Liberals face calls for transparency on ballistic missile defence
LEE BERTHIAUME


OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail, Last updated Monday, Aug. 21, 2017 6:52PM EDT
Federal opposition parties are demanding the Trudeau government come clean on whether Canada plans to embrace continental ballistic missile defence, as concerns about North Korea’s nuclear arsenal grow.
Opposition parties have called for an emergency meeting of the House of Commons defence committee on Tuesday so they can be briefed on how Canada is responding to the threat posed by North Korea.
The request comes after North Korea tested a second intercontinental ballistic missile this month, sparking warnings and ultimatums between Pyongyang and U.S. President Donald Trump.
Yet much of the discussion is expected to be on whether the Liberal government intends to reverse Canada’s previous decision and join the U.S. military’s controversial ballistic missile defence system.
“What I want to hear from the government is what are their plans (for BMD), and will they stand by the Canadian government’s long-standing policy,” said NDP foreign affairs critic Helene Laverdiere.
“That is what is unclear and has to be discussed by parliamentarians.”
The U.S. invited Canada more than a decade ago to participate in its missile-defence system, but then-prime minister Paul Martin opted out following an extremely heated national debate in 2005.
The issue remained largely off the radar for more than a decade until the Trudeau Liberals asked defence experts and others to weigh in last year on whether Canada should reverse its earlier decision.
The question was one of several raised during public consultations for the Liberals’ new defence policy.
The Canadian military, numerous defence experts as well as the Commons’ and Senate defence committees in separate reports have supported Canada’s participation.
Yet when it was released in June, the defence policy made virtually no mention of missile defence.
The Trudeau government has since sidestepped repeated questions about the Liberals’ intentions when it comes to BMD –– including whether Canadian officials have talked to their U.S. counterparts about it.
Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan’s office instead says ballistic missiles are only one threat being discussed as Canada and the U.S. look to modernize North America’s aging early-warning air defence system.
“The government of Canada has already committed to examining, through NORAD modernization, territorial defence against all perils,” Sajjan spokeswoman Jordan Owens said in an e-mail.
That includes, Owens said, “threats from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and other future technologies to provide Canadians with greater security at home.”
The Liberal ambiguity has surprised observers such as James Fergusson, director of the University of Manitoba’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies and a leading authority on missile defence.
“I expected that the government would say something more, or at least be a little more direct about engaging the United States in discussions on missile defence,” Fergusson said.
“Instead, they’ve been very, very vague and ambiguous.”
It has also ruffled feathers on both sides of the debate. Both the NDP, which opposes Canada’s participation, and the Conservatives, who refused to join while in power between 2006 and 2015 but now support it, are demanding clarity from the government.
“Canadians expect Canada to be part of BMD,” said Conservative defence critic James Bezan.
“Now it’s up to the government on how they approach that sensitive subject with the United States. If they’re waiting for an invitation to join, I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
Now might actually be the ideal time to broach the subject with the U.S., as Defense Secretary James Mattis is conducting a year-long review on how to improve the $100-billion missile-defence shield.
Yet any move in that direction is likely to spark an uproar from those who oppose continental missile defence and see it as a trigger for a new nuclear arms race.
The U.S. system is comprised of land– and sea-based interceptors that would stop a limited missile attack, such as what North Korea could launch, but would be useless against an all-out assault by China or Russia.
Despite the amount of money involved, the system has had only mixed success over the years intercepting ballistic missiles in tests.
_________________________________________________
It may be time for Canada to embrace U.S. ballistic missile shield: MP
MP Mark Gerretsen said that, with the evolving threat from North Korea, which launched tests of inter-continental missiles, it may be time to break from Canadian government policy.
By TONDA MACCHARLESOttawa Bureau reporter
Toronto Star, Tues., Aug. 22, 2017
OTTAWA—A Liberal MP says it’s time that Canada looked at joining the United States on ballistic missile defence against North Korea’s threat to launch inter-continental weapons.
MP Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands) said that, with the evolving threat from North Korea, which launched tests of inter-continental missiles with greater range and boasted of new nuclear capabilities, it may be time to break from what has been Liberal, and Canadian government, policy since 2005.
That’s when then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, helming a minority government, bowed to opposition in his own caucus and among Canadians, and decided Canada would not participate in the American missile-shield program.
It angered the then-U.S. Administration of George W. Bush.
The Conservatives used it in repeated campaigns as a political wedge to criticize the Liberals.
But Martin’s Conservative successor Stephen Harper, never reversed the decision.
