Photos of the Whitehorse Council of Canadians march to protest Missile Defense Saturday, June 12.

NNN coordinator Stacey Fritz presentation on Star Wars in Alaska at 7 pm Tuesday June 15th at the Whitehorse Public Library (Council of Canadians monthly meeting).


Canadian Resistance to Star Wars

Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada from the Liberal Party, is up for reelection on June 28th. Martin supports Bush on the 'missile defense' project and is almost sure to sign on to cooperate officially with the US if he wins the election, especially as Canadian firms have recently been offered millions in Star Wars contracts should Canada participate. Thanks largely to their free press, 7 out of 10 Canadians oppose Canadian participation and they have historically rejected participation in this destabilizing & immoral scheme. Many Canadians are actively fighting the move to be Bush's puppet, sometimes by distributing the following poster....

"My sovereignty says you don't send missiles up over my airspace unless I'm there." ~ Paul Martin


NNN coordinator Stacey Fritz is in Whitehorse, Yukon for the month of June - early July. Days after arriving, I happened upon a New Democratic Party election BBQ, where NDP Prime Minister Candidate Jack Layton and Yukon MP candidate Pam Boyd spoke. Layton hit very few top issues: climate change in the Arctic, and stopping Star Wars. He noted that the Yukon had declared itself a nuke-free zone before, and now should declare itself a missile defense-free zone! Pictured below are Jack Layton speaking in Whitehorse (Yukon MP candidate Pam Boyd is on the far right) and two Yukoners displaying their new NNN sticker.

David Pratt, Canadian Minister of Defense, stated recently that minsters from the northern territories were NOT going to be involved in the discussions over a Canadian/US alliance on star wars.


NDP leader shoots down missile defence program: Layton warns it will spark arms race

Artists show support at church rally
Friday, June 11, 2004

The U.S-led missile defence program will spark a dangerous new arms race and Canada should have no part of it, NDP Leader Jack Layton says.
Layton used a rally at a downtown Toronto church last night to lash out against the proposed program, denouncing it as a costly, ill-
conceived hold-over from the Cold War that will ultimately put weapons in space.
And as he vowed to make missile defence an election issue, he got some high-profile help from members of Toronto's arts scene, who added their own angry voices in condemning the proposed program.
"It is shocking to see that Canada would even be considering joining such a Cold War again," singer Steve Page, of the Barenaked Ladies, told a crowd of about 200 people at the Church of Saint George the Martyr.
Pianist Anton Kuerti said the costs of the program would make the sponsorship scandal look like a "little appetizer."
"We need to be getting rid of missiles, not encouraging others to build more," he said.
Noted environmentalist David Suzuki said the scheme, which involves using ground-based interceptors to shoot down incoming missiles, is unworkable.
"It's madness to think it would work," he said.
Canada is currently in talks with the United States about joining in the program. But unless voters reject the idea in this election, the first phase could be deployed this fall, Layton said, "and we'll be on the road to the next arms race."
"I do not think the young people of this planet want that future," he said.

Harper would call for vote on missile defence

June 9, 2004

Toronto Star
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said yesterday a Conservative government would put to Parliament a decision on whether to participate in the U.S. initiative on Ballistic Missile Defence.
The Conservative platform advocates a combat-ready military force, but also free votes on all but budgetary matters.

Harper said the party hasn't made a decision on participation, but cast that decision as important for Canada's sovereignty.

"I certainly want to discuss this situation with the Americans. We have significant participation of Canada in NORAD. And for us, it's important for a sovereign country to have a part of our air defence.

"And I don't want to see a situation in the future where the United States controls our air defence," Harper said.

"But we need to see the proposals of the Americans and ... I'm committed to ensuring that with a new military project, our Parliament is consulted and approves with a commitment like that."

"Paul Martin says Canada will be involved if he becomes prime minister," May 9, 2003.

"Missile defence: It was wrong then and it's wrong now," by Paul Hellyer, minister of national defence from 1963 to 1967.

May 9, 2003

Paul Martin says Canada will be involved if he becomes prime minister


If enemy missiles are ever intercepted and shot down over Canadian airspace, Canada will want to be involved – at least if front-running Liberal candidate Paul Martin becomes prime minister in 2004.

Martin recently said his government would participate in the National Missile Defence program that's designed to knock out missiles before they reach North American targets.

"If a missile is going over Canadian airspace, I want to know. I want to be at the table before that happens…. You want to talk about sovereignty? My sovereignty says you don't send missiles up over my airspace unless I'm there," Martin said.

