1947-03-03

[Stage Direction]
lion. JOSEPH JEAN (Solicitor General of Canada): I rise to a question of privilege. An article published on the 15th of February, 1947, in La Patrie, a Montreal French language newspaper, offered the following comments, among others, on the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ilsley) on the 17th of February with reference to the report submitted by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries :
The royal commission presided over by Mr. R. B. Gibson make the following recommendations
[Stage Direction]
1.	Complete reorganization and centralization of administration in reformatories and prisons in all provinces.
2.	Stricter supervision over the morality of wardens and officers in charge of prisons.
3.	The report states that this vast undertaking will be made easier if the administration of penitentiaries becomes an exclusive federal responsibility.
_ 1 submit, Mr. Speaker, that nothing either in the commissioner's report or the statement made by the Right Hon. the Minister of Justice warrants such claims or such an interpretation.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
< Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel): Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the written submissions made by the government of Canada to the special deputies of the council of foreign ministers on the proposed peace treaties with Germany and Austria and the Canadian position taken with respect to a full participation of this country in the making of these treaties.
The urgency element in this motion will be recognized at once in view of the fact that the foreign ministers are scheduled to meet in Moscow in about a week. Unless a full opportunity for debate is provided now, the
Peace Treaties
[Stage Direction]
Moscow meeting may be over before the views of the Canadian people as expressed by parliament are known to them and to the world.
The debate on the address, which resumes today, will afford a wholly inadequate opportunity for parliament as a whole to make its voice heard on these matters and these alone. This further contributes to the urgency surrounding this motion now.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave so to move?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


James Horace King: The hon. gentleman may proceed.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the house I do not approach this subject lightly or without due regard to the serious international situation not only as it affects this parliament and the government and every party in parliament but as it affects so substantially the very lives and homes and firesides of the people of Canada.
The house and the country I think will welcome this opportunity, the first that we have had since the San Francisco charter was debated in 1945, to have a full-dress debate on external affairs. It seemed to me, and this is my object in raising the question at this time, that here is the place to thresh out our difficulties and mobilize public opinion, the place to find common ground upon which we may work so that we may march with a united front and if at all possible speak with one voice in the councils of the world.
In 1946 Canada was represented at no fewer than ninety^eight international gatherings, including the all-important peace conference at Paris, while parliament spent in the meantime fewer than two days out of 119 in discussing foreign relations. That is not good enough. Parliament must keep abreast of the movements and developments in international affairs the same as it tries to do with domestic affairs.
It is true that the standing committee on external affairs met some twenty times last year and did an excellent job under the capable chairmanship of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) ; but there was little if any discussion of general policy. The estimates of the department were brought before the committee and considered, but only a fraction of the membership of the house had an opportunity to participate in the discussions. The committee did however bring in a report, later

unanimously concurred in by the house, in which they recommended that time should be set aside each week for the discussion of international matters. I am of the opinion that it should not be necessary to bring in a motion such as the one I had to make at this particular time in order to discuss external affairs.
We should have the opportunity of dealing with external problems in a regular and orderly way. From now on parliament should make up its mind to give more time to discussion of foreign affairs.
First of all I wish to deal with the question
of our participation in the peace settlement. Maclean's magazine of March 1, 1947 put in a nutshell the argument between Canada and the special deputies of the big four who have been meeting in London. I wish to read a few words from an article headed "Peace Isn't Private Property", because I think it will expedite the proceedings and give to the ordinary citizen of Canada a fair picture of what happened in the meeting of the deputies. The article reads as follows:
Canada's argument with the big four deputies charged with drafting the German peace treaty was no mere matter of wounded vanity. Here's what happened:
Deputies met in London to prepare drafts for the real big four meeting in Moscow. They invited seventeen smaller combatants to _ send in written statements, with oral comment if desired, on the treaties with Germany and Austria.
Canada didn't think this good enough and suggested that smaller powers be given a share in the early committee work.	_
That "suggestion was ignored. Our high commissioner, Norman Robertson, was then instructed to ask the deputies a question:
"If Canada does appear before you, how can you assure us that this will not be our last chance to say anything about the German
Still no reply. It became evident that at least one of the big four would prefer to answer "no." The German treaty was a matter for great powers who had "paid in blood;" small fry should be neither seen nor heard.
It was not for this that Canada put three-quarters of ia million men in arms, fought on every western European front, gave $3-5 billions in materials to allies, including Russia, who needed more than they could pay for.
It was not for this, either, that Greece starved and Poland suffered, that Yugoslavia pinned fifteen German divisions. Not to be told at the end of it:	"Run along now, we shan't
need you again until next time. If you have any ideas about the peace, write a letter to our secretaries."	,
We fought for peace as an overriding national interest. We did not fight to maintain a balance of power, to serve any imperial interest anywhere in the world. We fought for our lives, which the international policies of great powers had put in jeopardy.
Now that the fighting is done, we must have a real voice in the shaping of that peace for which

Peace Treaties
we fought. We have an interest in it as well as the great powers-if we have not, we should have stayed home.
Canada, moreover, has one qualificatioin which is almost unique, to fit her for this task. We are one of the very few powers concerned in world war II who have no direct, immediate interest in any question of detail.
We don't care whether a boundary runs on this side or the other of a certain town or hill or river; we covet no colonies; we have next to no interest in reparations.
But we do have an overwhelming interest in the permanence of peace.
That is why we demand an effective share in the making of the postwar world. The Canadian government did well to make its position clear from the start.
With all but the last sentence perhaps there will be considerable agreement. But did the Canadian government make its position clear from the start? The Paris peace conference sat from July 29 to October 15 of last year. Canada was represented there for seventy-nine days. Twenty-one nations discussed the terms of peace for five defeated enemy countries. I am led to believe they were called in after the big four had discussed everything for an unusually long period of time. I am also led to believe that they could not touch the parts of the treaties which had received the unanimous approval of the big four. They could make only recommendations which the big four would guarantee or promise to consider privately afterwards.
In the British House of Commons last October, Right Hon. Winston Churchill, with all his experience and command of language, speaking on the question of procedure at the Paris peace conference, said:
The Paris peace conference is bad diplomacy, but it may be a valuable education.
At the end of the Paris sessions an unofficial poll of newspapermen from twenty-seven countries indicated that thirty-one regarded the conference as a success, fifty-six called it a failure and thirty-three called it a farce. I am not prepared to go that far, but it does show that there was dissatisfaction with the manner in which the procedure of the Paris peace conference was carried out, particularly so far as the smaller and the middle powers were concerned. Canada was there and in my opinion should have taken the attitude of "once bitten twice shy". I should like to have seen the statement with respect to participation, which was placed before the special deputies in January of this year, laid before the nations of the world and the big four while the Paris peace conference was in session; because January was too late for this country to put its arguments before them and have them properly considered. It was then and there that the government should have nipped
this plan in the bud. That would have been better than waiting for a similar situation to grow up in Paris, or waiting until similar plans for the Austrian and German settlement had been almost fully developed. In my opinion we missed the boat in Paris. January was too late. The plans of the great powers had taken shape before we grasped the opportunity of putting our case before them, and this has made our task immeasurably greater, though not I hope insurmountable.
Another factor which has weakened our position as far as full participation in the peace settlement is concerned, was the withdrawal a year ago of all our occupation forces in the German reich. It is now plain, I think, that this government ought to tell parliament and the people, for the first time, why at that particular time we ceased to play our part in policing naziland. True, our forces wanted to get home. I was over there and I know that they wanted to get back. But there were just as many in Canada who at that very time were prepared to take on the job of relieving and replacing those who felt that the work had become monotonous for them and that they ought to be home.
Was it because we could not have a greater say in administration and policies in Germany that we withdrew our troops at that time, or what was the reason? I would ask the government to give an answer, before the debate ends, to that simple but direct and pertinent question. Considerable weight must, I think, be attached, from the standpoint of the withdrawal of our occupying army, to the clear outspoken remarks of Right Hon. Vincent Massey, former High Commissioner for Canada in London, who, speaking only last Wednesday at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, made the following statement as reported in the columns of the next day's Montreal Star:
"Our moral position is strong," Mr. Massey declared, adding: "It would, I think, be stronger if like other smaller countries we had continued to play even a modest part in the forces which at present police the German reich. Our withdrawal at so early a date did nothing to enhance our prestige or to give evidence of our readiness to assume responsibilities in peace as we had so willingly done in war."
These words cannot be dismissed lightly, for they fell from the lips of a senior Canadian diplomat who by virtue of his position was closer to the scene of that withdrawal than any other representative Canada had at that time.
I express my personal view only in this regard, but it has always seemed to me that the commonwealth members, and particularly Canada, missed a grand opportunity to lift
Peace Treaties

a little bit of the white man's burden which has been borne by Britain so well and honourably and at such expense, and to join with Great Britain in attempting to carry part of that load with her. It would have, for one thing, meant that we would have had closer contact with the problems of Germany. It would have meant, too, that our hand would have been strengthened in pressing our claim to a rightful position at the peace table and in making our representations there. Since we have gone out of Germany it makes it harder for us to get in again and to come to grips with the problem.
Moreover, I think that those who have been through the situation in relation to the military government in Germany realize as well that it is common knowledge over there that the Canadian government gave little or no encouragement to Canadian personnel who wanted to have a part in the military government structure of Germany under the allied control council. Added to that is the fact that, having withdrawn our troops, our position has been weakened.
I do not wish to emphasize unduly this latter point, because after all I want our position to be as strong as it possibly can be, but I wish to point out the weaknesses which parliament and the country have to consider. In making our representations now, we must of course avoid the appearance of being long on talk and short on works. That is one of the things that we must keep before us; it must be one of Canada's policies, to make sure that we do not fall into that temptation. I stand, and this party stands, with the government in this matter as solidly as parliamentarians can, recognizing that inasmuch as Canada went into the war through the front door, we do not relish being merely a keyhole-peeker when the peace is discussed over there.
This is a matter upon which all political parties, and people regardless of their political views, can join. It is about time the big four discarded this new international slogan of theirs, which seems to be that "four is company and five is a crowd". That appears to me to size it up in commonplace terms and to indicate what we are up against in the circumstances. This nation must not take this thing lying down, and at the foreign ministers' meeting at Moscow in a few days' time the Canadian government will, I hope, vigorously press our claim to adequate participation in the peace that we helped to win.
In this position this party will give the government its active, unqualified support and help, because we must show to the world

that we mean business as a nation, and in such a stand we are prepared to throw our political differences aside and to speak with a united and powerful voice in every council of the world.
I come next to the question of the German peace settlements. One has to see the battered, and blitzed and beaten Germany to have a real conception of the problems of reconstruction, there. It will be a long time before prostrate Germany even gets up on her knees, let alone on her feet, economically, financially and perhaps politically. Canada does well, I believe, in her submission to recognize that Germany is not just a European problem. She is everybody's problem, and we may as well face it; she is a highly inflammable pile of international kindling. Therefore it is important to every person in Canada that the government's stand for a stronger and more powerful participation in the peace treaties should be supported.
Germany is the international trouble spot No. 1, because over this fallen German frame powers could and might clash in the days that lie ahead. Shall defeated Germany be a part of the western conception of democracy or part of eastern totalitarianism? Which way she leans will make a substantial difference to the future of the world and the prospects of permanent peace. Germany is not simply at the parting of the ways. Germany is actually in the parting of the ways in the matter of geography and in every other respect. Therein lies the danger for this country. Germany is no longer a nation. Germany is just a people. That, I believe, makes Canada's argument even stronger against following the precedent of 1919, against putting Germany too early into a ready-made straitjacket of peace, because if Germany is put into a straitjacket now two things are likely to happen: either she will become dwarfed in that straitjacket or she will expand beyond its capacity. Either will be bad, and I think the international statute idea of the government is a good one. It is one that gives an opportunity for Germany to come out of the convalescent stage. Germany today has not even the legal capacity, even if a shadow government is put up for that purpose, to make a bargain with the victor nations. Because of that, this government's policy in connection with the international statute deserves every possible commendation.
I should have liked to mention in the discussion of these matters what those of us saw who had an opportunity of going across Germany a year ago-and I am told there has

Peace Treaties
not been much change since then. Everybody's attention was riveted on fuel and food. There was destruction which it is impossible to describe-great twisted bridges over the Elbe, the Weser and other rivers; the great city of Hanover with seven, out of every ten buildings levelled flat as the prairie, only two out of ten capable of being repaired, and one out of ten that had not been touched at all. We saw the buildings in Berlin looking almost like a material corpse which somehow had not lain down. Yes, it was a depressing sight to see the Reichstag, the great parliament buildings of Germany, in such a state.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Is that not the price one pays for making a fool of himself?


