Tweet
Apparently so: 
Updated: Wed. Feb. 23 2005 11:33 PM ET
Prime Minister Paul Martin informed the U.S. ambassador to Canada Wednesday night that Canada will say 'no' on Thursday to participating in the U.S. missile defence program.
"And the chief of defence staff told the U.S. joint chiefs today, explained that (decision) to them," Craig Oliver, CTV News' chief parliamentary correspondent.
However, the U.S. military leaders were happy to hear of a $13-billion boost in military spending over five years as announced in Wednesday's budget speech, he said.
Earlier in the day, the U.S. wasn't so happy. Paul Cellucci, the country's ambassador here, was saying "we don't get it," as to why Canada doesn't wish to participate in the controversial program.
"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."
In Parliament Wednesday, opposition parties pressured Martin during question period after reports surfaced Tuesday that he plans to reject the program despite comments made by Canada's newly appointed ambassador to Washington that this country is already involved.
"We are part of it now," Frank McKenna said after appearing in Ottawa before a Commons committee examining his appointment. "And the question is, what more do we need?"
Martin's Liberals have consistently denied having made any decision on missile defence.
A heated debate ensued during question period, with the opposition accusing the prime minister of making a deal with the U.S. "under the table" and then denying it.
"Are we in, are we out? Or is the prime minister dithering still?" asked Conservative MP Peter MacKay.
Martin and his ministers repeatedly pointed to a communique released on Aug. 5, which outlines amendments to Norad -- North American Aerospace Defence Command -- which Canada agreed to. The amendments make Norad's missile warning function available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defence.
"We entered into an agreement to amend Norad to allow (the U.S.) to use Norad information to appreciate the threats to North America," said Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.
"But we have not entered into an agreement with Washington over ballistic missile defence whatsoever."
Martin said that a decision on Canada's involvement in missile defence will be announced "when it's in Canada's interests to do so."
In Washington, Richard Boucher, a U.S. State Department spokesman, told reporters that Canada had yet to inform the U.S. of its decision.
But a senior Canadian official told The Canadian Press that Canada's decision was passed along at the NATO summit attended earlier this week by Martin and U.S. President George W. Bush.
Analysis
Political studies professor James Fergusson of the University of Manitoba told CTV he doesn't believe Martin will make a final announcement soon on Canada's involvement in the plan.
"I think he may just simply say that no decision has been made, which has been government policy for quite a while."
He adds: "I think it would be a bad decision if Canada said no to this, very simply because we would be ceding more of our defence, and in effect, our sovereignty to the United States."
Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute, however, says he believes Paul Martin must say no to U.S. President George Bush and missile defence.
"He's got a divided caucus. There's a liberal convention coming up. The grassroots of the party is sending at least 20 resolutions up through the queue against missile defence," he said.
Staples also points to growing public opinion against missile defence, citing an EKOS poll that showed two-thirds of Canadians thought missile defence was an issue worth going to an election over.
"I think that was the last nail in the coffin," says Staples.
While that might be true for domestic politics, there are international considerations too.
David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, endorsed Cellucci's view that Canada was weakening its sovereignty.
"I fear that it risks marginalizing Canada and Canada is ceding sovereignty by not being there when the decisions are being made,'' he told The Canadian Press.
It's making people unhappy in this administration that Canada is happy to take a free ride.''
U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said it would be the first time since 1938 that Canada had refused to participate in continental defence.
With files from The Canadian Press
Updated: Wed. Feb. 23 2005 11:33 PM ET
Prime Minister Paul Martin informed the U.S. ambassador to Canada Wednesday night that Canada will say 'no' on Thursday to participating in the U.S. missile defence program.
"And the chief of defence staff told the U.S. joint chiefs today, explained that (decision) to them," Craig Oliver, CTV News' chief parliamentary correspondent.
However, the U.S. military leaders were happy to hear of a $13-billion boost in military spending over five years as announced in Wednesday's budget speech, he said.
Earlier in the day, the U.S. wasn't so happy. Paul Cellucci, the country's ambassador here, was saying "we don't get it," as to why Canada doesn't wish to participate in the controversial program.
"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile. We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."
In Parliament Wednesday, opposition parties pressured Martin during question period after reports surfaced Tuesday that he plans to reject the program despite comments made by Canada's newly appointed ambassador to Washington that this country is already involved.
"We are part of it now," Frank McKenna said after appearing in Ottawa before a Commons committee examining his appointment. "And the question is, what more do we need?"
Martin's Liberals have consistently denied having made any decision on missile defence.
A heated debate ensued during question period, with the opposition accusing the prime minister of making a deal with the U.S. "under the table" and then denying it.
"Are we in, are we out? Or is the prime minister dithering still?" asked Conservative MP Peter MacKay.
Martin and his ministers repeatedly pointed to a communique released on Aug. 5, which outlines amendments to Norad -- North American Aerospace Defence Command -- which Canada agreed to. The amendments make Norad's missile warning function available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defence.
"We entered into an agreement to amend Norad to allow (the U.S.) to use Norad information to appreciate the threats to North America," said Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew.
"But we have not entered into an agreement with Washington over ballistic missile defence whatsoever."
Martin said that a decision on Canada's involvement in missile defence will be announced "when it's in Canada's interests to do so."
In Washington, Richard Boucher, a U.S. State Department spokesman, told reporters that Canada had yet to inform the U.S. of its decision.
But a senior Canadian official told The Canadian Press that Canada's decision was passed along at the NATO summit attended earlier this week by Martin and U.S. President George W. Bush.
Analysis
Political studies professor James Fergusson of the University of Manitoba told CTV he doesn't believe Martin will make a final announcement soon on Canada's involvement in the plan.
"I think he may just simply say that no decision has been made, which has been government policy for quite a while."
He adds: "I think it would be a bad decision if Canada said no to this, very simply because we would be ceding more of our defence, and in effect, our sovereignty to the United States."
Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute, however, says he believes Paul Martin must say no to U.S. President George Bush and missile defence.
"He's got a divided caucus. There's a liberal convention coming up. The grassroots of the party is sending at least 20 resolutions up through the queue against missile defence," he said.
Staples also points to growing public opinion against missile defence, citing an EKOS poll that showed two-thirds of Canadians thought missile defence was an issue worth going to an election over.
"I think that was the last nail in the coffin," says Staples.
While that might be true for domestic politics, there are international considerations too.
David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, endorsed Cellucci's view that Canada was weakening its sovereignty.
"I fear that it risks marginalizing Canada and Canada is ceding sovereignty by not being there when the decisions are being made,'' he told The Canadian Press.
It's making people unhappy in this administration that Canada is happy to take a free ride.''
U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason said it would be the first time since 1938 that Canada had refused to participate in continental defence.
With files from The Canadian Press
Comment