Mr. GREEN:

I have the floor now, and while I am always delighted to hear the hon.

member for Vancouver North, the present moment is not the time or the place. I suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should explain why this Canadian-United States arrangement to permit United States forces to come into our territory should not be drawn up in the form, of a regional agreement and submitted to the united nations. I do not mean the bill only; I mean the whole agreement.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Will the hon. member permit me to interrupt? It was not drawn up in the form of an agreement, but it was in the form of statements made simultaneously here and in Washington, and the statements were communicated to the secretary general of the united nations for communication by him to all the members of the united nations.

Mr. GREEN:

What the minister is referring to is the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada on February 12. I had in mind an agreement such as the Australia-New Zealand one. Frankly, I do not understand why the provision for allowing United States troops on Canadian shores was not made by treaty, and then the treaty endorsed by the house, rather than in the way the government is doing it. However I repeat that what I had in mind was an agreement such as the Australia-New Zealand one.

My suggestions to the minister are that he should explain the questions under these two categories. Perhaps it might be as well for the government to delay final consideration of this bill until complete information is given to the house. This House of Commons is comparatively inexperienced in dealing with foreign affairs. We have been doing it for only about seven or eight years.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Judging from the

speeches that we listen to sometimes, one would not think so.

Mr. GREEN:

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

Mr. MITCHELL:

Take it whichever way you wish.

Mr. GREEN:

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

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):

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

Visiting Forces

man (Mr. Green) who has just taken his seat or to the splendid presentation of the case by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Probe), without- being conscious of the tremendous implications of the legislation now before us. It is true that in a way the bill seems innocent enough. It is merely to permit certain forces or military groups which come in by arrangement from the United States, to administer their own military discipline under our law. So far as the bill is concerned, that is practically all that it means. But the background which has been given by the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred does bring out the seriousness of the implications of this legislation.

Personally I would not object to the legislation if it were, as the previous speaker said, made universal and reciprocal with a view to carrying out the programme or policy of the united nations, having in view merely the protection of the world peace. If that were its objective, then I think the preamble to the bill should read differently. It should be an act to make provision with respect to foreign forces when visiting Canada, and not limited to any particular nation. But if the arrangements have been made between our government and that of the United States to bring military units or groups or units-I do not know just what the term is that is a better one to use after the discussion which took place about units-to come into this country, then it is only natural that they should be permitted to apply their own principles of discipline. But I want to go beyond that.

In the statement that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made earlier in the session with respect to the matter, I understood him to say that any arrangements which might be made in this regard between the United States and Canada would be in harmony with the proposals of the united nations. If that is true, then there is no reason in the world why this should be limited only to the United States of America.

Reference has been made to the sad fact that the world is gradually being lined up into two great blocs. These blocs have been mentioned-the Russians with their satellites and the Americans with theirs. I think, sir, it is much too soon for us to identify ourselves with either. If there is to be any world peace, notwithstanding, shall I say, the tirade of the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) against the united nations, it will have to come through the united nations. I do not see how we can now align ourselves in the smallest degree with one of these blocs without being regarded by the other as being in a way to becoming their enemy, and thus we are by our action, however innocent we may

be in taking it, putting ourselves in the position of blocking the peace of the world.

I also noticed that the minister in charge of this legislation brought to our attention the fact that it was within the powers of the governor general to invite friendly troops into this country. In time of war it is essential that the governor general, as the commander in chief, should have full authority over our forces, but in time of peace I do not think that it a very wise policy. All our policies for defence, all our policies which imply either peace or war in time of peace, while we have time to consider policy, should be considered and passed by this parliament.

I insist, so far as my voice goes, on that practice. We have sufficient time now to consider this and similar questions which have a bearing on the united nations and our hopes for the peace of the world. Let us then find our policy; let us debate it here; let us settle it and let us follow it, but do not leave these things to any individual, not even to the cabinet, unless they have first been passed by this parliament.