Gordon Graydon: I agree with my hon. friend for once.


Humphrey Mitchell: What about Rotterdam?


Gordon Graydon: One saw the great Reichstag, in ruins and two Russian soldiers conducting a black market in all kinds of materials with some ten or fifteen German women at the door of that great chamber. One could not help realizing that if Hitler could look up from where he is now he would see that things have changed; that the days when he used to thunder his challenges across the world have gone forever and that of him it could be said, in the words of Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, "The paths of glory lead but to the grave".
I apologize to the house for mentioning these personal impressions, but one thing which struck me particularly, and which I am sure I shall never forget, was the comment, after we had come through all this indescribable devastation, of a little English corporal whose house had been blitzed out in 1940 and again in 1941. Somebody in the party said, "What a distressing sight this is in Berlin!" The little corporal said, in his best English, which I could not possibly imitate, "These blighters asked for it, and they bloody well got it, didn't they?" It was, I think, an indication of the feeling of revenge which was then in the hearts of people who had suffered so greatly at the hands of those who are now suffering the pangs of defeat. If one can go by the feeling and the sense of the people who know something of the German problem over there-and I am not speaking of the Germans themselves-one of the things which stood out in what we learned from the people we had contact with from time to time was the fact that if you are going to make a new Germany, if you are going to make a nation which will not be a menace to the peoples of the world in the days which lie ahead, you
must do something more than is proposed in the Canadian submissions; you must educate the children of Germany into a new mode of life and a new conception of what democracy and peace really mean.
I think that one of the greatest omissions in the submissions of Canada is the lack of mention of the educational aspect of the treatment of the German people. In the Potsdam declaration we find these words, put in not by Germans or Canadians, but by the representatives of the big four themselves. This- reading directly from the Potsdam declaration -is their avowed objective:
It is not the intention of the allies to destroy or enslave the German people, but that they shall be given the opportunity to prepare for the eventual reconstruction of their life on a democratic and peaceful basis. If their efforts are steadily directed to this end, it will be possible for them in due course to take their place among the free and peaceful peoples of the world.
This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to suggest the most conspicuous omission in the Canadian submissions. In any settlement education along democratic lines must be included; because as I see it-and as those who know much better than I do seem to see it-it is the key to permanent peace. That is the view of those 'who are closest to the picture and who know.
I just wish to make one further observation with respect to the German peace submissions. I think this nation was again too late in presenting her submissions on Germany. It seems to me also that if our German submissions have merit-and I believe they have -particularly with respect to the international statute, they should have been presented before the big four had made their elaborate preparations for a peace treaty discussion in Moscow. The whole question had, in my opinion, jelled at that time; and by the time our submissions came to the special deputies on January 30 of this year, Canada was too late to have them properly considered. That, I think, indicates part of our position with respect to the German submissions themselves.
I now wish to come to our submissions with respect to the Austrian peace settlement. I do not want to be offensive with respect to this, and I hope the government will not feel that I am, but I am really speaking with some restraint when I say that the Austrian submissions, as I see them, are not much more than a nice harmless little essay on international affairs. As a positive, active, vigorous and constructive brief it is not in the same class at all with our German submissions. May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, put this question to the government: Why did twenty-six days elapse between the time we put in our submissions on Germany and the time we put in
Peace Treaties

our brief on Austria, in view of the fact that the special deputies in London were not dealing with Germany first and Austria afterwards, but were dealing with Austria and Germany concurrently during their session there?
What actually happened, and I am sorry this was so because to some extent I believe it affected Canada's prestige, was that when the special deputies were clearing out their desks and packing their bags to go home, our submission with respect to Austria arrived for consideration. That was just one day before the special deputies concluded' their work in London. I believe the thing can be put in simple terms. Either we are interested in the Austrian settlement or we are not. I believe we are; and if we are, I am dead sure we should have made our submissions concurrently with those we made in respect to Germany. If we were not interested, no submission at all should have gone in. That, I think, is clearly the position in which the government finds itself.
I want to make one further observation in regard to our submission on Austria. In that country two considerations-in the opinion of the foreign minister of Austria, in any event- stand out above everything else. One is the internal reorganization of Austria on a democratic basis. We cannot have a free Austria without the withdrawal of the occupation forces from that country at the very earliest appropriate time. But of equal and perhaps even greater importance is the question of the definition of the German assets in Austria, and what the Russians are entitled to do in the way of taking Austrian resources for their own purposes. That is one of the major difficulties facing Austrian rehabilitation; and until there is a clarification of the terms of the Potsdam agreement with respect to the title to Austrian resources there can be no real reconstruction of Austria's economy or her political structure. I believe our government missed an important point when, in the submission Canada made, that important matter was left out of our brief.
In the moment or so remaining at my disposal I want to say that no single nation has a greater stake in what happens in Moscow than has Canada. Our position, geographically, politically, militarily and every other way makes it impossible for this country ever again to be an optional participant in a world conflict. Making up our minds with respect to that perhaps we should be prepared to go a step farther and say that in another war this country itself might well be the battle area. Just as we rush to fight a fire in our neighbour's house in order to save our own, and at the same time save the town or city,

so must we see that no smouldering embers are left unextinguished which might start anywhere in the world an international blaze that could result in the destruction of humanity. The refusal of Canada in the past to make international affairs our own immediate personal concern has been a disastrous experience for us. Twice in about a quarter of a century we have been led down the pathway of war. A hundred thousand of the very flower of our Canadian manhood lie in alien countries, mute and powerful testimony to what our country was prepared to do in war. Whatever may be the cost of peace, it can never approach the cost of war. Whatever this country has to pay with respect to permanent peace I think must be considered in the light of what I have said.
Between the two great wars there were statesmen in this country-and this is not at all by way of criticism, because I suppose they reflected public opinion at the time-one of whom said that as far as war was concerned Canada was a fireproof house, and the other that nothing then happening in Abyssinia was worth the life of a single Canadian soldier. Add to that the spectacle one saw in the House of Commons the year before the war, when an hon. member asked the house to adopt a resolution of neutrality in case of armed conflict. These were all straws showing the way the wind blew.
So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we must do something to see to it that the world's casualty lists shall never again be published, that the savage dogs of war never again shall be unleashed. At international conferences I have listened to men who were skilful in employing their own language to make it meet various situations arising from time to time, but it remained for a little boy thirteen years of age, who I am told came up to London to be present at the first general assembly of -the united nations which a number of us attended, to put into words the thought so many of us have in mind as to the objectives of the united nations. While I cannot vouch for the authenticity of every word, I am told that this is what happened. The little lad came to London under his own steam and stood1 for a long time one dark, cold, foggy morning, and on into the afternoon, waiting to get into the visitors' gallery at that assembly. As he was going up the stairs someone asked him, "Why are you here"? The little lad stopped and said-, "I don't quite know why I am here, but I am going to tell my story and perhaps then you will know." This is the story he told. "I am only thirteen," he said, "but I lost my mother two

Peace Treaties
and a half years ago in the blitz at Plymouth. She was a good mother. I lost my oldest brother on the Normandy beachhead. My second brother left a leg in Belgium. My father is in a mental institution as a result of the ravages of the German bombings of a year or two ago." Then he went on, "I just came here because I heard there was a meeting about peace; and, mister, I just hoped that somehow, somewhere, sometime, somebody will do something to see to it that what happened to our little home could never happen to anybody else's little home any place else in the world."
That is our challenge, Mr. Speaker; I suggest we accept it.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the proximity of the meeting of foreign ministers in Moscow this debate is indeed very timely. The government, I think, should have some expression of the views of this house, both on the manner in which our representations should be made, and on the views to be expressed on behalf of the Canadian people.
One difficulty in discussing matters of this kind of course is found in the inflexibility of the rules of this house. Compared with the British house we have few opportunities of debating matters such as this which are of immediate concern.
There is, I am certain, unanimous dissatisfaction with the very minor role which has been assigned to us-particularly concerning the German settlement. It cannot be emphasized too often or too emphatically that in the waging of war against Hitler our nation contributed men and materials almost without question, and most certainly without stint. It is meet and proper then that we should demand recognition of Canada's right to full participation in the negotiations of the peace treaties, and insist that it should be in exact proportion to our contribution in the waging of war.
We therefore support fully, Mr. Speaker, the protests already made by the government against the limitations imposed upon Canada by the foreign ministers of the great powers. Experience at the Paris peace conference last July, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has just remarked, warns us that the position to which we were relegated at that time restricted our freedom of action, limited the scope of our contribution, and minimized any influence we might have exerted upon the peace treaties then formulated.
The original proposal, to limit the role of the lesser powers to mere statements of views-and more particularly, may I add, the
subsequent proposal of the Soviet Union to modify this by allowing fuller participation of the twelve smaller powers overrun by Hitler- is in my opinion outrageous, particularly so when five of the twelve include White Russia, the Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Poland. Albania is not yet recognized by either the British or the American authorities. This would exclude Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India, whose parliaments or governments all declared war and participated in it from the beginning; while the Soviet Union and some of the smaller nations were not only pursuing policies friendly to Hitler, but for almost two years were actually supplying him with vital war supplies.
We therefore wish to express our complete agreement with the government's demand for full participation in the German and Austrian settlements. As I said on January 30, an effort should have been made to secure a joint protest by nations treated similarly to ourselves, even to the extent of withholding the making of any written submission to the foreign ministers' deputies conference.
I feel this strongly also because I believe that nations removed from European and territorial squabbles, and which made substantial contributions in the war, could be of positive assistance in the discussions. This was demonstrated on several occasions at the general assembly of the united nations, last autumn when, for example, Canada broke the disarmament controversy deadlock by suggestions which for weeks the great powers had ignored. It cannot be argued that European settlements concern us little. As the hon. member for Peel indicated, twice in our generation Canada has been called upon to sacrifice her blood, her sweat and her tears, because of wars which originated in Europe and which were not of our making. Thus we have both a vital concern and a right to the fullest participation in the peaceful settlement of that sorely distressed continent.
Canada, I say, is vitally interested in every phase of the peace settlement. Politically and economically the world is one. We cannot be secure or prosperous if any part of the world is insecure or depressed. All Europe is in a shocking state. The devastation of war has created economic and social chaos, and unbelievable distress. In Great Britain the crisis is acute; the outlook in France is uncertain. Last week 50,000 veterans demonstrated in Brussels, and we heard news yesterday of more demonstrations in that city. Widespread famine and disorder in Italy are actually threatening the rise of new semi-fascist organizations. In Hungary,
Peace Treaties

