July 10, 1975

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

PC

Robert Lorne Stanfield (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs now prepared to table those parts of the agreement entered into between Canada and Argentina relating to the sale of the CANDU reactor in 1973 which provide for the subsequent negotiation between the two countries, Canada and Argentina, of adequate safeguards? Now that the minister has returned from South Korea is he, after asking all those questions in that country, sufficiently refreshed to be able to answer this question?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CONTRACT CONTAINING PROVISION FOR SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION OF SAFEGUARDS
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his consideration. I think the main document the hon. gentleman wants is the commercial contract, which is a matter for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I think the Leader of the Opposition will have to try his hand again with my colleague on that point.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CONTRACT CONTAINING PROVISION FOR SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION OF SAFEGUARDS
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hees:

Use a new shuttlecock for passing the buck. The old one is worn out.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CONTRACT CONTAINING PROVISION FOR SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION OF SAFEGUARDS
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MacEachen:

There are two exchanges of notes, which will be made available to the hon. gentleman, on the safeguards. With respect to the commercial contract, I think the hon. gentleman understands that, normally, these commercial contracts are not tabled, but for the final word, he ought to address his question to my colleague.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CONTRACT CONTAINING PROVISION FOR SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION OF SAFEGUARDS
Permalink

TELEGRAM FROM NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT REQUESTING PROTECTION OF FISHERIES RESOURCES- MINISTER'S POSITION

PC

Walter C. Carter

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister received a telegram from the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland expressing doubt that the inshore fishery of eastern Canada can survive one more year without the federal government's full support and, if so, has the minister replied to the telegram, and what was the nature of the reply?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   TELEGRAM FROM NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT REQUESTING PROTECTION OF FISHERIES RESOURCES- MINISTER'S POSITION
Permalink
LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I think I received two telegrams from the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland. He is suggesting a meeting and, if my second reply has not gone out, it will be going out shortly, setting the date for the meeting which will discuss the question, in which both

Oral Questions

he and I are interested, relating to the law of the sea and the development of the east coast fisheries.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   TELEGRAM FROM NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT REQUESTING PROTECTION OF FISHERIES RESOURCES- MINISTER'S POSITION
Permalink

PROPOSED UNILATERAL ACTION TO PROTECT FISHERIES RESOURCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

PC

Walter C. Carter

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):

Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread doubt and fears that have been expressed, particularly in eastern Canada, by groups of fishermen, unions and people connected with the industry as to whether the industry can survive unless the government takes firm and, if necessary, unilateral action to protect the resource, is it the government's intention to take that kind of action? On the basis of reports from eastern Canada, it is obvious that the industry cannot survive without that kind of firm action on the part of this government.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PROPOSED UNILATERAL ACTION TO PROTECT FISHERIES RESOURCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Prime Minister)

Liberal

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a question which has been replied to time and again. As the Minister of State (Fisheries) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have indicated, the unilateral action which the hon. member is advocating, and I am not sure if it is the position of his whole party, is one of the options the government has rejected. Two points should be made. First, that is not the way to establish international law. Second, it would be misleading the Canadian people, particularly the fishermen, to have them believe that unilateral action by Canada would solve their problem. It would not solve the problem of the salmon fishery, for example. The origin of that problem is well beyond our 200 miles. It would not solve the problem of how to get nations which have historic fishing rights in these waters to stop exercising these rights. Unilateral action would not achieve that. I remind the House that when this government drew fisheries closing lines a few years ago to increase immensely the rights of the Canadian fishermen, we did become involved in a series of bilateral discussions with nations which had historic rights, for example, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The question is much more complex than the solution seems to indicate. I do not think the hon. member would want to mislead the fishermen into believing that unilateral action is an immediate solution.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PROPOSED UNILATERAL ACTION TO PROTECT FISHERIES RESOURCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink

INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

LIB

Maurice Dupras

Liberal

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware of the fact that the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, came to Ottawa today in a last minute attempt to convince the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and the hon. member for York-Simcoe to stop their filibuster on Bill C-63?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

July 10, 1975

Oral Questions ENERGY

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Permalink

PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-REASON FOR OPTIMISM OF FRANCE

PC

Flora Isabel MacDonald

Progressive Conservative

Miss Flora MacDonald. (Kingston and the Islands):

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that French Interior Minister Poniatowski told a press conference on July 8 that he is more optimistic than when he came to Canada that the federal government will approve France's plan to build an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area, will the Prime Minister tell the House what indication he or any of his minister's gave to Mr. Poniatowski that would have led him to this optimistic view of the federal government's agreement to such a proposal?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-REASON FOR OPTIMISM OF FRANCE
Permalink
LIB

Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Prime Minister)

Liberal

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I might be able to volunteer an answer to that. It probably results from the fact that the pre-feasibility studies which were made known to the government at that time indicated that the case against the enriched uranium plant was not as clear-cut and obvious as some hon. members opposite make it. For that reason, I, personally, told Mr. Poniatowski that we would give very serious consideration to this pre-feasibility study. We said we would not reject the facts out of prejudice, but would study them very carefully.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-REASON FOR OPTIMISM OF FRANCE
Permalink

PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-POSSIBLE COMMITMENT TO GIVE REPLY TO FRANCE WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS

PC

Flora Isabel MacDonald

Progressive Conservative

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):

Did the Prime Minister or any of his ministers agree during the French Interior Minister's visit to give a reply within six to eight months to the French government's proposal to build this enriched uranium plant to produce a product which cannot be used domestically and which, when exported, would add significantly to dangers of nuclear proliferation?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-POSSIBLE COMMITMENT TO GIVE REPLY TO FRANCE WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS
Permalink

July 10, 1975