1947-06-06

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday there was an exchange in the house between my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and myself which will be found reported on page 3834 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. Knowles:	We always do that even in
arguments which take place in the house; as for example, the exchanges between the Minister of Veterans Affairs and me. We have them often. I always think he is wrong; he always thinks I am wrong.
Mr. Mackenzie: But I am right.
That is exactly what happened, but the Ottawa Citizen of this morning contains an article which offends my dignity. It is entitled:
"You're darned right" is Mackenzie's reply.
I have never used the word "darned" in my life. I think it is an objectionable and obnoxious word except when applied to the mending of socks. I wish the paper would make the proper retraction.
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise also to a question of privilege. I regret having to correct our friends in the press gallery because I realize they are working under difficulties, but there is a sentence in a report in this morning's Ottawa Citizen which really ought to be corrected. It reads:
Stanley Knowles (CCF-Winnipeg North Centre) said that if Canada refused to have United States troops within her borders in peace time she would be in the enviable position of being able to say she had taken the first step against the "Truman policy" for the "Stalin policy."
Obviously if anyone had made such a statement as that in this house he would have
Reports of Committees

been howled down. The word "for" should be "or". What I did say is reported on page 3836 of Hansard as follows:
That would be the first more by any small country against the Truman policy or the Stalin policy, and it would put us in the position of being able properly to criticize the Soviet Union for what they are doing as well as the United States. It would also strengthen our position in the councils of the united nations.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I wish to table copies in English and French of orders in council passed under the authority of the National Emergency Transitional Powers, 1945, for the months of April and May 1947. Orders in council passed under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, were last tabled on April 24, 1947. These will be the last group of orders in council to be tabled under the provisions of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945, since the act expired on May 15, 1947.
lion. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour): I desire to table copy of P.C. 2179, passed on June 3, 1947, by which the federal government extended until March 31, 1949, the time limits under which financial contributions may be made to the capital cost of new vocational schools, including building and equipment costs. The arrangement is a dollar for dollar one between the federal and the provincial governments. The extension has been approved following representations by the provincial governments that the shortage of building materials made it impossible to complete school building programmes by the original deadline of March 31, 1948.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) presented the first report of the special joint committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
pleted its home run. I shall not make any remarks other than those I have already made, but if the house is kind enough I should like to place on the record editorials from the Vancouver Sun and the Northern Daily News. I have also a letter from Mr. J. A. Laforest, Mayor of Squatteck.
Mr. SPEAKER :: Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the house?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: To table these documents, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. POULIOT:: To put them on the record.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I think anything put on the record should be read, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, thank you. I tried to get rid of the embarrassment I would feci in reading those articles. The first, entitled "Sacramental Words," is from the Vancouver Sun, May 13, 1947, and the other, entitled "Shredded Red Tape," is from the Northern Daily News, of Kirkland Lake, Ontario.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member knows he is quite out of order in reading articles from newspapers.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but those who have not read this have missed a lot.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 266, to incorporate Federation 1 nsurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville).


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill No. 267 (from the senate), to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1929.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) moved:: That the third report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on Wednesday, June 4, be now concurred in.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, the last petition of the electors of Temiscouata county has com-



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY AS TO FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. DROPE (Northumberland, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Agriculture, but since he is not in his seat perhaps the Prime Minister would answer it. Reports that have

Visiting Forces
reached me indicate that the butter industry, from producer to consumer, is in a state of confusion reacting to the detriment of all. Will the minister state what the policy of the government is in regard to a floor price on butter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I must thank my hon. friend for the compliment he pays me. In reply I would say that the government's policy will be made known in due course.



OCEAN TRANSPORT . INQUIRY AS TO PASSAGE FOR CANADIANS DESIRING TO RETURN FROM OVERSEAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. I. HAMEL (St. Maurice-Lafleche):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the appropriate minister a question. Because the government directly or indirectly sponsored the admittance of thousands and thousands of immigrants on ships, many Canadian citizens who are now overseas cannot return to their own country. Will the government tell the house what steps will be taken to facilitate the return to this country of those Canadian citizens before further immigrants are admitted?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the government has sponsored transportation for immigrants. It is my understanding that ships are common carriers and operate on the basis of first come, first served. That is certainly the case with the air lines. I think a little patience is all that is required for those Canadians overseas desiring to return to Canada.



VISITING FORCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for 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, and of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Probe.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the motion for second reading of this bill and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City, that the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter
be referred to the committee on external affairs, have occasioned a debate that has covered a wide range of international politics.
I shall not venture to take the time of the house to comment on many things which have been said in the course of that debate and with which most members of the house would be in agreement, or upon a number of things that have been said with which I cannot agree but which I do not think it is necessary to point out specifically. There are some points, however, upon which I feel it is my duty to give accurate and precise information to the house before it is called upon to vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City.
The first point with which I wish to deal is the effect of that kind of motion. There seems to be some uncertainty as to the effect of an amendment to a motion that a 'bill be read a second time, referring the subject matter of that bill to a committee for consideration. I have discussed this matter with the Clerk, whose experience in things of this kind is, as everyone knows, wide and broad. I have also looked at some of the authorities and I venture to suggest that this is the situation. When a motion for the second reading of a bill has been put a member may move that the bill be not now read a second time but that its subject matter be referred to either a standing or a special committee. If the amendment carries the bill is killed for the time being. There is always the rule that when the house decides that a bill be not now read a second time the door remains open for a motion to place, it on the order paper for second leading at another time. But if the amendment that the bill be not now read a second time carries and the subject matter be referred to a committee, a motion to place the bill on the order paper for second reading cannot be made so long as the subject matter is before the committee. The subject matter cannot be dealt with in the house while it is under reference to the committee. If the committee reports recommending the passage of legislation identical in terms to the bill the subject matter of which was referred to the committee a motion for the second reading could be made without having the bill previously read again a first time. But if the committee does not so report or does not report at all the bill cannot be dealt with in the house. If the report of the committe is not for the introduction of legislation identical in terms with the bill, and the report is concurred in, that is the end of the matter. So that, in fact, as a matter of practical application, there is little chance for a bill, the subject matter of which has been referred to a
Visiting Forces
[Stage Direction]
committee for consideration, to receive further consideration in the house at that session.
The second point with which I wish to deal is the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) with respect to the effect of legislation or proposed legislation recently submitted by the President to the Congress of the United States. I think it is necessary that the Canadian public know what the situation is and not be left under the impression that might have been gathered from newspaper dispatches which have had to be qualified previously in statements to the house but which, unfortunately, the hon. member chose to put on the record last night.
There was recommended by the President to the Congress of the United States on May 26 a bill to replace the act which had been passed in 1940, and which was an act to authorize the secretaries of war and navy to assist the governments of the American republics to increase their military and naval establishments. The President, in submitting this bill, said, among other things:
As stated in my message to the 79th congress our army and navy have maintained cordial relations of collaboration with the armed forces of other American republics, within the framework of the good-neighbour policy. Under authorization of the congress, military and naval training missions have been sent to various American republics.
And further down, he said:
The American republics have assumed new responsibilities for their mutual defence and for the maintenance of peace in the act of Chapul-tepec and the charter of the united nations.
Hon. members know that the act of Chapultepec is an act adopted by the members of the Pan-American union to which Canada does not belong. I continue:
The close collaboration of the American republics provided for in the act of Chapultepec, the proposed treaty to be based upon that act, and other basic inter-American documents, make it highly desirable to standardize military organization, training methods, and equipment as has been recommended by the inter-American defence board.
Canada is not a member of the interAmerican defence board, which is an organism of the Pan-American union. I continue:
Under the bill transmitted herewith, the army and navy, acting in conjunction with the Department of State, would be permitted to continue in the future a general programme of collaboration with the armed forces of our sister republics with a view to facilitating the adoption of similar technical standards.
That is the proposed legislation submitted to the United States congress by the President. In submitting it, he had this to say:
[Mr. St. Laurent.}
The collaboration authorized by the bill could be extended also to Canada whose cooperation with the United States in matters affecting their common defence is of particular importance.
That being the situation, it was stated here the other day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that this legislation had no effect whatsoever on the arrangements outlined and described by him in his statement to the house on February 12, 1947. I think it is only fair that the Canadian public should realize that such is the situation, and that this legislation was legislation to replace the act to which I have referred, an act authorizing the secretaries of war and of navy to assist the governments of the American republics to increase their military and naval establishments and for other purposes. The legislation relates exclusively to the projects arising out of the arrangements of the act of Chapultepec and to implement the undertakings made by those who are parties to that act. It is something which could be extended to Canada, which could be extended to any other nation, which could be extended even to Russia, but it would have to be by arrangement with the sovereign government of such other nation.
Another matter which I think I should deal with at once is this, the idea mentioned by several speakers that the introduction of this bill at the present time had implications which went far beyond the declarations of policy enunciated by the Prime Minister on February 12, 1947. The purpose of this bill is to implement a portion of the declaration made on February 12, 1947, and goes no farther than that; and these implications that have been discussed, these prospective dangers that have been conjured up, cannot be founded on this bill or on the declaration of policy of February 12, 1947. If hon. members choose to imagine other possible policies, other possible dangers, I do not contest their right to do so, but let them do so on their own responsibility. In the presentation of this bill or in the policy declared to this house nothing is to be found which can serve as a basis for such feared possible consequences.
Mr. PEARKES:: On a question of order,
may I suggest that the term used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and subsequently withdrawn led me to get the impression that it went beyond the statements made, because the minister used the word "unit" which has a military interpretation. It is not quite fair to say that the dangers mentioned were not founded on anything in the presentation.

Visiting Forces
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am afraid that those to whom I have been talking about the signification, the meaning of military unit since our exchange the other d'ay do not appear to agree with the hon. member that it means necessarily anything other than a group of men under the command of one or more officers. It was in that sense that I used the word. It may be that great military strategists, like doctors, sometimes disagree. I do not wish to pronounce between them, but I do wish to assert that all I intended it to mean was a group of men under the command of one or more officers.


Mr. MacNIOOL:: Even judges disagree.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is one other matter with respect to which I think it is only proper that the real facts should be once more called to the attention of hon. members, and that arises out of the statement that the policies enunciated in the declaration of February 12, 1947, were a departure from the policy that had been declared in this house by the Prime Minister in 1938 when the question arose as to whether or not training establishment's could be set up by the government of the United Kingdom on Canadian soil. First of all, I wish to come back to the theoretical question asked me by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) when I moved second reading of the bill. He asked where the government obtained the authority to invite the uniformed men of another nation on to Canadian soil. I replied I did not know of any statutory authority, but I pointed out that I thought it was something which could be done, if no prohibition was established by parliament against it.
During a discussion of the estimates in 1938 the then leader of the opposition, now Viscount Bennett, was criticizing something that had been discussed in the press about the establishment of training camps in this country by the government of the United Kingdom. I wish to say at once that it is quite inaccurate to say that there ever was any request and refusal. The situation was that the then leader of the opposition said, because of the known attitude of the government, "Of course there will be no request"; and that is where it ended.
I have before me Hansard for 1938, and I find at page 4523 a report of the discussion which took place when the estimates were before committee of the whole. Mr. Bennett said:	.
The third point has to do with the utilization of portions of this country for the purpose of training grounds for the training of aviators.
And then, to skip a few lines-
I believe other parts of the British empire have been considered, and the information is that not a request but what is equivalent to it, namely an approach to this government, was made to ascertain whether or not there would be any objection to this being done. Obviously no member of the commonwealth is going to ask this government, and face a refusal, because that is not the way governments do business.
Then, in dealing with that matter the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 4529 of Hansard for that year:
This government has never at any time said that it was not prepared to give in our own establishments the opportunity to British pilots to come over here and train, but they will do it in our own establishments, controlled by our own Minister of National Defence who is responsible to this parliament. That is an entirely different thing from having a branch of the British forces establish headquarters in this country, direct their own men here and be responsible, not to this parliament for what takes place in Canada as a consequence, but only to the British parliament and the British people.
That is exactly the situation; and I invite hon. members to compare that situation with the one described by the Prime Minister in his statement to the house on February 12 last, when he said:
As an underlying principle of all cooperative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.
That is the arrangement as it exists at the present time, and for the properly carrying it out it is felt by the government that a bill of this kind is appropriate and even necessary. I think most hon. members who have had military experience have said that if there were to be groups of men of the forces of another country present in this country under the command of an officer or officers it would be proper and desirable that that officer or those officers should have the disciplinary powers provided for by this bill.
It has been suggested in debate-I believe it was by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine)-that there seemed to be no reason to limit this	bill	to	the	United	States ofAmerica, and	that	it	might very	well havebeen a foreign friendly powers forces act. I can assure hon. members that that was considered. I have not been in the house for many years,	but	I	have	been	here long
enough to feel, rightly or wrongly, that if the government had attempted to introduce that kind of bill these rafters would have rung with the denouncements of this autocratic government which wanted to substitute itself for the parliament of the nation.
It was said in the debate, and rightly said, that matters	of	defence	policy	should be
Visiting Forces

considered and determined by this house of parliament. And it is to respect that principle that we thought it would be undesirable to come to parliament and to ask for powers such as that contained in the act of the American congress to which reference has been made, or even the act of the United Kingdom which was referred to, both of which are acts applicable to the armed forces of friendly powers to be designated by proclamation of the President or by His Majesty in council.
We did nof think it would be proper to come to the house and say, "Pass an act under which *the governor in council can apply this legislation to any nation." At the present time there is a similar act which applies to the armed forces of the United Kingdom and, other units of the commonwealth, and to all parts of the empire dependent upon the parliament of the United Kingdom. There is occasion, for members of the. armed forces of our neighbour to the south to be present on our territory, and this bill is to make provision for that situation. There may come a time when there will be occasion for men of the armed forces of other friendly nations to visit this country. If that does happen, I consider it proper that the government should be required,, in order to give them the disciplinary and court-martialing powers provided in this act,, to come back to parliament and put the situation before it, telling it why, those men of the armedi forces of another friendly nation are here, the reason for it, and have the judgment of parliament as to whether or not the government has acted properly in inviting such men to visit this territory.
The question *was asked: Well, what is the limit of this power of the governor in council to invite members of the armed, forces of a friendly nation to visit Canadian territory? The limit is the responsibility of the government to this house of parliament and to the country. The government is not as desirous of committing political suicide as was suggested in the course of the debate with respect to another matter last night. Any government, whether it be this one, or one formed of any other party, knows that for its acts it is responsible, first of all, to the opinion of the house and, then, to the opinion of the country. It is in the light of that responsibility that it carries out any policy over which it has these powers of management and control. It was my feeling, and, the feeling shared by my colleagues, that the government would not be realistic at this session, while we were having a long debate on the extent of the powers of the governor in council as compared with those
CMr. St. Laurent.]
remaining in parliament, to come to parliament and say, "Give us all your powers with respect to this matter and let us select those to whom these privileges will be extended." It does strike some that when this government proposes something that has to be regarded as good because it is good, hon. members can find room to say that it is not being done in, the right way. If they cannot oppose the end, to be achieved, they do find some way of saying they should be reached in another way, that it would be better to travel another route to get to the same goal.
I wish to say something with respect to some of the quite pertinent questions submitted by the hon. member for Vancouver South, whose interest in this, I am sure-at least I hope I can be sure-was not political in the sense of party politics, but was as genuine as that of a great many other members who participated in the debate. Several questions were suggested by the hon. member. One was, is this reciprocal? I think the hon. member was satisfied by the explanation given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that it is absolutely reciprocal with our good neighbours to the south. The next question was, "are these persons of the United States armed forces present in our territory for purposes of training or for purposes of military occupation-*


Mr. GREEN:: Oh, no.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Those are not the
exact words-or for purpose of manning an establishment under their own control? The answer to that question is in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the Prime Minister's declaration of February 12, 1947. Paragraph 2 reads:
General cooperation and exchange of observers in connection with exercises and with the development and tests of material of common interest.
Paragraph 5 says:
. . . without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.
That is the purpose for which they are here.


Howard Charles Green: If I may interrupt the
minister, my question was whether the troops were in Canada for training or, in some cases, to establish posts.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Here the answer is
given that they are here for training in the broad sense. I do not know that it is for training of the individuals but it is.
... to increase the familiarity of each country's defence establishment with that of the other country.

Visiting Forces
And:
General cooperation and exchange of observers in connection with exercises and with the development and tests of material of common interest.
I suppose that would come under the general classification of training. It is not something designed to improve the military prowess of the man who is here. It is a test of the material and equipment, so that the knowledge acquired from the test may be made available to others than those who are in personal attendance.


Howard Charles Green: I do not wish to interrupt
the minister, but if I may be permitted to do so I should like to ask him one other question. Is there not quite a difference between that and establishing United States posts in Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: [DOT] Oh, yes.


Howard Charles Green: It should be easy enough to explain whether or not there are to be United States posts established in Canada.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	There are not to
be United States posts established in Canada under the policy stated by the President and by the Prime Minister on February 12, 1947. I hope there will never be anything more than at present, but no man can undertake to say that situations will not change-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: That is so.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: -and that there may not, unfortunately, be some time when all Canadians will be glad to see posts established here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Especially on the
Pacific coast.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have great sympathy with much that was said by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), but when he said that we could not tolerate that there be anywhere the idea that another war might, unfortunately, sometime become possible, I think that is going much too far. If that were the case, how could any responsible government come to parliament and ask it to vote $226,709,331 for defence preparations for one fiscal year? And how can any of the hon. gentlemen opposite be making speeches to the effect that we are not doing enough in that line?
The third question raised by the hon. member was, What consent is required for the presence of such personnel here? The consent required is the arrangements worked oht by the personnel of the general staffs of the two countries within the terms of this statement of policy made on February 12, 1947. They, within the terms of that policy, can work out
arrangements which, I am sure, hon. members with military experience will say should be left to the military authorities and should not be directed as to details by the members of this house.
' Mr. GREEN: Does the cabinet not pass at all on any of these invitations to foreign troops to come to Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The cabinet passes upon the general policy, and if there is anything in contemplation which is not just routine for the carrying out of the policy declared to parliament, then the matter will have to come back to the cabinet, and would probably come back to the cabinet in the form of a recommendation of the joint permanent board on defence. The general staff has no authority to go beyond the ordinary routine of carrying out what has been stated to be the policy of the two countries. That brings me to a point which I think it is important to make, and it affords an answer to another question: Why was this not put in the form of a treaty like the treaty between Australia and New Zealand?


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister leaves that other point, may I ask him whether the inviting to Canada of United States troops who are now here was considered by the cabinet, or whether it was merely done by the general staff?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know to what extent it is proper for me to go in attempting to describe accurately to this house the measures being taken by our general staff to do what the country expects them to do if it is to provide them with $226,000,000. I am not going to attempt to do that.


