Mr. SPEAKER:

Is the house ready for the question?

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Question.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

Mr. Speaker, before second reading is passed, I have a few observations I should like to make. The suggestion was made that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs. That is a respectable view, but I do not believe the bill is a good one or that it serves a useful purpose, so that it seems to me it could not be improved before a committee. Therefore I voted against the amendment.

My suggestion is that, instead of a bill of this land, we should send to the United States on the occasion of the visit of the President of the United States an invitation to join our empire with the status of a dominion.

Mr. LOW:

Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us the assurance that the bill will be sent to the committee on external affairs?

No.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, in that regard I am in the hands of the members of the house. I stated that the government has no objection to the bill going to the committee on external affairs, and if it is the desire of hon. members that that course be pursued, the government is quite prepared to acquiesce.

Visiting Forces

If, on the other hand, hon. members would prefer to have the bill dealt with in committee of the whole, here, that would be also equally acceptable to the government.

Mr. MacINNIS:

That depends upon the motion the minister will make after second reading has been taken. He can send it either to committee of the whole, or to the committee on external affairs.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Question.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, I voted against the amendment, my reason being that, in my opinion, the committee has done very little work. I spoke in the debate on the amendment, and for that reason I shall speak for only a moment or two on this motion for second reading.

During the last war United States soldiers used to be stationed in thousands at Fort Niagara, New York state, and many of them visited my city over week-ends. The people of Toronto seemed to be glad to see them. That was followed to the end of the last war.

I believe what has been said in the debate 'indicates the necessity of our having an empire conference. We know that three nations are interested in the Pacific-New Zealand, Australia and Canada. An empire conference of that kind should be called at once on trade, defence and migration, and this matter could be discussed at that conference.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Question.

Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, on division.

Right Hon.. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) : Mr. Speaker, carrying out what I said I will move that the bill be referred to the committee on external affairs, so that Your Honour may call for the yeas and nays, and we will not regard it as a defeat of the government if, in your opinion, upon calling for the yeas and nays, Your Honour declares that either has it.

I think it is only proper to leave it to the house to dispose of the bill either here or in committee, as may appear to be the desire of the house. For that purpose I move:

That this bill be now referred to the committee on external affairs.

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is moved by Mr. St. Laurent, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, that this bill be referred to the standing committee on external affairs. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Yea.

Nay.

Mr. SPEAKER:

In my opinion the nays have it, and the motion is lost.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I move therefore:

That Your Honour do leave the chair, and that the bill be referred to committee of the whole.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.

On section 1-Short title.

Mr. CHURCH:

I should like to get some information on the matter about which I asked a question a few minutes ago. How does it come about that this has been proposed in the way it has been? We are members of the British empire. We have a defence agreement with the dominions and signed with the mother country. As I said before, I have no objection to the consideration of the bill. It seems to me that during the past few years we have stopped1 all conferences on peace and war between the dominions and the mother country, and that these empire conferences have been ignored by the present government. It has always been the custom, since these conferences were held, to discuss these matters; and it was never more important than at the present time, in these troubled days, that we should have a common empire policy for the dominion and the empire. Two years ago yesterday, or about that time, we had the close of the war with Germany. Britain, and the dominions then stood at the highest point at which they have ever stood in the history of the world and civilization.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order. The first section just deals with the short title.

Mr. CHURCH:

To deal with this particular section, I cannot understand why this proposed bill was not made the subject of a conference with the other dominions. Canada is part of the British empire and we are not going to be talked out of the British empire; we shall have to be fought out of it. That is the truth. I would go as far as any person in this house in supporting that great nation, the United States, which has done so much in coming to the relief of the world and saving civilization. As I said, I see no objection to a reasonable number of them coming into Canada as they did before in the last war when they came in voluntarily, not by any act of parliament. As a matter of public policy, this bill has an important effect, in the present state of affairs, on Russia, our ally in the last war. They will take it that we shall be wrapped up with the United States in a military sense. It will have a serious effect on federal affairs. I regret that we have not in the city of Toronto three morning papers that used to give what happens

Visiting Forces

here. If you read one of them this morning you will see how the people are blindfolded and not given the facts of the real debate that took place on this bill. Just read the verbatim report of what happened yesterday and read the report in the Globe and Mail of this morning. We want to see the fullest information regarding this matter given to the people. As I see it, I believe we should have had this empire conference and the matter should have been gone into accordingly. With the troubled state of the world today and with Russia acting as she is, I believe that the united effort with the United States is the most important thing we have, and that we should plainly tell our former ally, Russia, what we think about her. As the late President Roosevelt said, if we do not tell her plainly, there will be another war, and it will be a war of survival. I think we ought to make it plain, because that is the only way whereby the western democracies can avert the threat of war. We can go about it in this way, but it does not mean very much. This whole matter by this bill has been made a major issue-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

Order. I should like to remind the hon. member that we are not now dealing with the principle of the bill. We have had a long discussion on the principle of the bill, and when we go into committee we are not dealing with the principle. We are dealing only with the sections. Section 1 is the short title. I just wanted to say that because we do not want to go over again discussion on the principle of the bill. We shall not get anywhere by doing that, as far as making progress is concerned.

Mr. CHURCH:

What you say is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister would be well advised to go about this in some other w-ay than by making it an act of parliament. It has never been done in that way before. I referred to what was done in the last war. There is a large body of public opinion which has been aroused in connection with this matter of peace and war, and a probable war of survival. As I mentioned a moment ago, the western democracies must stand together in peace and war alike. I am sorry that the matter has been brought up in this manner, because I think it will have a serious effect on public opinion and create an alarming state of affairs. It may not mean much as a bill.

Mr. KNOWLES:

The title of the act, according to section 1, is to be "The Visiting Forces (United States of America) Act". Has either the Secretary of State for External

Affairs or the Minister of National Defence any more specific information than they have given to us previously with regard to the friendly foreign forces act of the United States? In view of the fact that the presidential proclamation referred to the United Kingdom and Canada as co-belligerents, I should like to know whether we are still covered by that act in the United States? The other night the Minister of National Defence, on rather short notice, was endeavouring to answer a number of questions. A number of times he said that he was informed of this or informed of that, which left some of us in considerable doubt as to the exact situation with respect to that act in the United States at the present time.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: May I reply to one part of the question and leave to my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, the reply to the other part? When we were considering the order in council that was last passed under the War Measures Act to give jurisdiction to the service courts of the United States forces present here, it was shown to our satisfaction by the experts of the Department of State that there was nothing required in the form of legislation to authorize our officers in the United1 States to exercise jurisdiction over their men; that all that was required was provision to give them assistance; that their act was not for the purpose of allowing our service courts to exercise jurisdiction; that they had that by virtue of the constitution of the United States and by virtue of then recognition of the law of nations as applied in decisions of their supreme court. We said, "That is all very well, but we have no way of compelling the attendance of witnesses, or things of that kind, before our service courts." They agreed it would be necessary to have legislation in order to impose obligations upon United States citizens to help us carry out the jurisdiction we have under the law of nations. To that extent they agreed to proceed by legislation to give us the right to get assistance of United States citizens to carry out the jurisdiction we had by virtue of the law of nations. With respect to the other portion of the question, I think my colleague can answer it.

Mr. GREEN:

That arrangement, I understand, was made during the war?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.