May 18, 1943

LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):

I cannot agree with the statement that when a report of a committee passes this house it becomes an order. Year after year reports ' are made by committees and adopted by this

house, but their recommendations are never put into effect. I have not all the facts before me, but I understand that this company appeared before the committee last year knowing that they were not within the time limit for presenting a bill. They knew that penalties totalling' $700 would have to be paid1 in any event. In my judgment if the committee saw fit last year to a&k for $700, that should still stand this year. I join with those who are protesting against this action.

Topic:   STANDING ORDERS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE' IN FIRST REPORT
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander McLean

Liberal

Mr. G. A. McLEAN (Simcoe East):

I would not want the house to think that the committee made this recommendation without due consideration. The report of the committee in connection with this matter was unanimous. What has the hon. member for York-Sunbury suggested we should do? Last year this company petitioned for a private bill. They were late, and we amended the standing order in order to admit the- bill on condition that they .pay $300, which they did. Then the house wanted to adjourn on a certain day in July or August and we did not make available the half-hour or hour required to put the bill through.

Topic:   STANDING ORDERS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE' IN FIRST REPORT
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

The company took the chance.

Topic:   STANDING ORDERS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE' IN FIRST REPORT
Permalink
LIB

George Alexander McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Simcoe East):

The hon. member says the company took the chance. When the standing committee met early in the session and said, after six weeks had elapsed, that they would amend the standing order to permit the bill to be entered but would charge a fee, surely the company had a right to expect that it would be dealt with. They come back this year and are willing to pay the fee of $400, but surely it would not be fair or equitable to charge them for being late last year when the house had not been able to deal with their bill. The committee considered this matter most carefully, as they did all other items in the report. The report was unanimous, and I feel sure that if hon. members will give this matter quiet consideration they will agree with the chairman of the committee. As- to the contention. that this money should not be -paid without another resolution, this is something that can be dealt with by another resolution.

Topic:   STANDING ORDERS
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE' IN FIRST REPORT
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (HuromPerth) moved that the second report of standing committee on- standing orders, presented on May 14, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Foreign Forces


INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF RATIONING PLAN


On the orders of the day:


NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

I should like, to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On March 31 of this year the Minister of Finance announced to the house that meat rationing would1 come into effect in Canada early in May. According to certain press dispatches the institution of this rationing plan has been delayed on account of the failure of officials to agree on all the details. Will the minister indicate to the house whether or not these details have been agreed upon, and when he intends to put the rationing plan into effect?

Topic:   INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF RATIONING PLAN
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

The details have been agreed upon, and an announcement as to the date when meat rationing will come into effect will be made shortly, possibly to-day or to-morrow,, by the wartime prices and1 trade board'. I can say that it will be before the end of this month.

Topic:   INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF RATIONING PLAN
Permalink

FOREIGN FORCES

JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN CANADA


On the orders of the day:


NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct two or three questions to the Minister of Justice, to whom I sent a copy of them just before the sitting opened, and if he has not yet had time to read or comprehend them I shall be glad if he will accept them as notice and perhaps answer to-morrow, because I realize that the answer might take some little time. These are the questions, and because they are of extraordinary importance I have not put them on the order paper. I hope I may have the consent of the house to put them now.

What is the position with respect to the claim or proposal that the United States has. exclusive jurisdiction within Canada to punish men of the armed forces of the United States for offences committed within Canada? Has that right been conceded by the government of Canada without qualifications or exceptions, or has the government of Canada reserved any rights? That refers to offences committed by United States nationals.

Is it a fact that the United States authorities vith respect to their military courts have been given concurrent jurisdiction with Canadian civil courts in any regard? That is in civil matters.

On what principle of international law is the claim of the United States based, and is the claim which the United States have made for such jurisdiction based upon any agreement between the two governments?

Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): Mr. Speaker, I received the hon. member's notice just before I came into the house, and I was able to get from the department a copy of the case in the supreme court which contains all the material required to supply the hon. gentleman with the information sought.

The facts are that there was made on the 15th of April, 1941, an order, P.C. 2546, called the Foreign Forces Order, 1941.

