. That is the contribution we have made through
the international community and through our NATO and
NORAD agreements to peace and security. Let us be fair. The
Americans, the giant that lives next door provides us, because it
is in their strategic interest, with most of our national defence.
We have to give something in return for that. What they have
asked for in the past, and which has caused great concern among
Canadians, was that we allow them to test the cruise missile on
Canadian soil.
(1720)
What we are being asked to debate is whether it is the opinion
of members of this House that the 10-year agreement which was
renewed last year by the previous government should be upheld.
Indeed we should try to stimulate debate in this place about what
type of defence policy we do want.
It is fairly clear. It was the Leader of the Opposition who
quoted physicist Kosta Tsipis. The quote he used is important. It
deals with the available technology that is used in the cruise
missile itself. Mr. Tsipis indicated that any country that can
manufacture simple aircraft can construct a cruise missile that
can carry a ton of cargo at least 300 miles and land no more than
30 feet from its target.
It is clear that we are dealing with the second generation of
testing of cruise technology by the United States. We know that
other countries have the technology to develop cruise type
missiles. We know that some of those countries which have the
technology to have cruise type missiles are not friendly or stable
countries.
We know with the collapse of the Soviet Union that much of
the arsenal which was at least protected by the former
communist government through force is now or perhaps will be
up for sale. It would be foolhardy in seeking to maintain some
type of international peace for the Canadian government not to
at least in the interim until the defence policy is fully fleshed out
through a review to uphold the commitment to allow the
American government to come in and further test the cruise
missile.
What are they testing it for? Are they testing it because they
want to put a nuclear warhead on it? No. That is not why they are
doing it. From all I read this round of testing is basically to
ensure that the United States will be able to develop some
methods to better detect cruise missiles and similar technology
from other countries.
Is that a valid observation? I think it is and it is something that
we have to agree to. If we look at where our Canadian troops are
currently serving, we do not know if in a year, six months, or two
years time that we are not going to see an aggressor force or
some radical group in a civil war somewhere where our troops
are using cruise technology against us.
In this case the best defence is an offence, to look and see what
it is we can do to aid the Americans in developing the second tier
of technology in order to be able to detect low-level cruise type
missiles that are coming from other countries.
It is also important to look at what is going on today as a
prelude to a much larger and much more necessary debate that
will take place in this House.
During the course of the campaign, the military and military
expenditures became a major issue. One question kept being
asked. I represent an area where we have all kinds of people that
work in the Canadian military, probably over 10,000 or maybe
15,000. We have the Canadian navy. We have CFB Shearwater.
There are lots of individuals who are in the Canadian military.
With the changing geopolitical situation, the Canadian
government must seize the initiative and ensure that we have a
modern defence policy. What we said during the campaign is
that as a government we would initiate and conclude through
broad consultation, not just the parliamentarians but all
Canadians, what it is we should be doing through the United
Nations in the interests of global peace and security and also in
the interests of protecting our national sovereignty.
Until that review is completed I would submit to the House
that it is in the interests of international peace and security and
it is in the interest of Canada's standing in the world community
through its adherence to international agreements that the
412
decision made by the previous government to continue to allow
the American forces to test cruise missiles on Canadian soil be
upheld. The decision to uphold it should be subject to the results
of a comprehensive cross-Canada debate on what we want for
our Canadian forces as a national policy in the future.
(1725)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member just gave a speech with which I am in agreement for the
most part. However, shortly before him, the hon. member for
Rosedale, who is seated a few rows behind, used an expression
with which I disagree, and I will ask his opinion on that.
The hon. member for Rosedale was talking about the testing
of a new weapon. I disagree with that, because this is not a
weapon, at least that is what I understand from the hon.
member's speech: It is not a weapon, it is a delivery system. In
fact, it could probably deliver anything, even the mail for
Canada Post. I can already see the name ``cruisolator''.
What I am trying to say is that it could lead to civilian
applications of the guidance system. Let us look at that element.
It is a computer that knows the ground and can therefore find its
way across land.
We are already talking about cars that could follow a given
itinerary with the help of automated guidance systems. We are
told that the systems could even work within cities, not just in
the countryside. This would be very convenient to come to the
House every morning; we would not have to watch all this traffic
on the bridges. I mentioned bridges because, as you might know,
I live on the other side of the river.
My point is: Has the hon. member considered the civilian
applications that could possibly result from these cruise missile
tests?
[English]
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite
raises some very interesting observations about the technology.
I think he is right. We are talking about the testing of technology
as it is embodied in the cruise missile, a jet-propelled unmanned
rocket, with a guidance system on board.
I am sure he would agree that most of the innovative
technologies developed by the defence establishment have most
times found applications within the civilian industrial complex.
I am pleased he raised that. One of the things the Liberal
Party, which is now the government, clearly indicated during the
campaign is that we would have a program of defence
conversion. Many of the industries that relied during the cold
war on defence procurement and research and development on
defence will get the necessary government assistance now that
there is a change in the geopolitical situation around the world.
We will give some assistance to those industries to take new and
innovative technologies that have been developed for a military
purpose and help find applications for a civilian purpose.
We on this side of the House believe by doing that we will
ensure that the technologies that have been developed will not
be lost as a result in the changing political situation around the
world and that jobs for Canadians will be found with
government assistance in bridging the gap between defence
industries and civilian industries using defence technology.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, while I agree
with his conclusion that we should continue within the
framework of this agreement as passed by the previous
government, he seems to be contradicting himself when he says:
``Let us continue until we review it''. The agreement is supposed
to be in place until 2003.
Is the hon. member suggesting that we just agree to it for a
year or two, or for six months? Do we have to go through this
debate again in another 10 months to make another decision
about whether or not we should continue? Are we putting this to
rest for the whole term or are we just putting it to rest until the
government gets a chance to review it further?
I do not think the Americans would appreciate that kind of a
decision.
(1730 )
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will make it very clear. The
debate today is about policy direction. We have a legal
agreement with the United States but I am quite certain that a
sovereign Government of Canada, if it felt it was the will of the
Canadian public or part of an overall framework on defence
policy that they could not fulfil a commitment, our neighbours
to the south would understand and hopefully allow us to
abrogate it.
I am saying I support this agreement. However I do not want
to prejudice the debate that will follow. It has to be an
unencumbered debate that will take place during the defence
review. I do not think you walk into a defence review saying we
have decided ahead of time that 14 of these things are sacred
cows so they cannot be touched, that 22 bases cannot be touched
and you cannot talk about cruise missile testing in Canada.
We want to engage parliamentarians and Canadians, both
inside and outside the defence establishment, to develop a
defence policy which first and foremost looks after the
sovereign needs of Canada. I would hope that defence policy
would focus quite heavily on things such as fisheries patrol, on
drug interdiction in our coastal waters and on our commitment
to the international community through the UN on
peacekeeping.
413
From my view what we have to do is say that the agreement
that is in place is one we will uphold but let our American
counterparts know there will be an open and free debate in this
country about what it is we want to do as a nation with our
defence policy.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to begin by thanking the residents of Mississauga
West for seeing fit to honour me by electing me to come to the
House. Mississauga West is the second largest riding in the
country and I am beginning to feel as though winning over
140,000 residents was probably a lot easier than winning over
my colleagues in the House. I feel like a dove among a lot of
hawks.
I am speaking today on a matter which I believe to be of great
importance not only to the people of Canada but to Canada's
enviable reputation in the world of international relations. I am
speaking from my heart today rather than from a position of
profound technical detail.
As we know, for many years the American government has
had ready access to Canadian airspace to test cruise missiles.
Testing has been ongoing and evidently without conclusion.
Every year we and our American neighbours continue to
co-operate in this project despite the fact that hundreds of
thousands of Canadians are fundamentally and vehemently
opposed to our participation in the arms race.
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his openness and
willingness to discuss this important issue in the House of
Commons. Canadians everywhere are watching this process and
judging us on our commitment to parliamentary reform.
The cruise missile testing question, despite some of the
concerns, is an excellent example of this new process because I
am, in fact, speaking against the majority of my party, from what
I can gather.
I urge all members of the House to carefully consider the
facts, the implications and the future possibilities associated
with cruise missile testing. In the 10 years since the testing
agreement was signed, the world is a profoundly changed place.
It is hard to imagine even as recently as five years ago the fall of
the Soviet empire, the return to democracy of much of eastern
Europe or the new freedoms finally beginning in South Africa.
Nearly everywhere there is a sense of excitement and hope
and a belief in a future which is finally free from the prospect of
global war. Against this backdrop the American and former
Soviet governments have pulled back from mutual mistrust and
the daily brink of confrontation. The Americans have a elected a
new president, a president committed to world peace, the
reduction of the military and the pursuit of domestic
improvements in health, infrastructure and education. The
resulting peace dividend will likely finance these new, more
human programs in the United States.
At no time in the recent past have both the governments of the
United States and Canada been so similar in their stated goals of
improvements in health, infrastructure and education. Our
government must support these objectives which are the
dividends of peace and real global security.
The cruise missile and other related nuclear weapons belong
to a bygone time in world politics. It is doubtful that they ever
really belonged in our nation. Since the beginning of such
testing Canadians have been wary if not opposed outright to all
forms of nuclear weapons and warmongering. Previous Liberal
and Conservative governments have refused to accept nuclear
warheads on Canadian soil.
(1735)
Since the end of World War II Canada has been an
independent, sensible and trusted middle power nation with an
unassailable record for fairness and participation in world
peacekeeping. At a time when Americans were busily hunting
down suspected communists, destroying reputations and lives in
the process, Canadians were serving in the middle east working
toward a peaceful settlement in the Suez. In the 1960s Canada
led the world in opening trade with China and the Soviet Union
at a time when Americans were embroiled in the Vietnam war.
Throughout our history Canadians have cherished our
reputation and our independence. Right now we need once again
to assert that independence and sovereignty over our domestic
affairs and over our territory. It is time to cancel the cruise
missile testing agreement with America. It is time to send a
positive message of support and solidarity to people of such
fragile democracies as Russia and Ukraine, nations which need
positive reinforcement in their struggles to establish a
democracy.
We ask the members of the former Soviet Union to dismantle
their nuclear weapons. We ask them to work toward peace and
democracy. Yet we continue to send very mixed messages when
we continue to allow missiles to be tested over our territory.
Cruise missiles are designed to be used against the nations of
the former Soviet bloc. That is why they are being tested over
our land which is supposedly similar in terrain and weather to
the former Soviet Union.
The hypocrisy of preaching peace and demanding universal
disarmament while continuing to test fundamentally offensive
nuclear weapons is unacceptable to many Canadians. At a time
when we should be leading by example we are instead blindly
following the policies and practices of another time and another
political reality.
It is time to set a better example, to answer a higher call and to
extend a hand of peace and friendship to our global neighbours.
There are no winable nuclear wars. There are no good wars.
There is no such thing as them and us. We are all part of an
ever-shrinking world where weapons of the past and the policies
of hate, mistrust and propaganda must now be put to rest forever.
Canada has always been a world leader in peace. We must not
414
lose this opportunity to make a fresh commitment to a safer
future.
We have all seen the terrible pictures from Bosnia and
Ethiopia. We have heard the stories of torture and hate.
Canadian peacekeepers are routinely caught in difficult
situations where their lives and safety are in jeopardy. Who
knows from day to day when the goodwill of foreign powers will
run out? Who can predict when Canadian peacekeepers will
suddenly not be welcome on that foreign soil? We need to do
everything possible to ensure the overall safety of our soldiers
no matter where they serve.
The banning of cruise missile testing sends a strong message
of disarmament and peace. In the eyes of the world we will be
asserting our sovereignty and our commitment to global peace.
In addition, our native people who have been overlooked
during the past testing will finally enjoy the peace of mind that
comes with not worrying about a missile buzzing overhead. Past
governments have ignored native leaders. Their complaints
have been trivialized and their legitimate environmental and
safety concerns have been overlooked. We talked loftily about
native self-government. We pat each other on the back
whenever a dispute is settled with indigenous peoples. Yet we
destroy whatever goodwill has been established by routinely
violating their airspace with foreign aircraft and missiles. Over
the Mackenzie Valley and delta and Beaufort Sea and over the
lands of the Dene, Inuit and Métis cruise missiles fly at low
levels in outrageous military war games.
I wonder how long Americans could test missiles over the
cities of southern Ontario. Can one imagine the outrage? Of
course it is an unfair example but it does illustrate my point.
Native people despite being vastly dispersed have a right to
enjoy their lives and their environment without the potential of a
disaster. We should be applying the same principles across all of
Canada for all of our people.
I ask that all members of this House carefully weigh the
arguments put forward in this debate, consider the current global
situation and weigh the concerns of environmentalists, native
Canadians and others who have a vital interest in peace. The
world is watching and we should be providing a strong
leadership now and not some time in the future when everything
is tested and perfect and we are fully armed.
(1740)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Speaker, I agree
with the member who spoke before me and who mentioned the
sovereignty and independence of our territory. I think that in the
Bloc Quebecois we all accept this.
Canada's primary mission in the world is peacemaking,
peacebuilding or peacekeeping.
May I first mention that before today's debate on missiles, we
had yesterday, in this House, an extensive special debate on
Bosnia and the peacekeepers' mandate in that country. The
purpose of that debate, which lasted over 14 hours, was to find
out whether Canada should extend the peacekeepers' mandate in
Bosnia after March 31, 1994, in spite of the tremendous cost of
such a mission. Are we going to listen to our heart or our wallet?
I think that we will listen to our heart for the following
reasons: to protect senior citizens who are defenceless; to
protect fathers and mothers whose role is to provide food and
shelter to millions of children; and also to protect millions of
children who are in danger.
Regarding cruise missile testing, will we listen to our heart or
our wallet? Maybe our heart, but then again maybe our wallet.
Testing on Canadian territory is done at no cost to Quebec or
Canadian taxpayers. Canada cannot afford an army the size of
the United States' or Russia's.
Should Canada be unfortunately dragged into war, its main
ally would certainly be the United States. For a reason close to
our heart, the cruise missiles are being refined to render them
more efficient and to weaken the enemy with greater precision,
without costing thousands of human lives.
Mr. Plamondon: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I think the
member should have the floor following the Bloc member. She
had the floor for 10 minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I believe the
hon. member is right.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: Madam Speaker, my difficulty is that I am only
conversant in English so you will have to be patient with me.
There was talk of protecting millions of children and families
and about the Americans as our protector. I believe if there is a
real war that involves Canada and the United States then nothing
will protect us. I believe the Americans have an enormous army
and an enormous capacity to be the traditional peacekeepers for
the free world. They have done so and I am very grateful to them
for this.
I believe it is time we changed. I think to protect the millions
of people and children and the next generation and the
environment that we have to begin the business of not having
standing armies and not having war and not threatening each
other with weapons. The true protection, whether it costs money
or does not cost money, is complete disarmament. I do not mean
what
415
looks like disarmament but in fact is the laying down of all arms
in this world for the next generation.
(1745 )
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Madam Speaker, as this is
the first opportunity I have had to address this House I would
like to congratulate the Speaker for his election to Speaker of
this House as well as those designated as deputy and acting
speakers. I am sure your jobs will be challenging and rewarding
and I pledge my full co-operation with the House rules and
proceedings.
My congratulations also to all members on their election or
re-election to this Parliament. I look forward to meeting and
debating with them on the important issues concerning Canada
in a civil and productive manner.
Also I would like to thank the constituents of my riding of
Athabasca for entrusting me with this most important job during
this most important and changing time in Canadian political
history. I truly feel honoured by the great responsibility with
which they have entrusted me and they can be assured that I do
not take this responsibility lightly. I will do my best to represent
their needs and Canada's needs in this new Parliament.
I would like to send a special thank you to my wife, Evelyn,
who has provided so much support and encouragement to me in
meeting and accepting the challenges in this new role as member
of Parliament.
I became involved in politics and became a member of
Parliament because of a great concern I have for the future of our
country, the greatest country in the world to live in. Also I have a
great concern for this country because of the apparent out of
control public spending and spiralling debt at a time of declining
of natural resources and high unemployment.
Although this is my maiden speech, I wish to focus on the
proposed cruise missile testing by the U.S. Although the
Primrose Lake air weapons range, which will be the final
destination for these exercises, is not in my riding, the flight
corridor over which these missiles fly is in fact in my riding.
Therefore these tests are of concern to my constituents and
anything that could affect my constituents affects me as their
representative in this House.
I would like to commend the government for allowing this
debate on such an important topic. I hope that this government
will have the same open forum in the future when this
government reviews its defence policy as promised.
Before I speak to this issue let me tell a bit about my riding.
The riding of Athabasca is in the northeastern part of Alberta
and is approximately 196,000 square kilometres which makes it
one of the largest ridings in Canada. To put this in perspective, if
one combines the area of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia and Prince Edward Island then the area of the riding of
Athabasca would still be larger. These provinces have 25
representatives between them in this House compared to one for
Athabasca. You can imagine the enormity of my task in
representing the constituents of Athabasca, however, I am ready
and eager to accept all the challenges that await me.
The principal industries of Athabasca are agriculture,
forestry, mining, oil and gas and tourism. More specifically, the
diversity of my riding includes ALPAC, the largest bleach kraft
pulp mill in the world. It will soon include a paper mill. Also,
some of the most productive conventional oil and gas fields in
Canada are located through Slave Lake and High Prairie in the
northern areas of my riding. The Fort McMurray tar sands
projects are in the northeast corner of my riding. These
companies add enormously to the economic viability of the
country.
For example, the companies that work the tar sands make a
huge contribution to both the federal and provincial
governments. These companies employ thousands of people, all
of whom pay taxes to support this government's programs.
Syncrude, which is only one of the consortiums working the tar
sands projects, employs 10,500 people directly or indirectly
from which $1.5 billion has been paid out in corporate and
personal income taxes. These tar sands deposits are very
significant to the energy needs of Canada. In fact, it is estimated
that there are enough oil reserves in my riding to provide
self-sufficiency for Canada's oil needs, given the current
consumption of 1.5 million barrels per day, for centuries to
come.
For example, the four known oil sands deposits are located in
Alberta, two of which are in my riding. The total estimated
bitumen contained in these four deposits is 1.7 trillion barrels.
Of that, 307 billion barrels of bitumen recoverable with today's
technology from the tar sands alone could supply Canada's
energy needs for 475 years.
(1750 )
My riding of Athabasca also has a large aboriginal population
with 12 bands, about 50 reserves and a number of Métis
settlements. This large population has led to my interest in
native self-government and it is why I sit on my party's
aboriginal committee.
