1947-06-04

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of standing committee on standing orders-Mr. MacLean.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) presented the first report of the standing committee on industrial relations, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I table a copy of order in council P.C. 1746, by which the government has increased to 4,500 the number of single Polish veterans to be admitted to Canada. In the first movement last year 2.876 of these veterans came here and have been settled on the farms. Recently 481 more
Questions

arrived and proceeded to western Canada. They arrived on May 25, according to the memorandum dated June 3 which I have before me. Of this number 187 proceeded to Manitoba and 282 to Alberta. Word has been received that all the veterans in Alberta have been placed, and we expect word at any time that all the veterans in Manitoba have been placed also. That gives some idea of the expedition with which we sometimes move.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Is there a shortage of hospital bed accommodation in Canada at the present time? If so, how long has this shortage been apparent?
2.	How many hospital beds for short-term illnesses, convalescent cases and chronically ill are estimated to be required to meet present estimated needs?
3.	Can national health insurance be implemented with present hospital facilities?
4.	Is there a shortage of nursing, technical and hospital maintenance staff in Canada? If so, how long has this shortage been apparent?
5.	How many nurses, technicians, ward-aides and maintenance workers are estimated to be required for present estimated needs?
6.	Can national health insurance be implemented with present hospital personnel available?
7.	What is the average ratio of patients to doctors in each province and their distribution in rural and urban areas?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	In mental hospitals, tuberculosis sanatoria, hospitals for chronically ill, hospitals for acute diseases and convalescent hospitals there is a definite shortage of beds.
The shortage of beds in mental hospitals, sanatoria, and for chronic and convalescent cases has existed over a period of years, but as regards hospitals for acute diseases the shortage has become acute only since 1940.
2.	For hospitals for acute diseases, it is estimated that there is need of an additional 8,000 beds to meet present needs, as calculated on the percentage of bed occupancy in those hospitals which in 1945 was 73-0 per cent.
As there were only ten convalescent hospitals in Canada in 1945 with a bed capacity of 800, and 17 hospitals for the chronically ill with 3,280 beds, there is great need of an increase in the number of hospitals in these two classes in order to release the beds now occupied by these classes of patients in hospitals for acute diseases.
According to hospital authorities beds for convalescent patients should form ten per cent
of total beds in public hospitals. On this basis there should be an additional 5,000 beds for use of convalescent patients and 3,000 for the chronically ill.
In 1945 there were 13,614 beds in tuberculosis institutions, and as the minimum standard of beds is based on three beds per death, at least 5,000 more beds are needed to meet present needs throughout Panada.
The number of beds reported for mental hospitals in 1945 was 45,124, while the number of patients in residence on December 31, 1945, was 48,056 (exclusive of patients on parole and in boarding homes, whose number amounted to 4,190). It is estimated that a minimum of 6,000 beds is needed to reduce the present overcrowding in mental hospitals.
Not including private hospitals which had a bed capacity in 1945 of 4,113 beds and dominion hospitals under the departments of national health and welfare, veterans affairs ind national defence the total of beds in all other hospitals as on December 31, 1945, was
as follows:
Beds
Acute Diseases Hospitals	 58,940
Convalescent Hospitals	 800
Chronically 111	 3,280
Tuberculosis	 13,614
Mental	 45,124
Total	 121,758
To meet present requirements the following increases in bed capacity are needed:
Beds
Acute Diseases Hospitals	 8.000
Convalescent Hospitals	 5,000
Chronically 111	 3,000
Tuberculosis	 5,000
Mental	6,000
Total	 27,000
3.	Integral parts of the proposals for a comprehensive health insurance programme to be introduced by progressive stages are the planning and organizational grants. These are to enable the provinces to establish staffs to study and report or. local requirements in the field of medical services generally. The following paragraphs appear on page 36 of the Proposals of the Government of Canada, August, 1945:
"In the dominion proposals outlined at the dominion-provincial conference in August, 1945, it is recognized that the provision of complete health insurance services would require a considerable extension in hospital facilities throughout the country. Much of

Questions
this expansion would be required even for the first stage specified. It is also recognized that this expansion would be desirable quite aside from health insurance in order to provide the proper facilities for treatment and research.
To make a hospital extension programme less burdensome to the provincial governments and to local communities, it is proposed that the federal government should provide loans to the provincial governments entering health insurance agreements, and through provincial governments to municipalities and other organizations, for necessary expansion of hospital facilities, at a rate of interest equal to or only slightly above the cost of such loans to the dominion, and that the interest and amortization would be payable out of the hospital care benefit under the health insurance grant, or out of the tuberculosis grant, or the mental health grant, as the case may be."
4.	Yes, increasing since 1940.
5.	The latest estimate of the Canadian nurses association, September 1946, is as
follows:
Hospital requirements	 7,000
Private duty requirements	 1,200
Public health requirements	 500
Total	 8,700
There are no figures available for ward-aides except for Ontario, the estimated requirement there being 178.
Other figures are not available.
6.	See answer to question 3. The statement under the heading (a) Planning and Organization Grant on page 31 of the Proposals of the Government of Canada, August, 1945, recognizes the necessity of training additional personnel for the implementation of health insurance.
7.	''Survey of Physicians", July 1946. prepared by the Department of National Health and Welfare, gives the following:
Distribution of doctors by provinces
Prince Edward Island	 74
Nova Scotia	 492
New Brunswick	 293
Quebec	 3,334
Ontario	 4,752
Manitoba	 706
Saskatchewan	 562
Alberta	 676
British Columbia	 1,012
Total	 11,901
Population per doctor, by provinces
Prince Edward Island	 1,243
Nova Scotia	 1,262
New Brunswick	 1,597
Quebec	 1,068
Ontario	 843
Manitoba	 1,042
Saskatchewan	 1,504
Alberta	 1,222
British Columbia	 938
Ratio of population to doctor:
In cities of 150,000 and up-665 persons per doctor.
In cities of 30,000 to 150,000-669 persons per doctor.
In cities of 10,000 to 30,000-857 persons per doctor.
In communities of 10,000 and under-1,300 persons per doctor.


RADIO BROADCASTING-&quot;POPULAR PLAYHOUSE&quot;
Mr. FRASER:: What was the total cost of each broadcast including leased wires, editing, and all other expenses incidental to the C.B.C. former broadcast play called "Popular Playhouse"?


Mr. McCANN:: The total cost of artists' fees and scripts for the twenty-seven plays in this series amounted to $12,639.44 or an average of $468.12 for each programme. There is no wire line cost incidental to this programme.


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL-REFUNDING OF BOND OR STOCK. ISSUES IN U.S. FUNDS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. COCKF.RAM:
1.	What applications have been made since-January d, 1947, to date, to the foreign exchange control board for permission to refund bond or stock issues in United States funds?
2.	What was the total amount requested in each case?
3.	What applications have been granted giving the amount and date in each case?
Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	It is assumed that the information desired is with respect to applications made to the foreign exchange control board for U.S. dollars to redeem bond or stock issues payable solely or optionally in that currency, as well as applications for permission to redeem such issues with the proceeds of refunding issues in the United States. Applications in both of these categories made to the board from January 1, 1947 to May 24, 1947, all of which were approved, were as follows, showing date approved, name of applicant, description of security and amount in U.S. funds:
Questions

Jan. 9, 1947
Ogilvy Realty Corporation Limited, 51- per cent first mortgage bonds due April 1, 1951, $818,500.
Jan. 16, 1947
Algoma Eastern Railways, 5 per cent bonds due March 1, 1961, $2,226,500.
Jan. 24, 1947
City of Montreal, various issues, $78,036,213.35, of which all but $225,213 was obtained by refunding in the United States.
Feb. 5, 1947
Gurney Foundry Co. Limited, 5i per cent bonds due May 15, 1949, $170,900.
Feb. 7, 1947
Abitibi Power & Paper Company Ltd., 5 pe. cent first mortgage bonds due June 1, 1965, $53,093,700.
Feb. 11, 1947
Canadian Utilities Limited, 3f per cent bonds due February 1, 1971, $2,500,000.
Mar. 13, 1947
British Columbia Pulp & Paper Co., 6 per cent first mortgage bonds due November 1, 1950, $2,797,000.
March 14, 1947
West Canadian Hydro Electric Corporation Ltd., 6 per cent bonds due July 1, 1950, $1,000,000.
April 9, 1947
London Canadian Investment Corporation, 4i per cent Series "A" bonds due June 1, 1948, $3,546,500.
April 12, 1947
Montreal Tramways Company, 5 per cent first and refunding mortgage bonds due July 1, 1951, $15,500,000.
April 23, 1947
Calgary Power Co. Ltd., 5 per cent first mortgage bonds due April 1, 1960, $8,171,500. April 28, 1947
Province of New Brunswick, 3i per cent debentures due July 1, 1949, $5,000,000, all of which was obtained by refunding in the United States.
May 15, 1947
Albert Bay Company Ltd., 5 per cent first mortgage 'bonds due August 1, 1950, $272,300.
One additional application was made and approved during May but public notice has not yet been issued by the debtor and it is, therefore, not deemed proper to disclose the particulars.
It should be noted that the amounts stated above are in each case the total amounts of the issues outstanding. Resident owners

receiving U.S. funds as a result of the redemptions are required to resell such U.S. funds to the board.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-AUSTIN WELLS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH:
1.	Was Austin Wells employed in any capacity under the P.F.A.A. during 1945 or i946?
2.	If so, what amount was paid to him for (a) salary; (b) mileage; (c) other expenses, during 1945, for work done in (i) rural municipality of Parkdale, 498; (ii) other districts?
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(A)	(i)	$456.44, (ii) $6.68;	(B)	(i)
$391.57, (ii) $5.31; (C) (i) $68.60, (ii) $3.35.


BEAUHARNOIS CANAL
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	What is the present size of the Beauhar-nois canal, having regard to its width, the depth of water at present flowing through, etc.?
2.	What, if any, check is made on the amount of water from time to time diverted from Lake St. Francis through the canal, by the government engineers?
3.	What pmver companies other than the Beauharnois L. H. & P. Company divert water from Lake St. Francis, and what is the amount of water diverted by each?
4.	To what extent would the increase of the amount of water diverted for the purpose of developing electric energy, interfere with the future use of the Beauharnois canal for the purpose of navigation?
5.	Will an increase over a certain point in the amount of water diverted for the development of electric energy, affect the use of the canal for navigation purposes?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	The Beauharnois canal is approximately 15 miles long, 3.200 feet wide at the water line over most of its length and has a depth varying from 27 feet to less than 10 feet. The 600-feet wide navigation channel is excavated to 27 feet over all but about 1 mile of the total length.
2.	A statement showing the average daily flow through the power canal is furnished the department once a week by the power company. The average flow is checked by the department's engineer once a month.
3.	(i) Provincial Light, Heat & Power Company.-Authorized to divert from the Soulanges canal "all the surplus water flowing through the said canal which may from time to time be available after all the requirements of the canal, whether for navigation, for lighting, for power, or other purposes in connection with the operation or maintenance of the canal have been fully satisfied." The maximum velocity to be set up in the canal

Questions
is limited by the terms of the lease to 1-25 miles per hour which limits the diversion of water to approximately 3,400 cubic feet per second; (ii) Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated.-Authorized to divert 75.000 cubic feet per second; (iii) Canadian Light & Power Company.-Authorized to divert through the old Beauharnois canal (the old navigation canal abandoned for that purpose in 1900), ''all waters now or hereafter passing through the said canal." The actual diversion is limited to approximately 6,000 cubic feet per second.
Note: The actual amount of water diverted varies from time to time.
4.	No interference with the future use of the Beauharnois canal for the purpose of navigation will be caused if the total amount of water diverted for developing electric energy is limited to the inflow into Lake St. Francis, less whatever water is required from time to time for navigation purposes.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PROPERTIES IN HALIFAX
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Are the following national defence properties located in Point Pleasant park, Halifax, Nova Scotia (a) Fort Ogilvie; (b) Cambridge Battery; (c) Point Pleasant Battery?
2.	If so, which of these are obsolete?
3.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the government to turn over obsolete national defence properties located in the area known as Point Pleasant park, Halifax, Nova Scotia, to the city of Halifax?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	These properties are no longer required for military purposes.
3.	None, disposition of properties now under consideration.


PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON DUFFERIN AVE., SHERBROOKE, QUE.
Mr. HACKETT:: 1.	Has the government acquired by lease, purchase or otherwise, the use of a building on Dufferin avenue, Sherbrooke, Quebec?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the contract of acquisition?
3.	Was it a contract of lease; of purchase, or other, and if a contract of lease, for what term?
4.	What was the consideration paid or promised?
5.	Was it rental or purchase price, and if rental, at what price per square foot of space?
6.	Are the premises being renovated? If so, at what cost and by whom?
7.	Who was the owner of the said premises before the contract and who is the owner now?
8.	To what use does the government intend to put this building or any part of it?
Mr. FOURNIER (Hull);
1.	The Department, of Public Works has leased the second, third and fourth floors of building at 8 Dufferin Avenue, Sherbrooke, P.Q.
2,	3 and 4. Premises were leased at a rental of $19,200 per annum for a period of five years from date of occupation, with option to renew for a further period of five years at $18,000 per annum, and on otherwise same terms and conditions. The lessor is to attend to all repairs, pay taxes, water rates, provide heat-ting, cleaning, janitor service, elevator service and toilet accommodation and the crown is to pay for lighting.
5.	The rental is at the rate of $1.60 per square foot per annum.
6.	The premises are being remodelled entirely with steel structure, a fourth floor added and an elevator installed at an estimated cost of $90,000 by the lessor at her own expense.
7.	The premises were leased from Miss Blanche Belanger, and there is nothing on record in the department to indicate that the building has been sold.
8.	Premises are for the accommodation of the department of national revenue (district income tax office).


NOTRE DAME DU NORD, QUE., BRIDGE
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Was a contract awarded for the construction of an addition to the bridge at Notre Dame du Nord, county of Pontiac?
2.	If so (a) who is the contractor; (b) what is the contract price; (c) when was the work begun?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	A contract was awarded for repairs to the concrete bridge piers and abutments of the interprovincial bridge.
2.	(a) Intrusion Prepakt Limited.
(b)	Estimated cost $45,500.
(c)	February 8, 1947.


GEOFFROY, QUE., POSTMASTER
Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Geoffroy, county of Timiskaming?
2.	What is the monthly or annual salary of the said postmaster?
3.	What amount was paid each year since his appointment?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Mrs. Mary Comtois.
2.	Remuneration due postmaster for fiscal year 1947-48-$132.07.
Questions

3.	Nov. 1, 1942, to March 31, 1943, $46.14; April 1, 1943, to March 31, 1944, $111; April 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945, $124.17; April 1,
1945,	to March 31, 1946, $143.80; April 1,
1946,	to March 31, 1947, $174.93.


PORT OF HALIFAX-RADAR
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport, the Department of Defence or any other branch of the government considered the installation of radar as a navigation aid for the port of Halifax?
2.	If so (a) under which departments were experiments carried out; (b) where will equipment be located; (c) what is the probable date of permanent installation and operation?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes, a radar set was installed by the national research council at the Department of Transport radio direction finding station at Camperdown at the entrance to Halifax harbour in December, 1946.
2.	(a) The experiments and tests are being undertaken jointly by the National Research Council and1 the Department of Transport.
(b) and (c) No definite answers can be given until the tests have been completed and their results evaluated.


LEGAL SERVICES-J. MACLAREN
Mr. STOKES:: 1.	Did J. MacLaren act as counsel during the case of the crown vs. Beckstead, Jacobson & Griff?
2.	If so, what was the total amount paid to him for (a) fees; (b) expenses?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $1,423.50; (b) $401.96.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	What airports now in operation in Canada come within the classification of airports "necessary for international and main line services within Canada?"
2.	Where are the said airports located?
3.	In what authority is the ownership of each of the said airports vested?
4.	Under whose authority is each of the said respective airports operated and managed?
5.	Have the taxpayers of Halifax, Moncton and Montreal any investment or obligation in the airports serving their respective communities?
6.	What is the investment of the taxpayers of the city of Toronto in the Malton airport?
(Mr. E. Bertrand.]
7.	What is the amount of the investment of the government of Canada in the said airport?
8.	What are the terms of the agreement proposed by the Department of Transport to the city of Toronto?
9.	What is the investment of the city of Windsor in the airport serving that city?
10.	What is the investment of the dominion government in the said airport?
11.	Under what authority is the said Windsor airport operated and managed?
12.	What is the investment of the city oi Winnipeg in the airport serving that city?
13.	What is the investment of the dominion government in the said airport?
14.	Under -whose authority is the said airport at Winnipeg managed and operated?
15.	What are the terms of the agreement under which the said airport is managed?
16.	What is the investment of the city of .Lethbridge in the airport serving that city?
17.	What amount of money has the corporation of Lethbridge invested in the said airport?
18.	What amount of money has the dominion government invested in the said airport?
19.	Under whose authority is the said airport managed?
20.	If managed under the terms of an agreement with the city of Lethbridge, what are the terms of the said agreement?
2-1. What amount of money has the city of Edmonton invested in the airport serving the city of Edmonton?
22.	What amount of money has the dominion government invested in all airports in the vicinity of Edmonton?
23.	Under what authority is the airport in Edmonton used by the Trans-Canada Air Lines, operated and managed?
24.	What are the terms of the said agreement?
25.	What amount of money has the city of Vancouver invested in the Sea Island base used by the Trans-Canada Airways, which serves the city of Vancouver and that of New Westminster?
26.	What amount of money has the dominion government invested in the said airport?
27.	Under whose management is the said airport being managed and operated?
28.	Has the Department of Transport proposed to the city of Vancouver any agreement with regard to the management and operation of the said airport?
29.	What are the terms of the said agreement?
30.	What is the investment of the city of Victoria in the airport serving that city?
31.	What is the amount of money invested by the dominion government in the said airport?
32.	Under what authority is the airport managed and operated?



VETERANS' LAND ACT-WESTMORLAND, N.B.

Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many veterans have been settled under the Veterans' Land Act in the federal constituency of Westmorland, New Brunswick, to date, on (a) small holdings; (b) full-time farming; (c) what are the names of these veterans;
(d)	how many acres comprise each holding?

Inquiries oj Ihc Ministry



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, cables, reports and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any officers thereof and the government of Great Britain or any officers thereof, the Polish nation or any officers thereof, regarding the admission of Polish soldiers into Canada, to include also correspondence and other documents exchanged with officers of any shipping company or railway or transport company with reference to transport of these soldiers.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: This motion would call for a large volume of routine correspondence in a great many files which I have had assembled, and which also contain some letters marked "confidential" which could not be published. I have arranged with the hon. member to make the files available for examination by him, and he has agreed to drop the motion and to renew it for any of the correspondence in which he may then be interested.
Motion dropped.



ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARK IN NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. STUART (Charlotte):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or agreements, exchanged between the government of Canada, or any department or agency thereof, and the government of the province of New Brunswick, or any department or agency thereof, between January 1, 1945 and May 31, 1947, regarding the establishment of a national park in the province of New Brunswick.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING SELF-GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to give the house a full statement with respect to the situation in India?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: That is a tall order.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that I would hesitate very much even to pretend to be able to make a full statement with respect to the situation in India. I believe it is one of the most critical and delicate situations existing in any part of the world today. However I was asked yesterday by the press if I had any comment to make with respect to the statement of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as to what was proposed between the British government and India. I did give the press a statement,
and I think perhaps I could not answer my hon. friend's question better than to give the house just what I said at that time. I said this:
The peoples of India may be assured of the sympathetic understanding and good will of the government and people of Canada in their efforts to achieve self-government.
It is of the utmost importance to the future peace and prosperity of other countries, as well as of India, that this end should be peacefully achieved.
It may be taken for granted that once the Indian people as well as their leaders, have reached agreement on their future political status, they will find Canada generously predisposed towards self-government. The result may be to enlarge the number of states within the British commonwealth.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house should associate itself with that sentiment, which says in effect that Canada would be pleased to do everything she can to welcome into the family of the commonwealth the nation which we hope will now emerge in India.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. An answer was given on Monday with respect to this same matter. I was told by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we had a representative in India now, and that we would be informed if anything happened. Now we find that everything was consented to by the government of Canada; is that correct? Is the statement made by the minister at page 3708 of Hansard a correct statement?-because at that time the minister indicated the government had no knowledge of the matter at all. Surely the government must appreciate that the House of Commons cannot know anything about it unless it is informed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no doubt my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) may wish to say a word about this. If I understood my friend the hon. member for Broadview correctly he said there had been a statement to the effect that everything that had taken place in respect of developments in India had been consented to by the government of Canada. He wishes to know, as I understood him, whether that is correct and, if so, why the house was not informed. May I reply by saying that our government was kept informed by the government of the United Kingdom with respect to certain negotiations between the government of the United Kingdom and representatives from India. After what has now been made public as the agree-
Inquiries oj the Ministry

ment reached between them, our government was asked if we wished to make any comment. It would not be correct to say that we had been consulted during the negotiations because we were not consulted, but we were asked if we wished to make any comment. I have no exception to take to that method of procedure, because I do not think any other method would have been possible in the circumstances.
The reply which I have just given to the house will indicate the attitude which our government took in replying to the government of the United Kingdom as to what Canada's position would likely be in the event of new dominions being formed in India as a result of the negotiations that have been taking place.


Thomas Langton Church: It is going to cause civil war there, because they will not be ready for dominion status for years.


Gordon Graydon: May I point out to the Prime Minister that the Canadian Press dispatch says that the Canadian government did approve the changed status in India.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know what dispatch my hon. friend has seen or has in mind, but I noticed when I picked up the morning paper that there was a statement to the effect that some high official had said that the government of Canada had been consulted. Speaking to one of my colleagues I drew attention to the fact that the particular word "consulted" had been used. I stated that that was what had repeatedly been said in regard to previous negotiations affecting the relations between different parts of the empire, but that what was really meant was that we had been kept informed of developments and had been asked if there was any comment we wish to make. This, however, was not until after the announcement had been made of the results of earlier negotiations. That to my mind is something different from consultation. As a matter of fact I doubt if it would have been possible for the government of the United Kingdom in making the arrangements with its dependency India to have tried to carry on those negotiations by consultation with the dominions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the house will allow me to supplement the remarks I made in reply to the hon. member for Broadview. I think it is important that the house should understand exactly what is expected of dominion governments in matters of consultation with the government of the United Kingdom. I find that the Secretary

of State for External Affairs answered a question asked on February 10 by the hon. member for Broadview with reference to possible negotiations concerning the Suez canal and Egypt, and the reply brought in the attitude and the relations of governments of the commonwealth in dealing with matters of this kind.
Again on February 24 the hon. member for Broadview asked:
Can the government inform the house of the present situation in India and Palestine?
Other questions were asked. One of the answers made at that time by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was as follows:
The present situation in India was outlined in a statement made on February 20 by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The present situation in Palestine was outlined in a statement made in the United Kingdom parliament on February 18.
Commonwealth governments keep each other informed on matters of foreign policy in accordance with the practice described by Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the House of Commons in London, on May 8, 1946, as follows:
Then follows the paragraph which I wish particularly to diraw to the attention of hon. members. It is the statement of Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, made in the House of Commons in London on May 8, 1946. He said:
It is our practice and our duty as members of the British commonwealth to keep other members of the commonwealth fully and continuously informed qf all matters which we are called upon to decide, but which may affect commonwealth interests. The object is to give them an opportunity of expressing their views in confidence, if they so desire. These view's are taken fully into account, but the decision must be ours, and the other governments are not asked, and would not wish, to share the responsibility for it. Dominion governments follow the same practice.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to say:
This practice has been followed with regard to United Kingdom policy in India and Palestine.
I understand that on Monday the same answer was given to the hon. member for Broadview by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to a similar question.



PORK AND BEANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and I am sorry that

Inquiries of the Ministry
I did not send him notice of it. It arises out of a press dispatch which in my opinion casts considerable reflection upon his own good judgment. I should like him to comment upon this. The press dispatch bears the date line New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, June 3, and it appeared in today's Ottawa Journal. It states that the minister had sent a telegram to a branch of the Canadian Legion there to the effect that his department had refused permission to a firm which employs 60 people to go ahead with the processing and packing of pork and beans. This firm was previously packing chickens.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the hon. member that a question asked on the orders of the day should be to the point.


Clarence Gillis: I want to ask the minister if this press dispatch has been called to his attention and if it is true that in that telegram he refused a small industry which is particularly needed in the province, an industry which had been put out of business previously, permission to get back into business?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: A wire was sent to Mr. Fox who is president of the Legion in New Glasgow. A certain concern in New Glasgow, Topper Industries Limited, had obtained a permit to can chicken. They acquired a considerable quantity of seven ounce tin cans for that purpose. As the house knows, tin is in short supply and tin cans are strictly under allocation by the proper agency of the wartime prices and trade board. For one reason or another it was found that it was not commercially feasible to can and sell chicken, and an application was made to the board to use these cans for the purpose of putting up pork and beans. Permits for the canning of pork and beans have been strictly controlled for a number of years because of the shortage of tins and because of the large quantities of dried beans which we have to export to the United Kingdom. Manufacturers who were canning this particular product in 1941 have been held down to 60 per cent of their previous production and so far as I know no new canners have been allowed to go into this particular business. Everybody would like to go into the canning of pork and beans because there is a ready market and they can be easily sold, but there are not sufficient tins to enable that to be done. As I say, there has been considerable control over people putting up this particular product
and the wartime prices and trade board has had to refuse constantly applications of this kind.
There was no discrimination in this case.
I gave the matter careful personal consideration because I would have liked to have been able to ask to have this permission granted. However, I found that it could not be done after similar permission had been asked elsewhere and been refused. I have written to the gentleman in New Glasgow explaining the circumstances fully. That is the story. There has been no discrimination against this particular industry. I would have liked to see them get permission to do it, but it just could not be done. Incidentally, a seven ounce tin is not suitable for the canning of pork and beans.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the fact that the press statement states that this company has 400,000 tins on hand as well as the necessaiy beans and molasses? They claim that permission was refused because they were not doing business in 1941. They claim also that their chicken canning business went out of operation because they were refused an export permit.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have given an explanation. I went into the situation very carefully. I am fully aware of the circumstances, but the same claim could be made by dozens, or probably a hundred other canners throughout Canada. That is the situation. We cannot issue permits for the further canning of pork and beans for the reason I have given.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. G. ARCHIBALD (Skeena):: I
should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General of which I have given him notice. It arises from a telegram received this morning from Telegraph Creek, British Columbia. They have not received any of April's mail and no air mail has been received since April 1. Is there any way that the Post Office Department can speed up the delivery of this mail as it is essential to this summer's business?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: A copy of the question was given to me today in my office. I am making immediate inquiry and will answer later.
Penitentiary Act



MEAT RATIONING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. B. BARRETT (Norfolk):: I would ask the Minister of Finance if he is ready to answer a question I asked a few days ago regarding the suspension of meatless day regulations on July 1.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The matter is still being considered. I hope to be able to make a statement in a few days.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Before July 1?



PENITENTIARY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 3, consideration in committee of Bill No. 177, to amend the Penitentiary Act, 1939-Mr. Usley-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. JAENICKE:: I presume that General Gibson was appointed under the amendment to the act in 1945 and that he is to be the commissioner. Would the minister state the qualifications of the new commissioner already appointed?


Mr. ILSLEY:: No commissioner has
already been appointed.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Was he not appointed
under the amendment of 194ij?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Oh, yes.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I think we should know his qualifications.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is difficult to give a
complete statement of any person's qualifications. I do not know just what General Gibson's life history has been. He is a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Ontario. He practised law in Toronto, and he was in the army during the war, where he displayed, so far as my relations with him disclosed, excellent judgment and executive ability. I do not know what to say on the military side, of course, because I would not be qualified to judge, but he is a man who I think impresses everybody with his breadth of outlook and his good judgment. He has a certain humane and liberal type of mind.
I cannot say very much more than that. Those who have come in contact with him, the associations of Canadians who are

interested in criminology, penal reform and prisoners' aid, seem to think well of him and speak highly of him.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Was he engaged in an
actual theatre of war or was he retained in Canada in an administrative capacity, and if so, in what capacity?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am unable to answer that question. When I knew him he had a highly responsible position at national defence headquarters, but there again I cannot say what his executive responsibilities were. I came in contact with him from time to time, and I know he had a very responsible position there.


Mr. GREEN:: The minister yesterday made a short statement. If he will remember, when the resolution was up for consideration, he promised to make a statement about several different phases of this problem. For example, at page 2683 of Hansard he was asked:
Will the minister give us in some detail what his plan is for improving the penitentiary system ?
His answer was:
I think it would be more appropriate to do that at a later stage.
Again, at page 2686. he was asked about classification, segregation and after care, and in particular about the Borstal system. He said:
At a later stage I shall be prepared to discuss the Borstal system, and how far it is possible for the dominion government to do anything in the application of that system here in Canada. The whole problem is complicated by the division of responsibility between the federal and provincial governments, but probably it will not be impossible to apply certain features of the Borstal system, even in connection with some federal institutions.
At page 2687 he was asked how far the commissioner would be going in carrying out the recommendations that he had made in his report, and the minister replied that he would have to make a statement on that at a later day. There were also questions about calling a conference of the dominion and the provinces, and about giving aid to the prisoners' aid societies, and the minister said in respect to both these matters that he would make a statement later. Could he deal with these different, aspects of the problem today?


James Lorimer Ilsley: What I had in mind was doing it on the penitentiary estimates rather than on this bill. This is a simple bill, as I have said. The principle of this bill can be summed up in just a sentence or two. I would prefer to discuss most of those matters fur-

Penitentiary Act
ther with the commissioner after he has been appointed commissioner of penitentiaries. Thus far that is not his position. He has prepared a report which was placed on the table of the house, and in that report it is recommended that in due course the construction of an additional penal institution in the province of Quebec be proceeded with, where the principles of the Borstal system in so far as possible would be applied. The division of constitutional responsibility as I understand it is something like this. Under section 92 of the British North America Act gaols and reformatories in and for the province are under the jurisdiction of the province, and by section 91 penitentiaries are under the jurisdiction of the dominion. If the dominion were to construct and administer an institution which is not a penitentiary it would have to be one which would not come within the words "in and for a province." It would have to be an institution which extended to more than one province. Within these limitations it is thought that it would be possible to undertake the administration and control of reformatory institutions. I take it that these Borstal institutions could be described as reformatories; I do not think that they can properly be described as penitentiaries. Of course the situation is complicated by the fact that simply because the dominion may have the power to administer reformatories, provided the scope of their operation is extended to more than one province, it does not mean that they should do so if they are to duplicate the work of provincial institutions directed to a similar object. Therefore I am sure it would be necessary to work more closely in cooperation with the provinces.
The only institution as to which there is any degree of definiteness about the plans is the one mentioned for French-speaking convicts. I gather from what my hon. friend says that the province of Quebec is making plans for a reformatory institution. If there is a duplication there that is something which would have to be considered between the dominion and the provincial authorities so that we would not be covering the same ground.
With regard to the prisoners' aid societies, General Gibson came to the conclusion, after making a study of plans for after care, that the simple and probably the most practical plan for providing for that care was by financial assistance to prisoners' aid societies. From conversations with him my impression is that they are not far enough advanced; that is, they are not quite in a position to establish that their activities would be effective, that their activities are the kind of activities that we would want to assist them in financially.
When I say that the financial plans are indefinite I mean that the matter of finances, as I said before, has to be authorized by the governor in council and by the treasury board; but so far as I am concerned I would be disposed to accept and act on, as a very practical measure of advance, of progress, the report which I secured from General Gibson and which was placed before the house some time ago. Without reflecting upon the Archam-bault report, I think this report is a more practical one than the scheme for an over-all inclusive centralization and an elaborate organization. The Gibson report is the report that I think we should proceed on for the time being, and I would recommend that we do so.


Howard Charles Green: I notice that by section 1 of this bill there is to be added to section 2 of the Penitentiary Act the words "prison reformatories." I suppose that is because the department have in mind setting up the Borstal system.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think that is based upon the theory that we can deal only with penitentiaries. For the reasons that I have stated it may not be strictly true. It may be that we have jurisdiction also over penal institutions which are not penitentiaries, provided that they are not penal institutions in and for a province. I think this section is based upon the safer ground that we can administer only penitentiaries. This gives the governor in council power to designate certain prisons, prison reformatories and public institutions as penitentiaries.


Howard Charles Green: The minister thinks it would be impossible to establish the Borstal system without some arrangement having been made between the dominion and the provinces?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, I am sure that we could do that. Apart from any constitutional power we should do that for the purpose of avoiding duplication.


Howard Charles Green: Will the government be calling such a conference at an early date?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have in mind no plans for such a conference. My recollection is that some such conference is suggested in General Gibson's report, but there is another conference which it seems to me should be held first, namely, a conference of wardens which is recommended in the report. There has been no conference of wardens for a long time. I think it should be held at an early day.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I want to make one comment on the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South. Like him, I am disappointed that the
Penitentiary Act

minister has decided that more extensive remarks by him should be made when the estimates come up, and I venture to hope that we shall not find that it is hurried or crowded, because I do feel that we wrant what I might call a full dress speech from the minister on this subject. It is a matter in which a great many people in this country are interested, and a great many should be interested and will be interested if it is given the prominence that it should have.
There is one further comment that I should like to make. I share with the minister the feeling that General Gibson's report was a good one, but I suggest that it was a kind of appendix to the Archambault report, because it really took certain things out of the Archambault report as the immediate objective. I would hope that the result will not be that we accept the Gibson report and shove the other report in the background. I hope when the minister speaks that the people of this country will have from him what I submit we very much want, namely, a statement as to what the real attitude of the government is on this question and how earnestly it intends to press forward with the reform that has been so long recommended.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not want the house to expect too much from the minister on the estimates, or too much in the way of a blueprint, because the matter will have to be worked out by the commissioner, and I do not want the house to discount what has been done already. The report that we placed on the table in February covers a great many subjects. I think that I am going a considerable distance when I say that I am prepared to support the recommendations in the report. I do not know just how far I am expected to go on the estimates or how detailed I should be. Of course, I understand that the further I can go the better so far as giving information to the house is concerned; but I do not want the house to expect too much.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not trying to tie the minister to a lot of detail, but I really w'ant a statement from him as to the objectives which he is pursuing. We know that it cannot all be achieved over night.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I for one will be tremendously disappointed if the federal authorities cannot introduce in their penitentiaries some programme for the reclamation of what I called yesterday first offenders who are sent to the penitentiary-I am not referring now to persons committed to gaols in the provinces. The minister has not explained to me why the Borstal system canot be put into full operation 
for the reclamation of those who are sent to Kingston penitentiary for anywhere from two to five years. I cannot understand why it cannot be done. There has been a delay of about eight years in introducing this new programme. If nothing is going to come out of it in the way of reclamation of early prisoners-if first offenders is not the correct name-those who are sentenced to a penitentiary for the first time for two, three or four years, I shall be greatly disappointed. Did I understand the minister to say that such a programme cannot be introduced into the penitentiaries? It might necessitate one penitentiary being selected for that type of criminal. A conference of the provinces is not necessary.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think there are variations of this Borstal system. Some institutions are more restrictive than others. It is for offenders between sixteen and twenty-three years of age who have been convicted two or three times before. That is the type. That is what I read in the Archambault report.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is a long time ago; it is ten years ago.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is not too old. The system was in operation then, and that is the system. I believe first offenders are sent to a different type of reformatory. The hon. gentleman asks whether we can just pick out that class of offenders and, if they are sentenced to a long enough term, treat them in institutions set up for the purpose. After the matter was looked into it was thought that we could make a start on it in the province of Quebec; but if that province is itself setting up a similar type of institution perhaps we shall have to take that fact into account.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What I have in mind is the reclamation of a young man. He does not need to be twenty-one, nineteen or eighteen to commit a crime serious enough to be sentenced to a penitentiary for over two years; it may be for three or four years, depending on the offence. What are we going to do in this programme to reclaim these boys; those who have never been in prison before? They are there for the first time, but their crime *was sufficiently serious to necessitate their being sent to the penitentiary. They may have been convicted of armed robbery or something of that kind.


Mr. JEAN:: I think that is what is proposed to be done by the Gibson report. We propose to start in that way. But first offenders, if they are not sentenced to the penitentiary, are under provincial jurisdiction. In the province of Quebec there are reformatory

Penitentiary Act
institutions for those young offenders. As far as we are concerned here, we contemplate doing something for these young offenders, putting them in some other institution and beginning with the application of the Borstal system.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand from the hon. member that he is referring to some conv'ict who has been sentenced to the penitentiary for more than two years?


Joseph Jean: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is under the federal government.


Joseph Jean: Yes, that is under the federal government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall not pursue it further. I myself have visited a number of these prisons. What I suggest to the minister is that a competent official be sent forthwith to England with instructions to make a survey of all the prisons using the Borstal system. There you will find prisoners who are sentenced to more than two years, which are the type that go into our penitentiaries here.
Apart from that, I was going to ask two or three questions under (f). I presume all the instructors mentioned under (f), which include bakers, blacksmiths and so forth, are of the type we have now in our penitentiaries. Have we not all those now in our penitentiaries?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In connection with such employees may I ask the following questions? I am not particular whether I get an answer now or not. I will just read them as they are written out here:
1.	What, if any, are the civil service regulations respecting applicants for appointment to the civil service who have criminal records?
2.	If there are no such regulations, are such applicants accorded the same rights as others?
3.	Are applicants required to disclose whether they have criminal records; if so, for what purpose?
4.	What is the policy and practice in this respect in relation to government positions outside the Civil Service Act?
After all, somebody has to give jobs to those who are released from prison. I myself have spent many hours trying to find jobs for men who have been let out of different types of penal institutions. If they cannot get a job and an opportunity to earn their living, they will go back to what they were into before, or
worse. I have obtained many positions for men of that type, and the vast majority of them have made good.
I have asked four questions, but they do not need to be answered now.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am not in a position to answer those questions. I do not know what the rules of the civil service commission are.


John Ritchie MacNicol: An answer at some future time will suit me just as well.


