I now pass to another non-controversial item. I should like to say just a word or two about freedom itself, because sometimes I think freedom is regarded as something which makes life easy, something which removes obligation, something which is like reclining on an easy couch. I should like to protest against that conception of freedom. Freedom comes from struggle, and it can only be maintained by struggle. There is a book by Lippmann, called "The Good Society," and in the flyleaf of that book he has a quotation of four lines from Milton which I think all freedom-loving people should keep in mind. He describes what can happen, when we lose the belief that freedom is an energetic thing, a strenuous thing. He has in mind a society where men have become so imbued with the desire for security, for protection, for escape from risk, for escape from endeavour, that they become effete. I shall read these lines because they are brief, and they contain a warning in their eloquent terms:
But what more oft, in nations grown corrupt, And by their vices brought to servitude.
Than to love bondage more than liberty- Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty.
Now, I mention that, Mr. Speaker, just as a warning of the kind of thing which we can slip into if we become security minded, leisure minded, and if we forget that our whole society was built up by effort and by risk-taking. That is the only way we can maintain it.
My last point is this. I think we are apt to comfort ourselves from time to time with the feeling that we are bound to win this struggle because we are free men fighting against slaves, and slaves are just poor, dumb, driven cattle; they cannot amount to
much. You will recall that that is not the way we were talking about Russian soldiers seven or eight years ago. We thought very highly of them then. I should like to make one or two comments on that. Recently, I ran across a very interesting report in that hard-boiled publication "The New Yorker". One of their reporters had been talking with some Russians called Sobens recently arrived in New York and living in New York, who had come from the other side of the iron curtain. I found extremely interesting the reactions of those Russians to the kind of life they were living, and in which they were making a success.
I should like to read one or two short extracts on this point. The reporter says:
From the material point of view, the Sobens said, their first two years here were gratifying . . .
This prosperity confused the Sobens. They were troubled by the realization that they were committing meshchanstvo-an offence, in Russian eyes. Igor defined it for me as "living for oneself, without regard for one's brother."
Later again the reporter says:
The Sobens became increasingly convinced that in this country the accumulation of personal comforts was the primary objective, the accepted order of things. "The people here seemed to us to be living for themselves," Zina said. "They went to work, made money, and bought gardenias for their kitchens. We found we were living the same way, and it worried us. We wondered why we were becoming citizens of a country that seemed to lack a common purpose."
Then they say this, and it is what I wish most to bring to your attention.
. . . Stalin, exploiting the taboo against meshchanstvo, kept exhorting his subjects to make the regime their life . . . we were assured that by living for the government we were living for a common purpose, the building of socialism," Igor said. "We looked on the hardships Stalin imposed on us as idealistic sacrifices that were helping to make a better life for the whole Russian people."
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, to show that notwithstanding the fact that this regime appears to us so perverted or diabolical-use any other strong adjective you may think of -many people living there act with a certain devotion to it, and act with the feeling that they are on a kind of crusade.
I also wish to add another interesting thing. These Russians were attracted by one feature of the New York life. They went to Columbus Circle, which I understand is the New York Hyde Park. There they found people freely debating, and that did impress them. They felt that was a good thing, something they never had before. The point I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, is that when we are considering the problem here, the struggle that faces us, I do not think we should for one minute allow ourselves to believe that there is not an enthusiasm on the other' side of the iron curtain which we have to meet.
I sum up by saying we have the economic, the military, the police safeguards, and they are all important. But most important to me is, can we find in ourselves an enthusiasm for our way of life equal to the enthusiasm that they have? Up to the present, we have exerted ourselves. We are taking tremendous steps to provide defence. We are doing all those things. But there is just one other thing. We should be conscious of the things that really make up our way of life, and we should be alert to cherish and defend them, not only in war but-something which is just as important and far more difficult-in times of peace.
Mr. Speaker, on March 21 last my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), made quite clear in this house the social credit position with respect to Korea, Formosa, China and NATO both in its military and its economic aspects. On March 21 the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) re-emphasized our position with respect . to those matters, but he placed particular emphasis upon Canada in relation to article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. Nothing which has occurred since March 21 and nothing which has been said since March 21 has caused us to alter our views in any respect whatsoever. It will therefore be quite unnecessary for me to retread much of the ground which those two hon. members covered in the course of their observations. Almost immediately prior to the time that my colleague, the hon. member for Acadia, rose to speak, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) moved the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out, and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty."