My riding also contains some of the most productive
agricultural areas in Canada. The Westlock-Athabasca area has
well known producers and exporters of high quality grain,
oilseeds, pork and beef. I have been involved for many years in
beef ranching and am proud to say that this is one of the least
subsidized sectors in agriculture. It should be a model of free
enterprise and free market operation for other areas of
agriculture.
416
I agree with the comment my hon colleague from
Essex-Windsor made in the House this past Monday when she
said that a country that cannot feed itself is soon not a country
and is at the mercy of every other nation.
Taking this one step further, I also believe and history proves
that a nation that cannot protect its sovereignty cannot long
survive. This brings me to the topic of discussion before the
House today.
In 1983 the current Minister of Human Resources
Development and Western Economic Diversification, who was
then minister of defence, signed the original test evaluation
agreement with the U.S.
Recently this minister claims that Canada no longer needs
these tests because the cold war is over. The cold war may be
over but this world is still if not more unstable than during the
cold war period.
Instead of having one major threat, we now have many
smaller threats. Although the Iron Curtain has fallen and they
have opened their arms to us, this does not mean we live in a
Utopian world. The recent gulf conflict in which both the
Canadian Armed Forces and the cruise missile took part in made
us astutely aware of that fact.
Canadian participation in these tests enables us to fulfil our
obligations under the NORAD alliance but also to keep abreast
of the latest developments in defence technologies. By
participating in these tests our forces gain valuable operational
experience that would otherwise not be available.
Also, if Canada is to be a member of such organizations as
NORAD and NATO, my constituents and I believe we must be
willing to participate in these organizations simply because we
currently do not have the capacity without the support of our
allies to defend our national sovereignty. I am not only speaking
for myself but also for my constituents who are in the flight path
of these exercises.
The records which I have researched do not contain one
complaint, one petition or one letter opposing these exercises
from the constituents of Athabasca. My constituents are also
aware that there is no environmental threat to them.
The missiles used in these exercises are not armed. In fact,
section 8 of the original Test and Evaluation Agreement states:
``In no case shall nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare
material be brought into Canada, and that the Cruise Missiles
shall be unarmed''.
Furthermore, the Department of National Defence has
informed me that an extensive initial environmental assessment
was conducted in 1983 and reviewed in 1989 and 1992. These
studies showed that the cruise missile testing has no significant
or adverse environmental impact.
Furthermore, section 13 of this same agreement states that the
flight corridors in Canada which are used for testing cruise
missiles shall be selected in consultation with Canadians to
ensure minimum disruption to civil aircraft operations and
minimum disturbances to people on the ground.
If this government were to rescind this agreement, an
agreement that was signed by the Conservative government only
last year, Canada as a participant in organizations such as
NORAD would lose credibility as a nation that can be depended
upon by our allies to co-operate in the preservation of peace and
sovereignty in North America and the free world.
As I stated earlier in my speech, I have consulted with my
constituents. They are willing to accept their responsibility as a
member of NORAD. I believe Canada should do the same.
(1755)
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): 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?
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I believe the debate in the
House today is not about nuclear weapons. It is about the testing
of a specific weapon known as the cruise missile which is quite
capable of carrying non-nuclear weapons as was demonstrated
quite effectively during the gulf war, in particular the guidance
system of that particular weapon. Therefore, I do not think it in
any way affects our commitments of non-proliferation of nu-
417
clear weaponry. I support the continued testing of the cruise
missile and the guidance system thereof.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, I
particularly appreciated the speech by the member for
Athabasca. Several points he raised are also concerns of mine. I
am all the more happy as the member for Mississauga West, who
spoke before him, mentioned that she would rather see the world
disarm than go on with the testing.
I would like to share a thought with the member for Athabasca
and ask his comment on the matter. Let us compare the present
situation to a car with a safety belt. I know I am a cautious driver
but I know as well that other cars could skid and bang into mine.
That is why, even though I am a careful driver, I buckle up and I
am awfully happy to know that this device underwent the
appropriate testing.
This is my question to the member for Athabasca: Would he
agree that, in the present context, this testing is giving us a better
guaranty of safety, even if we know that we will never live in a
perfect world?
[English]
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, I very much agree with the
hon. member that in a perfect world there would be no need for
armed forces and there would be no need for weaponry.
Unfortunately, we are in a far from perfect world and as long as
there are greedy people in this world with aspirations to conquer
other countries and take over territories we will always need a
means of defending ourselves. I support the testing on this basis.
(1800 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Madam Speaker, as this
is my first speech in this House, I would like to take the
opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his election and as
well, to you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment.
I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate all
members who have just been elected to this 35th Parliament of
Canada. It is a historic time for all of us and a new era. I am
certainly looking forward to the opportunity to participate with
some humility.
I certainly want to thank the constituents of the Peace River
riding for their confidence in me and also my family who has
given me a great deal of support in the two years it has taken to
achieve the goal of becoming a member of Parliament. I would
also like to thank a number of friends in the riding.
I would just like to relate the story of when I was home at
Christmas. Somebody asked me how I was making out and I said
I was starting to feel a little bit more comfortable in the House.
However, they reminded me that I should not really get to feel
too comfortable here. I think that is a good piece of advice.
I just want to tell the House a little bit about the Peace River
riding. My colleague from Athabasca has told us about his
riding. We share a boundary. Together we represent sort of the
northern half of Alberta. It is an extremely big riding, one of the
largest ridings in Canada. The border on the west is the British
Columbia border and on the north the Northwest Territories.
Just a little bit of history about the Peace River riding: Some
200 years ago there were two warring Indian tribes. They had
gathered on the banks of the Peace River, a river that was not
named at that point, for peace negotiations and therefore the
name came about as the Peace River.
It was an area that was a main artery to opening up western
Canada. Alexander Mackenzie used that route to the Pacific
Ocean in 1793, some 200 years ago.
The area in general was settled in the early 1900s by
immigrants from Europe, the United States, as well as people
from eastern Canada developing a new territory. They were
looking for new opportunities.
Mr. McGuire: All maritimers out there.
Mr. Penson: Some from the Ottawa area I believe as well.
They were very innovative people. As a result of living in the
northern climates they have had to be. Agriculture is probably
the main industry, oil and gas is the second and forestry is very
important to the riding as well.
The city of Grand Prairie is the biggest centre in the riding. It
is a city of some 30,000 people.
The discussion today is very pertinent to my riding in that the
cruise missile test does take place over a major corridor within
the riding. Although, as somebody said earlier, the northern area
is sparsely populated this is the most populated area along the
cruise missile test route.
I also want to say that this area is very similar to the area that
the Americans were looking at in their test, It has a similar
climate to that of Russia, particularly Moscow. We are on the
same latitude.
I just want to remind hon. members that I read the other day
that Canada has the coldest capital of anywhere in the world so
although I live in northern Alberta and we have a climate similar
to Moscow that still makes it warmer than the climate here in
Ottawa.
The terrain is very similar as well.
I would just like to say that the major debate over the cruise
missile testing really took place 10 years ago. I really think to
some degree this is a bit redundant today. The matter was raised
and discussed to a great degree in 1983 before the testing took
place and I do not think things have changed significantly since
that time. As a matter of fact when the treaty was renewed in
418
February 1993 the debate should have taken place at that time if
it were that important.
(1805)
I do not hear any complaints or any concerns from people in
my riding. I just came through an election campaign where I
campaigned extensively and this issue was not raised on one
single occasion. I do not know anyone who is opposed to the
testing. There was little support in the riding for the ban of
testing in 1983 and I think there is even less now.
I do want to say that I welcome the review of defence policy
that is coming up. We certainly encourage the government to do
that, but we do have commitments that have to be met in the
meantime. We have to honour those commitments. We signed a
renewal in February and I believe we are bound by it.
We heard yesterday in the peacekeeping debate that there still
are trouble spots in the world, trouble spots that could develop
into something major. The former Yugoslavian republic was the
area where World War I started and that is a trouble spot again.
We know it has the potential for growing.
We know there is some potential for problems in Russia
although we certainly hope that democracy has taken firm root
there and is going to continue to develop. However I do believe
we have to be prepared.
I wanted to say as well that we have relied heavily on our
neighbours and friends to the south for help with our defences in
the past. We need to continue to do that. We do have partners in
NATO that we rely on. We are part of greater defence
organizations and I believe we have to honour these
commitments.
It is my view the people of the Peace River riding support
cruise missile testing in our area and in Canada. It is part of our
defence. It is a deterrent. We have seen that deterrent used in
Iraq very effectively. The UN had a mandate to go in and Canada
was part of that UN mandate in that situation. The cruise missile
was a big part of that deterrent.
I support the continuation of the cruise missile testing in the
riding. In my view that is backed up by the people in the Peace
River riding as well.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Madam Speaker, we
have been dealing with the concept of sovereignty on the
opposition side for some time now and obviously we are in a
good position to place the debate in the context of protecting
Canadian sovereignty. Our concept of sovereignty is not,
however, fragile or timid, but open to the world. Our vision of
sovereignty would allow us to get along with our neighbours and
friends, and particularly in this instance, with the United States.
Because we have a great deal in common with the United
States, Quebec sovereigntists can easily understand why the
Americans did what they did two centuries ago. We too will soon
be taking similar action, that is clear. We also understand that
the defence of a country cannot be confined to geopolitical
boundaries that begin at a certain parallel. The issue here is the
defence of a continent which we share with the United States of
America and we will continue to defend it and be good friends
with the U.S. when we achieve sovereignty.
This being said, I have a question for the hon. member for
Peace River. I did not quite understand the thrust of his remarks
in support of cruise missile testing. I got the impression that he
was in favour of allowing testing to continue simply because we
have already signed an agreement.
(1810)
Can the hon. member for Peace River tell me if he agrees with
some of the substantive arguments put forward in support of
continued testing or if he simply feels bound by the legal and
technical aspects of the question and believes we must respect
the existing agreement with the United States?
[English]
Mr. Penson: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. It is a good question. I want to leave with him the
reassurance that I believe strongly in the reasons for the testing.
It is part of a deterrent that we need to continue to develop in
terms of our own sovereignty and of peacekeeping roles we as
Canadians undertake throughout the world.
I also believe in it because we signed a commitment in good
faith and I think we need to honour it. I very strongly want to say
that I believe it is an important part of our defence. It is
something that should be part of the overall review when
defence is reviewed. I would make the case that I support it on
the basis of a strong defence of Canada and a need for
peacekeeping.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Madam Speaker, when
this proposition surfaced for the first time in 1981 within the
restrictions imposed by cabinet solidarity I opposed it tooth and
nail. I still oppose it. I appreciate very much the opportunity the
government is offering us to debate the matter on the floor of the
House today.
The reason for opposing comes from two beliefs. One is that
Canada is committed to arms control, to disarmament, and as a
peace loving and peace promoting nation it should not lend its
territory for the testing of weapons which could carry nuclear
warheads and which could launch a disarming nuclear strike
against another country.
We all know that Canada has a fine record in the world for
opposing any form of nuclear warfare. We voluntarily refrained
from using nuclear weapons. We eliminated from Canadian
territory the stationing of nuclear weapons. Canada was among
419
the first nations to sign the non-proliferation treaty and the
nuclear testing ban treaty.
Considering this record how can Canada lend itself to
allowing the testing of a weapon which could be used to deliver
nuclear warheads? In addition, now that the cold war is over the
question must be asked who is the enemy, as I asked earlier the
member for Beaver River. Why should such a weapon be used?
It is somehow ironic this debate should take place today when
last night President Clinton said in his speech: ``Russia's
strategic nuclear missiles soon will no longer be pointed at the
United States. Nor will we point ours at them''. He went on to
say: ``Instead of building weapons in space Russian scientists
will help us build the international space station''. Mr. Clinton
stressed last night that ultimately the best strategy to ensure
security and to build a durable peace was to support the advance
of democracy elsewhere.
(1815)
I submit that cruise missile testing is a relic of the past. It is a
relic of the cold war. It is from the days when there were
potential threats to security from nuclear weapons in other
countries, when Canada's terrain was considered a facsimile of
Soviet Union geography. However today the political situation
has changed considerably as other speakers have said before me.
My second reason relates to security in the nineties. The
concept of security must change from an exclusive stress on
national security to a much greater stress on the concept of
people security as was indicated in the 1993 UNDP report on
human development.
I suggest the real threat to security comes from other quarters.
It comes from unsustainable management of natural resources,
fisheries, forestry, water shortages, desertification, climate
change, ozone layer deterioration, decrease of arable land and
reduction of forest covers.
It comes from population explosion in some parts of the world
at the total rate of 92 million people per year, with resulting
pressures on finite resources coupled with increased insecurity
of food production. It comes from lack of support for
international proposed legislation such as the Law of the Sea. It
comes from megaprojects in parts of the world which are
launched without proper environmental impact assessment. Last
but not least, it comes from chronic poverty in Africa, Central
America, South America and so on.
It seems that rather than spending time and resources on
testing missiles in 1994 national governments should devote
energies to the agenda of our times, namely how to apply our
energies against hunger, ignorance and poverty on planet earth.
Peace is not threatened by the lack of cruise missiles. Today
global peace is threatened when governments pay attention to
the wrong agenda, and this item today is part of that wrong
agenda.
The agenda we should be paying attention to consists of how
to achieve food security, how to achieve family planning in the
developing world, how to achieve sustainable natural resources
exploitation, how to achieve safe management of toxic waste,
how to achieve the prevention of climate change and the
concomitant consequences in many regions of the world, how to
achieve the restoration of water quality, how to achieve the
protection of biodiversity, and how to achieve the elimination of
poverty in many nations of the world community and a better
distribution of wealth. All these factors together could lead or
contribute to global insecurity, to global instability, and
possibly to conflict.
I repeat that global peace is not threatened by the lack of
updated cruise missiles. That is not the issue. We must worry
about the threats I mentioned a moment ago. In that report on
human development of 1993 by the UNDP, you will find a
quotation which I think is quite relevant to this overall
discussion: ``That preventive diplomacy is needed to defuse
tensions around the globe before there are blow-ups''.
(1820)
It means that instead of lending support to archaic solutions
and outdated agendas, the developed industrial world should
instead invest its time and energies in eradicating the causes of
potential conflict.
Therefore, in conclusion, I urge the Government of Canada to
deal with the potential threats to peace. They have nothing to do
with military hardware, but everything to do with environmental
damage and social economic disorders which stem from
increasing poverty, increasing dislocation and which could lead
increasingly to threats to global security.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Madam Speaker, I
commend the hon. member for the passion with which he spoke.
He talked a lot about the environment and certainly his goals are
admirable. I commend him for that.
I would like to touch on some of the points he made respecting
the possibility of nuclear war. Who is the enemy? Why should
we be testing a weapon that can carry a nuclear warhead? Is it
not better to support the advance of democracy than it is to
prepare for war? In many respects I believe the gentleman is
right. Certainly liberal democracies do not fight wars against
one another.
It is also a sad truth that many of the countries in the world are
not liberal democracies. We still have many countries that are
ruled by men who have no compunction about killing people and
invading other countries.
420
In trying to answer some of those questions I think we have to
test weapons that can carry nuclear warheads because we will
also be, at some point in our future sad to say, faced with the
possibility that we may have to intercept those types of weapons
as they come into our air space. I think it is very important that
we have defensive capabilities against those weapons.
I also point out that there are many places in the world, such as
the former Soviet Union-the hon. member was talking about
who is the enemy-and I think many places in the former Soviet
Union, particularly now with the rise of Vladimir Zhirinovsky in
Russia, should all give one pause when we talk about how
peaceful the world really is.
Having said all that, and considering there are many places in
the world that are not likely to become liberal democracies any
time soon, countries that have the capability to produce nuclear
weapons and all kinds of other weapons, does the hon. member
agree that we should be prepared to intercept those types of
missiles that could come from some of those countries?
Mr. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to answer the
question by the member for Medicine Hat.
If the cruise missile were a weapon of interception, he would
have a valid question. But the cruise missile is not a weapon of
interception, it is a weapon of attack, it is a weapon to deliver, if
necessary, warheads. Therefore his question is invalid because
he is addressing the wrong weapon.
As to intercepting weapons which come into our Canadian
space, we would have to use other weapons but certainly not a
cruise missile because that is not the intent or the qualification
of that weapon. It is used to attack and deliver nuclear warheads
to certain specific targets in other countries.
(1825)
The member for Medicine Hat failed to demonstrate to us that
this is the weapon he would rely on in order to intercept, but
more importantly he failed to identify the enemy for us. He very
vaguely mentioned that there could be an attack. I urge him to
identify the enemy for us. I submit to him that collectively the
enemy is us and our fear. It is time to stop talking like cold war
cavemen and cavewomen because we are living in another
decade.
The agenda has shifted very rapidly. It is no longer the agenda
on how to prevent a strike or an attack that we should be
concentrating our time and energy on. It is how to prevent the
elements in the global community that have to do with, as I
mentioned, poverty and environmental degradation, that have to
be addressed and the energies of governments need to be focused
on that agenda.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me once again to rise in this Chamber and take part
in the debate on the policy of government which has
implications for our defence policy.
First, I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the
leadership of the government for giving all members of this
House the opportunity to express our views on this topic. Much
has been said this afternoon about our defence policy. Some
believe it might be redundant. Others say there should have been
a policy set out which we could have debated.
I served some time in provincial legislatures and in this House
and I believe this is what most members of the House with whom
I have associated over the last number of years wanted to do.
Today we are putting forward our views. We do not all agree. We
all have different opinions. This is allowing us to state our
opinions and hopefully to give the minister, the department and
the government our ideas. It make it easier for them to come
forward with a policy which at that time will be debated. That is
what we are doing here today.
We all appreciate this new and open policy toward the House
of Commons, this great institution to which we have all been
elected. All hon. members agree that the respect being shown to
us by the government is certainly in contrast to what we have
seen here over the last number of years.
The question which has been put before us is a complex one, a
question which cannot be answered in the course of a one day
debate, or even in a week long debate. It is a question that
arouses all sorts of passions in all hon. members and indeed in
the public at large.
The question has been asked today, why we would talk about
this when we have signed the agreement with the United States?
We have an agreement that has been talked about here by people
who are much more eloquent than I. If for some reason we
cancelled the agreement or we agreed to let it go ahead without
debate such as this I am sure that all hon. members who have
been in public life any amount of time would realize the uproar
this would cause in the media and in the public at large.
I mentioned yesterday during the debate on peacekeeping that
the time has come when we must assess the role of our armed
forces both in Canada and abroad. We must provide them with
the direction which is necessary in a troubled world. We must
have a multi-level approach in our defence policy and we must
always be sure that our defence policy is sufficiently adaptable
to conform to a changing world.
(1830)
As I noted yesterday, the world has vastly changed from what
it was five short years ago. When the Berlin wall came down and
the communist regimes in eastern Europe fell there were those
among us who proclaimed that peace was at hand and that total
victory in the cold war belonged to us. Unfortunately not all of
the world's problems have been solved these past five years.