Mr. IRVINE:: I have no doubt the Department of Justice is sincere in trying to improve our penal system. The whole question is whether the legislation now before us is going to effect any important improvement. I think the question asked by the hon. member for Kindersley requires a little more attention than the minister gave to it. It is not a question of the qualifications of General Gibson. I doubt whether any individual could possess all the qualifications required for the performance of the duties he will have to perform. No doubt he is a competent executive. No doubt he is an honest and able man. But he is not likely to be a psychiatrist, and he is not likely to be a philosopher. He is not likely to know a great deal about the social background from which crime emerges, and would not be in a position to make decisions either with respect to general policy or with respect to individuals who may come under his attention. I think it is important that there should be a commission rather than an individual, so that we may have represented on that commission all these important sciences and the whole question may be considered in its fullest scope. I think that is, in the main, what this legislation lacks. Has the minister given his last word with regard to enlarging that commission?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. That matter has been fully considered, both by myself and by the government, and we decided that this was the most efficient way in which to set the commission up.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: I understood the minister to contend that if a man is convicted and sentenced to less than two years, even under the criminal code, he must be sent to the provincial prison.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Surely we could establish our own prisons to which persons could be committed who had been found guilty of violations of the criminal code or some other federal law. I know we do nc t. wish to duplicate these prisons, but as far as the constitu-
Penitentiary Act

tional question is concerned, surely we could establish our own prisons for these people who are convicted under federal law. Is that not the true situation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: We could take the two year rule out? Is that what the hon. member means?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That if we wanted to we could amend the criminal code?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We could do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Commissioner.
Mr. McKAY:: As I understand it this section amends the Penitentiary Act, 1939, to provide for the appointment of a commissioner of penitentiaries and two deputy commissioners, who are to perform such duties as are assigned to them by the commissioner. In other words the commissioner is to be in complete charge of our penal institutions and the deputies, if I read the act correctly, are to be responsible to the commissioner and not to parliament. This change in the act of 1939 fails to follow the recommendations of the Arehambault royal commission, which suggested that a commission be set up in Canada similar to that which operates in Great Britain. There the prison commission is composed of a chairman and two commissioners, one of whom is an administrator while the other is a medical expert. Each member in turn is responsible to the British parliament for the work of his department, and is not responsible to the chairman of the commission. This section of our act leaves the responsibility of operating our penal system in the hands of one man. It is indeed a very heavy responsibility. At page 342 of the report of the royal commission to investigate the penal system of Canada I note the following comment:
In our present system the problem of penal administration is too large in scope and too serious in results to be left in the hands of one man.
The report made by that commission is considered by penologists to be an excellent piece of work. I am no authority on the subject, but I have read what others have said. These men were experts in their own fields. They must have been qualified or the government would not have appointed them in the first place. ' Their report was based on experience and information obtained by visiting penal institutions not only in Canada but

other countries as well. This amendment is based on the report of one man; that is, the present commissioner of penitentiaries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No, he did not recommend that the board be reduced to one man.


Eric Bowness McKay: That may be so, Mr. Chairman, but the fact remains that the Archam-bault commission did recommend that the penitentiary commission be set up on the lines of the commission in Great Britain. In view of that fact I feel that an attempt is being made here, as it has been made throughout this whole bill, to sidetrack the recommendations of the Arehambault commission; and I feel that any amendment to the Penitentiary Act should be in keeping with the recommendations of that commission, because I believe these men made a thorough study of the situation and spent a good deal of time on that study. I cannot conceive of one man devoting such a short time to the study of penal institutions and submitting to the minister a report which would be accepted so readily, unless there is some reason for it; and I suggest the reason is that the recommendations of the Arehambault royal commission did not meet with the approval of the government. Therefore I must register my protest against this contemplated change, and I shall certainly vote against it.


Mr. KIDD:: I should like to direct attention to subsection 4, which provides that the commissioner and the deputy commissioners shall be paid such salaries as are approved by the governor in council. I am not so much interested in the salaries of the heads of the branch, and then working down; I would like to start at the bottom and work up. I have in mind the junior officials of the penitentiary branch. I hold in my hand a copy of the Gibson report, in which at page 9 I find this statement:
As a result of increases granted by the government in 1945 and the recent incorporation of the cost of living bonus in the permanent salaries of the lower brackets, the pay of prison guards now has a range of $1,704-$2,004 per annum.
Then listen to this:
There has not, however, been a proportionate increase in the middle and higher ranges of salaries of penitentiary employees, and in your commissioner's opinion a revision of salary rates is necessary to extend to these groups a similar proportionate increase and to provide a rate of remuneration that will attract to and retain in the service the necessary qualified senior officers, professional personnel and trade instructors required for the efficient administration of the penitentiaries and the carrying out of the reforms contemplated by the royal commission's report. This recommendation has already been submitted for consideration in con-

Judges Act
nection with the survey of salaries in the government service now' being carried out by officials of the treasury board.
Can the right hon. gentleman inform the committee whether those recommendations have been put into effect?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think they have, but I am not sure. The salary scale now is as follows. An officer entering the penitentiary service as a guard now receives an initial salary of $1,740 per annum, rising by annual increases to $2,040, as compared with a range of $1,200 to $1,500 prior to 1945. Provision has been made for a higher grade of guard, representing twenty per cent of the total, who may receive salaries up to $2,280 per annum. A corresponding increase for all grades of the service has been authorized. For example, keepers now range from $2,220 to $2,580; chief keepers from $2,700 to $3,300; instructors from $2,100 to $2,580; chief trade instructors from $2,700 to $3,300; deputy wardens from $3,600 to $4,500, and wardens from $4,800 to $6,000. These new rates came into effect from January 1, 1947.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: What date was that put into effect?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They came into effect as from January 1, 1947, and they were put into effect by order in council P.C. 66/1050 of March 22, 1947.


Mr. TUSTIN:: Has there been any change in the hours of labour of these guards? They used to be on two shifts, and I wondered if that had been changed to three shifts.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to get that information for the hon. gentleman and give it to him on the penitentiary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Application of Civil Service Act.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to congratulate the minister on the fact that subsection (1) of section 13 provides that the provisions of the Civil Service Act shall apply to all officers, clerks and employees on the staff of the commission. Of late all our acts have not given the civil service commission the right to make the lower appointments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: To be fair I think the congratulations are due my predecessor, because that was a provision of the act formerly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I observe that there is a definite difference 83166-241
between subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 13. They read:
. . . the provisions of the Civil Service Act shall apply to all officers, clerks and employees on the staff of the commissioner.
(2) The provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act shall apply to the commissioner, deputy commissioner, assistant commissioners and all officers, clerks and employees employed in the penitentiaries.
In one instance the act applies only to the staff of the commissioner, whereas in the other instance the superannuation act applies to everyone connected with the matter.


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Transfer of convicts to reformatory.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the significance of this section?


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is nothing new in it. I -would have to look into the Penitentiary Act to give a full answer. This amendment simply substitutes the word "commissioner" for "commissioners".


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
* Sections 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to change the title of the Superior Court judge in and for the province of Quebec, who is appointed to perform the duties of the Chief Justice in the district as constituted for the Court of King's Bench sitting in appeal within which the chief justice does not reside. Montreal or Quebec, as the case may be, to "The Associate Chief Justice"; and to provide a salary for an additional judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Chairman, some members have asked for an explanation. The first part of the resolution is rendered necessary by a recent change in the statutes of Quebec which provides for the appointment of an associate chief justice in that province. Until that amendment was passed by the Quebec legislature in 1946 there was an acting chief justice

Judges Act

in that province. Now the acting chief justice is to be known as the associate chief justice.
There are two districts, the Quebec district and the Montreal district. If the chief justice resides in one district, the acting chief justice is appointed to reside in the other district. Under this provision the acting chief justice is to be called the associate chief justice. There is no difference in the pay he is to receive under this legislation, beyond that which he received before. This measure simply makes our legislation conform with that in Quebec.
The second part of the resolution is to provide the salary for an additional supreme court judge in British Columbia. Strong representations have been made that another judge is required in that province. While these representations are made often, and are not confined to British Columbia, and while I hope every minister of justice will be hard to convince when he receives these representations, I have been convinced that an additional judge is badly needed in British Columbia.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Is this judge in British Columbia to be a judge of the trial division?
Mr. IiLSLEY: Yes.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: How many judges have they there now?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I was under the impression that there were five, and that this would make six; but the hon. member for Vancouver South informs me they have six, and this will make seven.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Are there any British Columbia judges engaged on commissions or boards at the present time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am sure there are no trial judges so engaged, and I do not think any appeal judges are either.


Howard Charles Green: Has this been asked for by British Columbia?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, it has been urged by the chief justice and the attorney general of the province. Upon inquiry, the need has been confirmed. I may say it is common for provinces to ask for enlargements of their courts. The moneys are provided by the dominion parliament. I am not saying that that is a relevant factor; but if there is much demand for an additional judge it is fairly easy to request the dominion government to appoint another one. That is why I say that in a great many oases the demand for enlargement of provincial courts is resisted.
This is not the only place where additional judges are asked for. But I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that this is the only place where there should be an enlargement of the court-at least during the present session.


Howard Charles Green: I think the legislature passed an amendment to the Supreme Court Act providing for an additional judge. There has been a tremendous growth in the population of the province.


Eric Bowness McKay: Have any other provinces
a similar position of associate chief justice?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not know of any.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Rightly or wrongly,
the general public are of the opinion that at present judges are able to attend to their duties without any great strain upon their health. In Saskatchewan, for example, Mr. Justice Davis has been absent for a great length of time. Can the minister satisfy the committee that the situation in British Columbia is such that there is a reasonable demand from the members of the bench that additional personnel should be provided?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is difficult to settle the
question whether there is real need for another judge, but in the case of British Columbia I have had letter after letter from the chief justice of the trial division and I have a considerable volume of correspondence with the attorney general. It would only tire the committee if I put -all the facts on the record that have been put forward in support of this request. There is no objective test that you can apply to determine whether there is a need. The proportion of judges to the population or the proportion of judges to the members of the bar and so on is not a correct test to apply. A certain proportion may be proper for one province and not proper for another. There is really nothing you can do except to inquire and find out whether they really need one. In this case we have an abundance of material which I can show to my hon. friend if he would like to see it. It consists of long lists of cases, information as to when they will be reached and what will have to be done if they are to keep within a mile of transacting the necessary business. Rightly or wrongly, I have been convinced that one is really needed in British Columbia.


William Irvine: In view of the immigration
from Saskatchewan and other provinces to British Columbia I have no doubt that we do need one or two more trial judges to look after the extra business. One way of arriving

Judges Act
at the need would be to give us some idea of the number of trials which each judge *conducts each term, how long each trial lasted, and so on. I wonder where the new judge will reside. Will it be in Cariboo, for example? We ought to have a new judge up there, because it is a long way from Victoria or Vancouver and there is a tremendous country to cover.


James Lorimer Ilsley: He will probably reside in Vancouver or Victoria and then go out on circuit. Speaking for my own province, I know that is the system. No matter from what part of the province the judge may be appointed, he resides in Halifax and then goes out through the province.
Mr. CRUICIvSHANK: Will the minister consider appointing the hon. member for Vancouver South?-because that would be a good way to get rid of him.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister has not been very long in the department but I should like to call his attention to a great injustice that exists in Ontario as compared with our very fine sister province with regard to judges' titles, style of work done, volume of work done and so on. The senior judge of the county of York, His Honour Judge Parker, has seven or eight judges under him. He is doing the same type of high court work as the judges in Quebec and Montreal district are doing, but there is a difference in the title and the salaries paid. I should like the minister to see if something cannot be done about Judge Parker. He is handling a volume of work which is similar to that done in the Montreal district where the judges have higher title and salary, as well as other emoluments. I ask the minister to consider my observations and see what can be done. Judge Parker was a very fine lawyer and he has given excellent satisfaction. Other hon. members know all about his work and comparisons are made in the bar association about it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman is talking about county court judges in Ontario. I shall look at his remarks tomorrow in Hansard and if I think they make a prima facie case for an inquiry to somebody, of course I shall be glad to make it.


Thomas Langton Church: There are anomalies there that should be looked into and corrected.


Mr. HACKETT:: 
James Lorimer Ilsley: The legislature passed legislation providing for the appointment of an associate chief justice. Previous to the legislation the provision was for the appointment of a judge to perform the duties of the chief justice, and I think he was called the acting chief justice. Hereafter he will be called the associate chief justice. Our amendment will provide for his compensation in such a way as to conform with provincial legislation.


John Thomas Hackett: It is merely to provide for the payment of salary to the judge who is described in the amendment,


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is true.


John Thomas Hackett: out taking into consideration any of the incidental emoluments of office, and in those days there was no income tax. I merely point that out to show that, in the land where justice is dispensed in a way that all peoples admire, judges have been well paid and for that reason I was happy some months ago to support legislation to increase the salaries of the judges.
Turning to British Columbia we must be guided. I suppose, by the information which the minister has as to the necessity of appointing an additional judge for that province. I wish, however, that the minister could assure the committee that this judge and the judges in the other provinces are required for work that is strictly judicial. In my opinion the tendency of the last few years has been to use judges for the solution of problems which are not, in their nature, judicial but highly political, and in my view that has tended to lessen the respect and confidence of the people at large in the judiciary. That is a great misfortune, and if I have found it necessary to express these views more than once in the house it is because of my intimate knowledge of the situation and because of my conviction of the degrading tendency that this practice has upon the good repute of the individual judge and of the bench of which he forms part. My remarks have as their sole object to preclude any further use of judges as part of committees or -commissions dealing with other than legal problems, because the rule of law depends largely for its efficacy upon the respect and confidence which the people repose in the 'bench.
To be altogether objective. I must refer to -what is called the spy case. Two judges of our highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, were asked to act as commissioners. Their appointment denatured them as judges. They ceased to exercise judicial functions. They were put at tasks which were not judicial. I think the minister is familiar with what is known as the O'Connor case. O'Connor when acting as a commissioner did something which was reprehensible and I believe that the highest tribunal, the privy council, found that in that instance he was acting as a persona designate. Certain immunities went with the .task, but it goes to show that there is a distinction between the role of the judge and rthe role of the man who acts, as these two -gentlemen did; when they presided oyer the spy investigation. We have heard these men criticized; and again I say that I do not wish to be critical of the government in that particular instance. We were just emerging from a war; we were not accustomed to spies in [DOT].this country. More is known of them in
JMr. Hackett.]
older and more developed countries. The government appointed these two men to that task. I do not blame them, They accepted what they undoubtedly conceived to be a call to duty; nevertheless the fact is that two judges of our highest court have been criticized bitterly. They have not been criticized by irresponsible people; they have been criticized by the press of the country; they have been criticized from the pulpits of the country and-I do not know whether the minister is aware of it-they have been criticized from the bench of the country, from the appeal benches of at least two provinces.
It is extremely unfortunate that a condition should be created in which men who hold such important positions, whose impartiality and integrity must at all times be beyond reproach, should be so criticized. It is because of the practice of setting them tasks which are not judicial that this criticism has come about, and the result has been, and must necessarily be. a loss of dignity, loss of confidence, loss of respect by the individuals themselves as well as by the bench of which they form a part.
Let us suppose that one of the men or women was found-I do not know that I should say guilty, but as a result of the finding of these two judges, was prosecuted and was later found guilty-and the case went, as many of them have, to an appellate tribunal, and there was a further appeal to the supreme court. There is an appeal to the supreme court, but it is a limited one. I ask, hon. gentlemen, what would be the feeling of a person so accused finding himself before the supreme court? I am certain that neither of these honourable judges would sit upon the case. Nevertheless their brethren, those who labour with them and who have respect for their feelings, for their integrity and for their wisdom, would be called upon to determine a case on which two of their brother judges had already pronounced themselves. To admit this possibility establishes that the practice is indefensible.
A few days ago when the hon. member for Winnipeg North was making some comment, which I thought was most unfortunate, on the conduct of these gentlemen I had something to say on this topic. An attempt was made to stop the hon. gentleman because he was exceeding his privileges as a member of parliament. I besought the hon. gentleman to desist from further criticism, but I was forced to argue that he had the right to say what he was saying, and I doubt whether any Speaker could, after consideration, hold otherwise. Nevertheless a few days afterwards another gifted and able member of the supreme court was appointed to a committee

Judges Act
whose task is the hearing and the determination of one of the most highly political questions that has tortured this country in the last century. I yield to no one in my respect of Mr. Justice Rand, but I consider it a tragedy that he should be lifted out of his judicial office and asked to participate in an investigation and settlement of a political question. Whatever the decision, he cannot return to his judicial function without some people believing, and unfortunately some people saying that he has been influenced by this or that motive, that he has sided with this or that political faction. It is not fitting such sentiment or words should be provoked by a judge.
In Canada we have not many institutions that have not been shaken by the events of the last few years. Our civilization, like all civilizations, rests on great institutions: the Christian home, the school, the church and the law, and they have all been very much manhandled in the last few years. The result is that civilization has crumbled in many parts of Europe and in many parts of the world. Even if we did nothing more than expose one of these fundamental institutions to weakness by the appointment of members of the judiciary to duties which are beyond their scopes, it seems to me that the hazard is too great to be taken by a responsible government. It is clear that the hon. gentlemen who have appointed judges to these tasks do not share my view. Can it be that their present occupations are so manifold, that they are so remote from the common touch that they do not appreciate to what extent this great institution of the law is jeopardized and imperilled by the action which has become the habit in the last few years?
I have said previously that other governments have appointed judges to perform tasks of this kind. I thought it reprehensible then. The courts did not benefit by it, and a number of judges still suffer as a result of services which they rendered off the bench.
I am going to appeal again to the Minister of Justice, with whom I cannot always agree hut for whom I have immeasurable respect, to consider most carefully the result of discrediting the judiciary. We cannot afford to do it at this time. The rule of law has never been so seriously challenged as it is today. If we cannot, here in Canada, maintain the fullest confidence in our judiciary, we are heading for unnecessary evils. We have all kinds of difficulties. I know the government has to meet as many complicated and seemingly insoluble problems as any government that has ever occupied the treasury benches.
While it is the function of the opposition to criticize and endeavour to improve administration, this is a matter which really transcends politics. I ask the government to desist from this practice. We have labour troubles, financial difficulties, and problems of great variety. I cannot help feeling that the appointment of judges to solve all these problems does not rest solely on the fact that all the able men in Canada are on the bench. I cannot believe that. But I do believe that the great reputation of the judiciary-the confidence the public has in its members-has prompted the government at times to shield itself from criticism by naming a judge to such a commission.
Again I say to the Minister of Justice that I have not heard many judges approve this practice; I have not heard many lawyers approve it and I have not heard many people who understood it thoroughly approve it. If another judge in British Columbia be required for the purpose of administering justice, let him be appointed; but. let us keep him within the ambit of his judicial function, and let us terminate once and for all the submission to members of the judiciary of questions which are not legal and which do not come within the proper performance of their duties.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was going to say a word with regard to the appointment of the additional judge in British Columbia, but I think the hon. member for Cariboo has said pretty much what I would have said, namely, that the only criterion which can apply as to whether there are sufficient judges is the amount of court work that is behind schedule, as we might say. If cases are being held for a long time without coming to trial, or if judges are overworked in the matter of trials, then, of course, a case could be made out for the appointment of an additional judge. However, the decision to appoint one has been made by the present Minister of Justice, and I do not know of anyone less likely to give way to pressure than the right hon. gentleman. I have come to that conclusion from watching him resist pressure in this house over a long period of time. Therefore I have no misgivings on that point.
I know it is presumptuous on my part to say anything in regard to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Stanstead, but I think it would be a retrograde step for the
Judges Act

government to take if it were to decide that members of the judiciary should not function as commissioners in certain instances.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hear, hear. They have done it in Britain for hundreds of years.