The hon. member for Melfort then deemed it advisable to read that article which I shall do again at this time. It reads as follows:
The parties will contribute towards the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Before dealing with that amendment, Mr. Speaker, there is something which I again wish to make abundantly clear. We support the military objectives of NATO. The hon, member for Peace River on March 21 had 55704-66
Supply-External Affairs this to say in relation thereto, as reported at page 693 of Hansard and I quote:
We support the military objectives as they were made somewhat more clear by the minister this afternoon,-
And I could insert at that point "and again this afternoon",, - .
-but we do object strenuously to what appears to be, in all too many quarters, only a half-hearted effort to make ready to successfully defend the free Atlantic nations against an aggressor or combination of aggressors.
The hon. member for Acadia, dealing with that theme, said this, and I quote again briefly from Hansard of March 25, page 774:
But, on the other hand, just so long as the U.S.S.R. have armaments far greater than our own, and. so long as they continue to expand those arms, I believe, we are bound to do the same. I cannot see any chance of doing otherwise.
Those two extracts should leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of anyone with respect to our attitude in connection with those military objectives. Certainly we realize the importance of those military objectives. None of us knows what new or sinister move communism may make at any time. They are not in the habit of forewarning us. We believe, however-we are convinced, as a matter of fact-that the growing power and unity of the western world will undoubtedly prove the strongest deterrent to communist aggression. On the other hand, of course, we are not unmindful of the fact that it may also precipitate a desperate effort on their part to catch us, as it were, with our defences down.
We in this group have always taken the position, ever since we first came to this House of Commons, that Canada must be strong both economically and militarily. It is logical therefore to say that if Canada belongs to an organization such as NATO, it is essential that we not only be strong but that we be strong as a partner in that organization. We have always taken the position that every effort should be made to prepare us for any emergency that may come upon us at any time.
Prior to the commencement of the last war, our membership in this house constantly and repeatedly urged upon the house the necessity for stronger defences. When war was forced upon us, no group in this house took a stronger position in support of an all-out effort in order to achieve a successful termination of hostilities. When NATO was conceived, we supported it. We supported Canada's membership in that organization, and ever since then we have supported it. I repeat that we have supported and now support the military objectives of that organization. We also support the objectives set
1034 HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs forth in article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree that Canada has taken the most effective steps which Canada is capable of taking to assist in fully implementing article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) quoted a long list of figures-I believe he went back to 1945 -indicating Canada's contribution in one form or another. Unquestionably those figures were imposing. But I am not so much concerned about those mere figures by themselves as I am concerned about those figures in relation to what we know Canada is capable of doing. Therein lies the test. It was with respect to what we consider to be Canada's failure to play its full part under article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty that my two colleagues had much to say. But, Mr. Speaker, just let me make something else perfectly clear at this time. In our attitude towards this amendment we want it clearly and definitely understood that were we to support it-and that is exactly what we intend to do-we would not be departing in any sense whatsoever from our support of the military objectives of NATO. Nor does that support involve necessarily the acceptance of the C.C.F. policy as it was, as it is, or as It may be, in relation to military objectives.
I have laid our own position clearly before the house, but it is with respect to article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty that we are concerned with this amendment, and only in relation thereto, although we are not unmindful of the fact that what we do under article 2 must of necessity play an extremely important part in connection with what we are able to do so far as military objectives are concerned.
When speaking on March 21, my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), stated, as reported at page 694 of Hansard:
We think that every effort will have to be made to cushion our economy against the terrible impact of defence and other demands that are being made upon it. That statement holds true. I suppose, for other nations in the world, particularly those that are within the NATO group. We think that care will have to be exercised to see to it that we do not destroy productive incentive-that is, the incentive to produce in an all-out fashion- within our own country, by imposing on our people heavy taxation that they just cannot bear. There is no necessity for it. It can be financed in other ways. We ought to induce all-out productive effort by every good policy that can be laid down.