Howard Charles Green: That is not answering the question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, if it is not answering the question, then the question will not be answered by me.


Howard Charles Green: All right.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was suggested that the subject matter of this bill might be referred to the committee on external affairs. To that course we are unalterably opposed. But after the bill gets its second reading, if members of the house want the bill referred to the committee on external affairs and want to question the officers of the general staff in that, connection, the government has no objection whatever to the bill going before the committee on external affairs, and the hon. member for Vancouver South can go there and ask these questions. The hon. member knows as well as I do that there are
Visiting Forces

things which should not be stated in public debate. I am not in a position to draw the line. The members of the general staff are in a position to determine what it is proper for them to say publicly and what it would be improper for them to say in public. I am not in a position to do so, and I cannot and will not attempt to answer any better than I have done.
With respect to the question as to why this matter was not put in the form of a treaty; well, hon. members have been very much concerned over the effect that even these joint statements might have in raising further suspicion in the minds of members of other governments. We do not overlook that. It does not bring us to the point where we refuse to recommend to parliament the appropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars for the preparation of defence. It does not deter us from doing the things that are recommended to us by those who are in charge of our general staff as being the prudent and proper things to do. But it 40es make us cautious; it does cause us to try to avoid doing anything unnecessary or anything which might be treated as alarming. We felt that if a treaty were made it would be seized upon as evidence supporting the impression that exists-I will not say how it is created-* as to the wide gulf between the two ideologies of the east and the western democracies, and as evidence that the countries of the western democracies are lining up, ganging up, against the rest of the world. And it was quite unnecessary. What was contemplated was merely the continuation of a policy that had been in operation for a number of years, and it was so stated by the Prime Minister in his declaration. If hon. members will read that declaration they will find that the Prime Minister was at pains to point out that since August, 1940, when the creation of the joint board on permanent defence was announced, it was stated by the President of the United States that the board-
. . . shall commence immediate studies relating to sea, land and air problems including personnel and material. It will consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the western hemisphere.
That was a year and a half before the United States became a belligerent in the last terrible war. The Prime Minister then declared that even the 1940 statement was merely a logical development of what had preceded it, and described in what manner that policy had been carried out in this country. Further, he went on to say that there was no treaty, no binding undertaking to continue; that it was a matter of cooperation along
parallel lines, to which both parties would conform so long as it suited them to do so, but to which neither party was bound for any time beyond that during which it suited its policies to do so. The declaration further stated that the decision was made-
... as a contribution to the stability of the world and to the establishment through the united nations of an effective system of worldwide security. With this in mind each government has sent a copy of this statement to the secretary general of the united nations for circulation to all its members.
Some of the debate in this house has almost implied that the adoption of this bill would be an alternative to Canada's participation in the united nations; and some of the debate would set up, on the one side, the hoped-for advantages to be derived from the united nations and, on the other, those to be derived from this kind of cooperation between Canada and her neighbour to the south. Well, it seems to me that is giving the Canadian public an entirely false impression. The corner-stone of Canada's policy, the corner-stone of the policy of our neighbour to the south, is the strength and validity and efficiency of the united nations organization; and that will ever continue to be the corner-stone of their policies. In spite of the many disappointments all of us have felt about the progress toward an efficient organization as contemplated by the charter of the united nations, I am still hopeful, as the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said, that the common sense of mankind all over the world will finally prevail and will allow us all to make the united nations organization an efficient working instrument for world peace and world security. But until we have a further demonstration of its ability to protect each one of us, then each one of us has to do his share to meet the conditions of a troubled world as they still exist; and that is the only justification for asking this parliament this year to appropriate 8226,000,000 for our national defence.
Another question was, how long will this act operate? I think this act, if it is passed in its present form, will operate for a long time. I think it will operate as long as a government supported by this party is in power, and that is too indefinite a period to attempt to place any limit upon it. But it can operate only when there are forces of a friendly nation on Canadian soil. If it should ever happen that hon. members opposite, either the group nearest Mr. Speaker or a group further removed, were in control of the government of Canada, it would be they who would decide whether or not forces of a

Visiting Forces
friendly power could remain on Canadian soil. If their decision were that there should be none, then the act would not operate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That would never
happen.


Howard Charles Green: You think you are going to be there forever?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a long time.


James Horace King: Order. I have to tell the right hon. minister that already he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There were other things I intended to say, but I do not think they need to be said. If I have unanimous consent, however, I wish to deal with the sixth of the hon. member's questions. That was, what would be the control over such training or other operations as would take place on Canadian territory? The answer is to be found in paragraph 5 of the joint statement of the President and the Prime Minister:
As an underlying principle all cooperative arrangements will be without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean that there will be Canadian officers in command of these United States troops?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In these joint operations, if the thing is being done in Canadian territory, the principle is that there must be Canadian command. That command will be exercised through the ordinary channels, not exercised directly by the Canadian commander over the individual in the United States group. The supreme command over the operation is to be Canadian when the operation is carried out in Canada. Of course there will be a United States command in such cooperative exercises or tests as are carried out in United States territory. I thank hon. members for their indulgence.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word and I am going to be brief about it. I do not think that, on the whole, this debate has served the best interests of good relations between nations with which we are friendly. I regret very much that the debate has been taken as an- occasion and opportunity to criticize the policy or the attitude of the UB5.R. and of the United States. Many of the things that have been said in this debate would have been much better had they remained unsaid, but they have been said. I
do not think some of the extravagant statements should be taken to represent the point of view either of this parliament or of the country generally.
I wish to say something about the suggestion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) regarding the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe). A short time ago a bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was before the house. It had to do with retirement and superannuation of railway employees. I remember distinctly that it was suggested that, instead of the second reading of the bill being pressed that evening-it was thought by hon. gentlemen on the government side, and by the minister, I think, that even if it were enacted it could be improved-it should be referred to the committee before being read the second time.
My understanding was-and I think the minister has confirmed this-that, while the bill itself might not come back to the house in the same form, the substance of the bill could come back in the form of a bill. If the substance were the same as that which had been sent to the committee, then it would come back for second reading of the bill, but otherwise it would mean that the substance would be incorporated in a new bill and the matter dealt with in that way. It seems to me that the two cases are analogous. If it was good to send one bill to the appropriate committee it ought to be good to send this bill to the appropriate committee also.
I think this measure does indicate a complete change in the attitude of the government of Canada now in office and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from the attitude taken in former days. I too, had Hansard of July 1, 1938, before me when the Secretary of State for External Affairs read that portion of the debate which he read; but if one is to understand the paragraph which the right hon. gentleman read one must understand the dialogue which preceded that paragraph and I propose to indicate to the house what I mean. I remember that debate distinctly, and I remember that I agreed whole-heartedly at that time with the position taken by the Prime Minister.
The bill now before us does imply a change of policy. I believe that it is essential, if Canada is to give any of her sovereignty to some other body, that portion of our sovereignty should be given to the united nations and we should not in any way surrender our sovereignty to some other foreign power, not even, may I say, to another member of the
Visiting Forces

commonwealth of nations, let alone a nation which, though friendly, is not associated with us in that way. I remember very 'well that debate when the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 4529 of Hansard for 1938:
We have in Canada our Department of National Defence; we have our army and our air force and our naval service establishments as the British government have their army and navy and air force establishments under their own control and a responsible minister. You cannot have two military forces operating in individual countries responsible at one time or in part to the one government and at another time and in part to another government. We have to take complete responsibility ourselves with respect to everything we do and for everything that is done here.
Mr. Bennett:	This is not a military force
but a training force.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I want the house and
the country to understand clearly what is being discussed. My reference was with regard to the idea of having the imperial air force set up a flying school somewhere in Canada to train their flying pilots. In short, a military station to he put down in Canada, owned, maintained and operated by the imperial government for imperial purposes.
Mr. Bennett:	Not for imperial purposes.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	It is for imperial
purposes. Is it for Canadian purposes?
Mr. Bennett:	Yes, very much so.
May I point out that the Prime Minister said:
It is for imperial purposes. Is it for Canadian purposes?
Is it for Canadian purposes that we are inviting these troops into Canada, or is it primarily for United States purposes?


Mr. CLAXTON:: Exclusively for Canadian purposes.
Mr. CO'LDWELL: The Prime Minister went on:
I say that we will look after our own defence in cooperation with other parts of the empire, just as they will look after their own defences in cooperation with other parts of the empire, but that cooperation will be most effectively maintained and carried out by each part managing its own affairs and being responsible to its own parliament for all its actions .in respect thereto.
Then the Prime Minister issued this interesting challenge:
I have made this statement at this time this morning so that there can be no mistake about the attitude of the Canadian government on this question, and if at any time my right hon. friend wants to go before the Canadian people and have this issue fought out, I am quite prepared at the appropriate time to go before them.
That was the statement made at that time. Let us look at what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) asked him
at whose invitation these troops were coming and whether their entry into Canada was supervised by the cabinet of Canada? The answer was given that the entry into Canada of troops from the United States would be under the control of the general staff and that for security reasons he could1 give us no other information. I want to say that I think Canada, at the present time at peace, should be governed by the parliament of Canada or by the executive branch of our parliament responsible to this parliament, namely the cabinet. The cabinet alone should have authority from parliament and should alone exercise that authority to bring troops of any foreign power into this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend permit me? I thought as I listened to him that he was not representing fairly what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said. I think my colleague made it perfectly clear that the government decided the policy-


Major James William Coldwell: That is right as to policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and that under that policy a certain authority was given to the chiefs of staff, and that they would have no right to exercise any authority outside of that which is given to them by the cabinet. May I say that in these matters-and I am not disclosing any cabinet secret-it is customary, before any measure is taken under authority of that kind, for a report to be made by the minister himself to his colleagues. There is ample cabinet supervision of these matters.	.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad that the Prime Minister has made that statement. It certainly was not clear from what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I am glad that we have had that point clarified because it removes what seemed to some of us to be an objectionable feature. We are most anxious that this country shall retain its independence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So are we.


Major James William Coldwell: We are under tremendous economic pressure from our great neighbour to the south, as we are bound to be because of our proximity to her, and we are most anxious that we shall in no way jeopardize our independence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So are we.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to hear that, and I believe it is true.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: You never doubted it.

Visiting Forces


Major James William Coldwell: No, I did not doubt that for one moment, but I do think that those of us who are looking into these matters should emphasize that point of view, that we want our country to retain its independence of any foreign power.
The minister says that there is reciprocal legislation. I listened to the reading of the proclamation made by the President of the United States bringing into effect their legislation under which our troops were disciplined in the United States, but let me say that I noticed one word in that proclamation which does not assure me that that reciprocity is now being carried on or will be carried on in the future. That word is "co-belligerents." We, the United Kingdom and Canada, are described in the President's proclamation as co-belligerents. It may be argued that we are still co-belligerents because the peace treaties have not been signed. On the other hand, we know perfectly well that, so far as Canada is concerned, it is generally believed that the war ended on a date when the wartime measures were to go out of existence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was not that proclamation issued in 1944?


Major James William Coldwell: In 1943, was it not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The war was on, so that we were co-belligerents then.


Major James William Coldwell: That is my point. We were referred to then as being co-belligerents because we were then co-belligerents. We are co-belligerents no longer and therefore I wonder if it applies now. I still think this bill should go before the external affairs committee before its second reading, before this house assents to the principle of a bill about which there has been considerable discussion in the house, and no doubt will be considerable discussion across the country. I suggest that, in spite of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said about the bill being killed if it goes to a committee, it will not be killed any more than the railway pensions bill of my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre will be killed when it goes before the appropriate committee, where it can be considered, revised, redrafted or returned to this house, with a recommendation, if the committee so desire, for concurrence in the measure.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to correct a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) this afternoon with reference to the statement which he attributed in yesterday's debate to
the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), who is not in his place this afternoon. The interpretation put upon that statement by the minister in his remarks this afternoon was that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was saying that we should refuse to tolerate the idea that war is possible. I would ask the minister to refer to Hansard, page 3831, where he will see that the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario said something quite different. His words were these:
. . . we should refuse to tolerate the idea that war is coming and accept it as a kind of inevitability.
What he was objecting to was our resigning ourselves to treating the coming of war as inevitable, and I say that the minister in what he said this afternoon, in reply to the purported statement of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario, was simply building up and knocking down a straw man of his own making.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if I might have your indulgence and the indulgence of the house to answer a question that I intended to answer, put by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka). Last night he referred to certain maps that appear to be printed in the Russian language. One of them is in the Russian language, and the other in the language of Czechoslovakia. They are the official maps annexed by the council of foreign ministers to the peace treaties. They were not ready when the peace treaties were distributed to hon. members, but hon. members will have noticed that there was a pocket envelope in the binding of the treaty, and just as soon as we could get the maps they were mailed to those to whom the treaties had been distributed. So far we have been able to get only those two. As to the peace treaty with Italy, there were twenty-one or twenty-two maps selected by the council of foreign ministers. The hon. member asked why these two maps were not printed in English. I do not know. I was not present at the council of foreign ministers. The map selected by them for Finland was printed in the Russian language, and the map selected by them to describe the boundaries of Roumania was printed in the Czechoslovakian language. That is the explanation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I have a word of explanation to give the house. I voted against the amendment to refer the bill to the committee on external affairs because I believe the bill cannot be improved-
[Mr. St. Laurent.)


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking on second reading.


James Horace King: The hon. member is out of order.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: It has not been called.


James Horace King: The motion is not yet before the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have the right to speak an second reading.


James Horace King: The motion for second reading is not actually before the house; so there is nothing before the house.
(Translation):


René Hamel: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
(Text):


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cournoyer). Had I voted, I would have voted to refer the bill to the committee.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, before second reading is passed, I have a few observations I should like to make. The suggestion was made that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs. That is a respectable view, but I do not believe the bill is a good one or that it serves a useful purpose, so that it seems to me it could not be improved before a committee. Therefore I voted against the amendment.
My suggestion is that, instead of a bill of this land, we should send to the United States on the occasion of the visit of the President of the United States an invitation to join our empire with the status of a dominion.


Mr. LOW:: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us the assurance that the bill will be sent to the committee on external affairs?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, in that regard I am in the hands of the members of the house. I stated that the government has no objection to the bill going to the committee on external affairs, and if it is the desire of hon. members that that course be pursued, the government is quite prepared to acquiesce.

Visiting Forces
If, on the other hand, hon. members would prefer to have the bill dealt with in committee of the whole, here, that would be also equally acceptable to the government.


Mr. MacINNIS:: That depends upon the motion the minister will make after second reading has been taken. He can send it either to committee of the whole, or to the committee on external affairs.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I voted against the amendment, my reason being that, in my opinion, the committee has done very little work. I spoke in the debate on the amendment, and for that reason I shall speak for only a moment or two on this motion for second reading.
During the last war United States soldiers used to be stationed in thousands at Fort Niagara, New York state, and many of them visited my city over week-ends. The people of Toronto seemed to be glad to see them. That was followed to the end of the last war.
I believe what has been said in the debate 'indicates the necessity of our having an empire conference. We know that three nations are interested in the Pacific-New Zealand, Australia and Canada. An empire conference of that kind should be called at once on trade, defence and migration, and this matter could be discussed at that conference.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, on division.
Right Hon.. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) :	Mr. Speaker, carrying out what I said I will move that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs, so that Your Honour may call for the yeas and nays, and we will not regard it as a defeat of the government if, in your opinion, upon calling for the yeas and nays, Your Honour declares that either has it.
I think it is only proper to leave it to the house to dispose of the bill either here or in committee, as may appear to be the desire of the house. For that purpose I move:
That this bill be now referred to the committee on external affairs.


James Horace King: It is moved by Mr. St. Laurent, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that this bill be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


James Horace King: In my opinion the nays have it, and the motion is lost.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move therefore:
That Your Honour do leave the chair, and that the bill be referred to committee of the whole.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to get some information on the matter about which I asked a question a few minutes ago. How does it come about that this has been proposed in the way it has been? We are members of the British empire. We have a defence agreement with the dominions and signed with the mother country. As I said before, I have no objection to the consideration of the bill. It seems to me that during the past few years we have stopped1 all conferences on peace and war between the dominions and the mother country, and that these empire conferences have been ignored by the present government. It has always been the custom, since these conferences were held, to discuss these matters; and it was never more important than at the present time, in these troubled days, that we should have a common empire policy for the dominion and the empire. Two years ago yesterday, or about that time, we had the close of the war with Germany. Britain, and the dominions then stood at the highest point at which they have ever stood in the history of the world and civilization.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Order. The first section just deals with the short title.


Thomas Langton Church: To deal with this particular section, I cannot understand why this proposed bill was not made the subject of a conference with the other dominions. Canada is part of the British empire and we are not going to be talked out of the British empire; we shall have to be fought out of it. That is the truth. I would go as far as any person in this house in supporting that great nation, the United States, which has done so much in coming to the relief of the world and saving civilization. As I said, I see no objection to a reasonable number of them coming into Canada as they did before in the last war when they came in voluntarily, not by any act of parliament. As a matter of public policy, this bill has an important effect, in the present state of affairs, on Russia, our ally in the last war. They will take it that we shall be wrapped up with the United States in a military sense. It will have a serious effect on federal affairs. I regret that we have not in the city of Toronto three morning papers that used to give what happens
Visiting Forces

here. If you read one of them this morning you will see how the people are blindfolded and not given the facts of the real debate that took place on this bill. Just read the verbatim report of what happened yesterday and read the report in the Globe and Mail of this morning. We want to see the fullest information regarding this matter given to the people. As I see it, I believe we should have had this empire conference and the matter should have been gone into accordingly. With the troubled state of the world today and with Russia acting as she is, I believe that the united effort with the United States is the most important thing we have, and that we should plainly tell our former ally, Russia, what we think about her. As the late President Roosevelt said, if we do not tell her plainly, there will be another war, and it will be a war of survival. I think we ought to make it plain, because that is the only way whereby the western democracies can avert the threat of war. We can go about it in this way, but it does not mean very much. This whole matter by this bill has been made a major issue-


William Henry Golding: Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that we are not now dealing with the principle of the bill. We have had a long discussion on the principle of the bill, and when we go into committee we are not dealing with the principle. We are dealing only with the sections. Section 1 is the short title. I just wanted to say that because we do not want to go over again discussion on the principle of the bill. We shall not get anywhere by doing that, as far as making progress is concerned.


