Joseph-Arthur BRADETTE

BRADETTE, The Hon. Joseph-Arthur, B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Cochrane (Ontario)
Birth Date
October 16, 1886
Deceased Date
September 12, 1961
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph-Arthur_Bradette
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=17232084-6a45-4ebd-bd5d-cab516ff3bfd&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer, merchant

Parliamentary Career

September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
LIB
  Timiskaming North (Ontario)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
LIB
  Timiskaming North (Ontario)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
LIB
  Cochrane (Ontario)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  Cochrane (Ontario)
  • Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons (February 25, 1943 - April 16, 1945)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
LIB
  Cochrane (Ontario)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
LIB
  Cochrane (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 451)


June 28, 1952

Mr. Bradetle:

Your party has not followed it in Saskatchewan. That shows what sincerity there is in that kind of argument.

Topic:   REDISTRIBUTION
Subtopic:   READJUSTMENT OP REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Full View Permalink

April 7, 1952

Mr. J. A. Bradette (Cochrane):

Mr. Speaker, I shall not be very long in presenting a few of my viewpoints about the rules of the House of Commons. Before I proceed I want to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) for his resolution which has given us an opportunity to discuss at some length a matter that has not only been before the public but before parliament for many years; namely the reform of the rules and procedures of the Canadian House of Commons. A day such as this makes every parliamentarian and every Canadian realize the logic, the artistry, if I may call it that, of the British parliamentary system on which our own parliamentary system is largely based. Early in the session there is an opportunity to discuss resolutions brought forward by private members. I do not believe there are many democracies that have perfected that system to such a degree, and I for one, although I am in favour of the drastic changes in our present procedures and rules, will go slowly as far as some of them are concerned because after all we are considering procedures which have -been tried and tested not only for years -but for centuries, but which in our times are not fulfilling their purposes.

I want to say a few words about a statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). He referred to the time taken by ministers of the crown. I think it would be unfair for me to mention the time of the house that has been taken on

Standing Orders

some discussions, and rightly so, by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) for the simple reason that the leader of the official opposition, no matter what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre may think, has more responsibility than the average member of parliament. The same principle applies just as forcibly, if not more so, to the ministers of the crown and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) because after all they have the responsibility of bringing legislation before parliament. They have the responsibility of presenting it in a forceful and clear way and of presenting it in a manner that will be understood by every member of the House of Commons with all the necessary details. That is why I do not like that kind of reflection and comparisons are generally odious. I do not like the insinuation that ministers of the crown have been taking more time than they should have. I for one have been here for many years and I have never found a case under any conditions or circumstances where I felt that I had the responsibility on my shoulders that a minister of the cabinet has on his, and subject to criticism if their statements were not fully and clearly presented.

I also listened very attentively this afternoon to the speech of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who was very active on the rules committee last year. In his remarks I thought he showed good judgment, as he does in all instances; but there was one thing with which I do not agree. He almost regretted that he did not read his speech this afternoon. Let me tell the hon. member that while his remarks may not read so well in Hansard, while the phraseology may not be just as chiselled as he would like, his personality with vibrancy was brought to us this afternoon; his eloquence was displayed once again. That is something you cannot put in print; yet it was felt in this parliament and in the galleries. So on that score alone I believe the house will gain a great deal if speeches are not read. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) thinks the reading of speeches is a good thing for the house. My view is that this House of Commons is becoming more and more like a conference or a reading room; and that was never the intention that it should be so. I know my own constituency sent me here and after receiving their directive and after having been in contact with them for many years, and they want me to express their sentiments as I understand them, no matter how bad my delivery may be or how poor my English pronunciation.

Another practice in this house which I think is deplorable, and which has come into

[Mr. Bradette.l

being only in the last thirty years, is the quoting of citations from newspapers, editorials and periodicals. It almost seems that some hon. members are not able to put two words together unless they have a quotation to help them. This is not parliamentarianism; they are not expressing their own sentiments. I think it would help shorten the sessions if all members would try to express their own ideas, as I know they want to, and express themselves in a very practical way, which they can always easily do.

When I make that statement I have in mind one of my dear colleagues from northern Ontario, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little), who is ill at the present time and for whom we all hope a speedy recovery. In all the years this fine man has been in the House of Commons he has not spoken more than half a dozen times, and never more than five or ten minutes at a time. But his speeches were right to the point; they were logical, and were appreciated not only by members of this house but by his own constituents, and he gave all his time and talents to his duties as an M.P. That is the kind of parliamentarianism my electors at least expect from me, and that is what is expected from all of us.

So I do not believe members should be allowed to read their speeches; and when I say that, Mr. Speaker, I mean no reflection upon you, for I believe you have done a wonderful job if any Speaker ever has. A member may have been helped in preparing his speech, but he should make' a point of giving it in his own language; he will give a better speech. I remember one occasion when two very good members had well written speeches which I do not believe they took time to analyse or scrutinize. The first thing they knew they were saying some things in this house they never intended to say and for that reason alone they were defeated at the next election. These are things which are worth considering by a member of parliament.

As far as I am concerned I hope and pray that rule will be implicitly obeyed; and that is quite possible. I do not say the Prime Minister or the members of the cabinet or the leader of the opposition or those who speak for them should not be allowed to prepare their speeches, because it would be impossible for them to improvise on the very important problems they have to discuss. As far as the average member of parliament is concerned, however, my experience is that if he is left to himself he is much more eloquent and receives much more attention from the house and also from the galleries if he does not read his speech.

