March 3, 1947

?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Go ahead.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I thank hon. members. I have a little more information on this matter which may be of interest.

The countries which the Russian plan would regard as directly interested are those which were occupied during the war. This would include Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece and Albania. The others, said to be without direct interest, would be the commonwealth countries and Brazil. The directly interested countries would take part in the discussion and study of these subjects assigned to them by the special deputies, whilst the others could only witness these discussions without participating in them.

This plan, in my estimation, embodies a curious and inadmissible definition of the countries which are directly interested. The Soviet deputy would include Albania and Luxembourg among those states with direct interest, and would exclude Canada. I cannot imagine that the Soviet authorities really expect us to take seriously a distinction which would bring about that consequence. The Soviet representative in London who presented these views to the special deputies is Mr. Gousev who was Soviet minister in Canada in 1912 and 1943. Mr. Gousev cannot be under any misapprehension as to the nature of Canada's contribution to the defeat of Germany and of Canada's interest in the defeat of Germany. He cannot really think that a country which mobilized A million men, more than half of whom served in combat zones in the war against Germany, made a contribution to the defeat of Germany of less consequence than the war effort of Albania and of Luxembourg. He, of all people in the Soviet administration, is in a position to know the significance of Canada's industrial state in the war, for it was during his period of office in Ottawa that negotiations were begun which resulted in the delivery to the U.S.S.R. of war supplies under mutual aid to the value

Peace Treaties

of $167,255,000. We were glad to give these weapons to the U.S.S.R. and will never forget the good use made of them against the common enemy. But we cannot believe that the Soviet government has forgotten our contribution to the war, nor our direct interest in what was at stake in the war, or that it can believe that distinctions such as that could be contemplated.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

There is something more to it than that.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Nor is it possible

that the Soviet government is under any misapprehension as to who will bear the burden of German aggression if ever it is renewed. It is to countries such as ours on this continent that the U.S.S.R. would again look for the industrial production that would have to be mobilized and used.

I should like now to indicate our attitude generally to the proposals on procedure which emerged in London. In our comments on procedure we have had two main objects in view. One has been to provide for a more satisfactory participation of the associated powers at a stage when their views could have some effect. It proved to be very difficult at Paris to have anything changed that the great powers had previously agreed upon. The second has been to avoid a repetition of the annoyance of that process by which the allies were assembled in Paris to discuss the terms of settlement with Italy and other satellite states at a time when you could not get anything altered without very great difficulty. In the Canadian view, the procedure best suited to achieve these objects would be to give the associated powers an opportunity to consider and comment on the drafts at an early stage. We recognize that the primary responsibility for the settlement will rest with the four great powers. We realize that the general principles of peace will be established by the council of foreign ministers, and we realize that they may insist on the right to review the settlement before the draft is put into final form for signature.

On the other hand, between the meetings at which the council of foreign ministers indicate the general principles of settlement acceptable to them at the meeting which will open next Monday, and the time when there will be drafts ready for signature, there will be ample opportunity for the work of dozens of committees on the terms of this settlement. There will have to be dozens of working committees to consider and prepare the detailed material that will have to

be incorporated in the final statute or treaty.

At the Paris conference in 1946, the conference, after a preliminary debate on procedure, separated into ten different committees; these committees had subcommittees, and it was in these committees and subcommittees that such achievements as did result from the conference were made. It was only here that the associated states had any real opportunity to recommend revisions of the text.

The Canadian government believes that a process similar to the commission stage of the Paris conference should be introduced at a much earlier period in the preparation of the settlement with Germany.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

That is between the

Moscow meeting and the general conference.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: At the Potsdam

conference, and even before that, as early as the Moscow conference of 1943, the general principles with respect to the settlement with Austria were agreed to and published. The general principles with respect to the settlement with Germany have not yet been agreed to and published, and it is at this preliminary meeting at Moscow, which will open next week, that it is expected that the foreign ministers will coordinate their views as to the general principles; and it will be weeks and months after that before the details to carry out these general principles will be worked out. It is, we think, at that period that the allied powers should be associated in the committee work.

There should be on these committees a wide membership of states which participated in the war against Germany. We do not suggest that every state would have to be represented on every committee, but we do think there should be a wide representation of all the allies on these working committees.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

Functional representation.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Functional representation, and that is something which would create the feeling that the allies had not only been allied to win the victory but had also been together and worked together to shape the peace. It is also the view of the Canadian government that consideration should be given to bringing about the settlement with Germany gradually.

We think the international statute form would be preferable to a treaty signed by nominees of all the allies acting nominally as a government of Germany. We think it would be just as well to be open and above board about it and to say, "We are imposing this regime; under this regime you will set up a

Peace Treaties

government; and when you get a government that represents you and not us, then we will make a treaty with that government."

These are the attributes which the Canadian government regards as the minimum requirements of an adequate procedure, and none of the formal proposals which appear to have been considered by the special deputies fully meets this suggestion.

Now it would have been desirable to have had the deputies agree upon recommendations to the foreign ministers as to the procedure that would be followed; but, even if they had agreed, the foreign ministers would not have been bound by their agreement. They are merely an advisory or exploratory board, and it is the foreign ministers themselves who will have to take the responsibility of proposing the system which will appear to them to be sufficient to carry out this solemn agreement that was made between us all on the first of January, 1942, that we would make a joint peace; and we claim that means that we shall together discuss and determine the terms of that peace.

It is the council of foreign ministers who will have to take the responsibility of proposing the procedure which they think will be satisfactory to carry out that obligaation which we all agreed to.

With respect to the Austrian situation, we submitted a shorter memorandum and at a later date. The member for Peel inquired why there had been delay. It is because we were satisfied since 1943 that the principles the "Big Three" had agreed upon would provide for a just settlement with respect to Austria. On the first of November. 1943, the governments of the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom and the United States published this declaration with respect to Austria: Declaration on Austria:

The governments of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United States of America are agreed that Austria, the first free country to fall a victim to Hitlerite aggression shall be liberated from German domination. They regard the annexation imposed on Austria by Germany on March 15, 1938, as null and void. They consider themselves as in no way bound by any changes effective in Austria since that date. They declare that they wish to see reestablished a free and independent Austria and thereby to open the way for the Austrian people themselves as well as those neighbouring states which will be faced with similar problems, to find that political and economic security which is the only basis for lasting peace.