Thomas Langton Church: What you say is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister would be well advised to go about this in some other w-ay than by making it an act of parliament. It has never been done in that way before. I referred to what was done in the last war. There is a large body of public opinion which has been aroused in connection with this matter of peace and war, and a probable war of survival. As I mentioned a moment ago, the western democracies must stand together in peace and war alike. I am sorry that the matter has been brought up in this manner, because I think it will have a serious effect on public opinion and create an alarming state of affairs. It may not mean much as a bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The title of the act, according to section 1, is to be "The Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act". Has either the Secretary of State for External
Affairs or the Minister of National Defence any more specific information than they have given to us previously with regard to the friendly foreign forces act of the United States? In view of the fact that the presidential proclamation referred to the United Kingdom and Canada as co-belligerents, I should like to know whether we are still covered by that act in the United States? The other night the Minister of National Defence, on rather short notice, was endeavouring to answer a number of questions. A number of times he said that he was informed of this or informed of that, which left some of us in considerable doubt as to the exact situation with respect to that act in the United States at the present time.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I reply to one part of the question and leave to my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, the reply to the other part? When we were considering the order in council that was last passed under the War Measures Act to give jurisdiction to the service courts of the United States forces present here, it was shown to our satisfaction by the experts of the Department of State that there was nothing required in the form of legislation to authorize our officers in the United1 States to exercise jurisdiction over their men; that all that was required was provision to give them assistance; that their act was not for the purpose of allowing our service courts to exercise jurisdiction; that they had that by virtue of the constitution of the United States and by virtue of then recognition of the law of nations as applied in decisions of their supreme court. We said, "That is all very well, but we have no way of compelling the attendance of witnesses, or things of that kind, before our service courts." They agreed it would be necessary to have legislation in order to impose obligations upon United States citizens to help us carry out the jurisdiction we have under the law of nations. To that extent they agreed to proceed by legislation to give us the right to get assistance of United States citizens to carry out the jurisdiction we had by virtue of the law of nations. With respect to the other portion of the question, I think my colleague can answer it.


Howard Charles Green: That arrangement, I understand, was made during the war?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What we want to know is whether that has any effect now that we are at peace; and, if so, where is the provision that puts it into effect?

Visiting Forces
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We were told that was in effect at all times, as a consequence of the construction by the supreme court of the United States of the law of nations.


Howard Charles Green: But apparently not the provision for calling witnesses.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, not the provision for imposing duties upon their citizens. Their explanation to us was that, under the law of nations, when they admitted members of the armed forces of a foreign sovereign they admitted that that foreign sovereign could exercise over them in United States territory the powers he could exercise in his own territory; that it did not have to be provided for by statute; that it was covered by a decision going back to Chief Justice Marshall of the United States supreme court, but that it was necessary for them to have some statute to make it a duty for United States citizens to lend us aid in carrying out the kind of jurisdiction we had. The statute they passed was for the purpose of making it the duty of United States citizens to give us the practical aid necessary to carry out our jurisdiction. My colleague the Minister of National Defence will say to what extent that statute is still operative.


Brooke Claxton: The statute to which reference is made was that cited by me the night before last. It is public law 384 of the 78th congress, being chapter 326 of the second session of 1944. Under it, the President of the United States is authorized to make the s'atute applicable to any friendly foreign force, and by the proclamation to which I referred the other night he made it applicable to the United States and Canada. That proclamation was dated October 11, 1944. The act does not limit his power to a power to be exercised only during the duration of the war, and it does not limit the friendly foreign forces in respect of which it may be exercised to the foreign forces of a co-belligerent. When the word ''co-belligerent" is used in the preamble it is used merely to describe the United Kingdom and Canada. Certainly my view is that even if the war ends legally, as no doubt it will at some future date, the fact that this word "co-belligerent" appears in the preamble would not cause the proclamation to cease to have effect, but that the law would continue to apply to forces of the United Kingdom and Canada until the contrary was proclaimed by the President.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say, first of all, that I find it difficult to follow the logic of the Minister of National Defence in saying 83166-247
that the preamble has no effect. According to the wording he gave us the other night, it reads:
Whereas there are within the United States military, naval or air forces of the United States and Canada, co-belligerents . . . Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt ...
And so on. It seems to me that the proclamation itself is contingent upon the conditions set out in the preamble, one of which is that the United Kingdom and Canada are cobelligerents with the United States. This is one of the reasons I think this bill should have gone to the committee, so that we could get this matter clear. I am still not satisfied that the provisions of this more or less ancillary act-I recognize that it is an act to implement the jurisdiction of service courts-still apply and will continue to apply in the United States after the war is over in the same way that our bill, No. 253, will apply, whether or not we are co-belligerents.
There is one other question I should like to ask, and it is this. Are other nations apart from the United Kingdom and Canada, though not entitled to the benefits of this act to implement the jurisdiction of service courts, accorded by the United States the privileges the minister has said are covered by the law of nations?	[DOT]
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In 1943 we were told, and our legal experts were convinced, that that was the case; that under the decision of the supreme court of the United States, whenever with the consent of the administration of the United States forces of a foreign power were present within the territory of the United States, their sovereign could exercise over them the powers he could exercise under his own laws; that it was not something dependent upon a proclamation or anything else, but was in consequence of a decision of Chief Justice Marshall that had been recognized by all legal authorities as the common law of the United States.


Howard Charles Green: Then are we to understand that the contention made by the government that there is a reciprocal arrangement in the United States amounts to this; that by the United States interpretation of international law any visiting friendly troops are subject to the jurisdiction of their own officers, but that it is impossible really tb carry out that jurisdiction in full without some ancillary law giving power to call United States citizens as witnesses and, I presume, other rights; and that then, during the war, the United States passed an act to enable them to give visiting forces such ancillary rights. I have had some difficulty this afternoon in getting from the

Visiting Forces

library the law and the proclamation, I presume because the Minister of National Defence has them. I should like very much to see them, if he still has them-


Brooke Claxton: No; this is the copy of the judge advocate general.


Howard Charles Green: -because the other night the minister did not read the whole proclamation. He read only one of the recitals, which was as follows:
Whereas there are-
I would point that out to the minister as meaning then, at the time the proclamation was passed, which was in 1944.
Whereas there are within the -United States military, naval or air forces of the United Kingdom and Canada, co-belligerents.
The whole basis of the proclamation is the fact that then, during the war, there were in the United States co-helligerents. All we have today to prove that there is a reciprocal arrangement is the interpretation placed upon that proclamation by the Minister of National Defence. He may be interpreting the United States law correctly, or he may not; but I submit that point should be cleared up and the government should know exactly the rights of Canadian forces in the United States now, during peace time. I suggest that it is not sufficient for the Minister of National Defence to produce a wartime proclamation, which obviously refers only to co-belligerents, and say, because there is such a proclamation, therefore we have reciprocal rights in the United States. This is an important feature in the whole consideration, because I am sure the Canadian people will insist, and rightly so, that their troops be given exactly the same rights in the United States that United States troops are to have in Canada. Certainly the government has not yet made it clear that now, in peace time, Canadian forces in the United States are to have exactly the same rights as we are giving United States forces in Canada under the bill now being considered.


Brooke Claxton: Surely the hon. member
should give members of the government and members of the armed forces dealing with this matter credit for talcing the same serious view about the necessity for our having reciprocal rights.


Howard Charles Green: It is not a matter of giving any one credit; it is just a matter of finding out the facts.


Brooke Claxton: The facts are as I have
stated. The statement is there, and it is perfectly clear that it is not a statute which is in force only for the duration of the war.

It is not limited in its application to co-belligerents; it is a general statute giving the President power, and the President exercised that power in 1944 in general and unrestricted terms. Since then, the statute and the authority have been used. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has some reputation as a lawyer, assures me that there is no doubt whatever on this point, that there is no room for questioning it.


Howard Charles Green: He has not said so.


Brooke Claxton: Further, my hon. friend
must realize that this legislation would not be sought unless it was found desirable in the interests of both countries. In the course of preparing it we secured full information on the state of the United States law as well as full particulars from the representatives of the United States government, and they were directly along the lines I have indicated. There is no room for doubt on this. Certainly if it ever turns out that the way in which the law is interpreted or applied prevents us from having in the United States exactly the same reciprocal treatment as we give to United States troops in Canada, then we would soon terminate that situation unless that condition was rectified.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The hon. member
had not before him the terms of the statute. The terms of the statute are that if the President finds that the application of the act to the forces of a foreign power is necessary for the maintenance of discipline he may so declare, and the President may at any time revoke such finding and declaration. He has so declared in formal terms and it has not been revoked. We were told that it is fully operative and we believe that it is fully operative and that nothing further is required. I know from my participation in the negotiations that if anything further were felt to be required it would be forthcoming at once.


Mr. PROBE:: Is the minister or the
government perfectly satisfied that there is such a reciprocal arrangement at the present time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Unqualifiedly, yes.


John Oliver Probe: By this bill we are proposing to give the United States military authorities certain privileges with respect to the exercise of discipline over such troops as they may have in Canada. I propose to ask the minister a question which he may or may not care to answer. I believe that it should be asked and that some definite statement should be made with respect to it. This committee should be informed as to how many United States troops are in this country at the present time. We should

Visiting Forces
know what they are doing in Canada and what their disposition is, that is to say, in what parts of the country they are at the present time. I say that because the government saw fit to oppose the consideration of this bill by the committee on external affairs which could have had sittings in camera or elsewhere as necessary, and where we couiJ have had the fullest questioning of the chief of staff. Would the minister comment on those three questions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think it is quite fair of the hon. member to say that the government opposed referring the bill to the committee on external affairs. The government had no feeling at all in the matter; it simply took the sentiment of the house upon that question.


John Oliver Probe: You guided it somewhat.


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Oliver Probe: I am sorry; I withdraw that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As a matter of fact, what took place appears on the record, and I trust the hon. member will realize that I was only seeking to get in good faith an expression of opinion as to whether the house wanted the bill considered here or in committee. With respect to the other questions, there is a certain group-I can mention this because it has been commented upon and the public here and everywhere know about it- of United States soldiers who are at Churchill engaged with ours in the testing of materia] under winter conditions. They are less numerous than our own personnel. It is by design and arrangement that they are kept less numerous than our own. That is the way in which the policy is being carried out.
There are a few others at other places, but I would not feel at liberty to disclose that information without conferring with the chief of staff and ascertaining whether it would be proper to do so. The hon. member may be assured that the most important thing that has been done so far is this Churchill exercise. There the situation is that they are less numerous than our own and that is by arrangement. That stipulation was made and it has been observed. That is the policy. All told, there are very few and nothing which could in any way be regarded as a departure from the joint statement made on February 12, 1947.


John Oliver Probe: I have before me the statement made by the Prime Minister on February 12, 1947, and I should like to quote from page 347 of Hansard as follows:
As the government views it, our primary objective should be to expand our knowledge of 83166-247J
the north and of the conditions necessary for life and work there with the object of developing its resources.
Canada's northern programme is thus primarily a civilian one to which contributions are made by the armed forces.
A statement such as that is absolutely innocuous with respect to military intentions or with respect to making neighbours in this world of ours suspicious as to our intent. However, when we combine it with the fact that a moment ago the minister referred to the term "co-belligerents", which appears also in the preamble to the United States bill which was quoted and with the fact that he would not give information to this committee without consulting the chief of the Canadian staff, it seems to me that there is an unnecessary amount of hush, hush, about this thing if the Prime Minister's words of February 12 are still valid.


William Henry Golding: I think the hon. member is once more discussing the principle of this bill. The principle was decided upon after a long discussion, and what we are dealing with now is section 1 which reads:
This act may be cited as the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act.
If there is any objection to that title it would be in order to advance it, but if there is no objection the title should be carried and we could then pass on to other sections which deal with this situation. Hon. members should bring up their points under the different clauses where it would be in order for them to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Might I ask the minister to clear up two points? The first has to do with the control of the activities of the United States troops who are in Canada. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said something about that when he was closing the debate. I point out to him that the Prime Minister s statement with regard to the training of British pilots read as follows-


William Henry Golding: Order. Would the hon. member bring that point up under some other clause where it would be proper to do so? I do not want to call one hon. member to order and then permit another hon. member to carry on the same kind of discussion on this clause.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it will not be proper to bring it up under any clause. This is not a bill to declare that the policy enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1938 was the proper policy. This is a bill to provide for the future, and I do not think there is in this bill any clause
Visiting Forces

[DOT] where it would be proper to have a political discussion as to whether what took place in 1938 should have taken place then or not.


Howard Charles Green: May I speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


William Henry Golding: Just a
moment, if you please. I want to present this to the committee as fairly as I can, and I think the committee will agree with me when I make this presentation. On the second reading of the bill, all the debate that can take place on the principle of the bill should take place then. But once the house has decided the principle of the bill and has sent the bill to a committee of the house, the principle is not to be discussed in the committee at all. The committee deals simply with the clauses, and the rule is clear that remarks in committee must be strictly relevant to the clause under consideration. I do not think that, under the rules, we can now start a discussion of the principle of the bill. That has already been decided, whether for good or bad. The clause before us is a very .simple one dealing with the title, whether the title is right or wrong, and nothing else. If there is no objection to the title we should carry the clause. I am sure that hon. members will appreciate the position which the Chair must take and that we shall make better progress by abiding by the rule.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I was not proposing to discuss the principle of the bill at all. I am asking certain questions having to do with the terms of the bill. I would point out that for many years it has been the practice in this house to allow wide latitude for questions on the first clause of a bill. I have no objection to asking my questions under other clauses, but I certainly do not want to be taken as admitting that, in considering clause 1, we must be confined to discussing only the actual wording of the title. That is not the rule which binds this house.


William Henry Golding: During the war, considerable latitude was allowed on the Erst clause of bills, but there is no rule which allows a general discussion on the first clause of a bill. If there is anything in the rules which permits a discussion of the principle' or a general discussion of the bill on the first clause I should appreciate it if my hon. friend would tell me what that rule is. I want to be absolutely fair while I am in this Chair.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, Mr. Chairman,
I have been here since 1936, and that was long before the war. The rule was followed then

of allowing questions on the first clause of the bill, and there was never any suggestion that I have heard by any chairman that the rule applied only during the war. That is a new use to be made of the war. However, I am quite willing to ask my questions on other clauses of the bill.


William Henry Golding: I want to be fair with my hon. friend and fair with everybody. Will he be kind enough to refer me to the rule which permits a general discussion on the first clause of a bill?


Howard Charles Green: It is not my duty to teach the Chairman the rules.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.


Howard Charles Green: Under section 2 (e) there is this provision:
"United States force" means any body, contingent or detachment of the military, naval or air forces of the United States of America that with the consent of the government of Canada, is lawfully present in Canada or on board any of His Majesty's Canadian ships or aircraft.
To deal particularly with the words "with the consent of the government of Canada," it seems clear from the explanations given thus far that, in practice, consent is given in this way, that the general staff decide what troops are invited to come to Canada, although the Prime Minister did say that the decisions of the department are reported by the minister. He was very indefinite about it. He more or less left the suggestion that the cabinet would hear about it.
I submit to the committee that this question of the giving of consent to for'eign troops to come to Canada is a matter about which there should be no uncertainty. We should have legislation providing for the way in which consent is to be given and under what conditions it is to be given. It is entirely too slipshod to leave it to the general staff. In my own opinion, it should not even be left to the cabinet without parliamentary sanction. There should be broad-based legislation by parliament for the giving of this consent, and I urge upon the government most strongly that they give consideration to bringing in legislation defining under just what conditions consent is to be given and how it is to be given. I think the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament are entitled to have some such provision written into our laws. There can be no objection to that from friendly foreign countries, and we would then know exactly where we were going and what to expect. I realize, of course, that this is a new situation but there will always be new

Visiting Forces
situations cropping up that have to be met by legislation. This is, I think, a typical example of a problem that has arisen which should be met by some definite legislation. I would ask for the views of the ministers concerned with regard to that suggestion. It involves, of course, both ministers, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence, and I should like to have their reaction to this suggestion. It is made in good faith, without any attempt at making political capital. I think the subject is a serious one and one which should be dealt with by legislation.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Vancouver South no doubt in good faith referred to the terms on which United States officers or men may come to Canada as described by the' Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs earlier today in a way which I think Hansard will not support. The situation was fairly stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Prime Minister. The situation is not as the hon. member for Vancouver South would have us believe. The general staff has full control over who will be invited and who will not. The situation is as described by the Prime Minister; that is, the policy is decided upon by the cabinet on a report from the Minister of National Defence or the defence committee of the cabinet. Then that policy is implemented within the power delegated to him by the appropriate minister and the appropriate military authority.
The major project on which there are Canadian officers and men associated with United States officers and men, and vice versa, working together in Canada is the project to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just referred, namely the testing establishment at Churchill. That was specifically authorized by the cabinet, and the various changes in the possible size of the forces that might be there-and they are very small, as the minister has said-have come before the cabinet. But the cabinet does not say, we shall have three captains and two lieutenants and their name shall be John Brown, et cetera. That kind of arrangement and the carrying out of details, are done by the appropriate military officers. I can tell the committee that in the case of every other project so far undertaken in cooperation with the United States, either in the United States or in Canada, there has been full cabinet approval in advance. Then, when that approval has been given it is for the appropriate military,
naval or air authorities, within the terms delegated to them, to carry them out. It could not work in any other way.


Thomas Langton Church: Paragraph (e) says:
"United States force" means any body, contingent or detachment of the military, naval or air forces of the United States of America that, with the consent of the government of Canada, is lawfully present in Canada or on board any of His Majesty's Canadian ships or aircraft.
To my knowledge, we have had that on the great lakes since 1925. We recently had a great disaster on the upper lakes where a large number of sailors lost their lives. We have had these disasters take place in the chairman's constituency, and others in the constituencies of the maritimes. It has happened on lake Huron, the Georgian bay and on lake Superior. What happened in the recent disaster? Our sailors had to wait until a United States lifesaving coast guard cutter came along and picked them up. That is Canadian nationality. Our brave sailors on the great lakes had no chance of having their lives saved except by a United States life-saving station.


Brooke Claxton: That is the kind of
cooperation we hope to see betw en the Dominion of Canada and other nations. Canadian airmen, Canadian soldiers and Canadian seamen have helped United States citizens when the circumstances were reversed.


Thomas Langton Church: I have the facts and evidence of the inquiries which took place, and it is exactly what I have stated. Look up the facts in the last disaster.


