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.
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
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
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
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