December 19, 1947

LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

You may call it that if you wish; I prefer my own expression. It means a $10 increase up to $40 a month for those in receipt of veterans' allowance, with a holding back in certain cases where the necessity is not demonstrated.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

Then in effect it is not an automatic increase of $10?

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ABBOTT:

No.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
?

Mr. COLD WELL@

Are the employees of the national research council dealt with in this matter? They are not civil servants, but I think they should have some consideration.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend will recall that the employees to whom he refers have just recently had salary increases. I do not think there is a further reference at the present time to them in this report.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
PC

Edmund Davie Fulton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FULTON:

May I ask Whether it is intended to make any provision for increases in the allowances of married student veterans, whom I did not hear mentioned in this statement.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Whatever policy the government will have in the future with respect to that question, it is not dealt with in the four classes referred to by the Prime Minister in the statement just made to the house.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

Mr. Speaker, may I direct

a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs arising out of the statement the Prime Minister has just made? Will there be any payment of this additional pension or additional war veterans allowance before amending legislation has actually passed both houses and been assented to?

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

I do not believe it will be possible to do that. It will be retroactive to October 1, 1947, subject to the conditions mentioned.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

Is there not some way in which those payments can be provided for without that delay, which may be a matter of six months?

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE:

That question has been explored and I am afraid there is no way in which what my hon. friend suggests can be done.

Topic:   CIVIL SERVICE
Subtopic:   SALARY INCREASES-PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR ARMED FORCES-VETERANS PENSIONS AND WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCES
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


On the order - government notices of motion: The Prime Minister- That when the house adjourns on Friday, December 19, 1947, it stand adjourned until Monday, January 26, 1948.


LIB

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

Liberal

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

I shall ask leave to take up this resolution later in the day. I wish to be perfectly sure we are through with the necessary business, before asking the house to adjourn.

Order stands.

494 COMMONS

Shipment oj Military Supplies to China

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

STATEMENT RESPECTING SHIPMENT OF MILITARY SUPPLIES BY CANADA


On the- orders of the day: Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold'well) asked this question: Will the minister make a statement today or tomorrow concerning the shipment of munitions to China, particularly under what arrangement this is being done and whether or not it involves the expenditure of United States dollars on the part of Canada; also if these shipments are in strict conformity with our obligation to promote peace in Asia and throughout the world? The memorandum which I have had prepared states that the mutual aid agreement signed in March 1944, provided for the transfer from Canada of military supplies and other goods required by the government of China. After the termination of hostilities in Europe consideration was given to specific items of military equipment, by then surplus to Canadian requirements, which might be made available to China, and certain orders for supplies of this type were placed by the Chinese government in accordance with their mutual aid agreement. When the extension of a post-war credit to China was under discussion in February, 1946, it was recognized that a large part of the mutual aid grant was still unexpended, and the exchange of notes effected February 7, 1946, accordingly recorded the understanding that $25,000,000 of the $60,000,000 provided in the credit will be reserved for the purchase of supplies and equipment which has been requested by China from Canada as mutual aid, other items in production in Canada at September 1, 1945, which are surplus to Canadian requirements, and also certain items of used industrial equipment which China had sought to purchase from Canada, together with the cost of reconversion and completion of such equipment f_r Chinese use and its preparation for shipment. All subsequent shipment of military supplies to China has been pursuant to this agreement, reconditioning costs, however, being required to be paid for in cash. No expenditure of United States dollars by Canada is involved in such shipment. The government is of the opinion that such shipment does not violate any obligation which may rest upon Canada to maintain peace in Asia.


?

Mr. COLD WELL@

I am at a loss to understand how this can be classified as mutual aid, since the mutual aid of 1944 was against the

common enemy, Japan. As I understand it, mutual aid ceased in September when the war with Japan was over. We are not now "mutual aiding" in the civil war in China?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No; and when my hon. friend sees the answer he will see that is not what is stated. It is stated that because there was a large unexpended portion of what had been agreed to deliver as mutual aid, it was agreed in an exchange of notes in February 1946 that $25,000,000 of the $60,000,000 credit could be applied to such items as I have indicated, which had been ordered prior to the cessation of hostilities, and which were not going to be delivered under mutual aid because hostilities had ceased. I believe my answer makes that quite clear.

Topic:   STATEMENT RESPECTING SHIPMENT OF MILITARY SUPPLIES BY CANADA
Permalink

JAPANESE PEACE TREATY


FAR EASTERN COMMISSION-CANBERRA CONFERENCE-Canada's interests On the orders of the day: Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked on December 9 by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). Replying to the hon. member, I undertook to see what information could be given the house at this time regarding arrangements for a Japanese peace conference. There has not as yet been any definite date, site, or procedure fixed for the Japanese peace conference, although all the principal countries concerned appear to be agreed on the desirability of proceeding at an early date with the drafting of a peace treaty for Japan, with a view to the re-establishment of peace in the Far East. The first proposal for the convening of a Japanese peace conference was made by the United States government on July 11 of this year. It suggested that a conference of representatives of the eleven states, members of Far Eastern Commission, namely Australia, Canada, China, France, India, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the U.SjS.R., should be convened as soon as practicable to discuss a peace treaty for Japan. Such an eleven-power conference was advocated because it would provide a broad representative basis of participation to include all those nations with a primary interest in Japan. It was the view expressed by the United States government that other states at war with Japan might be given an opportunity to present their views while the peace treaty was being drafted and that after draft- Japanese Peace Treaty ing had reached a sufficiently advanced stage it should be considered by a general conference of all the states at war with Japan. It was proposed that decisions at the preliminary eleven-power conference should be adopted by a simple two-thirds majority. The Canadian government welcomed these proposals made by the United States government and viewed with satisfaction the provision that the eleven powers primarily interested in the settlement with Japan participate fully from the beginning in the preparation of the treaty. Canada noted with approval the suggestion that voting should be by a simple two-thirds majority. Australia, France, India, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, and the United Kingdom also accepted the United States proposal without any important reservations. China and the U.SJS.R. did not agree to the procedure suggested. The Soviet union took the view that the question of convening a conference for drawing up a peace treaty with Japan should be provisionally examined by the council of foreign ministers, composed of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China only.


PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GREEN:

France is not included.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, France is not included. This counter-proposal was not accepted by the United States government, which pointed out that such discussions as occurred at Potsdam regarding problems of peace in the Far East, in connection with the establishment of the council of foreign ministers, did not make it mandatory to refer to the council matters relating to the peace settlement with Japan. Although the council of foreign ministers was constituted on a basis which would have permitted its use for the preparation of a peace treaty with Japan, provided the members of the council subsequently agreed, the United States government did not believe it appropriate that this matter be referred to the council.

On November 17 the Chinese government proposed that the Japanese peace treaty should be prepared at a conference of the eleven states, members of the Far Eastern Commission, with a voting procedure similar to that employed in the Far Eastern Commission. That is to say, in that body decisions are taken by a majority vote, including the concurring votes of China, the United Kingdom, the United States and the U.S.S.R.

Topic:   JAPANESE PEACE TREATY
Permalink

December 19, 1947