Topic:   FOREIGN FORCES
Subtopic:   JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN CANADA
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Under what authority was that order made?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Under the authority of the War Measures Act. It was for the purpose of putting into force with respect to foreign forces stationed on Canadian soil with the consent of the Canadian government provisions similar to those which were adopted in 1933 in the British Commonwealth Visiting Forces Order. That order of the 15th of April, 1941, was modified on the 27th of July, 1942, by P.C. 6566. These orders have already been tabled with the other orders in the regular procedure of tabling the orders made under the War Measures Act. Subsequently, this foreign forces order was extended to the units of the United States forces stationed in Canada with the consent of the Canadian government by P.C. 5484 of the 26th of June, 1942. P.C. 5484 was amended on the 6th of April, 1943, by P,C. 2813. The visiting forces order had recognized in accordance with the teachings of the writers on international law that when a foreign force is stationed in the territory of another sovereign with the consent of that sovereign the members thereof are amenable to discipline by their commanding officers, but that did not extend to the charges or offences of murder, manslaughter cur rape. The consequence was that whenever there might be a charge of murder, manslaughter or rape, the commanding officers would have no authority whatsoever to interfere with the movements of the man accused because the order did not extend to those offences, and a commanding officer apprehending a man on a charge of murder, manslaughter or rape would have been committing an assault and the man would have been entitled to be freed on habeas corpus proceedings.

Topic:   FOREIGN FORCES
Subtopic:   JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN CANADA
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

But it did not affect the authority of the Canadian jurisdiction?

:ilr. Golding.]

Coal Emergency

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, it did not, but

certain difficulties arose where there were offences committed, and the question was whether there was in one instance a proper charge of rape or a charge only of attempted rape. If it were a charge of rape the military authorities would have no jurisdiction! whatsoever, while if it were a charge of attempted rape they would have had jurisdiction under the visiting forces order. To remove the possible difficulties in that regard the exception of these three crimes was taken out of the foreign forces order in its application to the units of United States forces stationed in Canada for military purposes, and as the United States authorities claimed not only that they might exercise jurisdiction but that they had exclusive jurisdiction, basing their contention upon reputed writers on international law and upon decisions of their own supreme court, the Canadian government decided to refer to the Supreme- Court of Canada the question of determining to what extent they had jurisdiction.

Topic:   FOREIGN FORCES
Subtopic:   JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN CANADA
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

In other

words we did not accept their thesis but referred the question to the courts?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: We did not accept

their thesis but referred the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine to what extent they might exercise jurisdiction and whether or not it was exclusive of the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts.

I hold in my hand, and will table so that it may be available to such hon. members as may wish to consult it, the printed case, which contains all the material with which the supreme court has to deal.

Topic:   FOREIGN FORCES
Subtopic:   JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN CANADA
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Does it

cover the orders in council?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, all the orders in council, those I have mentioned, and also P.C. 2931, being the order referring the question to the supreme court. On that reference the chief justice of the supreme court ordered that the attorneys-general of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, be notified of the hearing of the argument on the said reference by sending to each of them by registered air mail on or before the 1st of May, 1943, notice of the hearing of said reference and a copy of the order, and that the case be set down for argument before the supreme court on the 4th of June, 1943.

I may add that several provincial attorneys-general have intimated their intention of appearing before the supreme court to contend that the admission of the armed forces of another nation into Canadian territory does not take away from them their privilege and responsibility with respect to the administration of justice. That matter will be determined by the supreme court.

I can only add that this was done because it was represented to us that the Supreme Court of the United States having held that our commanding officers would have exclusive jurisdiction over our men under their command in United States territory, we felt it would be only proper to give them the benefit of what our supreme court would decide as being international law on the subject. There had been some suggestion of making some treaty arrangement, but that would have required the consent of this parliament and of the congress of United States, and it was represented that so far as we were concerned this was not necessary because their supreme court had gone the whole way and had recognized that in the United States our commanding officers would have exclusive jurisdiction. But they had nothing more to offer to us than the decision of the supreme court as to what the state of their law was. It was felt that it would be proper reciprocity to have on these facts an opinion of our supreme court as to what the legal situation really is. As I understand it, this has to do with criminal jurisdiction and not with jurisdiction in civil matters.

Topic:   FOREIGN FORCES
Subtopic:   JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN CANADA
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Probably.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will table the copy of this case, which contains all the material which is to be before the supreme court on the reference.

Topic:   FOREIGN FORCES
Subtopic:   JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF OFFENCES COMMITTED WITHIN CANADA
Permalink

May 18, 1943