John Thomas Hackett: That is where you are wrong.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, I am not wrong. I can prove that you are wrong about that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Jacob and Esau.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Angus MacInnis: Whether a mistake was made in appointing judges in the espionage investigations is open to question, and I am not expressing any opinion in regard' to it. It is a case of a kind which I think has never before arisen in this country. From my association with the labour movement over a long period of time, I believe that organized labour has, in general, more confidence in a judge as chairman of a board than it would have in any person from almost any other walk of life. Generally speaking, I think the judges have, in the discharge of these special duties, given satisfaction and have done so without affecting their position as judges. I am afraid that the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Stanstead-who is, I may tell him, a man for whom I have the greatest respect-is old-fashioned. I do not think it is wise today to keep the judiciary separate from what we might call the hurly-burly of everyday life because they are not just dispensing law; they are dispensing justice. It may be justice according to the law, but I think it should be justice as far as they can go, even if they went beyond the law. However I imagine that is not good law.


Mr. WEIR:: It is common sense.


Angus MacInnis: If you keep the judges apart from the ordinary, everyday interests and trials of the people, how are they to acquire the understanding to make just decisions in the cases which come before them? Judges I believe, follow precedents in cases which have gone before, no matter whether those decisions were right or wrong. I do not think that is good enough. I think it would be a great mistake if this government took any action which would prevent judges from acting on commissions where their position carries weight. I think that is so for the very reasons advanced by the hon. member for Stanstead. When they are appointed to the bench judges are given a reasonable standard of living; they

are given security; they are given a standing in the community, and it is a lifetime appointment. Consequently when a judge is made chairman of a commission, or a commissioner, he can act without any hope of reward from the outside or any fear of punishment from the inside. So I think we should consider carefully before we change that situation.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I wish to make a few comments on this resolution. First, I want to say I am pleased that provision is being made for the appointment of another judge in British Columbia. I remember that this matter came up when I was in the provincial house, and some three or four years ago the former attorney general told me of the great need for another judge in that province. I think anyone who has followed the work of the courts there is aware of the need for another judge in British Columbia; and in this case, as the hon. member for Vancouver East suggested, I think the Minister of Justice resisted pressure for a considerable time.
I was very much interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Stanstead as to the use of members of the judiciary on arbitrations and so on. To some extent I agree with the spirit of his remarks; I can see the point in some of his arguments, but I do not believe you can make a fixed, general rule in these matters. Over a period of years I have had occasion to act on behalf of labour on several quite important arbitration boards in British Columbia, in connection with shipyards and so on, which dealt with difficult and, at times, trying situations. In that case I may say I went straight from the farm to represent labour, without any former experience in that regard. All hon. members know, when arbitration boards are appointed the representative of the employers and the representative of the employees are supposed to meet and agree on a chairman; otherwise I understand the chairman is appointed by the Minister of Labour. In the first place, of course it is necessary to have someone who has some knowledge of the rules of evidence, someone who can be of assistance to laymen in directing the work of the inquiry. I was quite surprised to find that in each case with which I was directly connected organized labour expressed great satisfaction over being able to secure a judge as chairman of the tribunal. I remember one board on which I served; I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will remember the shipyards case, with which it dealt. We agreed on one of the judges, who was appointed chairman. Those negotiations went on over a period of three months, under conditions which at times were difficult and trying. I was inter-

Judges Act
ested to note that at first many of the representatives of labour and members of unions were inclined to look upon the representative of the judiciary as someone apart, someone possibly not quite human. But as the arbitration went on I saw that they became impressed with his fairness, and their confidence in the impartial attitude of the judiciary was greatly increased.
So in my view, far from the appointment of judges to boards of arbitration and things of that kind lowering their position or lessening the respect felt by people generally for the judiciary, my experience has been that, during recent times by these rather unusual contacts with the judiciary, such appointments have brought about increased respect for members of the bench on the part of representatives of labour and others throughout this country. Many of the men engaged in these investigations were not Conservative, to say the least, in their politics, but they expressed to me their confidence in and appreciation of the work done by these gentlemen. So, while I am sure none of us would wish to see members of the judiciary used for these purposes too extensively, I am also sure that under certain conditions in this country it is necessary and to the advantage of the parties concerned and the community at large that the services of these gentlemen be made available. To that extent I believe it would heighten respect throughout this country for the members of the judiciary.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to speak on the
amendment to the Judges Act, 1946, which provides for the appointment of an additional judge in British Columbia. Under the British North America Act, the provinces have responsibility for the organization of these courts. The year before last Ontario had two additional judges appointed. In my opinion the Judges Act should be revised and brought up to date. It was first passed a very long time ago and. with the exception of minor changes, has not been revised since about the time the Supreme Court Act was passed in 1875.
I want to point out that the work of the provincial courts has been greatly increased, largely as a result of legislation passed by this parliament. For example, there is the matter of divorce. Immediately that act was passed Ontario applied for two or three more high court judges, and their salaries have to be paid by the dominion government. Some of the judges have been sick; others have been away on commissions. When Saskatchewan applied for an additional judge we found that one of those already appointed
had been away on commissions practically all his time. Some change should be made in that regard.
Then all the judges appointed under this act are governed by the doctrine of stare decisis, which means by decisions of the privy council or court of last resort; but in one province they have not followed that law. There will always be a privy council, notwithstanding the bill introduced here the other day, because that legislation binds only the dominion. It does not bind the provinces, which can give the right to appeal direct to the king as a matter of grace. These privy council appeals are by statute or by grace, and the subject has always had the right to appeal to the throne as a matter of grace. That, of course, is not to the judicial committee of the privy council, which is delegated by the sovereign to hear such appeals.
Great care should be exercised in connection with these matters. In the United States they are having the same trouble. In that country, once you are sworn in as a lawyer you are immediately called "judge." You may not be a judge today, but probably you will be one tomorrow, so down there everyone who is a lawyer is called a judge. I would like the minister, in considering judicial appointments, not to make them from a purely political point of view. Sir John A. Macdonald often appointed people from the other side, and he made some very good appointments. It is difficult to get some of the judges who are appointed to carry on the work. We have twelve high court judges on circuit in Ontario, some of whom have not been out on circuit as much as others or are sick or at times on commissions. As a result, the work devolves on a few of the more experienced judges, so I suggest to the minister that great care should be exercised in these appointments. I do not believe it would be necessary to have these additional judges if the Judges Act were brought up to date and consolidated, which I hope may be done in the recess and divorces transferred. I believe divorce cases could be handled by the county court judges wdth better results, since they meet more frequently, and that would take a great deal of the work away from our high court judges and prevent congestion of cases. I believe the minister should consider these suggestions, because he has been most appreciative of any suggestions made.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There was some confusion a while ago about the present number of supreme court judges in British Columbia. I said there were five, and the number was being increased to six. The hon. member for Vancouver

Judges Act
South said there were six. In a sense we were both right. I find there are five judges and a chief justice at the present time. After this amendment, we shall have to make provision for paying six puisne judges and the chief justice.


Mr. KNOWLES:: I should like to ask a question respecting judges in the category of those mentioned in the resolution. My question has to do with the matter of fixing for them a retirement age. This matter has been discussed in the house on a number of occasions. In fact I had a bill on the order paper during a number of sessions in an effort to focus attention on the matter.
I understand there are arrangements for the retirement of judges of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the exchequer court, and also for the retirement of judges in the lower courts. But in this middle bracket of provincial superior court judges there are no such arrangements. The minister's predecessor expressed interest in having something done about this matter at the earliest possible day.
My concern is not that judges get munificent pensions, but rather that men shall not stay on the bench to too advanced ages. I would appreciate it if the minister would indicate whether consideration is now being given to this matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a question of privilege. I made a statement in committee a few minutes ago when the hon. member for Stanstead was speaking as to the practice in England. I find in this book about ten instances where most eminent lord justices in England were chairmen of commissions. So I wish to state that I was correct in my earlier statement.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: What is the name of the book?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: "Royal Commissions of Inquiry."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister answer my question as to whether the consideration his predecessor was to give with respect to the retirement of judges will be continued by him?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am in the embarrassing position of having to say that I cannot inform the hon. member respecting the state of the law in that particular. However I have always understood that parliament did not have the power to retire judges of the high courts and superior courts of the provinces at any particular age. It is my understanding that such a change would require an amendment to the British North America Act. However I cannot substantiate what I say by offering any

argument this afternoon. My understanding is, however, that because of the attitude of certain provinces it was virtually hopeless to get any such amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the matter was discussed at the time the minister's predecessor was in office, reference was made to section 100 of the British North America Act. The previous minister raised the same question, but he thought there was a possibility of doing what was suggested, and indicated that he was prepared to discuss the matter with the provinces.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 262, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act to authorize the payment of a salary to the registrar of the court not exceeding six thousand five hundred dollars as the governor in council may fix.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: The Exchequer Court Act provides that the registrar of that court shall receive a salary of $5,000. The purpose of the resolution is to provide for the payment of a higher salary of not more than $6,500. It is the view of the government that, at $5,000, the pay is low, and is not comparable with the compensation paid in positions involving similar responsibility and similar amounts of work elsewhere in the government service.


Howard Charles Green: May I bring to the minister's attention a request which has been made by the bar of British Columbia, for setting up in that province a registry office of the exchequer court, and for the appointment of a deputy registrar. They also ask that one of the four judges be stationed on the west coast.
As was stated earlier this afternoon, there has been a great increase in population in British Columbia, and in the legal business transacted in that province. At the present time it is particularly awkward and difficult to have cases tried by the exchequer court. In normal practice the court sits on the west coast only once a year. This means that if a case is of an urgent nature, counsel and witnesses must come to Ottawa to have it

Exchequer Court Act
heard. There is also the difficulty of having to file all the documents with the registrar here in Ottawa. I believe the request by the British Columbia bar is a reasonable one.
Has the minister given consideration to setting up a registry office at the coast, providing for a deputy registrar there and providing also that one of the judges shall live on the west coast? I can understand the reason for the present provision that the judges must reside in Ottawa when there were only two judges, but now that there are four it should be possible to decentralize the work of the court more than is being done at the present time. Our province, because of its remoteness from Ottawa, is not getting fair treatment under the present arrangement, and I would ask the minister to give consideration to meeting this request.


William Henry Golding: I would request hon. members again to deal with the resolution. The resolution is a simple one, reading as follows:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act to authorize the payment of a salary to the registrar of the court not exceeding six thousand five hundred dollars as the governor in council may fix.
The suggesting of setting up courts and all that kind of thing may develop an argument along lines which would be foreign to this resolution. I believe hon. members are anxious to get along with the business of the house, and if they will cooperate with the chair and confine their remarks to the resolution or the item before the committee I believe we shall make better progress.


Howard Charles Green: With all due deference, I would point out that this resolution deals with the registrar of the court, and my question had to do with the setting up of a registry office on the Pacific coast and having a deputy registrar there. I am sure both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General will agree with me when I submit that I was entirely in order in asking that question. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you are interpreting the resolution in a much too narrow fashion.


William Henry Golding: The chairman is always in the hands of the committee, but I believe it is the duty of the chairman to direct discussion along the proper lines. I cannot agree with my hon. friend, but as I say I am in the hands of the committee. If the committee will support the chair in trying to keep to the items before the committee, I repeat that I believe we shall make better progress.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not think we need to discuss this very much. The hon. gentleman wants to request publicly that this step be taken. The same request has been made by other members from British Columbia, and my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has forwarded to me requests and representations that have been made in British Columbia. I am quite content to give the matter more study than I have been able to give it up to the present time. I would point out that this is quite a departure in the organization of the Exchequer Court of Canada, because British Columbia is just one degree removed from the other provinces, and certainly the same request would be made by the maritime provinces and probably by the prairie provinces. The first thing you know we would have a different kind of court from the one we have at the present time. I would hope it will not be necessary to take that important step.


John Thomas Hackett: Is there a retirement allowance attaching to the position of registrar?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I cannot reply with absolute certainty, but I feel sure the position is subject to superannuation.


John Thomas Hackett: The registrar at the
present time receives a lesser remuneration than that of county court judges, for instance.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Y es, but the registrar is not a judge.


John Thomas Hackett: He has quasi judicial functions.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Possibly so. His salary is not as great as that received by the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, although the work is fully as great and perhaps greater. Nevertheless there is a difference in the status of the two courts.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I should like to remind the committee that for a number of years the Minister of Justice was concerned about maintaining price ceilings and keeping down wages. While the sum involved is not large, there is an increase of thirty per cent. Now that negotiations are under way to have increases all across the country, it is important to know why the government is presenting a special bill to provide a sizeable increase. Could the minister indicate something of the qualifications of the registrar and the nature of his duties which makes it imperative to bring in this sort of legislation at this time?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall have to send for the Exchequer Court Act in order to get the

Fisheries Research Board

qualifications, and it is a question whether my hon. friend should expect me to do that. He could have looked at the act and found out what the registrar does.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How about his qualifications?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The registrar, Mr. Henry, is an excellent man, and I think he is known to nearly all members of parliament because he has been in the public service for a great many years.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 263, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act to provide for the election of a vice-chairman, the appointment of an executive director who Bhall be the secretary of the board, and for the employment of such scientific, technical and other officers and employees as may be necessary for the proper performance of the board's work; and for the emoluments, salary or remuneration, as the case may be, of such officers and employees, also for the application to them of the Civil Service Superannuation Act as well as of the benefits enjoyed by civil servants.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister going to
give an explanation?


Mr. BRIDGES:: Mr. Chairman, I might
briefly outline the object of the resolution. It is intended to provide in the bill to follow, first of all, for the election of a vice-chairman to act in the absence of the chairman. At a recent meeting the chairman was ill and we found that we had no statutory authority for a vice-chairman. The second and most important amendment is the selection by the governor in council of one of the members of the board from the Department of Fisheries to be the administrative officer and secretary of the board. The need for this position has arisen from the enlargement of the scope of the board's work and from the necessity of having a responsible officer to supervise and administer the work of the board. This officer, being a member of the department,

would effectively provide the essential liaison between the department and the board. The third amendment is to authorize the board, subject to the approval of the minister, to employ the scientific, technical and other personnel necessary for the work of the board. Since its inception, the board, with the approval of the minister, has employed any personnel required for its work. The authority to do this under the existing act is not considered sufficiently clear, and the bill is intended to cure this deficiency. Another amendment provides for the continuation of the benefits under the Civil Service Superannuation Act and all benefits, except salary', of a civil servant who might be employed by the board; as, for example, in the case of the administrative officer of the board, to be selected by the governor in council from the members of the department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: How many inspectors will
the board have to employ?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: I have not the exact
figures in front of me as to the number of personnel, but we operate experimental and biological stations across Canada. The most important part of the whole bill is that which provides that some one person is to have the position of executive director of the board. In the past there has been no one person devoting his full time to the work of the fisheries research board as a whole throughout Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was under the
minister's guidance before?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes. I could take time
to give the constitution of the board but perhaps that might be saved for discussion later.


Mr. PEARKES:: Is it the intention to refer this bill after second reading to the fisheries committee?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: Yes.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I am a little confused
over a certain point. Each year we vote so much for research on the west coast and so much for the east coast. Will expenditures such as that come under this board and the money be allocated through the board, or will it be voted and appropriated by the house as before?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: There will be no change
so far as that is concerned. The vote will go through the house in the same manner as it has in the past.
' Mr. MacNICOL:	The vice-chairman will
not receive a salary, will he?

Canadian National Railways


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: No.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Will the west coast get an equal grant with the east coast for research?


Hedley Francis Gregory Bridges: The amount of money is
spent through the various stations, and when the estimates come before the house my hon. friend will be able to see whether or not the west coast is getting its share.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bridges thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 264, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (for Mr. Abbott) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways and for the issue of securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada in respect of such refunding to an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $200,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Mr. MAYHEW:: Mr. Chairman, the bill based on this resolution is to provide for the refunding of Canadian National Railway securities in the years 1947 to 1954. The last refunding act was passed in 1944 for the same amount, namely $200,000,000. Canadian National Railway bonds that mature and are callable up to the end of 1954 total $221,304.943.61. The procedure outlined in the bill for meeting these maturities is either by refunding issues or by way of loan from the government. Since the outbreak of the war, only one railway issue, that of January 2. 1947, has been sold to the public. Other maturing issues have been met by loans from the government. The January 2, 1947, issue consisted of $50,000,000 twenty-year bonds at 2? per cent and was sold at 100-68, to yield 2-7 per cent. The resolution provides for the renewal of these loans.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Of course it is desirable that this refunding should be done. The only question I wish to raise is as to giving authority for refunding operations for the next five, six or seven years. You may argue: Why not do it because it is only giving authority which will not be abused? On the other hand. I myself cannot 83166-2424
see why we should now give authority extending over several years. I notice that in the railway committee the question was asked whether the reason why this authority should be given was that it was proposed to take advantage of the present low interest rates and go out and get the money, but the official of the company said no. I quote from page 149 of the report of proceedings, where he said:
We shall only issue new securities as of the date the old securities maturing are called. We will not secure funds in advance of need.
I am not making any comment as to whether or not it is wise; whether they would be well advised to go out and get $200 million now. There are complications in the way of it and I think reasons given against it may be quite valid. I do not criticize that. The point I wish to make is this. It seems to me a free and easy way of dealing with this matter, to give authority now which is to extend over five or six or seven years. If I am asked what difficulties can arise I confess quite frankly that I find it difficult to answer that. There may be changes in rates of interest. There may be reasons why this refunding later on may not appear as desirable as it is now. The minister may well say that if that occasion should arise, do I not think the railway officials are as competent as anyone to deal with it? My answer would be that they are very competent indeed. Nevertheless I can see no reason for it at the moment. By looking at page 149 of the report, I observe that there are only some $45 million callable as early as 1948. There are two amounts of $25 million and $20 million. Then there is a large issue which is callable in 1949 and another in 1950.
Without labouring the point further. I raise the question, first of all, whether it is necessary to do it. It seems simple to come along next year and bring in another resolution to give another authority. That is very simple indeed. We have to do that, of course, in connection with the amounts which are to be raised for extensions and improvements. That is done as a matter of course each year. I suggest to the committee that this is an unnecessary free and easy way of giving wide-open authorities to authorize $200 million now, when actually up to the end of 1948, if my reading is correct, only $45 million is necessary.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I can give the dates on which these moneys mature. The hon. gentleman is right; in 1948. $20 million mature. The callable date is February 1, 1948. On February 15, 1948, the amount callable is $25 million; on October 1, 1949. the amount callable is $57,728,500; again on Feb-
Canadian National Railways

ruary 1, 1950, $17,338,000, and on April 2, 1950, $798,055.48. I can give the table if the committee desires it. Some $86,980,000 is payable in Canada; $2,607,443.61 payable in London and $8,629,000 payable in New York; payable in Canada, London or New York, $123,088,500. I would think it would be advisable to leave the government in a position to use its own judgment as to when it was the best time to call these moneys because of the condition of the market.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to labour the -point unduly. I observe that the minister is not in the house. I wonder whether this could be held over for the minister to consider it. I realize that precedent is against -me. I realize that measures of this kind are brought in to cover several years; therefore the practice has obtained in the past. I question whether there is any need of authorizing these huge unnecessary amounts. I question whether it would -not be sensible to deal with the requirements, say to the end of 1948. Therefore I would ask whether it might not be referred to the Minister of Finance and the question considered.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The matter has been discussed with the Department of Finance and this is what they are asking. However, all that we are doing at the present time is to ask for first reading of the bill, and the minister can give further consideration to the matter and answer the hon. gentleman on second reading of the bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What will be the saving in the interest rate to the end of 1948?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That would depend entirely on what we would be able to renew the money at; that cannot be answered at the present time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It has not been calculated?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not know what it would be.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Mayhew thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 265, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VISITING FORCES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved the

second reading of Bill No. 253, to make provision with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada and with respect to the exercise of discipline and to the internal administration of such forces.
He said: The purpose of this legislation is to make provision for the discipline of United States forces when visiting Canada. Hon. members know that there was passed by this parliament in 1933 an act, chapter 21 of the statutes of that year, making provision for the discipline of forces of commonwealth countries visiting Canada. At the outbreak of war, by an order in council under the War Measures Act this was extended to United States forces, and by -a subsequent order in council under the War Measures Act much broader provisions were made for the service courts of the United States, even to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of our Canadian courts.
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Did that order in council extend the powers under the Visiting Forces from Commonwealth Countries Act or under what was called foreign forces order?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The first extended the provisions of the visiting forces of the commonwealth to -foreign forces present in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: By a foreign forces order?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: By a foreign forces order. Then there was a subsequent order in council giving more extensive jurisdiction to the service courts of United States forces than was provided by the foreign forces order; but both these orders lapsed or were repealed in compliance with the undertaking that had been, given in the house, on April 1 last, -because they were not included in the schedule to the so-called omnibus bill. Since that time, there has been no authority under which commanders of forces of the United States visiting Canada, on invitation or with the consent of the Canadian government, could exercise disciplinary powers, and the bill is to give the commanders of these forces powers similar to those which are provided in the act of 1933 with respect to the commonwealth forces, and particularly not to exclude the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.
The purpose of this bill is to give the commanders of such visiting forces rights to exercise such jurisdiction as our own service courts can exercise in our own domestic armed units. But on the same principle, our own service courts do not oust the ordinary jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of the land. This provides that the jurisdiction given to the service courts of the United States will not oust

