June 6, 1947

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT

LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM DECISION OF JUVENILE COURT OR MAGISTRATE


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.


STANDING ORDERS-CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT

LIB

Matthew MacLean

Liberal

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.

Topic:   STANDING ORDERS-CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT
Permalink
IND

Jean-François Pouliot

Independent Liberal

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, the last petition of the electors of Temiscouata county has com-

Topic:   STANDING ORDERS-CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT
Permalink

REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY AS TO FLOOR PRICE


On the orders of the day:


PC

Robert Earle Drope

Progressive Conservative

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?

Topic:   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY AS TO FLOOR PRICE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

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.

Topic:   REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY AS TO FLOOR PRICE
Permalink

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


On the orders of the day:


BPC

René Hamel

Bloc populaire canadien

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?

Topic:   OCEAN TRANSPORT . INQUIRY AS TO PASSAGE FOR CANADIANS DESIRING TO RETURN FROM OVERSEAS
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply)

Liberal

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.

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

VISITING FORCES

UNITED STATES-DISCIPLINE AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION WHEN IN CANADA


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



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.


PC

George Randolph Pearkes

Progressive Conservative

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.

Topic:   VISITING FORCES
Subtopic:   UNITED STATES-DISCIPLINE AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION WHEN IN CANADA
Permalink
PC

John Ritchie MacNicol

Progressive Conservative

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-*

Topic:   VISITING FORCES
Subtopic:   UNITED STATES-DISCIPLINE AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION WHEN IN CANADA
Permalink

June 6, 1947