October 19, 1951

KURT MEYER

INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.


On the orders of the day: Mr. J, G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre): I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister regarding a newspaper report respecting General Kurt Meyer. In so far as his incarceration is concerned, was he released or transferred under an order in council, and has there been any communication to the effect that he will now take his place in any army being formed in western Germany?


LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):

I am sorry that neither the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) nor the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) is in his place. I am sure that they could give a more detailed statement. In the meantime I can only say that Kurt Meyer is merely being transferred from one custody to another. There is no question of release. However, I will call the question to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and endeavour to have an answer for my hon. friend on Monday.

Topic:   KURT MEYER
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Diefenbaker:

Perhaps the minister

would say whether or not this was done under order in council, as there seems to be quite a bit of secrecy about the matter.

Topic:   KURT MEYER
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

I am told that it was done under order in council-I did not happen to be in council the day the order was passed, but I think it Was yesterday.

Topic:   KURT MEYER
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming:

Was any request received from any other government for such order in council?

Topic:   KURT MEYER
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

I am sorry, I am not in a position to answer this question. This is not a matter that is related in any way to my department, but I will endeavour to have all these questions answered on Monday by the appropriate minister.

Topic:   KURT MEYER
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

Because of the importance of the matter, will the minister say whether he is still under the control and the jurisdiction of Canada or whether his incarceration has been transferred to the jurisdiction of another country?

Topic:   KURT MEYER
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

Clarence Decatur Howe (Minister of Defence Production; Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Liberal

Mr. Howe:

I will call that question to the attention of the government.

Topic:   KURT MEYER
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION IN CANADA, ETC.
Permalink

INCOME TAX

RULING OF INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD PERMITTING DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES


On the orders of the day:


CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I directed a question to the Minister of Finance concerning a recent decision of the income tax appeal board to the effect that expenses of lawyers attending conventions of the Canadian Bar Association are deductible for income tax purposes. At that time I asked the minister if steps had been taken to extend the same privilege to members of trade unions and other comparable groups. The minister said that he would answer the question later.

Topic:   INCOME TAX
Subtopic:   RULING OF INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD PERMITTING DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):

I had forgotten to answer the hon. member's question. Of course it is one of law. I have not examined the decision of the income tax appeal board; but I assume the board must have decided that the lawyer in question incurred these expenses as necessary expenses in earning his income. If a member of a trade union is in the same position in deducting expenses, and if he can say that his attendance at a trade union convention was necessary, incidental to the earning of his income, then I assume that as a matter of law the court would hold the same thing. However, it is purely a question of law.

Topic:   INCOME TAX
Subtopic:   RULING OF INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD PERMITTING DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

May I ask this supplementary question: Does not the minister feel that the law should be changed so as to make sure that all these different groups are treated alike?

Topic:   INCOME TAX
Subtopic:   RULING OF INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD PERMITTING DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Charles Abbott (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. Abbott:

No, I think it is strictly a question for the courts.

Topic:   INCOME TAX
Subtopic:   RULING OF INCOME TAX APPEAL BOARD PERMITTING DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES
Permalink

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY DEFENCE OF SUEZ CANAL STATEMENT BY MINISTER


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary ef State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that I would make a short statement on the developments

Inquiries of the Ministry in Egypt, and I am very glad to do so now. It was also suggested yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that there had been some strange delay in dealing with this matter, in so far as bringing it before the House of Commons is concerned. I do not think there has been any undue delay, as the chronology of events will indicate.

On October 15, Monday of this week, the United Kingdom High Commissioner saw officials of my department and brought them up to date on the events which had transpired in Egypt over the week end. Unfortunately, on that day I was absent, in Kapuskasing, returning from there the next day at noon. Upon arrival in the House of Commons at 1.30 I found a question from an hon. member which I felt I could not deal with appropriately at that time.

Then on the next day, Wednesday, after we received further information from the United Kingdom government, the questions was discussed in cabinet. We also had an exchange of views with regard to it with Washington.