We put in our statement to show that we still felt that a settlement which would carry out those general principles was the proper kind of settlement to make. If the draft treaty that the deputies were instructed to

prepare shows, when it is published, that those general principles to which our statement conforms are carried out, there may not have to be any conference at all on the Austrian settlement. We may all be satisfied that what we fought for is, with regard to the Austrian situation, fully respected. At page 158 of Hansard, when I was answering the question of the hon. member for Peel, I said:

The department felt that Canada was more particularly concerned with the German settlement. It seemed to us that that would be pivotal in the settlement of European policy.

That is why we extended our views to much greater length with respect to the German settlement, because we feel that the settlement of the German situation is pivotal in the settlement of Europe; that, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pointed out, Europe is an economic unit, and there must be a proper settlement of the German situation to enable Europe to be rehabilitated and to continue its part in the creation of the new order for which we fought and which should be of benefit to the whole of mankind, and not only to any one portion of it. We felt that could not be brought about without a proper settlement of the German situation, because you cannot conceive of a prosperous Europe with a festering sore in that immense, rich and fertile area which was Germany.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

There are two questions which I asked when I spoke, and which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has apparently overlooked. I wonder if he would mind dealing with them now.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: What are they?

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

One of them was partly answered, but not completely. It was: What steps does the government propose to take now to bring to the attention of the foreign ministers in meeting, the plan which the minister has detailed to the house in the last few minutes?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The statements made by Canada, those made by the other dominions and those made by the other allies are all being reported by the deputies to the council of foreign ministers in Moscow.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

Yes; but there is this new suggestion made by the minister with respect to having some procedure which will partly fit the situation between the Moscow meeting and the general conference. I do not think that was dealt with in the original memorandum.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. We did not go into the details, but there have been discussions between the deputies and the representatives

Peace Treaties

of the various allies. All those matters have been put out as suggestions of a way in which the allies might be appropriately associated at an early stage in the preparation of the actual draft of the treaties after the council of foreign ministers have themselves agreed on what will be the general lines of the settlement and before a conference is called to consider a complete draft.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

Should Canada not make some direct representation to the Moscow meeting?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure that those representations will be made to the Moscow meeting. In addition to the representations that are made in writing, there are innumerable contacts between the Canadian government and the foreign offices of the United Kingdom, the United States and France; and I have no doubt that all the details of these plans are matters about which the foreign ministers have full information.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

The other question was this, and is asked in view of Mr. Massey's statement and in view of the question I asked. Will the government give an answer as to why the occupation force in Germany was withdrawn when it was?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The occupation force in Germany was withdrawn because we were left out. We were told by the great powers that there would be three zones; that there would be a fourth if France wanted one, but there were not to be any others; and that their commanders were to constitute the government of Germany. I suppose the Russians might perhaps have accepted our cooperation; the French might have accepted our cooperation; the United States might have accepted it and the United Kingdom might have accepted it; but we would not have had any occupation force of ours taking any separate part in the legal occupation of Germany.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GRAYDON:

Yes.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Our troops were there when the surrender occurred, and we could not fly them out overnight. We immediately started to demobilize our forces and to remove them just as expeditiously as transportation conditions permitted. When we had succeeded in removing our troops from the area, we appointed a military liaison to the government constituted by the four allied commanders, as I stated in my previous remarks.

83166-63i

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Arthur Bradette

Liberal

Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my remarks, I wish to make a brief allusion to the activities of the standing committee on external affairs. I have the heavy responsibility and also the honour to be chairman of that committee, and am ably seconded by the vice-chairman, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). We started to function in the fall of 1945 and, through the cooperation which was accorded by every member of the committee, and which continued through every one of our meetings, I believe we succeeded to a very large extent in doing what we set out to do. When we started to function, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was then Secretary of State for External Affairs, and he cooperated with us to the fullest extent although he found it impossible to be present at our discussions, and the same good will was shown by the officials of the department. This year the new department was formed, and the heavy responsibilities so ably discharged by the Prime Minister of Canada, were placed on the shoulders of the present occupant of that high position. He is fulfilling his obligations with his natural qualifications of high diplomacy and high statesmanship; and I believe this is the time and place to compliment our present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the honour he has brought to himself, to parliament and to the whole of Canada.

I was very proud indeed that during this afternoon and evening there was no sign of subduedness in his voice or in those of previous speakers. I was afraid that when we received that resounding rebuff from the "Big Four" Canada would take it impatiently, but Canada took it with dignity, but with some resentment. However I never saw the population so electrified, or rather stupefied as when the Canadian people learned that we were persona non grata as far as the peace treaties with Austria and Germany were concerned. I am not again going to cover the ground which was so well covered this afternoon as to the great renown Canada won for herself during world war I and also during world war II. We can go to a peace conference with a fine symbol. We do not want any territorial aggrandizement; we have no quarrel with any nation. We can go there with an open heart and open mind. I know that public opinion in the countries of Europe, even public opinion in the four big nations, will be so strong that it will compel them to allow Canada to take its proper place in the deliberations at the coming peace conference.

I want to say just a few words about some of the things which happened under the treaty

Peace Treaties

of Versailles, which was signed in 1919, and at the deliberations which preceded it. I always have in mind the statement of that great Jewish philosopher Spinoza, when he was looking at his times, which were very troubled indeed. He said we should not smile, not cry, but we should try to understand. I believe the whole world was highly elated over the treaty of Versailles and built up great hopes on it. Ail hopes for the future peace of mankind, not of any individual nation but the whole of the civilized world, were heightened by a great statesman, President Wilson of the United States, who left his shores with his ten points for the peace treaty. He was a great figure at that conference, carrying not only the respect due him for his personality and for the wonderful effort put forth by his country, which was one of the great reasons for our victory on the battlefield, and for the sacrifices made and the money spent by the American nation; he also created a feeling of hopr in every citizen worthy of being called a civilized person. However, within a few years the world knew a great feeling of despair, because that great statesman, that man who was carrying the hope of civilization, did not have the strong support he expected from his own nation and the military support needed

We must learn from that experience of the y*.st. While I am dealing with the treaty of Versailles, I know I shall be forgiven if I mention some of its shortcomings. This is neither the time nor the place to compare what might have happened if we had lost the war, to suggest what Germany and her allies would have done to the democracies, to countries such as France, the United States, Great Britain, Canada and our other allies. This is not the time to say, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, just because we have been victorious. However, there have been some anomalies. I know that, while at the time I was not very well versed in world affairs, I was astonished at the dismemberment of Austria, creating in the middle of Europe an economic and political vacuum which was one of the contributing factors to world war II. There is no getting away from that fact. It is too late to go back and try to change history, but I maintain that the nations of the world in the treaty of Versailles committed a terrible crime against Austria in practically destroying that nation. It is true that it was an ally of Germany, but those people were the tools of Germany. We must also remember that, although the chief villain in that terrible play really was Germany, her borders remained almost intact. I shall never pose as a prophet, but I remember my thought a few years ago

when Mussolini and Hitler connived to take over the population of that great, historical section of Europe known as the Tyrol, to bring the Tyroleans into the so-called German national home, a sore was caused which has been festering ever since.

