National Defence committee  I indicated from the outset that for me the most vital consideration is the arms control and disarmament consideration. The fact is that this, with no payoff in terms of any reliability or in terms of its actually working against rogue states, has already had an incredibly negative impact on impeding arms control and reduction with respect to Russia and in propelling very negative developments.

National Defence committee  I'm saying it's the most effective way because, in my view, ballistic missile defence is not an effective way.

National Defence committee  Yes. It's not effective.

National Defence committee  Again, we have to look at the relevant evidence. We participated in intense negotiations with the United States in the 2004-05 period. At that time, it wasn't just that they wouldn't give us any guarantee of meaningful participation—never mind full—but they wouldn't even give a guarantee that Canadian cities would—

National Defence committee  We know each other well.

National Defence committee  Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I will answer in English because of the terminology. The interpreter mentioned a seat at the United Nations, but without any context, so I'm not sure if there was something left out of the translation. Could you repeat your question about the United Nations?

National Defence committee  No. I cited the report entitled, “NORAD in Perpetuity?” as underscoring the fact that there's no free lunch this time around, and that we would have to pay our way. They cite, for example, U.S. sequestration, where the Americans, because of their defence budget, are requiring that others pay their way.

National Defence committee  I gave six reason, and the arms control reason is the strongest reason of all, but frankly it is inconceivable that it would cost us nothing.

National Defence committee  I would refer to the testimony on March 22 before this committee by Rear-Admiral Scott Bishop, director general, international security policy; and Stephen Burt, assistant chief of defence intelligence, Canadian Forces intelligence command. They stated quite clearly and unequivocally that there is no military threat to Canada—

National Defence committee  Well, the Americans of course say that's the purpose of it, and of course the capacity of the system is even well below that. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned or do nothing about North Korea. I'm saying that I agree with the testimony—and there were also Foreign Affairs people who testified to the same effect—that there's no military threat to Canada from North Korea.

National Defence committee  Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to address you on this important study. I'm sorry, but I didn't have time to send my remarks in advance for translation. However, I have provided copies of my presentation for the interpreters. I am going to focus my opening remarks on the issue of Canadian participation in the American strategic system for the ballistic missile defence of North America.