Bulgaria, Roumania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Greece, and at least in the western provinces of the Soviet Union, shortages and suffering exist, while starvation and disease are the potent cause of unrest in Poland.
In Germany and Austria the situation beggars description. I mention all this because plans for the economic rehabilitation of Europe are fundamental to improved political conditions. Unfortunately so far these considerations have not been emphasized in the statements already made, or at any rate not emphasized sufficiently.
The colossal reparations imposed upon Italy indicate that considerations of big-power compromises obscure consideration for European reconstruction. In my opinion the decision of the western democracies-United States, Great Britain and France-to forgo Italian reparations was a real contribution to the cause of peace. To the extent to which these huge reparations are not met, they will contribute to international friction; and if they are met they will make European recovery almost impossible.
Present distrust among the big powers prevents the tackling of the peace settlement on a conference basis. Canada is right when she says that Europe must be treated as a unit. Prosperity for the whole world depends upon the rehabilitation of that continent. Her resources, then, should be viewed as essential to all parts of it. Hence the peace settlement requires the adoption of a comprehensive plan to raise standards of living of the suffering peoples of the continent.
Common justice demands that we should do everything possible to bring peace and hope to the millions who suffer because of Hitler's brutality and oppression. It should be clear, I think, too, that the possibilities of democratic development are threatened when disillusionment, starvation, disease and despair are universal. It is in just such an objective and realistic approach that Canada could make her greatest contribution.
Up to the present time the preparatory meetings have been bedeviled by exhibitions of national rivalries, of selfish considerations, of national security, of arguments over territories and boundaries, when national sovereignty is powerless without international security, and when boundaries are meaningless in an age of atomic energy and universal interdependence.
In the February issue of Harper's, Mr. Henry L. Stimson, former Secretary of State for War in the United States, concludes his article-one which I would recommend to all hon. members, and indeed to the people throughout the country-in which he explains

and defends his recommendation to the president for the use of the atomic bomb against Japan, in these words:
In this last great action of the second world war we were given final proof that war is death. War in the twentieth century has grown steadily more barbarous, more destructive, more debased in all its aspects. Now with the release of atomic energy man's ability to destroy himself is very nearly complete. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war; they also made it wholly clear that we must never have another war. This is the lesson men and leaders everywhere must learn, and I believe that when they learn it they will find a way to lasting peace. There is no other choice.
What then should be our attitude towards the peace settlement with Germany and Austria? In the main I find myself in agreement with the views communicated by Canada to the deputies of the foreign ministers, but I feel that in several respects our suggestions should be elucidated. Canada seems, for example, to support the French view that henceforth Germany should be organized as a very loose federation with the principal powers in the individual states and only strictly limited authority in the central government. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, favours a strong unitary state and centralized control. So far the attitude of the United States is far from clear, but an indication of the attitude of the United Kingdom may be found in the Foreign Secretary's speech in October last, when he said this:
Looking further ahead, we contemplate a German constitution which would avoid the two extremes of a loose confederation of autonomous states and a unitary centralized state.
It seems to me that our own experience as a confederation should incline Canada to support what seems to be the British view rather than that of too loose a federation or a highly centralized state. Recently, and particularly in a report carried in the New York Times of February 11, there seemed to be indications of a modification of the Soviet attitude in Mr. Molotov's suggestion that later on a plebiscite or referendum might be allowed to decide the issue. Meantime our government supports the idea that for the time being an international statute should be adopted and imposed on the German people and that the formal signing of any peace treaty should be left in abeyance until political development inside the country evolves a properly elected government. This seems to me, as it did to the hon. member for Peel, an intelligent approach, but it is one which the meeting of the deputies seems to have discarded. A treaty now could only be signed by a German government created for that purpose by the victorious powers. The lessons

Peace Treaties
of Hitler's use of the treaty of Versailles as a potent propaganda weapon in the resurgence of German chauvinism should warn us of the dangers inherent in the deputies proposal. In any event it seems to me that the proposal for an interim statute has the advantage of preventing rigid decisions now which may cause trouble later on.
But political progress will depend upon a rapid improvement in economic conditions. Canadians, I am certain, desire their government to do everything possible to support those democratic political leaders who survived the concentration camps or who kept the idea of freedom alive in the underground. The success or failure of these democratic leaders will depend very largely on the solution of European economic problems. Section 22 of the government's submission to the meeting of deputies urges the early establishment of an economic commission for Europe. It notes that this has already been proposed in the united nations but has not been put into effect. Canada's submission suggests that it might be a useful agency for integrating German industry into the general European economy. While we can support that principle, the reference in the memorandum is vague and seems to suggest only limited functions for the commission. What is needed I think is something more comprehensive, an economic planning agency integrated with and responsible to the economic and social council of the united nations, the body which because of its obligations under the charter and its specialized agencies is most competent to undertake this essential task.
Concerned with economic and social conditions throughout the world, the council would be in the best position to make recommendations towards the achievement of that level of economy and standard of living which may be permitted to Germany in - order to prevent Germany from continuing to constitute a centre of economic depression-to prevent her, in other words, from remaining or becoming a European slum.
But consideration of German economic conditions raises the important question of the kind of economic activity to be permitted and encouraged. German industry before the war was highly organized and centralized in powerful private monopolies, trusts and cartels. The Potsdam agreement provided for their elimination. Since then the United States and the United Kingdom have declared their common intention to destroy these powerful and menacing consequences of private enterprise.
Canada's submission asks for the elimination of monopolies. But it is just at this
point that fundamental differences appear among the nations. The United States, and probably the present government of this country, approach the problem in the belief that the monopolies can be split up into small competing units. But neither in the United States nor in Canada have anti-monopoly laws such as our Combines Investigation Act or the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the United States prevented the monopolization and cartelization of powerful industries.
It is indeed fantastic to think of splitting up effective mass production units anywhere, when conditions demand immediately the most efficient production possible. European economists agree that the only way of eliminating the huge combines which characterized pre-war Germany is to socialize them. Speaking in the United Kingdom House of Commons on October 23, the Foreign Secretary said:
We have also to consider -the ownership of basic German industries. They were previously in the hands of magnates who were closely allied to the German military machine, who financed Hitler, and who in two wars were part and parcel of Germany's aggressive policy.
We have no desire to see those gentlemen or their like return to a position which they have abused with such tragic results. As an interim measure we have taken over the possession and control of the coal and steel industries, and vested them in the commander-in-chief. We shall shortly take similar action in the case of the heavy chemical industry and the mechanical engineering industry. Our intention is that these industries should be owned and controlled in future by the public. The exact form of this public ownership and control is now being worked out. They should be owned and worked by the German people, but subject to such international control that they cannot again be a threat to their neighbours.
I submit that this is a realistic approach to the problem, and one which in spite of differences in economic theory is, under the conditions brought about by Hitler and the powerful industrialists who supported him, the only possible solution now.
The private owners of German industry, even when they are not actual war criminals, have surely forfeited all rights to their property, which should be transferred to public ownership and supervised and used to rebuild a devastated Europe, and in due course minister to the common needs of all mankind.
This I think is the kind of policy that Canada should support. It therefore follows that we should urge the immediate implementation of section 14 of the Potsdam agreement, which states:
During the period of occupation, Germany shall be treated as a single economic unit.
Peace Treaties

And then goes on to provide for common policies on such matters as mining and production allocations, agriculture, forestry, fishing, wages, prices and1 rationing; currency and banking; central taxation and customs; transportation, communications and so forth. Not only has this section been completely ignored, but until the recent unification of the British and United States zones, there were four distinct and separate zones and policies. There seems to have been little contact between the British and the United States zones and the French zone, and no contact at all between any of them and the Soviet zone.
Section 19 states that-
Payment of reparations should leave enough resources to enable the German people to subsist without external assistance.
It adds that any German surpluses must be used to pay for necessary imports and so forth. This section has been completely ignored, and much of the distress and food difficulties of the United Kingdom herself stem from the fact that the food and raw material areas of Germany are in the Soviet zone, while the densely populated industrialized areas are a British responsibility.
Canada should1 insist on the carrying out of these sections of the Potsdam agreement, an agreement which, in so many particulars, has complicated the problem of the whole war settlement, and which was made by the great powers without the advice and consent of numerous other nations, including Canada.
This, of course, raises the problem of reparations. There can be no question that the Soviet union, France and other countries have the right to demand compensation for the terrific destruction and suffering caused by German aggression. As the government's brief to the deputies of the foreign ministers states, the German people bear responsibility, because they permitted Hitler to prepare for and1 make war against his neighbours. It is true that Hitler "openly proclaimed policies of shameless aggression." Again I quote from our government's representation. But it is also true that powerful interests, and yes, some political leaders in the allied countries, excused or financed his rise to power because they thought they saw in him a barrier against the spread of progressive ideas which they did not like, while, even after the aggressive war began, others continued to give him aid.
The principle governing reparations should be that of justice rather than of vengeance. To exact reparations which would not only cripple Germany but interfere with the recovery of her victims would be to repeat a mistake made at Versailles and1 destroy all
[Mr. Coldwell.l
hope of rebuilding a democratic Europe. Those who remember reading years ago a remarkable book published after the last war by John Maynard Keynes, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace," will I think take warning from the difficulties he foreshadowed, and which came about as a result of reparations exacted at Versailles.
The only neighbour which might conceivably survive the shock would be the Soviet Union, whose rigid political and economic controls might enable it to prevent the effect of a general European collapse from affecting its internal situation.
Ability to meet reparation payments and contribute to the rehabilitation of world economy are dependent upon the level and kind of production permitted in Germany. The United Kingdom is supporting a higher level of production than has been agreed upon. It seems to me that the important thing is not only to encourage production, but to establish the means of supervising and controlling the nature and the allocation of production. Reparation payments will depend upon the development of German resources to a level sufficient to contribute to the welfare of all Europe, as well as the future welfare of its own people.
This would be a policy of enlightened selfinterest. Prolongation of the terrible conditions existing in Germany, and elsewhere, is bound to lead to secret subversive activities. Recently many arrests were made in the British-United States zone of people connected with the continuing nazi underground organization. Press reports indicate a rebirth of extreme nationalism in Germany. These, if not due to despair, will be fostered by it. To offset it we should assist and encourage the rise of democratic leadership, the trade unions, the cooperatives, and present the opportunities for the common people to develop their own economic security as time passes.
It is obvious that for some time allied occupation will be necessary, if only to carry out policies in the general interest. How and by whom this shall be done will be a matter of controversy. One hopes that the old-fashioned concept of an occupying army will be replaced, as soon as conditions permit, by a body more in keeping with modern ideas and needs. If a German administration and a German police organization are carefully established to exclude rigidly any remnant of militarism or nazism, the actual military occupation force could be reduced to a minimum. And this is

