Canada’s ballistic missile defence debate is stuck in a rut

An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile streaks through the sky of Vandenberg in California August 25, 2005. Rumours that the US has again asked Canada to join its ballistic missile defence program has sparked controversy in recent days


Canadians have always held strong opinions on the benefits and drawbacks of ballistic missile defence, so it is not surprising that the rumour that the United States has asked Canada to reconsider joining its BMD program has generated passionate dialogue.

And while there is nothing wrong with public debate on international affairs, arguments without the complete picture tend to obscure more than they reveal, making the current debate not just unnecessary, but also misleading.

Just as they did when Paul Martin announced that Ottawa would not join the US in developing ballistic missiles in 2005, BMD supporters emphasize North America’s vulnerability to external attack. They therefore advocate participation in the US program regardless of the terms of involvement.

Critics respond that a ballistic missile defence program for North America is unnecessary, not to mention expensive, and provocative. They therefore oppose Canadian participation (not to mention the American program itself) no matter the deal.

Neither side makes a convincing case.

Keeping in mind that the US will pursue BMD regardless of the thinking in Ottawa and among Canadians, the only real question for Canada is whether, based on the proposed terms of Canadian participation, it would be better to be on the outside looking in, or a direct part of the planning and implementation process.

A helpful debate might therefore consider the following questions:

Would participation in the US program make Canada itself more secure? And how might Canadians measure that security? What sorts of opportunities, for example, would involvement give Ottawa to affect US policy at the tactical and perhaps even operational levels?

What are the fiscal implications of joining, or not joining, the US ballistic missile defence program?

More specifically, how much, if anything, would it cost the Canadian government to participate?

What economic benefits might accrue to Canadian industry through Ottawa’s involvement? And what investment opportunities might be lost if Canada stays out?

Finally, what about the legal context? Will the US program breach international law? Is it consistent with Canada’s ongoing global commitments and obligations?

Since none of these questions can be properly answered without complete details of the rumoured US proposal, participants in the most recent version of the Canadian ballistic missile debate are running in circles.

One can therefore only hope that if, or when, a formal US offer does arrive, Ottawa provides Canadians with enough information to allow for a real debate.