Sheila Copps, the federal Heritage Minister and leadership candidate, said she opposes the NMD because it threatens world peace.

The National Missile Defense debate first surfaced last week when two cabinet ministers said Canada is once again considering some involvement in the NMD.

Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham and Defence Minister John McCallum both said the NMD would be good for Canadian security.

"We have a proud tradition of co-operating with our American allies on the security of the continent," Graham said.

However, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said Canada hasn't received a request from the U.S. to participate in the NMD system.

"There is the possibility of a discussion," Chrétien said last week in Parliament. "We have not started discussing it. We don't know exactly what will be the requirement.

Perhaps the wise thing to do is to try to find out what they are asking of us – if they ask anything. Let's wait to know if they are asking something, or nothing."

The debate continued this week in the House, with cabinet expected to recommend Canadian involvement.

Missile defence: It was wrong then and it's wrong now

Canada: Globe & Mail


UPDATED AT 11:58 AM EDT Thursday, May. 15, 2003

It is almost 40 years since U.S. secretary of defence Robert
McNamara asked me if Canada would be interested in helping develop
an anti-ballistic missile defence for North America. I was able to
say, "Thanks, but no thanks," which was the position of the Pearson
government and one that I fully endorsed.

There were good reasons for not disturbing the balance of power and
escalating the arms race. The reasons for not joining NMD are even
more compelling today when there is no military threat to North
America, and U.S. unilateralism is creating a new source of

The Minister of National Defence, John McCallum, and some of his
colleagues have been giving us the usual spin that one would expect
from the military. Unless we are sitting at the table, our voice
will not be heard; there will be industrial benefits; Canadian lives
might be saved; and if we don't make up our minds soon, the
Americans will proceed without us.

Only the most naive of Canadians would suggest that being at the
table with the Commander-in-Chief Northern Command would give us one
iota of influence. This is one of the most spurious of arguments.
CincNorCom listens to his boss at the Pentagon and to no one else.

It is possible that Canada might derive some minor industrial
benefits, but the extent would probably be determined by our cash
contribution to NMD. We could obtain equal benefit by spending the
same amount of money on equipment that the Canadian Forces
desperately need for their assigned tasks.

The notion that NMD will save Canadian lives is unquestionably the
most far-fetched of all the arguments. We have no enemies with a
long-range missile capability. In fact, the stated reasons for NMD --
protection from "rogue states" -- is a cover story for its real
function, which is far more sinister.

Finally, the warning from our military that if we don't sign on soon
the U.S. will proceed on its own is quite correct. That is exactly
what it will do because the Bush administration is committed to it.
Our participation would undoubtedly be welcome, especially if it
meant easier access to our territory, if required, and some
contribution toward the cost. But it doesn't really matter.

We went through the same ritual with the Bomarc missiles in the
Diefenbaker era. Years later, we learned that it was our air force
that wanted to play with the big boys' toys and keep their cushy
jobs at Colorado Springs.

This time, the stakes are higher and the consequences far more
serious. For the first time in my memory, the U.S. administration is
dominated by a small group from the Pentagon. Vice-President Dick
Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, deputy defence secretary
Paul Wolfowitz and a handful of their close associates were all
involved in a 1992 Pentagon document, Defence Planning Guidance, on
post-Cold War strategy.

One of its key sections read: "Our first objective is to prevent the
re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former
Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that
posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

When a copy was leaked to the press, its belligerent tone caused
such a furor that it had to be withdrawn and rewritten. The language
of the revised version, signed by Mr. Cheney when he was secretary
of defence, was more diplomatic, but the intent remain unchanged.
The U.S. would build up its forces to the point where it could
attack any country on Earth without fear of significant retaliation.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty had to be abrogated. The U.S. had
to develop a multilayered anti-missile system on a global basis to
protect not only the continental United States but also military
operations anywhere.

The 2000 copy of the document makes very clear that NMD is just one
step in the direction of a system that will involve "interceptors"
and weapons of mass destruction in space. It will be designed to
pulverize any military or civilian installation on Earth and have
the capacity to zap any person in their garden.

The picture is so abhorrent that it is beyond any sense of shock and
awe. And even though the plan is no secret, it is almost certain
that none of the Canadian cabinet ministers who intend to make us an
accessory have read it. If they had, surely they wouldn't recommend
anything so totally incompatible with Canadian values.

Instead, Canada should accept the long-standing invitation of
Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio to launch a conference to seek
approval of an international treaty to ban weapons in space. That
would be a positive Canadian contribution toward a more peaceful

Paul Hellyer was minister of national defence from 1963 to 1967.



Back to the Top