Write To Paul Martin About Missile Defence

The only time politicians really pay attention is when they think they might get tossed out of office. Make your letter count. If we send enough letters you can be sure that Martin will hear about it. And be worried. You should copy your letter to your own MP. And, please tell a bunch of your friends and family to do the same thing. I am hoping that Steve Staples and Ernie Regehr will have ceasefire and ploughshares join in. We know we automatically lose out in the media. So, let's turn defeat into victory by using the net. Please don't delay; send your letter today or within a few days at the most. And please copy me in. Thanks Mel Hurtig ----- Original Message ----- From: stephanie Mcdowell To: The Honourable Paul Martin ; Stephen Harper Cc: Jean Crowder ; Gilles Duceppe Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:05 AM Subject: Vote re missile defence. I worked in a paid job for 17 years for the PC party in Ontario. I have voted both Liberal and PC over the last forty years. I will not vote for either one of you for supporting the American Missile Defense Plan for Canada. THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO GO TO THE CANADIAN PEOPLE FOR A REFERENDUM. I cannot believe how both of you can so blatantly disregard the feelings of the population on this terribly important issue. The ramifications of your support of this plan leaves me gasping. As you would know, because of my previous work, I have many many liberal and conservative friends, across the country. I am going to become such a pain in the ass with them on this issue in an attempt to ensure they recognize what you two idiots are doing to this country. These friends are smart and they are all concerned. It isn't just a handful of lefties who are worried. Thousands of Liberals and Conservatives do not like this either and want a referendum. You both know this and are afraid you would loose. Therefore you obviously don't care about what the majority want. To hell with the people of Canada. Kowtow and grovel to the Americans. Just what is in it personally for both of you? Somehow you two are going to benefit. It is disgusting. People will remember this. Boy are you two guys and whoever is pulling your strings, shortsighted. Missile defence forces Liberal hand [fair use only] CHANTAL HÉBERT Given a choice between greatly embarrassing themselves with the American administration of the day or with Canadian voters in general, which would Prime Minister Paul Martin and his minority government choose? We may get to find out the answer before the year is out, thanks to Martin's decision to bow to opposition pressure to hold a House of Commons vote on Canada's participation in the American ballistic missile defence system. The prevailing theory on Parliament Hill these days is that if and when Canada signs on to the U.S. defence system, the government will be holding a vote it cannot lose. The Bloc Québécois and theNew Democratic Party will both stand against the initiative, along with an unspecified number of Liberal backbenchers. Both parties have opposed the project from the start; each has made its stance on the issue a defining feature of its recent election platform. But Martin still expects to prevail easily with the help of the Conservative party. And yet, it is support he may be taking for granted at his own peril. While the Conservatives are generally receptive to closer defence links between Canada and the United States, there are signals that they may be ready to make an exception on missile defence. Indeed, mindful that he spent the last campaign fending off the perception that his party was inclined to automatically equate White House wishes with Canadian interests, Stephen Harper may have found in missile defence an issue where he can showcase the relative independence of his party. In his reply to the Speech from the Throne earlier this month, Harper put down a number of specific markers against which he says he will judge whether the project is worthy of his party's support. "We need to know clearly the objective of this initiative, whether it is technically feasible, exactly what role Canada would play, as well as the potential costs and benefits, (and) the nature and length of any Canadian commitments," the Conservative leader stated on Oct. 6. On the surface, those sound like common-sense issues that any government would want to address before committing Canada to a major joint defence initiative. Except that so far Martin, along with many of the proponents of the missile shield, has been unable to articulate a case for signing on to the system other than the possible betterment of Canada-U.S. relations and the maintenance of existing continental defence arrangements. There is hardly a consensus about the feasibility or need for the shield, even within the defence establishment on either side of the border. Canada's future role in running the system and the financial nature of its commitment to the project are relatively unknown. The main rationale has been that Canada should sign on, regardless of doubts and misgivings about the project, if only as a token of good will toward the United States. But if Harper is serious ? there is no reason to think he did not ponder all of the aforementioned before tracing his line in the sand ? then Martin and his ministers are going to have to do a much better job of making a case for Canada's participation in the defence shield, or face the prospect of losing the vote. The political stakes are simply too high for the minority Liberal government to easily move on from a parliamentary defeat on the issue. While it is technically true that the cabinet need not secure the Commons' approval to sign on to the missile shield, the political reality is that Martin could hardly dispense with it. After all, how often has a federal government sought and failed to secure Parliamentary approval for a major policy and then turned around and implemented it? If caught in a bind, the government could always turn the missile debate into a confidence issue. But even that would not be enough to force some of its own MPs into supporting the plan. Also, would Martin really want to risk an election on an issue that so deeply divides his caucus and his Liberal constituency? Besides, if the government failed to make its case to the satisfaction of the U.S.-friendly Conservative party, chances are it would not be able to make the case to voters. By committing his government to a formal vote on the shield rather than waiting for the opposition to take the initiative of forcing one, Martin has at least ensured that he retains control of the timing of the Parliamentary debate. Given that he is at the mercy of the Conservative opposition, the Prime Minister probably would be well advised to test the will of the House on the missile shield sooner rather than later. -------------------------------------------------- Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. chebert@thestar.ca.