March 3, 1947 (20th Parliament, 3rd Session)

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
Full View