As most hon. members are aware, for three years I served as Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. That was during war, when we were dealing with the war appropriation bills, which concerned nearly all departments of government and which dealt with billions of dollars. During those years we spent three or four months on that bill alone. One of the things I cherish about those years is the wonderful co-operation I received from every section of this house. One day a member of the Progressive Conservative party thought he had been harsh with me, and before we adjourned at six o'clock he came over and said, "Joe, I am very sorry." I replied, "Don't be sorry. I know what you said came from the head, not from the heart." It was always a surprise to me that under our rules we could get through our sessions during the war years in five, six or seven months. If hon. members had not tried to play the game and to abide by the rules it would have been possible to spend the whole year here.

Of course we all realize, as the public realize, that to be elected in our own constituencies we must have something of the gift of the tongue, we must be able to express our sentiments. On every measure that comes before this house there is the natural temptation for each of us to get on our feet and speak. You can readily realize what would happen if we followed that impulse. We all understand that a certain amount of individual and collective discipline is necessary on the part of hon. members. This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned party discipline and referred to the whips and so on. I can tell the hon. member I have been here for over a quarter of a century, and I still have to hear from the whips any directive as to how I should vote on any matter. I say that very sincerely. After all, we are free people when we come here. We are the masters of our own actions and only responsible to our electors. At the same time I am sure the hon. member and his own leader realize perfectly well that unless a certain amount of direction is given within all the parties the result will be chaos, not only within the party but in our whole parliamentary system in most of our activities. So I hope such charges will never again be levelled, because I cannot visualize a single member of this house being a servile servant either to a whip or to his own party and I never heard of a whip using undue pressure.

At the same time there is need for a certain amount of co-ordination, and I speak very feelingly on that score. At times measures

Standing Orders

brought in by our own government are not very popular in some sections of the country.

I will always remember one budget a number of years ago, when Mr. Ilsley brought the Canadian dollar to par. That was a blow to the gold mining industry of my section, as it was a blow to the constituency of the hon. member for Timiskaming. It would have been easy for me to vote against my own party on that measure, but I knew that in bringing the Canadian dollar to parity the government was doing a thing which was good for Canada as a whole; and when I received a mandate from my people it was not to represent just my own constituency but to represent the whole of Canada, because this is a central house for Canadian politics. So we went into our constituencies and told our people that though the measure was going to hurt a fine industry, at the same time it was better for Canada and the Canadian people as a whole. As a result we were never criticized on that score, as our constituents understood the situation.

I repeat, and I address myself particularly to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that there is no such thing as trying to make slaves of us as far as the party is concerned. That would not be Canadianism; that would not be any part of the Canadian system. I do not believe he ever tried it in his own party, and I think that statement applies equally to other parties in this house. We are free men representing free people in a free parliamentary institution. If parliament should decide to pass this resolution I believe it would solve most of the problems we are facing at the present time; it practically means the implementation of all the changes that we intend to make.

I repeat that if everyone wanted to speak on all subjects it would be utterly impossible for parliament to finish its work within twelve months. It is not fair for members to say that they must speak on all occasions, because if this was done the work of parliament would never be done. For instance, only last Friday that fine newspaper the Montreal Star mentioned the fact that after the minister had spoken in the debate on national defence, there were no spokesmen from the Liberal side. To some extent there was an insinuation or a criticism of this party. I cannot believe, as some members say, that the opposition members have a greater obligation than the members on this side. After all, we also have a responsibility towards our constituents and to this parliament. If we wanted to use mathematics as a basis, which cannot be applied to any parliamentary system, it would be possible for us on this side to speak as often as the members on the other side.

Standing Orders

What would be the result? The session would be prolonged almost indefinitely, but there would be no reason for criticizing those on the government side, if they decided to do so.

For five years I sat on the opposition side of the house, and to some extent they were happy years because we could express our sentiments on almost anything; we could get on our feet almost any time. However, as a man who has been loyal to his party I do not wish to make an issue of it because it is a good party with good leadership. The same thing applies just as forcibly to the other parties. The members belong to good parties with good leadership. For instance, sometimes I have had to follow the directive of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) when he has said: "Joe, spare us one of your fine speeches today because we want to get through with the measure." I complied with the request, which was a fair one. I never spoke on these matters, and I have never regretted it. It is possible to have these limitations within the other parties, and it would make for better results in our deliberations.

This afternoon the member for Peel put forward some new aspects of the subject, and I admire him for it. However, he tried to strike quite a blow at the ministers by saying that before the orders of the day are called on many occasions they make lengthy statements to the house. If I correctly understand his party's views on several occasions they have blamed the government for not giving enough information, so I do not know where the ministers should begin or stop. After all that is the proper time for a minister to give the house information to answer questions, some of them asked the previous day. So far as I am concerned personally, I feel that the member for Peel is very glad of the information given. Under our system it is possible for the government not only to give information through members of the cabinet but also through private members who may express their sentiments, and this is always conducive to good legislation.

Although I do not believe in the motto I often hear it said that the primary duty of the opposition is to oppose. In my opinion that principle is not dynamic enough nor strong enough, it is too sterile, too static. The opposition has a duty to be more than passive. Without divulging any secrets I may say that when I was deputy speaker the fine old gentleman who was on my left used to say to me on several occasions that one of the great features of the Liberal party was that anything good propounded by the Conservative party or any other

CMr. Bradette.]

party was made their own in no time. This could be one of the good features of the opposition parties too, and the mere role of opposing is not constructive enough to be helpful to that party.

