https://declassified.library.utoronto.ca/files/original/b2f1ff678749710e92de8b01828b2e94.pdf 919b13b3ec02e16abaf32e4e38d66f48 PDF Text Text Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act - ^ B Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'information SECRET t? L ^ EXTRACT FROM PJBD JOURNAL, J a n . 1 8 - 2 1 , i 9 6 0 ^ \X~ S »f 001257 �to InjxmmtftooneAcL r I'acces a I information SECRET The Chairman of the Canadian Section r e c a l l e d t h a t the Canadian draft note on t h i s subject had been submitted to the State Department on October 6S 1959<> United S t a t e s comments and suggested r e v i s i o n s G Tp r* "D Tp <p (EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED) - 8 - 001253 �Document disclosed under the Access to lnfor(n($iQ$7tt Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'informt S E C R E T (EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED) iiad been received in Ottawa only immediately prior to the departure of the Canadian Section. It was, therefore, not possible as yet to comment formally on the proposed revisions. From a cursory examination of the United States revised draft note, however, it appeared that the proposed changes relate primarily to three important points and will cause difficulty. The Canadian government had envisaged that arrangements for physical security would be a joint responsibility. Canadian authorities had envisaged two circles - an inner circle, protected by the United States and an outer circle by Canadian forces. Precise arrangements had not yet been worked out in the minds of Canadian authorities, especially as regards leaded areas in which the problem would be more complicated. The Chairman of the Canadian Section said that he anticipated further difficulty arising from the fact that the United States found it necessary to add the word "custody" in paragraph h of the draft Annex of Conditions of the notes. Canadian authorities had hoped that the word "ownership" would have satisfied United States legal requirements. The Canadian Government wishes to emphasize the need for joint control of these weapons when they are stored on Canadian soil. Also the Canadian Government's firm view is that the use of nuclear weapons is a matter of high policy and that decisions regarding them should be referred, whenever feasible, to the highest level on each side. Finally, the Chairman of the Canadian Section said that the United States proposed revision rf or paragraph 6 would also give rise to difficulty. The State Department Member confirmed that the suggested United States revisions to the Canadian draft note had been given to the Canadian Embassy dh January l*f, i960. From informal discussions at that time with Canadian representatives, it became apparent that further effor|j| would be required to work out,mutually acceptable language for the paragraphs cited by the Chairman of the Canadian Section. Of particular concern to United States authorities is the S E C R E T (EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED) h. •. <* ( 7 �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Acf Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a /'information 4t ^ 1? r R F T (EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED) need for language which will both meet the requirements„of United States law and allow CINCNORAD to act quickly in accordance with previously approved plans and procedures. There is no question but that the United States fully recognizes Canadian sovereignty and the responsibility of the Canadian Government for the safety and welfare of its people. As regards the proposed use of the word "custody" in paragraph *+, of the draft Annex, United States authorities had not supposed the Canadian Government would find difficulties with regard to this word in view of the statement on nuclear storage by the Canadian Prime Minister before Parliament on February 20, 19599 in which he said, "Believing that the spread of nuclear weapons at the independent disposal of individual nations should be limited, we consider that it is expedient that ownership and custody of the nuclear warheads should remain with the United States. The requirements of Canadian and United States legislation on atomic energy will continue to apply, and there will be no change in Canada's responsibility to regulate all flights of aircraft over Canadian territory." The State Department Member mentioned that a basic problem in an agreement of this type is that the United States has a number of agreements with other NATO countries and it would be difficult to deviate greatly from principles under which those agreements were worked out. In conclusion the State Department Member said he earnestly hoped it would be possible to reach agreement on this subject at an early date. The Chairman of the Canadian Section said that the Canadian Government is also anxious to conclude this agreement at an early date, and that it recognizes the absolute necessity of not doing anything to S E C R E T (EXCEPT WHERE. OTHERWISE INDICATED) - 1Q_5° 7 001255 — \A �Document disclosed under the Access to Information Act Document divulgue en vertu de la Loi sur I'acces a I'information S E C R E T (EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWISE INDICATED) impede prompt action in an emergency. It also recognizes United States policy of not favoring the spread of independent possession of nuclear weapons and is hopeful that a mutually satisfactory formula can'be: worked out..A The United States Air Force Member said that the United States Air Force was anxious to see the agreement concluded so that the project could get underway and would be pleased to assist in any possible way* � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CDNW16558 Title A name given to the resource CDNW16558 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "Continental defence - Atomic capability," RG25-A-3-b, vol 5930, file 50210-F-40, part 5.1, Library and Archives Canada (LAC).