I hold no brief for Germany at the present time, but I remember hearing from my own people, when we created the so-called Danzig corridor, that here was an embryo containing all the seeds for a future war. You cannot cut through the sacred and historical soil of any nation, with a knife, with diplomacy or with the force of arms, without creating a dangerous situation which eventually will be the cause of great difficulty. At the present time there are frontiers which have been demolished, which have been drastically and horribly destroyed. No one can make me believe that the fine Polish people will ever be satisfied with a big slice of that historic and heroic country cut off to the east. As long as a single man or woman of Polish extraction lives on this planet they will always remember this; it will be the irredenta for them as long as they remain alive. And the same thing applies when we cut Prussia from the core of Germany. I have never had any sympathy for the so-called junkers, the Prussian military caste or the militaristic men of Germany; but let us look at it in a cool and open minded way. Prussia has been an integral part of the great Teutonic empire; and Prussianism is not typical of only one province. Prussianism is something that can be found all over Germany. It is true that many of the leaders of the so-called Prussian military spirit were born and bred on Prussian soil, but look at a list of the military and political leaders of Germany and you will see that a great many came from other provinces of the German federation. I hope I may be wrong in this thought, but I believe it will happen as far as Poland and Germany are concerned; that the irredenta, the day of vengeance for them, may and will come-and it could come-when their old national frontiers will be reestablished, and it will be a Satanic brew that will scar their souls with revenge.

How is it possible to rectify them? Canada is in a strong position to bring up that matter. We have had frontier and border troubles in the past. At the present time we are in the happy position of being a middle power, and of being without suspicion as far as our own motives are concerned. But apparently we are not going to speak up; apparently we believe it is better to leave the status quo and

Peace Treaties

not start any rivalry which might prove detrimental not only to ourselves but to other nations of the world.

These are things which must be mentioned; and this is the first occasion I have had, since I have been in public life, to mention these anomalies which have been the cause of great tribulations in the past and in future will be the cause of great disturbances, national, mental, territorial and spiritual. There is no getting away from things of that kind; they will stay with us like the Macbeth ghost. Look at the history of the world and the history of Europe for the last twenty years. You could never pick up a German paper without seeing a great big headline about the Polish corridor. That was only a small thing in comparison with what has happened to the map of Europe since the second war, when historical nations have had portions of their territory taken away from them or their frontiers brutally and forcibly changed, as we would take an arm or a leg from a human being. For the rest of the world to be so complacent as to want to believe these will not be danger points in the future history of Europe, danger points which will have their effect on the whole of Europe, is like whistling when we pass a graveyard. There is no getting away from these facts.

Three years ago, I believe it was in 1943, when our young men were losing their lives by the thousands, while our allies the Americans were losing thousands of men, the magazine Lije sent some of their best artists to picture what was happening on the war fronts. There was published in one of the editions of Lije magazine in 1944, I believe it was, a series of drawings showing some young men who had been fighting on the shores of Europe and in the Pacific; it showed the blood running from their faces and their bodies, the sight of horrible wounds. The pictures were in natural colour, showing their actual expressions and the suffering which was shown on their faces, the redness of oozing blood, the ghastliness of horrible cuts. Considerable tumult arose in the United States among some of the readers of the magazine, some of whom went so far as to say that those pictures should not have been published. I believe it was a necessary thing to have published those pictures, for the good reason that those young men who lost their lives were not only on the allied side, but possibly in part were men on the other side who, generally speaking, had no quarrel with other ideologies. They were too young for that; in the prime of their young exuberance they had no quarrel with anyone.

I recall when early in the war I often spent

a half hour or an hour watching our young men parade in this city, presenting colours in front of these parliament buildings. I would look at their faces and realize that these were young Canadians, full of happiness and in the springtime of their lives, with their hopes and thoughts of a full life showing in their faces. Often I asked myself how many of those fine young men who had no quarrel with the other men they would have to face in the trenches and the foxholes, will come back with their lives and unscathed. I believe they had no quarrel with the world or the people in it, but quite a number of them never returned.

But they answered the call of civilization, the call of their country. We cannot forget the sacrifices they made, and the lives they gave. Those men will go down to martyrdom for a cause that they knew was theirs. It is not likely that they will be honoured by attending the peace conference. But I believe it is only right that they should be given an opportunity to express their sentiments in an informal way. I would have a shrine in Moscow, where these deliberations will take place, where one of the departed ones would be mummified and the time that life ebbed from his young body, showing how those men lost their blood, showing the suffering on their faces, so that those who are at that conference will remember who made the greater sacrifices during the last war. There would also be represented those men who have been horribly mutilated, men who have no legs today, men who have no arms and men who have lost their sight. These would be present, so that the members of the delegation would keep in mind what the war meant to the younger generation of our countries, to their mothers, fathers, wives, children and sweethearts.

Then, too, they would be reminded of those young, mutilated school children. I listened attentively this afternoon to the hon. member for Peel when he referred to the lad in London, the victim of the blitz, standing among its ruins. We have been told-although I did not see it, but I know that it is true-that one bomb which came from Germany and was dropped on one of the schools in England resulted in the deaths of eighty-two young, lovely school children, boys and girls. We are told that there were little limbs, little pieces of head, of the crania found 200 yards away on the tree tops-that distance away from the school which had been totally destroyed.

These things must, of necessity, be kept in mind at the peace conference, but must be remembered by all, so that those who are attending will remember the ones who have

Peace Treaties

suffered. It was the youth who suffered most, the flower of mankind, and they suffered by the tens of millions.

I make these statements in all the sincerity I possess, because those who speak to study groups in my community firmly maintain that, of necessity, we must make our statesmen fully realize the real importance of the destruction, devastation, death and suffering caused by the last war in every part of civilization, on every part of its population.

As a result of our participation in the charter of the united nations organization we have contracted some duties and obligations. However, in Europe today there are still millions of people who are suffering, millions who find themselves without a national home. More than that, we have today conflicts in ideology. Are we to have two worlds? Or are we to have only one world? On the one side we have the ideology exemplified by the United States and Great Britain and their allies, a system which has shown itself to be best from the point of view of production and which has brought about great advances in mechanization and industrialization, coupled with farming and agricultural production.

On the other hand we have the other ideology which promises food but not freedom to the famished populations of Europe. In contrast with that, our side has promised food and also freedom; and on that score I believe we are right.