Last year I was in favour of the sitting hours that we adopted, although in my own mind I was not convinced that it would be conducive to shortening the session. Unless we shorten the length of the speeches to at least thirty minutes, then I do not know where we would end. You cannot cut down the time of sitting, and at the same time maintain the length of the speeches without lengthening the session. It is humanly impossible. I say that quite sincerely. If we were not in favour of shortening the speeches we would come to the same situation we face in all sessions. Towards the end of the session, after we have had a general discussion on nearly all the measures and all the departments leaving only the statutory items, about which most of us can do nothing, we would have to stay here three or four weeks, sitting mornings, afternoons and nights, just as we have done in the past. This is a terrific ordeal for every one of us who has to stay until the end of the session. I repeat that if we want to modernize our procedure we must, to some extent, copy the British parliamentary system and adopt the suggestions in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) of the resolution.

We would not lose very much by adopting most of the British system. I do not mean that these changes should all be made this session. We should try to eliminate repetition. When I was the deputy speaker-I am speaking to you from my experience- the most difficult problem was to keep speakers on the subject. When we considered the estimates of the Department of National Defence, for example, we had a general discussion on. the administration item which at times lasted for days. When we were considering the different items it took me all my time to keep members of parliament on the beam, as we say. You cannot make human nature other than it is-and it is a fine thing that it is so-and that illustrates to some extent the urgency for the allocation, of time during the speech from the throne and the budget debate, as well as some important governmental measures on which a lot of leeway is given to the members of all parties to express their opinions but the number of speakers should be very limited. For instance, take the government party. On a certain measure two or three members will speak because they are familiar with the problem. The same principle should be applied in the same manner to the other parties. They all could

have two or three members who are studying the matter mentioned in a certain bill, and they would be the only ones that would speak on it. It would be quite easy to know in advance how many speakers there would be on each subject, and then you could allocate a certain time for the debate. If we adopted that method, it would be one of the finest ways of modernizing the procedure in this house.

It is true that some members of parliament believe it is necessary for them to speak, otherwise some of them will not be here after the next general election. They are afraid their opponents will say, "We have paid you $10,000 for one year and you never made one speech". So far as I am concerned, if I look after my departmental work, if I am active in my committee work, if I look after my correspondence carefully, if I receive my constituents as visitors in my home-I never keep any office hours-I need never worry about the next election, even if I did not make a speech here. After all, there are several other ways for members of parliament to utilize their knowledge, their activities. There are committees of this house in which members could spend a lot of time, and. their time would be usefully employed. I do not say this in a critical way, but I notice that some members who are great debaters on the floor of the house are often not very active committee men. In my opinion that is a sad thing because those men, with their fine analytical minds and with their knowledge of certain aspects of our Canadian life, could do a marvellous job in committees, although they would not get the same publicity there that one gets on the floor of the house. Speaking personally, I spend at least four or five hours every week in government departments working for my constituents, and that takes up quite a bit of time and activities. I do not believe members of parliament need to worry if they do not make speeches in the House of Commons because their constituents would be quite satisfied if they realized their representative was being a true servant of the people.

I thank the house for the kind attention it has given to me, and I wish to compliment again the hon. member for Halton for his fine presentation. The discussion has been good. It has been an illuminating discussion because many many angles have been brought forward, which have not been brought forward heretofore in the House of Commons and all speakers expressed themselves forcibly. All through the thread of the discussion you could readily see the demand, the inner

Standing Orders

demand, of every member of this house to see the rules of parliament revised and modernized.

Even during this debate, and in previous debates, owing to the heavy national majority that the government has, there was talk of steam rolling and so on, which statements are simply ridiculous. Well, I must make this statement. Perhaps the time is not over-ripe to amend our rules of procedure, but the time may come before very long that we may have to do it. Public opinion will request it because, although this is not a business organization or institution, we must to some extent modernize every aspect of our parliamentary system realizing the new situations and conditions that we have to face so that every member of parliament will be given an opportunity to take part in the activities and thereby conduce to shorter sessions. If we do that I believe that we shall be accomplishing great and needed work. I repeat, the time may come, even if the house is not unanimous in the reform and in the amendments to the rules of the house, when the majority in the house may have to have its voice heard on that score and have these changes passed by the majority.

Last year we put into practice some new experiments in the rules committee under your fine leadership, Mr. Speaker. We came to a unanimous decision only on the hours of sitting. When we came to the shortening of the time of the speeches we did not have a unanimous decision. We cannot have one without the other. In this matter, as in all others, it is a matter of compromise, of give and take. I make this appeal to every member of this house. Forgetting party lines, forgetting party affiliation, let us put our minds together and modernize our parliamentary rules so that those who come after us will be very thankful indeed for what we have done, which will mean not only a lot to our parliamentary system but also to the whole of the Canadian nation.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   STANDING ORDERS
Full View Permalink

March 25, 1952

Mr. Bradetie:

Thank you very much. He knows how much all the members of our committee and myself appreciate that. I

External Affairs

want to pay that compliment to every member of our committee for the fine work they have accomplished. There have been differences, but I am absolutely in favour of full discussion on any subject. This is the time and the place, and this is the machinery for that purpose. They have done it in the past and I know they will do it in the future. In the spirit of that co-operation it was possible to have, to a very large extent-I was going to say to the full extent-harmony so far as external affairs are concerned, and that has redounded to the honour of our country, our parliament and to the maintenance of peace throughout the world.

