Chair's Foreword

In the course of conducting this study, General Lee Butler, the former commander of the United States nuclear arsenal and arguably one of the most knowledgeable experts in the world on the subject of nuclear weapons, wrote to encourage the Committee in its work. In his letter (which is reproduced in its entirety as an appendix to the Report), he commented on the importance of our task in the following terms:

This is in my view the dominant security issue of the post-Cold War era. It will shape the foundation of international conflict resolution for decades to come. More importantly, it will govern the pace and the prospect for nudging higher the norms of civilized behavior among nations and peoples.

The members, in drafting this Report, were conscious of the challenge of grappling with an issue of such significance to humanity. The seriousness of our task was emphasized by all of the witnesses who appeared before us, Canadian and foreign, expert and concerned citizen. All, whether those who urged the most radical and immediate steps to achieve rapid reductions of nuclear arsenals, or those who pressed upon us the need for greater caution in the interests of greater security, impressed upon us the need to support the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), one of the principal stated objectives of which is to work toward the long-term goal of the "elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery". That objective is shared by all: it is the modalities of how to get there that separates many. That separation was reflected in the members as well, all of whom sought to find practical ways to achieve non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament but were often divided by differences on how best to achieve that goal. While this Report is not, unfortunately, a unanimous one, four of the parties were able to subscribe to its recommendations without reservations - a testimony to the members' capacity to work together in a spirit of cooperation and compromise. The minority opinion, while dissenting "from the broad conclusions of the Report," does not specifically disagree with any of the recommendations in it.

It is most unfortunate that Committee deliberations of the Report were affected by a leak of an early version of a draft report, from which portions were selectively and irresponsibly printed in the press. It is a credit to the members that they were able to overcome the misunderstandings that were the inevitable result of such actions and were able to arrive at a consensus nonetheless. What is equally unfortunate, and a particularly deplorable consequence of this mischievous action, was that the public was given the impression that certain positions were being advocated by the Committee when, in fact, these were merely concepts in draft form put before the Committee. It would appear that this type of action occurs more and more commonly when Committees are considering their reports. It is one that has the potential to undermine the work of parliamentary committees and thus one of the pillars of our parliamentary democracy.

This Report is the result of the collaboration of many people. It could never have been realized without the considerable efforts of our dedicated and efficient clerk, Janice Hilchie. The quality of the Report reflects the hard work of our researchers, primarily Jim Lee assisted by Gerald Schmitz. They worked long hours to arrange our hearings, identify appropriate witnesses, synthesize their evidence, help us analyze it, reduce it to manageable proportions and prepare the drafts of the Report, all under considerable pressure.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Committee staff, Caroline Martin and Diane Lefebvre, as well as that of the members' research assistants and staff. The contribution of our editor, Louis Majeau, and our translators are also reflected in the text. Grateful mention must also be made of the hardworking interpreters, console operators, transcribers and staff of the Publications Service who provided service to the Committee. Finally, I must once again refer to the efforts of the members who worked under quite difficult conditions at times to ensure that this important Report reflects the concerns and opinions of our fellow citizens and the best expert advice available in order to bring a Canadian parliamentary perspective to this subject of such consequence to humankind.