What does this imply, so far as Canada and the allies are concerned? It would be perfectly ridiculous to make these promises without being willing and ready to make the necessary sacrifices to implement them. To make our ideology prevail, it must be supported by loans to needy people; it must be supported by industrial help so as to develop higher industrialization; in a word, to the advancement of a fuller life.

We read in the newspapers of the United States and of other countries that the present crisis in Great Britain is a crisis for the whole civilized world and which we must help to solve. That principle applies with even greater force to the whole of Europe and of Asia. WTe must do all we can to implement what has been set down in the charter and blueprint of the united nations organization. This will cost a good deal of money and will require many sacrifices. But if we draw up a balance of the cost we shall find that we are still in the black, still on the credit side, because it will cost much less to maintain peace that if we had another war, which, in my view, would result practically in the destruction of civilization as we know it.

The people of Europe are caught between two ideologies; for millions of them want something to eat. An empty stomach has no time for reason; an empty stomach has not time to listen even to ideologies. It will grab at the first thing that comes within its reach, hoping against hope that what is placed in its way will prove to be a solution for its problems.

I believe that the door should remain open, so far as the communistic ideology is concerned, if our own ideology based on Christian principles could be presented to the Russian people. But I believe, too, that this should be a two-way road. I admire greatly the attitude taken recently in the United States by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) when he tendered a hand to Russia, showing Russia that there was nothing sinister so far as the northern defence of Canada is concerned, showing Russia and her government that we have nothing up our sleeves. I believe, if the Russian people had an opportunity to listen to those statements, to listen to the voice of logic, they would receive them.

Perhaps this is not the time or place to discuss a matter of that kind, but I hope the Russian people will have access to the rest of the world and may know what goes on in it. I say that because I know a good number of Russian-born Canadians, and I have found them intelligent and democratic people. If they were given an opportunity to lead their own government, I believe it would be fashioned along more democratic lines. I say that because the Russians in Canada whom I know are democrats at heart, and the Russian people who were great Christians, desire freedom and happiness.

I listened to the hon. member for Peel who told us, and rightly so, of the great devastation which had taken place in Germany, and he spoke particularly of that fine German lad who was surrounded by destruction such as we know exists in Berlin at the present time. I believe, if a pointed question were asked of that German lad as to what had been the primary cause of what has happened in Germany, if he had been fair to himself he would have said, "It was the fault of my own government of my own people".

The hon. member for Peel referred to that fine lad in London who, too, was surrounded with horrible destruction. If the same question had been asked of that young boy he would have said, "My father told me that our government and that the people in the British isles did not want the war; that we have done all we could to avoid war. We even went so

Peace Treaties

far as to go to Munich to avoid war. But war was brought upon us, but we were not the cause of it. Our delegates and the delegates of the united nations will have to work with the French delegation, and the French nation is not going to forget readily that within three short generations their territory has been thrice invaded by Germany and that millions and millions of French lives have been lost on the altar of patriotism to defend their native land, within the material destruction. These were not offensive wars started by France but offensive wars started by Germany, in which every citizen of France had to rise to defend the sanctity of French soil. The French people will remember for a long time the three million French workers who in the last war were carried off to Germany, where 100,000 of them contracted tuberculosis. They will remember the thousands of young women who were taken from France and Holland-Holland which never was an enemy of Germany-and sent into Germany for one purpose only, prostitution to the military men. These are harsh words, but let us remember these things when we come to make a just peace, not to wreak vengeance on Germany, but to make a just peace that will ensure us against a repetition of what has happened in the past.

The hon. member for Peel spoke, and rightly so, of the devastation of Germany. But what happened to Rotterdam? Did the Dutch people have any quarrel with the German people? No, they had none. Yet Holland was the victim of a dastardly attack by the monsters from across the Rhine. Tens of thousands of innocent Dutch people, old men and women and young children, were destroyed. No nation can stand before the world and say that there was any justification for that attack. What happened to heroic Greece, which was called upon to defend herself against the hordes of fascist Italy all by herself? She was able to defend herself against the fascist hordes until Germany came to the aid of her ally and overcame Greece. Go and tell the Greek people to forget what happened to them under the Gennan regime. No, Mr. Speaker, these things must, of necessity, be remembered at the peace conference.

As a man of French descent I have studied and admired particularly one trait of the British people. It has been well said that in war there is no better fighter, no more heroic soldier, than the British but that they forget all feelings of enmity when the last shot has been fired. I want the delegates at the peace, conference which is to make treaties with Austria and Germany to remember what

General Foch said of the treaty that was made at the end of the war of 1918. He said that the treaty would surely bring another war within twenty years, and time proved him to be a true prophet.

The people of France do not want the pauperization or the destruction of Germany. No one on our side does. But the people of France are intensely realistic. They know what happened in 1918, when they were told that they were going to get the armed support of Great Britain and the United States. They did not get it. What happened? In that vacuum created in central Europe by the destruction of Austria you had in embryo the war that eventually brought a holocaust on the civilized world because France was left absolutely alone with hardly any support from her allies. France had a case to present to the peace conference. She may be hard to get along with but she is a nation with intense national pride; but she is realistic, and in proof of that look at what happened last week, when she formed, not an entente but an alliance with Great Britain. What a magnificent spectacle it was for everyone who has at heart the peace of the world to see these two great upholders of the civilization of Europe, France and Great Britain, forming an alliance for the advancement of peace in Europe. I hope it will be the forerunner of other alliances in Europe. I hope the day will come when every country in Europe, which was the birthplace of our own civilization, will come together, including Germany and Italy, for one purpose and one purpose only, and that the advancement of civilization, Christianity and peace throughout the world.

France is coming to the peace conference with some realistic policies. She wants a federation of the German nation,. in which its different states can cooperate together in a friendly way but can never become a danger to the rest of Europe and the world through centralization. France also wants the allied nations to take upon themselves responsibility for the nationalization of the industries of the Ruhr valley. These are two problems which, I believe, are capable of solution, and their solution will mean a great deal to the advancement of peace throughout the whole of Europe.

I repeat, France does not want Germany to become a weak nation. At times, when J look to France, the blood of which country runs in my veins, France, one of the proudest nations of Europe, and see some of its men taking their political ideology from Moscow it makes me shiver for the whole future of

9S0

Peace Treaties

Europe. But we know what a wonderful recuperative power France has and that she will rise again from her suffering and humiliation, and I say that it is the duty of the other big powers to see that France again attains the place she formerly occupied in Europe. If we want a Germany which will be strong economically but weak militarily, we also want a France which will be strong in every respect as the only safeguard and guarantee that we have in Europe of peace for the next fifty years to come, but a weak France would mean a weak and a desperate Europe.