421
World tensions which have come and gone in cycles seem again
to be on the rise.
There are many places around the world today, as has been
said, where military activity is going on. This has been
mentioned many times today. Relations between some of the
former republics of the Soviet Union are hostile to say the least.
The situation in the Persian Gulf area is, as we all know, far from
settled.
Several other trouble spots have appeared around the world
causing all of us great concern. There is the new nationalism and
old ethnic hatreds arising in many parts of the globe and who is
to say in what place or by what spark a new and dangerous
conflict may be touched off.
What I am saying is that the changes we approached with such
optimism only five years ago have not automatically brought
about a new world order, nor have they brought about a
guarantee of peace in our time. We always hope that Canada will
be at the forefront of seeking the diplomatic solutions to the
world's problems, but we must, I fear, be prepared in case these
solutions fail.
I do not envy the Minister of National Defence for the
decisions which he will have to make in the coming year or two
because the sad state of the Canadian economy and the huge
deficit is going to cause problems with long-range planning and
with maintaining the defence establishment which we have at
the present time.
I know from his remarks over the past few days that the
minister is struggling with the long-term defence policy and
with the decision which he will have to make. That is why I urge
on this matter that we take a long-term look at the question and
not force precipitous action on the minister, action which may
not be in the long-term interest of Canadians.
I spoke yesterday about the fact that the high point of
Canadian prestige abroad came at the time of the Suez crisis in
1956. The high point of Canadian military power was at the end
of World War II when this nation had mobilized and fought as a
full participant in that conflict.
Since that time our military capacity has declined and we have
come more and more to reply on the protection and the
technology of others for our defence. We were from the
beginning a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
and a member of the North American Air Defence Command.
However we have allowed ourselves to be more and more
dependent upon others, particularly the United States, for the
technology which we need for defence.
Looking back for instance at the cancellation of the Avro
Arrow fighter plane in the late 1950s, we might be able to see a
starting point toward our eventual military decline. Since that
time our military technology has been tied m more and more to
the United States and we have depended on them to provide us
with the largest advances.
I do not intend to engage in a philosophical debate over
whether or not we should be that dependent. What I am saying is
that the practical realities of geography and economics dictate
that our defence policy be tied closely to theirs. It is, in the
words of a former Prime Minister, like sleeping with an
elephant; you are very aware of every little move.
As we look over the deficit projections for the next year or
two, it becomes rather obvious that we will be unable to start
many new initiatives in the defence field ourselves. Therefore
we will remain as long as we retain our present defence and
diplomatic policies very closely tied to our American friends.
That brings me to the main point of this discussion: Should we
or should we not allow the testing of cruise missiles over
Canadian soil?
(1835)
What I attempted to do by way of my introductory remarks
was to establish my position rather pragmatically. We should
allow the tests to continue while the Minister of National
Defence, this House and the relevant committees study our
overall defence policy. It would be folly to cancel these tests
now when we do not know where our long-term policy is going
and we do not know where the political situation around the
world is leading us.
After saying that, I hope hon. members do not take my
remarks as those of a hawk, to use that old term. Rather I hope
they see them as the legitimate concerns of someone who
watches the world scene and our armed forces with a great deal
of interest.
We need to develop a clear direction and a clear defence
policy. For the moment I think it would be in the best interests of
this nation if the agreement were allowed to continue until such
time as our government has decided on our future defence
policies.
As I stated yesterday the fundamental cornerstones of
Canadian foreign policy have not changed substantially over the
years. We are still committed to defence and collective security
with our allies. We remain committed to arms control and
disarmament and we are committed to peaceful resolution of
disputes.
We must not therefore take any hasty action which would
fundamentally alter our policies without that careful
examination I noted earlier. I know other hon. members hold
strong views in this matter and I look forward to hearing them
along with all the others.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member is the first speaker today to look at the issue from an
angle that is close to my heart.
422
[English]
The hon. member said we need a multilevel approach in our
defence policy.
[Translation]
Which brings me to a concern I have that I would like the hon.
member to address.
We know that these cruise missiles will be guided by a
computerized system that will recognize terrain and shapes
thanks to artificial intelligence technologies. This extremely
sophisticated software is under research and development in the
United States. The tests to be conducted over our territory will
allow Americans to check the quality of their programs. In
return, contracts will be awarded to suppliers of the U.S. armed
forces.
Talking about a multi-level approach in our defence
policy-I am coming to my question-I think we should focus
not only on the military but also on the economic aspects of all
this. Jobs are tied to these technologies. Will the Liberal
government ensure that some of these jobs are created here in
Quebec and in Canada?
[English]
Mr. Proud: I thank the hon. member for his comments and
question and the point he has raised.
We talk about sharing our territory for testing. Two years ago
Canada sent troops down to California to train for the Somalia
peacekeeping mission. As the hon. member says, they have
developed this sophisticated equipment and the money goes to
the American contractors to build it.
In the new global community that has developed over the last
decade I believe it would be possible for us to get involved in
this or other types of operations to get Canadian companies
some of the contracts to build the sophisticated high-tech
instrumentations. That is where our future lies. We talked about
this on another matter, an economic matter. Canada's economic
future is in things like these high-tech, innovative
telecommunication systems. Yes, I believe that Canada should
have a part of that on a multilevel. Other countries are going to
want it too. I believe it is as much ours as it is anybody else's.
(1840)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Madam
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his clear
comments on this. It seems that many of the speakers tend to get
confused on the issues or some of the rationale they are using.
The previous speaker whom we heard from that side of the
House seemed to want to make this into a nuclear issue. I hasten
to point out to the hon. member that we have many delivery
systems in our own military capable of delivering nuclear
weapons, if it was the choice to do so. It does not have to be just
the cruise missile.
The cruise missile is not a nuclear weapon. It is simply a
deliverance system. We saw it being used in the gulf war for
conventional weapons in such a way as to be deadly accurate so
that innocent people did not get injured.
Earlier we heard the hon. member for Mississauga West speak
emotionally. I understand and I accept that she spoke from the
heart and not necessarily to the facts of the matter.
What particularly interests me and is kind of curious is that
yesterday we heard the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway
speak with regard to the Bosnian issue where it was suggested
that we should have air strikes in defence of our humanitarian
aid in order to ensure that it gets through. Yet today the same
member spoke against cruise missile testing and it is the very
system that can make accurate delivery of the kind of strikes he
was calling for.
I would like to thank the hon. member who just spoke for
being clear and concise and for not trying to cloud the issue.
Mr. Proud: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Kootenay West-Revelstoke for his remarks. I believe, as I
said earlier when I opened my remarks, that there are some very
different opinions here. I have my opinions and am very pleased
to be able to bring them forward.
The argument can be made that the cruise missile does or does
not carry nuclear weapons. My point is that we have an
agreement. We need our allies and we need to make exchanges
with them. Until this House, this country and this government
decide down the line how our defence policy is going to go
forward, I do not think we need to get into any arguments with
our neighbours.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Madam Speaker, allow
me to join my colleagues in congratulating you on your new
position and wishing you all the best. You can count on the
co-operation of the entire Bloc Quebecois.
Before getting to the core issue, I would like to say a few
words about the relevance of this debate. I have been constantly
surprised since the beginning. First surprise, the minister's
speech. During the first five minutes, we were led to believe that
he supported the tests and then, for the next five minutes, that he
had doubts and later, that he did see the tests as useful after all.
In the end, he said he would abide by the wishes of the House.
But behind all this wondering on the part of the minister, one
could detect a desire to gain time. So I wonder.
(1845)
On one hand, I had only praise for the government yesterday
with respect to yesterday's debate because of the need to
re-evaluate our peace commitments by April. But in this case, it
seems to me that we could have had a more global debate on our
military role, our international commitments and especially our
agreements with the U.S. I cannot help but wonder, because the
government does not seem to have a definite policy in that
423
respect and it is gaining time by holding this debate to sound out
the House. We have people asking us: ``Where are those Liberals
who, during the last campaign, were waving their little red book
as if they were disciples of Mao and, whatever the question,
invariably answered, and their leader was the first to it: It is in
the red book. Check in the red book for economic matters. Check
it for defence issues. It is all in there''? The red book contained
all the answers.
Here we are now, and both the Reform Party and the Bloc
Quebecois start off by saying that we are open to a change in the
member participation process, but let us not go overboard in the
other direction and have day-long debates like yesterday and
today. And there are three more planned for next week. Three
months have gone by since the election, and the people are still
waiting for the red book to be implemented. We have had a very
vague, non-specific throne speech, yet the government has no
bills to table.
It has become a joke among the jobless in my riding. The joke
goes like this: What is the difference between a federal Liberal
member and an unemployed Joe? The answer is: Unlike the
Liberal member, the unemployed once had a job. Has it come to
the point where our elected Liberal members do not put pressure
on their government any more? Have they lost faith in their red
book? What is happening? In the debate today, they are
contradicting one another. Where are the big guns of the party?
They are quiet. What is the use of debating? The opposition has a
clear position. The Reform Party has a clear position and so does
the NDP. Incidentally, I am surprised that they are not taking
part in this debate. Perhaps are they going to later. I certainly
hope so.
Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
simply want to tell the hon. member that we have been trying to
participate in this debate for three hours; consequently, it is not
right to suggest that we do not want to participate. We are trying.
We want to participate because we are the only ones who oppose
the cruise missile tests, since the Bloc supports the
government's position.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion, it is not a
point of order from the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I can understand the hon.
member's position since I had to go through this for three years.
I sincerely hope that he will express his views because he
represents a party which, over the past three years, has left its
mark in the history of our country and, on occasion, of Quebec
as well.
I want to conclude by discussing the relevancy of this debate,
and especially the lack of a government position. When I refer to
the government, I mean the ministers concerned. I am surprised
that there is no information from the department of National
Defence. We submitted requests to the public affairs service of
that Department to obtain documents. The department was
willing to provide us with all the required documents. Yet,
because of government directives, we were not able to obtain
those documents. I therefore ask the minister-I see one sitting
over there-to convey this message to the Prime Minister's
Office. If you decide again to hold such a debate, on this issue or
any other one, I would hope that you will be more open-minded
so that we can have access to all the necessary documents to
have a real debate. We are not playing for time. We really want
to express our views and we want the government to do the
same. Both sides must give their opinion, but they must also
have the opportunity to refer to all the documents which can
influence our national defence policy.
(1850)
I will now get to the subject of this debate. I would like to
recall the excellent comments made by the hon. member for
Saint-Jean when he referred to the old line and the new line on
letting the Americans do their tests. At the time, and in fact
today, the NDP has not changed its position although the world
situation has changed dramatically-there was still a nuclear
threat, and allowing such tests was seen as encouraging arms
proliferation. Today, we have to look at this from an entirely
different angle. The global context has changed, as was said
earlier by members for the Reform Party and our own leader. It
has changed in that we no longer have two blocs confronting
each other but the occasional isolated conflict.
As the hon. member for Saint-Jean said earlier, if we use
these tests to enhance our security and concentrate more on
ways to defend our democracy, we are less likely to put the lives
of men, women and children and our armed personnel at risk.
Earlier today, the hon. member for Portneuf compared the
tests and giving the Americans permission to proceed with the
seat belt in a car. You may never have an accident, but it always
better to put on your seat belt. We approve of the tests as a way to
maximize the security of our territory and also on the basis of
our military agreements with the Americans and important
economic and security considerations.
424
I could also have quoted what was said by the hon. member for
Champlain or the hon. member for Lotbinière, who told me last
night that he was reading a very important paper on the subject,
so we have the hon. member for Champlain and the hon. member
for Berthier, who is also a member of our regional caucus, and
we had time to outline a five-point agenda with which I will
conclude my speech.
I would like to get back to what was said by the hon. member
for Verchères, when he made a connection between Canada's
sovereignty and permission for these tests. He said, and I quote:
``And if I start my speech on cruise missile testing by
emphasizing this concept of sovereignty so dear to my heart, it is
simply because in certain spheres the testing issue is viewed as
an attack on the sovereignty of Canada.''
And he went on to say: There are people who claim that
renewing the Canada-U.S.A. umbrella agreement and periodic
authorization regarding cruise missile testing within Canadian
territorial boundaries is akin to an unacceptable surrender to the
imperatives of the foreign and defence policy of our neighbours
to the south, an infringement upon the political sovereignty of
Canada. But since any sovereign state must be able to protect its
borders, we must recognize that Canada's political and
territorial sovereignty depends to a large extent on its
participation in the collective security system provided under
NATO and NORAD. We must recognize that Canada does not
have the resources required to defend its huge territory by
itself.''
That is what the hon. member for Verchères said in his speech
earlier today, reflecting what was said by the leader of our party,
who also referred to the connection between these tests and
environmental issues.
(1855)
I quote: ``What about environmental costs? Those costs are,
for all intents and purposes, non-existent if one considers the
very low frequency of the flights, merely a few over the course
of one year, and over 3,000 kilometres of a nearly empty
territory.''
Referring to the political aspect of the decision, and I think
that is very important, he went on to say:
But we must also take into consideration of the political side of the issue. Who is
asking us to conduct these tests? We must not forget that the United States is Canada's
best friend, its only neighbour, its safest ally, its major trading partner, and a great nation
which speaks the same language as that of most Canadians.
Let us not forget that the United States is the pillar of NATO and NORAD, the
two pacts which ensure our security. If there ever was a nuclear threat to Canada.
. .but there is a risk, to whom would Canadians and Quebecers turn? I do not
even have to give the answer, because that answer is so obvious. Should such a
situation occur, we would be quite relieved to be able to rely on an ally equipped
with cruise missiles which it would have developed at its own expense.
That is what our leader had to say this morning about the
political aspect.
He also made a very interesting comment on the strategic
aspect, which was well received by our caucus, when he said:
Canada's commitments to strategic deterrence are basically a part of
co-operation between allies. Canada has no strategic weapons in its forces.
However, in that its defence is based on the agreement among allies and it
benefits from collective security, it must voluntarily co-operate in
implementing this strategic deterrent force if required. This is an integral part of
the national defence policy as found in the 1971 and 1987 white papers on
defence and the 1992 defence policy statement.
These were some short and straightforward comments made
by our leader and a number of new Bloc members, either in their
20-minute speeches or in pertinent questions to members upon
conclusion of a speech.
Since I have five minutes left, I would also like to consider
some statements made by other members. I am surprised they
are not in the House. The statements were made when they were
in the opposition, but it seems as soon as people sit on the other
side, there is a kind of alchemy that takes place which turns red
books into blue books.
It happened to the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who said: ``End cruise missile
testing now. There, I have said it.'' It is as though he regretted
having said that, back in March 1987. Does he still feel the same
way? If this debate is so important, why do these people who
took a stand not rise in the House today to reiterate their
commitment or explain their reasons for taking a new approach
to these agreements?
There is also the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the leader
of the Liberal Party, who said: ``Will the government
confirm''-he was referring to the Conservative government
then in power-``that Canadians are diametrically opposed to
using Canadian territory for these dangerous tests?'' Does he
still feel the same way? If he does, that is the position the
government will take. So why bother with a debate? Is it just
window dressing?
I am surprised that the party's so-called big guns are not
taking a position. However, I did see the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who has always taken a stand, and I am
glad to see he is about to do so again.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg South
Centre, who embodied Liberal party policy when he was in the
opposition, is not taking a position today in what was announced
as a crucial debate.
Madam Speaker, since I have three minutes left, I will wind up
my speech with three main arguments in favour of cruise missile
testing.
(1900)
First, Canada has always considered cruise missile tests as an
opportunity to demonstrate our support for collective defence.
425
In the past, Canada authorized these tests because it felt that our
security was inseparable from that of our allies within NATO.
Second, the agreement for weapons testing is an important
element of our relations with the United States, which are close,
complex and unequalled in scope. We are partners under the
most important bilateral trade agreement in the world. We share
a whole gamut of political, social and cultural values, and we are
allies in the defence of North America and Europe.
Third, these tests bring financial benefits to Canada. The
cruise missile tests are the raison d'être of the weapons testing
agreement. The agreement now includes a clause on additional
costs, whereby Canadian taxpayers could save thousands of
dollars each year by reducing the costs of tests conducted by
Canada in the United States.
In my opinion, those are three conclusive arguments which
confirm that the position set forth by our leader in his speech
this morning, which was again a remarkable speech and which
my colleagues supported throughout the day, is a clear and
logical position which is in the best interest of Quebec and
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, I am very
impressed with the speeches that have been given on this issue
so far, both on the pro and the con. I want to thank the hon.
member who has just finished speaking.
Some of the speeches tonight have been very vivid and to the
point. I would like to address part of the speech given by the hon.
member for Davenport when he asked a very important
question. He referred to the threat to our security and he asked
who is the enemy.
Who is and what is the threat to the security of the child who
has been molested? What is the threat to the security of the
women who has been raped or the senior citizen who has been
murdered?
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With
all respect to the hon. member, I think the rules provide that the
10-minute question and answer period is to comment on the
previous speech or to ask questions of the member who has just
spoken, not to comment on speeches that took place earlier in
the day.
I respect the fact that the member is new member, but I think
the purpose of the 10-minute question period is to deal with the
speech that has just been given and not with an earlier speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is quite right. Would the hon. member
for Crowfoot care to continue discussions and comments on the
prior speaker's remarks.
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that this
debate or this discussion is open for all comments.
The real threat to our security that we must guard against lies
in the unwillingness of the individual to respect the legal and
human rights of others. As long as we have people like Saddam
Hussein, Joseph Stalin and the other tinpot dictators we have
seen through the annals of history, we will have to protect
ourselves against their unwillingness to respect the rights of the
human individual.
That begins right here in the House. I have watched the
operation of this House on television for a number of years and I
have watched it since I have been here.
(1905 )
When hon. members in this place do not have the tolerance to
respect the rules of this House and then violate those rules, that
in fact is the threat to the security of the individual. It is simply a
degree. One magnifies that degree and it becomes the real threat
to the security of individuals, communities and nations.
I would like to ask the hon. member who has just spoken this
question. It is on a different issue. During the cold war we had
the two great powers, the United States and the Soviet Union.
They controlled the majority of the nuclear weapons in the
world. Since there has been the break up of the Soviet Union, I
would like to ask the the hon. member if he feels that there is a
greater threat of nuclear attack upon the nations of the world
now or before?
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: I first wish to thank my colleague for his
comment and for his question.
I think that he has touched on a point that can divide people
and bring some to ask themselves questions.