(Translation):

Topic:   SHIRLEY DOREEN ROWE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

March 25, 1952

Mr. Bradelie:

Mr. Speaker, in a little more than thirty-five years Canada has been called upon to participate in two world wars for which she was in no way responsible. At the present time we are deeply committed to NATO and defence of Europe which implies in the case of conflict that we would again pay tribute in the form of blood and suffering and resources on the part of our people.

As I said this afternoon, we should endeavour to get our friends the United States and the different countries in Europe to try to work together harmoniously. It is true that it is absolutely impossible to have no differences of any kind or no diverse opinions, but it should be possible in the present serious situation to try to get these countries to maintain in full their integrity and fine friendship, so that united actions will prevail. I spoke this afternoon of my great admiration for our cousins to the south of us, the great republic of the United States. In some quarters she has been accused of militarism, but this is an accusation that could not stand investigation. Has anyone ever seen in military history a nation who, after having vanquished her foes-some of them have been very wicked and have hurt the United States in her national pride-has offered aid through the Marshall plan? This aid was offered to every nation in Europe, but it is true that some of them could not accept its benefits because they were behind the iron curtain and had to listen to the voice and orders of Moscow.

External Affairs

In a few days this house will be called upon to deal with the Japanese peace treaty. Most of us have read that document now. Anyone who has read history must admit that he has never seen a treaty of the kind which the United States is offering to Japan. The United States was hurt deeply, yes, almost fatally, by Pearl Harbor, yet she is offering to the world one of the finest treaties ever given a nation to sign. This treaty includes some of the highest Christian principles, and I want to pay tribute to Mr. Dulles, the great American statesman who is the founder of that document.

The shift in world power was not desired by the United States. It has been, to some extent, imposed upon her. Her tremendous program for peace is an illustration of her sincere desire to maintain peace in the world. It is illustrated by her steady increase of the American forces in Europe, with no top limit fixed; a program of military aid to America's allies which this summer will far surpass the amount of Marshall aid which it may replace; two and a quarter years of universal military service on top of the present draft; a military three-year budget of $140 billion from July 1950 to June 1953, by which year her industrial remobilization will be complete; indefinite maintenance of the state of military preparedness thus attained.

These facts do not show any desire for domination. For nearly a century her actions have proved that she wanted to keep to herself. She wanted to be kept separate from anything that might happen in Europe, and the Monroe doctrine proves that. It is true that she was able to follow her destiny at peace because she had a wonderful shield in the British navy. At the same time, it was in her heart and in her soul to remain an American nation, working out its own destiny and not to be inveigled with what might happen in Europe.

If you do not want to believe my words about this, I shall quote the words of a very prominent newspaperman, Mr. Sebastian Haffner, as they appear in the London Observer. He said:

The rise of American power to overwhelming supremacy is bound to increase the importance of the United Nations, for the simple reason that America believes in the United Nations and bases her foreign policy on this.

America does not want to dominate the world; she does want the United Nations to dominate the world. She does want to see the charter respected and obeyed as world law, all nations acting in its spirit, and trespassers punished and forced back. This is what President Truman meant by the second part of his recent statement, when he defined the basic aims of American foreign policy in these words: "To see that the people in the

External Affairs

world have the things that are necessary to make life worth while, and that they live by the moral code in which we believe."

This may be idealism, and idealism as such may be a weak force in international politics. But idealism backed by overwhelming power must be taken seriously. The charter may well become the . Magna Charta of the second-class powers and the small nations in a world where, for the first time in history, there will be one nation stronger than all the rest together.

Now, that brings me to the question of Europe, and I want to discuss the question of the equilibrium of Europe and the equilibrium of the world. At the beginning of the twentieth century Europe could settle not only her own problems, but the moment that European problems were settled by the European nations they were not spread over the rest of the world. After world war I, I believe it was in 1920, the prime minister of France, Mr. Briand, said this:

If we have another war in Europe as serious and as grievous as the one we have had from 1914 to 1919, then Europe will become a world problem. Europe will not be able to localize these wars, they will spread as another world war and every nation may be involved. It may mean the end of European leadership.

That is the situation that is facing us. Today, we hope, we wish and we pray that the European powers will find it possible to comprehend one another as well as to comprehend the United States. Europe is facing two colossi, two great big nations, and the future of Europe might be decided on the knees of these colossi. It is very important for Europe to realize the seriousness of the situation. Let us never get away from the fact that if it is true to speak of the iron curtain in Europe, it applies just as forcibly to Americans, although geographically speaking they are located thousands of miles from Europe. On that score, then, it makes Americans, Canadians and Britishers and all the nations of the world realize that we are all in the same boat. Really, where danger exists for one of these nations, it exists for all of them. We must stand together, individually and collectively, or else we shall not be able to survive.

I should like to say one word about Great Britain. Sometimes she is criticized. I heard just one of the hon. members opposite say that Great Britain was bankrupt. I hope that this is not true. That cannot be true. Great Britain always had wonderful recuperative powers. It ill behooves any civilized nation to say that Great Britain will become bankrupt. For over a year during the last war she was the only human rampart against the hordes of barbarism. She paid a price in blood, in suffering and in devastation, greater than any nation has suffered in the world's

history. Great Britain is needed, just as the United States is needed. She has been a wonderful friend and a wonderful ally.