These are some of the things which, of necessity, the delegates to the peace conference will have in their minds. Someone may say that it is easy to theorize. I know it is easy. I know what blunders I might make if I had the qualifications to be a delegate to the peace conference. But there is a sound general principle which says that the people as a whole usually exercise good judgment, and I am voicing the sentiments of my own people who have studied these questions from all angles and am giving the conclusions to which they have come at the present time. I believe, therefore, that I cannot be far away from the truth in making these statements.

While the situation is serious, it is not desperate. I believe that if in time of peace we show the same initiative, the same enterprise and the same idealism that we showed during the war, not only this nation but all our allies, the impression created will be so great on those who were our enemies of yesterday, people of different ideologies, that eventually, perhaps within the next twenty or thirty or forty years at the most, we may have the spectacle not of a utopia or a Garden of Eden, for we do not want these things in this world which is built for constructive rivalry, and progressive thoughts and actions in the full sense of the word, but of a united purpose among the peoples of the world to see that no one shall go hungry, no one shall live in squalour, filth and misery, and that all nations shall progress to a higher degree of civilization. I believe that this is possible of accomplishment, with all the power and energy and generosity that is inherent in human beings. We must never forget that we are our brother's keeper. We all know what another great world conflict would mean, have experienced two world wars in the last twenty-five years. There are great hopes for the future. But again I say we must be realistic. We must remember that, wherever there is a danger to the peace of the world in

some country, it is our duty to remedy that situation, to try reason and understanding for its solution. It is a duty to try not to crush but to remedy that situation, because crushing never rectified or cured anything, but leaves countless bruises and ill will. It is within our power and ability to see that the freedoms of which we speak, the four freedoms, are fully applied and honoured at this moment.

I should like to quote the words of Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt which he gave to the 27th congress on January 6, 1941. They are as follows:

The first is freedom of speech and expression -everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which translated into world terms means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peace-time life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear which, translated into world terms, means world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour-anywhere in the world.

That was a much greater message than Mr. Wilson gave to the world over twenty-five years ago, because it is within the reach of every nation in the world, including Germany, Japan and Austria, to implement these four freedoms. But they contain implications of sacrifice; there are implications of being your brother's keeper; there are implications of being willing and ready to some extent, no doubt to a great extent, to give up some of the so-called national sovereignty, for the cause of the welfare of mankind; because if every nation goes back into their shell, economically, nationally and politically speaking and acts as they did after 1918, within twenty years or twenty-five at the most we shall be facing perhaps a worse situation than we faced then.

These four freedoms are within the reach of all nations including China, which I am sorry to say is not one of the big five. China, that great, generous nation will come out of her internal, horrible and destructive insurrection because there is power and resilience in that nation. They showed us what they could do for nearly seven and a half years by holding back the well-armed and well-equipped barbarian invader from Japan. They held them back with almost nothing but their bare hands and their stout hearts and bodies. I am sure a nation like that will eventually find national unity which, I hope and which I know will be for the welfare of the whole world, when she will take her full place in the forums of the world's nations.

The things which I have mentioned are not rhetorical but practical things. They may not

Peace Treaties

be diplomatic, but I believe they have their raison d'etre. I believe I have given expression to thoughts which, generally speaking, are in the minds of the people of Canada and the United States.

In conclusion, may I say that I know Canada will be well represented. I know that the "Big Four" will need Canada to be there; otherwise there will be a terrific vacancy, the absence being greatly felt. That has been well said by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). We all know of the huge sacrifices of Canada during the last two wars. They were undertaken not joyfully but seriously and loyally in response to the call coming from across the sea. Our men fought on every battlefield of Europe and Asia. Much of our young blood was spilled and many young lives were lost on every battlefield known to the world. We go to the peace conference not asking for the pound of flesh, a change of territory or aggrandizement in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Surely the voice of Canada being so clear and resounding should be listened to. It should be possible for our delegates-and I know they will do so-to tell the nations of the world to forget their own nationalism and their own political and ideological pride for the welfare of the whole.

I should now like to complete my remarks by quoting the words of a great humanitarian, a man who accomplished a great work during the last w'ar, and whose voice is highly respected. I refer to Pope Pius, the present Pope in Rome who on the 21st day of February, when speaking to a great peace gathering in Rome, used words to this effect: "Let us try with all our might on the great Christian principle, the primary one being charity, to work for the advancement of civilization and of peace; and may the nations of the world see reigning the angel of peace and that the empires will be led by God and not led by guns."

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

The motion before the house is one to adjourn the house to take up a specific matter of urgent public importance. I am sorry that in dealing with these questions the politicians' have thrown away more than our forces gained in the last two wars. They have just thrown it to the four winds of heaven, for a song.

I wish to refer to one or two matters tonight. In the first place, I am opposed to the policy which has been adopted regarding the united nations. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the next meeting is supposed to be held at Moscow. One meeting was held at

Paris. It was started at San Francisco by the late President Roosevelt, who had an idea he was forming a new league of nations which would take the place of the one which caused the second war. None of the leaders went to San Francisco. Mr. Stalin did not attend there; Mr. Churchill did not attend there; President Roosevelt had died and did not attend there. They sent supernumeraries to chloroform the people, with the result that the "Big Four", as they called themselves did not accomplish anything. There is nothing big about the way they are handling the business, because the united nations organization is going to turn out to be a second league of nations, if one may judge from the way it is conducted. Mr. Attlee said on Saturday he was disappointed at the first year of the united nations organization. They give luxurious banquets and pay fantastic salaries. Even Moscow is complaining about the way UNO is carried on, particularly the security council. We all know about the deputies and all the rest of the frills which we have had since they started.

What are the facts on this particular matter? In the first place Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then leader of the Liberal party, acted quite differently from the present leader of the foreign affairs department. Away back at the time of the diamond jubilee celebration in 1897 Sir Wilfrid Laurier said of the empire: "Invite us to your councils if you want our aid at any time." He was first in the diamond jubilee procession, and he said, "When Britain is at war Canada is also at war."

What is the policy today of hon. gentlemen opposite? I asked this question awhile ago:

Has the government been consulted or advised by either the government of Great Britain or any of the dominions on the abandonment of the Suez canal and Cairo military base by Great Britain.

This is the reply I received:

Commonwealth governments keep each other informed on matters of foreign policy in accordance with the practice prescribed by Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the House of Commons in London on May 8, 1946, as follows:

"It is our practice and our duty as members of the British commonwealth to keep other members of the commonwealth fully and continuously informed of all matters which we are called upon to decide, but which may affect commonwealth interests. The object is to give them an opportunity of expressing their views in confidence if they so desire. These views are taken fully into account, but the decision must be ours, and the other governments are not asked, and would not wish, to share the responsibility for it. Dominion governments follow the same practice.