Visiting Forces
the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts of the land. The service courts of the United States will have exclusive jurisdiction in connection with such breaches of discipline as would not be offences under Canadian law. But with respect to anything which, though a breach of their military orders, would also be a breach of Canadian law, they get no exclusive jurisdiction. The statute also provides that such jurisdiction as they may exercise will be only over members of their forces, and that their decision as to who is a member of their forces will not be conclusive. If they attempt to exercise any of those powers in Canada with respect to an individual, and he claims not to be a member of their forces, the question as to whether he is a member of their forces will have to be determined by our own courts.


Mr. LOW:: That was, essentially, the
arrangement which existed during the war, was it not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. During the war we went farther than that. Under United States law, their service courts have exclusive jurisdiction over their own personnel in their own country, to the exclusion of their own ordinary courts of justice; and they tell us that under their law our service courts would have, in their country, over personnel of Canadian forces visiting their country, jurisdiction that would be exclusive of their courts. But we told them that was not the principle which applied in British countries. We told them that in British countries the personnel of the army, like all other citizens, were amenable to the courts of justice of the country and that, although we did, because of the special conditions which existed during the war, make them that concession, it was only for the duration of the war. They have made representations to us, but we have told them that we could not give their service courts exclusive powers which our service courts did not have over the personnel of our own Canadian forces, and that they would have to be satisfied with exercising the jurisdiction they have by virtue of their law, but not to a greater extent than our laws recognized the jurisdiction of our own service courts. Moreover, we made it a provision that this jurisdiction would, of course, apply only to members of their forces, and that the question as to whether or not, in a concrete case, a person was amenable to their jurisdiction would have to be one which was triable by our ordinary courts of justice.


Mr. FLEMING:: Would the minister permit a question?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the statutory or other source of power for the government to admit to Canada the armed forces of other nations outside the commonwealth?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think it makes any difference whether they be within or outside the commonwealth. We made with the United States government the informal arrangement which the Prime Minister described in this house on February 12. 1947, in a statement on defence cooperation. In that statement the Prime Minister outlined the programme of post-war cooperation between the armed forces of the United States and Canada resulting from discussions which had taken place in the permanent joint board on defence. This programme calls for the interchange of selected individuals so as to increase . the familiarity of each country's defence establishment with that of the other country. It also calls for general cooperation and exchange of observers in connection with exercises and with the development and tests of material of common interest. It encourages common designs and standards in arms, equipment, organization, methods of training and new developments. It provides for such extension of reciprocal military, naval and air facilities in each country as may be agreed upon in specific instances. It also provides, of course, that everything which is done by one country in the territory of the other is subject to the full control of the other country, recognizing the full sovereignty of the other country.
As an illustration of what is taking place, there is a small detachment of United States observers who have been stationed at Churchill taking part in the tests of material under the climatic conditions which exist there, but they are all under the supreme command of the Canadian commander of the post. He does not, however, attempt to exercise authority over the individuals. He does that through the normal chain of authority. It is the commander of the United States detachment who is responsible for the discipline of the men under his command.


Gordon Graydon: Will the arrangement always continue on that basis?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is the arrangement at present existing by virtue of this recommendation of the permanent joint board on defence which the Prime Minister described in the house on February 12 last.


Mr. GRAA DON:: May I ask the minister a question just here? I am sorry to interrupt him, but I do not think he quite answered the point raised by the bon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), namely, as to wherein lay
Visiting Forces

the power to invite visiting forces to Canada under any circumstances. Is it not in parliament rather than in the governor in council?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I think not. Parliament can, of course, control it. Parliament could provide by legislation for the exclusion of any forces; but I think His Excellency, as commander in chief of the Canadian forces, can do such things as are not contrary to Canadian law and which he thinks are advisable for the preparation of the defences of the country.


Gordon Graydon: Where does he derive that power from? It must come from some statute?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: From the prerogative. The hon. member realizes-he knows it as well as I do; I am just reminding him of it-[DOT] that we have not in this dominion adopted the constitutional practice of the United Kingdom whereby there can be no armed forces established for more than a year; the authority must be renewed yearly. We do, in fact, carry out that principle by virtue of the fact that there are no appropriations made for more than one year. But I do not conceive that an act of parliament is necessary to allow groups-whether, in fact, they be an armed force or not-to enter Canada, if there is nothing positive to exclude them.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean the government could invite divisions in?
Air. ST. LAURENT: I think that would be [DOT]a matter for which there would be responsibility to this house and to public opinion.


Howard Charles Green: But if they can invite groups in. they can invite divisions in.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the commander in chief of the Canadian forces can take such measures as his ministers are prepared to assume responsibility for the parliament, and to the country, so long as they do not infringe any enactment made by parliament. They cannot give them any privileges that individuals would not have, and that is why this act is necessary.


Gordon Graydon: But wouldn't they-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If we are to have this system of question and answer I think we had better have it in committee, rather than *when I am trying to make a statement.


Gordon Graydon: We were just interested In trying to get the information.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It occurred to me that since there had been so many questions, probably the house would prefer to go into committee now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, when the house took recess for dinner, or just before that time, I had been asked on what authority invitations could be issued to members of a force of another country to visit this country. I had said I did not know of any statutory authority. 1 have been giving the matter some thought since, and I must say I do not know that there is any statutory authority, or that there is am' need for statutory authority to allow those gentlemen, or ladies and gentlemen as the case may be, to visit Canada, any more than there is need for statutory authority to welcome the President of the United States when he visits this country.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there not this difference: These are armed forces of another nation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will just let me continue my exposition, there will be opportunity later for criticism. It is difficult when the house is not in committee to deal with these questions as they arise.
There is no statutory authority for the admission into Canada of the diplomatic representatives of other states. These are matters which are governed by the comity of nations; and I think it is the same with respect to the penetration within our country of the armed forces of another friendly state. If we resented it, it would be an unfriendly act for them to come. If we do not object to it, there is no need of statutory authority to enable its being done.
But of course they have no status as military units in this country, unless that is provided for by statute. And it is for that reason precisely that this bill is submitted to parliament. It is submitted to parliament, so that they can, when in fact here as a unit, be treated by those who are commanding them in the manner provided by military law, without that being an assault on, or with its being an interference with the individual liberty of the persons concerned.

Visiting Forces
Without something of this kind, no attempt, for instance, to arrest one of their members would be anything but a common assault. No attempt to restrain the movement of one of their members could be upheld in the face of a writ of habeas corpus. They would be merely a certain number of individuals, each recognized as individuals, and no one of them having any right to interfere with any movement of any other one of them. It is to take care of what is required for the proper discipline of a group coming under the command of officers that it is necessary to have some provision of this kind.
The provision to be made is that when United States forces are present in Canada the service courts and service authorities of those forces may exercise within Canada, in relation to members of those forces, all such powers as are conferred upon them by the laws of their own country; but not to the exclusion of the exercise by the ordinary authorities in this country of our own laws, and not to the exclusion of the rights of any person over whom they attempt to exercise that authority to apply to our own courts to determine whether or not he is a member of their forces.
This bill is to be concerned only with United States forces present in Canada with the consent, of the Canadian government. United States forces present in Canada without, the consent of the Canadian government would be committing an unfriendly act. This bill will have no application to civilians, or to any others than members of an organized unit of the United States present in our country with the consent of the Canadian authorities.
That is the same situation which had to be dealt with, or which it was felt should be dealt with by the Visiting Forces (British Common-weath) Act of 1933. Prior to that act, any group of persons from another part of the commonwealth could come here; there was nothing to prevent their coming here. But there was no right of anyone conducting such a party to exercise any authority in this country over the members of the party he was conducting. It was for that reason that the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act of 1933 was enacted, so that when groups came here-


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is, armed forces?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, groups of armed forces under the command of officers. It was enacted so that those officers could exercise here the powers which they would have over the same men in their own country, but not to
the extent of preventing Canadian authorities from dealing with them while they were heTe in accordance with the laws and procedure of our own Canadian administration. And it is the same thing, in substance, that is contained in this bill, to which I suggest the house might well give second reading, and consider in detail in committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, as the right, hon. minister has stated, this bill makes provision for those troops of the United States forces which are visiting Canada, so that their code of discipline may be applied through such military courts and through such other means as are expedient. It also enables the exercise of the internal administration of those forces.
In section 2, the expression "United States force" is clearly defined as one which is here in Canada, with the consent of the government of Canada, and is lawfully present in Canada or on board any of His Majesty's Canadian ships or aircraft. This clearly indicates that the troops or individuals who would be visiting Canada would be here with the consent of Canada, and that some provision has been made for them to be here lawfully.
The minister has explained what he considers to be the lawful requirements, so far as issuing the invitation for the troops to be present is concerned. I understand that this bill is really to implement the policy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on February 12 when he informed the house that steps had been taken, as a result of discussions by the joint board of defence, to ensure closer collaboration between the forces of Canada and the forces of the United, States. In, that statement the Prime Minister also emphasized the fact that- this in no way imperilled the relationship which exists and the close collaboration which was to continue between Canadian forces and the forces of the rest of the British commonwealth of nations.
In fact I believe it is a joint plan of Canada, the United States and Great Britain that this collaboration and cooperation, this joint study of defence problems should proceed and that there should be unification as far as possible of the weapons and equipment of the three countries. The Prime Minister stated that both governments, that is the Canadian and United States governments, believed that the decision which had been reached, namely to continue close collaboration, was a contribution to the stability of the world and to the establishment, through the united nations, of an effective system for world-wide security.
Visiting Forces

There are in this land today many people who believe that one way of ensuring world stability in the future, one way of avoiding a third world war, is for the peace-loving nations to have a reasonable degree of unity and a reasonable strength. We have had the bitter experience of the late thirties with its policy of appeasement, a policy under which we hardly dared to say "no" if somebody else shouted loudly "yes"; we had the bitter experience of that policy, and therefore I think a policy of ensuring that we have maximum cooperation and strength in order to maintain a peaceful world by cooperating with other nations which we know to be friendly is a sound and practical course to take.
We come now to the question of what type of individual or troops is to be permitted to come into Canada in accordance with the announcement made by the Prime Minister. He emphasized the fact, as reported on page 346 of Hansard of February 12, that they could come to the extent authorized by law. It may be that a request of the government is sufficient or that an invitation of the government may perhaps be considered as being authorized by law. Perhaps the minister will go into that in greater detail when we get into committee on the bill. The Prime Minister went on to say:
The collaboration will necessarily be limited and will be based on the following principles:
(1) Interchange of selected individuals so as to increase the familiarity of each country's defence establishment with that of the other country.
That would probably mean a few staff officers and instructors.
General cooperation and exchange of observers in connection with exercises . . .
No doubt there will be certain manoeuvres, exercises and experiments earned out not dissimilar to the Musk-Ox expedition of a few months ago. I can picture United State? observers and perhaps the observers of other countries coming here to gain from the experience of such exercises. Then the Prime Minister went on:
Encouragement of common designs and standards in arms, equipment, organization, methods of training and new developments.
There again one may readily understand the necessity, if we are to have a uniform system of equipment, of the Americans testing out those new weapons and that new equipment over our terrain and under our climatic conditions. We do not want to think only in terms of ground armament; there is the armament of the air as well. I am quite certain that it will be necessary for new equipment to be tested in our northern clime, but there

again only a few men would be required to carry out those experiments. Then the Prime Minister went on:
Mutual and reciprocal availability of military, naval and air facilities in each country.
That would be placing, shall we say, stations in the north at the disposal of the United States, so that they may come up and study conditions and, if necessary, operate from there. In those principles as laid down there, no mention was made of units. I suggest that the first time the possibility of units of the United States forces visiting this country was mentioned was when the minister referred to visits of United States units. That is putting a different complexion on the matter; that is going one step farther than the principles enunciated by the Prime Minister on February 12.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If by using the word "unit" I conveyed to hon. members to whom technical military language may have special significance, something different from what was in the Prime Minister's statement, then I must apologize. The word was not used with the intention of signifying anything other than what was contained in the statement made by the Prime Minister on February 12. It may be my fault in using an expression which has a technical military significance which I did not attach to it.


George Randolph Pearkes: I understand the term to mean a unit under the command of an officer. The definition of "unit" is given in the military textbooks, and I would certainly put that interpretation on the word. A battalion is a unit; a battery of artillery is a unit, and a regiment of tanks is a unit.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I must confess my ignorance. I thought the term could be used for any number who were under the command of an officer who had disciplinary powers over them under the laws of his country.


George Randolph Pearkes: As long as it is understood that the principle here refers, shall I say to small detachments which are here for the purpose of carrying out some experiment or demonstrating the value of some new equipment to our Canadian troops, then I feel that no change has been made. But if the term "unit" is meant to exceed that, then I feel that this house should be advised of the number who may be coming into the country. One can readily appreciate the necessity of a few men coming here, and as long as it is understood that there will only be a few at any time, then personally I can raise no objection to the principle because I feel that it would be a. detriment if we put obstacles in the way of further collaboration.

Visiting Forces
As for the administration of discipline, wiien we have these visiting troops here I think it is fair to say from the experience of the last war, when I definitely had close contact with United States troops in this country and with Canadian troops serving on United States soil, that it is in the interests of both forces that offenders who have been guilty of breaches of military discipline should be tried by military courts under their own officers. When we go farther we find that provision is made in this legislation so that our own courts are not affected. If I remember rightly, during the war that provision was not in the act and that caused some difficulties, although on the whole the relations between the United States and the Canadian forces were most happy. As will always be the case, little incidents sometimes occurred which possibly could have been cleared up had it then been possible to have brought these cases before our Canadian courts.
As to the question of the removal of certain ancient clauses in our criminal code, if the United States detachments are to come here they must march, and if they are to demonstrate their new equipment they must be allowed to carry that equipment and those explosives, provided always that they are under discipline and are carrying out their lawful procedures.
There is one clause in this measure which makes it retroactive until the first of April, and I presume that is because of the United States detachment now at Churchill, to which the minister referred before the dinner recess. I think it would be a fair question to ask him whether there are' any other United States detachments here similar to that one in the northland. I have heard stories that there are some in connection with the air navigation posts in the north. I think the house might reasonably be informed as to the extent of the United States detachments which are now in Canada, particularly since the measure is to be made retroactive to the first of April.
Regarding these detachments which are here, the minister pointed out that the detachment at Churchill was serving under the orders of the Canadian commander in that area. I presume that whenever an invitation is issued to United States troops to come here there will have to be a special agreement drawn up to fit each particular case. I do not think it would be practical to have an over-all statement as to how the chain of command would be exercised. I mention that point, because I think it is important that when the invitation is issued and the agreement first drawn up it be definitely stated what the chain of command is.
Finally, I would ask the minister to tell the house whether any reciprocal agreement has been made, because it is a fact that there are Canadian observers in the United States, and there may be Canadian detachments visiting the United States. Has the government of the United States granted similar agreements to our troops? I think that also is a question which perhaps the minister would answer.
Mr. J. 0. PROBE (Regina City): Mr. Speaker, the implications of this bill, No. 253, now before the House of Commons are, in my view, most serious. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), in introducing the measure before the dinner recess referred to the fact that the permanent joint defence board had come to certain understandings with respect to training and the defence of this hemisphere and with regard to projects involving a study of hemisphere defences. In so doing he stated that we had on the statute books of this country no legislation by which a foreign military force could be excluded from this country or by which it could be permitted to enter Canada; that it was the prerogative of the governor general of this country as the commander of the Canadian army to make whatever arrangements he thought necessary for defence cooperation in conjunction with other powers, and that parliament at the moment had no jurisdiction. I think that is an exceedingly serious implication. We know by virtue of the statement of the minister himself, and of course it is fairly common knowledge in this country, that there are in Canada at the present time, in peace time, foreign troops. Granted they are friendly troops at the moment. Nevertheless we have foreign troops in Canada now. By this measure they are permitted to be in uniform. By this measure they are permitted to be under arms and are permitted to carry on whatever military manoeuvres their own commanders consider necessary, although I hasten to admit that in all probability it will be by collaboration between the chiefs of staffs of the two countries.
This bill, No. 253, specifically makes provision for the setting up of military courts by which these foreign troops on Canadian soil may be disciplined by the army or service acts applicable to the services in their own country and without regard to Canadian law at all. I know, of course, that the minister will assure me that Canadian law will be
Visiting Forces

observed by the troops of any foreign power which are in this country. As a matter of fact it is likely to be true that in the ordinary course of military or civil offences the offenders will be turned over to their own provost corps, which 'will make arrangements with their own military commanders to try the offenders under their own military laws, and that civil prosecutions for civil or criminal offences may or may not follow.
The set-up here is very nearly akin to the old days of the absolute monarchs who employed mercenary troops, foreigners, whom they commanded and the dispositions of which they arranged by collaboration at their own pleasure. Let us just put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. I know that since the early part of the nineteenth century Canada and the United States have been at peace. We are the closest of friends. The restrictions in movement back and forth between this country and the United States are minor. There is very little restriction with respect to free intercourse across the international border. The Rush-Bagot treaty, which limited the border defences of the two countries by agreement in the early part of the last century, has never been contravened. We are literally close friends from a national point of view. Let us. however, in the light of the international situation at the present time, assume that it is not United1 States troops to whom we are extending the privileges that are implied in either the actions of the permanent joint board of defence or in the bill that is now before the house; let us assume for a moment that we extended those privileges to Russia. Judging by the present tenor of public opinion in the United States, I have no doubt that there would immediately be an outcry on the part of the government across the 49th parallel, and rightly so, that Russian troops were training, shall we say, on Musk-Ox or on a similar expedition. And I say that the United States of America would have every justification for complaining of the fact that in peace time we were permitting foreign troops in uniform, on manoeuvre and under the supervision of their own officers, to drill and train in Canada.
The fact that at the moment we have a friendly neighbour to the south does not alter the principle of this discussion one iota. I want to make that perfectly clear. I feel, too, that the fact that these exercises and manoeuvres are taking place on Canadian soil, and that there is such close inspection of our northern terrain is not accidental. For that reason, and by virtue of the fact that we have just barely emerged from a great war world conflict and that we are trying to lay [Mr. Probed
the foundation of an organization which will prevent future wars, I say that we are going off literally half-cocked.
The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) praised the government for the fact that we had a form of defence arrangement with our powerful friendly neighbour to the south, and gave as his view-and I respect his view because he is an outstanding military man, but only as the view of a soldier-that world peace and stability were being assured by virtue of the fact that we had such a cooperative arrangement between Canada and the United States for the defence of this continent. Let us go back about thirty-five years ago. At that time we also had two very large world alliances, the entente cordiale and the triple alliance. The fact that there were powerful neighbours associated with one another did not prevent war. In my opinion it may even be argued that war actually resulted from the military alliances which were formed prior to 1914.