On Thursday, October 18, the views of the Canadian government in respect of this matter were transmitted to the United Kingdom government and also to the government of the United States. On that occasion- yesterday-I was in a position to make a Short statement; but in view of observations then made it was felt that possibly the very short statement I had in mind should be elaborated somewhat. That longer statement I shall make today.

I believe, if hon. members wish to understand the complete significance of what has been transpiring in Egypt, it might be desirable to give very briefly a short historical background. It must be remembered in the first instance that even when the protectorate in Egypt was terminated in 1922 and Egyptian independence was proclaimed, the questions of the Sudan and British defence interests in Egypt remained unsolved issues, and were the subject of differences between the two governments until 1935, when the invasion of Ethiopia brought war to the very borders of Egypt and led directly to the signing of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty.

This treaty, which was to run until 1956, was designed to put an end to the military occupation of Egypt, and to replace it with a permanent alliance for mutual assistance both in times of peace and war between the United Kingdom and Egypt. That treaty also authorized the maintenance of United Kingdom troops in the Suez canal zone-and I quote these words "until such time as the parties agree that the Egyptian army is in a position to ensure, by its own resources, the liberty and entire security of navigation

of the canal." That treaty, the 1936 treaty, also continued the administration of the Sudan under the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement of 1899.

During the war years-that is the years of world war II-the treaty, through the facilities in Egypt which it placed at the disposal of the allies, played a very important role in the attainment of ultimate victory over the axis powers. As the tide of war receded from Egypt, however, the popular Egyptian demand for the removal of all remaining limitations on independence was revived and led to an inconclusive reference of this matter to the United Nations security council by Egypt early in 1947.

With the return of the Wafd government to power in Egypt in 1950, it became the declared objective of Egypt to achieve the complete evacuation of United Kingdom troops from the canal zone and the unification of the Nile valley, including the Sudan, under the crown of Egypt. Rejecting a revision of the treaty with the United Kingdom, and finally rejecting more recently a place of equality in a system of collective defence for the whole Middle East area, the Egyptian government has pursued its national aims to the point reached a few days ago, when it abrogated its treaties with the United Kingdom.

It was implicit, in the recent decision taken in Ottawa a few weeks ago to invite Greece and Turkey to accede to the North Atlantic treaty, that the defence of the Middle East is vital to the successful defence of Europe and the north Atlantic area, as was clearly shown during world war II. It was for the same reason that it was also decided to establish a separate command in the Middle East which, through the peacetime co-operation of the states in the area and those states directly concerned in the defence of that area, could make adequate preparation for its successful defence in time of war.

Those states directly concerned, and which were invited to participate in the Middle East command, included Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These proposals, which were submitted to the Egyptian government before the denunciation of the treaty, would have superseded the treaty and would have terminated the present United Kingdom regime, under which it had responsibility for the security of the canal zone. These proposals were rejected by the Egyptian government, and that rejection was followed very shortly by the action taken last week.

So far as the Canadian government is concerned, it regrets exceedingly the action taken by the Egyptian government to repudiate the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936-action

all the more regrettable in view of the tact that alternative arrangements were under discussion with the Egyptian government at the time the repudiation took place.

The Secretary of State of the United States has already characterized this repudiation and, indeed, also that of the agreements of 1899, regarding the Sudan, as without validity. We agree with that view.

The situation which has developed in the Suez canal zone is highly inflammable and can become dangerous to general peace. For that reason the Canadian government joins other governments in expressing the earnest hope that every effort will be made to avoid any breach of the peace and to achieve a satisfactory arrangement for the security of the area.

The government has welcomed the assurances which we have received from the United Kingdom that, as we would naturally expect, they are doing their best and will continue to do their best to avoid incidents and violence. The Canadian government considers it of major importance for the security of the free world, indeed for the maintenance of peace itself, that no action should be taken to alter by force the present regime of responsibility of the United Kingdom for the defence of the Suez canal zone. These views have already been communicated to the United Kingdom government.

Topic:   ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY DEFENCE OF SUEZ CANAL STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Permalink

October 19, 1951