Peace Treaties

They do not. That was never the policy of the dominions and Great Britain at any time. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that in the first great war one million men went of their own free will from the dominions to the aid of the mother country, went over under their own status, sovereignty, and autonomy; 130,000 of them fell on the field of battle, and what they did changed the whole history of the civilized world. But do we ever hear now of their achievement? I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is not going to be talked out of the British empire by all the Attlees, the Morrisons, the Cripps and the rest of them. Canada will have to be fought out of it. These British members never believed in our empire and want it to go into liquidation as their speeches for years show.

I was opposed to the policy of the government in connection with the meeting in Paris, at Moscow, Potsdam, Yalta, Casablanca, London, Washington and Quebec. The policy which I humbly suggest is this. It is not in the interests of responsible government that we should have a number of different parties to represent Canada in foreign affairs. The government of the day, so long as it is the government, must be responsible for deciding these foreign affairs questions, instead of trying to shunt them off onto somebody else, asking the opposition to throw out the lifelines, so to speak, in order to save them and their separatist policies; for that is what they do when they invite the various parties in the house abroad to take part in foreign meetings.

We had a number of distinguished visitors in this chamber addressing us at one time or another, such men as Prime Minister Curtin of Australia, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Fraser, Anthony Eden, Mr. Churchill and others. They came and made certain representations to us and they did not propose that there should be any interference with our autonomy or sovereignty. What they did advocate was empire councils, as in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which would go into all these matters and come to some satisfactory conclusion, some basis upon which the members of the British commonwealth could take joint action. But they did not succeed in their efforts to secure an empire conference to deal with defence, trade and immigration and for a common empire foreign policy to speak with one voice.

For four hundred years the mother country has saved the world and safeguarded its freedom. At the time of Philip of Spain, of Louis XIV, under Napoleon, and twice in our own generation under the Kaiser and Hitler, the mother country has saved mankind from slavery and dictators.

But what is being done today in connection with Germany and Austria? It is inconceivable that English people in the Elizabethan or Victorian era under Burleigh and Palmerston or the French under Louis XIV or the Americans under Monroe or Lincoln could have dreamt of submitting their personal concerns of state control or of surrendering their sovereign rights and national interests of their country to the control of any international organization. It was never heard of in the old days. Why is it now suggested to hand over sovereignty by the deputy minister of foreign affairs in an address in Toronto?

At the time of the Venezuela controversy an eminent prime minister of Great Britain, Mr. Arthur Balfour, made a famous speech in 1896, in which he declared that the time must come when some statesmen of greater authority than Monroe will lay down the doctrine between English-speaking peoples that war is impossible. For my part, so far as a private member has any say in such matters. I refuse to be a party to the liquidation of the British empire. The British empire has stood for centuries like the rock of ages, for the peace and security of the world. Next to the Christian church, the British empire has been the greatest agency for the good of humanity, the greatest civilizing force in the world. No human organization has done so much to preserve the liberties of mankind as Britain has done for four centuries now.

As I say, the Prime Minister of Australia and New Zealand came here and asked to have a conference with this dominion, and to create an empire council. What was our reply? Canada replied that we had no commitments; that parliament must decide. Then came the meeting at Lake Success. I think we shall have next year to change the name to "Lake Failure", for what success did we have there? None whatever. Australia and New Zealand were anxious to have a conference in 1946 on these various empire matters, but they got no satisfaction from this country.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada must accept her responsibility as the senior dominion for what has been done, and failure to have the empire act as a unit. But one reason why we have nothing to say in connection with the peace terms is that instead of banding together with the other dominions and with the mother country, we have pursued a separate policy and separatism is the cause of our not having anything to say in the peace terms. If we had hung together we would have had a large say in the peace terms, not none at all. It has been said that Britain was the hardest country in the world to make a treaty with, for the

Peace Treaties

reason that there were so many separate states to deal with. That was what Clemenceau and the Premier of Prance said. That is true, because we are not banding together; we are not working along with the mother country, but acting with so many different voices.

We have a deputy minister suggesting that we should give up our sovereignty in connection with the security council. Fancy that!

I am opposed to the policy of the government. We have given up our bases. Where would we have been in the last war if we had given up Gibraltar, the Cape, the far east, the Suez, Alexandria and the West Indies, and the other bases around the world? Our position would have been impossible. The fact is, we have been under pressure to remain neutral. I cannot understand why the deputy head of the external affairs department should suggest that we must throw away our sovereignty. I do not know where we would have been in the last war if we had followed any such advice. The Right Hon. Mr. Nash, referring to the status of the British empire, proposed that meetings should be called to decide all these matters through an empire council.

The fact is that we need a good ambassador at Moscow. Why do we not send a man like General Montgomery? Why not follow the practice that was followed after the war between the north and the south on this continent, when great soldiers and sailors demonstrated that they could make good representatives in foreign countries. Field Marshal Montgomery's visit to Moscow has shown us the possibilities in this direction. He received every honour at the hands of the Russians. Premier Stalin went out of his way to entertain Lord Montgomery. He was given a fine fur coat and was also photographed in the uniform of a Russian marshal. He invited the chief of the Russian general staff to visit England. His portrait appeared in Russian newspapers together with accounts of his military service. The newspapers in England were greatly taken with it.

What was done so far as the Paris conference was concerned? We sent a whole carload of people there, twenty-five in all. Everyone had an advisor-first secretary, second secretary, third secretary; all kinds of people, where two or three would have done with a whole lot of advisers who were only amateurs as diplomats and learned by experience. The list is given on page thirty-five. There was one more sent to New York, to Lake Success. And what success did they have? They would have had more success if they had stayed at home; if they had stayed away from Paris they might have done better. Did they say

anything about the German peace treaty and the Austrian peace treaty? No. Just more talk and nothing done, and it was turned over to the deputies to meet with the smaller nations.

As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the smaller nations will have nothing to say in the peace terms. Why? Because in the general security council any one of the "Big Four" can veto what the others do, and we agreed to all this at San Francisco. Have they not done that? They used the veto at Paris where we had all this delegation. Messrs. Truman, Bevin and Stalin agreed on Poland matters and on the Baltic countries, Finland and Norway. They will do it all over again at the meeting in Moscow on March 10. The small dominions will have very little or nothing to say over there. If we had acted with Britain and the other dominions we would have had a share. The papers reported, the Toronto Star and Telegram and others: "Canada

Snubbed by Big Four". Her request to have something to say in the peace terms was vetoed. Then we have the Russian delegate, Feodor Gousev, wanting to ignore Canada altogether. Then we have the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), in which he is reported to have had correspondence and tabled it in Hansard. Then we have the newspapers reporting with regard to the smaller nations and the way they were treated by the "Big Four" and the terms set up to ignore them and snub them. What a spectacle and show this whole UNO is!