Mr. POULIOT:: It was called the balance of power.


Mr. PROBE:: Let me say one thing further while I am referring to that alliance. France and Britain were involved in the alliance at that time, and I feel that the hon. member for Nanaimo can verify what I now say. Before the war. but when it was almost certain that war was imminent, he knows, as do I, that British and Canadian officers went over the battlegrounds in France and in Belgium not in uniform and not on manoeuvres but as civilian tourists on bicycles.
This is a serious matter which is before the house, not because the bill deals with the discipline of troops. I feel that in this bill we are surrendering some of the sovereignty of Canada to army courts of a foreign power. But that in itself is not the worst feature of the bill. It is the fact that the bill is premised on the presence in this country of foreign, if, at the same time, friendly forces. If we are to live up to the obligations that we undertook a year and a half ago at San Francisco to all the nations, large and small, then we must not enter into an arrangement with the United States permitting their troops to come across to Canada, and ours to go to the United States. This makes for a virtual alliance. On the contrary we should hold out for and live up to article 47 of the united nations charter to which we are signatories, which reads that "there shall be established a military staff committee to advise and assist the security council on all questions relating to the security council's military requirements for the maintenance of inter-

Visiting Forces
national peace and security; the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal; the regulation of armaments and possible disarmament."
As a member of the united nations and as a free and independent country, if we are ever to surrender all or part of our sovereignty, which in my view is what we are doing at present, it must be to the united nations. There will come a day; conceivably we are on the threshold of it now, because we have our eyes looking forward to world government,, when we may have to consider, and undoubtedly will consider, the surrender of a portion of our national sovereignty. If that sovereignty is to be delegated, it must be only by knowledge of and by agreement with the united nations assembly.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: And with the consent
of this parliament.


John Oliver Probe: And with the consent of
the parliament of Canada. Even such a partial surrender must be a negotiated one, not by Canada alone as is the case now, with some single country, but with a higher power and by other nations surrendering equal sovereignty with ours, as and where such surrender is applicable.
Some of us served in His Majesty's uniform. Once we were in the conflict, there was no question as to what we were to do; we did as we were told. The forces that put us into the position of volunteering for service and volunteering to die were at work long before we put on the uniform. Most of us in this house are too old to be concerned for our selfish skins, but we have children and we have neighbours. This house of parliament has a responsibility, not just to our neighbours in our communities, but to the Dominion of Canada, to the United States, to Russia and to every country in this world. I, for one, will not consent to foreign troops drilling on this soil except by consent and agreement with the united nations. I wish therefore to move, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay) :
That Bill No. 253 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Jean-François Pouliot: I congratulate the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe) upon the able speech he has just made, although I differ with him on one point. I do not believe in the united nations. But his expose was remarkable. I cannot understand the legislation which we now have substituting United States law for our own. Where will it end? What will
happen when the Chinese are here? What will happen if the Russians come here? We belong to the British commonwealth. We have great regard for the king's regulations and orders of Great Britain, but they become the law of the country only if they are accepted by this country and are made our own law. The British army regulations are not in force in Canada unless they are accepted by us. Yet here we are ready to accept United, States regulations without knowing what they are. Where are we going with this idea of the united nations business? It is the summit of absurdity as I said today before a social club in Montreal. Who are the united nations? The united nations are not tie small nations; they are not the so-called middle powers, which do not exist as the Secretary of State for External Affairs told me in answer to a question last year. The united nations are the big powers. Who are the big powers? One is the United States of America, which may crumble at any time. They are a big power at the present time, but how long will that last? I hope it will last for a long time. I hope the United States is a country which will last for a long time. It is powerful and rich. I am not anti-American, but I do not see what business we have to accept the law of the United States regarding troops, without knowing what it, is. What about the conflict between United States legislation and ours? .What about the laws of the French army? They are another of the big five. Take all the big five together: Great- Britain, the United States, Russia, France and China. Is it true that each army will have a separate kind of law while it is in this country? There is no country in the world that has been going as far as Canada has been in accepting everything that comes from the outside.
I have great fear about the united nations. We hear the ministers and some members of the opposition saying, "Fight socialism; fight communism." I have nothing against the nations represented by the governments of the five united nations. The Russians may be good people. The British are good people. The French, the Chinese and the Americans are all good people. But I do not believe in their form of government at the present time. Everybody is complaining about communism. One member of the house was a communist and he was ruled out of the chamber for cause. No communism! Yet we are ready to accept the rule of a communistic government. No socialism! Yet we are ready to accept the rule of a socialist government in Great Britain. Peace, order and good government! Yet we are ready to accept the rule of an unstable
Visiting Forces

government in France. Peace, peace! Yet we are ready to accept the rule of China which is still at war.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Quite right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. Now let us take the United States. There are very few members who would be ready for annexation. But the worst form of annexation is the blind acceptance of the laws of another country. I cannot understand how we can allow the laws of the United States to jump across the border. What I say is not at all unfriendly to any one of the big powers, but I would not support with my vote any one of the big powers separately. How then can I accept their rule jointly for the soldiers of my country or for anybody else who will be here? It will be some kind of soviets in the army. What is important in the country is for everybody to know the law. There is a principle of law which is known by everybody. It is that no one shall ignore the law. During the war we all ignored the law. We had to do so, because no one could be familiar with all the edicts of the minor clerks who exercised the power of parliament for the duration. But now that the war is over, will the students of law be obliged to leam the army regulations of each one of the united nations? That would be some problem for them, and I do not know how many would be able to pass their examinations. We are internationally minded now. During the first, war everything was national. There was the Canadian National Railways, national shoe shine, national boot blacks, national luncheon, national everything. Since the recent war we have turned international.


An hon. MEMBER:: International breweries.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, International breweries, international shoe shine, international lunch counter, international beauty shop, international everything.


Mr. FULTON:: International Nickel.


Jean-François Pouliot: And we think we are doing better for mankind. No, sir. What was the slogan against which all the boys were fighting during the first war? They were fighting against the slogan "Might is right." They were fighting for the self-determination of peoples.
I remember the fourteen points of President Wilson, and other declarations he made. It was for the emancipation of the world. When the last war started it was for the liberation of Poland. But what was the result of the second war? Now we accept as ours the slogan, "Might is right," and right is ignored. The right of the weak is the same as the

right of the strong; otherwise there would be no right at all. Right is not a question of power; right is not a question of the number of men; right is not a question of the atomic bomb. Right must be justice, and justice shall be the same for the weak as for the strong, for the poor as for the rich. The acceptance of the theory of might against that of right is a simple negation of right.
I cannot understand how intelligent men can come here and be in favour of the disunited nations which parade as the united nations of the world. That is beyond my understanding. Ministers and members of parliament of all parties can take a boat or a train or an aeroplane to attend conferences and shake hands with Mr. So-and-So, the great Mr. So-and-So, the very great Mr. So-and-So, the super Mr. So-and-So. They come back and we have nothing in return. So much was this the case that on August 2 of last year, when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in Paris, he said, "We ask for nothing. We ask for no concessions." It was not surprising that after this statement the Big Five said to him. "You do not want anything. Stay at home." It was logical, because the Big Five are dividing the spoils among themselves. They have created an atmosphere of fear, fear of the atomic bomb, fear of the destruction of the world. If the world is destroyed it will be through the greed of the mighty of today. It was almost destroyed by the greed of the mighty of yesteryear.
When I think of that, Mr. Speaker; when I think of all the silly legislation that has been suggested by the united nations organization, which has gone nowhere, which has not accomplished anything, which is not able to settle reasonably the case of even one Italian town, the town of Pola, I also recall that we are to stand for their rule, that we are to subject ourselves to their government. No, sir; never. What is the propaganda? It has been to combat the idea of patriotism. Patriotism has been called names all the time. During the war it was called isolationism. The man who was a patriot was an isolationist ; and afterwards we had lectures in Toronto about racial narrowness. There is a phrase w'hieh is well known; it is "petite patrie ' or small country. Patriotism is born in the family. The man or woman within the family is amongst dear ones. Then there are the surroundings, the friends of the neighbourhood, those who live in the same place, those who live in the same county, in the same province and in the same country. Patriotism is the extension of Christian charity. The basis of patriotism is love of thy neighbour

Visiting Forces
and the assistance that is given by people who are close to each other and who try to help themselves. Is it a crime to love one's family? Is it a crime to love one's friends? Is it a crime to love one's own place, one's own county, one's own province and one's own country? But those who have spoken in that way have been pointed at and have been told they were no longer good citizens when they did not believe in the silly organization which is the united nations; an organization that has done positively nothing, that has cost millions of dollars in travelling expenses. Perhaps it has satisfied the personal feelings of some people, but nothing has been done for the good of the world.
Some ministers may laugh, but what I shall tell them will bring them to their senses. Only a few days ago a solemn warning was given to the world by His Holiness Pope Pius XII. He said that if peace is to come, it must come in 1947; otherwise it will be too late. When I think of that old man who is in the seat of St. Peter, the pilot of the Roman Catholic church, and all the worries he had during the war, worries that did not cease with V-E day and V-J day, I am ready to listen to his words of appeasement because they are uttered by one who makes no difference between races and who desires the happiness of the whole world. Well, sir, it is unfortunate to think that, after the little progress which has been made by the united nations, we still stick to it. I cannot understand that stubbornness. United nations is a mess. United nations is a false description of some so-called statesmen who are always fighting each other, who are speaking to each other with distrust; and we still believe in them. Who would accept the rule of Russia in this country? Who would accept the rule of the socialist government of Great Britain in this country? Who would accept the rule of the French government in this country?


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that, the legislation before the house is with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada. The purpose of this bill is to make provision for the discipline and internal administration of the visiting forces. May I suggest to the hon. member that he relate his remarks a little more directly to the principle involved in this bill?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. The reason I was making these remarks before you rose, Mr. Speaker, was precisely because the whole setup of the united nations has disturbed the minds of people throughout the world. It is
precisely the reason why we have legislation like this before us tonight. If the whole world had not been perturbed we would not have such legislation today. No one would have ever thought of it. But during the war, when a wish was expressed by Roosevelt, it was done. And when a wish was expressed by Churchill, it was the law of the land in Canada. That is not the way to govern this country. We cannot stand for any piece of United States legislation unless we know what it is, and unless we approve it formally. That is the way we ought to act.
Have we reached the point where we have become Yankeefied enough to take for granted everything that is done across the border?
I remember that one of the brightest journalists in Canada, Judith Robinson, wrote some time ago during the war, in the Quarterly Review, a fine article in which she referred to some remarks made by an Australian professor in international law. He used to say on some occasions that the reason Canadians did not have time to be themselves was that they were always busy explaining to the Yankees that they were not English, and to the English that they were not Yankees. But it will be pretty hard to explain to the English that we are not Yankees if we accept blindly any legislation which may be passed at any time by the United States congress or by military authorities concerning the army.
I presume I have said enough to be well understood. I shall not speak longer at this time, but when we reach the committee stage I may have more to say about the matter.
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South); Mr. Speaker, I fear I cannot compete with the oratory of my old friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot).


Jean-François Pouliot: You are much better.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I hope not.


Howard Charles Green: Furthermore, I cannot agree with his sweeping condemnation of the united nations. However I do suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the house that this bill brings up considerations which are far-reaching and which should be thought out carefully, not only by members of the house, but also by the Canadian people at large.
The bill, as we know, is entitled the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act, and it is described as an act to make provision with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada and with respect to the exercise of discipline and to the internal administration of such forces.
This bill is carrying into peace time a wartime provision. We are now being asked to
Visiting Forces

enact in peace time a wartime provision; and if we do so it will be the first time a foreign nation has possessed in Canada in peace time the rights given by this measure.
I think it is worth while for us to go back a few years and consider just what position has been taken in Canada with respect to forces from other countries. First of all, I would refer hon. members to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) also referred this evening, and which was passed in 1933. I presume it was passed as a result of the Statute of Westminster, to carry out the provisions of that statute. In effect, it gave authority to the officer of any troops from another nation of the commonwealth visiting Canada to discipline his troops.	*
But it was more restricted than the present bill in certain respects; for example, in section 3 there is provision that the officers are to have power only in matters concerning discipline and in matters concerning the internal administration of such force. There is no such restriction in the bill before the house tonight. It is true that such restriction appears in the description of the bill, and in one of the side-notes, but it does not appear in any actual sections.
There are also several other differences between the act relating to the British commonwealth and this measure which relates to the United States. One of them is that provision is made for attaching troops from the force of one of the other commonwealth nations to the Canadian force. That is found in section 6, where provision is made for the temporary attachment of commonwealth troops to a Canadian force. But that provision is not found in the bill before us this evening, and I do not understand why it has been omitted. It does seem to me that if but very few United States troops are to come to Canada, they could be attached to Canadian units.
The next significant step was taken in 1938. Hon. members who were here at that time will recall that on July 1 the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett raised the question of Canada's having refused to allow airmen from Great Britain to come here and train. A most significant debate took place on that occasion, and I shall read to the house a portion of the statement made on that occasion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He took the position that for the British to send airmen here to train would be the equivalent of setting up on our shores a foreign military station.
I quote from page 4527 of Hansard, of that year, where the Prime Minister said:
I must say that long ago Canadian governments finally settled the constitutional principle that in Canadian territory there could be no military establishments-
And, mind you, this was only to establish a training school for airmen.
-unless they were owned, maintained and controlled by the Canadian government responsible to the Canadian parliament and people.
Then he went on to say:
Such domestic ownership, maintenance and control of all military stations and personnel is one of the really indispensable hall marks of national sovereign self-government and an indispensable basis for friendly and effective cooperation between the governments of Canada and those of other parts of the British commonwealth of nations, including the government of the United Kingdom.
That was just nine years ago, in 1938.
Outside its homeland a state may have military stations and quarter military personnel in countries which it "owns," in its colonies or "possessions," or in its mandated territories according to the trust deed, or in countries over which it has assumed or been yielded, by some arrangement, what amounts to a protectorate. But no country pretending to sovereign selfcontrol could permit such a state of affairs or its implications and consequences. I need only add that what I have said has. of course, to be sharply distinguished from the case of actual war where a country may have to permit its partners, associates or allies to maintain, operate and control military establishments and forces within its territory, forced to do so by the actual strategic or tactical necessities and for the purposes, but only for the purposes, of the actual joint war.
That was in 1938. Then in 1939, the following year, the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who was then Minister of National Defence, announced that arrangements had been made by which British airmen might be brought to Canada to train. I am going to read to the house the terms under which they were to be allowed to come here. The minister is reported on page 3259 of Hansard of that year as follows:
While the final detailed technical arrangements have still to be completed, it is possible to say now that agreement has been reached on a scheme whereby pilots from the United Kingdom will come to Canada to be given the intermediate and advanced stages of training-
These are the significant words:
-under the auspices of the Canadian Department of National Defence.
Then the war came on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the hon. member be kind enough to put on the record what the Conservative party said in this house at that time?
[Mr. Green.1

Visiting Forces


Howard Charles Green: If the Minister of Veterans Affairs wants to make a political issue out of this, then let him put it on himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not the slightest.


Howard Charles Green: In the fall of 1939 war struck. Then in 1941 we find there was enacted what was called the foreign forces order. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to correct me if I am wrong in citing any of these orders. I believe that was passed because we then had training in Canada nationals of various allied countries. For example, there were Belgians, Czechoslovakians, Norwegians, Poles, and soldiers from the Netherlands. That foreign forces order was in somewhat similar terms to the bill before us this evening. It mentioned specifically as foreign powers the nations to which I have referred, and then there was added this provision:
. . . and any other power which may be designated by order of the governor in council as a foreign power to which this order shall apply.
By the way, that order also was restricted to * matters concerning discipline and internal administration. Then the United States came into the war and in 1943, by an order in council dated April 6 of that year, the foreign forces order was made to apply to troops from the United States, with certain variations. For example, they were not given the power to try cases of murder, manslaughter or rape, and there was a provision that they were to retain certain rights which had been guaranteed to them by an exchange of notes between the United States government and the Canadian government. Hon. members who are interested will find that set out in the last paragraph of the order in council.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I know the hon.
member will want to have his statement complete. The order extending the foreign forces order to the United States was officially repealed and replaced by order of December 20, 1943, which is the one under which the commanders of United States forces present in Canada actually operated during the war period and up to April 1 of this year.
Mr. GR.EEN:	Has the minister the number of that order in council?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	It is P.C. 9694 of
December 20, 1943.


Howard Charles Green: something which I repeat should be decided by parliament, and parliament should give consideration to just what the conditions should be under which foreign troops may be invited to our shores.
Then I should like to know why we are not being asked to pass a foreign forces order rather than a United States forces order. If we are to have troops come here, we should not pick and choose in the bill. I doubt whether it is wise to have a bill applying to only one nation. \V e should have a foreign forces order that could, if deemed advisable, be applied to all nations.


