Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):

should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with a matter that was discussed by the Canadian Legion convention in Montreal. Have there been any recent communications either from the British government or from the British-allied German commission on war criminals, relating to whether or not Canada still has jurisdiction over the person of Major General Kurt Meyer? It is a matter that has aroused some interest, to know whether or not there have been any recent discussions. That is the reason I have asked the Prime Minister, even though I have not been able to give notice of it.

Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime

Minister): Had I had notice I might perhaps be able to be a little more precise in my

answer, but I think I can give a satisfactory answer without referring again to the pertinent documents.

As hon. members know, there is a draft treaty that is now under consideration by the occupying powers and the government of Western Germany. There are provisions in that treaty for the treatment of prisoners under the jurisdiction of those who will be parties to the treaty. There has been correspondence to make it abundantly clear that the treaty will not of itself have any effect on the jurisdiction of- the Canadian authorities over the war criminals who are purging sentences imposed by Canadian courts; that the provisions will not exclude the possibility of their being brought under the treaty; that the treaty itself will not have the effect of changing the present position in any way. The present position is that the two prisoners still purging sentences are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian authorities, and are being held by the United Kingdom authorities as custodians.

It may be that some change will have to to be made in that situation after the United Kingdom has signed this treaty with Western Germany; but care has been taken by those who are to be parties to the treaty to see to it that it does not go beyond the rights and jurisdiction of those who are to be signatories to the treaty.

Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):

I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries. Will he explain why foreign trawlers are not permitted to enter Nova Scotia ports to secure supplies, as they are in Newfoundland ports?

Mr. J. Watson MacNaughi (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):

The

hon. member for Halifax was kind enough to leave in my office this morning notice of his intention to ask this question. I also received a telephone call from the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. MacLean) on this problem.

Section 10 of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act prohibits, under penalty of forfeiture, the entry of foreign fishing vessels into Canadian ports or territorial waters, unless otherwise permitted by law or by treaty.

We have no treaties with any countries providing for port privileges to foreign fishing vessels on the Atlantic coast. However, under section 3 of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, as amended by section 9 of the

Statute Law Amendment (Newfoundland) Act, the governor in council is empowered to authorize the issue of licences to-(a) United States fishing vessels enabling them to enter any port on the Atlantic coast of Canada, and (b) any fishing vessels, enabling them to enter any port in the province of Newfoundland for the purpose of:

1. The purchase of bait, ice, seines, lines and all other supplies, and

2. The transshipment of catch and the shipping of crews.

Under this section, the governor in council annually issues an order authorizing the licensing of United States fishing vessels to enter Atlantic ports and any fishing vessel to enter the ports of Newfoundland to purchase bait and other supplies.

In the case of the United States vessels, this privilege dates back to 1888 when a reciprocity treaty with the United States was being negotiated. Pending the negotiation of the treaty these privileges were granted to United States fishing vessels as modus vivendi. The treaty was never ratified by the United States but the modus vivendi licences were continued on a yearly basis until this date.

In Newfoundland, foreign vessels, particularly those of Portugal, traditionally came into port for the purchase of bait and other supplies. When the terms of union were being arranged it was part of the agreement that these privileges would be continued and that the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act would be amended accordingly.

Mr. Balcom:

May I ask a supplementary question? Will steps be taken by the Department of Fisheries or the department concerned to correct the situation so far as Nova Scotia is concerned?

Mr. MacNaughf:

I think that is a matter of government policy, and if any decision is made thereon, no doubt it will be announced in due course.

Mr. Pearkes:

May I ask a supplementary question? What is the situation on the Pacific coast?

Mr. MacNaughi:

I understand that on the Pacific coast they have what is known as reciprocal port privileges.

Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):

I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the unanimous request of the Saskatchewan

Inquiries of the Ministry legislature that the federal government appoint a special committee of this house to examine into the present prices of farm machinery, and farm machinery repair parts, will the government appoint such a committee at this session with powers similar to the 1936-37 committee on this matter?

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

I hope I am not of too suspicious a nature, but I do sometimes wonder whether, when there are certain provincial election campaigns going on, there is not some effort to get ammunition out of questions and answers or other forms of debate in this House of Commons. I hope that is not the purpose of this question.

Mr. Ross (Souris):

Page the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. St. Laurent:

The answer of course is

that the federal government does not appoint any committees, special or otherwise, of this house. Sometimes the government makes proposals to the house with respect to committees, but any decision or appointment is made by the house itself.

Whenever the government has decided to make such a proposal an appropriate notice is put on the order paper. No decision along the lines suggested in the question has yet been made by the government. If and when a decision is made for such a proposal, notice will be put on the order paper in the usual way.