It serves us right, after the experience we had with the first league of nations. Why do we go on then relying on the deputies and security councils and all that sort of thing when there is no world security? Another article reports that the Secretary of State for External Affairs warns Canada not to forget United States ties, and that is the correct thing to do. Britain got out a white paper on the security council, on Paris, about the meeting over there of the deputies, and all that. It has called forth a great deal of criticism. Britain has at the present time a million men and women under arms and 450,000 labour men to support and service and produce for them. The United States has practically no force in Germany. Neither has Canada, which has withdrawn its forces. Where is security going to be? Security will be just a scrap of paper as they leave Britain to do it all. You have here these deputies, we are told, some of them sitting in security committee now. We are told that they get into these Lake Success halls, with all the luxury described by the Patriot; the luxurious banquets, of about fifteen or twenty courses, the fantastic salaries,

Peace Treaties

and all that kind of thing. They are the ones settling the peace of the world. They are also immune from the law. Their officials live in luxury, pay no taxes, aiming to control the world's finances, the world's food, the world's shipping, the world's aviation, and to dictate to nations and taxpaying individuals how they shall live, what they shall spend, what food they shall eat and the very way they shall travel. A most dangerous set-up, a danger to human freedom, a danger to freedom of trade, and most certainly the fertile breeding ground of the next war. Then Time magazine, commenting on this London newspaper, the one article of Time reproduced in the Canadian Social Crediter just last month, referred to the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization:

United nations organization is an evil organization at the back of which are dark forces who would trap the Anglo-Saxon race and enslave the world.

U.N.O. is built upon the sand and its doom is as certain as the league of nations which faded away unwept, unhonoured and unsung.

From the international standpoint the only coalition which can save the world is a coalition of the British empire and the United States of America.

That is correct. In addition to that, what have we? We have Time magazine saying that the UNO has deliberately ignored the Almighty in all its deliberations. I believe that is right. How does it come about that the government of the day can send a group made up of its members and of other leaders of the house to New York, others to Paris, some to London and now some are going to Moscow? How does it come about that we are ignoring the policies of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier? How is it that the dominions are not willing to make an agreement of that sort? They are not international at all. If we are not willing to join with other branches of the empire, the other dominions, as one family in a uniform empire policy of cooperation and collaboration with the mother country, as the leader from Australia and others told us in this chamber, we were together for war and we should continue to be together for peace in the interests of the country, instead of relying on all these outside organizations. Internationalism is a funny thing. It consists of a whole lot of sham. One war led to another. Why should we not, I said, have a league of nations of our own, to start with the British empire? As has been well said) today, the only league of nations that has ever achieved any success is the British empire. The United States knows that; the world knows it; and out of this war there should emerge a greater league of nations, namely, the British empire.

IMr. Church.]

Lord Milner said in 1919, speaking at Oxford, it was a most strange anomaly to hear the self-governing parts of the British empire should be joining a league, binding themselves by a formal tie to a number of foreign nations, when they had heretofore been unwilling to enter similar obligations with one another.

That is a fact. Where would the United States be if they spoke with forty-six voices, the way this country is supposed to speak by separate empire views with the dominions ail separate? Clemenceau has said, as have other French leaders, that we were the hardest country in the world to. make a treaty with, for the reasons given, that we speak with so many different voices. As I say, I protested against the thing. The mother country went to war on account of Poland. She declared war. She sacrificed everything she had for that great little land. But here you have had a meeting at Moscow of the "Big Three," and what did they do? They signed away the rights of the countries on the Baltic, Finland, and the rest. We had nothing to say about it. This is what a great writer said-and I think he is one of the greatest writers and the greatest missionary bishop of the Church of England; and I am very proud of him and the empire part he has played in two wars;

I refer to the Right Reverend Bishop Renison of Moosonee diocese, who comes from the riding of the hon. member for Cochrane. I am a great admirer of his whole life work for God and king and country. He said in a brilliant article of February 26, in the Globe and Mail; that what we need at the present time is a Job among the nations of the world. We have never had one. The bishop just last week was referring to this need on the very same day of announcements of the UNO and Moscow we that day had up in the house. What does he say? He says: of the glories of Britain and her empire!

We wonder whether there has ever been a Job among the nations of the world; if not, it would seem that we have one now. The legend of the British empire is only about seventy years old. It was Disraeli who first proclaimed the little white queen as empress of India, but ever since the diamond jubilee, this ancient conception of might has dominated the world's idea of the British family of nations. We almost forget that Shakespeare and Nelson did not live in an empire.

Let us look for a moment to what this people have done during a thousand years. When the Roman legions were withdrawn in the fourth century, the little islands off the coast of Europe seemed to have no future, but from this cradle something has gone to the ends of the earth which will never be forgotten. The spirit of adventure, the genius of the seas, the pioneer-

Peace Treaties

ing instinct, the power of commerce, the sense of law and order, a great literature, these belong to the ages. It has seemed many times as if her power was done, but over and over again she has surprised her enemies and her friends. Eight years ago she literally stood alone. While others hesitated she resolutely made up her mind to defy the lightning. She gathered power much greater than her own to stand by her side, and then at last victory was won.

During the past two years the plagues and boils of Job have been the lot of the British people. They were starved during the war, and still they undertook to feed their enemies. Before United States came into the war they threw their wealth and their savings of the centuries into the furnace; they began life again poorer than some of their enemies in natural resources and reserves, and then they are overtaken by dramatic events which are the result of the white man's greed in all parts of the world.

After the first great war there was a book called "The Rising Tide of Colour," which prophesied that the white man's hegemony was finished. One-half of the human race lives in Asia. Japan in two short years did something that Asia will never forget; not victories only, but cruelty and humiliation have done something which will change the history of the world. Think of Egypt and what it owes to Cromer and men like him. The Suez canal will probably no longer be a British highway. The four hundred millions of India are soon to be turned loose on the world; we have just read a story of Kipling called "The Man Who Was." Burma and Malaya may follow suit. Job in the days of his humiliation said that the boys on the street didn't salute him any more.

The world today is filled with village gossip; every one knows that material things are not the measure of life for men or nations. The patience, courage and the silence of the British people is not the least or the last of their glorious contribution to the story of mankind.