At the present time, I do not believe I could do better than to read-I do not like to read these excerpts, and I seldom do it. I believe this excerpt is worth while because, even in the United States, there is some inclination to make unfavourable criticism of Great Britain. I was deeply grieved when, prior to the visit of that great statesman, Winston Churchill, some newspapers in the United States and some congressmen were saying that Mr. Churchill was coming, hat in hand, so to speak, to beg for Great Britain. Mr. Churchill did not need to beg and he did not beg, while on this side of the Atlantic. Before the nations of the world, Great Britain is on our side. What are the assets Great Britain can bring to our cause? I quote from an article in the Christian Science Monitor of January 23, 1951:

Geographically, Britain is the sentinel, the advanced post, of the European continent. As a naval and air base she was vital in the second world war and would appear more so in an atomic war. She has national service of two years for British youth, and Britons are good soldiers . . .

The British empire, for all its reduced power, has a valuable string of naval bases around the world . . .

I am not going to read the whole of this editorial because these bases are known to all of us but the article concludes in this way:

The Briton as a human being has always been a sturdy, reliable friend and a tough foe. His courage and bulldog qualities have been shown innumerable times in history and never to better advantage than in that "finest hour" to which Winston Churchill gave expression and leadership. Such people are good to have as allies and much to be dreaded as enemies.

I want to make the same appeal as the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) did in his speech the other day. I hope it will be possible for men in public life in Great Britain and the United States to stop this filibustering against each other. Those things are not in order at the present time and could do a lot of harm.

I just want to say a few words about my old motherland. It was stated this afternoon that France is on the downgrade. I do not believe it. France, that generous nation, throughout all her history has shed her blood profusely for ideals and for principles, principles that are now practised in every section of the world. Many times she stood between tyranny and liberty. France may have her troubles today, but she will surmount those troubles as she always did. In considering France, we must remember what happened to her after world war I. Although she had guarantees from Great Britain-I believe this is the time to speak the truth-and from the

United States, she was left absolutely alone following world war I. She was invaded for the third time in eighty years, and at what cost? It will take me only a few minutes to tell you what it cost France in lives and in material losses.

Three times in less than one hundred years France was the first victim of barbaric attacks against the occidental civilization, under Bismarck, under the Kaiser and under Hitler. In 1870-71 France lost 156,000 dead, 500,000 wounded. We must remember those figures. In 1914-18 the war cost France almost a whole generation. She lost 1,427,000 dead on the battlefield, 700,000 invalidated, 2,344,000 wounded; 1 million houses were destroyed,

30,000 miles of road and 2,700,000 acres of forest and arable land were devastated. France has been hurt in her pride and is not in bankruptcy at all. France has her soul and her power yet. You have only to remember Verdun. Verdun is an episode that will show what she can do when she is fighting for her life. No greater heroism was ever shown than that shown by France on that occasion. What happened to France between 1939 and 1945? France lost 250,000 men killed in combat; 400,000 were wounded; 1,500,000 were made prisoners and 120,000 civilians were killed; 1 million children were killed or died from hunger and cold; and 250,000 men and women disappeared in concentration camps, in addition to the terrific material losses. Even though there is criticism of the policy of France, I feel that I am not making an appeal to deaf ears when I plead for her and say that France will show heroism in the future in surmounting her difficulties as she has always done in the past, when the honour of democracy was in danger, and the same call will be answered with valour and heroism.

We have great factors in Europe at the present time that are also satisfying to some extent. It is the great leadership given by its statesmen. I want to say one word about Germany. It is true that for centuries there were horrible wars between that nation and France, with no profit to those two great and fine nations. They both possess some wonderful qualities. If united they could bring marvellous factors and advancements in the whole civilization of Europe. The same thing applies forcibly because we have what we call a permanent union between England and France. Luckily for Europe and luckily for the civilized world ever since the bonne entente those two fine nations have been united together for many years and on two occasions it was possible for them to help save civilization. In Germany the time must have arrived for that dynamic nation which as

External Affairs

a people has wonderful qualities not only in the arts, and in music, but in construction, in engineering, in medicine. Surely they must realize that the time has now come that they must forget about their martial spirit and must now work hand in hand with the rest of the civilized world in saving civilization; to do otherwise would simply be suicidal.

Speaking of western Germany one cannot help mentioning the name of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer whose courage, statesmanship and vision have designated him as a pillar of Europe; and in being asked to sum up his hopes and misgivings as to progress in the negotiations on the Schuman plan and the European army, this is his answer and I quote:

These projects are not simple ends in themselves. They are also means to the positive end of a new. unified Europe from which fear, ambition and jealousy will have been banished. The goal of a European family, which will be the trustee and guardian of our common Christian civilization, is now within reach. We cannot afford to let slip the present opportunity of obtaining it for we may not get another opportunity like it.

On being asked if he thought the leaders of the other countries taking part in the deliberations see the matter in the same clear light, he replied without hesitation:

I know that they share the same view to a greater or lesser degree. There are points of differences and frictions; but they are largely technical. With a little patience and a spirit of compromise we shall have complete agreement.

I have been questioned several times about the feeling of other Germans. Outsiders seem to doubt, sometimes, whether our people are ready to honour the far-reaching arrangements that are being worked out in their name. I am often asked if they really believe in the European idea. I want to give an assurance that most of them can, and do, and will.

