October 1, 1987

LIB

John Napier Turner (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

Read the speech!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink
PC

Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):

-rather than The Globe and Mail of Toronto.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink

CANADA-UNITED STATES TALKS-MINISTERS' VISIT TO WASHINGTON

LIB

Lloyd Axworthy

Liberal

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I would also like to present to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I presume that he speaks for the Government.

Last week, when Simon Reisman suspended the trade talks, the Prime Minister said at the time that we were going to wait for Washington to make its moves. We have now had the spectacle twice in a week of cabinet Ministers going to Washington-I suppose the United States Air Force does not fly this way any more-even though it is quite clear that at this late date the possibility of getting a fair trade deal in the Canadian national interest is virtually zero.

I want to ask the Secretary of State this question. Is he prepared to explain to the House what position the delegation

is taking to Washington today? Is it a deal at any price, or is the delegation simply going to deliver an official notice of withdrawal from the trade negotiations?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TALKS-MINISTERS' VISIT TO WASHINGTON
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TALKS-MINISTERS' VISIT TO WASHINGTON
Permalink
PC

Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, it is neither of those things. The Hon. Member will recall that one of the questions of very real importance to Canada is the ability to put in place some reliable mechanism for the resolution of disputes. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition expressed his view the other day that that was impossible, that that would never happen so he did not want to try. We thought it was worth trying. There has been in fact some slight movement by the Americans.

There has been an agreement more or less in principle to the idea of a tribunal. But there has been no agreement on rules that would guide such a tribunal. In our judgment a tribunal without rules would not provide Canada with the kind of guarantees and security that we require. That is among the items that are being discussed in Washington today.

We think it is better to see if we can make progress to protect Canada's interests rather than simply walk away from the negotiations.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   CANADA-UNITED STATES TALKS-MINISTERS' VISIT TO WASHINGTON
Permalink

REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE

LIB

Lloyd Axworthy

Liberal

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pose a supplementary question to the Minister. When he states that the only issue is really a dispute settlement mechanism, he ignores that there are many other issues of major concern, particularly to Canadians, for example, the right of Canada to decide for itself in its own sovereignty the kind of support programs and subsidies it will have for regional development, and other forms of assistance to overcome disparities in this country are of concern. Are those also part of those negotiations in Washington today?

Would the Minister on behalf of the Government table what kind of correspondence, what kind of statements, and what kind of counter proposals have been made so that, for the first time, Canadians will know what is going on? Are we being sold down the river? Are we negotiating away the right of this country to make decisions in its own sovereign interest?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Permalink
PC

Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, the answer to those last two questions, as it has been on the dozens of times the Hon. Member has put them in exactly those terms, is no. He has also-and I am sure he did it inadvertently-misquoted me. I said that among the things being considered and dicussed in Washington in this meeting requested by the Americans is the question of a dispute resolution mechanism-it is among the items.

October 1, 1987

We made clear when Ambassador Reisman declared an impasse in the negotiation-

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Permalink
LIB

John Napier Turner (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):

Whatever happened to him?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Permalink
PC

Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):

-that among the things that had been put on the table that Canada could not accept were some proposals regarding regional development.

If there is progress made on the question of rules, there might then be discussion of that and other questions. Canada's interest, as it has been throughout, will be protected by the Government of Canada.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Permalink

NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS

NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

In the past the Secretary of State for External Affairs has linked the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada with progress being made in the disarmament field. Specifically, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in the House on March 2 when making the linkage between disarmament progress that, "We will determine Canadian Government policy on the basis of what is actually decided in Geneva".

Since the Soviets and the Americans, fortunately, have now reached a major INF agreement moving the world sensibly toward disarmament, why has the Government of Canada reversed its position on this very important matter?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Sub-subtopic:   CRUISE MISSILE TESTING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink
PC

Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party just quoted my words and then distorted them. I stand by the quote and not the distortion.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Sub-subtopic:   CRUISE MISSILE TESTING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Minister of State (Seniors))

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hees:

Way to go, Joe!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Sub-subtopic:   CRUISE MISSILE TESTING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Permalink

GOVERNMENT POLICY

NDP

John Edward Broadbent

New Democratic Party

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):

Mr. Speaker, I, and many Canadians, at the time thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was linking the testing of the Cruise missile with progress being made in the disarmament field.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs was that not the basic position of the Government. Is the Government saying to the people of Canada that, even if we continue to make at long last significant progress in this world between the superpowers, moving toward disarmament, the Canadian Government will continue to test Cruise missiles here?

Oral Questions

Why does the Canadian Government not clearly live up to the implication left with the people of Canada? Why does it not make a contribution toward disarmament instead of moving in the opposite direction?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink
PC

Charles Joseph Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, my words are clear. They are on the record, and they have just been read by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He drew an interpretation from them that he claims is a legitimate interpretation. I would quarrel with that. I think my words speak for themselves.

Let us come to the question as to how this country contributes to progress on arms control.

It is the position of the New Democratic Party that this country contributes to progress in arms control by breaking up NATO, which is what they would do by running away from NATO obligations.

If that position has been adopted by the Government of Canada, if the Soviets had been successful in finding such a dupe in the offices of the Government of Canada who would take the country out of NATO, then we would not have the agreement in principle that was achieved by Mr. Shultz and Mr. Shevardnadze.

I do not propose to put those types of agreement at risk to meet some ideological commitment of the New Democratic Party here in Canada.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink

October 1, 1987