Are we still in a cold war and, if not, since the Russian empire
has disintegrated, why should we allow these missiles? Some
are asking themselves this very question. Others will wonder
whether we should pursue a kind of technological race to make
war when we should spend our money elsewhere. It is always a
question of war versus peace. But, when the hon. member talks
about the cold war, we must never forget that, instead of two
blocs facing each other, there are now around the world several
potential hot spots, often plagued by fanaticism.
I do not need to remind you of the Iraqi leader's behaviour
during the gulf war or of certain statements made in Lebanon.
Those countries, which happen to lie very close to each other,
have nuclear weapons that can be launched instantly.
Is the threat immediate? I would say no, but this guarantee of
security can only serve the interests of democracy in Canada,
Quebec, the United States and the rest of the western world.
In that sense, the two opposing blocs have been replaced by
several localized conflicts that are not controlled as strictly. Ten
426
years ago, each of the two blocs controlled half of the world, but
today, in some places, there is no control from one bloc or the
other.
That is why, as my colleague from Saint-Jean was saying
about the old and the new way of thinking, we must look at these
tests in the new global perspective. We must see this testing not
as a yearly event that pushes us closer to a nuclear war but as a
way to enhance security, since the missiles tested are not
necessarily equipped with nuclear heads.
Also, civilian applications are eventually found for the
sophisticated technologies often developed by the military. Will
there be civilian applications in this case? We can hardly see any
at the present time, but could the computerized systems, the
maps charted and the aerial photos taken from satellites tracking
these low-level missiles be used for other than military
purposes?
(1910)
This does not represent, like it did in the past, a stepping up of
the confrontation with the communist bloc. It is not as far
reaching since, as a result of disarmament initiatives and
various treaties signed recently, the number of missiles is
limited to 460. This is a thousand less than previously. They will
be replaced as they become obsolete, but the number will never
exceed 460. In that sense, the tests are done more to refine the
missiles, to make them more effective, better targeted, and
therefore better able to spare human lives.
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Madam
Speaker, I want to start by congratulating you and your
colleagues on your appointments. I assure you you can count on
my full co-operation at all times.
I also want to give credit to the government for arranging this
debate today and the debate on peacekeeping yesterday. This is a
welcome departure in involving the whole House in
policymaking before a policy decision is made or before an
agreement is terminated as I hope the case will be in this
instance.
I especially welcome the opportunity to speak on the question
of cruise missile testing. As hon. members might know I have
opposed the testing of cruise missiles from the very beginning in
1983 and on all previous occasions when this matter was before
the House I voted against the testing.
Since the cold war is now fortunately no longer with us I am
even more opposed than I have been in the past. Why is this so
important and why am I so opposed?
First of all the cruise missile is an extremely dangerous
weapon. It is small. It is easily concealed. It is mobile. It is
accurate. It is capable of avoiding radar detection because it
flies close to the ground under the general radar beams and
pickup. It also can carry a nuclear or a conventional war head.
Since these missiles can escape detection by radar they can be
used for a successful first strike and as a result totally knock out
the opponent's weaponry.
I originally opposed cruise missiles because in my view they
contributed in a very serious way to the arms race. They
contributed to international instability and they were also, in my
view, contrary to the principles of the non-proliferation treaty
which was signed and heavily supported by Canada.
Canada originally agreed to test these weapons for the United
States by an agreement concluded in February 1983. It was said
at that time that the United States wanted to test these missiles in
the northwest of Canada because the northwest of Canada had a
terrain similar to that of the northern Soviet Union.
In February 1988 the testing agreement was automatically
renewed for another five years and in 1993 it was continued by
the former Conservative government for a new 10-year
agreement. Since 1983 there have been 23 tests, about two or
three per year, with the most recent test in March 1993.
I want to make clear however that this agreement between the
United States and Canada is not part of our NATO obligations
and was never part of the NATO agreement.
I said I was originally opposed to cruise missile tests and I am
now more than ever opposed.
In the last Parliament on January 24, 1989, our Liberal Party
took a position against further cruise testing. I quote the first
paragraph of the document which was issued by our party on
January 24, 1989: ``The Liberal Party of Canada today called for
the Conservative government to finally shake off its cold war
mentality and cancel further cruise testing in Canada as a
tangible and positive gesture to improving the climate of
east-west relations and ongoing disarmament negotiations''.
This is under the sponsorship of the leader of the opposition at
that time.
(1915 )
This was a change of policy. Up until that time the Liberal
Party had supported cruise missile testing. I had not personally
supported it-I opposed it-but the party did support it. I felt I
had some part in bringing about this change in party policy.
I also want to point out that our party at a major policy
convention in 1986 passed two important resolutions. I will not
read them because time is short but they are in our resolution
book of 1986 opposing cruise missile testing.
The reasons for the change in our party policy given by our
leader in 1989 were the following:
First, the cold war was over.
427
Second, as a result, the requirement for terrain similar to
Russia was no longer necessary since Russia was no longer our
enemy.
Third, continued testing could contribute to a renewed arms
race, not necessarily with Russia or the Soviet Union, but in
other parts of the world including China, North Korea and other
countries.
I must point out that there are 15 nations on the threshold of
developing nuclear weapons. Missiles are the principal delivery
system for those weapons. Both are essential to a successful
strike.
How can the United States and Canada, if they continue to test
these weapons, say seriously to these 15 nations that they should
not develop these nuclear weapons? By the way, they are urging
the 15 countries to sign the non-proliferation treaty. How can
they urge those countries to do that when they are continuing to
test new weapon technology themselves that can deliver a
nuclear weapon? They cannot do that very well.
Not only will the continuation of cruise missile tests give
justification to other countries to develop new dangerous
weapons, but once tested and developed, they will become
potential products in the international arms trade.
After the Iraq war we discovered that 90 per cent of the
weapons used by Iraq against our own troops were sold to Iraq
by the five great powers: the Soviet Union; China; France; the
United Kingdom and the United States.
It is well known that most of the weapons purchased by poor
Third World countries are developed, tested and sold to them by
richer First World countries. They do so because in developing
those weapons, such as the cruise, they have to develop a surplus
of them to make it economically feasible and then they sell them
to other countries that might want to buy them.
The United States and NATO now have a considerable
military edge over the former east bloc countries and other
countries that are their potential enemies. We do not need any
new, improved cruise missile to maintain that edge. It will only
justify as I said the development and spread of these weapons to
other countries.
Some people have argued in this debate that the cancellation
of this agreement will offend the United States. President
Clinton and the United States government acknowledge
themselves that the cold war is over. They have worked with
Ukraine and the Soviet Union to reduce the weapons in those
countries. As a matter of fact they have just concluded an
agreement whereby they will no longer point weapons at each
other. They have closed bases in the United States. I have been in
various cities in the United States where Mr. Clinton is closing
bases and they talk about the peace dividend.
When we co-operate in the furtherance of the arms race,
which is what testing of cruise missiles is, we put in jeopardy
our Canadian role as an honest broker internationally. We put in
jeopardy our credibility as a peaceful nation.
Yesterday we debated peacekeeping and Canada has a long
and very enviable role in peacekeeping. We are considered one
of the outstanding nations of the world with respect to
peacekeeping. We also have an excellent reputation with respect
to international development. When we proceed again with
cruise missile testing, we put the credibility of those other very
good qualities into jeopardy.
I have here the hon. member for Nunatsiaq and I have spoken
with the other hon. member from the Northwest Territories. It is
over their territory that these missiles are tested. They are both
very much opposed to these weapons.
(1920 )
Let me say this in conclusion. The Prime Minister said he
wanted a free debate. Without a doubt, he is getting it on this
side of the House. However, I have not seen very much freedom
from the Reform Party which has spoken about a free debate.
They have all sang the same party line from beginning to end. As
a matter of fact in all the votes in which they have participated so
far they voted as a group on every occasion. Today they are all
singing the same song. I have a bit of doubt about their sincerity
concerning free votes and free expression.
I was very much dismayed by the statements made by some of
my Liberal colleagues, particularly those who were here with
me in the last Parliament and who approved of the policy we
adopted in 1989 to oppose cruise missile testing. I could
understand if they put forward new arguments that would allow
them to bury the policy that they were in favour of last year.
However, I heard no such new arguments.
The continued development and testing of cruise missiles in
Canada are no longer necessary. It will contribute to a
continuing arms race and to world instability.
I urge the government in assessing this debate not simply to
count heads but to assess the arguments that are made by hon.
members in this case.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): I want to thank the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for his remarks. I
congratulate him on standing by the position he has held since
1983. I was surprised, however, by some of his arguments and I
will quickly explain why. But I do nevertheless have a question
for him.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce began by listing
the reasons why he is opposed to cruise missile testing. He
described the cruise missile as a very dangerous, highly accurate
weapon that is difficult to detect and that can carry nuclear
warheads. I am somewhat surprised by this description because
weapons are supposed to be dangerous. I do not think his is a
strong argument because what makes a weapon effective is its
428
mobility, its ability to quickly reach its target, the enemy, its
strike power and its invulnerability to enemy attacks. I fail to
see how one can object to testing on the grounds that the weapon
itself is dangerous. If the weapon were not dangerous, would
anyone object to it?
Second, the hon. member claims that since the cold war is now
over, there is no further need to develop weapons. But the cold
war ended four or five years ago. One could quibble about the
dates. The thaw came fairly quickly and if we look at the
international situation, it is quite possible that the freeze could
be on again, as happens quickly in Ottawa, judging from what I
have seen.
The hon. member argues that allowing cruise missile testing
will restart the arms race. I think this is somewhat of an
exaggeration because we are talking here about allowing
something that has gone on for the past ten years. We are not
talking about an escalation here, merely about allowing our
American allies with whom we have an agreement to conduct a
certain number of tests each year. Our duly elected government
renewed this agreement last year for a period of ten years. I do
not see this as any kind of escalation in the arms race.
Lastly, in referring to statements made recently by U.S.
President Clinton, the hon. member argues that the Americans
will not be upset if we refuse to allow the testing to proceed.
I find these arguments somewhat debatable. Given the fact
that these tests are restricted, that we are not dealing here with a
new weapon that has suddenly been added to the world arsenal,
does the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce not think that
he is being a little alarmist in raising all of these arguments
when similar tests have in fact been conducted in recent years?
(1925)
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, while the cold war is over
with the Soviet Union, as I pointed out there are 15 nations
called threshold nations and North Korea is one of them. They
are on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.
None of these 15 nations are signatories to the
non-proliferation treaty. The United States for many years has
been trying to encourage China, North Korea and other countries
to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
My argument is this: How can we ask these countries to
renounce nuclear weapons, renounce the development of new
technology with respect to the delivery of nuclear weapons
when we continue to fine-tune cruise missiles? By the way the
cruise missile they are testing now or have tested in recent years
are not the same as the ones they tested years ago. They
continually improve on this cruise missile.
I am saying that while the cold war is over with the Soviet
Union, there are still countries that want to develop nuclear
weapons and the means to deliver those nuclear weapons. We do
not help the situation by saying on the one hand ``don't you do
it'' but by God we are going to do it ourselves. That does not
help. It only contributes to the arms race.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Madam Speaker,
at the outset I believe we should acknowledge that this is a
debate that has no right or wrong side or answer. Whether this
government endorses or refuses to endorse the acceptance of
cruise testing over Canadian territory is, whatever the outcome,
neither right nor wrong.
We are discussing today on one level our national role in
contributing to the aggregate military technological base of our
American neighbours. These tests are part of their military
research and development. On another level it affords Canada
the opportunity to define these tests, having regard to our
national values.
With the end of the cold war arguments either for or against
cruise missile testing have quite simply lost much force. Hon.
members here will recall the history of the modern day cruise,
that it evolved from the buzzbombs of second world war
Germany and that the Americans and Soviets engaged in a
protracted period of technological one-up-manship which
resulted in this low level flying missile.
From the development of the cruise has evolved a technology
which has military and technological applications which are
quite simply American based. To allow this testing to proceed
will without doubt and I say this without putting forward a
positive or a negative opinion, ensures that the United States
continues in its position of pre-eminence in terms of being the
number one military power.
From a perspective of fortress North America it could be
suggested that the agreement with the United States in 1983 to
allow cruise testing was correct. That agreement was
renegotiated, as we heard, in 1993 for another 10-year period,
putting us through to the year 2003.
The reason for choosing this Canadian corridor as a test site
was quite simple. The terrain and weather conditions in the
2,200 kilometre long corridor is similar to that of the Soviet
Union, as the speaker before me noted.
In 1983 NORAD was vitally concerned about the security of
North American having regard to the then perceived Soviet
arsenal. I would like to pose this open-ended question to
members present here today: Are we as North Americans
threatened by the former Soviet military?
429
To allow this test to proceed in my opinion is simply to
confirm the political reality which existed in 1983 but has
vanished in the intervening years.
From a military perspective what can be the logical
explanation for this testing? There is the argument that other
countries can and are developing cruise capability which then,
by implication, requires the United States to continue to be
technically superior. If we, and I say this as a Canadian and as a
member of this House, want to allow this testing to proceed then
I suggest we should also ask what is the perceived or real benefit
to Canada. Is it to counter the former Soviet Union and maintain
the security of North America? Alternatively, is it to facilitate
the very specialized American-based industries which are
dependent upon military programs for their very existence?
(1930)
The global political reality of 1983 has substantially changed.
Canadians must therefore acknowledge this in determining
whether these tests should proceed.
These musings of mine reflect the politics of another era, a
time when there was an arms race, a time when there was a
perceived threat to our national security and a time when
NORAD had some continental importance. These factors today
have simply either vanished or diminished to the point where
they are meaningless.
The other factor I would suggest requires consideration is
quite simply this: As Canadians, is it beneficial in any way from
a security or economic perspective to allow these tests? This is
not a matter of abrogating a bilateral agreement, as has been
suggested here today. The agreement dictates the technical and
financial terms but states specifically that each test must be
approved by the Government of Canada. I ask: ``What is the
perceived benefit to Canadians?'' or more directly and simply,
``What is in it for us?''
Yesterday in the House several speakers discussed the
humanitarian aspect of peacekeeping, that is in certain
circumstances Canadian military peacekeeping represents a
positive influence in areas of the world. Many of the opinions
put forward yesterday reflected a desire to improve the plight of
many people in countries undergoing conflict. Those are very
laudable and humanitarian objectives which we, as members of
the United Nations, have collectively stated in a global
perspective are in the best interests of all nations.
These peacekeeping roles mesh or coincide with the common
values shared with other member states of that body. Yet as a
Canadian I ask: Where does the testing of a cruise missile fit into
the objectives of the Canadian government? Is there a national
interest which is being served if these tests proceed?
American governments over a period of several
administrations have quite overtly inserted a quid pro quo into
their relationships with other national governments. Foreign
aid, whether it be monetary or technical, is often tied to events
occurring in the other state. For example, the extension of
American aid to China was jeopardized by China after the
Tiananmen Square incident. The interventions by American
forces in Grenada and Panama in the late eighties are also
examples of a more direct nature. These actions were simply as a
result, in my opinion, of serving the national objectives of the
United States.
I therefore ask members present today to reflect on the
broader issue of our relationship with the United States and with
the Americans. I have heard from many of my constituents on
this issue and though I cannot say that I am a member of the third
party, I can quite safely say that my opinion is here reflecting the
greater consensus that I am hearing in my constituency that in
our dealings with our American neighbours in the broadest and
most general sense of the word and of the idea, that we must
become more self-centred, even more specifically that we must
ask ``Is it in the Canadian interests''; in the most basic sense
``What's in it for us?''
My riding is a narrow wedge of real estate on the
Ontario-Michigan border. I would venture to say that 75 per
cent of the people in my riding live about a three-minute car ride
from the United States. I would also point out that in my riding
anyone can purchase a Detroit News, a Detroit Free Press at any
corner variety store just as easily as I could buy the Globe and
Mail. My riding is the third busiest crossing along the
Canada-U.S. border, in fact 15 per cent of all trade between
Canada and the United States crosses the border in Sarnia or
Point Edward in my riding. Yet despite this overwhelming
presence, which we call the American influence, it is abundantly
clear to me that we are not Americans. My constituents tell me
that. We are not anti-American, we are simply not Americans.
Through a process of national evolution we have stated that
our priorities are not always identical to their priorities. We
have stated that our national values are not the same as their
national values.
As a result, I am aware of Americans attempting to enter some
of the health clinics offered by the local health unit in my riding
in an attempt to take advantage of the health services and
treatment programs offered anonymously to walk-in clients.
Obviously our priorities are not their priorities. I am aware of
the significant collection of hand weapons seized daily by our
customs officials from American vehicles entering Canada in
my riding. Obviously our values are not their values. As a result
I must ask once again: Where does the allowance of cruise
missile testing over Canadian territory as an objective of
American military policy coincide with Canadian priorities and
values?
430
(1935)
It has been stated that the role of the Canadian military-and I
stress Canadian-must and will be reviewed during the course
of this Parliament.
As an extension of this objective, I would state that the
Canadian government must also examine our national
objectives under the 1993 bilateral agreement with the United
States relative to cruise testing. Notwithstanding that
agreement, as stated previously, we reserve the right to say no.
In the 1992-93 fiscal year the Department of National
Defence spent some $148 million in modernizing our air
defence systems as well as an additional $175 million for low
level air defence systems.
It is possible to conclude that by allowing these tests to
proceed we will constantly find ourselves in need of more
sophisticated air defence systems as a result of the technologies
we are allowing to be tested by the Americans over Canadian
territory.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
Prime Minister for affording the members of this House the
opportunity to speak on this important national issue, knowing
that when a decision is made he will have heard a broad
cross-section of views from all of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Madam Speaker, since
the early afternoon, I have been listening carefully to all the
speeches on the need for these tests to be conducted within the
Canadian territorial boundaries. Before putting a question to the
hon. member, I would like to say a few words about the debate.
I think this piecemeal approach to Canada's national defence
that we have had since yesterday could be dangerous. We should
have a much broader outlook. It is always better to set a problem
in a global context than to narrow our focus too much. This
prompts me to say that I hope that eventually the Minister of
National Defence will undertake a comprehensive defence
review.
We are presently dealing with a more specific case. Earlier,
the hon. member for Portneuf clearly described in his speech the
technical aspects of the testing to be conducted over Canadian
territory. It is aimed mainly at developing a technology that does
not increase the power derived from nuclear energy. It is a
guidance system that could have applications in other areas.
I think we must be careful not to get side-tracked on the issue
of proliferation of nuclear weapons. That is not the point. Of
course, missiles can have a nuclear capability. That is true, but
from the point of view of wanting to achieve disarmament
someday-and no one can have anything against being
virtuous-we should not ignore the power of our American
allies in most of the military operations we take part in. We must
also work extremely closely with them. Co-operation could take
such a form. Their power of deterrence has been tremendous.