We recognized the statesmanship that Mr. Adenauer has given to western Germany just as Mr. de Gasperi, the premier of Italy, has given leadership to his country. These are all potentials which, if properly utilized, by trying to comprehend the mentality of these men and the difficulties they have to surmount and helping them as strongly as possible will lead to a united Europe.

Before I resume my seat, I want to speak briefly on a delicate but urgent subject. I want to praise the government, parliament and the Canadian people for having established some connection with Spain which I hope will be enlarged. Here in the house we sometimes hear people being called fascists, nazis and so on. Under the present circumstances, sometimes it might be well to forget some of the labels that might be thrown unjustly at some nations and at some people. As far as I am concerned, I am just as anti-communist as is any Canadian. But at the same time I know and we all

External Affairs

know the situation in Yugoslavia. While I know that communism is rampant, I would not criticize the help we are at present giving Yugoslavia because we believe-and

I believe that we are right in that belief- that, being a friendly nation, we should not want to see her bow her head to Kussian imperialism although she maintains to a large extent a degree of communism. At the same time I believe we are warranted in being friendly with Yugoslavia, as she may also learn and eventually adopt our principles. On the other hand, why should we not be friendly with Spain? There is a tremendous military potential there. At the insurrection Moroccan troops fought for the liberation of communism in Spain. Let us not be scandalized about this factor. In world war I and world war II we had troops from North Africa and we had troops from Asia fighting to protect our civilization. No matter what we may think of Spain it is certain that the Spanish administration of that section of the North African continent proved that what they have done has been favourable to that population and they were glad to fight for the national integrity of Spain. No one will make me believe for one moment that any nation will fight more strenuously against communism than will Spain. There is a good reason for that, one that cost Spain a tremendous amount of blood and suffering. Let us remember what happened at the time of the insurrection about nineteen years ago. What was the alternative of Spain? If Spain had followed the line she was following then she would have fallen, like a ripe fruit, into the hands of communism led by Moscow; and the moment that communism became rampant in Spain, it could easily and rapidly have spread into every section of Europe.

I never discuss religious problems for the sake of discussion, but I remember speaking in the town of Timmins a few years ago-I believe that it was in 1941-during world war

II at a meeting of protest held by my fine Jewish people with regard to the horrible holocaust that these people had suffered in Germany. I spoke at that meeting at which I was invited to be present; and this is what I told them. I said that as a Christian and a Catholic, when I hear there is persecution that happens in any section of the world-whether it is against the Jewish people or any other race or nationality, or against the Protestant or the Catholic faith-then I know that if persecution is unchecked it is bound to spread like a virus, a violent epidemic, and that there is something going wrong; and I am duty bound to protest because the primary tenet of your

faith, of my faith and of all faiths, is charity. The moment that persecution of religion is rampant, charity no longer exists.

What happened in Spain during the insurrection? Only a short fifteen years ago the church in Spain, one of the most glorious churches in Christianity, suffered tremendously in the way of lives lost. What happened there? Twelve bishops were killed; 12,000 priests and a number of the religious orders were massacred and 20,000 churches were devastated or burned.

Can anyone dare to say that Spain had to suffer those things unless it was done at the instance of the diabolical mind of communistic Russia? What harm were those churches doing to the Spanish nation or to any part of Spain or to anyone else in fact? What harm were those bishops doing to the Spanish nation or to the whole world? What harm were those priests doing or those members of those religious orders-some little sisters of the poor, some Christian brothers teaching the little children; some nuns looking after the old, the sick, the infirm. What harm were they doing or what politics were they playing? I will always remember vividly reading an article in the New York Times at the time of the insurrection. The correspondent there said that no one could make him believe that those holocausts were necessary; he said that no one could make him believe that it was necessary to destroy the Catholic churches in Spain. Why the killing of persons who were doing good work in the name of God? That is why I am speaking on that subject.

Again I repeat what I have said previously. Why the killing of persons who were doing good work in the name of God? Two years ago, when I saw that in Roumania the Protestant churches were being persecuted there, I took it upon myself to write personally in the best way possible to some agencies in the United States, hoping that my letter would reach Roumania, and to protest against that situation. One persecution always leads to another. Let us not get away from this fact. It is a virus, a pestilence that spreads itself in no time until everybody is affected and everybody will eventually suffer. I am just mentioning these facts because I hope and I pray that the authorities, whoever they happen to be, will personally make a special appeal to France at the present time to try to be more friendly towards Spain, towards its government and towards the Spanish people, because we need them at the present time. If you do not wish to take my words, you

may take those of somebody who is not of my faith and not of my nationality, someone who is not a Canadian, but an American. I will read to you an excerpt from an article written in the Reader's Digest of November, 1950, by William Hard and Andre Visson. This is what they have to say about manpower. I believe this is practical advice that they are giving to every one of us, because the sons of the Canadian mothers and Canadian fathers who are now in Korea and their sons and daughters who are in Germany at the present time may be called upon to engage in another holocaust, a ring of death on the European continent. Therefore they have the right to expect that cur government, all our friendly governments, the governments of democracies, will see to it that every factor is taken into consideration which will give us the best defence and strength possible against communism. I am going to quote the words of these two named gentlemen. They are Americans.

Similar remarks can be made in relation to Spain. Spain has an army of 400,000 men, organized into 18 divisions. These divisions need better weapons. But it would cost only one-third as much to ready these 18 Spanish divisions for war as it would cost to create 18 new British or French divisions.