May I just leave the quotation at that point, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that we do charge that the government has not laid down every good policy that could be laid down with respect to all-out production. All one has to do is to look about him. One of
the colossal tragedies, so far as I am concerned, is that today within our own nation we find such uncertainty, more particularly in the field of agricultural production. My colleague pointed out the advice that had been given to Canadian farmers by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They did tell them that in the absence of markets it would be foolish to go on and expand certain lines of agricultural production. When one balances, or tries to balance, that against conditions which prevail in some of those countries which are members of the North Atlantic treaty group, then it almost makes tears come to one's eyes. When one stops to
realize that that situation prevails at a time when so many of our fellow members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are finding it necessary to divert such a substantial part of their production to military preparedness under NATO, when one stops to realize what we can do to enable these countries which are experiencing such difficulties from the local economic point of view, then one wonders what sanity there can be in our failure to lay down every good policy which could induce all-out production.
The hon. member for Peace River concluded that observation with these words:
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that therein lies a realm for some serious criticism of this government. They are not offering the proper inducement to all-out production, especially of foods; and foods are a vital necessity in this war against communism.
I was reading only within the last two or three days that certain of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization find it necessary today to divert from 35 per cent to 45 per cent of their complete productive efforts toward the meeting of their military obligations alone under NATO.
This afternoon, in reference to article 2, the minister laid particular emphasis upon the fact that that article was designed in part to eliminate conflict in their-and that is the countries under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-international economic policies which will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them. Well, now, how the minister can reconcile his assertion and what we are presumed to do in carrying out our part under that article with what occurred when Britain was put in a position where convertibility was demanded, and thereby had to cut back very substantially on imports from Canada, and in the light of what transpired in Britain at the time the finance ministers met-how that can be reconciled with what article 2 calls upon us to do, is more than I can understand.
When referring to that, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) had this to say on March 25, 1952, as reported at page 776 of Hansard:
What does the Canadian government propose to do at the present time to meet the situation that
1 have referred to, namely, the need for helping those nations in NATO to cushion their economies against these great defence expenditures? I was quite concerned when I read a statement, apparently made by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in which he subscribed to the policy of helping Britain make sterling convertible. It was his opinion, apparently, that convertibility should be achieved just as rapidly as possible, and therefore he supported Britain and other nations in restricting their imports from the dollar area. In my opinion, if at a time like this when those nations are having tremendous difficulty in meeting their obligations under the defence program, on top of that we still further aggravate their problems by trying to insist that they restore convertibility, then we will be sabotaging the war effort just in exactly the same way that we sabotaged our defence effort prior to 1939, when we permitted our industries to operate only 50 per cent of their capacity.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, when I read article
2 and I hear what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said this afternoon, and when I turn over in my mind what was done in the field of forced convertibility, then I say, how in the world can we do other than support the amendment?
I had not intended taking that much time, Mr. Speaker, but let me just for emphasis sake recapitulate briefly.
I stated at the beginning that we support the military objectives under NATO. We have no quarrel with the objectives as set forth in article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. But we do take very strong exception to this government's action-and I will say action, as well as lack of action-in carrying out its responsibilities, or what we deem to be its responsibilities, under that agreement.
If as a consequence of Canada's failing to maintain an optimum of production, if as a consequence of Canada's failing to make available to other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under whatever terms required, those commodities we can supply to them, without to any great extent reducing our own standard of living-I say that if, as a consequence of that, certain of these countries which today are bearing a disproportionate share of defence and may as a result suffer economic collapse, what is our alibi to be?
I shudder to think in terms of some of those countries collapsing economically under the disproportionate military burden they are called upon to bear. I trust that may never occur. But a great responsibility rests 55704-66i
Supply-External Affairs upon us to see that it does not occur. I say the answer rests with us, and with the United States of America.
It is logical then for me to conclude by repeating that we are supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully this afternoon and this evening, and I realize that the debate has been of a very high tone, indeed. Let me say at the outset that I do not expect to continue in this tone, because I am entering the debate with a very specific purpose in mind.
Some two years ago I reminded hon. members of an anniversary, and I remind them again this evening of another one: the anniversary of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. There has been debate as to whether it was April 1 or March 31 but, for the purposes I have this evening, I would prefer to call it March 31, because of the particular connotations apt to be associated with the first day of April, and the connection of that date with the remarks I have to make this evening.
As was remarked during the original debate in 1948 with respect to the entry of Newfoundland, it was an unusual thing in the world today to see the amalgamation of two sovereign countries, as these two countries were. Because, while Newfoundland was a small country, it was nevertheless a sovereign country. And to see two sovereign countries amalgamate, as did Newfoundland and Canada, following a plebiscite, was something strange and new in the world we know today. I say that because I am sure it must have caused amazement in many parts of the world.