John Oliver Probe: The Minister of National
Defence has assured us that the government carefully delineates our policy with respect to the activities of foreign troops in this country, and that then the details are worked out by the appropriate staff officers and military personnel. With government control of policy, there should be no quarrel. We wish to avoid the unfortunate experience of many countries in the past where military cliques secured control, first of all, of the activities of a defensive nature and from there expanding into the political and economic field. Because of that, it seems to me that in peace time the minister, whether of external affairs or of national defence, and the government have a responsibility to the people of Canada whereby, not just the government, but others should be kept informed as to the exact picture with respect to military activities in the country.
I do not want the information for myself as a citizen, but I want it for responsible citizens of various cross-sections of public
Visiting Forces

opinion so that there is not a possibility of an autocratic group, a super clique gaining control under any circumstances. While the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not said very much with respect to our agreement with the united nations, it would seem to me that, as well as keeping us informed in Canada, to allay international suspicions and feelings, We should be told to what extent the operations that we undertake here in a military way are the subject of consent by or information to the united nations. Perhaps I should put the question in this way: Are all the activities of the Department of National Defence in Canada entirely within the permissive features of the charter of the, united nations?


Brooke Claxton: Absolutely.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: An unqualified affirmative answer can be given.


John Oliver Probe: We are skirting around the problems. I can understand that the minister desires not to broadcast to the world everything he has in his pocket. That is quite proper, but others may feel-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am very glad to put on the record an unqualified affirmative answer to the question as to whether everything we are doing is within both the letter and the spirit of the charter of the united nations. It is.


John Oliver Probe: If the minister can give one further assurance I shall be quite prepared to let the thing go. To what extent is it possible to inform others who may have political views just a little different from those of the minister? Can we not have a committee of this house kept informed of these matters to the extent that it would be proper to do so? It seems to me that everything we do in this country that involves the welfare of Canadian people should be either open and aboveboard to the view of all concerned, or at least that an opportunity should be given to people of views other than those of the views of the government to concur or object.


Brooke Claxton: I know of no country which gives more information than Canada does; so much so that I think we go too far in that respect.


John Oliver Probe: We have not had much, then.


Brooke Claxton: What is more, I can say ihat we shall be prepared to give all information with regard to military matters to other countries, provided that it is done under adequate safeguards to ensure complete reci-

procity. There are some matters with respect to which hon. members and others would not wish us to go that far.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Discipline and internal administration of United States force.
Howard Charles Green: This is the section which gives the power to the United States service courts. I would point out that the side-note reads:
Discipline and internal administration of United States force.
But there is no such restriction in the section itself. Section 3 of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, contains these words:
. . . to exercise within Canada in relation to members of such force in matters concerning discipline and in matters concerning the internal administration of such force, all such powers as are conferred upon them by the law of that part of the commonwealth.
Why is that provision not also included in the present bill.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In the original draft bill, that proviso was mentioned. It was discussed with the representatives of our good friends, and they said that it was meaningless in fact and might be embarrassing. They said, "All we want to exercise is such powers as are given us by our law and over members of our forces; and it has to do, we think, with discipline and administration. But we do not want to have questions arise about it." We said1, "What we mean is that we want to have it left to our courts if anyone says he is not a member of your forces and subject to your laws. We want him to have recourse to our courts so as to determine that question. And if he is a member of your force-then, all right; we do not concern ourselves as to what you can do to him under your laws."


Howard Charles Green: It really gives the United States commander much wider powers than would be given an Australian commander, does it not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I think not. But they say, "We do not want to have to establish that what rights are given by United States law to United States commanders are comprised within the description of discipline and administration."


Howard Charles Green: Then is not the side-note wrong?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The side-note might have been changed. All we were asked was to take these words out of the section as being

Visiting Forces
something which might give rise to an attempt to restrain, its application. We said, "What we are concerned about is that we want to be sure that you are not going to apply any of your laws to anyone who, according to the decisions of our courts, would not be amenable to your laws."


Howard Charles Green: Then I should like to know also in what manner there is Canadian control over United States troops. That, I think, comes under this section. It was for the purpose of asking this question that I quoted from the Prime Minister's statemnt of July 1, 1938, which upset the Secretary of State for External Affairs so much only a few minutes ago. The Prime Minister then said that British pilots coming to Canada would train in our own establishments, controlled by our own Minister of National Defence, who is responsible to this parliament. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said this afternoon that United States troops coming here would really come only for training.


Brooke Claxton: No.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I explained that if training were to cover everything covered in the statement, that would be right. But what is covered in the statement is described in language which may not be mere training; it is not the word "training" which is used. It may be covered by what the hon. member has in mind when he uses the word "training". But this testing of materials is not really the training of individuals. I would understand that "training" would be something to increase the military skill or prowess of the individual so trained. But that is not what is being done.


Howard Charles Green: In my questions this afternoon I distinguished between "training" and "establishing posts". I asked the minister whether the Americans would be establishing posts here, and I understood him to say-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not under the present arrangement.


Howard Charles Green: -that what they were going to do would come rather under the heading of "training."
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: That, of course, brings
them under the Prime Minister's statement of July 1, 1938, which was that British pilots would have to train under our own establishments, controlled by our own Minister of National Defence. I understand, further, that the arrangements with the Americans are to be similar. Is that so?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: If so, in what manner is
the Department of National Defence to control these United States forces?


Brooke Claxton: In exactly the same way as control is exercised in respect of Canadian forces. That is not through power of command ; that comes down through another chain, but through the direction regarding the operation of any testing establishment, or things of such nature as may be set up. All those will be Canadian.
First of all, the man in charge will be a Canadian, under this arrangement as announced by the Prime Minister on February 12. The man in charge of each establishment will be Canadian. Instructions given to him will be given pursuant to policy which I as Minister of National Defence, interpret from the cabinet to the military authorities.


Howard Charles Green: How are we to work out
these provisions whereby they shall be trained in our own establishments?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are our establishments. They are establishments under our flag. The man at the head of the establishment, and responsible to us for everything that occurs in the establishment, is a Canadian officer.


Howard Charles Green: I think it is really a. question of a technical nature which the Minister of National Defence should answer, the question as to how they are being trained in our establishments.


Brooke Claxton: I do not see the hon. member's difficulty at all.


Howard Charles Green: Obviously the intention in 1938 was that they would come into Canadian establishments. Is that the intention with regard to the United States troops; and, if so, how is that to be done?


Brooke Claxton: In exactly the same way as if they were Canadian troops coming in for the purpose, of course, that is the intention.


John Oliver Probe: Section 3 states, in part, that the service courts and service authorities of the United States of America may exercise within Canada or on board any such ship or aircraft in relation to members of that force all such powers as are conferred upon them by the law of the United States of America. It seems to me that that provision has elements of uncertainty in it, owing to the fact that at the present time the law of the United States with respect to service courts and service personnel may be sufficiently similar to our own that, under certain conditions, the Minister of National Defence is prepared to
38S2
Visiting Forces

accept it. Supposing, however, that we pass this section and that, a year from now, the United States made a drastic change with respect to the powers of service courts for service personnel not envisaged at the present time.
It seems to me we have not here a safeguard to provide for the contingency of a law being passed by another foreign power which might be repugnant to ourselves. Is there any difficulty in that regard?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not see why we should be concerned, so long as we make sure that their law is applied only to members of their force, and that we do not leave it to them to say who are members of their force. If we say that no one in Canada shall be treated as a member of their force unless, if he objects, a Canadian court says, "You are a member of their force and you are subject to their law", it seems to me it is not really our concern to say, "Well, now, before you apply your law to a member of your force we would like to be satisfied that it is good law."


John Oliver Probe: Assuming there is a penalty for striking an officer and that a man is to be shot for it-and we will assume that as an extreme case-
Mr.* ST. LAURENT: I could not assume that as something ordered by the laws of our friends to the south.


John Oliver Probe: No, of course not. I cannot either. But we are not protecting ourselves in that regard.


Mr. HARKNESS:: I should like a little bit of clarification as to exactly what these powers are. I ask these questions really because I have run into quite a bit of discussion around the corridors and in private conversation with members who were far from clear as to the exact meaning of this section and the next one. Perhaps the thing could be made clearer by example than in any other way. As I understand the matter, if a United States soldier goes absent without leave or deserts, in that case discipline is entirely in the hands of the United States army officer under whose command that man comes. We will say that the United States soldier is alleged to have murdered a Canadian citizen. In that case who has jurisdiction? In other words, where is the United States soldier to be tried? Is he to be tried in his own United States court or in one of our civil courts?


Brooke Claxton: Under this law, it would be possible for him to be tried under his own military court, but that would not exclude the jurisdiction of our courts. Even if he
[.Mr. Probe.]
were tried and acquitted under the United States military court, he could still be tried, sentenced and the sentence carried out under the jurisdiction of our courts. This does not exclude in any way the operation of our courts; and in an offence as serious as suggested by the hon. member, there is no doubt that the man would be tried in our courts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the same rule apply to an American who was accused of theft from a Canadian citizen, we will say?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, if a United States soldier is involved in an automobile accident and does damage to a Canadian citizen's car and person, where is the jurisdiction?


Brooke Claxton: He would still be civilly and criminally liable under our laws before the Canadian courts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Suppose he is really breaking one of our highway rules. Is he to be prosecuted in our court and then subsequently be liable to a civil action by the Canadian citizen?


Brooke Claxton: Absolutely.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Or is he to be dealt with in the United States court as far as the highway violation is concerned?


Brooke Claxton: No. The Canadian courts would have jurisdiction.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that case, it would be entire jurisdiction, would it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If they choose to exercise it.


Brooke Claxton: If the Canadian courts choose to exercise it, they would have jurisdiction. But. that would not prevent the United States service court from, in addition, exercising its jurisdiction if a military offence under military law had also been committed during the same set of circumstances.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Take the case of a crime which is entirely within one United States detachment. Suppose one United States soldier murders another one. Is that something that will be left entirely to the United States army court to deal with, or would our courts step into the picture?


Brooke Claxton: Nothing takes away the jurisdiction of our courts.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The presumption is that the case of this man would be left entirely in the hands of the United States military authorities.

Visiting Forces


Brooke Claxton: I would doubt that. That would be a matter for the Minister of Justice at the time or the attorney general of the province to decide. He would have jurisdiction to say what should happen there. I would doubt if the attorney general of the province would leave it to the United States court.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that case it really comes down to the initiative or action of the attorney general of the province. He is free at any time, in any case, to step in if a Canadian law has been broken.


Brooke Claxton: The untrammelled jurisdiction of the Canadian courts is not in any way affected by this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Jurisdiction of civil courts in Canada not affected.
Mr. JAENICKE:: I just wish to follow up what was being discussed a moment ago. Suppose an American commits an offence against the criminal code. Let us say it is a small offence, that he is arrested by his own detachment or by his own officers and tried. Could we then demand the custody of that person in order to try him in our own courts?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The jurisdiction of our courts has not been interfered with. It was explained to the United States authorities that, except under war conditions, the administration of justice was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, that we could give their service courts concurrent jurisdiction, but that we did not propose to interfere with the rights to exercise and discharge their responsibility which are held by those who had the responsibility for ordinary administration of justice.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: That is to say, if the soldier had been detained and tried by a United States service court, and then we wished to take action, we could go and demand to arrest that person?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Is there correspondence to that effect between the department and the United States authorities? Is there an understanding in correspondence between the authorities of the United States and ourselves that this can be done?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The correspondence we have had with them is to this effect: "Here, there are not going to be very many of you here; we do not think you are going to get 83166-248
into trouble very often, but when any of your people do get into trouble we think you will probably treat them in a manner that will satisfy the public opinion of the locality that adequate measures of restraint have been taken. But we will not abandon any jurisdiction of our own courts, and you must expect that if what you do makes the people where the offence takes place feel that our courts should deal with the matter, they will deal with it."


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Yes, I understand that. I was just referring to the question of actual arrest, as to whether or not we are prevented from doing that if he is lawfully detained by the service court of the United States. I was referring to the actual arrest itself.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not want to pronounce judgment on anything of that kind, but I think the hon. member will agree with me that, without an act, nothing the United States authorities would do would constitute lawful detention.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Oh, yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. Nothing they would do, unless they have authority from the Canadian law to do it, would constitute lawful detention. Here we give them authority, but we say, "Nothing in the authority we give you is going to interfere with the rights of our own people to administer Canadian justice." I think that is as clear as I can make it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me that we may be running into a legal difficulty here as far as our own service courts are concerned. Any civil-and I use "civil" as opposed to "military"-offence comes under the civil court if there is a competent court of civil jurisdiction in the area. Apparently all our own troops would be tried in civil courts; all troops that were visiting here from Great Britain, Australia, India or anywhere else in the British empire would be tried in our civil courts; but United States troops would be tried in their own courts for what are really civil offences such as theft, murder and so forth. That may result in this situation. A man may be tried in a United States court and perhaps acquitted. But the attorney general of the province lays a charge against him. He is brought up in a civil court. Under our law, as I have always understood it, and particularly as far as the military end of things is concerned in the army act, that man having been tried and acquitted in the United States court, cannot be tried again under our law. In other words, he cannot be tried the second

Visiting Forces

time. I would think we are likely to run into difficulties in that way. What would be the situation? What is the answer to that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Section 4 declares
that nothing they are authorized to do will interfere with the ordinary administration by our courts and our officials of our laws, for offences against our laws. We have declared, however, that if we deal with them under our laws for offences against our laws and acquit them, that acquittal will prevail in their service courts; but the reverse is not true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That comes into conflict, though, with the general principle in our law that a man may be tried only once for an offence.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do you think it is a good thing to have that exception to the general rule under our law?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think it is. I believe it is necessary for us in Canada to say, "No matter what you do, if one of your people commits an offence against Canadian law, Canadian authorities must have it within their power, if they see fit to do so, to deal with it as they would deal with a Canadian resident." That is particularly true in our country where the administration of justice is the responsibility of the provinces. During the war we could say, "Well, because of the emergency we can override some provisions of provincial jurisdiction"; but during normal times we do not want to attempt to do that. During normal times we think the attorney general of a province, who is responsible to his people for the administration of law and order in that province, should not be restricted by any arrangement we make with the Americans in respect of their forces. So we say to them, "If having done that, we acquit one of your men, you must not try to prosecute him again. But if you acquit a man before we deal with him, in one of your service courts, of course that is no business of ours. We have to deal with him just as if nothing had been done".


John Oliver Probe: It seems to me that a great many of the complexities and jurisdictional disputes which conceivably could take place under this legislation could have been avoided. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that these United States troops are few in number and are doing simple business such as the testing of materials, and so on. I believe United States civilians could have
come here to perform those duties, without having to wear United States uniforms. They could have carried out those scientific experiments, which apparently is what they are, and as civilians would have been amenable to all Canadian laws without any of these difficulties. What was wrong with that? Or why was not the general practice adopted in the treatment of troops in another country in peace time, under which practice they were first tried in civil courts and then taken to the border and turned over, as extradited criminals might be, to be dealt with by their own governments in their own lands and punished by whatever procedure might be considered fit? Why could that not be done in peace time? That is what is done with a criminal who commits offences in two countries. He is punished first in one place and then turned over to the authorities in the other country. Why could there not be a similar arrangement here?


William Henry Golding: Shall the
section carry?


John Oliver Probe: No, I want an answer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Then, Mr. Chairman, will you please report progress, because the Minister of National Revenue wants to ask leave to introduce some bills.
Progress reported.



INCOME TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 269, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 270, to amend the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. McCANN (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 271, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, and to change its title to Excise Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
Visiting Forces
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee 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-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Golding in the chair.
William Henry Golding: When the committee rose just before six o'clock we were considering section 4? Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Legality of sentence, constitution of court and proceedings.
Frank Eric Jaenicke: I presume that this section is to cover the case of a United States soldier who has been found guilty by his own service court and is being held in detention and there would be no writ of habeas corpus in our courts. I can envision the case of a United States soldier who may be found guilty of a breach of a regulation which would not constitute a crime in Canada, and then escapes. Under our criminal code anyone who has been sentenced by a court of competent jurisdiction and who is at large in Canada while under term of imprisonment, commits a criminal offence. If a soldier escapes like that would we be bound to help to arrest him where the crime committed is not a crime recognized in Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member will find the answer to his question in section 7 which reads:
7. For the purpose of enabling the service courts and service authorities of the United States of America to exercise more effectively the powers conferred upon them by this act, the Minister of National Defence, if so requested by the officer commanding a United States force or by the government of the United States of America, may from time to time by general or special orders to any home force direct the members thereof to arrest members of the United States force alleged to have been guilty of offences against the law of the United States of America and to hand over any person so arrested to the appropriate authorities of the United States force.
I take it that that is the procedure which would be followed. If they wish to have the assistance of the Canadian authorities they
would apply, either through the state department or through the United States officer, to the Canadian government or to the Minister of National Defence and he would, if he saw fit, and should, I suppose, if it were a proper case, give an order to render the assistance necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
On section 8-Temporary detention.
John Oliver Probe: Subsection 1 of this section reads:
Any member of a United States force, if sentenced iby a service court of the United States of America to penal servitude, imprisonment or detention may, under the authority of the Minister of National Defence, given at the request of the officer commanding the United States force, be temporarily detained in custody in a detention barrack in Canada.
Will the minister state whether that will be done at the expense of Canada, or whether expenses in connection with detention will be recoverable from the United States government?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would be anticipated that any expense to which Canada was put on behalf of officers of the United States forces would be reimbursed to the Canadian authorities.


John Oliver Probe: Is it contemplated that the United States will have detention barracks in this country?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That matter has not been gone into and I do not think it would be practicable to express any views upon it. There are only a small number of these men here and there has been no occasion to consider whether or not they should have detention barracks of their own. I would say that there would be no insuperable objection if there were two or three hundred at a place where their military police had a room in which could be temporarily detained members of their forces who had been apprehended. So far the matter has not come up as a practical proposition.


John Oliver Probe: Is the United States government acquiring installations, buildings and so on as they did during war time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; it is understood that they are not to acquire any permanent property. To be quite frank, so far they have been paying us rental for barracks or huts, and there is on foot a project under which they will contribute to the erection of other bar-
83166- 248i
Visiting Forces

racks and pay in advance for a stated period what would be the equivalent of the rental to His Majesty in the right of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Certain provisions of criminal code not applicable.
Frank Eric Jaenicke: I should like to ask the minister whether there is a reciprocal arrangement with the United States. When we were discussing this matter this afternoon it was contended that we have the same rights in the United States as their forces have here. Is there a similar arrangement whereby Canadian troops are exempt from similar provisions of their criminal law as United States troops are to be exempted from the sections of the criminal code set out in this section?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We are told that that is so in fact. As the hon. member knows, criminal laws in the United States are state laws; they are not something that can be dealt with by the central government. We are told that the proper application of the doctrine accepted by Chief Justice Marshall would be such as to prevent the application of state laws to the parading with arms of members of the forces of a friendly power who were in the country with the consent of the central government.


