Mr. GREEN:

Furthermore, I cannot agree with his sweeping condemnation of the united nations. However I do suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the house that this bill brings up considerations which are far-reaching and which should be thought out carefully, not only by members of the house, but also by the Canadian people at large.

The bill, as we know, is entitled the Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act, and it is described as an act to make provision with respect to forces of the United States of America when visiting Canada and with respect to the exercise of discipline and to the internal administration of such forces.

This bill is carrying into peace time a wartime provision. We are now being asked to

Visiting Forces

enact in peace time a wartime provision; and if we do so it will be the first time a foreign nation has possessed in Canada in peace time the rights given by this measure.

I think it is worth while for us to go back a few years and consider just what position has been taken in Canada with respect to forces from other countries. First of all, I would refer hon. members to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) also referred this evening, and which was passed in 1933. I presume it was passed as a result of the Statute of Westminster, to carry out the provisions of that statute. In effect, it gave authority to the officer of any troops from another nation of the commonwealth visiting Canada to discipline his troops. *

But it was more restricted than the present bill in certain respects; for example, in section 3 there is provision that the officers are to have power only in matters concerning discipline and in matters concerning the internal administration of such force. There is no such restriction in the bill before the house tonight. It is true that such restriction appears in the description of the bill, and in one of the side-notes, but it does not appear in any actual sections.

There are also several other differences between the act relating to the British commonwealth and this measure which relates to the United States. One of them is that provision is made for attaching troops from the force of one of the other commonwealth nations to the Canadian force. That is found in section 6, where provision is made for the temporary attachment of commonwealth troops to a Canadian force. But that provision is not found in the bill before us this evening, and I do not understand why it has been omitted. It does seem to me that if but very few United States troops are to come to Canada, they could be attached to Canadian units.

The next significant step was taken in 1938. Hon. members who were here at that time will recall that on July 1 the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett raised the question of Canada's having refused to allow airmen from Great Britain to come here and train. A most significant debate took place on that occasion, and I shall read to the house a portion of the statement made on that occasion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He took the position that for the British to send airmen here to train would be the equivalent of setting up on our shores a foreign military station.

I quote from page 4527 of Hansard, of that year, where the Prime Minister said:

I must say that long ago Canadian governments finally settled the constitutional principle that in Canadian territory there could be no military establishments-

And, mind you, this was only to establish a training school for airmen.

-unless they were owned, maintained and controlled by the Canadian government responsible to the Canadian parliament and people.

Then he went on to say:

Such domestic ownership, maintenance and control of all military stations and personnel is one of the really indispensable hall marks of national sovereign self-government and an indispensable basis for friendly and effective cooperation between the governments of Canada and those of other parts of the British commonwealth of nations, including the government of the United Kingdom.

That was just nine years ago, in 1938.

Outside its homeland a state may have military stations and quarter military personnel in countries which it "owns," in its colonies or "possessions," or in its mandated territories according to the trust deed, or in countries over which it has assumed or been yielded, by some arrangement, what amounts to a protectorate. But no country pretending to sovereign selfcontrol could permit such a state of affairs or its implications and consequences. I need only add that what I have said has. of course, to be sharply distinguished from the case of actual war where a country may have to permit its partners, associates or allies to maintain, operate and control military establishments and forces within its territory, forced to do so by the actual strategic or tactical necessities and for the purposes, but only for the purposes, of the actual joint war.

That was in 1938. Then in 1939, the following year, the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), who was then Minister of National Defence, announced that arrangements had been made by which British airmen might be brought to Canada to train. I am going to read to the house the terms under which they were to be allowed to come here. The minister is reported on page 3259 of Hansard of that year as follows:

While the final detailed technical arrangements have still to be completed, it is possible to say now that agreement has been reached on a scheme whereby pilots from the United Kingdom will come to Canada to be given the intermediate and advanced stages of training-

These are the significant words:

-under the auspices of the Canadian Department of National Defence.

Then the war came on.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Would the hon. member be kind enough to put on the record what the Conservative party said in this house at that time?

[Mr. Green.1

Visiting Forces

Mr. GREEN:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Not the slightest.

Mr. GREEN:

In the fall of 1939 war struck. Then in 1941 we find there was enacted what was called the foreign forces order. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to correct me if I am wrong in citing any of these orders. I believe that was passed because we then had training in Canada nationals of various allied countries. For example, there were Belgians, Czechoslovakians, Norwegians, Poles, and soldiers from the Netherlands. That foreign forces order was in somewhat similar terms to the bill before us this evening. It mentioned specifically as foreign powers the nations to which I have referred, and then there was added this provision:

. . . and any other power which may be designated by order of the governor in council as a foreign power to which this order shall apply.