This leads me to my question: Would we not be sending out a
dangerous signal to the whole world if we were to object to and
oppose these tests, perhaps weakening our alliance with our
American friends? I am neither pro nor anti-American. I am just
pro-peace and realistic. Would we not be sending out a
dangerous signal if we were to say that we do not want this kind
of testing to be conducted over our territory because we are for
the peaceful resolution of conflicts? Has the U.S. policy not
succeeded to some degree in recent years in advancing the cause
of disarmament?
[English]
Mr. Gallaway: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises an
interesting point and makes an interesting quotation, that is that
with respect to the Americans we must co-operate with them.
I do not know in terms of Canadian objectives that we must in
all cases co-operate with the Americans. Certainly recent
history has indicated to us that the Americans do not reciprocate
with Canada. I can think of many examples the hon. member
may not be aware of.
(1940 )
For example, about a year and a half ago the American border
patrol at all crossing points decided that it would take direct
action against Canadian trucking firms. The method of doing
that was simply to check the record of every driver crossing the
border. It happens that a number of Canadian truck drivers have
rather insignificant criminal matters in their past, such as the
smoking of cannabis, impaired driving, or minor theft and
assault charges. In any event, under American law the American
border patrol can prevent them from entering the United States.
That is one very trite example of the Americans not
co-operating with us.
We heard about numerous trade matters during the election,
including the seven appeals regarding pork bellies made by the
United States. There are many times when we do not agree with
the Americans.
The suggestion that we must co-operate with the Americans
on military matters is not necessarily correct. I also believe that
recent history, recent in terms of world history, specifically
World War II, would indicate that the Americans did not
co-operate with us in the sense that they did not enter into the
battle until well after Canada did. So I do not think we must
follow blindly.
I suggest to the hon. member opposite that he should consider
that there are times when we can and we ought to say no to the
Americans and this is probably a time when it should be a very
definite no.
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. In
listening to this debate today I am becoming increasingly
431
alarmed with the use of the 10-minute period following the
20-minute speech. I refer to Standing Order 43 which says:
Following each 20-minute speech, a period not exceeding 10 minutes shall be
made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment
briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
On several occasions this afternoon I note that members are
using the 10-minute period to make a new speech and to make
comments which are not relevant to the speech that just came
before them.
Many hon. members have talked about setting a new tone in
this Parliament and respecting the rules of the House. I hope in
future that the comments and questions as the standing order
says will be brief and relevant to the speech that has just been
made. It is not an occasion to make a new speech. It is supposed
to be brief comments or questions relevant to the speech that has
just been made.
I hope that the Chair will enforce that rule.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I thank the hon. member
for his intervention. I trust that other members in this place will
adhere to the standing order.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing the 20-minute time at my disposal
with the hon. member for Saint John.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in this
debate. I congratulate the members who have spoken
immediately preceding me, the member for Sarnia-Lambton
and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, on the courageous
position they have taken.
[Translation]
I believe that it was the leader of the Bloc Quebecois who
suggested that this debate today was in a sense a charade, that
the government's real purpose was not to let the United States
test cruise missiles and that this debate would give the
government an opportunity to say ``no''.
[English]
I think the agenda is precisely the opposite. I think the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois is profoundly mistaken. The agenda here
today is in fact that the government is prepared to say yes to
cruise missile testing and is laying the groundwork for that by
betraying in a very profound way the promises that were made in
opposition by the Liberal Party of Canada and by leading
members of that party to say no to cruise missile testing for the
reasons so eloquently set out by the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
(1945)
I want to take exception not only to the process here because I
think the fix is in. I think in fact that the decision which has been
made and communicated to the United States government is that
yes it can go ahead but there is this little nuisance that came up
last week when one of the members from the opposition stood up
and reminded the government of the commitment that it made
while in opposition.
What was that statement that was made by the member for
Winnipeg South Centre? It was this. He suggested in a question
to this House on February 15 that:
Given that many Canadians, particularly citizens of the north as represented
by the Northwest Territories government, the Dene Nation and the circumpolar
council, have strongly opposed any continuation of these tests, why has the
minister wilfully proceeded with this agreement contrary to the wishes of these
Canadians without any form of public consultation or public parliamentary
hearings?
Public parliamentary hearings. This parliamentary debate is
not public parliamentary hearings. The voices of northerners,
the voices of aboriginal peoples, the voices of peace groups who
want to be heard on this issue are not being heard in public
hearings.
I note that the representatives from the Northwest Territories,
the member for Nunatsiaq and the member for Western Arctic,
are both strongly opposed to the testing of cruise missiles. Yet
their constituents are denied an opportunity to be heard in public
hearings.
I might ask parenthetically where is the voice of that eloquent
defender of progressive thought in the Liberal caucus, that
ardent advocate of an end to cruise missile testing, the member
for Winnipeg South Centre? I am waiting to hear his
contribution to this debate.
This debate is not just about the testing of the cruise missile. I
might say that the position we have taken as New Democrats on
this has been to oppose the testing of the cruise from the time it
was first started in 1983. It is also fundamentally a debate about
political integrity, about honesty and about the credibility of the
governing parties.
I say that because I think we have to look at the record. Yes, in
1983 it was the Liberal government that approved the first
10-year agreement to allow for cruise missile testing over
Canadian soil. But in 1984 the Liberals went into opposition. Of
course Liberals in opposition tend to be a little more progressive
than when they are in government. What did they say in
opposition? Well the Liberal Party of Canada in a convention in
November 1986 said that it would ban cruise missile testing.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Papineau, who was then external affairs
critic, suggested that cruise missiles would be destabilizing and
that cruise missile technology would have a disastrous effect. I
quote the Minister of Foreign Affairs: ``The government persists
in playing hide and seek on the policy it will adopt with respect
to testing of the new cruise missile, this dangerous cousin of the
present missile that is faster and better able to escape detection.
432
Letting such a weapon in Northern Canada would raise the
stakes even more.''
He was right in 1988; he is right today. It is really sad that the
member for Papineau was more progressive then than the
members of the Bloc Quebecois are today on this issue. It is
really sad that the very strong and powerful voices of the peace
movement in Quebec are not represented here in the House by
the Bloc members, who talk about the importance of supporting
our great American allies. It is really sad.
[English]
We have heard the glowing statements of the minister of the
members in opposition. We have read in the fabled red book that
Liberals believe Canadians want their national government to
play a more active independent internationalist role in this
world of change.
What did the Liberal Party of Canada promise to the people of
Canada in writing in September 1993? It said this in response to
a questionnaire from End the Arms Race: ``Liberals have
opposed further testing of the cruise missile since 1987. We will
bring this testing program to an end''. That was the promise of
the Liberals in September 1993. They did not say they would
bring it to an end if George Bush was re-elected. There were no
parentheses. There were no asterisks. They said they would
bring it to an end.
(1950)
What has happened? A month later they gave approval in
principle for the cruise missile testing to continue.
Let us be clear about what the issue is here. The issue is not a
question of breaking a contract solemnly entered into. I was
astonished to hear the very distinguished member for Vancouver
Quadra suggesting we would be in breach of our solemn
undertakings if we did not allow cruise missile testing to
proceed. I would have hoped that member would have read the
agreement, because of course the agreement itself makes it very
clear.
I quote from the agreement: ``Either the Department of
National Defence or the Department of Defense in the United
States may refuse any testing project proposed under this
agreement''.
It is utter nonsense to suggest, as the member for Vancouver
Quadra has done, that in some way we would be in breach of our
commitments under this agreement. The agreement provides for
consent and it provides for withholding that consent.
The issue is about the testing of a dangerous new missile, a
destabilizing new missile, the stealth missile, which has
first-strike capability. It is nuclear equipped. The reason the
Americans want to test it over our soil is that our terrain is
similar to that of Russia.
I have the original background document from the first
agreement in 1983. In response to the question why test in
Canada it said that it was suitable for operational testing of air
launched cruise missiles over representative terrain and realistic
route lengths. Representative terrain. Representative of what?
Representative of Russia. Realistic route lengths. What are
they? Some 2,200 kilometres, about the time and about the
distance it would take to fire those cruise missiles into the heart
of Russia.
We have heard it suggested that because Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, a very dangerous man, is now in a position of some
influence in Russia we should be testing this nuclear weapon. I
say that is another reason for us to say no to the testing of the
cruise missile.
In 1992 Boris Yeltsin said they would stop testing the cruise
missile. He has appealed to the nations of the world to join in
that. If Zhirinovsky is able to use the argument that we are
testing the missile and it is aimed fundamentally at them, how
on earth does that help in the pursuit of peace?
It is time we recognized the real enemy. The real enemy is
surely poverty. The fact is that 40,000 children die every day on
this planet. The real enemy is the crushing debt burden and the
increasing gap in wealth and power between north and south.
The real enemy is environmental degradation.
I would have hoped the Liberals would have shown leadership
on those issues. But, no, they are prepared to say yes to the old
ways of doing things. Why not allow the defence and foreign
policy reviews to take place before we agree to go ahead?
By saying no we will be sending a powerful signal, not only to
the people of Canada, not only to the Pentagon, but to the world,
to the community of nations, that we are prepared to take a lead
in the pursuit of peace.
It was the member for Winnipeg South Centre who asked this
question in February 1993: ``Whatever happened to the fresh
new thinking about defence matters since the cold war?''
Indeed, whatever happened to that fresh new thinking? Let us
hope that voice and that view will prevail; that we will take bold
new steps to create a nuclear weapons-free zone in Canada; that
we will say no to low level testing over Innu lands in Labrador;
that we will create a common Arctic security zone, as the
member for Yukon has suggested; and that we will respect the
wishes of aboriginal people such as the Canoe Lake people as
suggested by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
(1955)
The time has come for new thinking. The time has come to say
no to the testing of the cruise missile in Canada.
433
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment.
I would like to thank the hon. member for his eloquent speech.
When he was reading from the agreement about representative
terrain I was wondering whether we might take a look at what
representative terrain means. I have a feeling that the threat
today is not so much from Russia or the Soviet Union but from
other countries that will have some types of nuclear capability.
I was wondering whether the terrain of those countries might
be more like the terrain between Montreal and Ottawa or
Toronto. We know the threat is not from the Soviet Union now
but more from other countries. I wondered if he would comment
on that.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq
makes an excellent point and it is a point that was made earlier.
Some members have made reference to the tragic war in the gulf
that was going to dislodge Saddam Hussein and install
democracy in Kuwait.
Surely if that is the argument we should not be testing over
northern territory. Perhaps we should be testing the cruise
missile over the deserts of Nevada. If the threat as suggested is
coming from the more urban areas, the member for Nunatsiaq is
probably asking what about testing over Calgary Southwest.
What about testing over Lac-Saint-Jean? What about testing
over other areas that are slightly more populated.
It is an entirely legitimate question. I welcome the hon.
member's intervention.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, Vladimir
Zhirinovsky has already threatened the west with nuclear
annihilation if we try to interfere with his attempt to
re-establish the Russian empire.
Does the member really think he would not follow through
with plans to re-arm the former Soviet Union should we quit
testing the cruise missile in northern Alberta and northern
Canada?
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is madness to suggest that we
respond to Vladimir Zhirinovsky at this point by testing the
advanced cruise missile, the stealth missile, which would allow
us to respond with a nuclear attack on Russia.
Surely the most effective way to respond to the Zhirinovskys
of this world is to do whatever we can to isolate them. We should
make it clear that the community of nations has put behind it the
days when we responded to aggression with aggression, when
we responded to the very dangerous and destructive threats of
Zhirinovsky by simply spending more money on developing
nuclear weapons that will respond to him.
We have an excellent opportunity to bolster the forces of
democracy in the former Soviet Union or Russia by entering into
a common security arrangement with them that would entirely
demilitarize the Arctic and restore health to a very fragile Arctic
environment.
That would be the most effective way of responding to
Zhirinovsky and to isolating Zhirinovsky along with the other
Zhirinovskys of the world.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John): I would like to thank my
colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway for sharing his time with
me. This is supposed to be my maiden speech and I am certainly
pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you have recognized Wayne's World
over here in the corner.
Given the military history of my riding of Saint John, New
Brunswick, and our long association with the sea and with
shipbuilding, we may have a somewhat different perspective on
military matters than many central Canadians. I say that because
we are building the frigates for Canadians right in my shipyard.
The shipyard in Lévis, Quebec, to which one of my colleagues in
the Bloc referred today, is winding down his program. My
shipyard is winding down our program. I will have 3,500 people
out of work, probably by the end of this year or by May 1995. I
hope the Department of Transport and the Department of
National Defence will be taking a look at the most modern
shipyard we have in Canada when they are giving out the next
contracts.
(2000)
The Liberal government and the minister of the day, the hon.
Roméo LeBlanc who is a senator today, gave us our first set of
frigates and the next government continued on. We do have what
is considered to be the most modern shipyard in Canada sitting
in Saint John, New Brunswick. We should continue to build on
that. I say to my friends across the way in the Liberal
government that they should take advantage of what they have
done in the past by putting that shipyard in place.
Certainly we in Saint John have never become caught up in the
fuss regarding this cruise missile business as others have done. I
smile to myself as I listen to everyone talking about nuclear
missiles and nuclear power because we have the most efficient
nuclear power plant in the world. I just came back from
Romania. The government sent me during this past year. We are
building nuclear units in Cernavoda, Romania, because we have
the most efficient nuclear power plant in the world in Saint John.
I have interest groups that pop up and think we are building
nuclear weapons because of our nuclear power plant. Every time
we use the word nuclear everyone becomes frightened.
Sometimes it seems to me that Canadians do not really know
how lucky we are in many areas, to be sure, but certainly in the
area of defence policy.
I hope that the government goes ahead with its planned review
of defence policy and that the review will both collect the
opinions of Canadians and act as an opportunity to inform
Canadians in this area. Few of us of today's generation have ever
had to go to war or have even been within the range of one. That
is a blessing, but sometimes one wonders if that inexperience
434
has given some of our fellow Canadians a rosy view of what it
takes to make and preserve peace.
I do not know if I subscribe to the view that the best defence is
a good offence, but I subscribe to the view that the best defence
is important if war is to be deterred. It is in that context that I put
the testing of the cruise missile delivery system. It is reasonable
to be prudent until one can be certain that all risks have
disappeared.
There are those who believe that the best path to disarmament
is for everyone to lay down their arms, or at least stop
developing weapons technology, and that one way for that to
happen is for Canada and her defence partners in NATO and
NORAD to set an example.
I respect them for the sincerity of their belief but I do not
share it. I am from the school that believes disarmament in
which one can have real confidence requires binding treaties
between all countries, a reliable and open verification system,
and some collective method for dealing with violations of
agreements.
Let us not kid ourselves. Would Canada be at any real risk if
we had no army, no navy, no air force? The truth is that we are
not far from being at that point right now. Or, even if we opted
out of NATO or NORAD, would Canada be at risk? Almost
certainly not. That may be God's greatest gift to Canada.
We are members of mutual defence agreements like NATO
and NORAD for other reasons than our own defence. There are
historical connections, commercial markets, countries where
many of us came from, and even the knowledge that doing
defence collectively is not only cheaper but to get everyone
inside the agreements is best way to forestall war completely.
(2005 )
The world has made great progress towards disarmament in
the last 10 years aided immeasurably by the changes that have
happened in Europe, particularly the former U.S.S.R. But as
long as there are armies and weapons, maintaining the peace
will require the capacity to defend oneself and one's partners if
necessary and that means keeping up with technological
developments.
I make no pretence to be an expert on weapons systems or on
the cruise, but even a little reading shows very quickly that a
great deal of misinformation has been put about regarding these
tests over the years.
For example, many of the opponents have argued that the
cruise is only designed for the delivery of nuclear bombs-I
heard that here all this afternoon and again this evening-and
that to agree to test it is to be in favour of expanding nuclear
weapons.
It turns out that the missiles used against Hussein in the gulf
war were cruise missiles delivering regular bombs with amazing
accuracy as I remember.
I noticed that one member of this House has gone so far as to
say that these tests should not be allowed because they would
contribute to instability in Russia; that the conservatives there
would claim the tests prove the west intends to threaten Russia.
That seems just a little far-fetched to me. In fact, it may be
that I should be a little bit worried about why someone would
want to make that statement and that case. I completely agree
that a democratic Russia peacefully integrated into Europe is in
all our interests but it is hard to imagine that testing unarmed
cruise missiles could have any impact on what is admittedly far
from a stable situation in Russia.
In fact, I cannot find much evidence that supports the notion
that the issue is a nuclear one any longer. The real issue as far as
I can tell is that the technology may be too simple and therefore
readily developable for conventional use.
The excellent reports prepared by the Library of Parliament
say this, for example:
As the understandable pre-occupation with Superpower nuclear cruise missiles has
diminished over the past several years, more attention has been paid to shorter-range
and much simpler cruise weapons. While not comparable to the long-range systems of
the United States and Russia, shorter-range (mainly anti-ship) systems are currently in
service in a number of countries and even more countries have programs for which
cruise missiles could be developed. According to reports, some U.S. officials feel
cruise missiles will become an important proliferation threat in the future, and research
continues to improve the capability to track them. In April 1992, MIT physicist Kosta
Tsipis argued in The New York Times that while tremendous attention has been paid to
the proliferation of ballistic missile technology, accurate cruise missiles could pose a
much greater threat in the future. According to Tsipis, basic technology in the form of
commercial jet engines, gyroscopes and autopilots is now widely available to anyone
who wants it. In his words, ``Any country that can manufacture simple aircraft can
construct a cruise missile that can carry a ton of cargo at least 300 miles and land no
more than 30 feet from its target.
One of the reasons for continued testing is the tests include
testing anti-cruise systems; the capacity of radar and planes to
find, follow and intercept missiles once launched. Given
Professor Tsipis' arguments, that information alone may be the
best reason for carrying on the tests.
I suppose it is imaginable that the full scale review of defence
policy that the government has said is coming could conclude
that we should take back our defence exclusively to ourselves,
that we should leave NATO and/or NORAD, but I doubt it very
much.
In any event, it does seem to me and to my party, which may
only be two, that one would announce a policy review and then
make changes in the implementation of existing policy prior to
actually conducting that review. Is that not the whole point of
435
reviewing policy, too find out what both experts and ordinary
Canadians think should be done before making any changes?
(2010 )
In fact, that is what the then Liberal critic for external affairs,
the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, said the
government should have done before renewing the agreement on
testing in February of this year. He did not say the government
should hold a one-day debate in the House. He said that if his
government was elected it would hold full hearings across the
country. That is presumably what the defence committee is
going to do, or I trust that is what they are going to do. The
Liberal's red book made a big issue out of their commitment to
``the democratization of foreign policy''.