Peace Treaties
essential to the occupying powers, who are deprived of absolutely necessary man-power because of the military occupation. It seems to me that more important than the presence of large bodies of foreign troops in Germany is the organization of carefully selected civilians from allied countries capable of assisting in the planning of the German economy and of the educational and social rehabilitation of the German people.
But above all it is important that civilian inspection and control by thoroughly competent persons and scientists should be established to ensure that no part of German science and industry will lend itself to the rebuilding of a new war-potential. Such occupation forces- the kind which I visualize-would achieve the objects of security, would assist European recovery, and would be preferable to a purely military occupation. May I repeat that the occupying nations, particularly Great Britain and France because of shortages of manpower, cannot afford to keep large armies in Germany if it can possibly be avoided.
My time does not permit to me to discuss the Austrian treaty. I agree with the hon. member for Peel that we might have had more to say about it, and perhaps said it sooner, but after all our primary interest is indeed in the German settlement; for it was in the war against the German Reich that we were ourselves most involved. We support the idea of an independent Austria whose boundaries should be established on the basis of the country as it was before the anschluss of 1938.
I have tried to emphasize the points which seem to need greater emphasis in Canada's representations at the peace conference. We believe that this continent, indeed this whole western hemisphere, including Canada, must be prepared to play a major role in the reconstruction of Europe as a whole. It is in this context that the German and Austrian treaties must be viewed. To my mind the abandonment of the policies underlying UNRRA may be a calamity. This is not our fault; for the Canadian delegation pressed strenuously at the recent assembly of the united nations for at least its replacement by an organization to handle relief which would be international in form and scope. We should continue to press this view. Worse still perhaps has been the failure so far to implement Sir John Boyd Orr's proposal for the establishment of a world food council. As the world's greatest exporter of wheat, we have an entirely proper if selfish interest in world food control to ensure proper returns to producers in times of surplus production as well as reasonable prices to consumers in hardly less frequent periods of
scarcity, and in the feeding of mankind as a whole. But so far, in spite of great hopes, the failure of the nations to organize effective international agencies for the exchange of goods, and the provision of capital equipment to the devastated areas, is not only disappointing but harmful to human welfare.
In short, Canada must not be satisfied merely to express its views on current issues and controversies. I repeat, we can, because of the unique position among the lesser powers which we achieved during the war, take a lead, by declaring again our readiness to play in full our part in assisting the starving displaced millions in Europe to rebuild their own lives and the economy in which their lots may be cast. What all this means, of course, is that we must recognize that peace and prosperity, like modern war and universal suffering, are indivisible.
As section 32 of Canada's submission to the deputies meeting has so well said:
In the long run, to settle the German problem and other world problems, we must build the united nations into an effective instrument for the preservation of peace. This cannot be accomplished without some surrender of national sovereignty and the institution ultimately of some form of world government.
With this conclusion we whole-heartedly agree.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I do not intend to take very long, Mr. Speaker, to contribute in my small way to this debate. I do not intend, either, to multiply words on matters which have already been discussed quite effectively, I believe, by the two preceding speakers. With most of what both speakers said I could agree. More particularly I feel that the submission made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was well made. I appreciate, sir, this opportunity for the House of Commons to discuss the matter of external relations and the part that Canada should play in the formulation of treaties of peace for Germany and Austria.
I believe that parliament should have an opportunity at frequent intervals-just how frequent I am not at this moment prepared to say

to discuss external affairs, and on such occasions the members should be given by the government as much information as can possibly be given on the various world problems and developments, particularly as they might effect Canada and her place in the world, or be affected by Canada or Canadian influence. At any rate, members of parliament ought to know what Canada's foreign policy is. We should know the details
Peace Treaties

of the submissions to the council of foreign ministers, or to the united nations, on almost any grave world problem.
Moreover, the government should not expect the members of this house to be ready to take the responsibility of ratifying treaties or international agreements without having had some responsibility, and I think a fair measure of it, in laying down the policy upon which these treaties or these international agreements have been formulated. The government has never yet, it seems to me, issued a frank forthright and definite policy on foreign affairs.
I supported the government in their protest against the attitude of the council of foreign ministers towards Canada's participation in the German and Austrian peace conferences that open next Monday in Moscow. The people of Canada generally feel, and quite rightly so, that Canada should have a part in drafting the treaties with Germany and Austria which shall bear a reasonable relationship to the contribution which Canada did make in winning the victory over the German military machine.
I supported the government in their protest and in their claim, not simply because I wanted to see Canada intrude herself into the affairs of other nations, but because I feel that Canada has a contribution, and a real contribution, to make to world peace and international good will. I quite realize that by material standards, by comparison with other countries, Canada may not be a great power, but I contend that by moral standards Canada ranks with the greatest in the world. And just as we fought in the war to preserve the ideals of freedom and democracy, and in no sense because we wanted power or territory or material gain, so I claim we are prepared m the making of peace to exert our influence and our efforts into moral channels in an endeavour to establish justice and not power politics or selfish manoeuvring as the foundation upon which treaties are to be drafted and upon which world peace will be so dependent in the years to come.
By ignoring Canada the council of foreign ministers is certainly in no sense showing international good will and cooperation. They all want to see Canada contribute generously of her material gifts to feed a hungry world. They all acknowledge the sacrifices which we made in manpower, in machinery, in food, materials and in our scientific skill during the war. And every member of the council of foreign ministers, I feel sure, admires the further sacrifices Canada has made since the war to prevent suffering among the peoples of the 
world. They all admit Canada's great sacrifices, but they seem to want us to do nothing but continue to make sacrifices.
No people ever took kindly to an expectation of that kind. I say that is akin to taxation without representation, a thing which is repugnant to freedom-loving people, no matter where they happen to live in the world. Surely the big four must realize that Canada cannot soon forget the brushing off she has suffered at their hands, and thinking people everywhere will remember too that Canada's position has been weakened to some extent at least by the failure of the government to adopt and adhere to a well-defined foreign policy.
It has long been my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that Canada should have a strong, non-partisan foreign policy. I believe the members of this group have always expressed their determination to cooperate with the government in laying down such a policy and to take their full responsibility in its formulation and application. I believe, moreover-and I have expressed this on various occasions

that the very essence of strong, independent, and sovereign nations within the British commonwealth rests in complete understanding and the fullest possible cooperation with each other on foreign policy. This is a truth which it is quite evident that Britain seems to have forgotten. Has she given any indication, since this matter became an issue, that she supports Canada's claim to a part in the making of the peace with Germany and Austria? That I do not know, of course, Mr. Speaker, perhaps when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) speaks in this debate he will make that matter clear to the members of the house. But I do know that Britain failed to back up Canada when Russia appointed as ambassador to Britain, Zaroubin, a man who had violated the recognized code of diplomatic relations while he was here enjoying his privileges in Canada. Canada in her turn certainly did fail to register a protest against this slap in the face by Russia; at least I have never known of any action which Canada took to register such a protest. The government of this country also failed to back up Britain in her policy in Palestine and as a result has weakened Britain very considerably.


Mr. JAQUES:: And in Greece.


Mr. LOW:: I do not wish to labour this matter, but I do want to make clear a point of view in connection with our external relations as they may affect the making of the peace with Germany and Austria, The mem-

Peace Treaties
bers of the commonwealth must stand firmly together in their efforts if we are ever to influence the laying down of conditions for enduring or permanent peace. It must not be forgotten that Britain has been weakened terribly by the ravages of two wars; and with economic weakness there is bound to come some diminution of her prestige in world affairs. A weakened Britain will find tremendous difficulty in her efforts to negotiate a just peace for Germany and Austria. During the past year several indications have become evident of Britain's financial and economic weakness. I have been much concerned of late over the announced withdrawal of Britain from India and of the possible necessity of her withdrawal from Greece and Palestine. If she does withdraw, I want to ask this question and to have hon. members face it squarely. Who will fill the vacuum created by that withdrawal? That is a matter which has a definite relationship to the possibility of making a just peace for Germany and Austria; and that too, Mr. Speaker, should be a matter of grave concern to the whole democratic world. Realizing that, I ask you what Canada's position is if she is to be of some assistance in formulating enduring treaties of peace? It ought to be evident that the parts of the commonwealth have always made the mistake, when war was over, of demobilizing completely and leaving to Britain the policing of the world, or what policing there was to do.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Leaving Britain to wash the dirty dishes.


Solon Earl Low: Yes. In her present exhausted state I claim that is not only inhumane but dangerous as well. In my opinion, the hope of the future lies in complete understanding of foreign policy and in readiness to cooperate amongst all the component independent parts of the British commonwealth, and, if you wish, of the Anglo-American world. Our duty, it seems to me, is clear. First, we must come to complete understanding with Britain. Britain does have a place on the council of foreign ministers and evidently she is expected to speak for the whole Anglo-Saxon world.
Second, Canada is the oldest, or I should say the most grown-up sister in the sisterhood of nations of the commonwealth; we should take the lead in rallying the other parts of the commonwealth, and, if possible, the United States and other democracy-loving nations, to stand solidly together with Britain in this hour of grave danger.
Third, we should maintain a firm stand. I commend the government on the stand it has taken thus far, that Canada should be given her just place in the peace conferences. I
have gone over the submission which Canada made with respect to the German and Austrian treaties, and I have little to add to what has already been said. I believe that the submission regarding the peace with Germany is good, and I find myself in substantial agreement with the government in that.
In the fourth place, since the united nations organization is a reality-the only reality, it seems to me, outside of the British commonwealth that the nations of the world have been able to devise thus far as a means of achieving world peace-the only sensible attitude that we can take now is to pray to God that it will be successful and to give it every opportunity to show what it can do. I for one, Mr. Speaker, propose to do just that. I am not a carping critic by any means, of the work of the united nations organization. I should like to see it succeed in establishing permanent peace on just foundations. To date it has not given much promise of being able to do so.
If we are to be able to assist in laying down an enduring peace with any nation, and to take our place in the councils of the great nations, ready and willing to exercise our moral strength for the good of the world, I believe we must go back to the spirit of the Atlantic charter. We must revive in our people the hope which that charter aroused in the people of the world. We must hold up the spirit of the charter as our ensign, and we must work unceasingly to see that the terms of the Atlantic charter are made realities. I like the way President Roosevelt spoke of it. I subscribe whole-heartedly to the spirit of his declaration, and I believe that if we remember it in our submissions with respect to the formulation of the treaties for Germany and Austria and any others which may follow, we shall have no difficulty in exercising that influence which Canada alone is capable of exercising by virtue of the fact that she is not seeking any material gain, and that she is anxious to demonstrate her sincerity by good works. Here is what Roosevelt said:
This is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for the kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the antithesis of the order of tyranny which dictators seek to create. To that order of tyranny we oppose the greater conception- the moral order. Let our nations place their destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women, and their faith in freedom under the guidance of God.
I subscribe to the sentiments in that statement, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that in the application of those principles we have the underlying hope for the future peace of the world.
Peace Treaties

