Mr. GRAYDON:

That is, relating to article 41?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Relating to article 41, with the exception that there is no limitation in the United Kingdom Act upon the penalties which can be imposed' for violating any regulation made under the powers delegated to the government of the United Kingdom.

The parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has not enacted special legislation with respect to article 41 of the charter. It did, however, by act of parliament, approve the charter.

New Zealand deposited its instrument of ratification on September 19, 1945. The General Assembly of New Zealand in parliament assembled on September 16, 1946, enacted the

United Nations Act, 1946, which empowers the government to make regulations in the manner provided1 for in our Bill No. 132. There is a limitation on the penalties which are fixed by the statute; and they are limited to twelve months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds for an individual or a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds in the case of a company.

In South Africa, although the instrument of ratification was deposited on November 7, 1945, there has not been any legislation with respect to article 41.

Mr. GRAYDON; Will the military staff committee's report to the security council with respect to an international police force have any effect on the present disposition to press this legislation at the present session?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think it

will. As the hon. member knows, there are three procedures fixed for settling international disputes: (1) attempted conciliation; (2)

measures under section 41 which involve sanctions other than military sanctions, and (3) recourse to military sanctions prescribed by the security council. This has to do with only the second stage of proceedings for settling disputes; and it was our feeling that although there might not be any immediate prospect of having to use these powers, we did not want to be in the position where any delay whatsoever in respect to the setting up of effective machinery of the united nations could1 be. attributed to us.

Mr. SPEAKER:

On Friday last I said to the hon. member for Temiscouata, as reported at pages 2694 and 2695 of Hansard:

May I point out to the house that I have already refused some petitions because they were not prepared in accordance with the rules of the house. I should not like to put before the house the motion to accept the petition presented by the hon. member for Temiscouata before having had the opportunity of seeing it. I have noted the remarks made by the hon. member, and he may be assured that due consideration will be given to them.

I have examined the petition of the hon. member, and have prepared the following statement:

Polish Veterans

The house is not seized of a petition addressed to the members without mentioning the words "in parliament assembled". In that case a motion has to be made in order to bring it to the attention of the house. When petitions are not properly addressed, the clerk of petitions reports that they cannot be received. They may then be referred to the standing committee on standing orders which has power to report to the house whether or not they should be accepted.

The general allegations of the petition are concluded by what is called the "prayer", that is, the request in which the particular object of the petitioner is expressed. The words "and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray" are not essential. "May" says that those words are "generally added" but they are not necessary; and petitions without them are valid.

I suggest to the hon. member, therefore, that he present a motion that this petition be referred for consideration to the proper committee, which would be the standing committee on standing orders.

Mr. POULIOT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move:

That petition presented by the electors of the parishes of Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs, Ste. Rita, St. Paul de la Croix, St. Cyprien, St. Emile d'Auclair and St. Jean-Baptiste de l'lsle Verte be referred to the committee on standing orders.

Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) moved:

That the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on Friday, May 2, be now concurred in.

Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):

On Friday last the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) asked whether the government of Sweden had imposed an import licensing system against our canned lobsters. I am informed after conversations with the Swedish legation that a temporary import licence procedure has been imposed in Sweden. The present shortage of United

States and Canadian dollars permits them to import only essential goods. Canadian canned lobster is in good demand in Sweden, however, and if conditions improve sufficiently, imports of canned lobster may be permitted into Sweden later in the year.

I am unable to indicate what effect this present situation may have on lobster prices.