We take the government at its word on this question, that this
debate will be part of the broad, sincere dialogue with Canadians
that they were promised during the election. Surely the Liberal
government should honour their entire commitment and not
make substantive changes in defence policy before those
hearings have been held. That, in addition to the wisdom of
being prepared for the worst while negotiating for better,
suggests to us that these tests should not now be stopped.
In that regard, I note that the Ottawa Citizen reported on
Saturday, January 22 that the cabinet has already made the
decision to allow the tests despite its objection to the test when it
was in opposition. For that I am pleased, but while we would
agree with the decision, if the report is true it does not bode well
for the government's stated commitment to the democratization
of the process.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Saint John touched on two aspects that are of
particular interest to me. She talked about potential job losses in
her shipyard. She also talked about using cruise missiles with
more accurate guidance systems. I will address this second point
before going back to the first one and asking the hon. member
for Saint John for her comments.
The need to make the cruise missile guidance systems more
accurate is a very subtle indication that these missiles will not be
used to transport nuclear heads. Missiles carrying nuclear heads
do not have to be very accurate as any hit within a kilometre of
the target is considered a bull's eye, but great accuracy is
required to deliver a conventional head for a ``surgical''
operation. Therefore, the tests requested by the Americans
promote the denuclearization of conflicts. That is how I see it
and I would ask the hon. member to respond and let me know her
views on this issue.
Let us now talk about jobs. We have been talking about war
and peace for several hours but, in my opinion, the real issues
are jobs and technology. There will be no war in the near future
thanks to the diplomatic efforts being made on several fronts to
resolve certain conflicts. In the meantime, however, the huge
military-industrial complex needs contracts and the Americans
are very good at feeding that beast. As a Liberal member was
saying this afternoon, it would be interesting to implement the
conversion of the defence industry to civilian uses. The
technologies we are talking about, namely the recognition of
patterns through computerized programs, could easily be used
for computer-assisted work in our plants. There are jobs in all
this, as the Americans have been quick to realize while we are
talking about war and peace. What does the hon. member for
Saint John think of all this?
[English]
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I trust that we are not talking
about war but that we are talking about peace.
(2015 )
I believe Canada needs to stay on top of all high technology. It
needs to work with its partners across the border to make sure
that peace remains.
As I stated in my comments, we need to enter into agreements
and treaties in order to ensure there are no more wars. I believe
the free trade agreement entered into by this government will
encourage high technology and jobs. I am very pleased that the
government signed the agreement about 18 days after the
election. I guess it thought the one we negotiated was pretty
good. I really appreciated that. It is wonderful. We will now
have jobs for our people.
I do not believe that by working with our partners across the
border we will lose jobs. I believe we will create jobs for our
people.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
compliment the member for Saint John for her speech on this
subject. I have been here since the debate began this afternoon
and I believe her speech has been the most well-reasoned, well
thought-out and articulated opinion on this subject that we have
heard or that I have heard in my opinion here this evening and
this afternoon.
I believe it is important that we have both perspectives
brought into view, but this one was very articulated. I really
appreciated her speech.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the
government has afforded me this opportunity to speak. I believe
this is the freedom that we have been looking for.
We are here to represent all our people and this has given me
that opportunity. I am hoping that we will all work collectively
together for what is best for Canada.
In this case, I will reiterate that I feel it is most important that
these cruise missile testings take place. In my opinion and in the
opinion of my party, if this happens it will be a deterrent because
one never knows what the former Soviet Union is going to do.
436
I was asked by the German government to go to Germany to
look at unification. I had an opportunity to be on both sides of
the Berlin wall. It is like night and day. On one side the people
are living in harmony, but if one crosses over, even today, those
soldiers are still living in those homes. When one sees it and
feels it, I say to every member in this House, make sure to vote
for keeping the cruise missile testing continuing in Canada
because it must be a deterrent. Things are not what they appear
to be.
We all thought that when the Berlin wall came down
everything was all right. That has not happened yet. There is a
lot of need there and there is a lot of need for us to be ready.
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate the hon. member for Saint John on her maiden
speech. It was a very thoughtful speech and indeed she listed
some of the arguments that I want to make myself.
I will be brief because we have had a long debate today.
Again, I want to congratulate the government on having this
debate before the decision was taken. That leads me to the point
brought up by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway who said we
should take our decision now, a negative decision on cruise
missile testing and then have a defence review.
It seems to me that the proper way to proceed is in fact the
opposite to within the context of a defence review to examine
cruise missile testing and in fact all other agreements and all
other defence arrangements that Canada has.
We should be very clear that this is not a debate about a
nuclear weapon as has been pointed out earlier. This is a weapon
system and it can have a nuclear warhead or it can have a
conventional warhead. Therefore, the debate is not about
nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons are not allowed on
Canadian soil. That was an initiative that a Liberal government
took and it is the law of the land at the present time.
This is not a debate-we have to be very clear about
that-about nuclear weapons, but it is about the testing of a
weapons system that belongs to a partner of ours in North
America, to a colleague of ours in NATO and to a partner of ours
in NORAD. I think we should think very carefully about how we
treat that particular partner and indeed about how we treat this
particular weapon.
(2020 )
It may be that we do not want to continue and there is no need
to continue all of the arrangements that we have with the
Americans at the present time. However, I repeat that the proper
examination of that is within an overall defence review and the
Liberal Party did commit to a defence review when it was in
opposition and it is committed to a defence review now. I submit
that that is the proper context in which to determine the future of
cruise missile testing. We may not want to continue to test cruise
missiles forever.
However, I think we should be very careful about the
discontinuing of any weapon at the present time. The fall of the
Berlin wall and the end of the cold war has not brought stability.
Rather, I think, we can argue that there is more instability in the
world now than ever before. Our forces took part in the gulf war
some time ago. It has already been pointed out that a cruise
missile was very effective in bringing to an end that war.
There will be more gulf wars and Canada will be involved in
them with our partners. NATO was an important part. It was not
there with the NATO flag but it was an important part of the gulf
war. The unity, training and coherence of NATO was a very
important factor in bringing that war to an end. We have to think
very carefully about dismantling the weapons and the alliances
that we have in view of the instability that is in the world at the
present time.
What is the success story? The success story is that our way of
life, beliefs and philosophy have gained pre-eminence because
of the strength that we had and the strength we were able to
demonstrate, but not to exercise. NATO never went to war.
NATO is the most successful military alliance in history and it is
arguably the best equipped and best trained military alliance in
history and yet it never went to war. It was successful simply
because it was there and everybody knew it was there and
everybody knew what capability it had.
The success we have had is because we have been able to
demonstrate strength. We have to think very carefully before we
start to weaken our capability. I think it is important to
negotiate from strength and not from weakness.
Part of that strength clearly has to be the strength of the
United States itself. The United States is not universally popular
and there are many people who resent the growing role of the
U.S. as the world cop. I would prefer to see the UN become that
cop, but it is clearly true that in all of our alliances we in Canada
and other allies on both sides of the Atlantic depend heavily on
the might of the American military machine for our alliances.
We have to think very carefully about reducing the strength of
that machine and those alliances in the present circumstances.
I do not think it is necessary to draw this debate out for a long
time. I simply want to repeat in closing that the proper
examination of cruise missile testing is within the overall
review of defence policy. Clearly I think that is the way to
proceed and my counsel to the government would be to maintain
our agreement. It is a signed agreement and whether it is with
the United States or any other partner I think we have to be very
careful about our own credibility if we simply break agreements
unilaterally.
437
The proper examination of whether to go ahead with cruise
missile testing or not in the future is within the defence review
and not at the present time.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Madam Speaker, I want to
go back to this issue because I would like to hear the views of the
members who are taking part in the debate today, with respect to
employment.
(2025)
The previous speaker said that NAFTA would allow us to have
access to these new technologies. But we must not forget that
those are classified technologies, since they are designed for
military purposes by the American DOD. Therefore, specific
agreements would have to be made with the United States to
enable Canadian contractors to have access to this type of high
technology and to get the R and D contracts for that technology.
I would like to hear the opinion of the hon. member for Labrador
on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I caught the
whole question. I apologize but I wonder if the hon. member
would simply repeat the question please.
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, the point is with NAFTA
you have access to the markets over there but in the case in
question here this is classified technology. It is not obvious that
the DOD will give us this access or will give it to our suppliers.
What is your opinion on what your government should do to
ensure that the Americans give our suppliers access to that
technology and to the R and D contracts that go with it?
Mr. Rompkey: Madam Speaker, I do not think I was the one
who brought up NAFTA. I think it was the hon. member for Saint
John.
Nevertheless it seems to me that there are a number of ways in
which that information can be shared. We do have defence
agreements with the U.S. We have defence production
agreements and we have a number of mechanisms whereby
information can be shared. I think it is entirely possible within
the various co-operation agreements that we have and within the
various alliances that we have to ask and to get the United States
to share the kind of information that the hon. member is talking
about.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here to participate in this
very important debate. Before I get into my speech I would just
like to point out a couple of comments that were made by the
member for Saint John and the member for Labrador. They want
to differentiate between cruise missile testing and whether it is
carrying nuclear weapons or conventional weapons.
I would like to point out that whether it is conventional or
nuclear, it is a weapon of destruction. This is a weapon of war we
are talking about. The conventional weapon kills a few less
people, but it kills people nonetheless.
I would like to thank my colleague the Minister of National
Defence and his parliamentary secretary for this opportunity. I
am proud that my party and the leader of my party, the right hon.
Prime Minister, is giving the House the chance to discuss this
matter before final decisions are made.
The issue of cruise missile testing is a sensitive one for the
people of the Northwest Territories. As a member of Parliament
form the NWT it is my duty and privilege to bring their views to
this Chamber.
The people of the Northwest Territories have a strong and
deep conviction on this matter. Since 1984, when testing began
over the Mackenzie Valley, the legislative assembly of the
Northwest Territories passed six resolutions opposing these
tests. Numerous letters of concern have been sent from the NWT
government and from individual residents of the Northwest
Territories.
Despite these clear and frequent expressions of the will of the
people of the Northwest Territories, the missile testing
agreement has been renewed again and again. Over northern
objections, the initial testing agreement was renewed in 1988
for a further five years. In 1989 the Government of Canada
agreed to allow the testing of the advanced cruise missiles. In
1993 the government agreed to a ten-year renewal without even
consulting the government of the Northwest Territories.
(2030)
Northerners were shocked by this total disregard for their
concerns and felt that their voices had not been heard on this
issue. At the heart of the matter for northerners is their right to
determine what happens on their territory.
The Northwest Territories is a vast land but it is not an empty
land. The aboriginal people of the Western Arctic in the region
where the tests take place, the Dene and the Inuvialuit, have
lived there for thousands of years. Much more recently,
non-aboriginal people have chosen to make the NWT their
home.
While the population of the region may be considered small
by southern urban standards, together, all the peoples of the
NWT are working to build a better future for their children. A
big part of that future involves aboriginal land claim
settlements. While progress has been made in this area not all
the
438
aboriginal people have achieved land claim settlements. Work is
still proceeding on several outstanding claims.
For those who have not yet settled their claims and for those
who have, protection and enhancement of the traditional
economy and lifestyle is an overriding concern. While most
aboriginal people have settled in communities, their culture and
economies take them out on the land at various times throughout
the year. Traditional hunting and trapping grounds can be miles
away from so-called home communities.
When the cruise missiles fly up the Mackenzie Valley to the
Beaufort Sea, they are not flying over unused and unoccupied
territory. They are flying over lands that are and have been used
and loved by generations of people who live up there.
Northerners also see a future for themselves that builds closer
ties with their circumpolar neighbours. While it may be natural
for southern Canadians to look south, it is more natural for
northerners to look north and around.
The people of the NWT have much in common with other
circumpolar peoples. Beside climate, we share many social and
economic concerns. We see opportunities to learn from each
other and to contribute to each other's development.
The peoples of the north are peaceful people. We do not feel
comfortable with our land being used as testing grounds for
weapons of war.
We worry about the consequences of accidents and the
damage that could be done to our communities, the wildlife and
the environment. At this time the threat of an accident from the
testing of an American cruise missile is far more real to the
NWT residents than that of the threat of an attack from the old
Soviet Union and accidents have happened. Let me point them
out.
In 1990 a Canadian CF-18 crashed outside of Inuvik while
tracking a cruise missile that had been released from an B-52
bomber.
In 1986 two cruise missiles went down during tests. One
crashed near Primrose, Alberta and the second one went down in
the Beaufort Sea.
Last February, when Canada renewed the cruise missile
testing agreement with the United States without consulting the
government of the Northwest Territories or northern aboriginal
organizations, the leader of the NWT government wrote to the
Minister of National Defence. She expressed her
disappointment and concern that the views of the people most
directly affected by this testing were not even considered.
Other members of the legislative assembly also made their
views known. Some very eloquent words on this matter were
spoken by the Dene member for Nahendeh, Mr. Jim Antoine. I
want to share his views with this House and the Canadian
people. I am excerpting from his statement in the legislative
assembly in Yellowknife on February 23 of last year:
These missiles fly through Dene airspace in my constituency. I have talked to
people who are in the bush on their trap lines and they have seen these missiles fly
above the trees. They are followed by B-52 bombers.
I am opposed to cruise missile testing and I am also opposed to war. I saw the
coverage on television which showed how cruise missiles were used in the war
in Iraq. I saw how destructive these cruise missiles could be. I had troubled
feelings in my heart. I felt like the Northwest Territories had contributed to that
destruction by allowing those missiles to be tested in the air over our traditional
lands.
Northerners continue to have troubled feelings in their hearts
over the role of the military in our territory. While military
expenditures have improved transportation and communication
infrastructures and have generated employment, training and
business opportunities for northerners, these benefits have not
been as great as northerners had hoped. For many northerners
the negative social and environmental impact of cruise missile
testing, low-level training flights and related military activities
outweigh the benefits. For years a number of northern
organizations, non-aboriginal and aboriginal, have been
working toward demilitarization of the Arctic. The Inuit
Circumpolar Conference has been a pioneer in this effort.
(2035)
In 1990 the Government of the Northwest Territories released
a discussion paper on military activity in the north which
proposed the establishment of a circumpolar zone of peace and
security. While the Department of National Defence did not
respond favourably to the concept at that time, I would ask that
this proposal for a circumpolar zone of peace and security be
looked at again. Cruise missile testing of course would have no
place in such a regime.
In any case northerners do not simply see the need for
continued cruise missile testing over their territory. As the NWT
government leader recently stated:
In our view, the cruise missile testing component of military activity in the
Northwest Territories can no longer be justified given the significant changes
which have occurred in the international arena during the past few years.
I agree. Northerners recognize that although the cold war is
over other security concerns have arisen. However they question
whether the standard military responses are the appropriate or
only responses we can make. In many cases an economic helping
hand may accomplish more for our long-term security interests
than military shows of force.
I suggest that northerners who have a unique perspective on
peace and security can make valuable contributions to the
upcoming review of national defence policy. Northern views
should be fully represented and considered in this review.
By increasing and improving communications and
co-operation with our circumpolar neighbours, northerners are
building bridges across the Arctic Ocean. Northerners are
forging new friendships and renewing and strengthening old
ones. For those
439
who may not be aware a northern firm recently built a village in
Siberia.
Northerners do not believe continued cruise missile testing in
the Northwest Territories will further the goals of enhanced
peace and security. Cessation of these tests however could be a
bold step toward a new circumpolar security regime.
Cruise missile testing is only one component of the umbrella
test and evaluation agreement we have with the United States. It
is possible to terminate this specific project arrangement
without terminating the other parts of this agreement.
Northerners are not suggesting the termination of the entire
umbrella agreement. They are only asking for the termination of
the specific cruise missile testing component. Let us take a bold
step. Let us cancel the cruise missile testing.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
the House that questions should be on the previous speaker's
debate.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Madam Speaker,
like many members in this House I have mixed feelings on this
question. I certainly appreciate the comments of my colleague. I
am sure we all share the anguish he must feel representing the
people most directly affected by this important decision. It
certainly would not bother me to see Canadian foreign policy by
this new government show a little bit of independence at this
time from the United States.
I would like to ask the member if he could comment on what I
am hearing as one of the strongest arguments in favour of the
testing, at least in my opinion, and it is simply this. As a partner
in NORAD with the United States are we not bound to some
extent, if not very bound, to carry out this test as part of that
NORAD partnership?
I wonder if the hon. member could address that concern. I
listened closely to his comments. They were excellent
comments, but I did not hear that particular argument
mentioned. I sincerely would be interested in how he might
respond to that argument because I think it is also a strong point.
Mr. Anawak: Madam Speaker, we do have agreements with
other countries, whether they are of a military nature or any
nature. We do have agreements with other countries, treaties,
pacts. We have to remember we are still an independent country.
I have very strong feelings about the fact that Canada is a free
country. We are a nation of people who are peace loving.
(2040)
I do not think we have an agreement with the United States
that can be, as I pointed out at the end of my speech, terminated
year by year. I do not think we are getting into any trouble.
Frankly, I would not care if we got into trouble with the United
States. I do not think we are getting into any trouble if we decide
to cancel cruise missile testing in the far north.
As I said earlier in a point to one of the members, the area of
possible conflict has changed in the last two or three years. The
terrain is not the same. If the Americans had to attack anybody it
would not be the Soviet Union.
Despite some concerns about the mad guy from Russia-I
cannot remember his name, the fool anyway-I do not think he
is a threat. Therefore Russia is not a threat. There is no Soviet
Union. The threat is more from other countries that may be
developing nuclear weapons.
Why do we not ask the United States to test their cruise
missiles over terrain of similar nature. If the terrain is similar to
the terrain between here and Montreal or Toronto and Vancouver
why not test it through there?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): I would like to ask the hon.
member a brief question. I also have mixed feelings regarding
this issue, and since I also represent a riding which is bordered
by the far North, I want to ask the member this question: Since
our country and his region have never experienced war, if we had
to go to war some day and had not learned how to defend
ourselves, either alone or with the help of allies, would the hon.
member still think that he made the right decision today?
[English]
Mr. Anawak: Madam Speaker, when the member for Saint
John was speaking she pointed out quite clearly that the cruise
missiles that they were using carrying conventional weapons
were very accurate.
It is not as though we were suffering from lack of knowledge
on how to make a cruise missile that can hit a target within a few
feet. It is not as if we are going to lose out by not continuing to
test the cruise missile.
We already have weapons that can hit within a few feet from
hundreds of miles away. I do not think we will get into trouble if
we do not test the cruise missile. I do not think the world will be
any worse off if the cruise missile is not tested. If it is used as it
is, it still destroys.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and speak as the
representative for Edmonton Southwest and to represent the
citizens of that fine part of the world.
