Canadians and the nuclear issue

Press, 18 March 1985, Page 19

Canadians and the nuclear issue

By

GARRY ARTHUR

A recent article in the New York “Times” saying that the United States had a secret agreement with Canada allowing nuclear weapons to be located on Canadian soil under certain circumstances caused a flurry of questioning in the Canadian House of Commons. Canada used to allow nuclear weapons on its soil, but under the pressure of public opposition this was revoked in the 19605. Canadian Air Force nuclear bombers were phased out at the same time. However, Canada does continue to admit United States warships to some of its ports which have naval facilities, without requiring the United States Navy to declare whether they are nuclear-armed. As America’s immediate northern neighbour, biggest trading partner, and closest ally in N.A.T.O. and the North American Aerospace Defence Command (N.0.R.A.D.), Canadians have exhibited understandable nervousness about being involved in United States’ conflicts. Canada avoided becoming involved in the Vietnam war, and there were strong public protests at the signing of an agreement in 1983 allowing the use of Canadian facilities and airspace for the testing of United States weapon sys-

terns. The Government gave permission for the testing of unarmed cruise missiles over northern Alberta, British Columbia, and the north-west territories - terrain that is said to be similar to that of the Soviet Union. A protest group called “Operation Dismantle” sought a Supreme Court injunction to stop the tests, but failed, and the first free-flight test was launched from a B-52 bomber last month. The missile landed successfully in northern Alberta in spite of attempts by the Greenpeace organisation to disrupt it with radar deflectors carried on balloons. In the political debate about nuclear weapons, Opposition member of Parliament, Mr Lloyd Axworthy, asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr Joe Clark, to reveal United States plans for nuclear deployment in Canada. “We now have reports that the United States State Department has sent communiques to the Government insisting that Canada must accept nuclear weapons on this soil,” said Mr Axworthy. “This not only contradicts the Minister’s own statements, but is a clear case of nuclear colonialism.” Mr Clark denied that the United

States had made such a request. “There was, so far as I know, no suggestion by the Government of the United States to anyone that Canada should accept nuclear arms,” he said. But he added that the United States Department of State had instructed the United States Ambassador in Ottawa to express concern to the Canadian Government “about the degree to which countries with which the United States has treaty arrangements were going to honour those arrangements.” Mr Clark insisted that the question of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil did not arise, because Canada’s position was abundantly clear: it did not allow such weapons to be stationed in Canada. “In the event of any contingency plan which might call for the stationing of nuclear arms here, this Government retains its right to refuse nuclear arms on Canadian soil,” said Mr Clark, “and this Government would be prepared to exercise our option to refuse nuclear arms on Canadian soil if we believed that to be in the interests of Canada.”

Mr Axworthy reminded Parliament that the United States had taken retaliatory action against New Zealand because it rejected visits from United States nuclear armed warships, and demanded to know exactly what the United States Ambassador had said. In response to further questioning, Mr Clark again denied the existence of a secret agreement with the United States. Under a N.A.T.O. decision of 1957, member states retained the right to refuse nuclear weapons on their soil in any emergency. He was asked to declare that Canada would not accept nuclear weapons on its soil under any circumstances. He replied that he was not able to say how Canada would respond in the circumstances of an attack. Another Opposition member, Mr Edward Broadbent, said that if it was accepted that the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances would mean mutual suicide involving the United States and the Soviet Union, then Canada should say that it would not have nuclear weapons on its soil under any

circumstances. Mr Clark agreed that nuclear conflict would be folly for the world, but it was impossible to say in advance what Canada’s actions would be if such folly occurred. Mr Jim Fulton, another Opposition M.P., said it was clear that Mr Clark was prepared to accept a United States definition of crisis, decided by the American military and the White House, and that he had reserved the right to agree to the stationing of nuclear weapons in Canada. “As the Minister knows, today ships can enter the harbours of Vancouver, Halifax, and other ports in Canada with live United States nuclear weapons on board,” said Mr Fulton. “Let us not split hairs. The Minister is telling the people of Canada right now that he is prepared to accept the placement of nuclear weapons in Canada as long as they are simply tied by a rope to a wharf in the major cities of Vancouver and Halifax.” Mr Clark replied that there was a long standing arrangement dealing with the necessity for submarines carrying nuclear weapons to visit ports. “Those submarines are occasionally given the opportunity to dock at Canadian ports,” he said, adding

that this policy did not affect the Canadian position that there would be no stationing of nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Mr Fulton: If a United States nuclear submarine is to tie up in Vancouver at the foot of Granville Street, or in Halifax, is the Minister prepared to show the same kind of backbone that New Zealand has shown and say no to the United States now and tell them that no more nuclear warships and weapons will be allowed in our major ports of Canada? “I do not want to comment particularly on the New Zealand situation, except to say that there is a degree to which their situation is parallel to our own,” replied Mr Clark. He said the New Zealand Government was honouring an election pledge, and Canada’s Government intended to keep its election pledge to honour its obligations to N.A.T.0., to N.O.R.A.D, and to its allies. Shiela Copps, M.P., asked why Mr Clark was not prepared to follow the example of New Zealand and develop an independent nuclear policy for Canada. Mr Clark: The best answer I can give to the Hon. Member is that... New Zealand is not a member of N.A.T.O.