John Oliver Probe: Section 9(1) provides that certain sections of the criminal code shall not apply to a member of a United States force in Canada acting in the course of his duty, and specifically section 99 of the code is referred to respecting military exercises, movements or evolutions. This provision is not quite on all fours with what the minster said earlier in the day, that the number of troops and their present duties in this country are of such a nature that they are simply testing equipment. It would, therefore, suggest itself to me that there cannot, under the present arrangements, be military movements or exercises of a type that might be construed as drilling. Does the minister foresee such conditions occurring in the future? Is that the reason section 99 of the criminal code is not made applicable to the United States troops, or is this just a general precaution?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think the numbers I have mentioned would preclude drilling. I remember that a good many years ago when I was a lad there was a company of cavalry in my village and I would be surprised if they numbered more than forty, but they took pretty seriously the drilling to which they subjected themselves and their

horses. We used to look upon it as pretty efficient drilling. There will certainly be a sufficient number at the Churchill establishment to make it possible for them to have a parade and to go through movements that would, I think, come within the description of drilling.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Coming into force.
Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask whether a similar bill has been passed by the United States congress?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, a bill was passed by the congress of the United States in 1944. It is not fully similar to this, because all they had to do there was to make provision by legislation to impose duties upon their own citizens. Their construction of international law as determined by their supreme court was	such that	they	did not	find itnecessary to adopt a statute to recognize the jurisdiction of officers	over	men under theircommand	present in	the	territory	of theUnited States, but they did have to have legislation	to impose	upon citizens	of the
United States the duty of rendering assistance to enable officers to exercise in a practical way the jurisdiction they had by international law.
I must make a further qualification. I do not know that there was any provision in the United States statute that it should apply as from a specific date. The reason for making this legislation apply as from the first day of April, 1947, is that we told our friends representing the United States authority that we would get this legislation through at an early day. They felt a bit uneasy since the time the orders in council were repealed, and we said: "If you have done anything in the meantime we will ask parliament to declare that this statute shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April, so that there will be no hiatus in your jurisdiction.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the rule that a bill is given a third reading forthwith if it is reported without amendment.
Mr. MaeINNIS: No bill can be given more than one reading the same day without unanimous consent.

United Nations
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think my hon.friend is mistaken.


Angus MacInnis: I would refer the minister to standing order 73.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is a special rule with respect to the third reading of bills, that they can be read a third time immediately if reported from the committee of the whole without amendment. Standing order 77 reads:
All amendments made in committee are reported by the chairman to the house, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the bill is open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for a third reading. But when a bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the house.


Angus MacInnis: I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would allow me to read standing order 73:
Every bill shall receive three several readings on different days, previously to being passed. On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.
But a bill to be advanced more than one stage at one time must have the unanimous consent of the house.


James Horace King: Since the second reading of the bill was passed this afternoon the minister would require the consent of the house to have the third reading now.
' Mr. ST. LAURENT: There is no special reason why it should be taken right now.


Angus MacInnis: I might state my objection to having the third reading now. I was not in the house this afternoon when this bill went into committee, but I understand that certain information was sought as to the number of United States troops now in Canada and that that information was refused. When the third reading of the bill is taken I want to have something to say on that point.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the accession of Canada to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the united nations and to grant to the united nations and any specialized agency of which Canada is a member and which is brought into relationship with the united nations, to their officers and to the representatives of their members, the
legal capacity, immunities, facilities and privileges necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of the united nations and of its specialized agencies.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Thomas Langton Church: This is a rather large order. The minister tabled a list of the countries, numbering some twenty-eight, which have agencies here in Ottawa, and ambassadors. You will have to build a new hotel or several houses for them, because they will take up about one-third of the accommodation. A list of the countries which have these privileges and immunities was given to us some time ago. Another list of Canada's expeditionary force, known as ambassadors overseas, has been tabled. It will be found that we have ambassadors in almost every country on the seven seas. The expenses of the department are going up; they are $1,700,000 more than they were last year. When you add that to the $1,500,000 for trade commissioners in the same places it amounts to $3,200,000 extra this year. The report that the minister brought down covers nearly twenty-five pages. It gives a list of the non-commissioned officers and men, the first secretaries, the second secretaries, the third secretaries and, all kinds of officials.
I have never been to a meeting of the united nations. I have not much confidence in the whole organization because of what happened at San Francisco and Lake Success. Before they get through, we shall have to call it Lake Failure, but it is nothing but a talking tower of babel.
Look at the people to whom this resolution applies. I am surprised to find the list. Talk about the noble four hundred. I venture to say that if the list is counted the number will come to pretty nearly four hundred; it will reach to several centuries.
The minister says that it is expedient to introduce a measure. I doubt at this time, with all the talk there is going on, whether it is expedient to know more about the organization to which we are granting the rights and privileges for which the ordinary taxpayer will have to pay. The resolution says that it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the accession of Canada to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the united nations. There are a lot of these conventions; we are getting them all mixed up. There was a Liberal convention some time ago. I do not know whether they could qualify here or whether they should qualify. They ought to have certain rights and immunities, Mr. Chairman, as well as these other gentlemen who belong to these other countries and
United, Nations

organizations. My hon. friends to the left have a convention sometimes, and my hon. friends farther down the aisle-


Major James William Coldwell: Not that kind of convention.


Thomas Langton Church: And that includes the hon. member for Temiscouata. He should get certain immunities, rights and privileges which are given to these other organizations.
I know the minister is a hard working man, but the people are becoming very much alarmed at the united nations. Mr. Attlee himself complained the other day and said he was very much disappointed in it the first year. I think he is right.
The resolution goes on to describe other specialized agencies of which Canada is a member, which are "brought into relationship with the united nations, to their officers and to their representatives of their members, the legal capacity" and so forth. Every one of these gentlemen will have an adviser, a legal officer. Why do they belong to the organization if they must have somebody to advise them? There is the first officer, the second officer, the third officer, and all that kind of thing. The resolution continues and mentions the "legal capacity, immunities, facilities and privileges necessary for the accomplishment of the purposes of the united nations and of its specialized agencies." I fail to see why we should have a class like this. We are giving all these officers of the countries which belong to the united nations the rights and privileges of ambassador's and are exempting them from taxation. Many other advantages are given to them. It is becoming privilege and nothing but privilege. Some have relief and some have not.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would hope that hon. members would prefer to have the discussion on this matter after they got the bill. The charter of the united nations provides that that organization and its affiliated agencies will enjoy such immunities as are necessary for them to accomplish the purpose for which they are established. Article 105 of the charter to which the houses of the Canadian parliament have acceded, says:
The general assembly may make recommendations with a view to determining the details of the applications of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article or may propose conventions to the members of the united nations for this purpose.
The conventions proposed are not gatherings of members of a party; they are agreements setting out what the privileges and immunities are to be. I am sure it will be the wish of all members that the Canadian parliament give consideration to the matter. The conven-

tion has been prepared. All that this resolution does is to ask leave to introduce a bill to which the convention is annexed, so that the members may give it consideration. There are already a large number of states that have given their adherence to this convention, and I think it would be preferable to reserve the debate that we shall have on the propriety of acceding to the convention to the time when the bill is introduced and the convention placed before members of parliament, and they are in a position to discuss it in an appropriate manner.
All that we are asking at the present time is that we have leave to introduce a bill to which the convention will be attached, so that members of parliament can consider it and decide whether or not they want Canada to accept it as other members of the united nations have done.


William Henry Golding: Shall the resolution carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: No. Mr. Chairman, I look at the front row of the gallery right in front of you. It is reserved for diplomats, people who are mentioned, whose immunities are mentioned here.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. This does not have to do with the diplomatic service at all; this has to do with the united nations and the organizations affiliated with the united nations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the immunities of diplomatic representatives of states in Canada. If the hon. member will wait until he gets the convention he will then probably have something to say and we shall be glad to have his views on the merits or otherwise of the convention; but I think he would interest us to a greater extent if he waited until he had the convention to give us his comments upon it. It is not at all a matter with respect to immunities of diplomatic representatives in this country.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the right hon. gentleman for his explanation, but I will remind him of something. Canada is the only country in the world where those who are not diplomats are given the status of diplomats, if not formally, at least informally to a certain extent. Canada is the only country in the world where consuls have semi-official rank as diplomats. I already asked a gentleman who was at one time a secretary of state, Mr. McLarty, and he did not say that consuls, and commercial attaches such as high commissioners, and so on. had official rank and precedence. But they are given it. And of course, high commissioners are only trade agents

United Nations


William Henry Golding: Order. I
wonder how the hon. member relates his discussion to this resolution?


Jean-François Pouliot: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not know why you call me to order, because neither you nor I have the paper which the right hon. gentleman mentioned. He told me:	"When you see the
paper you will have a different view about it." But I have the resolution, without the white paper.
My comments are simply to give the government an opportunity to draft a good bill, if the thing can be done. I do not believe in this business at all, but it seems to me that we should have all the papers available before beginning to discuss a matter of this kind. And if I do not have them and you do not have them, Mr. Chairman, how can you blame me for talking widely and broadly-


John Ritchie MacNicol: And wisely.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. What I
want to say about the matter is that I am warning the government, so that in drafting the bill they will not make the same error as was made in connection with lists of precedence, when ordinary commercial agents such as high commissioners, consuls and vice-consuls-and all those small fry-were considered as diplomats.
In the old countries, where diplomacy requires a special training, there is a line of demarcation between commercial agents, consuls and high commissioners, and diplomats. It would be a faux pas for commercial agents, consuls or high commissioners to jump across the line and to pose as diplomats. The reason is obvious. For a long time we did not have ambassadors; we had only consuls. And since we did not have ambassadors we gave the consuls and other commercial attaches the same rank as ambassadors had in other countries.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that he is not discussing the resolution before the committee.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Mr. Chairman, would
you speak loudly enough for us to hear. This is an exceedingly important matter, and we cannot hear anything that is going on.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, these
immunities-


William Henry Golding: Order. I think if hon. members would try to keep order themselves they would hear what I am trying to say. It is not possible to make
oneself heard when so many others are trying to talk at the same time. I have just called the hon. member's attention to the fact that what he was saying had no relation to the resolution before the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: With respect to these
immunities, they have in the united nations organization certain officers. There are certain rules and regulations which apply to them. They enjoy many immunities, including those in respect of taxation, and all that kind of thing. When I look at the minister's book I am surprised when I see the list of alternate officers, and others. Provincial laws do not apply to these people; not even federal law3. They have all the privileges and powers of consuls and ambassadors abroad.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: It seems to me that there is a complete misunderstanding of this resolution. It is not a resolution which deals in any particular with ambassadors, consuls or others, but one which deals with delegates going to and from united nations meetings who were granted certain courtesies within countries through which they passed, together with their baggage aDd papers, and things of that description. This also applied to the secretaries and staff accompanying them. For instance, if an international labour organization conference is held in Canada, we will say, the delegates are granted temporary immunities and the usual courtesies extended to persons who take part in conferences of that description.
I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the debate should take place on the bill. I would suggest that we ought not to spend time in discussing something which is not involved in the bill, and thus spend it wastefully.


Jean-François Pouliot: I agree perfectly with the hon. member, but with this difference, that he believes in that stuff, and I do not. That is the only difference between him and me. Very often the hon. member says he is a democrat. He is for the bill of rights, and all that stuff-[DOT] for the common man, the man on the street. So am I. But I do not see why we give privileges to all these clerks and bureaucrats who are filling the space on our railways, aeroplanes, coaches and buses, when we do not extend the same immunities to every Canadian citizen.
I believe that all Canadian citizens, especially those who have certificates of citizenship, are entitled to the same immunities as all those men who belong to the united nations. Therefore, as a democrat, and a man who is more democratic than the leader of the
United Nations

C.C.F. I want every Canadian citizen, man, woman and child, to have the same immunities and privileges as are given to all those bureaucrats who represent nations at the united nations meetings.


Thomas Langton Church: Making them all an
aristocracy.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, and if we accept this kind of proposal there will be no room for our own people to travel. Our children will be unable to go away during the summer months, after an arduous year of study. And the railways will not belong to Canadians any more. They will be used by a long line of bureaucrats representing the peoples of other countries. They will be more numerous than the stars in the sky and the sands of the sea. Every country in the world will be represented.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I think we have listened to enough in the last two or three days- people who are experts at everything and masters of nothing. For goodness sake, let us keep within the rules of the house and try to get home by Christmas.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Humphrey Mitchell: And I am not referring to any hon. member in particular.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I submit that there was nothing in what was said by the Minister of Labour. He is one of those who are' strong for-


William Henry Golding: I must ask the hon. member again, if he is going to discuss the resolution, to discuss it. That is the only thing before the committee. Shall the resolution carry?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, you know that I have the greatest respect for you; and I think what the Minister of Labour has just done is no more, parliamentary than the appearance yesterday of his colleague in kilts. I will tell you, sir, that one is not out of order by showing the absurdity of a proposition. As a member of parliament, I think the thing has gone far enough. At the present time the people who represent such organizations as the international labour organization, for which the Minister of Labour is so strong, and the united nations organization, are taking the whole place in this country and there is no more room for the Canadian citizen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am perfectly in order in saying that. I have just as much right to disapprove this kind of legislation as anyone has to approve it.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member is not in order in discussing any matters other than this resolution. If the hon. member is going to speak at all, I should like him to discuss the resolution and nothing else.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not discussing anything else, Mr. Chairman. The only thing is that I brought out a point of comparison with an organization which is so dear to the heart of the Minister of Labour. Now let us consider this thing. What is it? I wonder how many members have read it.


John Horne Blackmore: Nobody.


Jean-François Pouliot: It begins in this way:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the accession of Canada to the convention on the privileges and immunities of the united nations . . ,
That is a convention which I cannot discuss because I do not have it before me, and I should have it before the resolution is submitted to the house. We should not have to wait until the bill is before the house in order to discuss the resolution, because the purpose of the resolution is to afford members of parliament an opportunity to make useful suggestions for the drafting of the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: And to learn what they are doing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. The drafting of the bill is supposed to be done after the resolution is passed and1 not before; and those who draft the bill are supposed to take notice of suggestions made by members of parliament, and to maintain in the bill the wording of the resolution or to change it according to the expressed wish of the members.


Thomas Langton Church: We are becoming a nation of ambassadors.


Jean-François Pouliot: The resolution speaks of the convention on the privileges and immunities of the united nations. Immunity! If "immunity" is the right word, it is useless to prepare ourselves for defence against attack because this country will be immune against aggression. What is immunity? Again we do not know. We are asked to vote blindly, Mr. Chairman. Never in my life have I done that.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN. Order. The
hon. member has repeatedly stated that he does not know what he is talking about. The minister has suggested that we pass this resolu-

United Nations
tion, and then the hon. member will have the bill before him and will know what he is talking about. In order to save the time of the committee, I would suggest that we do that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Quite so, Mr. Chairman; but I do not know what is behind this. No one can blame me for not knowing what it is, because I am just reading it.


Mr. MUTCH:: It would be all right if the hon. member did not talk about it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let the hon. member for Winnipeg South put on his kilts, and it will be all right.
The resolution continues:
. . . and to grant to the united nations and any specialized agency of which Canada is a member-
It is formidable when you note that. It is not only the representatives of other nations. It is all the other agencies of all the other nations. I will read it again so that everybody will know what it is about:
-and any specialized agency of which Canada is a member and which is brought into relationship with the united nations-
We do not have the bill. We should have it. If I complain that our information is not complete, it will be enough to show that this debate should1 have taken place later after every hon. member had been provided with full information about the matter. I do not speak of what I know. I complain that I do not know enough, and that if hon. members were well informed about it, no one would be in favour of this legislation. The resolution continues:
-to their officers and to the representatives of their members, the legal capacity

Imagine that!
-immunities, facilities and privileges-
There are four things, namely, legal capacity, immunities, facilities and privileges.
-for the accomplishment of the purposes of the united nations-
And not only the united nations.
-and of its specialized agencies.
Who are they? We do not know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, we do.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope my hon. friend will be kind enough to give me a list of those specialized agencies and figure out the number of people involved, who will take so much space on the railways when the railways complain that they have not enough cars for transportation purposes. I do not wish to be unpleasant; but the other day when it was stated, in a discussion about a similar matter, that we should have to adopt the suggestions
required by the secretariat of the united nations, I found it pretty hard to digest. Some members of parliament now take the view that this is just a matter of course, that it is just a matter of routine. That is their view, and they have a right to have that view. But especially after a committee has been set up with respect to human rights in conformity with the suggestion made by the united nations, I think a member of parliament has the right to express his views and to ask questions about matters of this kind.
Very often I have complained about legislation which was railroaded through and passed blindly by some hon. members who paid no attention to it. This is a serious matter. It is not only a question of routine. If it is ridiculous, it can also be dangerous. Yet some members are anxious to pass it. They are ready to accept everything that comes from the united nations. That is a dangerous state of mind, because there will be governmental irresponsibility in these matters. People whom we do not know, and whom we shall probably never know, will make decisions which we shall be bound to accept and put into law just because of all these pieces of legislation which are swallowed, one after another, by parliament. At the present time we are the witnesses of a wave of irresponsibility. There is irresponsibility everywhere. The attitude which is taken is, I did not do it; it was done by the other fellow. Who is the other fellow? I do not know. It is not in accordance with what has been for centuries the practice of the British parliament. The duty of members is not only to make speeches in the House of Commons but to control expenditures. How shall we be able to control expenditures when we know nothing about the shortcomings of the whole thing that is now being set up? Of course some hon. members-and especially some members of the C.C.F. group-are strong for it. They believe in bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is their god. They believe in bureaucracy and bureaucrats. The more there are, the better it is.


William Henry Golding: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: All right, sir.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the wording of this resolution, which says:
. . . which is brought into relationship with the united nations, to their officers and to the representatives of their members . . .
We are going to give immunity to all these people. I have seen some criticism of this in an English paper called The Patriot, and in Time magazine. I believe this will be a very large organization. Are we t) establish this principle and give all these people certain
United Nations

privileges and immunities, including immunity from taxation and immunity from other restrictions and responsibilities?


William Henry Golding: Shall the
resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: No, Mr. Chairman,
it is not carried. I should like to say a word concerning the general remarks of the minister, who said we ought to wait until we saw the bill so that we would know what is in it. Before we see the bill, I suppose we shall be called upon to give it second reading; at least we shall have a discussion on second reading, and in the discussion on second reading we shall be limited by the rules of a full-dress debate, which means that it will be impossible to ask questions and elicit information to which we are entitled as members of the House of Commons. I support the contention of the hon. member for Temis-couata that it is our duty, our privilege and our responsibility to find out what is behind this thing. I wish to ask several questions, and until they are answered I am not prepared to agree to the adoption of this resolution. I want to have the minister answer the question of the hon. member for Temis-couata as to just what are these specialized agencies. Surely that is a simple question. If the minister is not prepared to answer it he is not prepared to be open and frank with this house; and if he is not prepared to be frank and open with this house, then this house should see to it that he is, because that is the duty of a minister in a responsible government.