As has been said many times before, since representatives from Newfoundland have come to Ottawa they have been received with every courtesy and, I am sure, have been regarded by all members as equals. Certainly from no one either in the house or outside of it has there ever been any suggestion of our being inbred half-wits; and it is to a slander of this kind I am taking grave exception this evening. It is for the purpose of discussing this matter that I am availing myself of the opportunity afforded by this debate.
May I preface my remarks by saying that St. John's, Newfoundland, was a settled city when the Indians were still running around New York. And I say that so that hon. members will understand, as I know they all do, that we are not Johnny-come-latelies in this world.
1036 HOUSE OF
The sun crossed the line on March 20, and a gentleman known as Robert Rutherford McCormick crossed Newfoundland on the same date. The crossing of the line usually brings storms-and in this instance a very fine storm was kicked up by Colonel Robert McCormick. The colonel, as hon. members know, is very definitely known for his antiBritish sentiments; and of course this time the sentiments he voiced were against what was known as Britain's oldest colony, and now Canada's newest province.
Because of being delayed at Gander airport for a matter of four and a half hours while on a twenty-thousand mile tour, a world *tour he was taking in his private plane-a private plane, by the way, known as the Chicago Tribune-he slandered the people of Newfoundland in a most disgusting fashion. The slander was written very obviously by the colonel himself. I am referring to this at length because, as I say, this newspaper, this Chicago Daily Tribune has a very wide circulation indeed. I assume by the wishes of the colonel himself, it is called the greatest newspaper in the world. It has a circulation of 1 million daily, with 1,500,000 on Sunday. Its press services are sold to twenty major dailies with a combined circulation of 7,500,000 daily. It is very easy to see how slanders, such as the one to which I am now referring, can be widely disseminated, as this one was.
It is' Very well understood also that the managing editor is told by Colonel McCormick how the news in the paper is to be slanted. The delay, I understand, caused to the colonel was as a result of vigorous customs examination at Gander. The reason for that customs examination I cannot say; the Minister of National Revenue said he was going to make a statement after he had made an inquiry. There may have been a good reason for it.
The article in question, at page 3 of the Chicago Daily Tribune of March 20, is headed "Col. McCormick At Baie Comeau; Home Tomorrow". Then it goes on to say, "Inspects new Tribune power dam." Following is a map showing his journey. The text of the article states:
Col. McCormick and his party will return to Chicago Friday. He will resume in person his broadcasts on the Saturday night Theater of the Air on WGN, WGNB, and the Mutual Broadcasting system.
The plane Chicago Tribune arrived1 here after a 1,350 mile flight from the Azores to Newfoundland and a 450-mile flight from Gander, Newfoundland.
The quotation now is from Colonel McCormick:
"Our transoceanic hegira has come to an end," Col. McCormick said. "We were detained at Gander four and a half hours by the moronic customs officers and torpid baggage handlers and
another half hour on the runway by a flyer with engine trouble. The lunatic has gone off in this dangerous weather with a defective engine."
Then, the part to which I object particularly, apart from the moronic customs officers and the torpid baggage handlers, is this:
"We were told to excuse them because Newfoundlanders are so inbred as to be half-witted. That does not help our tired crew whose planned1 twelve hours flight has been lengthened to seventeen hours or give us back the day we must lay over to rest them.
If I again resume my travels they will not include Newfoundland."
Colonel McCormick and his party had stopped in over two dozen airports in Central and South America, Central and North. Africa, Malta, Italy, and France and had met with universal courtesy.
I have been listening attentively to the hon. member while he has been speaking for the past six minutes. I must remind him that what is before the house at the moment is an amendment to the main motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. That amendment states regret that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve an implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
I have waited for the hon. member to come to the subject matter that is now before the house. I have given him a chance to preface his remarks and then bring them within the confines of the subject matter now before us. I would refer him to citation 469 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads:
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the chair, discussion should be properly confined to its subject matter.
If the hon. member does not intend to deal with the subject matter of the amendment he should wait until that amendment has been disposed of. Then if a discussion is not carried on on external affairs, he may initiate discussion of another subject. Perhaps I should also read citation 468, which is as follows:
It sometimes happens, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, that members air grievances without moving amendments. A member may speak on railway rates, another on naturalization, and so on.