Jean-François Pouliot: All nations, great and small, not only the big powers.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. We hear a lot of talk these days about discrimination. I have heard a lot of speeches in the house in the last few weeks on discrimination and how united nations would get after us if we did not stop discriminating. But here is discrimination of the worst kind so far as other nations are concerned.
How permanent is this provision to be? There is no provision in the bill for a time limit. When this goes on the statute books of Canada it will have been a whole lot easier to put it on than it will be to take it off. It has no time limit, and if we try to remove it from the statute books ten years from now we are apt to provoke the United States.
The British, who have had great experience in matters of this kind, passed an act during the war to provide for United States troops being in Britain and for their control by United States officers. Members will find that act in the Public General Acts and Measures of 1942 of the United Kingdom, chapter 31. That act, in effect, makes valid the terms arranged between Great Britain and the United States in an exchange of notes. The notes are significant. I quote from the note to the Lnited States. One provision is this:
His Majesty's government propose that the foregoing arrangements should operate during the conduct of the conflict against our common enemies and until six months (or such other penod as may be mutually agreed upon) after trie final termination of such conflict and the restoration of a state of peace.
In other words, they put a time limit on the operation of the act. There is another provision in the British note for reciprocal treatment. It reads:
I feel that Your Excellency will appreciate that the considerations which have convinced His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom that the interests of our common cause would be best served by the arrangements which they are prepared to make as regards jurisdic-[Mr. Green. I
tion over American forces in the United Kingdom would be equally applicable in the case of British forces which in the course of the war against our common enemies may be stationed in territory under American jurisdiction. It would accordingly be very agreeable to His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom if Your Excellency were authorized to inform me that in that case the government of the United States of America will be ready to take all steps in their power to ensure to the British forces concerned a position corresponding to that of American forces in the United Kingdom under the arrangements which His Majesty's government are willing to make.
In other words, they made an agreement with the United States on a fifty-fifty basis, each nation to have the same rights.
My final question with regard to this bill is this: What control will Canada have over the activities of these United States troops? That. I think, should be fully explained by the minister. So much for the implications as between Canada and the United States.
What about the united nations? Is this policy in line with the united nations charter? I believe that the objective of every thinking Canadian today is world peace. I believe, further, that practically every thinking Canadian is still relying on the united nations to bring about that world peace. I will not include the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), because obviously he is not. But I think the great majority of Canadian people still feel that if the united nations is not able to bring about world peace there will be no world peace.


Jean-François Pouliot: They will have to change their manners.


Howard Charles Green: Yet, Mr. Speaker, to me personally-and I speak only for myself- it seems only too clear that there is a tendency for the world to divide into two great power blocs. Practically every day some move is made in that direction, and Canada is being drawn into that movement. Let me point out the dangers. There is more danger for Canada in a world war between two groups of powers than there is for any other nation on earth, because the two groups of powers are obviously the Russian and the American, and here our country lies between them. If the world divides finally into these two camps and there is a conflict between them, the chances are that it will be fought right here in Canada. This trend toward two great groups is setting the stage for a third world war, although our sons have been back from the last war, some of them, for only a little over a year; yet here we are in this position.
I suggest that the broad Canadian policy should be, rather than encouraging the build-

Visiting Forces
ing up of these two groups, for us to do everything possible to strengthen all the other nations, to equalize the power. Take, for example, the British commonwealth. It is so placed that it must be for peace. It must have peace to survive, and every effort by the British commonwealth is directed toward world peace. The same is true of the French empire. They must have peace, too, because their territory is so far-flung. I think the same is true of China.


Humphrey Mitchell: And the United States.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think the United States and Russia are under the same necessity of having world peace, because they cannot be got at as the British commonwealth and the French empire can. They are not so vulnerable.


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not mention Russia.


Howard Charles Green: Our aim should be to
strengthen, not only the British commonwealth and France and China, but all the other nations, to try to have an equalizing of power.
Again, with regard to the united nations, if we are to have an arrangement such as is envisaged by this bill, why is that not done under chapter 8 of the united nations charter, which provides for regional arrangements?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is.


Howard Charles Green: Why not let us have it right out on the table and open and aboveboard. The first paragraph of the article reads as follows:
Nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangement or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the united nations.
Examples of such arrangements are the Australia-New Zealand agreement and, I think also the Arab league. These are two examples of regional arrangements.


James Sinclair: Russia and Albania; Russia and Yugoslavia; Russia and Bulgaria; are these examples?


Howard Charles Green: No.


James Sinclair: Well, our friends of the C.C.F. want Russia in.


Mr. MERRITT:: Stand up, if you want to
make a speech.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I have the floor now, and while I am always delighted to hear the hon.
member for Vancouver North, the present moment is not the time or the place. I suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should explain why this Canadian-United States arrangement to permit United States forces to come into our territory should not be drawn up in the form, of a regional agreement and submitted to the united nations. I do not mean the bill only; I mean the whole agreement.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt? It was not drawn up in the form of an agreement, but it was in the form of statements made simultaneously here and in Washington, and the statements were communicated to the secretary general of the united nations for communication by him to all the members of the united nations.


Howard Charles Green: What the minister is referring to is the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada on February 12. I had in mind an agreement such as the Australia-New Zealand one. Frankly, I do not understand why the provision for allowing United States troops on Canadian shores was not made by treaty, and then the treaty endorsed by the house, rather than in the way the government is doing it. However I repeat that what I had in mind was an agreement such as the Australia-New Zealand one.
My suggestions to the minister are that he should explain the questions under these two categories. Perhaps it might be as well for the government to delay final consideration of this bill until complete information is given to the house. This House of Commons is comparatively inexperienced in dealing with foreign affairs. We have been doing it for only about seven or eight years.


Humphrey Mitchell: Judging from the
speeches that we listen to sometimes, one would not think so.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether that is meant to be an insult or a compliment.


Humphrey Mitchell: Take it whichever way you wish.


Howard Charles Green: I take into consideration the source, my good friend the Minister of Labour. For the sake of ourselves as hon. members, and more particularly so that the Canadian people can thoroughly understand what they are being led into, I suggest that time should be taken for the consideration of this measure


William Irvine: I desire to say just a very few words on the bill now before us. No one could listen to the calm and reasoned speech of the hon. gentle-
Visiting Forces

man (Mr. Green) who has just taken his seat or to the splendid presentation of the case by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Probe), without- being conscious of the tremendous implications of the legislation now before us. It is true that in a way the bill seems innocent enough. It is merely to permit certain forces or military groups which come in by arrangement from the United States, to administer their own military discipline under our law. So far as the bill is concerned, that is practically all that it means. But the background which has been given by the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred does bring out the seriousness of the implications of this legislation.
Personally I would not object to the legislation if it were, as the previous speaker said, made universal and reciprocal with a view to carrying out the programme or policy of the united nations, having in view merely the protection of the world peace. If that were its objective, then I think the preamble to the bill should read differently. It should be an act to make provision with respect to foreign forces when visiting Canada, and not limited to any particular nation. But if the arrangements have been made between our government and that of the United States to bring military units or groups or units-I do not know just what the term is that is a better one to use after the discussion which took place about units-to come into this country, then it is only natural that they should be permitted to apply their own principles of discipline. But I want to go beyond that.
In the statement that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made earlier in the session with respect to the matter, I understood him to say that any arrangements which might be made in this regard between the United States and Canada would be in harmony with the proposals of the united nations. If that is true, then there is no reason in the world why this should be limited only to the United States of America.
Reference has been made to the sad fact that the world is gradually being lined up into two great blocs. These blocs have been mentioned-the Russians with their satellites and the Americans with theirs. I think, sir, it is much too soon for us to identify ourselves with either. If there is to be any world peace, notwithstanding, shall I say, the tirade of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) against the united nations, it will have to come through the united nations. I do not see how we can now align ourselves in the smallest degree with one of these blocs without being regarded by the other as being in a way to becoming their enemy, and thus we are by our action, however innocent we may

be in taking it, putting ourselves in the position of blocking the peace of the world.
I also noticed that the minister in charge of this legislation brought to our attention the fact that it was within the powers of the governor general to invite friendly troops into this country. In time of war it is essential that the governor general, as the commander in chief, should have full authority over our forces, but in time of peace I do not think that it a very wise policy. All our policies for defence, all our policies which imply either peace or war in time of peace, while we have time to consider policy, should be considered and passed by this parliament.
I insist, so far as my voice goes, on that practice. We have sufficient time now to consider this and similar questions which have a bearing on the united nations and our hopes for the peace of the world. Let us then find our policy; let us debate it here; let us settle it and let us follow it, but do not leave these things to any individual, not even to the cabinet, unless they have first been passed by this parliament.
I do not know to what extent our government is committed to a policy of coordination of defence measures, practices and manoeuvres with the government of the United States. I presume that if we hope to be united in a united nations world police force to maintain the peace of the world, it would be a good thing for us to have the coordination and collaboration in matters of defence which the government appears to contemplate. But again I say that must be not a matter between us and some other single nation; it is a matter for the consideration of all the nations of the world. It must be done, not only in harmony with the strict law or the strict regulations of the united nations, but in harmony with the broad spirit of international action to maintain the peace of the world. If that is not so, then I for one would desire to register my objection to the present procedure. But if that is so, then I say again that we should not confine this privilege to one nation. I imagine, as the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Probe) said, that if we were now passing legislation which permitted British troops, French troops or Russian troops to come in here, there would be much objection from many countries and much objection from people in this country as well. Regardless of the fact that the United States is our great neighbour, and our friend with whom we have so much in common, I do not think we can presume to make a military policy with her alone when we have been committed to the principles of the united nations. Having regard, therefore, to the

Visiting Forces
important implications of this legislation in its bearing upon the future peace of the world, I think it would be well if this house should send it, in accordance with the amendment which has been moved, to the committee which has the right and authority of this house to consider matters of this kind, in order to give the members of parliament an opportunity to study it in all its details and in all its implications, so that we may be sure that we shall not now make a blunder which we may repent in a short time to come.


James Sinclair: I should like to make a few remarks which are occasioned mainly by those made by one or two of the opposition speakers. The discussion has centered, not on the principle of this bill because it seems to me the principle is recognized that if we are to have foreign troops in this country, then they should have some measure of control of their own troops and of discipline over them.
The debate so far has revolved around the principle of the admission of foreign troops. The stand taken by the opposition seems to be that this should, be done not by agreement between this country and the United States of America, but by ratification of the united nations under the section for regional agreements. The thought which immediately leaps to my mind is that if Canada, a small nation, is expected to follow such a procedure, then it is certainly incumbent on the great nations in the united nations to do similarly. Yet I have not heard of Russia approaching the united nations and asking that sanction for the troops they nowT have in Albania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania; I have not heard either of the United Kingdom in the past asking for approval for the troops they have in Greece; nor, now that the United States has taken over that task, have I heard of any request from the United States for such approval. Therefore, to expect us to set this shining example at this time in our relationship with our closest and most friendly neighbour is, I think, a little absurd. There is no doubt in my mind that the great bulk of the Canadian people welcome the closest and most immediate defence connections with our great neighbour to the south.
Mention has been made tonight of this great unprotected boundary between us. Certainly any enemy who attacks either Canada or the United States, obviously puts the other partner in a dangerous position. It is for that reason that we, without the sanction of the united nations, set up our excellent joint defence board. To the hon. member for Vancouver
South (Mr. Green) who spoke tonight, I say that I am quite sure that ninety per cent of the people of Vancouver would give hearty accord to any plan whereby the troops of either of these two countries can visit freely for our joint defence. It is not a matter of distrust of the united nations. Far from it. When the great nations show a good example by putting forward such proposals for sanction of the united nations anywhere, else, then that will be the time for us to ask for it. But until that time comes,, we should put our own house in order first. People should remember what happened to Belgium. Belgium got a similar idea before the recent war, when they dropped the alliances they had in the hope that they would be safe. Their safety was no better in this war than it was in the last.
There is just one other thing I should like to say, and it is something which struck me forcibly during the speech by the hon.. member for Regina. During the last one and a half years, I have been receiving over and over again from the Labour Progressive party clubs in my riding and from the communist-dominated unions of British Columbia these pious resolutions saying "Let us have joint control of the atomic bomb," The reason behind them is not the sentiment that there should be joint control. The thing is to give their Russian friends an insight and knowledge, of the atomic bomb. You have only to hear the Labour Progressive party speakers in British Columbia to realize that. Now we are hearing the C.C.F. advocate what to me is an exactly similar thing. We are going to ask the united nations -that is, Great Britain, China. France and Russia-whether it is proper for us to allow United States troops into this country, with Russia having the power of veto. I tell the hon. member for Regina that he is playing the Russians' game when he suggests that to the Canadian parliament.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I do not think anybody can accuse me of internationalism.


Mr. MICHAUD:: That is right.


Norman Jaques: I think I can say that I have said more against the surrender of Canadian sovereignty than all the rest of the members of this house put together.


An hon. MEMBER:: What a man!


Norman Jaques: I have even made a number of trips to the United States and addressed great audiences there for the sole purpose of defending American nationalism and Canadian nationalism. In fact, only a week or two ago I was told that my nationalism was a menace-
3806.
Visiting Forces


Mr. HARTT:: Hear, hear.


Norman Jaques: -because I stood for Canadian nationalism and loyalty; and no one was so critical as the leader or leaders of the C.C.F. They are the great internationalists, and to them nationalism is a crime. Yet tonight, when it suits their convenience, they tell us that we must not surrender any sovereignty for our own defence. I cannot help thinking that the underlying motive behind the opposition to this bill-I do not mean the details at all; I am discussing merely the general principles-is the same motive that was behind the criticism of the royal commission on espionage. That is my firm conviction. I make that statement only because I can say that above all other members of this house I have defended the sovereignty of Canada inside and outside this chamber, and I cannot be accused of ever wanting to make Canada cheap or to surrender her sovereignty in any shape or form. But we must accept the inevitable.
What is the situation? Geographically Canada occupies a position between the two greatest forces in the world today, not only the two greatest forces in armed strength, but the two greatest exponents of the two ideologies which at the present time divide the world. We cannot avoid that; we are like the nut in the nutcracker. Comparisons have been made with British troops, for instance, and troops of other countries. I do not think that is a fair comparison, because, as I have said, Canada is directly between our neighbours to the south and our neighbours to the north. Suppose war were to break out between those two countries, between those two ideologies. Certainly we can do nothing to prevent it; but in that case the United States could not possibly run the risk of leaving herself open to attack from the north. She would be bound to take advanced positions in order to defend her own territory. I do not think that can be contradicted; it is something we have to accept. In the old days, of course, one built a series of blockhouses along the frontier and one was very careful not to set foot over the boundary'; but those day's are gone. Today it is not a question of the earth; it is a question of the air, which knows no international boundaries. I say that in the event of war the United States would be bound to take whatever measures they thought fit to protect their own nationals and their own borders. Further, in the event of war, would any Canadian wish to load the balance against our neighbours to the south? I do not think so.

I will challenge anyone to get up and say so. Therefore why should anybody be so much against the principle of this bill?
In what I am saying I am not accepting all the clauses of the bill. I think they should be thoroughly discussed in this house and, if necessary, modified. I am against the amendment at present before the house, for two reasons. The first is that as a member of the external affairs committee I know we already have more business than we can properly take care of. The second reason is that I believe a bill of this kind is far better discussed on the floor of this house, out in the open for all to hear what is going on. Committees do not get enough publicity; somehow, when the report is brought in, the house seems to have lost interest, and that is the last heard of the matter. I want it clearly understood that I am not by any means accepting every clause in the bill, but on general principles I support it and for these reasons I am against the amendment we are now discussing.


Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief in speaking on this bill, and as a matter of fact I did not intend to speak at all. I shall take a realistic view. I am not going to attack any of the previous speakers, because they are entitled to their own views. I am not a lawyer and I am not an idealist in the strict sense of the word. I am going to be practical. This is merely a bill to make provision with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada and with respect to the exercise of discipline and to the internal administration of such forces. It seems to me that is very' simple. We all know that if there should be another war it will come upon us very quickly; one need not be a military man to realize that. We shall not have time to be passing acts of parliament and making special provisions to permit allied troops to come into our country. This is the time to make those provisions. We are not going to w'eaken our position with the united nations; we are going to strengthen it. I am tired of this business of appeasement. We saw what appeasement did. I do not want people to tell me about what happened in 1938. A lot of bad things happened then, so that we need not make any comparisons with that period. I do say, however, that we are very fortunate in having such a strong, friendly ally' to the south, who is willing to see that no unfriendly power sets foot on Canadian soil, and we want to do everything we can to make it possible for those people to assist

Visiting Forces
us in time of need. We love this great country of ours, and if we love it we must be ready to defend it. We know perfectly well, as other hon. members have said, that in the event of another war Canada is liable to be the battle-ground. I am realistic enough about the matter to realize that, unfortunately, that will probably be so. All right; can we defend it by ourselves? No.
What is happening in the United States at the present time? They are making a great study to see what they may need by way of having conscription during peace time for military training purposes, and what their appropriation may have to be. We have not come to that yet. But I say: By all means, if they are willing to be ready to come to our assistance, let us not turn them down.
Do we want this country, or do we not want this country? If we do want it, then we should do everything we can to defend it. Do not worry about the united nations; all one has to do is to see what is happening in Hungary today. That is only one of many countries.
I will not take more time this evening. [DOT] The principle of this bill-and after all, that is what we are debating-is all too simple. It is for the best interests of Canada; and I was much encouraged to hear what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver [DOT] North (Mr. Sinclair).


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, may I commence by saying that I feel the hon. member who has just spoken has made a real contribution to the debate. And may I add that undoubtedly a number of members in the house will welcome the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to his place beside the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), because I am sure the Minister of National Defence will find much food for thought in what has been said this evening.
So far as I am concerned, I would remind hon. members that it was not long ago when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) made a fine pronouncement in the house with ' respect to national defence when he said, as did the hon. member who has just spoken, that if one has something of value and will not defend it, he will lose it.
As we have heard, the policies of appeasement, of disarmament and of weakness followed between the two great wars are not policies understood by certain absolute powers in the world today. Therefore we can only make that choice of defence policy which has been recommended to us from as far
back as the days of George Washington. His views have lately been underlined by great commanders of the United States forces in the last war, including General Eisenhower, General Marshall and General Arnold. They have said, and have written in their reports, that there is no peace or security through weakness.
In my view this measure follows the right course at the present time. I know that every man and woman in Canada, and perhaps in every other country of the world, holds in his or her heart the hope of world-wide peace for generations to come. If we must have a police force now, to protect this peace, then I say, let us have it.
The time factor in war is all-important. Surprise, the power of weapons and the aggressive megalomania of some men in absolute control in undemocratically governed countries all add to the factors today which can bring sudden and absolute war involving not only the armed forces of the powers in this world, but every man, woman and child in our defenceless cities.
Therefore I say Canada today should take all the means she can, and should do what she considers reasonable to defend her boundaries, in the hope that the time will come- and 1 am sure all men and women throughout the world hope it will be soon-when we may see a disarmament policy which will encompass all nations of the world, and when we have decided to live and to trade peacefully one with the other.
In this bill I see none of the evil or far-reaching implications expressed by socialist members in the house. It is to me an innocent measure to implement the continued friendship and cooperation of our two peace-loving nations. In my view the socialist approach to this problem of national defence is as impractical as their approach to prosperity. It rules out the human factor, in, both instances.
I should like also to agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), that the government has not given us or-


Stanley Howard Knowles: How can you do that? Are you a socialist?


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Well, if you will wait a minute, I will tell you.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Keep quiet and let him speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, well!