In conclusion let me say that if ever there was a time in the history of this world when people needed the guidance of Almighty God, it is now. I hope that whatever we do as Canada, whatever statements we make, we may ever keep in mind that the solution of world affairs and world problems can come only under divine guidance.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe no important statement ever made in this house has been received with a greater degree of unanimity by the house and throughout the country than the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) on January 30 of this year regarding Canada's participation in the making of peace with Germany and Austria. The reception it received from the leaders of all parties in the house and the reception it received throughout the country showed that on this matter, as today on most matters of external policy, the Canadian people were united to a greater degree than perhaps even they themselves generally recognized. That has been demonstrated in the debate today. In moving this motion the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said, "I stand with the government." The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said that the government's stand had his full support and that he was in complete agreement with its general lines; while the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who has just resumed his seat, commended the government for the stand taken. This is a demonstration of Canadian unity on a great and important issue never before seen in this house, and I believe never before seen in the country in peace time. It comes out of the unity we had in time of war. The right we claim to be heard in time of peace stems from our contribution, the contribution of the whole nation, made in unity during the war.
Today I will deal with four matters, because they have been touched upon by some hon. members and because they have a bearing upon our discussion. First, there is the question of the Paris conference, the function of that conference, the role we played there and the lessons to be learned; second, whether the fact that our troops were not occupying Germany has any bearing on the present situation; third, the extent of our participation in war gives foundation for our right to work for peace; and fourth, the special position, the capacity of Canada to make a great contribution to peace at this time.
With what the hon. member for Peel said about the Paris conference I have not very much to find disfavour. Everyone knows that the role of that conference was limited. It

grew out of the Potsdam conference held in July and August, 1945, when the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union, the three nations which had carried the supreme burden in war decided they would form a council of the foreign ministers of the three powers and France to set about drafting the terms of peace with the satellites of Germany. The Paris conference stemmed from that meeting, and the meetings of the council of foreign ministers, which took place at London, Moscow and Paris. Meanwhile, in accordance with their instructions, their deputies were drafting the terms of peace with the five satellites of Germany: Italy, Bulgaria. Roumania, Finland and Hungary.
The conference was called on July 5 to meet at Paris on July 29. Its function was not to draft treaties of peace but to make representations to the council of foreign ministers as to what the drafts they prepared should contain. By the terms of invitation the council of foreign ministers was to have the final say as to what the treaties contained; and by the terms of the draft treaties themselves, the treaties with the five satellite powers were to come into effect upon their ratification by the four great powers.
When we in Canada received that invitation we could either go to the Paris conference on those terms or not go at all. The government of Canada, I believe rightly, like the other seventeen governments which received identical invitations, decided to be represented at the Paris conference by a delegation; and we considered it so important that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself headed that delegation. We did not have a large delegation. Some nations were represented by as many as three hundred. The Canadian delegation, we found, had all too few members to do good work without overtiring them. However the Canadian delegation made an effective contribution within the scope of our interest in the matters under discussion. Speaking at a plenary session at the outset of the conference, the Prime Minister made the suggestion that during the conference itself the council of foreign ministers should meet to discuss questions arising during the conference. That was one of the few constructive proposals with regard to procedure that were made during the early plenary sessions. It was well received and acted upon in part, and I believe it contributed substantially to the work of the conference.
However there is no doubt that on account of the narrowness of the terms of reference, the vagueness of the rules of procedure laid before the conference, and the acrimonious

Peace Treaties
way in which those rules were debated at the outset-not by Canada-the work of the conference, and the atmosphere in which it was carried on, were adversely affected. Further, the fact that everything had to be translated into three languages, not simultaneously, and the fixing of October 15 for a deadline for the conference because it was necessary to meet the arrangements made for holding a meeting of the united nations assembly in New York on October 23, combined with other factors to reduce the usefulness of the conference and gave it a deadline that was almost impossible to meet without overtaxing human endurance.
For example, toward the end, the territorial commission on Italy met at nine o'clock at night and went on until next morning at six o'clock. But that record was broken by one commission which began at ten o'clock one morning and continued until nearly three o'clock the following afternoon, making twenty-eight and a half consecutive hours of sitting.
The way in which the discussion developed on the issues which came before the conference tended to emphasize the vote and the manner of voting. Peace cannot be made either by votes or vetoes; peace must be made by understanding, patiently worked out by people who have the interests of peace at heart.
The conference finished its work on October 15 and, with regard to a number of matters on which the council of foreign ministers had not been able to reach agreement prior to the conference, the conference expressed its views. Those views were received and considered by the council at its meetings in New York and undoubtedly contributed to the settlements that were ultimately arrived at in December.
Now the treaties have been signed. By and large they are not bad treaties. But I have every conviction that they are better treaties by reason of the fact that the Paris conference was held; they are better treaties by reason of the fact that seventeen nations were called in to consultation with the four great powers in working out the texts of the agreements.
The Paris conference showed what should be avoided in holding a peace conference; but it did not show that a conference should not be held; indeed, quite the contrary.
With relation to the hon. member for Peel's suggestion, that we should have put ourselves on record earlier, may I say I do not think it would have been possible at one conference to have expressed oneself at great length with regard to the procedure that was to be followed at another conference.
The final discussions in plenary session on the text of the treaties and recommendations began on October 7. The conference had to close on October 15, and there were exactly six sitting days for the final discussions, and also for the votes. Voting took almost half the time. So that everything anyone had to say had to be compressed into a very short space.
But to show that we did not need to wait until now to criticize the procedure, I should like to put on record the observations I made at the final session. On October 8 I said this:
We hope the experience gained at this conference will not be wasted. For example every delegate here knows of one deficiency or another in the rules of procedure. These rules should be examined and amplified in the light of our experience. Suggestions might be made with regard to machinery for preparing the drafts of the other peace treaties which have still to be evolved. We hope that before this conference concludes, or soon after, nations wishing to do so should be encouraged to put forward the suggestions for the procedure to be adopted in making the peace for Germany and Japan.
So that I had in mind at Paris in October the view expressed by the hon. member for Peel today in March, and I believe I expressed this kind of view more fully than any other delegate among the twenty-one nations at the conference. None of those who spoke dealt with the questions of procedure and the lessons to be learned from our experience at Paris as fully as I had done in these and in other observations in my short speech.
Now, with regard to the second point, namely as to whether or not the withdrawal of the Canadian forces from western Europe had any effect whatever on our present position, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house there is no proof whatever that the return of Canadians to their homeland, many of whom had been absent for six years, had any effect whatever on our position abroad, or in the making of the peace. To the contrary, I say there is positive proof that it had no effect. That is seen in the position occupied by Belgium and Holland which have had occupying forces in part of the German territory, in one of the zones. Yet they are receiving treatment no different from that received by Canada at the present time.
There was never any hint that the presence of occupying forces would give more weight to anyone's voice in Europe. There was never any suggestion that that would improve Canada's position with regard to representation on the allied military government or the control council at Berlin. Canada was never invited to become a member of either; she was never
Peace Treaties

offered a zone. And without having a role, how could she play a more important part than she has played?
We are represented at Berlin by a mission; and having been there, I say that our mission is on exactly the same footing as that of the other representatives which have missions in Berlin at this time, but which are not among the Big Four having representation on the control council and the allied military government, namely the United Kingdom, the United States, France and the Soviet Union. There are no others. And there is no evidence-no proof-that the presence of any force Canada might have in Europe would change our position by so much as an ounce of more power or weight.
Further, I would ask my hon. friend this question: What is his idea of the size of the occupying force it would be necessary for Canada to have, in order to have some weight? Would it be five thousand or ten thousand or fifteen thousand Canadians kept from their homes?
And I further ask my hon. friend this question too: How could we, with a force of that size, exercise any influence and make our people in Canada believe that the continuing absence from Canada of their loved ones was earning something for Canada either in terms of prestige or power, or in the civilizing influences which our force might exert in western Europe? We thought that rather than keep forces in Europe, eating food in Europe, it was much better to send food to Europe; and no country has a better record than Canada on that.
But, Mr. Speaker, our right to be heard in making the peace does not depend upon whether or not we had five thousand or ten thousand soldiers of Canada in Europe a year after the war. Our right depends upon how many sailors, soldiers and airmen of Canada we had in Europe and in the fighting centres of the world during the war. The record of Canada is one which speaks for itself and one which I am sure hon. members opposite would be the first to say-if they have not already done so-would give us as workers for peace the right to stand side by side with the nations with whom we fought shoulder to shoulder, as brothers in arms. Canada entered the war voluntarily by the act of its own government, and with the support of its own parliament, as a free people, on September 10, 1939. We entered the war against Japan on December 7, 1941, the day of Pearl Harbor. In neither case was Canada attacked. We did not wait to be attacked. We entered the war because our own interests were involved, because we saw that freedom, like peace, like trade and 
prosperity, is indivisible, and we saw that the best place to defeat the enemy is before he comes to your gates, as far off as it is possible to reach him.
We entered the war in no half-hearted fashion. We entered the war and stayed right through, and I ask the people of Britain if they think that our flyers who helped them during their hour of need in the Battle of Britain did not earn the right to have a voice in the peace? I ask the peoples of Europe if the bridge of ships with which we did half the work of keeping open to the other side was not a major factor in giving the allies, and not the enemy, a chance to say what the peace shall be? I ask the people who stood our bombing, and who afterwards thanked us for it, if those great clouds of bombers that we sent over night after night softening up the enemy did not help to pave the way to victory? I ask the people of western Europe, of France, of Normandy and Dieppe, of Belgium, The Hague and1 Bergen-op-Zoom, what they have to say about Canada's part in the war and what their vote would be as to what our part should be in the peace? It was my privilege to be there this autumn during the almost three months of the Paris conference and I heard what they said. It was a moving thing, Mr. Speaker, to go through the streets of Falaise and Caen and along the beaches from St. Aubin to Arro-manches and visit the scenes from which Canadians had come more than three hundred years ago, to find there Frenchmen with the same names as those we know in Quebec, standing in front of the houses sometimes of necessity shelled and bombed by our men, standing there with tears of gratitude in their eyes for Canada and cheers for Canada and for the part we had played in their liberation. It was a moving thing to make that great pilgrimage with the Prime Minister. I do not believe the people of Canada have yet appreciated that was one of the greatest events in the whole experience of those parts of France, that a Canadian Prime Minister should go there from village to village and be received, not only on his own account, but as the representative of a country which they had reason to be grateful to and with which they had special ties of love and affection and which they regarded as a principal factor in their being once again free. The same was true of the channel ports and as we journeyed through Belgium and Holland. If every Canadian visited Europe for just a few days, he would get a truer view of his own country; he would find then that there is no country