I would remind the hon. member that if a debate on railway rates is started and then someone else begins to speak on naturalization, no hon. member can then come back to a discussion of railroad rates. In conjunction with that citation one must also read citation 469, which I have just quoted and which is to the effect that if an amendment is moved, the discussion must be confined to its subject matter.
The hon. member will be in order if he deals with the economic sections of the treaty. I have waited until this minute in order to
give him a chance to indicate that he was going to discuss the subject matter of the amendment. Since he has not done so, I think he is out of order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point in the debate to lend my support to the amendment moved the other day by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) on the motion to go into supply. I rise not because I agree with all that has been said in this debate, either by the mover of the amendment or by the minister in his reply, but because it does afford me an opportunity to place before the house my views in respect to Canada's position in rendering economic aid to other less fortunate countries as far as NATO is concerned. To make myself clear and to make my speech read as logically as I want it to read, may I quote once again the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort, which was:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out. and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty."
The hon. member who moved the amendment thought it wise to read articles 2 and 3 of the North Atlantic treaty, which I think are paramount to the discussion. They read:
2. The parties will contribute towards the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
3. In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective selfhelp and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Previous speakers from the Social Credit party in this house have stated already our particular position in respect to NATO. We have supported at all times the general principles of NATO. While NATO means the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we must not overlook the fact that after all it is a defence treaty. While we pull no punches in advocating that the defensive provisions of that treaty be kept up to par, at the same time we believe that NATO must provide as far as it is possible to do so all the economic aid possible to put some of the other members
Supply-External Affairs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on their feet. For that reason we believe that we can play a bigger part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization than perhaps we have played in the past.
I should like to make particular reference to the plight of Great Britain in these days. Great Britain is one of the partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I believe that we can do immeasurably more in assisting Great Britain economically in these days than we are doing. It was my privilege last January to be in England for a short space of time, and observe at close range the reaction of the British people to the program of austerity.
I was privileged to be chosen as one of the parliamentary advisers to the Canadian delegation to the last meeting of the UN in Paris. I wish to thank the minister and those in charge for that privilege. It was indeed an education in itself. I shall have more to say about it on other occasions, but this evening I want to place some emphasis on the possibility of rendering greater and more specific economic aid to one of the partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; that is Great Britain.
It was my privilege to be in Great Britain at the time of the king's death and until his burial. I travelled a little while I was there, and I believe I was able to get the reaction of the British people to the monarchy, to discover or diagnose, shall I say, that great British spirit I had always known existed because I had been told so, because I had read about it in literature and in history, but which I am afraid I had never experienced through personal contact. I was born in England many years ago, but it was forty-eight years since I had been there, so you may realize that I was only a child when I left Great Britain. My actual knowledge of the British people was gained largely from conversation with others and by reading, particularly history and current events involving Great Britain.
Of course one place I visited there was the offices of the empire parliamentary association. When I went there they said, "It is too bad you had to come at such a time as this. England is plunged into sorrow." Well, I was glad I had the privilege of being there in those days because I witnessed some things then I might never witness again. The secretary of the association asked if I would like to see the lying in state. I said I would, but I wanted him to understand that while I was as loyal to the crown as anyone could be I was not going to stand in line for four, six or eight hours in order to do so. He replied, "Oh, you will not have to do that.
Supply*-External Affairs in order to cause the complete economic collapse of Great Britain.
I shall now conclude, Mr. Speaker. The only permanent solution that I can see is to revitalize the British commonwealth of nations and to come to the assistance of Great Britain. Throughout time she has been regarded as the mother country of the British commonwealth. I say that the only permanent solution that I can see is to come to her assistance with outright gifts of the surpluses that we are able to produce, and to give them to her from our vast productive storehouse. I know, of course, that NATO does not provide directly for this particular suggestion which I have made; "not directly" are the words I used. It provides for it if all the members of the North Atlantic treaty nations come together and decide upon it. If they can do that, all well and good. But if they cannot I urge that, even though we must go outside NATO to accomplish it, we should do so.
Great Britain's future today lies in the balance. We can come to her assistance, bring her back to her feet and keep her there because of what she means in the entire world picture as one of the great freedom-loving nations of the world. If we do not do that, I must say that the picture looks dark indeed for Great Britain. I believe that is one of the imperative duties, something that cannot be overlooked, in this North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I rose to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).