I do not know to what extent our government is committed to a policy of coordination of defence measures, practices and manoeuvres with the government of the United States. I presume that if we hope to be united in a united nations world police force to maintain the peace of the world, it would be a good thing for us to have the coordination and collaboration in matters of defence which the government appears to contemplate. But again I say that must be not a matter between us and some other single nation; it is a matter for the consideration of all the nations of the world. It must be done, not only in harmony with the strict law or the strict regulations of the united nations, but in harmony with the broad spirit of international action to maintain the peace of the world. If that is not so, then I for one would desire to register my objection to the present procedure. But if that is so, then I say again that we should not confine this privilege to one nation. I imagine, as the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Probe) said, that if we were now passing legislation which permitted British troops, French troops or Russian troops to come in here, there would be much objection from many countries and much objection from people in this country as well. Regardless of the fact that the United States is our great neighbour, and our friend with whom we have so much in common, I do not think we can presume to make a military policy with her alone when we have been committed to the principles of the united nations. Having regard, therefore, to the

Visiting Forces

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

Mr. JAMES SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):

I should like to make a few remarks which are occasioned mainly by those made by one or two of the opposition speakers. The discussion has centered, not on the principle of this bill because it seems to me the principle is recognized that if we are to have foreign troops in this country, then they should have some measure of control of their own troops and of discipline over them.

The debate so far has revolved around the principle of the admission of foreign troops. The stand taken by the opposition seems to be that this should, be done not by agreement between this country and the United States of America, but by ratification of the united nations under the section for regional agreements. The thought which immediately leaps to my mind is that if Canada, a small nation, is expected to follow such a procedure, then it is certainly incumbent on the great nations in the united nations to do similarly. Yet I have not heard of Russia approaching the united nations and asking that sanction for the troops they nowT have in Albania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania; I have not heard either of the United Kingdom in the past asking for approval for the troops they have in Greece; nor, now that the United States has taken over that task, have I heard of any request from the United States for such approval. Therefore, to expect us to set this shining example at this time in our relationship with our closest and most friendly neighbour is, I think, a little absurd. There is no doubt in my mind that the great bulk of the Canadian people welcome the closest and most immediate defence connections with our great neighbour to the south.

Mention has been made tonight of this great unprotected boundary between us. Certainly any enemy who attacks either Canada or the United States, obviously puts the other partner in a dangerous position. It is for that reason that we, without the sanction of the united nations, set up our excellent joint defence board. To the hon. member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Green) who spoke tonight, I say that I am quite sure that ninety per cent of the people of Vancouver would give hearty accord to any plan whereby the troops of either of these two countries can visit freely for our joint defence. It is not a matter of distrust of the united nations. Far from it. When the great nations show a good example by putting forward such proposals for sanction of the united nations anywhere, else, then that will be the time for us to ask for it. But until that time comes,, we should put our own house in order first. People should remember what happened to Belgium. Belgium got a similar idea before the recent war, when they dropped the alliances they had in the hope that they would be safe. Their safety was no better in this war than it was in the last.

There is just one other thing I should like to say, and it is something which struck me forcibly during the speech by the hon.. member for Regina. During the last one and a half years, I have been receiving over and over again from the Labour Progressive party clubs in my riding and from the communist-dominated unions of British Columbia these pious resolutions saying "Let us have joint control of the atomic bomb," The reason behind them is not the sentiment that there should be joint control. The thing is to give their Russian friends an insight and knowledge, of the atomic bomb. You have only to hear the Labour Progressive party speakers in British Columbia to realize that. Now we are hearing the C.C.F. advocate what to me is an exactly similar thing. We are going to ask the united nations -that is, Great Britain, China. France and Russia-whether it is proper for us to allow United States troops into this country, with Russia having the power of veto. I tell the hon. member for Regina that he is playing the Russians' game when he suggests that to the Canadian parliament.

Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):

I do not think anybody can accuse me of internationalism.

Mr. MICHAUD:

That is right.

Mr. JAQUES:

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

What a man!

Mr. JAQLTES:

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

3806.

Visiting Forces

Mr. HARTT:

Hear, hear.

Mr. JAQUES:

-because I stood for Canadian nationalism and loyalty; and no one was so critical as the leader or leaders of the C.C.F. They are the great internationalists, and to them nationalism is a crime. Yet tonight, when it suits their convenience, they tell us that we must not surrender any sovereignty for our own defence. I cannot help thinking that the underlying motive behind the opposition to this bill-I do not mean the details at all; I am discussing merely the general principles-is the same motive that was behind the criticism of the royal commission on espionage. That is my firm conviction. I make that statement only because I can say that above all other members of this house I have defended the sovereignty of Canada inside and outside this chamber, and I cannot be accused of ever wanting to make Canada cheap or to surrender her sovereignty in any shape or form. But we must accept the inevitable.