Peace Treaties
and no people on the face of the earth more respected, better liked and more envied than Canada today.
What the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said about this situation in Europe is all too true, and it was a useful thing that I should have seen it. What I saw was saddening. While it sent me back home prouder than ever of being a Canadian, more grateful than ever of the fact that I happen to have the good fortune to bo born in Canada,, it made me also more full of recognition of the responsibility which is ours because of our good fortune.
And, Mr. Speaker, I cannot think that when our part in war is considered that the people abroad are unmindful of the fact that Canada was the third greatest industrial nation in the war. Why, there is not a single country in Europe that has not received aid from Canada at one time or another. They speak there of the miracle of Canada's production and of her war effort.
While our material contribution of industrial production and food totalled some twelve billion dollars in war, Canada's contribution since the war in the work of restoring what had been destroyed, in the work of laying the foundations for peace, in the work of rehabilitation-Canada's contribution has been second to none throughout the world in terms of her population. In mutual aid we gave $2,471,000,000; in military relief $84,700,000; contribution to the United Kingdom in 1942, $1,000,000,000; to UNRRA, $154,000,000; in wheat to Greece, $12,600,000; or a total of $3,722,300,000. That is the financial measure of our aid to other countries during the war and in the immediate post-war period. But think of it in terms of human lives. I was in Greece, and saw there the people of that country, and the king, their Prime Minister and his ministers had their first opportunity of expressing personally through a Canadian minister to the people of Canada their gratitude for our contributions. From August, 1942, on, we sent 14,000 tons of wheat per month to Greece, and that meant the difference between life and death by starvation for about half the Greek population. That is a country which is grateful.
In addition to what I have just said, aid has been given in the form of loans by Canada to the United Kingdom, $700,000,000 in 1942 and $1,250,000,000 in 1946, a total of $1,950,000,000; a wheat loan to the Soviet Union of $10,000,000, and credits provided under the Export Credits Insurance Act of $750,000,000, or a total of $2,710,000,000 in loans by Canada.
There is hardly a part of Europe that you can visit today where you do not see a Canadian truck carrying some Canadian produce at some time or another to render relief and aid to the people.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, if the people of France and the French government do not feel that we should be heard and participate fully in preparing the peace that we had such a large part in maldng possible for them? I ask too, the people of the United Kingdom, not only because of their historic relations with us, not because of gratitude because that should not exist between our countries, but because from the beginning to the end we worked together, because we had a common interest in victory, a common interest in freedom and a common interest in peace. I believe they and our friends in the United States will not hesitate to support our position.
And I ask, Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the Soviet Union if they will not remember that when they were carrying such a large proportion of the total burden of war we helped with as much materials as we could get to them, to the extent of millions and millions of dollars. We helped with munitions of war, with drugs, with technical assistance and even with the blood of Canadians going to them in blood banks.
Altogether our men overseas were the best ambassadors that any country ever had. The role of representing Canada abroad is made easier because of the respect and affection earned for us by the sailors, the soldiers and the airmen of Canada. They have done this for Canada and also for the other countries whose good fortune it is to have been on the winning side. We all contributed to that, and our contribution-whether it is measured in industrial or food production, in contributions of money and food after the war, in soldiers fighting up the whole long length of Italy from Sicily to the Po, our soldiers fighting from the beaches of Normandy right through to the Rhine-was the third greatest among the allied nations on the western front. But it is not only on account of contributions to victory that the Canadian people would expect to have participation in the peace, but also because we have shown our capacity in peace.
It has been the fortune of hon. members present, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and many others to have the honour to represent Canada at international conferences. I believe that if one goes through the long record of conferences- there were ninety-eight last year-the more important ones, UNRRA, the foundation of
Peace Treaties

the bank and the fund, the food organization, the economic and social organization, PICAO, the international refugees committee and the trade conference which is now under way, as well as the various conferences of the united nations, he will find that Canada has played not a boastful, vauntful place, but a useful place, a place which has been recognized by others attending these conferences as objective, fair-minded, free from self-seeking and always headed and staffed by people well informed, well briefed and competent to do their job.
I ask the hon. members I have mentioned, who have taken part in these conferences, if they will not bear me out in saying that as they moved around among the other delegations, whether it be our good friends to the south or the Latin-American countries; whether it be the Europeans or the Soviet Union and its associated countries, no matter what the countries are, they found that their representatives usually were ready to say that they were surprised that Canada, a country of twelve million people, should be able to secure the representation that she has been fortunate in having in international conferences. I believe that the hon. gentlemen whom I have mentioned would also agree with me that in our Department of External Affairs we have a group of representatives of our country which is second to none throughout the whole world today. Incidentally, from what I have seen at several of the conferences, I believe that they are seriously overworked and I hope that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) brings down his estimates he will secure support from the house to ensure that we do not continue to put the burden on our representatives abroad that we do today.
In addition to what we have been able to do at these conferences, there is the very special position of Canada. Canada has no particular or selfish interest or demands. That was the view expressed by the Prime Minister at Paris-and repeated on every occasion when the occasion arose. We want nothing from any nation except the chance to work with them- to lay the foundations of a lasting peace and of that degree of prosperity among all nations which is an essential ingredient of peace.
Canada has a special interest in international security because of our dependence on world trade. We have a special stake in peace because almost thirty-five per cent of our national production ordinarily comes from world trade; but that also gives us a particular equipment with which to see the needs of other nations. Another reason why we can play a part is the nature of our people them-

selves, the fact that we are essentially a people of minorities, which gives us a special position to understand minority and other similar questions.
It was not just coincidence that at the Paris conference one of the members of the Canadian delegation, Lieutenant-General Pope, head of our military mission at Berlin, was asked to sit in with the representatives of Hungary and of Czechoslovakia to try to act as an umpire in a discussion of some of their vexed minority problems. Hon. members with experience will agree with me that the times when Canadians, because of their experience and because of their objectivity, are asked to act either as chairmen, as draftsmen or as the third men in the ring for an informal discussion, are positively embarrassing. Then, too, because of the nature of our people, because some thirty per cent have as their mother tongue French it usually follows that our delegates are more bilingual than those of other countries. That was so at Paris when practically every member of the Canadian delegation had a working knowledge of both French and English. That gave a tremendous advantage in discussions with other nations.
Mr. Speaker, we have a new-found capacity to be of service in the cause of international peace. That lies in the unity of the Canadian people as represented in the house and through the country on this all-important question. It is no longer possible for some hon. members who take a colonial point of view or a totally nationalist or isolationist point of view to say that they represent any substantial part of the Canadian people. These are the noisy extremes; but in the wide centre lies the great bulk of the Canadian people who recognize our position in the world, recognize how it has been won, recognize the obligations and the opportunities it gives. The people who take this view are not only in a majority but as represented by spokesmen for all parties of the house, newspapers from end to end of the country and people everywhere they are the great bulk of the Canadian people. On this as, I believe, on all fundamental questions where the vital interests of Canada are involved we stand together, and this debate is important as showing it.
Now let us see what the position is. The council of foreign ministers met and had a long series of discussions at New York when they discussed the terms of the treaties with the five satellite powers which were ultimately settled in December. They had a limited number of meetings, discussing preliminary arrangements with regard to the treaties with Austria and Germany, and having done that

Peace Treaties
they said their special deputies would hear representations with reference to those treaties. When the special deputies met in London we made the representation which was read in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) on January 30 and which received such universal support. On receipt of that recommendation the special deputies met, and it is well understood everywhere that they were unable to agree unanimously on the procedure, and they had no power to decide anything in the absence of agreement. Therefore the matter is now referred to the council of foreign ministers who will be meeting at Moscow. They will consider it and our hope is that they will make some arrangement, satisfactory we trust to this and other countries in a similar position, which will recognize not only our right to work with them in determining the main lines of the peace but also the fact that on the record, and because of our position, we can render useful and constructive assistance in that great work.
We are not interested in this for reasons of status. Our status as a nation does not depend upon any council of foreign ministers; it has been won and settled for all time. This is a question of procedural machinery, a question of working out something which we believe to be of vital importance. We believe it to be such because we believe we can make a useful contribution toward what we all have in mind and all people everywhere have in mind ; that is, that having won the war and won the right to say what the terms of peace shall be, we can now lay the foundations of peace again for ourselves as a first instalment of that better world for which we hoped and worked and fought, and which it is now in our power to have.


Mr. ROCH PINARD (Chambly-Rouville):: I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton) on his great contribution to this afternoon's debate. By this, we can judge his contribution to the international conferences, which has been along the same line. I wish also to congratulate other hon. members who have taken part in the debate.
Since this debate allows the discussion of international affairs, and since we are dealing with the treaties to be signed both with Germany and with Austria, I do not wish to let this occasion pass without underlining certain deficiencies which, because of their seriousness, may, in my opinion, endanger and in considerable measure, the collective effort of
nations of good will toward the betterment and stabilization of enduring peace in international relations.
If it is true that during the last conflict the democratic nations, with whom we were then pleased and proud to join, shared in the common fortunes of total war; if it is true that we have the right on our side, it must also be recognized that it is now their common duty and ours to work with our enemies toward peace. Even if it is admitted by all that the right was on the side of the victorious nations, let us not trample that right under foot, because it would then become the principal argument of our opponents and a good reason for them to refuse to accept conditions of peace which no victorious nation has ever acquired the right to impose upon a vanquished people.
We have seen the reactions of the Italian people and even of its unstable government at the time of the signature of the Italian peace treaty-signs of discontent and strong protests coming from a nation which we thought did not even have strength left to speak, so much had it suffered and is still suffering. That government hesitated to sign a treaty the contents of which may well correspond to the complete subjection of the nation itself. Must it not be contended that the Italian peace treaty, in which Canada could not participate as she wished, already contains the seeds which eventually may produce a revolution? Has it not been overlooked that this overpopulated nation, the resources of which are insufficient to ensure a decent standard of living for its people, is in absolute need of other resources and of the advantages of a world market?
I will not contend that imperial Italy should have been reestablished, but I think the rest of the world should provide for that nation, which has always been one of the most cultivated and civilized, the means whereby it may maintain itself today. Italy has the right, as every other nation, victorious or defeated, to enjoy the fundamental liberties which will allow it to survive in the dignity which is indispensable to any free nation.
An important warning may result from the publication of the terms of the Italian peace treaty and from the reaction of the Italian people itself, and it should serve as a guide in the drafting and discussion of the other treaties to be signed, like the treaties we are dealing with this afternoon: the Austrian and German treaties.
So far as I am concerned, I have approved the gesture of our Canadian government, which refused to sanction the clauses of these
Peace Treaties

other treaties with Austria and Germany before having been given an opportunity to voice appropriate representations before the council of foreign ministers appointed by the four great powers. I imagine such an attitude was dictated to our government only by its wish not to accept any other clauses or conditions than those which could be of benefit to our own country, and which are indispensable to the achievement of our ultimate aim, which is the establishment of peace on a firm and solid basis.
Canada has every right to insist upon active participation in the peace settlement with Germany and Austria. That right was clearly expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) when he said in this house on January 30 last in his statement, which can be found at page 7 of Hansard:
In the waging of war, however, Canada contributed her resources of men -and material without reserve. No question of partial participation arose. It should be possible, therefore, to ensure for Canada an opportunity to contribute to the negotiation of peace on the same basis of honourable partnership that characterized her contribution to the war.
So far as Germany is concerned, it is to be hoped that with this nation, whose illegitimate ambitions and desires for domination have been the constant cause of fear, an equitable solution will be found. In this respect I wish to say that the treaty must not have the effect of giving Germany another opportunity to wage war, but at the same time it must not produce the result of driving that nation to such a state of misery that injustice will be created, the consequence of which will be even greater.
So far as Austria is concerned, I entirely approve the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the name of the Canadian government. The statement, as reported in Hansard, at page 761, supports the recognition of Austria as a free and independent state. I also approve the statement concerning the maintenance of the democratic system in the new nation in order to avoid a new anschluss. The duty lies, then, with the security council of the united nations organization to see to it that care is exercised to protect the rights of these Austrian people to enjoy freedom and also to have a government of their own choice. But to avoid the danger of an injustice in that respect would it not have been good policy to invite the nations which were defeated to participate also with us and to become themselves immediately 
members of the united nations organization which has assumed the task of preparing this new order in the world?
At the end of world war 1 such was the attitude taken by the victorious nations and it was by no means the reason which brought about the failure of the league of nations. The reasons for such failure were totally different and had nothing to do with such a policy and I shall have a few words to say about that.
I find, Mr. Speaker, in this refusal of the united nations to invite the defeated nations to become active members and parties to its deliberations one of the first deficiencies in the present world effort toward the establishment of peace. It is my contention that these nations had also the right, through newly organized and democratic governments, to make their representations; and it appears to me to be an undeserved punishment inflicted upon these people to impose upon them conditions of peace which they do not have an opportunity to discuss. Of course the injustice would not appear to be too serious if such procedure were only an attack upon their legitimate pride; but if, on the other hand, the treaties were unjust and vexatious, it will be the world at large which will suffer in the future the consequences of such an attitude.
I wish now to discuss and deal with a mistake which is far greater in consequences and which has been the constant subject of protests by a great number of nations. I wish to refer to this veto privilege attributed to the five great powers in the security council of the united nations organization by article 27 of the charter. At the beginning of negotiations and before the adoption of the charter, every nation was given to understand that such a decisive right was one of the most essential of conditions and that it was, in fact, the condition sine qua non of the formation of the organization itself. These greater powers, justly conscious of their tremendous effort during the war, and also, of course, of their importance in the world scene, decided then to insist upon that right of veto before agreeing to become members of the organization. If such a right had not been granted to them, it appears to be true that the charter would never have been signed; and it also appears to be true that the united nations organization might never have been born. But, the importance of this question of veto cannot be minimized at the present time. To illustrate that fact, I wish to quote from certain remarks made on October 28, 1946, at