Mr. Speaker, one speaking on our external affairs at this time can hardly do so without talking to some extent of the NATO Lisbon statement. In doing that, however, I do not intend to enter into the vendetta which has gone on in this debate-and which has taken up a considerable amount of time in it-between the members of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties as to whether certain statements were irresponsible and disastrous or as to which of their parties can be more properly linked to the communist line or party. That argument has enlivened this debate but it has not contributed much to an intelligent appraisal of our foreign policy.
The Lisbon statement which has been referred to so frequently, as quoted by the minister at page 389 of Hansard-and I really hesitate to put this on the record again- states:
NATO nations agreed to provide approximately 50 divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness and 4,000 operational aircraft in western Europe, as well as strong naval forces. It further
provided a definite program for taking measures this year necessary to increase the defensive power of NATO in following years.
In commenting on that, the minister said, amongst other things, as reported at page 389 of Hansard:
I take no great pride in that language. Indeed I think it justifies some of the criticism levelled at it.
Again this afternoon the minister said that the language was ambiguous. In elaborating on the statement in his speech earlier in this debate, namely on March 21, as reported at page 668 of Hansard he quoted a statement of Mr. Lovett of the United States defence department which explains that half of the 50 divisions mentioned in this Lisbon statement were reserve divisions which, however, could be mobilized in a few days and which, according to Mr. Lovett's statement-of which I think perhaps I better read a small part-were almost as good as active full-time divisions. I should just like to read from the statement of Mr. Lovett which the minister put on record at page 669 of Hansard:
A division of this type-
That is, of these continental reserve divisions.
-which can be mobilized in twenty-four to seventy-two hours is almost as ready for action as is the front line division maintained at full strength.
In supporting what he said on March 21, the minister this afternoon quoted General Gruenther, I believe it was, and read quite a long statement which he had made in connection with those reserve divisions. I listened to that quotation carefully and I do not think anything in that statement bolstered this statement of Mr. Lovett that divisions of this sort are almost as ready for action as in a front line division. As a matter of fact, I think that statement that divisions of this sort are almost as ready for front line action as is a regular division which is in training all the time would be questioned by any responsible military leader. As a matter of fact, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in a debate we had last year, argued that such was the case. In talking about our own reserve forces, his argument was to the effect that what was needed was forces in training all the time, which could go into action immediately, not ones which were going to take some considerable time to mobilize. As a matter of fact, to be in an efficient state to fight, anyone with any military experience knows, I think, that a division has to be in constant training. The staff and commanders have to work as one, have got to know one another; the officers have to know their men and work with them constantly in order to do that.
A division such as one of those reserve divisions which the minister has mentioned just cannot be mobilized in twenty-four or seventy-two hours and put up an effective fight. I do not think there is any argument about that at all. The reason I mention that is that statements such as the one which was issued at Lisbon, and statements such as the one made by Mr. Lovett are dangerous, because they give our own people a false sense of security. As the London Times has said, they knew that what was put out in these statements at Lisbon was not going to fool the Russians in the slightest. None of these statements fooled the Russians but they fooled a large number of our own people, and they are dangerous because of that. The Lisbon statement, I would suspect, must be, or might be, due to the influence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) because it bears a rather curious resemblance to a large number of statements on defence which we have had over the past three or four years in this house, statements which paint an extremely rosy picture, but when you come to examine into them very closely the facts do not bear out that rosy picture.
-to turn up the record and see that that is a fact.
It seems to me a great deal of the discussion which has been going on both here and in other places in regard to the number of divisions, aeroplanes, naval forces and so forth, which the economy of the western world can support without undue strain, has not been based on a sense of reality or a sense of history. I would remind you, sir, that during the last war the Germans had over 300 divisions under arms at one time, divisions ranging in size from panzer divisions of 22,000 men, approximately, to reserve divisions of about 8,000 men: in other words, divisions on the whole larger in size than most of the fifty which are mentioned. They supported a large number of these divisions in a full state of readiness for some years before the war, and then during those years of a very devastating war kept them supported. At the present time, Russia, according to the best estimates, has upwards of 300 divisions under arms. Those two facts which I have just mentioned, what Germany did in the
Supply-External Affairs last war, and what Russia has under arms or in the way of divisions at the present time, should not be forgotten. In view of these facts, can anyone seriously believe that the western world, with reserves of manpower many times that of wartime Germany or present-day Russia, cannot support fifty divisions by the end of this year and 100 divisions by the end of 1954, together with the appropriate air and naval forces? I do not think there is any question that from the material point of view, from the economic point of view, that number of divisions could be supported by the western world without undue strain.