William Henry Golding: In answer
to the hon. gentleman's question-


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if you would speak loud enough so that we can hear you.


An hon. MEMBER:: Be quiet and listen.


John Horne Blackmore: I am quiet, and I
wish other hon. members would be quiet. Down here it is impossible to hear when hon. members are making such a noise. I want to hear what is going on; that is why I came here.


William Henry Golding: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question, the bill will be given second reading, of course, and at that time there will be a full discussion on the principle of the bill. Then it will go to committee, and the hon. gentleman will have every opportunity to ask questions on each clause. But I believe the house would be wise to pass the resolution and

get the bill before it, to see exactly what they are talking about. Shall the resolution carry?


John Horne Blackmore: No, Mr. Chairman.
I beg leave to challenge your statement. I io not believe the committee would be wise to pass the resolution. The proper place to get information concerning matters of this sort is right here, in the resolution stage. I want information, a lot of it. I happen to know enough about this thing to be pretty suspicious, and pretty inquisitive,
I want to hear the minister answer the question asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata. What are these specialized agencies of which Canada is already a member?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: Surely, Mr. Chairman, hon. members must have entirely forgotten their duties. A member of this house has a right to ask a question and to have that question. answered. Is there a member on the Liberal side who will contradict that statement?


William Henry Golding: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I have asked a question and I want an answer.


William Henry Golding: I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the bill is not yet before the committee. When the bill is in committee he will be able to get the information for which he is now asking. If we pass the resolution now, later the bill will come before the committee and be dealt with. In view of that, shall the resolution carry?


John Horne Blackmore: No.


Mr. QUELCH:: Surely, Mr. Chairman, j'ou are not going to suggest that in the resolution stage we are not perfectly entitled to ask questions relating to the subjects mentioned in the resolution. That has been the custom during the ten years I have been in the house. Time and again, when a resolution has been introduced we have had a long discussion, with many questions asked and answered. This is about the first time I have ever known of a resolution to be brought before the house when the Chairman has ruled that questions and answers are not in .order.


Mr. McCANN:: He has not ruled that at all.


Victor Quelch: The hon. member for
Temiscouata asked what these specialized agencies are, and I think that question should be answered.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member will ask a question pertinent to the resolution I shall do my best to answer it, but I heard

United Nations
nothing in the speech of the hon. member for Teimiscouata that appeared to me to be a question pertinent to the resolution.


Victor Quelch: There is a reference to the specialized agencies. Could the minister say what those are? For instance, is the international monetary fund one of those agencies.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The international
monetary fund is not one of the special agencies brought into relationship with the united nations. It may become so. These agencies are brought into relationship with the united nations by virtue of a contract entered into between the two, and the international monetary fund and the united nations have not yet even discussed the terms upon which a relationship could be established.


John Horne Blackmore: Then will the minister tell us what are the specialized agencies involved in this resolution?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The specialized agencies which may be brought into relationship with the united nations under the terms of article 57 of the charter of the united nations which was signed at a meeting of the united nations, which, unfortunately, was not attended by the hon. member, are: the international labour organization; the food and agriculture organization; the united nations educational, cultural and scientific organization; the international civil aviation organization; the universal postal union; the international telecommunications union; the world health organization. Others that have not yet reached the operation stage are: the international refugee organization, which is being organized under the united nations; the international trade organization, the constitution of which is being worked out and prepared at Geneva at the present time.


Mr. HACKETT:: Were there agencies to fight slavery and the drug traffic, and things like that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure whether there is a constituted organization. There have been meetings under the aegis of the united nations dealing with those subjects, and there is ar narcotic drugs organization, but I am not in a position to say whether or not that has been brought into this relationship at the present time. A question arose there as to whether it could, because Spain was a member of the narcotic drugs commission, and a resolution was passed at the last general assembly that no organization of which Spain was a member could be brought into relationship with the united nations.


John Thomas Hackett: I suppose these agencies are likely to increase in number as the organization goes on?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are apt to increase in number; and the recommendation which will be made is that such immunities as are provided be extended to them when Canada becomes a member of one of them; but Canada becomes a member by virtue of something that is brought to the houses of parliament for approval.


John Thomas Hackett: A complete list could not be given now?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Not an exhaustive list.


Jean-François Pouliot: Article 57 of the charter of the united nations reads:
1.	The various specialized agencies, established by intergovernmental agreement and having wide international responsibilities, as defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related fields, shall be brought into relationship with the united nations in accordance with the provisions of article 63.
2.	Such agencies thus brought into relationship with the united nations are hereinafter referred to as specialized agencies.
Article 63 reads:
1.	The economic and social council may enter into agreements with any of the agencies referred to in article 57. defining the terms on which the agency concerned shall be brought into relationship with the united nations. Such agreements shall be subject to approval by the general assembly.
2.	It may coordinate the activities of the specialized agencies through consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and through recommendations to the general assembly and to the members of the united nations.
I will tell the committee why I asked the questions I did. I am surprised that they were so well understood by the hon. members for Lethbridge and Acadia and were not understood by other hon. members. The questions were put in plain English. The reason I asked them is this. With the great number of people from various countries passing through Canada on trains, aeroplanes and boats, we may be exposed to many things. That is what I fear. We shall have to be careful. We may have to double the R.C.M.P. to check these people, but that will be impossible because they will be immune.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it expected that Bretton Woods will become one of the specialized agencies?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: When the hon. member says "Bretton Woods" I assume that he means the agreements which were worked out at that place, not the place itself. I am not
United Nations

in a position to tell the hon. member whether the organization .set up by that agreement will choose to come into relationship with the united nations. No negotiations to that end have so far taken place.


Mr. McIVOR:: I do not always find it so easy to keep quiet, but I think the minister has made a reasonable request that the debate be left over until we have all the material before us. He is thinking of the progress of the business of this house. If I speak on this matter I want to have the particulars before me. As somebody said lately, we need more light and a little less noise.


John Horne Blackmore: We can excuse the hon. member for Fort William for not being as familiar with this subject as members of parliament ought to be, but we cannot very well excuse a number of us. I cannot excuse myself. I want to tell the hon. member for Fort William that it is right now when we are dealing with the resolution that we should get the information before we commit ourselves too far. I want to ask whether the final act of Bretton Woods, which, of course, is the name of the whole thing, is to become one of the specialized agencies and, if not, why not?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know if it is or not, and I do not know why not.


John Horne Blackmore: I suppose the minister is not aware of how serious a deficiency in himself he has confessed before the committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I leave that to the judgment of the public.


John Horne Blackmore: Just imagine a responsible minister coming before this committee and being unable to answer that question! Such a tremendous amount depends on whether the final act of Bretton Woods, to which we acceded in 1945, becomes one of these specialized agencies. A tremendous amount depends upon that. I suggest to hon. members that, as a good practice, they should read once more the final act of Bretton Woods, which we passed in such shameful haste in the last days of 1945, and also the immunities appended to that. From those immunities they will get some sort of idea of the kind of thing this committee is committing itself to when it passes the resolution or passes the bill. There will be plenty of reason for the anxiety of the hon. member for Temiscouata. Since the minister cannot tell us that, I should like to ask what is meant by the words "legal capacity" as applied to the officers and representatives, we will say, of the I.L.O.?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know that we should have a course in law in this House of Commons, but what it means is that if a body is to be recognized as having the right of a person, someone has to give it corporate capacity. It will be recommended to parliament that that be done in respect of Canada by virtue of the terms of the bill to be introduced.


John Horne Blackmore: That means what? Does it mean the power to sue in the courts? Does it mean the responsibility to be sued in the courts? Just what is the significance of that? That should be put on the record.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, I think we have got off on the wrong foot here. The hon. member for Lethbridge is quite within his rights in asking these questions because there would be no reason for the Speaker to leave the chair for the house to go into committee unless questions could be asked, but I submit that we are wasting our own time and the time of the house by asking questions now when we have not the full picture before us as we shall have when the bill is brought down. I suggest to the hon. member for Lethbridge and others that they forgo asking questions now, because they will be in a much better position once the bill is brought down. Someone has mentioned the custom in the British parliament where resolutions are never discussed, where the discussion on the principle of a measure is carried out on the second reading. I agree that the hon. member is within his rights, but he will be in a better position and the minister piloting the bill will be in a better position once the bill is introduced.


Victor Quelch: That may not be true. On the resolution stage you are free to ask any question pertaining to the resolution, but when we are dealing with the bill we are tied down to individual sections and may find it impossible to ask a particular question. We had an example this afternoon when certain questions were asked and hon. members were told that they could not ask them under that particular section. It is quite possible that when the bill comes down there may be certain questions we want to ask that do not apply specifically to an^ section, and therefore we shall not be able to ask them.


Humphrey Mitchell: You can ask them on the title.	*


Victor Quelch: Is it intended to take any steps to screen the various officials who may come here from all parts of the world? Since we have had a lot of publicity in connection

United Nations
with espionage, are these various representatives to be allowed to run wild across Canada without any form of screening?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think there will be anything as wild as some of the statements made in the house.


Victor Quelch: They were pretty wild last year.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: All I am asking is for the adoption of this resolution, so that a draft convention which has been prepared by a committee of the united nations and has been recommended to the members of the united nations by a resolution of the general assembly may be put before this house, in order that the house, which has approved of the adherence of Canada to the united nations, may say whether or not it is prepared to take the recommendation of the general assembly and agree to some or any or none of the recommendations of that convention. That is all that is involved at the present time. The convention will be before the members of this house. They have agreed to the united nations charter. The united nations charter provides that the general assembly will recommend the terms of a convention. The general assembly has done so, and I think the Canadian parliament should, in conformity with the spirit of the charter, at least take the trouble of examining that convention and saying whether it is prepared to agree to the whole of it, to any part of it or to none of it. That is all.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister tell the committee whether there is any sufficient reason why that convention should not be placed before the members of this house without having the bill before us?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That convention was published in the newspapers and has had all kinds of publicity. I have a copy of it here which I can tear off the bill and send to the hon. member if he wants to see it. It is something that was recommended by a resolution passed a year ago February. Fifteen or twenty members of the united nations have already expressed their intention of adhering to it, some without reservations, some with reservations. It is our intention to put it before the house and to ask: Shall we do anything at all about it?


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, words have many meanings. If one looks at Webster one will see four or five significations for a single word. The trouble with our legislation most of the time is that there are not enough definitions to make more precise the meaning of the words used in the statute. If the discussion that has taken place has had only the effect of warning the government of the necessity of having clearly drafted legislation and sufficient definitions I shall not regret the difficulties I went through to express that wish. We speak now to a house which is practically all converted to the idea of the united nations.


John Horne Blackmore: "Converted" is exactly the word.


Jean-François Pouliot: Of course opinions are free. All I can tell you, sir, and my colleagues is that it is a wrong sentiment and the future will prove that all those who opposed it were right. If I oppose it now I do not do so for myself or for those of my generation, but for those of the future generations who will suffer from it just as the boys of the two previous generations suffered from the bureaucracy that was called the "New Despotism" by a lord chief justice of England and from the bureaucracy of Geneva, and now we shall have the bureaucracy of Lake Success, New York.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: We might just as well save ourselves all this shouting of "carried" and behave ourselves like members of parliament. Surely a matter of this great importance merits the calm and considered attention of members of parliament. We have been listening for about an hour-


James Joseph McCann: Address the Chair.


John Horne Blackmore: I am including the Chair in what I am saying. We have been talking for about an hour and before we had been on this subject for about twenty minutes we had the anvil chorus of "carried" going on. That is surely a sign that there is "a nigger in the woodpile" somewhere.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member to be allowed to make a statement of that kind?


William Henry Golding: I would ask the hon. member if he is to speak at all to speak to the resolution.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, what about the hon. member being allowed to state that the conduct of his fellow members in this house indicates that there is a nigger in the woodpile?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman. I wonder if we have not the right to ask the minister to state the matter correctly. I did not say that the conduct of the members of this house-


William Henry Golding: Order. I am sure that the hon. member if he made any
United Nations

statement of that kind would be imputing motives and that he will withdraw his statement.


John Horne Blackmore: What I said was that an anvil chorus of "carried", which commenced fifteen or twenty minutes after this discussion commenced, is pretty good evidence that all is not well, mat something is seriously wrong; in other words, that there is a "nigger in the woodpile" somewhere.
I am going to ask several more questions which I think are pertinent to the resolution. I have tried to find out something about the nature of the immunities which we shall be granting to all these various people. I noticed in the long list which the minister gave the I.L.O., FAO, UNESCO, Civil Aviation, et cetera. To each and every one of these, according to the resolution which is before us, we are to grant legal capacity, whatever that means. The minister has defined it in a general sort of way but not so that those who read Hansard out in the country will understand what he means. May I ask, what are the - immunities which are referred to in the resolution and which are to be granted to the various specialized agencies which are to be associated with the united nations. What are those immunities?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are the immunities recommended to the members of the united nations in the convention that was recommended by its resolution on the third of February, 1946.


Victor Quelch: Article IV of the schedule to the bill says that among the privileges and immunities are:
(a) immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and. in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind.
This afternoon and yesterday we listened to a lot of talk about the tremendous dangers that may face this country. To listen to some hon. members one would almost come to the conclusion that a war with some countries is imminent. If the stiuation is anything like as dangerous as many hon. members would have had us believe yesterday and today, surely we are not going to suggest that we should allow representatives of these countries to run around this country with their baggage. They are allowed to bring baggage in and out of the country without any investigation as to what is in that baggage, what the documents may be that they take out. How can one say that we do not face a crisis when we have a situation which necessitates bringing troops of another country
[The Deputy Chairman.]
into Canada; how can one say we face that situation at one minute and, in the next, suggest that we should allow representatives of these countries, countries that we suspect, shall I say, to come here and have free rein without our right to investigate the documents which they may be carrying out of the country or the code messages which they may be sending out? It seems to be rank insanity to me. When I say "insanity" I mean that either the things that hon. members were speaking of here yesterday and today were a form of insanity; or, if they were sane, then this resolution is insane. You cannot have it both ways.
I would ask the minister whether or not there is some loophole whereby, if we are satisfied that certain representatives of certain countries-and I am not suggesting any one country-are carrying on some form of espionage, we can investigate, or do we mean by this bill that these men have complete immunity? Has the government not the right to provide for an investigation upon what they may be doing? I should like an answer to that question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I do not think I
should be called upon to give answers as to what will be the effect of the legislation resulting from a bill which has not even been introduced.


Victor Quelch: I hold in my hand the
schedule which is dealt with in the bill which will follow the resolution. I am interested in the schedule. In view of the fact that the minister has sent this schedule over to us and it is the schedule that we are in reality discussing, I should like a reply to my question. The minister will admit that it is a serious question and I should like an answer to it. The minister should answer'. Why wait until we are out of the frying-pan into the fire?


Mr. ASHBY:: May I ask the minister a
question?


Victor Quelch: I should like an answer
to my question.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Will the hon. member please state his question in a form that can be answered. [DOT]


Victor Quelch: All right. If there are
in this country certain officials about whom we receive information which causes us to believe that they are carrying on acts of espionage, are they granted complete immunity by this resolution, or have we the right to investigate, seize their baggage and see whether or not they have been carrying on that kind of work?

United Nations
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If we grant immunities we shall be expected to respect them. They will be such as this house sees fit to determine. If this house sees fit to make reservations, as other nations have made reservations, in some respects of this convention, then those reservations will apply. If this house and parliament see fit to grant complete immunities I would expect the Canadian people to respect the immunities granted by an act of parliament.


Victor Quelch: Yes, that is quite right,
if we grant these immunities. The question is, is it wise to grant these immunities with the facts that are before us today, or has the government just been stirring up a mare's-nest in the past? If we can believe the documents that have been put out by the government; if we can believe some of the references made in the Taschereau-Kellock commission, then I would say a bill of this kind is insanity.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: May I ask the minister who is the individual responsible for drawing up this bill in the first place?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The bill was prepared in collaboration between the legal counsel of the Department of External Affairs and the law officers of the Department of Justice.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I asked the names of the individuals, not the institution.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think that is a question which is pertinent to the consideration of the resolution.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: We must have individual responsibility. I receive letters from these bureaucrats telling me that the department did this, or that or the other. An individual did it, or some individuals did it. I should like to know who these individuals are.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: When this resolution is passed11 shall put in the hands of the Chairman for delivery to the Speaker a bill for which I take full responsibility.


Victor Quelch: Again I should like to point out that this is the time to decide whether or not we want that bill to be drawn up; otherwise what is the purpose of the resolution?


John Horne Blackmore: Apparently the minister thinks he is the sole judge as to whether or not he should answer any question. I should like to convey to the minister in a perfectly respectful way the idea that he is not the sole judge, that the members of the house are the judges of what questions we shall ask him and what he is to answer.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If I am asked a question and I refuse to answer I shall be glad to have my refusal to answer challenged and a vote taken upon it.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Edmonton East just asked a question and was refused.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member wishes to challenge my refusal to give the name of the official who wrote or typed the draft bill I am prepared to meet that challenge.


Patrick Harvey Ashby: I think I have every right, Mr. Chairman, to have that question answered. We must pin responsibility upon individuals, and some individuals drew up this bill.


William Henry Golding: Order. The hon. member is discussing the bill. The bill is not yet before the committee. If we pass the resolution, then the hon. member can see the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Horne Blackmore: We are asking questions concerning the resolution.


William Henry Golding: Order. I would remind the hon. member that I was not addressing my remarks to him; I was addressing my remarks to the hon. member for Edmonton East who wras discussing the bill.


John Horne Blackmore: It apparently is not convenient to give the committee details concerning what these immunities are to be. Two of the immunities, which I think are quite clearly indicated in the passage which the hon. member for Acadia read are these, that an officer who would represent the international labour office, for example, in Canada would be immune from arrest. He would be immune from investigation, in any respect, no matter whether he was suspected of espionage or not; he would be immune from all these things except in so far as he himself waived the immunities. Look how serious that is, Mr. Chairman. It would mean the representative of the I.L.O. was immune, the representative of FAO was immune, the representative of UNESCO was immune, and so on with the international civil aviation organization and the international postal union, the international telecommunications and so forth. There is hardly anything concerning any of these which hon. members know. Each of these gentlemen possesses immunities, and, in addition to that, all these members to whom the hon. member for Broadview referred possesses this immunity. Look at the bewildering responsibility this committee is taking upon itself when it grants that immunity.
United Nations


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course all that I consider it my duty to do is to bring to the attention of hon. members how serious the action is that they are engaging in in accepting this thing like a pig in a poke.
What are the facilities which are referred to in this resolution which are to be granted to each of these privileged individuals representing the united nations and each of the specialized agencies which will be attached to the united nations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are those that are described in the convention which was adopted on February 13, 1946, and to which this country is invited by resolution of the united nations to adhere, and to which it can adhere in whole or in part, or not at all, as it may be decided.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister name those? He must be familiar with them. He can surely give them to the committee.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If I thought there was information being sought for the purpose of getting information I would be only too glad to supply it. With respect to that, if it can be of any use to the hon. member, the facilities that are referred to are with respect to . communications facilities not less favourable than those accorded by the government to diplomatic missions accredited to this country.