If any other hon. members wish to contribute to the debate I shall conclude, but I should like to say something further about the security council and the Paris conference. The work done there in connection with Germany and Austria has been a dismal failure. The talk that has taken place so far, and that will go on next week at Moscow, reveals a dismal situation, with poverty, hunger, disorder, violence, social upheaval and industrial stagnation dominating the entire continent. A few oases still remain in the north and west where law, work and relative well-being prevail, but the other conditions I have mentioned are so widespread and so menacing that limits cannot be set to their potential contagion. If these conditions go on without change, death and desolation must inevitably follow on a scale such as Europe has not known since the thirty years war, and much of the towering edifice of western civilization must crumble and perish. That is something our representatives at Moscow should remember.

Against this background the real issues at Paris, and next week at Moscow, become

clearer. The Germans are difficult to understand; they are in fact so difficult to understand that all attempts to reeducate them seem doomed to failure. The average German possesses neither a sense of cause and effect nor a sense of perspective, and therefore has no critical faculty. The Germans interrogated during the war seemed both immature and highly credulous. What Emperor William II began, Hitler finished. There always was in Germany, and still is, a surfeit of slogans and a lack of common sense. So, as I say, I see very little good that will come out of the proposed conference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude in order to permit the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), who has a wide knowledge of these matters, a few minutes in which to address the house; anything further I have to say can be postponed to another occasion. This day, I believe, has not been wasted; it is a day we shall remember for a long time to come. We have seen that in this house there are one or two who are not afraid to say something about the British empire, which saved our shores and the shores of the United States for two and a half years, during much of which she was. save for the five dominions, fighting alone. If it had not been for the British empire and the dominions we would have had the awful horrors of war on our own soil, in Quebec and the maritime provinces, and along the United States seaboard.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario) :

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has been kind enough to give me a few minutes, and there are just a few comments I should like to make. I had hoped, as a matter of fact, that the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) would have closed this debate, so that we might have had the opportunity of putting questions before him until the time came for him to speak. However, he intervened earlier, so that to that extent my remarks have somewhat lost their point. Nevertheless I wish to offer a few brief observations.

In the first place, I wish to express my admiration for the speech given a few moments ago by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). Notwithstanding the fact that he has left the chamber, I wish to say that it was pleasant for a man of British stock to hear the kind and generous things which he, a man of French stock, had to say about us. I believe those things make for good. As a matter of fact, I believe we have so much more in common than we have

Peace Treaties

dividing us that, if we were ready to speak to each other as he did tonight, it would take us a very long way. Further, I want to say that it seemed to me he was dealing with the really basic and moral questions which affect this matter.

I wish I could say the same about the speeches of the two ministers to which we listened today. As far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs was concerned, perhaps it was inevitable that he should deal almost entirely with what I believe the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) called procedural machinery. Those are long, ugly words which describe things I find extremely uninteresting, but I suppose we have to talk about them. I was sorry the minister had to spend his whole time on them, but perhaps it was unavoidable.

As far as the Minister of National Defence was concerned, I was certainly disappointed in his speech, because he spent forty minutes in telling us, first of all, that we had a good record in the war, with which I fully agree; then that we had good representatives at the various conferences, with which I am sure the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) agree; and then he went on to praise us generally as a nation, with which I am sure we all agree. But it seemed to me that he spent no time whatever and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had no time to spend, on the important questions raised by the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which have to do with the economical and moral background of this whole matter. I consider it a great pity that this should be so; but though this debate is ending now, I suppose, I hope occasion will be taken later on to deal with these questions.

I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, with which I believe we all agree; that is, that none of these procedural questions, none of these questions of status, which are important and on which I think also we all agree, are of any value whatever and none will have any importance unless the basic economic questions can be solved. The two hon. members to whom I have referred asked some searching questions.

I shall refer to one only, because time is short. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out the great economic question which faces us in connection with the great German manufacturing establishments, the great trusts of Germany. He asked what was to be done about them. If I remember aright, he said he understood it to be the fact

TMr. Macdonnell.]

that the Canadian and American view was that we were to try to work that out through private enterprise; on the other hand, the British view was that it should be worked out through the mechanism of socialism. That is an important question. The hon. member and I would not want the same answer, perhaps, but I think we are both entitled to an answer. It is extremely unfortunate there was no time for it; perhaps -time will be found later for a discussion of that important question.

Before I take my seat, I should like to refer to just one other matter. We heard a great deal of discussion about the matter of status. I do not think there is any difference in this house on that question. Recently I have been reading the memoirs of Sir Robert Borden. Anyone who goes back and reads what happened when he and his colleagues were in Britain in the winter of 1918-19 will find that, if ever there was a man who was firm and determined about the status of this country, and who would have no fooling about it, it was Sir Robert Borden. I should add that certain additions were made in 1926, but I believe anyone who reads the whole record will understand that the basic decisions were made in 1919. I raise that point, not because I am particularly interested in adjudging credit or discredit, but for the following reason.

There was only one reason Sir Robert Borden was able to - do such good work at that time, and that is that he was on the spot. He was able to take a firm position with other people in authority, and to press the matter after having taken a position. He never could have done that if he had been in Ottawa sending cables and reports to London. Anyone who reads the record will realize it was only his prestige and his ability to go and to take instant action which won these concessions, which are so important to us all.

Now we have today very difficult questions of status. I know-and if I did not, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would inform me-that the new situation is different, indeed. Sir Robert Borden was in London because he was invited to be there; there was no question about that. We realize that at the present time the situation is vastly different. Nevertheless I express great regret that it is not possible for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or both of them to be in London at this time. The minister may give cogent reasons against it. I realize that this condition has arisen in an entirely different way from the condition of 1919. Nevertheless I believe it is most unfortunate that we have

Peace Treaties

to deal with this situation through the media of cables and telephones, and through someone at the other end who, however trusted and valued a public servant, is not a responsible minister of the crown, who alone can speak with the necessary authority for the people of Canada. I put that forward, with respect, realizing that at the present time there may be difficulties in the way of it. But I think it is something which should be put on record.

I conclude by saying I hope that we shall not be left in this house indefinitely without any answers to these important questions which have been raised today by hon. members in the house and which, so far as I can remember, have not been even adverted to by the ministers, but which go to the very root of this matter and without which nothing else is of any value.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink
PC

Gordon Graydon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):

Mr. Speaker, in order to conform with the usual requirements contained in the rules I shall be glad to withdraw my motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Topic:   BEV1 SED EDITION
Permalink

At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant td standing order.


END OF VOLUME I


\


March 3, 1947