By the way, that order also was restricted to * matters concerning discipline and internal administration. Then the United States came into the war and in 1943, by an order in council dated April 6 of that year, the foreign forces order was made to apply to troops from the United States, with certain variations. For example, they were not given the power to try cases of murder, manslaughter or rape, and there was a provision that they were to retain certain rights which had been guaranteed to them by an exchange of notes between the United States government and the Canadian government. Hon. members who are interested will find that set out in the last paragraph of the order in council.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I know the hon.

member will want to have his statement complete. The order extending the foreign forces order to the United States was officially repealed and replaced by order of December 20, 1943, which is the one under which the commanders of United States forces present in Canada actually operated during the war period and up to April 1 of this year.

Mr. GR.EEN: Has the minister the number of that order in council?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is P.C. 9694 of

December 20, 1943.

Mr. GREEN:

something which I repeat should be decided by parliament, and parliament should give consideration to just what the conditions should be under which foreign troops may be invited to our shores.

Then I should like to know why we are not being asked to pass a foreign forces order rather than a United States forces order. If we are to have troops come here, we should not pick and choose in the bill. I doubt whether it is wise to have a bill applying to only one nation. \V e should have a foreign forces order that could, if deemed advisable, be applied to all nations.

Mr. POULIOT:

All nations, great and small, not only the big powers.

Mr. GREEN:

Yes. We hear a lot of talk these days about discrimination. I have heard a lot of speeches in the house in the last few weeks on discrimination and how united nations would get after us if we did not stop discriminating. But here is discrimination of the worst kind so far as other nations are concerned.

How permanent is this provision to be? There is no provision in the bill for a time limit. When this goes on the statute books of Canada it will have been a whole lot easier to put it on than it will be to take it off. It has no time limit, and if we try to remove it from the statute books ten years from now we are apt to provoke the United States.

The British, who have had great experience in matters of this kind, passed an act during the war to provide for United States troops being in Britain and for their control by United States officers. Members will find that act in the Public General Acts and Measures of 1942 of the United Kingdom, chapter 31. That act, in effect, makes valid the terms arranged between Great Britain and the United States in an exchange of notes. The notes are significant. I quote from the note to the Lnited States. One provision is this:

His Majesty's government propose that the foregoing arrangements should operate during the conduct of the conflict against our common enemies and until six months (or such other penod as may be mutually agreed upon) after trie final termination of such conflict and the restoration of a state of peace.

In other words, they put a time limit on the operation of the act. There is another provision in the British note for reciprocal treatment. It reads:

I feel that Your Excellency will appreciate that the considerations which have convinced His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom that the interests of our common cause would be best served by the arrangements which they are prepared to make as regards jurisdic-[Mr. Green. I

tion over American forces in the United Kingdom would be equally applicable in the case of British forces which in the course of the war against our common enemies may be stationed in territory under American jurisdiction. It would accordingly be very agreeable to His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom if Your Excellency were authorized to inform me that in that case the government of the United States of America will be ready to take all steps in their power to ensure to the British forces concerned a position corresponding to that of American forces in the United Kingdom under the arrangements which His Majesty's government are willing to make.

In other words, they made an agreement with the United States on a fifty-fifty basis, each nation to have the same rights.

My final question with regard to this bill is this: What control will Canada have over the activities of these United States troops? That. I think, should be fully explained by the minister. So much for the implications as between Canada and the United States.

What about the united nations? Is this policy in line with the united nations charter? I believe that the objective of every thinking Canadian today is world peace. I believe, further, that practically every thinking Canadian is still relying on the united nations to bring about that world peace. I will not include the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), because obviously he is not. But I think the great majority of Canadian people still feel that if the united nations is not able to bring about world peace there will be no world peace.

Mr. POULIOT:

They will have to change their manners.

Mr. GREEN:

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

I suggest that the broad Canadian policy should be, rather than encouraging the build-

Visiting Forces

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

Mr. MITCHELL:

And the United States.

Mr. GREEN:

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

Mr. MITCHELL:

I did not mention Russia.

Mr. GREEN:

Our aim should be to

strengthen, not only the British commonwealth and France and China, but all the other nations, to try to have an equalizing of power.

Again, with regard to the united nations, if we are to have an arrangement such as is envisaged by this bill, why is that not done under chapter 8 of the united nations charter, which provides for regional arrangements?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is.

Mr. GREEN:

Why not let us have it right out on the table and open and aboveboard. The first paragraph of the article reads as follows:

Nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangement or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the united nations.

Examples of such arrangements are the Australia-New Zealand agreement and, I think also the Arab league. These are two examples of regional arrangements.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):

Russia and Albania; Russia and Yugoslavia; Russia and Bulgaria; are these examples?

Mr. GREEN:

No.

Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):

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

Mr. MERRITT:

Stand up, if you want to

make a speech.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order.