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yapping all the time.
Visiting Forces


Lawrence Wilton Skey: The policy of the Progressive Conservative party in parliament has been one which, in all cases, has supported the full development of Canada's defence forces within our national means, and the full implementing of an intelligent national defence policy. That is what the hon. member for Vancouver South has asked for. I will admit, for the most part we have had most impractical and vague explanations from the government, surrounded in secrecy at times. They have not quite forgotten their war mentality. However we are slowly persuading them, and I am sure that in the end we shall get the answers to our questions and perhaps, in a small way, be able to assist them in their endeavours properly to organize the armed forces of Canada. We do, of course, deplore the fact that the government have not done better.
As I was saying, the hon. member for Vancouver South has asked that the house and the people of Canada be given a clear view of the whole defence policy. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, ably assisted by the Minister of National Defence, will take his words in good faith and come before the house with a proper explanation of the safeguards and the implications in the bill, and how the government intends to implement the measure.
I shall not deal longer with the bill, except to say that if such a policy is implemented ' by the Canadian government it is my personal hope that our Canadian defence forces will be so organized, equipped and commanded that, in company with their United States friends, they may take a full part in all the peacetime military manoeuvres and defence exercises which the joint staffs may agree will be useful for the defence of our country and the continuing efficiency of our defence units.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr Speaker, with a lot of what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey) has said, I, I think like most hon. members in the house, find myself in complete agreement. In the first place, in considering a measure of this kind we ought to ask ourselves whether we are in favour of working with like-minded countries. If we are to work with like-minded countries, then we should be prepared to extend to them, on a totally reciprocal basis, the same rights, opportunities and obligations as they extend to us. From the reports which I have had from those who have studied this matter and which I have checked I am persuaded that what we propose to give in this bill has already been extended to the forces of Canada should they be in the United States.
Some questions have been asked by hon. members, such as that by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) with reference to reciprocity. I think the answer to that is to be found in public law 384 of the 78th congress. It is chapter 326, second session, H.R.3241, an act to implement the jurisdiction of service courts of friendly foreign forces within the United States, and for other purposes. After dealing with the definition of friendly foreign forces' service courts in the United States, the act goes on to state, in section 2:
Upon a specific or general request of the officer commanding any friendly foreign force, having service courts of appropriate jurisdiction within the United States, it shall be lawful for any person in the civil, military, or naval establishments of the United States having authority to arrest, summarily any member of such force designated in such request and to deliver him to the custody of any officer of such force or to the custody of the military or naval authorities of the United States who shall deliver him forthwith to the custody of an officer of such force, for trial in such service courts within the United States for such offences as shall lie within the jurisdiction of the service courts of such friendly foreign force:	Provided, that
the trial of any member of such friendly foreign force for an offence against a member of the civilian population shall be in open court (except where security consideration forbids), shall take place promptly in the United States and within a reasonable distance from the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed, for the convenience of witnesses.


Howard Charles Green: What is the definition of friendly foreign force in that act.?


Brooke Claxton: 
Howard Charles Green: It is a general act which can be applied to any nation?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, and it has been applied to the United Kingdom and to Canada.


Mr. HAZEN:: Is the jurisdiction of the United States civil courts taken away under that act?


Brooke Claxton: I am not an expert in United States civil or military law, but I should think it was at least arguable that any offence which lay within the jurisdiction of the service courts of such foreign forces would be an offence with respect to which the jurisdiction of the United States civil courts might be taken away. I am not sure about that, but that is something which we do not ask for under the present bill. What we ask for is that jurisdiction in respect of service offences under the United States military law shall be given to United States military courts. Under the law in the United States, which I am informed is still in force, jurisdiction in respect of military offences, which would be given to United States service courts under our bill, has already been given to Canadian service courts.


Major James William Coldwell: Has that general act which was passed in 1944 been extended to other countries besides the United Kingdom and Canada?


Brooke Claxton: I am not informed on
that, but I did make inquiries as to whether it was still in force in respect of Canada, so that we might be able to assure this house that there was complete reciprocity in regard to the provisions of the law which we are seeking to have passed. I was informed that that was the case. We are endeavouring to extend in
respect of service offences and offences in respect of which either the Canadian courts have had no jurisdiction or in respect of which we were willing to give up jurisdiction, just the same jurisdiction as had already been extended in respect of similar offences by Canadian personnel in the United States.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why Canada could not have a general law which could be made applicable to the different nations?


Brooke Claxton: At the present time, apart from the commonwealth countries and the United States, there is no other country in respect of which we have such relations. Would you like to have us extend such a law to XYZ countries? We have already extended the provisions of our law to the United Kingdom and all commonwealth countries. If hon. members would like to see it extended all around the world, let them name their countries. We think it is a good thing to work along with people who have like-minded notions about law, order, military law and defence. Consequently this law is proposed to extend into the peacetime period cooperation as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his statement of February 12, 1947, which I think had the unanimous assent, acquiescence and support of members of the house.


Howard Charles Green: It was never considered by the house.


Brooke Claxton: I did not hear any objections to it in the house or from any quarter in Canada-not a single word of objection to it.


Major James William Coldwell: There was no opportunity to object.


Brooke Claxton: Four months have passed since that statement was made by the Prime Minister, and I have not heard any objection to it by any Canadian in this house or outside, in the press or otherwise. I do not think there is any other declaration of Canadian policy which received so much assent from the Canadian people.
With regard to the other question which hon. members have in mind, as to what is the relationship with the United Kingdom, I should say, first of all, that we have extended exactly the same privileges, if they can be called privileges-I think they are just ordinary working arrangements-to the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth countries. Also the United Kingdom herself extended the same kind of relationship with regard to United States forces in the United [DOT] Kingdom. That was done by the Allied Forces

Visiting Forces
Act of 1940, chapter 51, 3 and 4, George VI, which was supplemented by another enactment, the United States of America Visiting Forces Act, 1942, 5 and 6, George VI, chapter 31.


Howard Charles Green: That expired six months after the war.


Brooke Claxton: I am informed that it is one of the things which has been carried on.


Howard Charles Green: I had the act here tonight.


Brooke Claxton: I may have been misinformed. but I am sure that similar privileges will be extended as they may be needed in the interests of those who seek peace.
I have no feeling about this bill Mr. Speaker, except that it seems to me, from the ordinary concept of cooperation, to be along the lines of the declaration of the Prime Minister of this country and the President of the United States on the 12th of February, 1947. This is the kind of thing which makes such arrangements workable and sensible. There is no surrender of Canadian sovereignty, because we reserve to ourselves and to our courts complete control over civil offences unless we ourselves give up that control in respect of a specific offence. Also there is no surrender of Canadian sovereignty in respect of cooperation between our country and that of our friendly neighbour to the south, because under the terms of the Prime Minister's declaration it was provided in paragraph 5:
As ail underlying principle all cooperative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.
Then at page 346 of Hansard of February 12, 1947, I read this from the Prime Minister's statement:
It has been the task of the governments to assure that the close security relationship between Canada and the United States in North America will in no way impair but on the contrary will strengthen the cooperation of each country within the broader framework of the united nations.
This declaration by the President of the United States and by the Prime Minister of this country given in the United States and in this house on the 12th of February is a statement that has been filed with the united nations. I do not think anyone who has studied the charter of the united nations would suggest for one second that it contravenes the charter either in letter or in spirit. This is the ordinary kind of working relationship that it is necessary to provide for close cooperation in matters of common defence in regard to our common interests. It gives nothing away of our sovereignty; it gives nothing away of our control of our own civil* 
procedure or of our criminal procedure. It provides the machinery under which the United States forces which may be in Canada by our consent will be permitted to control their own forces in exactly the same way that any Canadian forces in the United States may be permitted to control their own forces by the consent of the United States.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very
good idea that members should air their views on this subject in this debate. I quite agree that this bill is administrative only and in its contents is perfectly innocuous but I think it has behind it quite serious implications which, so far as I know, have never before been discussed by the house. Possibly these implications have never been discussed under a parliamentary system such as ours before in history in time of peace. Consequently I have been very much interested in listening to the debate, and I have not been a bit surprised to hear such divergent views expressed from different quarters of the house, ranging all the way from those who take a very dim view of the whole procedure to those who sit to your right, Mr. Speaker, some of whom I thought took altogether too light a view of what was involved here and who should clothe their realism with a little bit of consideration.
There is no one in this house who does not want defence cooperation with the United States of America. There is no one in this house who does not realize how essential that is to the security of'Canada. I think we are all agreed that that cooperation should be carried on as smoothly and as effectively as possible, that it should be worked out smoothly and effectively and in such a way as to cause as little friction as possible.
There are two points I want to discuss first of all. One is very short. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) a few moments ago stated that there had been no disapproval of the Prime Minister's statement to the house of February 12. What did he expect? Surely he did not expect disapproval of that statement?


Brooke Claxton: I certainly did not.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: No, and none was offered, and none is being offered now. But as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) has pointed out there is here something considerably beyond the words used in the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of February 12. There was nothing in the Prime Minister's statement which suggested the principle that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) enunciated

Visiting Forces
to the house just before six o'clock, that the government of Canada, without reference to parliament, could invite into Canada an unlimited number of the armed forces of a foreign power. That is the essential point which has been raised by the introduction of this bill, and it is well that the house should discuss it fully.
I suggest that the point for our consideration is not the legal aspect of this bill at all, but rather this important question. What limit, if any, should parliament place upon the right of the executive to invite foreign forces to Canada in time of peace? That is the new question which is being posed to the house for the first time. I say at once that I can see many circumstances in which it would be a useful thing for Canada so to invite such a foreign power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) was, first of all, invited into the house tonight in the apparel he is wearing, and, second, if he will exhibit his right leg, because I want to find out if he is wearing his skean dhu, and so is "bearing arms", under this bill.


George Alexander Cruickshank: A good representative of Scotland would be proud to have United States troops in here at any time to join with us in welcoming Maurice Chevalier of France.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Before the house applauded -I thought the applause was directed at my speech, but I now find it was directed entirely in a different direction-I was saying that the important point we were discussing was the limit, if any, which parliament should place upon the power of the executive to invite a foreign force to this country. I went on to say that I could see many circumstances in which it would be in our interest so to invite such a force. I am not suggesting that there are no conditions under which such an invitation should be extended, but I am anxious that this matter be thoroughly discussed because it is a grave departure from our practice heretofore. It is a very great departure, as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) has shown, from the most definite words used by the Prime Minister, when he rejected almost with scorn, to one who reads those words now, the idea that a sovereign country like Canada could possibly accept for training British airmen.


Brooke Claxton: Not at all, if I may interrupt my hon. friend. Long before the state-83166-243
ment which he alleges the Prime Minister made, *which has been sufficiently explained to this house before, we already had an act which gave to the forces of the United Kingdom exactly the same kind of privileges which we are now seeking to extend to the forces of the United States. They are two totally different questions.


Howard Charles Green: Why did you not let in the British airmen?


Brooke Claxton: We certainly did let them in; they were very glad to come, and went out of here in great numbers, and it was a great effort by Canada.


Howard Charles Green: After the war started.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I do not know, Mr
Speaker, if the Minister of National Defence was in the house when the hon. member for Vancouver South read the words which he says I allege the Prime Minister used on July 1, 1938. If he had been I do not think he would have suggested that I was not quoting accurately.


Brooke Claxton: I have heard this quotation since 1938, and I do not think anyone in Canada has any misunderstanding about that, namely, that training in Canada-


Howard Charles Green: They certainly have not.


Brooke Claxton: -will be controlled by Canadians.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister also went on to say that he thought these words had been satisfactorily explained to the house on many occasions. I want to tell him that, for my part, they have not been satisfactorily explained.


Brooke Claxton: If I used the word "explained", I should like to change it to the word "stated". .


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I doubt very much whether they could be satisfactorily explained to me.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is quite possible.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: However I did not mean to get off on that subject.	.


Brooke Claxton: Why did you?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: What you said led me onto it. If I might quote the Prime Minister on another occasion, at page 2423 of Hansard of May, 1939, he said that on these matters of peace and war and defence it was for the government to recommend and for parliament to decide May I say that I much prefer his

Visiting Forces

words then to his words of the year before, and they might commend themselves to the house in this debate.
On February 12 the Prime Minister made an announcement of joint defence with the United States, in which he suggested that there would be exchanges of selected individuals and observers between the two countries for work in training and in experimental establishments, particularly in connection with cold weather. This evening the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in dealing with this bill, made it perfectly clear to the hon. member for Nanaimo that he had not under contemplation any extension of the doctrine enunciated by the Prime Minister on February 12. I am perfectly aware that in matters of this kind we want the most flexible kind of check on the power of the executive to invite foreign forces into the country. I am well satisfied with the statement of the Prime Minister on February 12. If that kind of cooperation is envisaged, and that kind only, the kind necessary for coordination of training and joint training in the use of weapons and of all these things which are necessary in order that we may get the greatest benefit out of our proximity, I would be satisfied with this bill and with the policy that was enunciated. For my own part I am not here to suggest that we should put any rigid checks of any great magnitude upon the power of the executive to give such an invitation; but I do want to suggest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a flexible check, if I may call it so, upon the exercise of this power by the governor in council.
I suggest that the government will be ill-advised to extend the doctrine of February 12 beyond what it states and to invite into Canada any operational forces or any large forces for training purposes without prior reference to parliament. If the house can be assured that no foreign forces of significant size would be invited in until this house is apprised of the fact that that is to be done, then I would feel that parliament had discharged its duty. I say that in this case, because I myself should like to see the smoothest system that could be devised to continue the system of joint defence. As I have said, that cooperation is absolutely essential to our security. Nevertheless this house has grave responsibilities toward the people of this country, and none so grave as that of seeing that our sovereignty remains perfect and that our status as a nation, of which we are so proud, remains inviolate. We cannot see this new departure in policy introduced-


Brooke Claxton: There is nothing new about it whatever.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: -without impressing upon the government their duty to keep the house informed on this subject.
I wish for one moment to deal with the amendment of the C.C.F. and to say a word about the suggestion of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Probe) that the united nations should be consulted before any such step as this is taken. I do not agree- with the hon. member for Regina in that suggestion. I fear that if Canada has to run to the united nations before she makes a friendly arrangement with a great and friendly foreign power, there is danger that our liberty of action may be too seriously curtailed. I do not believe that we must follow the principle that Canada can take no step in external relations without reference to the united nations organization. Canada is a great supporter of the united nations organization; but, as I see it, Canada should influence the united nations for good by taking part in its councils, but should not at any time become the mere object of directives from that organization. For that reason I cannot agree with the hon. member for Regina in his suggestion.
Having said so much about the parliamentary limit which we could place upon the policy of the executive in inviting foreign forces into the country, may I say another word upon a limit which is much more important to me; that is, the practical and real limit which we could place upon any such invitEttions. The extent to which we may require to invite foreign forces into our country to share with us our task of defence will be limited by the extent to which we are prepared, reasonably, to defend ourselves. When I see this change in the policy of the government between 1938 and today in connection with this kind of invitation, I wonder why I do not see the same change in policy reflected in our own defence forces. It seems to me that Canada has not had, since the end of the- war, any defence policy, and that may have a serious bearing upon the extent to which we may be obliged to take advantage of this power of invitation. I wish to read what the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), who was then Minister of National Defence for the army, said on October 16, 1945. He was talking about the permanently employed active force, and he said this at page 1135 of Hansard:
This formation will be maintained as a trained field force, fully equipped, ready to meet whatever commitments may arise. Until we know more about our international obligations and consequent requirements, these active force units will be retained as a minimum and would be subject to whatever expansion might later be

Visiting Forces
required in the light of any obligations which we might accept to assist in maintaining the peace of the world. Preliminary estimates indicate that the numbers involved in the active permanently employed force will be between 20.090 and 25.000 all ranks.
We know now that we have not 20,000, much less 25,000 in all ranks in our active force. It seems to me that the safest limit we can place upon this new policy, which none of us, I suppose, wholly likes, would be to get rid of the interim force idea, get rid of the idea that we must wait until the security council gives us our task before we determine what our own defence forces will be, and get back to that principle which was laid down as long ago as the imperial conference of 1923, and which was referred to by the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), when he was Minister of National Defence in 1939, "The primary responsibility of each portion of the empire is for its own local defence."
I simply wish to say, in conclusion, that if Canada does the maximum within her power to secure her own local defence, without help from outside our borders, our sovereignty will be secure, even though we may want the additional cooperation of other friendly powers. But if Canada should ever do less than the maximum within her power for her own local defence, and if she should ever rely on foreign forces to carry out her own share of that defence, then our sovereignty will be really challenged, not by the presence of the foreign forces, but rather by our failure to do all that we could do for ourselves.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: We in this group favour any steps that are essential for the defence of Canada. Above all things, we believe that at a time like this Canada should be kept strong. We realize, of course, that the destinj- of Canada and that of the United .States are closely interwoven, if for no other reason than the geographical one. On the other hand, we do not agree with those who are continually trying to give the impression that there are only two great powers in the world today. We believe that there is a third great power, the British commonwealth of nations. Furthermore, we believe that the British commonwealth of nations can do a great deal to help maintain peace in this world if only the members of that commonwealth remajn true to themselves and true to it. We do not agree with those, people who are continually trying .to emphasize the fact that another war is inevitable. Some not only appear to think that; actually they seem to hope another war will occur between two of the great powers of the world. We have had the advice of men 83166-2431
such as Eisenhower, who has told us that, in his opinion, Russia wants peace. We know the United States wants peace, and therefore we feel that if the British commonwealth of nations not only remains a great power but becomes a greater power it can be a tremendous force toward helping maintain peace between the other two great powers, Russia and the United States.
We feel, especially after listening to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that it would be a good thing to send this bill to committee, in order to obtain a better understanding, of all that it may imply.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: May I call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I move the adjournment of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: I declare the motion lost.


Harry Grenfell Archibald: I should like to contribute just a few words to this debate. At the outset, I may say quite frankly that I do not like this bill; I have no sympathy at all with it. I do not like the way in which the government is bringing it into operation. I can remember that when the news first came out a month or so ago we were told that it was to be an agreement concerning meteorology, for the study of weather and so on. When we tried to discuss it on the floor of the house; at least when I tried, I was ruled out of order. Now we have thrown at us the fact that the Americans wish to have and apply their military laws here in Canada. I believe that this method of bringing in their military law is much like the story of the camel getting his head into the tent; before we are through, the whole works will be in. It is not a case of being friendly or unfriendly to the United States, but at the present time we have that country carrying on a one-man stand fighting for a method of trade with which the rest of the world does not agree.
I should like to point out that the attitude of Great Britain in world trade affairs, which is the basis of all wars, is altogether different from that of the United States. Britain is promoting friendly relations and friendly trade pacts with Russia, for example, and with such countries as Poland. The United States may be peace loving, but at the present moment it is canying on an economic war which, if continued to its logical conclusion, will wind up in actual warfare, and we do not want to see that happen. As pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), there is a third method, which is being pursued by Great Britain. Already in the press reports it can
Veterans Affairs

be seen that the tension between Great Britain and Russia is easing, while the tension between Russia and the United States is increasing. It is all very well to say that we should go with like-minded peoples. Yes; we get in with them, and the first thing we know we shall be with them in their fight right up to our neck. I had personal experience with United States personnel up in Prince Rupert during the war, and some of it was not so good. If you take our standards of education, they are far ahead of those in the United States. You give these people power to judge their own personnel ; you say that if they infringe Canadian laws they will be tried by Canadian courts. That is all very well, but once the M.P.'s get hold of their own men, it is difficult to get them back into our own courts.
Now may I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 5, 1947