OTTAWA — Canadian participation in the U.S. missile defence program is still a live issue, despite opposition within the Liberal caucus and among rank-file in the party, Defence Minister Bill Graham said Thursday.

"The decision hasn't been taken, yet," he said. Although some have suggested that Canadian participation - which seemed highly likely as recently as last fall - is now a dead duck, Graham cautioned against speculation.

Speaking in a telephone news conference from Nice, France, where he was taking part in meetings of NATO defence ministers, Graham said Ottawa is still discussing the issue with Washington.

"We're considering exactly what is the appropriate answer to give on ballistic missile defence," he said.

The Americans have asked Canada to join the missile program, although they say they want no territory or money. The two countries have already modified their Norad agreement to allow that organization to share information with the missile defence command.

Missile defence, already strongly opposed by the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, has also run into flak from within Graham's own party.

A number of Liberal MPs oppose Canadian participation, as do many rank-file party members.

That opposition will crystallize at the party's Ottawa convention March 3-5, which is expected to deal with several policy resolutions on the issue.

"I know there's a resolution passed, I believe by the young Liberals, there's a resolution from the Quebec caucus, indicating they would prefer no participation in BMD," Graham said.

"I know there's also some resolutions from Ontario and other places saying, 'Look we have to discuss this with our American colleagues.' It's always been my position that what we have to do is discuss it."

The policy resolutions will play a role in the eventual decision, he said.

"Clearly, the Liberal party are making their point. We'll have those discussions at the Liberal party and caucus is making its point, so we'll deal with this in the course of our discussions with the Americans in making up our mind what to do."

The United States is in the process of deploying a handful of interceptor missiles which, along with high-powered radars and computer systems, make up the missile shield. It's a limited system designed to knock down one or two missiles fired by accident or by some rogue state. It would be helpless in the face of a full-scale missile attack.

Six missiles were placed at Fort Greely, Alaska last year. Two more went into silos at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in December. Another 10 missiles are to be set up in Alaska this year and the whole system supposed to be operational sometime later this year.

Opponents of the program claim it is just a stepping stone to the weaponization of space.

Graham said Canada will have no part of such a plan.

"The whole object is to make sure that any participation in ballistic missile defence would be circumscribed by clear understanding that we're not participating in anything that would involve the weaponization of space or the use of Canadian territory."

While opponents portray the missile defence system as a threat to international stability that promises to weaponize space, supporters say it's a limited program and that Canada should join if it wants say in what happens in the future.

"If Canada sits on the sidelines, it is clear that it will not have a voice or any influence over the future direction of the program," says the Conference of Defence Associations.

The conference, an umbrella group for a number of defence-related organizations, says Prime Minister Paul Martin has left the missile-defence debate to the opposition by his lacklustre support.

"The CDA believes that the prime minister needs to explain to his caucus, to other political parties and to the people of Canada that there is a mutual interest in co-operating with the U.S. on defence and security issues such as missile defence."