Peace Treaties
the general assembly in New Yorfc, by the representative of New Zealand, Mr. Carl Berendsen. This is what he then said;
What have we got there? What h^e we got there as a result of the charter? We have an organization under which each of the five great powers reserves to itself the right in every case, for any reason, however capricious,_ to decide whether it will or will not take in any proposed resistance to aggression. More than that, much more, we have an organization under which each of the five great powers reserves to itself the right to say not only whether it will take part, but whether the organization as a whole can be allowed to function at all.
A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that all nations were forced to accept the granting of the veto right to the great powers in order to allow the formation of the united nations organization. Well, today one is allowed to ask himself, with the New Zealand representative, if the granting of the said right does not have the effect of preventing the organization itself from functioning and operating. In any event, one thing is sure. This veto privilege, when thoughtlessly used-as was the case for some great powers- has the result of preventing the organization from functioning properly and toward the common interest as defined in the charter. This veto right sanctions the principle of the unanimity of the great powers on all the important decisions the security council has to reach for the maintenance of world security. One of the reasons which brought about the failure of the league of nations-and I should say, in my opinion, the most important of such reasons-is found in the fact that the league attempted to apply the principle of unanimity of all nations, great or small, in the solution of world problems. In other words, to be binding, a decision had to be approved by all members of the league. As soon as some nations began to bear the faults or consequences of that policy, they abandoned the league of nations one after the other. As a result, the organization itself remained under the sole control of one or two greater nations at the expense of the others and also at the expense of peace itself.
The principle of unanimity of all nations, as applied by the league of nations, was mere utopia; while the principle of unanimity of the five great powers, as put into practice by the united nations organization, is a definite injustice. What would have been the ideal solution is, in my opinion, the application of a principle of majority, or at least of absolute majority. In such case, any decision, to become effective, would require the approval of the absolute majority of the members. It may be admitted that the great
powers did not make too frequent a use of this veto right allowed by the charter. Nevertheless, it may also be said that such privilege was mostly and abusively used by Russia as a constant threat, and in many circumstances that nation obtained advantages which have endangered and are still endangering world security. It has also been the case where other nations have been deprived of the recognition of certain essential rights because Russia has refused to comply with certain demands and has opposed, or threatened to oppose them with its veto privilege. As a result of all the compromises which the other nations were compelled to accept one after the other to the benefit of Russia, we are now faced by a fact of great seriousness.
The first intention of all nations to avoid after the last war was the creation or formation of spheres of influence in the world; and yet, because of this veiy defect to which I have just referred, our world of today finds itself once more in the presence of two distinctly different groups, both formed with different nations. And every day since, one may see that cleavage is still getting deeper and deeper, and that communist domination is ever growing and endangering world security. On each side of the barricade two different ideologies are dominating and inspiring the policy of the nations of the two groups, and it is an everyday admission that a secret fight is already going on between them. That imaginary line, which separates the two camps, and which was termed by Winston Churchill not so long ago as being the iron curtain, does not appear to be only a division between frontiers, but a real fighting line. Russia itself has accepted the appellation given by the former British Prime Minister and the Moscow radio offers to its listeners today a programme called "Around the Iron Curtain". It does not seem to me too late to intervene; but one of the sure ways to succeed would be the disappearance of the veto right which the great powers have obtained in the security council. As far as Russia is concerned, it has categorically refused to abandon that right, upon which it established all its influence and to which it is constantly having recourse to prevent the repression of the many injustices it has been guilty of in the past. In the name of the United States, Mr. Byrnes, former secretary of state, was more conciliating when he declared in a recent speech:
We must cooperate to build a world order; not to sanctify the status quo, but to preserve peace and freedom based upon justice, and we must be willing to cooperate with one another 

veto or no veto-to defend with force, if necessary, the principles and purposes of the charter of the united nations.
Peace Treaties
commons
In so far as Russia is concerned, through her minister of foreign affairs, she gave her attitude on October 29 last at New York. Here is what Mr. Molotov then said:
Imagine, gentlemen, that the campaign to repeal this so-called veto were to be crowned with success. What would the political consequences be? It is quite obvious that the repudiation of the principle of unanimity of all the great powers-and this is what is actually behind this proposal for the abolition of the veto-would mean in practice liquidation of the united nations organization because this principle is the cornerstone of this organization.
These words were evidently an undisguised threat by Russia to put an end to the organization or to withdraw from it if her right of veto was repealed. In such case, would it be necessary to declare, with Mr. Richard Law, member of the opposition in the British House of Commons and former state minister in the Churchill government, that the possibility of a united nations organization without Russia must be considered? Let us hope that the world will never have to face such a solution, which would entail the declared hatred of the rest of the world against Russia.
There is another defect that I wish to mention briefly, even if its importance may be considerable; that is, the lack of a precise policy concerning atomic energy for war purposes. In an attempt to justify the use of the atomic bomb against Japanese cities, many reasons have been given. In a military sense it seems that the United States, which had given to Japan repeated warnings, could be excused for having used that weapon of destruction, the horror of which no human imagination can fully appreciate. But, morally speaking, it appears that the American conscience would have felt much more at ease if such weapon had been used against strictly military objectives. The results on the enemy morale would have been as profitable. But it remains to posterity to render a truer judgment on these facts. Fortunately, considerable benefit in having experimented with the bomb has been derived by the world in its quest for a lasting peace. The use of the atomic bomb may have served as an example and a good lesson. The world knows now part of the destructive powers of that horrible weapon and it is to be hoped that it will be of benefit to all.
The foreign minister of the U.S.S.R. subsequently protested against the adoption of the Baruch plan concerning atomic energy; in the name of his own country he submitted a new plan, but it seems to me that the Russian plan is not any better than the United States plan in that it would result in making known to the whole world the secret of the manufacture of these bombs. The conscience of all civilized human beings, even of those who happen to be the most warlike, would not dare to accept the principle that the use of atomic energy should be advocated for war purposes. But I still believe that the best way to prevent such a disaster remains in the acceptance of this double policy: first, the means of manufacture should not be made known, but should be kept secret; second, all the nations of the world should forbid the use of atomic energy in time of war. Let us hope that the united nations will discover a formula which will satisfy all peoples of good will and at the same time give to the world at large the peace of mind which it definitely needs in this matter.
Another step must also be taken; a general policy of disarmament must be agreed upon and adopted by all the members of the united nations. And the enforcement of such policy must be carefully instigated by the security council representatives. But in order to enforce the policy of disarmament, let me say that it is absolutely necessary that this iron curtain I was referring to, and which divides Europe from Russia, must be lifted if world security is to be attained.
But, all those deficiencies I have already discussed lose their importance if our attention is directed now to the only problem which dominates all the others at the present time, the solution of which is entirely indispensable for world security. I wish to refer to a more adequate and efficient organization of the help to be given to the peoples in need. How useless all the work accomplished by the united nations seems, if nations at large are to forget, neglect or lose sight of their main obligation, which is to help those populations which were devastated during the war.
From all sources, the most painful information is given to us. In a common voice, all correspondents, travellers and observers reveal a state of affairs which is nearly indescribable. From all theatres of war, from all regions where fate has struck, from all European countries, we receive the most alarming reports. Homes have been destroyed along with the houses themselves; families have been scattered and are constantly being divided; children who have not become orphans on account of the war do not accept any more the authority of their parents,, who cannot help them and give them the essential necessities of life. So they have preferred to abandon the family idea, which only appears to them as a burden, and they run away in order to try themselves to obtain by all possible means what they need in order not to perish by hunger and cold. Every day, our newspapers

Peace Treaties
inform us, sometimes with the necessary reserve, of new catastrophes which do not seem to stop falling upon these miserable populations. Yet let us not forget that we also, as civilized human beings, must bear a heavy responsibility in our conscience and in our very hearts for these divided and scattered families and for these devastated homes. The great majority of all these people who suffer and die in continental Europe are not responsible for what happens to them, for the misery they must sustain, for the hunger and cold which is their lot; they are as innocent as we are of the crimes of certain nations or governments which have thrown them into such misery.
For this reason they are not interested in the reproach of those who governed them, who betrayed them and forced them into war; they are not interested in the punishment to be imposed upon those who have been sentenced as war criminals; they are not interested in all these conferences where words of revenge or punishment are so often pronounced; they are not interested in these international meetings where reference is constantly made to the great principles of justice and order; they are not interested in the draft treaties, border discussions or quarrels between governments; I would even say that they have no interest at present in the efforts of the united nations toward the establishment of peace itself. What they wTant, what they claim, is immediate help so that they will 'not die of cold or starvation. Let us not forget that these populations, left to their own initiative and not directed by any discipline, have become perfect prey for those subversive ideas which today have invaded the world; misery does not reason well. A generous and orderly system of help constitutes the best defence against such ideas as communism, for instance, which threatens today to destroy our way of life which we must continue to defend and to preserve.
It would be useless now to discuss the causes of some of the delays and the reason for the failure of our efforts to help the nations and populations in need. The example of Yugoslavia, whose government used practically all the. UNRRA assistance it received to build and reinforce its army which today helps in no small way in keeping this nation enslaved, should serve again as a warning. It is absolutely essential that the economic and social council of the united nations organization, of which our country has been elected a member, should take complete charge of the administration and distribution of the funds to the 8.3166-61
people in need. It is up to that council to work patiently for the reconstruction of the post-war world.
It is comforting to know that, in spite of all these shortcomings the world seems to succeed well enough in curing its numerous wounds. It would be unjust to declare that nothing has been done and that the united nations organization has produced nothing so far in the construction of this new post-war world. On the contrary, the efforts have been great and the results have been remarkable.
The whole world seems to gain hope because it believes that nations of good will are at work. This is how the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) expressed himself in one of his recent speeches in Quebec:	[DOT]
(Translation):
We are on the road to the establishment of law and world cooperation; our journey is something of a forced march, along with unknown fellow-travellers, in the dark of night, through unexplored territories. Although aware of the dangers lurking along the way, we realize that we shall fall a prey to greater calamities by not going along. We have organized our group and we are already on our way.
(Text):
As far as our country is concerned, Canada, which Providence continues to protect and defend against the evergrowing dangers of these troubled times, has accomplished a task of which we must feel proud.
In this collective effort of a wounded world which tries to recover truth and peace, Canada has played a great and, at times, decisive part. The Canadian delegations to. all the peace conferences have already drawn the attention of the whole world, and such delegations have always distinguished themselves by their courage, their working spirit and also by the dignity of their members.
We know it has been no easy task; but our country, through the voices of her representatives, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) and all the other delegates, has faithfully fulfilled her task.
I am happy to have this other occasion to offer the expression of my sincere admiration to the president of our last delegation to the New York assembly and also to all the other members of this delegation which, like the one sent to Paris, has brought great honour to our country by the efficiency of the work done.
Let us trust that this effort of Canada will not be in vain and that it will contribute to