Let me begin as others have before me in congratulating you
and all members of the House on winning the election and
thereby being entrusted with this high honour, this great
responsibility and opportunity.
440
As this is my maiden address in the House, I wonder if hon.
members would bear with me for a moment as I go through the
traditional greetings and tell them a little about the constituency
of Edmonton Southwest.
(2045 )
I would like to start, if I may, by thanking the electors of
Edmonton Southwest for sending me here, and particularly all
those who worked on my campaign so hard and so selflessly. I
would also like very much to thank my family, without whose
help I certainly would not be here today. They are probably the
most interested people watching the debate at this very moment.
Just as an indication of things that may or may not go wrong,
even if you think that everything is absolutely perfect, they are
watching me today at a friend's. We get our television from the
Anik II satellite, which is not working. So the world is not a
predictable place. We have to be prepared for contingencies.
This is what this cruise debate is all about. I will get back to that
in a moment.
I wish to thank the voters of Edmonton Southwest for sending
me here and I pledge to them and I pledge to you, my colleagues,
that I will represent them with fidelity, with honour and with
dignity in this House so as not to betray the trust they vested in
me. I also pledge to represent this House with the same honour
and dignity and fidelity so as not to betray the trust that we share
as honourable colleagues here together.
It is also appropriate and traditional at this time to recognize
members who represented the seat in other Parliaments. It is not
always done but I think it is very appropriate for me to do so
because this seat in the last Parliament and for the previous
couple of Parliaments was represented by Mr. Jim Edwards. Jim,
while we evolved to different political persuasions, always
treated me and his political foes with dignity and kindness. I am
sure that other members of this House would join with me in
wishing Jim, his wife Sheila and family good fortune in the
years ahead of them.
The constituency of Edmonton Southwest is just about 100
per cent urban. It has a bit of farmland on the extreme south and
the extreme west ends but it is 90 per cent urban. It has very little
industry, but a good deal of retail, and it is the home of the
world's greatest shopping centre, regardless of whatever you
may have heard about what exists in the United States. The Mall
of the Americas will fit into a corner of the great West Edmonton
Mall, which is a tourist destination that everyone should take in
as they go through the wonderful, beautiful province of Alberta.
Edmonton Southwest has a good mix of people. It is much like
this Parliament. It is wonderful to sit here and see the mix that is
in this Parliament, which is truly representative of our great
country. Edmonton Southwest has aboriginal Canadians. It has
recent immigrants. It has children of immigrants who were not
so recent. It is a very pluralistic constituency, and as an example
the Toronto-Dominion Bank I deal with is bilingual. The signs
outside are in English and Chinese. Our constituency and our
country is changing, it is evolving. We should recognize that and
we should embrace it. We should not be afraid of it. The electors
and the residents of Edmonton Southwest, I think, do embrace
the pluralistic nature of our society.
The voters of Edmonton Southwest sent me to Ottawa with a
very clear mandate, and that mandate was to represent them in
Ottawa and not the other way around. They sent me with a
mandate to inculcate a sense of parsimony and of personal
responsibility in government. They sent me here to be part of a
Parliament that would get a handle on the outrageous systemic
overspending that has been a hallmark of governments at all
levels in Canadian society for the last 20 years. They sent me
here to try and inculcate with all of our hon. colleagues a sense
that we cannot go on this way forever. Sooner or later we have to
start living within our means. We need to recognize the situation
in the world and in our country as it is, not as we would wish it to
be.
(2050)
My constituents also sent me here with another mandate. That
was to be forthright, direct, and honest in dealing with the Bloc.
We want our Canada to stay united but we want it to be united on
a solid foundation. That means all of the protagonists in this
great debate that is going to rise of its own in a year or so need to
get everything out on the table and deal with it honestly so that
one way or another we can put the matter behind us and get on
with the future.
That is precisely the kind of commitment I make and that I
make to my hon. colleagues of the Bloc. I promise them it will
be a constructive and honest debate. I wish to be a part of it
representing my constituents who, make no mistake, want us to
remain a united Canada.
Let me get to the reason for this debate. I will not speak a lot
about it because virtually everything I have to say on the cruise
missile has already been said by others over the course of the
day, many very eloquently and many direct from the heart.
I do not pretend to be an expert on defence and I certainly do
not pretend to be an expert on the cruise missile. I asked if I
could participate in this debate because I wanted to put forward
the feelings of the residents I represent in Edmonton Southwest
about this kind of issue, an issue where the word of Canada is
really at stake. Make no mistake, that is what we are talking
about. We are talking about the veracity of our word when we
make a deal in the community of nations.
That is the underlying theme of the position I would like to
bring to this debate. When our national government makes an
undertaking with another government it is in essence making an
441
agreement or a commitment on behalf of each of us as individual
citizens.
There is a truism therefore that comes into play in a situation
like that. The truism is that your word is your bond. We are only
as good as our word individually, and collectively as a nation.
Our government at the time committed us to an agreement and
we are therefore honour bound to live up to it today. The bottom
line is that we should allow these tests to proceed for the
following reasons.
We made an agreement with the United States in good faith
and we should stick to it. Cruise missiles may be used to deliver
conventional ordinances. Many countries now have the ability
to manufacture and use cruise missiles and therefore it is in our
best interests to learn how to track and intercept them.
There is a defensive nature to the testing of cruise missiles
which needs to be recognized. Unless cruise missiles are flown
in a test mode how would our pilots and how would our radar
interceptors ever get the ability or the knowledge to learn how to
intercept them?
The test corridor is in a sparsely settled area thereby posing
little or no inconvenience or damage to Canadians or to wildlife.
I do recognize the points made by the hon. member who
addressed this House prior to me that it is an inhabited territory.
There are people who do live there and we should not go through
this without at least getting their permission or their leave to do
it just as a matter of courtesy.
An extremely important consideration is that we have an
obligation to co-operate with our NORAD partner under whose
protective umbrella the western world has lived for 40 years.
Not to mention the fact as others have made the point before me
that we are going into bilateral negotiations with the Americans
from time to time. How would you feel if you had been giving
comfort to and looking after your neighbour for 40 years and
when you wanted to borrow his lawnmower he said no.
There is a quid pro quo here. We have to work together.
(2055)
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Madam Speaker,
I would like to respond to the member from Edmonton
Southwest in his statement that we are honour bound to our
agreement.
It is my contention that we are honour bound to our children
and our future children. A group of Alberta physicians once
stated that prevention is the only treatment for war.
I would urge the government to consider cancelling the cruise
missile testing that is taking world leadership in working toward
the prevention of war. I would like my hon. colleague on the
other side to consider this as well.
Members of this House had an incredible opportunity
yesterday to debate an issue of great global significance.
However the substance of the debate dealt with the treatment of
war.
As we found out yesterday and indeed as humankind has
struggled repeatedly over the millennia of world history,
treating victims stricken with the disease of war is tremendously
difficult, if not impossible.
The government is undertaking a review of current defence
policy. Canada's role as a peacekeeper-peacemaker needs
redefinition in the light of changing world conditions.
I am very thankful to the government for encouraging open
debate on the topics of peacekeeping in Bosnia and the cruise
missile testing.
This debate is especially important to new members like
myself and my colleague as it sends out a strong and very real
message to not only the member's constituents in Edmonton
Southwest but to my constituents in York-Simcoe.
To the people of Canada, the Prime Minister is serious and
committed to including input from all members of the House
whether on the government side or not, whether in cabinet or
not.
The debates of the last two days are crucial because it is only
through a comprehensive examination of the totality of
Canada's defence policy that we can put the decision whether or
not to continue the testing of cruise missiles in proper
perspective and make a decision that is right for the times.
I would say to the hon. member for Calgary Southwest that
yes, we are bound to certain kinds of agreements. Those are
agreements written on paper. Those are agreements that are part
of legislated agreements between governments.
I would suggest to the hon. member and I would like him to
consider that we are honour bound to our children and our future
children as well.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, I will be very succinct.
If the agreement that we were honour bound to live up to were
an agreement of disarmament, I am sure the hon. member would
have no problem in admonishing this House to live up to that
agreement. It is the question that you lie to the devil that you do
not like.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, I do
not have much time, but I will try to be quick. The hon. member
talked about a defensive strategy and I found his point
interesting. I would have liked to learn a bit more about that.
There has been a gradual change in the deterrent strategy with
which I have agreed for years. The nuclear era started with the
bombing of Hiroshima. Then we witnessed a gradual build-up
of destructive power to a point were total destruction of a city
the size of New York was possible. Nowadays, the deterrent
strategy is more and
442
more focused on better-targeted weapons. I would have liked
the hon. member to further explain his point of view, as it seems
to me that this justifies the testing of cruise missiles over
Canadian territory. Could he elaborate briefly on this new
deterrent strategy based on precise strikes rather than on total
annihilation?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member has
about 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, I do not think that I can. I
do not have the confidence to answer that question as I am sure
the hon. member would want me to.
(2100 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Madam Speaker,
I would like to start by complimenting the government on
having this the second open debate which I presume is sincerely
that, open and not as suggested by our colleague the hon.
member for Burnaby-Kingsway that the fix is already in. I
choose to believe there is honour on the other side and that we
are going at this in an open manner.
I would also like to address a word to the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who alluded to the fact that maybe those
in this corner of the House were in collusion and we were not
having an open debate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In our debate yesterday on peacekeeping we had sincere
differences of opinion even though there was some hanging
together.
I assure the House it is entirely so with this current debate on
the cruise missile. We each have our own opinion. It may happen
that it sounds much of the same tune, but it is entirely our own
version of what should be done.
The cold war is over. I have heard a lot of comments today
about the cold war being over. Let us remind ourselves that we in
the west won the cold war and we won it by being prepared. We
did not have to shoot off weapons, missiles or anything of the
sort. We won it through peaceful means but that meant being
prepared and being armed and being armed better than the other
side. So it is a successful strategy for peace.
Has the threat in the world diminished? Not on your life it has
not. The world is in greater danger today. It is more unstable
today than it has been for a long time.
I hear some debates in this House that are very idealistic in
nature and I think we should preserve that to the degree that we
can. Have our idealists. Have them say we should have peace.
We all believe in peace. The soldier is the first one who will
throw his arms on the pile if we can ever achieve that moment
when we have agreement in the world to have peace. In the
meantime the world is a rough place. Let us see how rough.
The Senate of this Parliament had put out a report, ``Meeting
new Challenges-Canada's Response to a New Generation of
Peacekeeping'' and I read from that: ``The current crisis has its
roots in the proliferation of states which followed the second
world war. At the end of that war there were barely 60 states.
Through decolonization that number increased to almost 160
states by 1988. With the break up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet
Union the number is over 180 and climbing''.
If you do not believe that, take a little tour of the world with
me in your imagination. Let us go across the Pacific and look at
the situation between northern Japan and Russia. It always has
been tense. Move over a little to North and South Korea. They
are still at odds. Look at all of China. We have not even begun to
count the factions within China that are a potential problem. In
fact look at the Chinas, the People's Republic as well as the
other one.
(2105)
If we go through Indo-China, Cambodia and Laos, what do we
see? We see more potential problems. We could go to Indonesia
and look at the problems it has had. If we flip over from there to
Sri Lanka, we see a problem in Sri Lanka that has been there for
a lot of years. If we go to India or Pakistan what do we see?
Tension. We could go from there to the Middle East. I do not
even have to describe the Middle East. It is there. It has been
there over, over and over again. If we go from there to South
Africa, the Republic of South Africa and all the countries of
Africa, what do we see? We see potential for problems.
From there we can cross the Mediterranean and look at what
we have in Europe today. We have the situation in the former
Yugoslavia that we discussed yesterday. If we traverse the
Atlantic Ocean, to finish our tour, and look at the Caribbean we
still have trouble spots. We could look at Central America, a
continuing problem, and even South America. Chile is quiet
now. There is no war in Argentina. We do not hear much about
the shining path in Peru, but we can bet our boots we will hear
about it again.
The world is an unstable place. Until something magic
happens to unite human beings to say that this is the way to
peace, we must be prepared.
Let us go back in history a bit to look at our situations before
World War I and before World War II. We have to relearn the
lessons of history. We say: ``This war is the war to end all wars.
It is all done''. It is not done. Until I see something very special
come along I will know it is never done. Therefore let us be
prepared.
We are talking about weapons systems such as the cruise.
Several people have already differentiated between the fact that
it can carry a conventional warhead and a nuclear one. Much of
443
the argument here has been concentrated on nuclear. It carries a
conventional weapon and as such it is another excellent weapon
in our total arsenal. We cannot predict which weapon in our
arsenal we are going to reach for.
We could look at Vietnam. We saw the Americans bringing
back C-47 aircraft and mounting Gatling guns in the open
doorways. That tells us, if we look at that situation and at the
gulf war, that we need a complete set of weapons in our arsenal.
We do not know which one we will have to pick.
Thus it is incumbent on us to allow the Americans to continue
the testing of this specific weapon in case it is needed. We have
the technological lead in the west. How long will we continue to
have that lead? We do not know. There are all sorts of other
countries or groups working to exceed what we have. If we have
a lead, hang on to it.
Finally I ask this question: Has Canada contributed its share
to democracy or the defence of the west over the last number of
years? If I look at my time before and after being in NATO, I
think the answer is no. We have been cheapskating. We have
always been down around Luxembourg. This gives us a chance
as a country to pay off some of our debts.
I will leave it at that except to reiterate the point made by the
hon. member for Saint John concerning proliferation. This
refinement of the missile is a means to prevent proliferation if
that happens to us.
(2110 )
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Madam Speaker,
I would like to ask the hon. member on the other side some
questions regarding the statement about increased instability in
the world and the need to use cruise missile tests as a way of
reducing some of this instability.
As I said earlier, prevention is the only treatment for war. The
Canadian people through their government have a remarkable
opportunity to take a stand against the proliferation of the tools
of war by refusing to continue cruise missile testing on
Canadian soil.
Contrary to an earlier statement by a member on the opposite
side of the House, we do not prepare for peace by preparing for
war. In fact the mid-eastern war of 1991 showed that in
preparing for war we prepare and encourage more war. Most of
the weaponry used by Iraq was manufactured by G-7 countries.
In fact, even though we are in a post cold war period, the military
industrial complex of western world countries flourishes as the
result of sales to Third World countries increasing global
instability and jeopardizing the world peace the member on the
other side of the floor has recently spoken to.
If we are suffering from so much tension and problems in the
world, won't supplying more armaments and guns just be like
adding fuel to the fire?
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I understand the thrust of the
argument of my friend across the way. We do not get rid of
tensions by hiding weapons. If the world could find a way of
disarming so that everyone disarmed, I would be totally in
favour of it. I said earlier that all people who have borne arms
would feel the same way. They would be the first to put them on
the pile.
We have not arrived at that point yet, it is sad to say. As soon
as we can see it coming we should do something about it. If we
could start to reduce the arms in the world I would be the first to
join the club, but we have not arrived at that stage yet.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): I heard the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan say that we had won the cold war with
arms but without using them.
The fact is, if we had not dared-perhaps with an incredible
lack of judgment-if we had not tempted fate with nuclear
weapons, if we had not chanced it to the point of madness, to the
point of the ``mutual mad'' as they called it, if we had not
implemented deterrents, maybe none of us would be here
tonight to talk about peace.
Even though this weapons race may be foolish, at least it
ensures the precarious parity that now exists and we must take
that risk until our planet is completely free of violence.
Unfortunately, that is not the case yet; we live in a violent world
and if I let my guard down, if we as a country let our guard down,
someone somewhere will seize the opportunity. Alas, this is not
Disney World yet.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
it is a real treat to participate on behalf of the constituents of
Scarborough-Rouge River in a debate of this nature. Early in
this Parliament our Prime Minister said to the House: ``Please
take this issue, debate it and tell me what Canadians think''. I
can see individuals in my caucus over here and in their caucuses
over there with views on both sides of the issue. It is unlikely I
will be able to address any issue which has not already been
covered. I want to compliment all of my colleagues, especially
those who have made their first interventions and speeches in
the House.
(2115)
What is the cruise missile? It is simply a delivery system. This
was not the case 10 years ago. Ten years ago the cruise missile
was seen as a delivery system but more importantly a delivery
system for strategic nuclear capability. That did not make a lot
of us in this country very comfortable.
I know the Liberal Party grappled with the issue for many
years inside the party, not necessarily in the House, and in
caucus. I can see that its position has changed from time to time
over the last one or two decades.
444
Something happened a few years ago that changed my view in
relation to the cruise missile. That was the gulf war. As a
taxpayer, as an individual who cared a lot about what was
happening at the time of the gulf war, for the first time I was able
to see right in the opposition lobby something involving a cruise
missile that did not involve nuclear or strategic nuclear
warheads.
It was at that point that I began to look at the cruise missile a
little differently. We are talking about roughly 288 cruise
missiles that were used by the United States as part of what was
called the allied effort in relation to the gulf war.
Having formed a view that the cruise missile was not
necessarily part of the nuclear capability, I began to look at it
more as something capable of carrying a payload. In the gulf war
it had carried a conventional warhead for very specific tactical
purposes.
My colleagues and I realize that it did kill. As I stand here I do
not know what the body count was, but there were many killed
and presumably many maimed by the Tomahawk cruise missiles
used in the gulf war. It was not intentional but there still was
death and the attendant destruction.
Is not the cruise missile simply an increasingly sophisticated
product of research, development and delivery capability? What
if the cruise missile simply carried a camera? What if
technologically we got the cruise missile to go out and come
back?
I know we can take pictures of the earth from satellites. We do
not really need an unmanned capability all of the time, but what
if there is cloud cover or what if we are talking about a volcano
with all kinds of cloud cover? Perhaps the cruise missile could
have the benefit of the doubt in being seen in a more benevolent
or kinder content in great contrast with what it has been used as,
a weapon of war.
In saying that I want to articulate my general acquiescence in
the agreement that permits testing of the cruise missile in
Canadian territory. I say that knowing the agreement permits the
sharing of the test results with Canada. I am making an
assumption, I hope not too naively, that the technology is known
to the appropriate elements of our armed forces as a technology
that they can work with.
(2120)
There are three sensitivities that I have to put on the record
and I am sure some of them, if not all, are shared by all my
colleagues here.
First, I have listened intently to the remarks of our colleague,
the member for Nunatsiaq. I am very sensitive to the issue put
that the testing of the cruise missile over northwestern Canada
has to be subjected to the scrutiny of residents there. The long
term residents there include the Dene and the Inuvialuit and if
they have something to say to us through their members then we
have to listen. We must listen. There are elements of safety,
environment and morality.