The Spanish troops are violently anticommunist.

These are their words. I continue:

They would be utterly reliable on the German front against Russia. Why not ask Franco to put six divisions of them there? He would have a strong reason for doing so. If the Russians conquer western Europe, his life will not be worth many pesetas.

We all know that the communists do not like Franco, and to me it is an honour for Franco to be disliked by Moscow. He certainly must have done something against communism to be disliked', and he has never been liked since the Spanish civil war, because he stopped them short in Spain. The article goes on:

The argument against letting Franco help to thwart the Russians has been that Franco is a dictator. So is Stalin.

We worked with Stalin, and rightly so, during world war II. I do not criticize that because it was good policy at that time, as we thought that he would amend his ways.

Topic:   SHIRLEY DOREEN ROWE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

March 25, 1952

Mr. J. A. Bradelte (Cochrane):

Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of some diffidence that I rise to speak in this very important debate. First of all, I wish to make one or two comments about some of the speeches made this afternoon.

I always listen with keen attention to the speeches of the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I listened to him with particular attention when he was quoting an article written by a Canadian journalist who had visited the United States, indicating that he had found out that the American people were fully seized of the serious situation in the world, and in which he attempted to create the impression that the people of Canada are not familiar with it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am now speaking for the people whom I have the honour to represent; but I believe I can speak not only for myself, and my section of the country, but for Canada generally when I say that I believe the whole of Canada realizes the seriousness of the situation. But we have followed conduct similar to that we followed during two world wars: We have kept our

heads high, because we have known that we have been doing our duty to civilization, freedom and democracy. The same principle applies with as great force today as it did during those two wars, in facing the present difficulties.

I am somewhat surprised by the amendment moved by the C.C.F., one which seems

778

External Affairs

to take a good deal of glory, or a measure of delight, in trying to belittle the efforts of Canada. It tries to leave the impression that since the close of the second war Canada has not played her part, or the part we should have played in helping in the rehabilitation of Europe and the rest of the world.

I know however that if their amendment were adopted they would be the first to criticize the government if, in implementing what they now request, taxes were raised again. What amount of money would they want Canada to spend on military defence? How many billions of dollars would they expect Canada to spend in helping to rehabilitate the rest of the world? I say they should be more definite in their statement.

We must realize that, since the close of the war, we have given a great deal of help. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has referred to the Marshall plan, and said that Canada had not contributed to it. We did not, and for a very good reason. The Marshall plan was an American plan. But at the same time we found it possible to help in many other ways the people of Europe and in other parts of the world.

For instance, without mentioning the Colombo plan, at the present time by way of mutual aid Canada is giving $200 million. Some people are thinking in terms of the Atlantic pact or the Pacific pact, in terms of millions of men in uniform, but they seem to forget that Canada has a population of only about 14 million. We have not 50 or 100 million people in this country. Our resources are not unlimited; they are to some extent limited.

I shall be interested to see how vigorously the opposition criticizes the government when it comes to the matter of taxation. The hon. member for Melfort tried to create the impression that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wanted to create a spirit of over-optimism. The statement by the minister a few days ago was a very excellent one, indeed, and one which recognized-as it is recognized by other people-the heavy taxation we have in Canada. And we have that taxation, not only to implement our national services and to meet our national budget and military defence, but so that we may be able to help our friends in every way possible.

That is why I am going to vote against the amendment. Again I do not like the process of decrying Canada, particularly in the light of the fact that Great Britain, the United States and every other nation of the world which knows what we have accomplished do not hesitate to say what a fine part Canada

has played. We have received praise, and recognition too, for what we are doing at the present time.

There are Canadians who seem to take some pleasure in belittling our reputation, purely and simply for political reasons.

I do not wish to embarrass the Secretary of State for External Affairs but, in passing, I would point out that in my constituency we have a number of study groups who study national affairs, and the actions of the Department of External Affairs. I can tell the house that I am in a position to state that they admire the minister. They know that he has done and that he will continue to do a marvellous job.

He has received praise not only from the people of Canada but from people of every nation. Every nation of the world has seen this fine man in action. The minister has given of his great talent and of his time and energy to the work he is doing not only for Canada but for the cause of peace throughout the world. I say that sincerely-and I know he will realize I am speaking sincerely when I refer to this matter.

Those who belittle what he has been doing should keep in mind that people in other nations of the world recognize his qualities, and the fact that he is doing his full share. I repeat that, in speaking this afternoon, I am trying to voice the sentiments of the people I have the honour to represent. I am convinced that Canadians have very good judgment. Generally speaking, the Canadian people have good judgment. I always remember in our Liberal caucuses the late Mr. King used to tell us to listen and follow public opinion and we would never go astray. I have been trying to listen to public opinion as far as my own constituency is concerned and I find generally speaking they have only the highest praise for the accomplishments of Canada, nationally and internationally, and are proud of the fact that some very high and important positions were offered her.

I represent a pioneering section of this country. We do not do things up there in the easy way. The resources in that section of northern Ontario and northern Quebec are great but not unlimited, but we get along because of our energy, our strength, our work and our thrift. We are pushing ahead in this section of Canada and today northern Quebec and northern Ontario supports nearly 250,000 people who are making a good living there, which population was non-existent fifty years ago. Those people are realists. They do not keep their heads in the clouds all the time, but are realists and practical.