John Horne Blackmore: I probably should request the minister to withdraw the imputation of motive.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If I made any imputation I will gladly withdraw it-if it will save any time.


John Horne Blackmore: All right; the imputation was that I was not asking for information. I am asking for information. What are the privileges which are granted or which will be granted, as implied in this resolution?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know that will be granted under this measure. I know there were a certain number of privileges enumerated in the convention, and if the hon. member will read the convention he will see exactly what they are. I do not know to which of those parliament will see fit to adhere.


John Horne Blackmore: Now, Mr. Chairman, as parliament is at present constituted, it will adhere to exactly what the minister says it will adhere to.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That is a compliment which I appreciate.


John Horne Blackmore: People on the Liberal side would vote for anything under the sun that a Liberal minister would propose. That is my own opinion. The minister ought to be able to name those. Every member in the house is not supposed to know all that is in the convention.
Mr. ST. LALTRENT: I may remind the hon. member who is asking the question that I sent him a copy of it. He need not think his duty obliges him to ask for information for other members in the house.


John Horne Blackmore: Probably other members in the house will profit a little if they are exposed to the information. But I am asking particularly for myself.
I should now like to ask the minister to give us the purposes of the united nations. All these, I submit, are questions which are perfectly legitimate to ask, and they are perfectly legitimate to be answered at this stage.


Mr. MARTIN:: A terrible reflection on the hon. member who is questioning!


An hon. MEMBER:: Shut up.


John Horne Blackmore: 1 am afraid the reflection is entirely deserved. The remark of the hon. member indicated a degree of irresponsibility which should not be tolerated in the house.
What are the purposes of the united nations?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There are millions and millions of people who have been interested in the charter of the united nations. It has been a public document for more than two years, and I am astounded that a member of parliament would ask me at this time to tell him the purposes of the united nations, when they are set out clearly in article 1 of chapter I of the united nations charter, a document which a great many people who have not the responsibility of a member of parliament have taken the trouble to read. Article 1 is as follows:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
*2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and

Canadian National Railways
in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I
wanted the minister to put those purposes on the record.
An hon. MEMBER; He did.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You wanted it to kill time; that is all you wanted.


John Horne Blackmore: If there were time to go into detail in respect of all these purposes, what would be involved in acomplishing them, and the kind of measures that could be adopted, and the reasons why such measures could be adopted, I think it would be astonishing reading to the people in the country who read Hansard. The difficulty is that scarcely any attention has been given to the nature of the measures which would be used by the united nations, or the reasons for which they would be used. However I am not going into detail; I just wished to have that information on Hansard.
I wonder if the minister would give us the purposes of the telecommunications union which he mentioned.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have not that here.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I wonder if the minister would give us the purposes of the international trade organization.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That charter has not yet been completed. There is a conference going on which is working to the end of diminishing the barriers to trade which many people feel were one of the contributing factors to the situation which brought about the last war.


John Horne Blackmore: Which means, of
course, that in passing this resolution, and in passing the bill which would follow, this house will accept the purposes of that organization, without having seen them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; the resolution provides that such privileges or immunities as are accorded to associated agencies will apply only to such of those agencies as Canada joins with the approval of its houses of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 272, to provide for privileges and immunities in respect of the united nations and related international organizations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.-for Mr. Abbott) moved the second reading of Bill No. 265, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. HAZEN:: When this bill was in the resolution stage the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario asked a question. He said, as reported at page 3789 of Hansard:
The only question I wish to raise is as to giving authority for refunding operations for the next five, six or seven years.
The question he raised was as to the refunding operations covering such a period of time. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance at that time said, as reported at page 3790 of Hansard:
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.
Has the minister given any further consideration to what the hon. member for Mus-koka-Ontario said, and will the parliamentary assistant explain why this bill covers such a long period of time?


Mr. MAYHEW:: The Minister of Finance has given consideration to the request of the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario but is still of the opinion that it is in the country's interests to have this provision go through in this way. Timing is an important factor in dealing with the amount of money which is involved in this item, namely $200,000,000; and it is necessary to be able to make the refunding at a time when it is most advantageous to the country. Therefore the minister has asked that this stay as outlined in the bill.


Mr. LENNARD:: Are $200,000,000 required to cover even that period of three or four years? I notice that the parliamentary assistant said the other evening that there was a total of some $123,000,000 required. Why the $200,000,000?


John Thomas Hackett: May I add a question to the one- just asked, which the minister might answer at the same time? Have the railways
Canadian National Railways

called in any securities, and does the necessity arise out of an opportunity to get money at a lower rate of interest?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is a total altogether of $221,304,943.61.


John Thomas Hackett: What is the rate of interest?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It varies. There are two amounts at five per cent; there is practically $75,000,000 at five per cent. There are two amounts of about $49,000,000 at four per cent.


John Thomas Hackett: When do the five per cent ones mature?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The five per cent ones mature in 1969, but they are callable in 1949.


John Thomas Hackett: At par or at a premium?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: At a premium.


John Thomas Hackett: What is the premium?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: A five per cent premium.


John Thomas Hackett: So they are paying 105?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If they called them on that date, they would be paying a five per cent premium.


John Thomas Hackett: What is the rate on the new money?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It will depend entirely on the market at the time that this is refunded.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Is it proposed to advance the $200,000,000 now? I assume it will have to be raised by borrowing. Is it the idea to raise the $200,000,000 now because we have a low interest rate, or is it intended over the years to advance the money from time to time? W'hat I have in mind is this. My memory is very slack about it, but I think there is a section in the Railway Act which has to do with this method of raising money for this purpose. I wondered how you were going to get the $200,000,000. You must find it somewhere. It does not come from general revenue. It will have to be borrowed somewhere. I assume these will be bonds or something of that kind, will they not?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The money will be borrowed from the public from time to time as these maturities come due or are called. The whole amount will not be borrowed at this time.


John Thomas Hackett: Will the parliamentary assistant say whether these securities will be sold in Canada and whether they will be payable in Canadian funds? Will he also state if
any of the five per cent bonds which may be called are payable in United States funds or in sterling as well?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The five per cent bonds are payable in Canada, London or New York.


John Thomas Hackett: Will these bonds be
marketed in Canada, or will they be marketed in the United States and England as were those which they will be replacing?
Mr. MAYHEW': It is most likely that they will be marketed in Canada. It has been the general policy of the government to do that, and it is most likely that they will be marketed in Canada.


John Thomas Hackett: And will they be payable in Canada only, or will they be payable in the United States and in London?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Well, I cannot answer as to what we shall do, but I would' say that they would be payable in Canada only.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was going to ask a question which is really directly along the line taken by the hon. member for Stanstead. What I wish to know is what amount of this $200,000,000 is payable or callable in Canadian funds, in United States funds and in sterling, in relation to the United States funds, whether we are to refund them at par or at what has been referred to quite frequently as the unofficial market price; and as far as sterling funds are concerned, whether we are to refund them at what was par, $4.86f, or whether we are to refund at the present price of approximately $4?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The answer to the last question is that it will depend entirely upon the terms of the bonds. As to the first question, I really put the answer on Hansard when the bill was introduced. The amount payable in Canada is $86,980,000. The amount payable in London is $2,607,443.61.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Pounds?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Dollars. The amount payable in New York is $8,629,000. The amount payable in London, Canada or New York is $123,088,500.


John Thomas Hackett: Does the information
before the hon. gentleman establish what portion of the last-mentioned figure is held in the United States, and in consequence would be payable there?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We really have no way of telling how much of this is held in the United States.
[Mr. Hackett.l

Canadian National Railways


John Thomas Hackett: Is that quite accurate? I thought payments to be made in the United States would be painfully perceptible to the department, because United States dollars would have to be purchased for the purpose.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If they are held by Canadians the United States dollars are sold back to Canada, so that it would be pretty difficult to trace it and give the amount.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. gentleman just said that some $120 million was payable optionally in one of three places. You will have to pay almost all in New York, will you not, because that is where the people get the most money.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The exchange is at par. There is no particular advantage in doing that at the present time.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What?


John Thomas Hackett: Is that quite right?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is this $123 million to be paid at par or at the current rate of exchange on the New York market?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It will be paid at par. The current rate is par, as far as we are concerned.


John Thomas Hackett: I think there must be some misunderstanding. A Canadian dollar will not purchase a United States dollar in New York. If it is necessary to pay interest in United States dollars on, say $100 million it will take more Canadian dollars to purchase the United States dollars necessary. Of course we have a certain amount of United States dollars in reserve, but they are rapidly vanishing.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They can still be bought from the foreign exchange control board at par.


John Thomas Hackett: That is, we are depleting our reserves to make these payments. Is that the answer?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That would be so. It would be nothing new.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apparently $123 million as far as these securities are concerned is payable in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. WThat about the remainder, the $77 million; what is it for?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I have given those figures, probably the hon. member did not get them, but he will be able to read them in Hansard in the morning.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You gave me only $86 million Canadian, $2 million United Kingdom and. $123 million United States.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: There is $86,980,000 payable in Canada, $2,607,443.61 payable in London and $8,629,000 payable in New York.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That does not make $221 million.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Add the $123 million and you get $221 million.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: If I might be permitted to change the line of discussion I should like to say that when the officers of the Canadian National Railways were here a year ago the question came up of the relation of fixed charges on the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and class 1 railways in the United States. As appears on page 19 of the evidence before that committee, the president reported that negotiations had taken place between the railways and the Department of Finance with a view to having the government accept income bonds of the Canadian National Railways in payment of the amount owing by the railway to the government, for the repatriation of British securities. We were given a pretty complete picture of the situation of the Canadian National versus that of the Canadian Pacific and some of the better railways in the United States. That position is outlined at page 20, where the position of the Canadian National is put in these words:
In the seven years referred to, 1938-1945, the funded debt of Canadian National Railways, including loans at interest from the government, was reduced from $1,298,144,226 to $1,247,381,610, a reduction of 3-91 per cent, and the fixed charges were reduced from $53,451,741 to $49,009,508, a reduction of 8-31 per cent.
Over the same period the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was able to reduce its funded debt from $232,188,724 at the end of 1938 to $93,669,000 at the end of 1945, and the statement goes on to say:
The 1945 report shows that their fixed charge* (which in 1938 amounted to $26,853,756) have been reduced to $19,547,129 in 4945, a reduction of 27-21 per cent.
Then later:
Statement "B" attached to this memorandum shows the relationship of fixed charges to gross earnings for the larger UjS. roads, also for U.S. class 1 roads as a whole, and for the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National respectively. In >
1939, which is taken for comparison as being the last pre-war year, the ratio of fixed charges to operating revenues for class 1 railroads was 15-21 per cent, for the C.P.'R. and 16-76 per cent and for the C.N.R. 26-24 per cent. For 1944, the latest year for which full comparison is available, the percentage for class 1 railroads was 6-00, for the C.P.R. 6-50 and for the C.N.R. 11-44.
Canadian National Railways

In his interesting brief the president said:
As a result of the war, however, a large block of railway securities previously owned by U.K. residents has been transferred under repatriation proceedings from public ownership to that of the government, and had the present situation existed in 1937 it is fairly sure that the repatriated securities would have been retired as railway interest bearing obligations and the government's interest would have put on an equity basis, as was done in 1937 as regards all the indebtedness of the railway to the company for capital purposes.
Could the parliamentary assistant make some statement as to what progress has been made since that time with a view to giving the Canadian National Railways some relief from the unfair burden it has been carrying for a great many years?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: What the hon. gentleman is asking now would certainly require legislation and, as far as I know, there is no such legislation in the offing for this year; at least it has not been introduced up to the present time.
Mr. TOWNLEY-SMITH: Since this bill deals with the provision of funds to take care of various kinds of capital expenditures, is it permitted to ask whether any provision has been made for the completion of certain railway lines in northern Saskatchewan? I refer to two branch lines, one from Frenchman's Butte to Heinsburg. out of Saskatchewan into Alberta, and the other line in Saskatchewan, from St. Walburg to Beaver River. On both lines the middle has been left unfinished. At other sessions, consideration has been promised, and I was wonde ring whether it is the intention to do anything about these lines. I would urge that they be completed as quickly as possible.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think the hon. gentleman is a little confused. We are talking now on the refunding bill, and what he is referring to would come under Bill No. 258, the Canadian National bill.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I still have not discovered the rate of exchange. I was under the impression that a good deal of the money, as far as the general public was concerned, [DOT] is still owed in the United Kingdom; but, according to the figures which the parliamentary assistant has just given us, it is only $2,000,000 and some odd. At what rate of exchange is that money being repatriated or paid off?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I think the hon. member is a little bit confused about the repatriation of Canadian national securities. They are bought at the market price and paid with the pound at $4.04.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Do I understand from that all Canadian National securities which are held in Great Britain and which are coming due at the present time will be repatriated at that rate of $4.04?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, not at all. We are dealing here with only $221 million, out of a total indebtedness of Canadian National Railways of $1,200 million.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And it is only $2,000,000 odd of that, which is being paid off?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It is only $2,000,000 worth. We are dealing with $200 million.


John Thomas Hackett: Have all the bonds held in Great Britain that it is contemplated refunding been repatriated? Can the parliamentary assistant say if the bonds in Great Britain have already been repatriated at $4.04?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If they were owned by residents of Great Britain they have been repatriated.


John Thomas Hackett: I understood that the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary East was as to the portion still held in Great Britain, and the answer was that there was only $2,000,000 worth still held in Great Britain. Does that represent the bonds which are held in Great Britain and which have been repatriated?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Out of the $200 million that we are asking fo- there is $2,607,000 payable in sterling in London. That is all we are dealing with in this particular item.


Arthur Leroy Smith: A moment ago the parliamentary assistant suggested that we were confused. I know I am, in any event. I gather that there are $124 million payable either in London, New York or Canada, I assume at holder's option?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That is right.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then the parliamentary assistant said that either $8,000,000 or $80,000,000 were payable in New York; I was not sure of the figure.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It is $8,000,000.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Then we have $132 million where payment may be required in New York?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, that is right


Arthur Leroy Smith: Inasmuch as our dollar is at par we must possibly find United States dollars to the extent of $132 million?

Canadian National Railways


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Possibly.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: When the resolution was before the committee the other night I understood that either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport would be here to answer some questions. The question of the capital debt of the Canadian National has been before the railway committee on several occasions. Of course the officers of the railway have no jurisdiction to make adjustments, but it would seem to me that, in view of the representations made by the president and. the fact that these securities are now held in Canada, some statement from the cabinet level should be made. I realize that the parliamentary assistant is not able to speak for the cabinet, but I think someone should. The president of the railroad said:
I am trying to put the Canadian National Railways on a sound basis. We want to show a satisfactory financial statement and we do not want to feel that we are a burden on the government. We do not want the * railway problem" to reappear. The Canadian National Railways is operating efficiently but it may very easily be made to appear a failure because it cannot achieve the impossible. In that event the effect on the railway organization itself will be one of discouragement. Moreover the comparison between state ownership and private enterprise is involved.
I had hoped that at this stage someone would be prepared to make a statement on government policy, especially in view of the negotiations in connection with this problem which have extended over a period of years between the management of the railways and the cabinet.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member will have ample opportunity of asking his questions when the Minister of Transport is here and when the Minister of Finance is here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: We understood that someone would be here to answer questions which it was not convenient to answer the other evening.


John Thomas Hackett: Can the parliamentary assistant say what is the present credit in United States dollars in the foreign exchange control fund?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, I cannot say that and I would not if I could.


John Thomas Hackett: I wonder why not. If I understood correctly the information vouchsafed earlier in the evening by the minister any refunding in New York will be made by United States dollars from the credit of the foreign exchange control fund.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Just in so far as bonds are held in New York.


John Thomas Hackett: They are all payable in New York with the exception of $2,000,000.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If they are held by Canadians they must sell their funds back again to the exchange fund.


John Thomas Hackett: I was a little astonished when the minister told me that he did not know what proportion of these bonds was held in New York. I think the record of interest payments would indicate clearly in what proportion they are held in New York, and when I say "New York" I mean the United States.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: We have not the information.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I understand that
approximately $131 million of these bonds are payable in New York with United States funds. Has the foreign exchange control board made that amount of money available to the railways to pay these off, or are some other arrangements being made so that our reserve of United States funds in gold will not be depleted to that material extent? I understand that, as matters stand at the present time, the situation is quite serious.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: They have not made any provision for it, because a number of these items do not mature until 1949. 1950 and 1951. They will be taken care of at the time of their maturity or when they are called.


John Thomas Hackett: I am sure the minister will understand that I am anxious to get this information because we have considered with a great deal of perturbation the rapidity with which our reserves of United States dollars are dissolving under the requirements of an ever-increasing one-way trade with the United States. Our purchases in the United States seem to be growing apace. Our sales there are not at all sufficient to enable us to make payment for what we are purchasing, and the proceeds of our sales to countries which pay in sterling are not readily convertible either into gold or into United States dollars. It would seem to me to be a matter of great importance to know exactly the position of our foreign exchange reserves. That would be almost a determining factor in deciding whether or not these bonds should be retired, even though the interest would seem to be high at the present time. If our reserves of United States dollars are being eaten up as rapidly as the budget discussions have led us to believe, it may be highly unwise to
Canadian National Railways

make these capital refunds at the present time, especially if they have to be made out of our small and diminishing reserves of United States dollars. I submit that it would be helpful to the committee to know exactly what those reserves are and how they stand today as compared with thirty or sixty days ago. That would give us some idea of the extent of the demand upon these reserves.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: That will no doubt be a factor when the transaction is under consideration. The government will decide then what they should do and will no doubt take into consideration whether it is advisable to refund these bonds in New York or in Canada. So far as the present exchange position is concerned, I am not in a position to speak.