The bars which stand in the way of these goals are not material or economic bars. They lie rather in a lack of will, a lack of willingness to make these sacrifices necessary to ensure our continued freedom. What is needed most, I think, in the western world is a stiffening of morale. As a matter of fact, 300 divisions at the present time facing the Russians in western Europe would not do us much good unless those divisions had the will to fight. What it seems to me is lacking, as far as a lot of people in the western world are concerned, is the will to fight, and the will to get ready to fight.
I agree that a certain amount of economic aid may increase that morale, that will to fight. I think there is no question that giving more food, more washing machines and more of everything to the people of western Europe, will help to stop the spread of communism. However, I should like to point out at the same time that the communists we have had in this country and the people who organize communism in other countries do not ordinarily, or in most cases, do so as a result of empty bellies. A lot have their bellies filled for them, but the people who organize them are not of that kind. The people who went on trial in this, country as a result of the espionage activities that went on here illustrate that fact. None of them was of the hungry type, unless perhaps they were hungry for power.
I was quite interested in what the minister had to say in regard to the share that Canada is to take in those NATO goals. He stated that our contribution was one brigade group and twelve squadrons. One brigade group is one fiftieth of the fifty divisions which is the goal for this year, and if it is a hundred divisions, which is the goal for 1954, about which there is some doubt-it may be more, it may be less-if it were one hundred, then our brigade group would be 1/300 of that. The twelve squadrons would constitute approximately 250 aircraft in operation, with an equal number in reserve to support them, not a very large proportion of the 4,000 to be
Supply-External Affairs ready by the end of this year, and ours are not to be ready then but by the end of 1954.
I cannot help but wonder whether that is all that NATO has asked us to provide. It seems a remarkably small contribution, considering the economy of this country and the reserves we have. The minister said of course that that was our full contribution. In addition to that, I presume the contributions that we are making in the way of air training are taken into account. I believe he did say something about this terrible word "infrastructure"; that we were to have some part in that. The radar screen which we are to have in the northern part of this country is probably also a contribution. These things may be considered a balancing-off; I do not know. But it would seem to me that if that were the case perhaps a little more emphasis should be put on these things rather than just mentioning one brigade and twelve squadrons.
As far as Formosa is concerned, the statement made by the minister this afternoon was much more satisfactory than anything that he had said before. The discussions which have gone on in this house to quite an extent, I think, were as much divorced from reality as the statements I have referred to. From the point of view of Formosa, one of the speakers in the debate, I think it was an hon. member from Newfoundland, pointed out that there is a population of some eight million people on that island. There is no doubt that people in this house and elsewhere have been talking of handing over Formosa and these eight million people as though those people had nothing whatever to say about it. The minister did bring that into his statement this afternoon, which I was glad to hear, and said that consideration ought to be given to the wishes of these people, which I think is a primary matter as far as Formosa is concerned, as to what the people living there themselves want, and the form of government, whether they want to go with red China or want to get out of the clutches of red China. It seems to me not nearly enough attention has been paid to that up to date.
From the purely military point of view I do not think there is any question that it is just nonsense to hand over an important and strategic island like Formosa to our enemies. I would hope that so long as the possibility of a general war with the communist world threatens us, nothing by way of appeasement of that sort would be contemplated.
There has been in the discussion reference to rearmament of Germany. There still
appears to be a considerable amount of reluctance on the part of many people to rearm Germany. That, again, I think is a refusal to face up to realities. I was the first in the house some two or three years ago to point out that the only way in which an effective defence of western Europe could be built up was to make use of the manpower and the fighting ability of western Germany. Since that time I have been glad to see that, generally speaking, that idea has been accepted by the peoples of the western world, and by NATO, and that what might be called specific means of obtaining that end have been in process of being worked out.
I would hope that Canada would do everything within her power to ensure that western Germany is rearmed, and that their forces become part of the NATO forces, or work in conjunction with them, just as rapidly as possible. I do not think there is any possibility of stopping any Russian thrust which may take place in western Europe unless that is done.