What is the situation? Geographically Canada occupies a position between the two greatest forces in the world today, not only the two greatest forces in armed strength, but the two greatest exponents of the two ideologies which at the present time divide the world. We cannot avoid that; we are like the nut in the nutcracker. Comparisons have been made with British troops, for instance, and troops of other countries. I do not think that is a fair comparison, because, as I have said, Canada is directly between our neighbours to the south and our neighbours to the north. Suppose war were to break out between those two countries, between those two ideologies. Certainly we can do nothing to prevent it; but in that case the United States could not possibly run the risk of leaving herself open to attack from the north. She would be bound to take advanced positions in order to defend her own territory. I do not think that can be contradicted; it is something we have to accept. In the old days, of course, one built a series of blockhouses along the frontier and one was very careful not to set foot over the boundary'; but those day's are gone. Today it is not a question of the earth; it is a question of the air, which knows no international boundaries. I say that in the event of war the United States would be bound to take whatever measures they thought fit to protect their own nationals and their own borders. Further, in the event of war, would any Canadian wish to load the balance against our neighbours to the south? I do not think so.

I will challenge anyone to get up and say so. Therefore why should anybody be so much against the principle of this bill?

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

Mr. L. E. BAKER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):

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

Visiting Forces

us in time of need. We love this great country of ours, and if we love it we must be ready to defend it. We know perfectly well, as other hon. members have said, that in the event of another war Canada is liable to be the battle-ground. I am realistic enough about the matter to realize that, unfortunately, that will probably be so. All right; can we defend it by ourselves? No.

What is happening in the United States at the present time? They are making a great study to see what they may need by way of having conscription during peace time for military training purposes, and what their appropriation may have to be. We have not come to that yet. But I say: By all means, if they are willing to be ready to come to our assistance, let us not turn them down.

Do we want this country, or do we not want this country? If we do want it, then we should do everything we can to defend it. Do not worry about the united nations; all one has to do is to see what is happening in Hungary today. That is only one of many countries.

I will not take more time this evening. [DOT] The principle of this bill-and after all, that is what we are debating-is all too simple. It is for the best interests of Canada; and I was much encouraged to hear what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver [DOT] North (Mr. Sinclair).

Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):

Mr. Speaker, may I commence by saying that I feel the hon. member who has just spoken has made a real contribution to the debate. And may I add that undoubtedly a number of members in the house will welcome the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to his place beside the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), because I am sure the Minister of National Defence will find much food for thought in what has been said this evening.

So far as I am concerned, I would remind hon. members that it was not long ago when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) made a fine pronouncement in the house with ' respect to national defence when he said, as did the hon. member who has just spoken, that if one has something of value and will not defend it, he will lose it.

As we have heard, the policies of appeasement, of disarmament and of weakness followed between the two great wars are not policies understood by certain absolute powers in the world today. Therefore we can only make that choice of defence policy which has been recommended to us from as far

back as the days of George Washington. His views have lately been underlined by great commanders of the United States forces in the last war, including General Eisenhower, General Marshall and General Arnold. They have said, and have written in their reports, that there is no peace or security through weakness.

In my view this measure follows the right course at the present time. I know that every man and woman in Canada, and perhaps in every other country of the world, holds in his or her heart the hope of world-wide peace for generations to come. If we must have a police force now, to protect this peace, then I say, let us have it.

The time factor in war is all-important. Surprise, the power of weapons and the aggressive megalomania of some men in absolute control in undemocratically governed countries all add to the factors today which can bring sudden and absolute war involving not only the armed forces of the powers in this world, but every man, woman and child in our defenceless cities.

Therefore I say Canada today should take all the means she can, and should do what she considers reasonable to defend her boundaries, in the hope that the time will come- and 1 am sure all men and women throughout the world hope it will be soon-when we may see a disarmament policy which will encompass all nations of the world, and when we have decided to live and to trade peacefully one with the other.

In this bill I see none of the evil or far-reaching implications expressed by socialist members in the house. It is to me an innocent measure to implement the continued friendship and cooperation of our two peace-loving nations. In my view the socialist approach to this problem of national defence is as impractical as their approach to prosperity. It rules out the human factor, in, both instances.

I should like also to agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), that the government has not given us or-

Mr. KNOWLES:

How can you do that? Are you a socialist?

Mr. SKEY:

Well, if you will wait a minute, I will tell you.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Keep quiet and let him speak.