Douglas Scott Harkness: From a superficial
examination of the report of the foreign exchange control board and a certain amount of attention to the trade figures which have been issued since, it would seem to me that the payment of 1 this $131,000,000 will mean that we shall get rid, in one fell swoop, of more than one-fifth of our total remaining foreign exchange in United States currency. If that is the case, which I think it is, the passing of this bill involves more than merely authorizing the Canadian National Railways to refund $200,000,000. It involves also our liquid position so far as foreign exchange is concerned, and that before we pass this bill we ought to be told whether authorizing now the payment of this amount in United States exchange will jeopardize our foreign exchange reserves.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Before the parliamentary
assistant to the minister answers, if I appear to be a little confused after listening to the debate I think I am in good company. It occurs to me that if it is important in connection with this legislation to know the position with respect to United States dollars held in Canada today as compared with thirty or sixty days ago, the immediate position of our holding of United States dollars has comparatively little bearing on loans which are to be refunded some in 1949, some in 1950, and some in 1951, because the exchange position then may be entirely different. I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant if it is not the case that in this legislation we are providing for borrowings to retire obligations. Large issues of bonds are payable in the United States, and I would ask the parliamentary assistant if there is anything in the proposed legislation to prevent Canada from doing what she has done many times 
before, namely, borrowing United States dollars in the United States to refund those bonds?


Arthur Leroy Smith: He has
already said that they will be sold in Canada.


John Thomas Hackett: Probably the minister
will tell the hon. member for Winnipeg South that, although the bonds do not fall due until several years later, what is being contemplated-


Leslie Alexander Mutch: You cannot call them until 1949.


John Thomas Hackett: I did not understand
the parliamentary assistant to say that. When is the earliest moment the bonds can be called?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The United States ones are October 1, 1949. But this is not a case where, if this bill goes through, the department will rush out immediately and dispose of those bonds.


John Thomas Hackett: Could they not be called before 1949?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, they cannot be called before 1949.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If they cannot be called before 1949, why should we authorize this $200,000,000 now? By 1949 it may perchance happen that United States exchange will be very much in our favour. Conditions may be entirely different. I completely fail to see why in 1947, and not even the latter part of 1947, we should be voting money to call bonds in 1949. It is absolutely certain that parliament will meet at least twice in the interim, and certainly we should not be called upon to vote this money now for a purpose we do not know. We do not know what the position will be in 1949.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish to make it clear that I am not opposing this legislation,, but my hon. friends to my right have a good deal of difficulty getting the information they want and, while I do not wish to raise a point of order, I would ask, should not this legislation be piloted through this house by a member of the cabinet?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not know what information the hon. member wants that he has not been able to get.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: My hon. friends to the right are not making much progress in getting the information they want and, before we pass this legislation, we should have either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trans-

Canadian National Railways
port on hand to supply the information. Could we not report progress and resume the discussion later?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The Minister of Justice is in the house, and I am sure that he would be able to answer more clearly than I have been able to do, and I shall be glad to have him do so.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I am not carrying the legislation. I am not familiar with the bill at all, but I have been listening to the discussion and it seems to me that every question has been answered. There may be one or two questions outstanding.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Is there not some provision in the Railway Act that when parliament gives authority to do certain things, issue bonds or borrow money, it must be done within a certain time? My recollection is hazy, but it strikes me that there is something in the Canadian National Railway Act or somewhere with respect to the time of sale of these securities.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have no recollection on the matter at all; I am not in a position to answer the question.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This is the same kind of bill which has been going through each time since 1929. It is four years since the last one went through. Practically everything is identical in this bill to the last one that went through. It will give the department a better chance to know what they are to do or to plan a little ahead of what they are to do than to wait and have to come back to the house each time. This is not something that goes through the estimates every year as ordinary amounts do. It is a matter of financing as one would finance his own business. He looks ahead to see when he can best sell his bonds or buy them. This is exactly the same thing. The Department of Finance wants to be in a position to negotiate the securities.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Will you sell the whole of them now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I have an answer to this question? Apart from the general statement which the parliamentary assistant has just made as to why it is necessary for us to vote this money now when the railway will not need half of it until 1949, frankly I completely fail to see why we should vote S200 million which cannot be used until 1949 In fact it seems to me a little ridiculous.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Are we voting any money at all in this bill?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The sum of $20 million will be required on February 1, 1948, and S25 million on February 15, 1948.


John Thomas Hackett: Is that New York?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No; Canada.


Mr. ADAMSON:: It still seems to me that we are asked to pass this bill with a scanty amount of information. In 1948, $45 million falls due and presumably will have to be refinanced. Although the parliamentary assistant has not said so, apparently $131 million in United States funds becomes callable in 1949. In other words, it becomes possible to call the bonds to the extent of $131 million. We are asked to pass this bill now authorizing the government to raise $200 million, the bulk of which will not be needed or it will not be possible to use it until 1949. The government may say, we are prepared or we desire to borrow in the money markets of the world in order to meet these obligations when they do fall due; or they may say, we wish to have this bill passed so that we may do this. The parliamentary assistant has not said that. But we have three possibilities: We can deplete our fast vanishing supply of hard currency in setting up a reserve for this $131 million; we can do it on the open market in New York and buy United States currency with Canadian dollars at a discount, or we can borrow United States dollars in order to refund this $131 million. If we take the latter course we presumably are expecting to get a lower rate of interest than this $131 million of capital is now costing us. Therefore I suggest that the parliamentary assistant should tell us what rate of interest we are paying on the $131 million and whether he expects to borrow in the New York market to refund these bonds. Does he expect to deplete our rapidly vanishing hard currency reserves, or does he propose to go out into the open market and purchase United States funds?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I cannot tell the hon. member what they will do; I could not tell him myself what I would do until the time came when these maturities were due and what the situation would be at that time. But we should be in a position where it can be handled to the best advantage. I did not say that there were $131 million. That was picked up; but I shall give the figures if required.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Let us have the figures.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: These figures are quite lengthy, but I shall be glad to put the table on Hansard, so that hon. members can see
Canadian National Railways

them in the morning. I think they will find I have already given the information which is in here. It may be convenient for hon. members to have them on Hansard.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is our net debt in hard currency?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I do not know what the hon. member means by "net debt in hard currency".


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is our net debt? How many of these bonds are payable either directly or by holders' option in New York or in United States funds?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I gave that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: S131 million.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: It totals S132 million and some odd: 88,629,000 payable in New York and 8123,088,500 payable in Canada, London or New York. The two of these together total 8132,717,500. If I have the consent of the committee I shall put the tables on Hansard.


William Henry Golding: Has the hon. member the consent of the committee?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The tables are as follows:



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY MATURING OR CALLABLE BOND ISSUES, 1947-1954

[Stage Direction]
Maturity Date
February 1,1952 ( callable February 1, 1948).
February 15, 1953 (callable Feb. 15, 1948).
Oct. 1, 1969 (callable Oct. 1, 1949)___
Feb. 1, 1970 (callable Feb. 1, 1950)...
Apr. 2, 1950	
July 1, 1950	
Apr. 2, 1950	
July 1, 1950	
Oct. 1, 1950	
Sept. 1, 1951	
Jan. 15, 1959 (callable Jan. 15, 1954)...
Serially to August 1, 1947	
Serially to Sept. 15. 1953	
Serially to July 1, 1949	
Serially to July 1, 1951	
Issue	Interest rate	Where payableCan. Nat. Ry. Co. Dom. Gtd. Bonds...	p.c. 3	Canada	Can. Nat. Ry. Co. Dom. Gtd. Bonds...	3	Canada	Can. Nat. Ry. Co. Dom. Gtd. Bonds...	5	Canada, London orCan. Nat. Ry. Co. Dom. Gtd. Bonds...	5	New' York Canada, London orCan. Northern Pac. Rly. guaranteed by	4	New York. London	Prov. of Br. Columbia.	Grand Trunk Western Railroad	4	Can. Nor. Pac. Rly. gtd. by Prov. of	H	London	British Columbia.	Grand Trunk Western Railroad	4	Montreal and Prov. Line Rlv	4	4*	Canada, London orCan. Nat. Rly Co. Dom. Gtd. Bonds...	3	New York.Equipment Trust Series "O"	2J 2| 21 2i	Equipment Trust Series "P"	Equipment Trust Series "Q"	Equipment Trust Series "G.T.W."	New York	
Amount
outstanding
cts.
20,000,000 00
25.000.	000 00 57,728,500 00
17.338.000	00
798,055 48
655,336 00 1,154,052 13
5.872.000	00 200,000 00
48.022.000	00
35.000.	000 00
1.430.000	00
3.600.000	00
1.950.000	00
2.557.000	00
221,304,943 61
Recapitulation:
Payable in Canada	
Payable in London	
Payable in New York	
Payable in Canada, London or New York
86,980,000 00 2,607,443 61 8,629,000 00 123,088,500 00
221,304,943 61
Arthur Leroy Smith: May I make a remark that may clear up something? I have given the bill a little study and it seems to me that we have been talking at crosspurposes. I think what the bill says is this. It really authorizes the treasury to lend money on notes to the Canadian National Railways. That is what section 7 says. In the earlier sections, provision is made for assigning substituted securities for the securities which are paid in by the $200 million or such portion of the $200 million as may be decided on, so that tonight all we are asked to do is to authorize the borrowings on notes. "Notes" is the word

used in section 7. In other words, the government gets a note from the Canadian National Railways for such portion of the $200 million as the railway wants to borrow from the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think that is exactly what it says.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Why would the government be guaranteeing, then?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am coming to that. Against that borrowing we then have

Canadian National Railways
securities issued by the railway which the government guarantees and, according to section 4, these securities may be mostly in kind or issued probably at any time the government chooses. I hope the parliamentary assistant to the minister will agree that I have now perhaps-I hope finally-found out just what the gist of the bill is. Therefore all that we are really doing tonight is authorizing a loan from the treasury up to the S200 million to the Canadian National Railways on notes. Then we also authorize the treasury to guarantee new securities in substitution for those which are brought in and cremated as is provided in the act. So far as I am concerned I have some confusion in mind. I thought the securities were to be sold immediately or something of that sort in order to take up this $200 million. That is not so. The $200 million is a loan on a note as it is used. Then the government guarantees the securities issued by the railway company to take up the reclaimed outstanding bonds, or whatever they are. Having regard to our exchange situation- and this may be an amateurish suggestion- would it not be worth while considering the issue of new securities payable in New York in United States dollars at a discount, and thus, for the present at least, avoid paying bonuses-of ten per cent, as it is at the present time-in New York to get the United States dollars to pay off our present securities? That may not be a good suggestion, but it is one which has occurred to me.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member has put the situation exactly as I understand1 it. This is an enabling bill. The government may lend the railway company money, or the railway company may borrow from the public money which the government will guarantee. As I said two or three times, that is all we are doing. We are not rushing out now to buy. It is enabling legislation so that we can convert these as they come due, and to the best advantage. The suggestion made by the hon. member will certainly be considered when these transactions take place.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does this refinancing, or whatever it is called, include rolling stock trust certificates? In other words, does it include refinancing through repayments of loans to organizations such as the Guaranty Trust Company, which has the ownership of much of the rolling stock of the Canadian National Railways?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The hon. member will see the items when he gets his copy of Hansard tomorrow. It is in the table I have placed on record.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But it does include those?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is the type of security.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Yes, some of them.


John Thomas Hackett: Did the parliamentary assistant say that a similar bill is passed every year?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: No, not every year. The last one was passed in 1944, but it was for a similar amount, and the sections in this bill are exactly the same as they were in the former one.


John Thomas Hackett: But is there any limitation as to the period during which the legislation is valid? If not, why do we have to renew the legislation now.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The limitation is the amount; and there is also another limitation in that the last one comes due in 1954. So that it will all have to be paid by that time.


Agar Rodney Adamson: One more question; do any of these bonds being refinanced include long-term securities which might have a gold clause in them? If so, does the government propose to repay some of these securities, if they exist, under the terms of that clause? Some of the old bonds did have a gold clause in them.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am informed that some of them have a gold clause in them. But a gold clause act has abrogated that. It has not been paid in gold since 1932 or 1933, I believe it was.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is that our act or the United States act? I ask that question because I am not familiar with the act abrogating the payment. I know the Americans did it, but I did not know we had done it; that we had an act abrogating paying of gold securities held by nationals of other countries. I know we did it to our own nationals, but 1 did not know we did it to the nationals of other countries.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We could not, of course.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I am informed it was passed by congress and also by ourselves in 1932 or 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Loans authorized to national company not exceeding aggregate amount of $200,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian National Railways
Arthur Leroy Smith: If the parliamentary assistant will look at subsection 2 he will see that it states:
Should any such temporary loans he made within the limits aforesaid, substituted securities may subsequently be issued and guaranteed under the provisions of this act to repay such loans or any part thereof.
Obviously the securities there contemplated are not the securities contemplated in the first part of the bill. If we look at section 3 we find that it says:
. . . the national company may .issue notes, obligations, bonds, debentures, or other securities...
That is, in substitution of loans, irrespective of whether they are bonds, or whatever securities they may be, which are paid off. Then we have ample power to do that.
Then subsection 2 of section 7 says that should any such temporary loans be made within the limits aforesaid, the substituted securities may subsequently be issued. Is that two sets of securities, or do we require that last bit at all?
What I had in mind was this, that the earlier section made provision for the railway issuing securities known as substituted securities. They are issued to take the place of securities which have been reclaimed. That being so, I do not see the object of section 7 (2). Obviously it is not to those earlier securities that this applies. I assume that it may be a security of the railway to the government. Perhaps that is it.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Subsection 2 is the same as section 7 (2) of the act passed in 1944. It makes it quite clear that if the dominion government makes a temporary loan the company securities of the railway company guaranteed by the dominion may be issued to pay off the temporary loan.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a security then, in favour of the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is separate from the. railway. The railway is a corporation and the government is a government. I think the situation is clear. Section 2 provides that the governor in council may make provision for refunding; section 3 provides that the railway may issue these substituted securities; and section 7 provides that, in the meantime, the railway may temporarily borrow money from the government. Then, when the railway does issue substituted securities it takes part of the proceeds or all the proceeds and pays off the government. And the government may guarantee the repayment of substituted securities to the lender.


Arthur Leroy Smith: We have already done that. This latter section is to take care of the loan from the government to the railway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The temporary loan.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, the temporary situation. Then the substituted securities may be issued and guaranteed by the provisions of the act. As I understand it, if I am correct, we have already issued substituted securities to take care of the S200 million, or of that part of it we are redeeming. That has already been done under section 3. Then I gather, if I am correct, that we have no money left there, and that we then issue further securities to guarantee the repayment of the loan to the government. Is that the situation? It seems to me that we are doing it otherwise,


James Lorimer Ilsley: No. I speak subject to correction, because I am simply reading the bill and putting my interpretation on the language of it. It appears to be clear to me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is in the same unfortunate position as we are in. We read it and wonder.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The bill seems clear to me. I do not understand that part of the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) when he assumed a situation in which substituted securities had already been issued; that is, issued before the government made the advance. That is not contemplated by this legislation. I suggest that when sections 2, 3 and 7 are read together, the normal course, of procedure would be that the government would perhaps make a temporary loan to the railway for the railway's purposes. The railway would then proceed with refunding operations; when they were completed; securities called substituted securities would be issued to the lender by the Canadian National' Railways. Those substituted securities would normally be guaranteed by the government, and out of the proceeds of those substituted securities the government would be paid off by the Canadian National Railways the amount of the government's temporary loan to the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported;
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At the next sitting of the house.


James Lorimer Ilsley: On third reading?

War Chanties Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I refer the hon. member to standing order 77.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We went through this once before this evening. Standing order 73 provides as follows:
Every bill shall receive three several readings on different days previously to being passed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read standing order 77.


James Horace King: I would call to the attention of the hon. member that this bill was not today read for the second time. It wag considered in committee of the whole today. Therefore, according to the rules, it could be read for the third time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I object.
Bill read the third time and passed.



WAR CHARITIES ACT, 1939 AMENDMENT CONFINING PROVISIONS OF ACT TO FUNDS ALREADY REGISTERED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved the second reading of Bill No. 205, to amend the War Charities Act, 1939.
Mr. FLEMING:: The house is travelling a little behind schedule tonight, and I appreciate that the government may wish to have the bill disposed of in the few remaining minutes, if possible.
In the first place, I draw attention to the fact that this bill is an inevitable kind of bill, because the position of charities must revert at some time or another to the situation which existed prior to the war. The purpose of the bill is, therefore, such that it deserves the support of the house in so far as it seeks to close the class of charities to which the War Charities Act applies and which must submit to registration in accordance with the act before they are entitled to seek moneys by way of subscription.
The explanatory note I suggest, Mr. Speaker, overstates the effect of the bill. The bill provides that the application of the act shall be confined to war charities established prior to the coming into force of the act. Of course there is a difference between establishing the fund and submitting it to registration, and the explanatory note says that the effect of the amendment is, therefore, to confine the provision of the act to funds already registered for the purpose of complete administration of such funds and to free from the provisions of the act any new funds which would otherwise 83166-249J
require to be registered. As the bill stands, of course it cannot have that effect because the effect of the bill as it now reads is to limit the effect of the act to charities established, whether registered or not, prior to the coming into force of the act. If the intention is as stated in the explanatory note, then I suggest that the bill will have to be amended when the house goes into committee. It may be that there are some new charities which are within the scope of the act but are not yet registered, since the 1945 amendment extended the scope of the War Charities Act to include funds to be used for the purpose of providing war memorials. Perhaps the minister can deal with that when he speaks.
There is one other matter-


Paul Joseph James Martin: So that we may save time, the provision is intended to apply to anything that is not already a registered charity, war memorial or otherwise.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I suggest to the minister that when we get into committee the word '"established" should be amended to read "registered", and that will clarify it.
There is one matter that, I think, does call for some explanation. Section 12 of the Department of National War Services Act requires that an annual report be submitted to parliament, but the last report issued by this department covering the administration of war charities is the report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1945. The administration of this act was transferred from the Minister of National War Services to the Minister of National Health and Welfare by P.C. 134, dated January 14, of this year. That does not' I submit, override the requirement of the act in connection with annual reports to parliament. A report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1946, should have been submitted long ago, and none has yet been submitted.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the minister not think we should change that word to "registered"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Thomas Hackett: No, no. There is an amendment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amendment is for the committee. It can be raised in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Golding in the chair.
The King's Birthday
[Stage Direction]
On section 1

War Charities Act, 1939, to apply only to a fund established prior to this act.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very happy to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Eglinton that section 1 be amended in the second last line by substituting for the word "established" after the word "fund", the word "registered".


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the minister anything to say on the subject of the report and as to when the report may be expected? I appreciate that the administration of this act is in its closing stages, but parliament should have some assurance that the report required by .the statute will be soon forthcoming. It is long overdue now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will be. I will deal with the matter on the estimates.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When will that be?
Section as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 264, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act.
Mr. REID; Since I have extended remarks to make on this bill, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.
Monday, June 9, 1947