Second, this next item of sensitivity has been mentioned by
the previous speaker and was articulated very well. It is that
Canada must continue to make its contribution to global
stability. It must continue to do its part in terms of ensuring our
defence capability and our ability to be there at times when the
world needs us as a country. We must participate in that. We
must foster that.
I do not think we have been carrying our load internationally
in that regard. There were times when we did not really want to
when it was a cold war battle between two or three nuclear
powers. Times have changed. We know that from time to time
the world needs what our country has to offer in terms of global
stability.
Third, we have a moral obligation to those who will follow us
in this world to do everything possible on our end to remove the
nuclear threat from the entire world.
I know there is an overlap here with the way we used to look at
the cruise missile, but something tells me that the nuclear threat
to this world does not relate so much any more to the cruise
missile. It relates more to stockpiles and of previously built
nuclear weapons and the potential nuclear weapon to be built
that is in a steamer trunk somewhere in the world where it should
not be. God only knows what might happen should we go down
that road.
Those three sensitivities I leave on the record. In the end,
having analysed this and attempting to articulate what I think
are the views of my constituents in Scarborough-Rouge River,
I am, along with other colleagues in the House who may feel this
way, acquiescent and accepting that Canada should stay as part
of the current cruise missile testing agreement with the United
States.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Madam Speaker, the
previous member who represented this Waterloo riding was the
Hon. Walter McLean who was preceded by Max Saltzman. In
some ways I reflect some of their thinking and the thinking of
the community that I represent.
We have to ask this question. When do we have enough
armaments?
I heard the hon. member talk about an almost benevolent
cruise missile, one which does not have to have nuclear
capability.
(2125 )
If one looks at what initially instigated the development of the
cruise missile, which was the Soviet Union, and if one looks at
the Soviet Union today and its break up into many different
states, one cannot help but think of Ukraine that has nuclear
weapons and the world desperately wants it to give them up. In
some sense I wonder how Canada as a nation that faces virtually
no threat from Russia can tell the Ukrainians that they should
445
give up their nuclear weapons when we are acquiescing to the
testing of the cruise missile.
We were here all day yesterday debating the war in Bosnia and
what role this House should take. I really believe that these
debates are very refreshing. I am glad to see that the Reform
Party is not sticking together on the issue. They are expressing
genuinely different points of view and I think that can be said
about the House as a whole.
I guess at some point in time we have to say that we have
enough weapons of mass destruction. We are just dealing now
with the cruise, but there are biological and chemical weapons
that exist on this fragile plant. To take a phrase from Project
Ploughshares from my community it is time to turn some of that
weaponry into ploughshares. It is time to turn some of those
swords into ploughshares.
If a country like Canada, with our special standing in the
world as a middle power and really of little threat as an
aggressor, is unable to do that then my question has to be this.
What country is going to take the first step?
Mr. Lee: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes a
wonderful point here. The issue of the nuclear stockpile is out
there and is unresolved by the entire global community. As I
understand it I think the Ukraine has reached an agreement to
liquidate, store away, give away or trade away its nuclear
stockpile. That was a real plus. I hope they get to the end of their
inventory.
However, I fall back on the remarks I made earlier that I view
the cruise missile as a delivery system. Maybe it will be the very
best delivery system we have ever developed. Maybe the cruise
missile and developments of the cruise missile will become the
flying saucer of the planet earth because of its ability to move in
an unmanned way and guide itself. Let us forget about the
sausage shape for now. It does not have to carry a nuclear
warhead.
Canada has insisted that none of the cruise missiles in Canada
will carry nuclear warheads. Canada is in the forefront in the
world in convincing countries to abandon their nuclear
capability. I point out the regional dispute between India and
Pakistan involving their own alleged nuclear capabilities and
the arguments about delivery systems also.
I hope that my children's children will have fewer nuclear
warheads to worry about than that which the hon. member and
the rest of us have to worry about now.
(2130)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): I am pleased to
participate as the member for Richmond-Wolfe in this debate
on cruise missiles and I would like to send warm greetings to all
the voters in my constituency of Richmond-Wolfe who placed
their trust in me last October 25 and gave me a clear mandate.
Obviously, we must examine this particular issue within a
broader context. The Bloc Quebecois would have liked the
government to undertake a comprehensive review of national
defence policy. Nevertheless, for a sovereigntist member of
Parliament and member of the Bloc Quebecois, the Canada-US
Test and Evaluation Program, or if you prefer, the agreement on
cruise missile testing, is critically important. This kind of
debate on the relevance of allowing new tests to take place over
Canadian territory during the course of this year highlights in
particular the role of a sovereign Quebec with respect to western
agreements on military strategy.
There are three distinct types of cruise missiles, namely the
surface, sea and air varieties. The cruise missile tested in
Canada falls into the third category of weapon. It is primarily
the vehicle, or delivery system, which determines whether these
weapons will or will not be subject to disarmament agreements
or nuclear weapons verification control. The most stringent
control measures of all have been adopted in the case of the air
and sea version of these missiles.
One of the means available for verifying nuclear arms during
the cold war and for maintaining a certain balance between the
superpowers was the National Technical Means, that is a
verification technique based on information obtained by
superpowers about the weapons of foreign countries.
For instance, if a superpower formally announces that it is
going to test a specific type of weapon and if the other
superpower discovers, through its verification techniques, that
the weapon in question is not consistent with the formal
announcements made, then the whole balance of deterrence is
called into question and the mutual trust of the two superpowers
is shaken. And we know how importance trust is in such matters.
Therefore, it is extremely important that Canada, as an ally of
the United States, stand by its commitment and guarantee its
co-operation in the area of strategic weapons testing so that it
does not impede international disarmament procedures and in
the process fuel the nuclear race.
All of the verification, monitoring and voluntary
disarmament techniques to which the superpowers agreed under
the SALT I and SALT II treaties have since been superseded by
new agreements such as the INF, which stands for Intermediate
Nuclear Force, and START I and START II. Today these
verification techniques still form the basis of arms control.
Canada cannot disregard them. It must ensure compliance with
these agreements to limit the nuclear threat.
446
Cruise missiles launched from bomber aircraft are considered
strategic if their range exceeds 600 kilometres. The missile
tested in Canada has a range superior to 600 kilometres.
Accordingly, the Canadian government cannot, under the terms
of international arms control and strategic weapons verification
treaties, dissociate itself from the strategic nuclear mission of
the air version of the cruise missile.
The cruise missile satisfies different objectives in terms of
U.S. strategy. The air and sea versions are at the very heart of the
United States's strategy of deterrence based on the concept of
the tripartite retaliatory force or triad.
(2135)
This offensive triad brings together land-, sea- and air-based
strategic weapons. Canada's commitments to the strategic
deterrent force are basically a part of co-operation between
allies. To the extent that Canada bases its defence on agreement
among allies, it must voluntarily co-operate in implementing
this strategic deterrent force if required. This is part of the
national defence policies of 1971 and 1987 and the defence
policy statement of 1992.
Like my colleagues and my leader, I recall that under this
approach, Canada was asked in 1983 to accept air-launched
cruise missile tests on its territory, although this nuclear
deterrence strategy was not officially based on NATO's strategy.
In its 1992 security policy statement, Canada revised its
position on strategic issues, recognizing that the world was no
longer bipolar. The new nuclear powers were considered
inherently unstable and so it became difficult for Canada and its
allies to get away from nuclear deterrence.
Cruise missiles made a key contribution to the offensive
against Iraq. The non-nuclear air-launched cruise missile was
used, showing the need for this missile in local conflicts,
although it is not always perfectly accurate in hitting the target.
The advantage of using such a weapon is that massive bombing
is made unnecessary, thus saving many civilian lives. Strategic
flexibility and tactics make the cruise a weapon better suited to
the present strategic environment. This flexibility is why the
development programs for these new missiles need to be
extended. Canada, like our party, must be aware of the different
uses to which these weapons can be put.
From what we know, the missile that the Americans want to
test in 1994 would have new electro-optical guidance
technologies.
International relations are extremely complex and cannot be
analyzed from just one point of view. The issue of national
defence is revealing in this regard. In 1993, Canada extended a
formal commitment with the United States to facilitate the
testing of certain types of weapons. Remember that the
agreement runs for ten years, so this commitment will end in
2003. Canada would find itself in a sensitive position with its
partners if it broke its commitments, whatever their nature.
Canada must act as a responsible state which respects its
international commitments. These values are particularly
important for the sovereigntist members of the Bloc Quebecois.
It is essential to state clearly that the Bloc Quebecois, while
not agreeing with the continuation of the arms race, cannot
totally distance itself either from the unstable international
environment which has existed since the former Soviet Union
broke up and from the potential dangers which unfortunately
threaten our world. The Bloc Quebecois's sovereigntist thrust
must not mean a kind of isolationism, heedless of our
responsibilities to our strategic allies. On this score, it is
important to send a clear and unambiguous message to the rest
of the world: Canada and Quebec must respect their
international commitments, with the possibility of renegotiating
them with their allies once these agreements expire, using the
appropriate procedures when the time comes.
(2140)
Another argument for accepting cruise missile tests over
Canadian territory is the devastating effect of massive
bombardment on civilian populations. For example, in the gulf
war, massive conventional bombing would have been extremely
costly in civilian lives since most of the sites destroyed were
located in inhabited Iraqi territory. Surgical strikes such as those
carried out by cruise missiles have shown the effectiveness of
such weapons, considerably limiting the loss of human life.
The tests which the American government wants to conduct
do not involve new nuclear technologies either. Thus they do not
escalate strategic nuclear forces. Furthermore, a ceiling has
already been set for the total number of missiles deployed under
the START I and START II treaties. The cruise missile tests on
Canadian soil are only to improve the guidance system. They
cannot and must not be considered destabilizing under
international arms control or disarmament agreements.
Finally, one question arises: should cruise missile tests be
related to the issue of converting military industry and to the
lower military spending advocated by the Bloc Quebecois? I say
no, they should not. First, very few military companies in
Quebec and Canada are involved with this type of weapon. The
economic, industrial and technological impact is minimal since
a ceiling has been set for the number of units to be built.
Therefore no increase in the budget of the Canadian Department
of National Defence is involved.
Thus, it would be wrong for the Liberal government to make a
connection with the lower military spending advocated by the
Bloc Quebecois.
It is important for Canada and Quebec to strengthen these
strategic commitments; therefore the Bloc Quebecois is in
447
favour of military agreements with its allies to ensure the
security of Canadian and Quebec territory.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Madam Speaker, a number
of members have referred to the cruise and they picked on the
war in Iraq as an example of how advanced technology in
weapons of destruction can save lives. We looked at the
situation in the Middle East, we looked at star wars in Bagdhad.
Those were weapons, granted not of the most sophisticated kind,
supplied basically by the superpowers.
How does producing more deadly weapons, with also the
export that is involved in arms, help world peace? How does that
make us as a nation more secure? We have to look at the weapons
that were used in the Middle East. For the most part they were
produced by advanced technologies, the United States, the
Soviet Union, France. The list goes on and on.
What invariably happens is that the military says we have to
have more advanced weapons than other countries have to deal
with our own security. I guess this is a never-ending race.
When does the member see this vicious cycle stopping?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for his question. First of all, I must remind the
hon. member that what I suggested in my speech was to allow
experiments relating to electro-optical guidance technology.
(2145)
I totally agree with the member on that. We are totally against
any arms race or war. I did mention in my speech however that
destabilisation is occurring in certain regions and, as we know, a
country where democratic principles are completely
disregarded is a country with a potential for and threat of
aggression against which we must react. It is mainly in that
perspective that we should look at the development of
technological know-how.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Madam Speaker,
I would like to pose a specific question to the member in light of
what is the immediate challenge before us. He alluded to the
agreement that exists for a 10-year period and in this agreement
is stated a provision that it may be terminated upon 12 months'
notice in writing by either party.
The question I would like to pose is this. Would the hon.
member favour giving notice today, saying that yes, we will
terminate it and in fact we would further request that any testing
be held in abeyance until the Government of Canada has
completed its full defence policy review by the end of this year.
This is an approach that I favour.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Madam Speaker, I did say
in my speech that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are committed to
fundamental values. Clearly, the agreements passed with our
allies and friends must be abided by. These considerations
having to do with the value and observance of agreements must
be maintained. Of course, as far as we are concerned, what really
matters is to get to consider in its entirety the national defence
policy, which has not been tabled yet. I call upon the hon.
member to urge his government to table as soon as possible their
White Paper on Defence that we have heard so much about.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services):
Madam Speaker, yesterday and today we have experienced a
rather unique situation, a somewhat historic moment, as we had
the opportunity to speak freely on two issues. Yesterday we
talked of Canada's role as peacekeeper and today we are
discussing cruise missile testing over Canadian territory.
[English]
Yesterday we talked of Canada's peace efforts abroad, our
contributions to this particular process. Today we are discussing
cruise missile testing. It seems to me that the two go hand in
hand.
When people talk to me about Canada's armed forces they
always talk about our soldiers with a great deal of pride. They
also ask, increasingly so, very tough questions such as: What is
peacekeeping? What is peacemaking? Is there a difference
between peacemaking and war? Do our soldiers have different
terms of engagement under different circumstances? Are they
secure? Are we doing everything we can to make sure that they
can do the job they are being asked to do?
As I understand the situation, what Canadians are telling me is
that they want us to continue to make that contribution but they
want us to continue to make the contribution within a different
context. They want to make sure that our soldiers, our armed
forces, are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve
because they are putting their lives on the line to create a better
society and very often it is in very troubled countries.
When we talk about cruise missile testing it seems to me that
we need to ask ourselves very fundamental insightful questions
as well. I do not pretend that I know all of them but I am going to
raise a few. What was the original rationale for this particular
agreement and is it still valid? Some people will argue, and I can
appreciate that.
448
[Translation]
We must honour our commitments. I totally agree but, clearly,
when the situation changes, it is important that we review our
commitment.
(2150)
[English]
All I ask is, is the original rationale still valid, or is it equally
responsible to sit down and ask whether the reasons that
motivated that particular agreement are such that they
necessitate that kind of response?
I want to ask another question. This is one that is troubling me
as well. Can we ask other countries of the world to reduce
armaments, perhaps not to manufacture certain kinds of
armaments, and undertake such an initiative that is cruise
missile testing? Is there not a potential contradiction if we were
to do that? People will ask.
It is important as well before we reach a final decision to
consider seriously not only what parliamentarians are saying in
this House but what other elected people are saying to us,
particularly those who are affected. I am talking about the
provincial and territorial governments. I am talking about other
governments where we have elected representatives. We need to
consider very seriously what the people are saying, because this
has an impact on them and we have a responsibility to at least
listen to what they are saying.
I appreciate so much that we were given the opportunity
yesterday to talk about our contribution to peacekeeping and
peacemaking and that we are talking today about cruise missile
testing, components of our defence policy. We have been
promised a thorough review of where we are at and where we
might go. I see this as the beginning of that particular process.
I am going to make one final comment because I know I have
other colleagues who want to address this issue. We are being
called upon to exercise leadership. Perhaps some people would
characterize leadership as to lead, to build, perhaps to refine
armaments-and I am not suggesting that there is not a role for
that-but we need to consider it very seriously and with great
sensitivity. We also need to lead to disarm, to promote peace.
Clearly I prefer the latter.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Madam
Speaker, it was very interesting listening to the debate today and
I stand to participate. I would like to suggest that Canadians
want peace and non-violence, as evidenced by the peacekeeping
activities. We have some 4,700 Canadian men and women
involved in peacekeeping. Should we not then encourage those
values in our international affairs? Should we not encourage
other countries to seek peaceful and non-violent solutions to
problems?
While this may sound idealistic, and I have heard that said
earlier, it is up to us to set an example for the international
community in which we belong. It is up to us to teach by doing.
We cannot preach to other countries that they should not develop
their nuclear arsenals while we allow cruise missile testing on
our northern lands. We cannot preach to other countries that they
should solve their problems by peaceful and non-violent means,
when we in effect justify using weapons.
To allow cruise missile testing is to say there is still a need for
nuclear weapons and that North America has a nuclear ability to
resolve any dispute.
We should remember that by our actions not only do we set an
example for the rest of the world, we set an example for our
children.
(2155 )
Crime among Canadian youth is ever increasing. If we hope to
change this reality, we must show that we are a society that
values peaceful solutions. We must show our youth that violence
is not the way to solve problems but that they should seek
non-violent solutions. I do not believe we would be setting that
example if we continue to allow cruise missile testing in
Canada.
Times change. Today our needs have changed. We heard
earlier about the different uses for the cruise missile. However, I
want to say to this House that the world around us has changed
and it is time for us to recognize those changes.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I thought that the period
following the speech by the hon. member for St. Boniface was
reserved for questions and comments. I think that the hon.
member has joined the debate itself.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I think the hon. member
for Etobicoke-Lakeshore may have misunderstood after the
debate from the hon. member for St. Boniface. The hon. member
was actually to make comments and/or ask questions.
Mrs. Catterall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I
understand that the debate, by agreement among the parties, is to
end at ten o'clock. There are a number of us on this side of the
House who are therefore not going to get the opportunity to
speak on this most important issue.
Given that only one woman from the government benches has
spoken on this issue-the three remaining speakers who will not
get an opportunity are also women-I wonder if all members in
the House might agree to allow the member to continue her
remarks and to use the remaining five minutes.
449
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we have agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Augustine: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the generosity
of the members across the way.
I am sure that the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are
presently following this because I have had faxes and notations
from individuals who have been watching this debate all
afternoon and all evening.
I appreciate the few minutes left to me to express what we
heard from the member from the Northwest Territories about the
wildlife situation and the environment, keeping the territories
safe for the individuals who are presently there, for ourselves
and for our children.
As I said earlier, the important point is the example that we as
Canadians give to the rest of the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Madam Speaker, may I direct my question to
the hon. member for St. Boniface as I refrained from making
more interventions in order not to disrupt the hon. member's
speech?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Agreed.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): In his speech, the hon.
member for St. Boniface asked questions and suggested
alternatives. Was it to give a different spin to his presentation in
this House? Did he say that his answer to the question the
government is asking us would be no and that he is not
favourable to continued cruise missile testing?
Mr. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for his question. Yes, I asked a number of questions. I
think that they are important questions that should be discussed
here in the House of Commons and elsewhere. I would like to
see such discussions held across Canada as part of the defence
policy review.
I think I closed my speech by saying: We can exercise
leadership by promoting, building, refining armaments and so
on. That is an avenue that is open to us. It may be something to
consider but I am saying that there is an alternative: to promote
peace and exercise leadership in this area. I thought I had made
clear that I preferred the latter option but I thank the hon.
member for having asked me that question. It is very nice of
him.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being ten o'clock,
pursuant to the order made Tuesday, January 25, 1994, the
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 10 p.m.)