Mr. KNOWLES:

Well, well!

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Yapping all the time.

Visiting Forces

Mr. SKEY:

The policy of the Progressive Conservative party in parliament has been one which, in all cases, has supported the full development of Canada's defence forces within our national means, and the full implementing of an intelligent national defence policy. That is what the hon. member for Vancouver South has asked for. I will admit, for the most part we have had most impractical and vague explanations from the government, surrounded in secrecy at times. They have not quite forgotten their war mentality. However we are slowly persuading them, and I am sure that in the end we shall get the answers to our questions and perhaps, in a small way, be able to assist them in their endeavours properly to organize the armed forces of Canada. We do, of course, deplore the fact that the government have not done better.

As I was saying, the hon. member for Vancouver South has asked that the house and the people of Canada be given a clear view of the whole defence policy. I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, ably assisted by the Minister of National Defence, will take his words in good faith and come before the house with a proper explanation of the safeguards and the implications in the bill, and how the government intends to implement the measure.

I shall not deal longer with the bill, except to say that if such a policy is implemented ' by the Canadian government it is my personal hope that our Canadian defence forces will be so organized, equipped and commanded that, in company with their United States friends, they may take a full part in all the peacetime military manoeuvres and defence exercises which the joint staffs may agree will be useful for the defence of our country and the continuing efficiency of our defence units.

Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):

Mr Speaker, with a lot of what the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey) has said, I, I think like most hon. members in the house, find myself in complete agreement. In the first place, in considering a measure of this kind we ought to ask ourselves whether we are in favour of working with like-minded countries. If we are to work with like-minded countries, then we should be prepared to extend to them, on a totally reciprocal basis, the same rights, opportunities and obligations as they extend to us. From the reports which I have had from those who have studied this matter and which I have checked I am persuaded that what we propose to give in this bill has already been extended to the forces of Canada should they be in the United States.

Some questions have been asked by hon. members, such as that by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) with reference to reciprocity. I think the answer to that is to be found in public law 384 of the 78th congress. It is chapter 326, second session, H.R.3241, an act to implement the jurisdiction of service courts of friendly foreign forces within the United States, and for other purposes. After dealing with the definition of friendly foreign forces' service courts in the United States, the act goes on to state, in section 2:

Upon a specific or general request of the officer commanding any friendly foreign force, having service courts of appropriate jurisdiction within the United States, it shall be lawful for any person in the civil, military, or naval establishments of the United States having authority to arrest, summarily any member of such force designated in such request and to deliver him to the custody of any officer of such force or to the custody of the military or naval authorities of the United States who shall deliver him forthwith to the custody of an officer of such force, for trial in such service courts within the United States for such offences as shall lie within the jurisdiction of the service courts of such friendly foreign force: Provided, that

the trial of any member of such friendly foreign force for an offence against a member of the civilian population shall be in open court (except where security consideration forbids), shall take place promptly in the United States and within a reasonable distance from the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed, for the convenience of witnesses.

Mr. GREEN:

What is the definition of friendly foreign force in that act.?

Air. CLAXTON:

Mr. GREEN:

It is a general act which can be applied to any nation?

Mr. CLAXTON:

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

Mr. HAZEN:

Is the jurisdiction of the United States civil courts taken away under that act?

Mr. CLAXTON:

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

Mr. COLDWELL:

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

Mr. CLAXTON:

I am not informed on

that, but I did make inquiries as to whether it was still in force in respect of Canada, so that we might be able to assure this house that there was complete reciprocity in regard to the provisions of the law which we are seeking to have passed. I was informed that that was the case. We are endeavouring to extend in

respect of service offences and offences in respect of which either the Canadian courts have had no jurisdiction or in respect of which we were willing to give up jurisdiction, just the same jurisdiction as had already been extended in respect of similar offences by Canadian personnel in the United States.

Mr. GREEN:

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

Mr. CLAXTON:

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

Mr. GREEN:

It was never considered by the house.

Mr. CLAXTON:

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

Mr. COLDWELL:

There was no opportunity to object.

Mr. CLAXTON:

Four months have passed since that statement was made by the Prime Minister, and I have not heard any objection to it by any Canadian in this house or outside, in the press or otherwise. I do not think there is any other declaration of Canadian policy which received so much assent from the Canadian people.

With regard to the other question which hon. members have in mind, as to what is the relationship with the United Kingdom, I should say, first of all, that we have extended exactly the same privileges, if they can be called privileges-I think they are just ordinary working arrangements-to the United Kingdom and the other commonwealth countries. Also the United Kingdom herself extended the same kind of relationship with regard to United States forces in the United [DOT] Kingdom. That was done by the Allied Forces

Visiting Forces

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

Mr. GREEN:

That expired six months after the war.

Mr. CLAXTON:

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