Posted on 02/23/2006 11:40:15 AM PST by NorthOf45
Tories to re-open missile defence debate
By John Ward February 23, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he's willing to re-open the controversial debate on ballistic missile defence.
However, the minority Conservative government would eventually put the question before the Commons and since all three opposition parties have opposed the idea in the past, the concept is likely dead before it starts.
"It would really, ultimately, be up to a vote in Parliament," the minister told reporters Thursday.
The previous Liberal government seemed to favour participation in missile defence, which was a key policy for the Bush administration. The Liberals eventually made a U-turn and said no.
But O'Connor has a different view.
"In principle, I don't have difficulty, personally, with ballistic missile defence."
The plan involves a limited number of missiles intended to knock down a small strike by terrorists or a rogue state. It isn't designed to foil a mass attack by a major power.
The Americans would have to re-open the issue by again inviting Canadian participation, the minister said.
"Our policy is the fact that the Americans would have to approach us to participate in ballistic missile defence, then we would enter into negotiation."
Opponents of the missile plan say it won't work and risks kicking off a new international arms race.
Supporters say it could offer some protection against a terror strike, it would improve Canada-U.S. relations and since the Americans have asked for neither territory nor money, it would be cheap.
The Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP oppose the idea and could easily out-vote the minority Conservative government on the question.
O'Connor made the missile defence comments after delivering his first major speech as minister.
He told a conference of defence groups that the Tories plan to carry through with their ambitious election promises, including 13,000 new regular soldiers, new icebreakers and a northern port, new transport planes and infrastructure.
"We made a number of commitments in that platform and we intend to implement every one of them," he said.
He said the policy is simple: "It's about having a three-ocean navy, a robust army and a revitalized air force."
The Tories promised more money for defence and O'Connor said that will start soon.
"The Conservative government will provide new funding for National Defence in the upcoming federal budget."
He wouldn't say how much will be in the first budget, but added he's sure the cash will be there.
"The prime minister has assured me that over the next few years we will get the money necessary build the armed forces the way we planned."
O'Connor, a retired armoured general, got a warm welcome from the audience of serving and former officers, defence contractors, analysts and academics at the annual meeting of the Conference of Defence Associations.
They seemed especially pleased when he said he will tackle the Byzantine procurement system at Defence, which can take a decade or more to deliver new gear.
"Our armed forces can no longer afford to take years and years to obtain major pieces of equipment," he said.
O'Connor's promises were welcomed at the conference, but got short shrift from Bill Graham, leader of the Liberal opposition.
Graham, himself a former defence minister, said the Tory promises are too expensive and will run afoul of fiscal realities.
"The cost factor will be very substantial, far in excess of anything that they talked about," he said.
"I think we'll see there's a difference between their rhetoric and what the finance minister will have them achieve."
Ping
Great news!
Canada Ping!
Please FReepmail me to get on or off this Canada ping list.
"Graham, himself a former defence minister, said the Tory promises are too expensive and will run afoul of fiscal realities."
Unlike the Liberals, the Tories recognize that defense spending is, in fact, a necessity - not an option that can be trimmed back to fund other programs, or for the budget to be balanced on the back of. If necessary I'd even support raising taxes if that's what it takes to properly fund our military and keep the budget balanced. But killing the gun registry and some other Liberal sacred cows should free up a few billion a year, so I don't think that'll be necessary.
This won't help though - the three leftist parties will block us anyway they can, whenever it comes to co-operation with the Americans.
The military is always too expensive for liberals.
The ABM system is up and running. The debate as to whether it will work or not was over a couple years ago.
I wonder if someone could guide me around the rhetoric on this issue:
A) Originally, when Martin nixed the idea, I had to idea that the joining the program was to cost us nothing but some land for the sites, but that it wasn’t going to cost us anything for the equipment. The rhetoric now is that the US wants Canada to fork out some bucks on this. Is this true?
B) Briefly on my local talk station a former CIA worker, Phil Coil?, told Canada not to sign up because it is a waste of money and doesn’t work. I tried to Google the name but couldn’t find it. Must have got the last name wrong.
Yes, but the view of the Canadian media is the usual: Iraq is a failure! Missile Defense will ignite the arms race! But it doesn't work anyways!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.