“What I can tell you is, personally, I do think we need to start to look at what Canada’s role will be in that,” said Gerretsen.
Gerretsen said he had no way of knowing how widespread support is within the Liberal caucus for his position, a key factor in whether the government would move in that direction. If support within Liberal ranks has grown, it could make it easier for the government of Justin Trudeau to shift Canada’s position.
Gerretsen is a member of the Commons defence committee, which decided Tuesday to summon government and defence experts within a month for a deeper hearing on Canada’s operational readiness to deal with the evolving North Korean threat. He stressed he was not speaking on behalf of the government: “I’m here being a member of parliament on this committee.
Gerretsen says the committee, itself, believes it’s time to, at least, look at these questions.
But Gerretsen’s view was not shared by another Liberal, MP Stephen Fuhr, who chaired the committee Tuesday.
Fuhr told Canadian Press that Canada has only limited resources for the military and that North Korea doesn’t pose a threat to this country.
Trudeau’s Liberal government has nevertheless already signaled it is ready to reopen those discussions after it tabled its defence policy review in June.
A spokesperson for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, in an emailed reply to the Star, said the Liberal government has not formally changed Canada’s longstanding position on missile defence.
But it’s clear the matter is on the table.
“While Canada’s new defence policy ‘Strong, Secure, Engaged’ does not change our position on BMD (ballistic missile defence), it does commit us to continue ongoing collaboration with our U.S. counterparts on ways in which we can evolve our approach to North American defence,” said Sajjan’s press secretary Jordan Owens.
“The new policy commits the government of Canada to examining, through NORAD modernization, territorial defence against all perils, including threats from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and other future technologies to provide Canadians with greater security at home.”
Gerretsen, speaking to reporters after the committee held a rare summer meeting, said, “In 2005, we chose not to be part of it. Given what’s going on in the world now, maybe it’s time to start to have discussions about whether Canada should be part of that. That’s my own personal opinion on it.”
“Given the threats that are continuing to emerge in the world and the fact that, over the last number of years, Canada has not been a participant when the United States are pretty much running the show with respect to ballistic missile defence, we should be having an ongoing discussion about what our role should be in that. And I think 10-years-plus after the fact is a timely opportunity to have that discussion.”
Conservative Opposition defence critic James Bezan would not go that far.
Bezan said, Tuesday, the Conservative caucus is waiting to hear from government experts on the state of Canada’s military readiness before developing its view on how best to deal with any threat from North Korea.
Bezan said it’s up to the government and Trudeau to suggest the appropriate response before the caucus develops its position.
“Hopefully, we’ll see a diplomatic solution that will take away any necessity to have this type of war-gaming and planning going on behind the scenes because of the development of ballistic missiles.”
Bezan suggested that after Canada’s decision in 2005 “things didn’t change until this summer.
“And, from this point forward I think everyone is looking at how we can best work with the United States, how we can work through NORAD in dealing with this new threat.” He added Canada needs to worry not just about North Korea’s missile capabilities but also about non-conventional weapons and the “proliferation of submarines that have ability to come within Canadian waters.”
The NDP hopes the Liberals do not embrace missile defence. New Democrat foreign affairs critic Hélène Laverdière said that missile defence systems give false comfort, because they are subject to failure and cannot keep up with the evolution of weapons technology.
“That kind of defensive system only leads countries like, not only North Korea, but China and Russia, who may feel concerned to upgrade their systems and it just leads to escalation.”
Instead, she said the answer is diplomacy, and the pursuit of nuclear-disarmament talks with greater energy, including communicating with “our allies, notably the United States, to try to suggest or force or convince of the need of de-escalation.
“In the diplomatic tool box, there is a lot of tools, and I want to know what tools this government is using.”
_________________________________________________
The above articles should ring the alarm bells of everyone who loves this planet. A nuclear war is sheer craziness. Let's not be mistaken the "Ballistic Missile Defence" of the USA is the same first-strike plan of the U.S. as was suggested under President Ronald Reagan. Canada joining this plan, system. has been rejected by Canadians twice before. We must do so again! Instead of building more weapons the USA and Canada should have been at the disarmament talks at the United Nations where 122 nations voted to have a ban on nuclear weapons.
I believe Canada putting money into this boondoggle would be a huge waste when we need to build the infrastructure of Canada from sea to sea to sea. I am prepared to speak on this topic anywhere in the province. My e:mail (Ed Lehman) is edrae1133@gmail.com