I remember during the last war the opposition was deploring the fact that we were not doing all that we possibly could. Some newspapers advocated that we should have at least one million men in Europe. Was that realistic? Was it not true that among all the nations that took part in the previous war Canada made one of the finest contributions in all departments? The same applies just as forcibly to the present situation. Canada is a member of the United Nations and through the United Nations we have made some commitments.

It is suggested by the economic and social council of the United Nations that as much as $19,000 million a year for an indefinite number of years be spent in developing resources in the underdeveloped countries. We will be part and parcel of that work whenever that policy is implemented. I am not going to prophesy, but I believe that as on previous occasions Canada will do her part.

The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) made a fine speech this afternoon and indicated the sentiments of the Canadian people about NATO. He did not speak as a partisan, and neither did the minister of external affairs. The positions they occupy are too responsible. They have too heavy an obligation and they cannot afford to do that. He told us very plainly that in the help we give to other nations we must consider their national aspirations and pride. We must endeavour to see that the money is distributed through the proper channels. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) would seem to indicate that we should disburse hundreds of millions of dollars to any government which may be in power at the time in some sections of Asia. Would that mean that proper help will be given to these people?

Let us be constructive when making statements of that kind. Let us be reasonable, not only with ourselves but with the people who are involved. As far as I am concerned, and I think as far as every member of parliament is concerned, we want poverty and need to disappear from the face of the earth if possible, but that will not be done in a day. This work will have to be done through certain national or regional agencies and it will have to be acceptable to the people themselves, always having in mind the respect of the people involved.

You only have to read in the papers what happened recently in the French Alps to show the deep attachment to the past. The government of France wanted to set up a hydroelectric development in the Alps, I believe, and it was necessary to move the people from 55704-50-J

External Affairs

a small village. The government had been trying for two years to get these people to move but they refuse because they are so deeply attached to then- own little pieces of ground which their ancestors have occupied for so many generations, and they had to be forced out of their homes, by the flooding waters of the project.

These are factors which absolutely must be considered in giving assistance to certain parts of the world. We know that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and in this connection we have that great generous nation, the United States, as an example. Through the Marshall plan it has done more to aid the world than any other nation in past history has ever done. Assistance under this plan was offered, not only to friendly nations but to Czechoslovakia and to Poland, both behind the iron curtain and many others. They were compelled to refuse by the U.S.S.R. Do you think for one single moment that the Marshall plan has always been well received or fully appreciated? No. On many occasions it brought unfair and bitter abuses on the giver.

These are all factors which as practical men and women we must consider before we go too far on that score, so that our help will accomplish its full purpose.

I well remember after world war I when my old mother country France was considered to be militaristic and did not receive the protection that was promised and Germany was considered to be the poor little nation that had to be saved from its financial difficulties. What happened? The United States and Great Britain poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Germany and then twenty years later she came close to conquering the world. These are factors we must be very careful about, and that are worth remembering.

I am quite in agreement with the Colombo plan. If $20 million or $25 million is not sufficient the government and parliament will provide all the necessary money. But how can Canada deal fully with countries having a total population of 450 million? Twenty-five million dollars would be only a beginning in offering them help. How far can we go on that score? We must try to achieve an equilibrium. These are all matters which of necessity we must consider thoroughly, and study from all angles.

I want to say a few words during this debate about the situation in Canada. Canada has never attempted to moralize to any other nation. Canada took part in two wars of which she was not an instigator. Those wars started on the continent of Europe where for so many generations and centuries wars have started and caused turmoil throughout not

External Affairs

only the countries of Europe but other sections of the world. We took part in those wars because we knew that we were on the side of freedom and democracy.

When peace came Canada indicated that she did not want any territorial aggrandizement or any maritime aggrandizement. All we wanted was peace to predominate among the nations of the world. In taking that attitude we gained the respect and gratitude of every nation. I say that deliberately. By that fact we were put in a position where, without dictating to other nations, without endeavouring to indicate the line of conduct they should follow, we could tell them about the seriousness of the situation. We could tell them how dangerous and explosive it is at the present time, and the necessity of honest compromises and of solidarity.

I believe it is the duty of the NATO countries of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and other nations of the world to endeavour to be friendly and to comprehend one another. I know it is impossible to have perfect unity in the world, since nations as well as individuals are apt to have differences. But if we honestly try to avoid friction between the nations we will be taking a real step toward peace in the world in our time.

There is a certain group in this House of Commons which at times likes to take a slap at the United States. I am not one of those. I consider it is fortunate for us that .ve are the neighbour of this big, powerful and generous nation. I am not going to emphasize that there are three thousand miles of unguarded border, but that is the fact. That fact is known to every citizen of the world. There is not a similar situation existing in any other place in the world. It is our bounden obligation as it is their bounden duty to have the good feelings between our two countries continue, to be continually cultivated and maintained.

Sometimes because of their great strength they do certain things, I will not say that we deplore but that we find hard to comprehend. For instance we are their best customer and yet for some incomprehensible reasons they have increased the tariff against us. However, when you take it as a whole the United States is not only a generous nation; by circumstances which are not of its creation it hasbeen called upon to be the leader of thecivilized world. That is the role it has toperform today. That is not a role it was

looking for, because it will be remembered that under the Monroe doctrine the United

[Mr. Bradette.l

States indicated that it did not want anything to do with Europe. It wanted to work out its own salvation, to build its own destiny.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Topic:   REFORESTATION
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FOREIGN POLICY
Full View Permalink