BEV1 SED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Peace Treaties
[Stage Direction]
the great task to be accomplished in order to give new hope to the world and faith in a setter future to mankind.
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have listened to five most interesting and thought-provoking speeches. I am sure hon. members would benefit if they now had two hours in which to think about those speeches. Therefore I would ask Your Honour to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate a member can take it for granted that every sane Canadian-and of course I include all the members in the house in that description, even all those behind me- wants world peace. The problem is to chart the course that will enable Canada to make her greatest possible contribution to world peace. Discussions on external affairs are of great value in charting such a course, not only because the ministry and the private members gain knowledge from such discussions but also because they help to create public opinion across Canada, and there is great need in Canada of an informed public opinion on external affairs. I know that the newspapers of this country, both our weeklies and our dailies have been striving valiantly to bring to the attention of the public the importance of all these problems that arise beyond our boundaries, but there is still a great lack of interest in them in Canada and a great need for a more thorough understanding of external affairs.
I would advocate, Mr. Speaker, that we have debates on external affairs in this house at frequent intervals. They could be brought up on bills or on estimates or by way of motions to adjourn the house. In some way or another, by agreement between the parties, provision could be made for frequent debates on external affairs, and there is no finer way of helping the Canadian people to decide for what they stand. Then, too, the activities of the external affairs committee could be greatly increased. That committee has not yet sat this year although the session is now over a month old. It could hear representations from the various bodies in Canada interested in external affairs. There is a great work to be done by the standing committee on external affairs.

I have a further suggestion along the same line. I think factual reports of the united nations meetings to which we send delegates should be prepared which would be approved by all the parties and then be distributed widely across Canada. We are pretty much at one in our stand at the united nations meetings, and there is no reason why the leaders of the parties should not get together and approve a factual report which could be sent out to the people. I know from my own experience that it is difficult, when the house is not sitting to find out just what Canada stood for at a meeting of the united nations. It is difficult to gather from the press exactly what stand was taken and difficult to get the whole picture; so I suggest in great earnestness that some thought be given to sending out these non-partisan reports of united nations meetings. They could be distributed to all the labour unions in Canada, to agricultural associations, business organizations, churches, schoolteachers, service clubs and many other groups who would make good use of such information.
The subject of today's debate is set out in the reasons given by my good friend the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) in moving the adjournment of the house. It is as follows:
. . . the written submissions made by the government of Canada to the special deputies of the council of foreign ministers on the proposed peace treaties with Germany and Austria and the Canadian position taken with respect to a full participation of this country in the making of these treaties.
The hon. member for Peel went on to point out that this question is urgent because the council of foreign ministers is to meet in Moscow one week from today.
What is the council of foreign ministers? Members will recall that throughout the war there were meetings of the great war leaders; first of all, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt, and then, later, these two met with Premier Stalin. At the Crimean conference held at Yalta in February, 1945, those three war leaders decided that their foreign ministers should be used as permanent machinery for consultation. At Potsdam on August 2. 1945, they announced the setting up of the second council of foreign ministers. I hold in my hand a book which, I am sure, hon. members will find interesting. It is entitled "Britain; Partner for Peace". It is written by an American, Professor Percy Ellwood Corbett.


Brooke Claxton: A Canadian.

Peace Treaties


Howard Charles Green: So much the better. He is a professor of government and jurisprudence at Yale university.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: He was dean of the law faculty of McGill university.


Howard Charles Green: The book was published in 1946 and it would pay hon. members to read it. On page 89 he explains the formation of this council of foreign ministers. He said:
The Berlin conference of the "big three" announced on August 2, 1945, the establishment of a council of the foreign ministers of Britain, the U.S.S.'R., China, France and the United States. This body is-
Then he quotes' from the announcement that was made.
-"to continue the necessary preparatory work for the peace settlements, and to take up other matters which from time to time may be referred to the council by agreement of the governments participating in the council."
He goes on to point out:
It is specifically laid down that the creation of this council "will be without prejudice to the agreement of the Crimea conference that there should be periodic consultation among the foreign secretaries of the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom."
Apparently there are the two councils, the one with only three members and then the one with which we are concerned tonight which has five members. It should be noted that the work of this larger council is quite outside the work of the united nations. The peace terms have been kept away from the united nations and I think there ivas a good reason for that being done. They might very well have scuttled the united nations before it got properly sailing. At any rate this larger council has been given the responsibility of making the peace terms.
The council of foreign ministers met at London shortly afterwards, in September, 1945, and almost from the beginning there was trouble. I would refer hon. members to Hansard of September 27, 1945, where the hon. member for Peel asked a question about Canada's stand on complaints that had been made by Australia. She had demanded that either the five-power conference of foreign ministers should be expanded to include all countries whose armed forces contributed to victory over tyranny, or else it should be made clear that the conference was merely advisory and only a prelude to a full-scale peace conference. In answering that question, our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, as reported on page 491 of Hansard of September 27, 1945:
The Canadian government, while appreciating the invitation to nominate a representatitve to
attend the meeting of the council of foreign ministers on September 17 does not desire to avail itself of the opportunity to express its views to the council at present on the question of the Yugoslav-Italian frontier and the future of the city and port of Trieste.
But he went on to say that Canada was concerned with the effect which the peace settlement would have on the general relationship of a democratic Italy to the community of nations. And he expressed the hope that an adequate opportunity would be afforded to Canada and the other united nations which had played an active part in the Italian war to consider and discuss the contents of the peace treaty with Italy as a whole at the appropriate stage in its negotiations.
I would point out to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) that the Prime Minister also said that he had given instructions that there be expressed to the Secretary of State for the dominions the gratitude of the Canadian government for the helpful and understanding attitude the. United Kingdom government had taken with regard to Canadian interest in the discussions of the council of foreign ministers. This afternoon I thought the Minister of National Defence was not quite fair to Great Britain when he insinuated that she was not helping us out in our present difficulties.


Brooke Claxton: There was no such
insinuation.


Howard Charles Green: It may not have been meant but it sounded like that on this side of the house.


Brooke Claxton: Not the slightest.


Howard Charles Green: I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister of National Defence that that was not his intention.
Canada made no representations about the Italian treaty. The council worked on the treaties with Italy and the other satellite powers until July 29, 1946 when a conference met at Paris. It is important that we know exactly what nations were represented at that conference in Paris. I have the list in my hand. There were five great powers: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States, China and France, and seventeen others, Australia, Belgium, Byelorussia, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Greece, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.


Brooke Claxton: Sixteen others.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, a total of twenty-one. Apparently the great powers came to that
Peace Treaties

meeting, having agreed that they would not question any point on which there had been agreement among the five, and that only the other points could be discussed.
After the work of the conference had been finished, the council met in New York, and agreed to the final terms of these treaties with the satellite enemy states. Then the other nations, including Canada, signed the treaties. Obviously Canada was not satisfied with that procedure and was worried about the German settlement which was to come later.
The next step seems to have been in December, 1946. The council of foreign ministers meeting in New York set March 10 as the time for the next meeting and named Moscow as the meeting place, the purpose being to discuss the German and Austrian settlements. They went further and called a meeting of their deputy foreign ministers at London on January 14, the job of the deputies being to take the preliminary steps preparatory to the meeting of the council of foreign ministers itself.
When we came here on January 30 we were told by the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) what had happened. Apparently on December 31, 1946, Canada was invited to make submissions to these deputies of foreign ministers. She was to make submissions in writing and to have the privilege of making supplementary submissions orally. I would ask the Minister of External Affairs to correct me if I am wrong in any of these details. After these submissions had been made, the deputies were to study them and to report to the council of foreign ministers.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In view of the request which the hon. member has made, he said the invitation was received in December. As a matter of fact it was received by the Canadian ambassador in Washington on January 4.


Howard Charles Green: It was dated December 31.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: It is found on page 12 of Hansard of January 30 of this year. Canada then submitted what she called an improved procedure for the functioning of the meeting of deputies, which will be found at page 13 of Hansard. From that improved procedure it appears that Canada wanted the conference extended to include all the allies. The minister's statement is not absolutely clear on the point, but I gather that was the intent from reading what appears on page 13 of Hansard. On January 17 the deputies invited Canada to appear in London on January 25. On January 20 Canada wrrote asking an assurance that she would be given an opportunity to discuss

her submissions either with the deputies or with the council of foreign ministers. Then we find certain press dispatches on January 23. There is one from the Vancouver Province headed "Dominion to Boycott Big Four Peace Parley". It reports a statement from the Department of External Affairs.
An external affairs department spokesman said emphatically that unless Canada gets assurance she will be allowed further participation, she will have nothing whatever to do with the treaties.
The minister shakes his head and I am glad he does, because I would be surprised if an official of the department made such a statement. If it was made it was an unwise statement. The press dispatch goes on to point out that Australia was demanding full representation at all sessions of the deputies' council and expressing resentment of any efforts for a "Big Power peace".
Then there are these significant words:
Australia's demand for an equal voice with the big four powers is sharply opposed by Russian deputy foreign minister Feodor T. G-ousev.
The United States, France and Britain, in the deputies' discussion, had expressed willingness to let the smaller nations in on all discussions. The Minister of National Defence did not make clear this afternoon whether that is still the position, that all the "Big Four" except Russia have been quite willing for Canada and the other nations to take part in the discussions.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. That is my understanding.


Howard Charles Green: That is the minister's understanding. In any event, on January 25, Canada did not appear before the deputies although she had been invited to do so. On January 29 she was told that the deputies had no power to give the assurance that had been asked. On January 30, Canada filed written submissions concerning the German settlement and about a month later filed submissions concerning the Austrian peace treaty.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Again because of the invitation. The hon. member calls them submissions. They were preliminary views and were stated to be such.


Howard Charles Green: We want to get this right.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: I thank the minister for his correction. Again, I would point out, we find Great Britain on our side. On February 27, last week, there were press dispatches from

Peace Treaties
London, one being headed "Bevin upholds Canada's Stand. Says smaller fighting allies should have peace voice.":
''Having regard to the sacrifices made in two wars by the dominions they must be adequately consulted in the settlement not merely at the stage when the treaty is being drafted but in changes now' being considered," Bevin said.
Up to the present time that is the picture. Apparently it is not known how far Canada can participate when the council of foreign ministers meets one week from today.
The situation, Mr. Speaker, is very difficult. It is not just as simple as it was made to appear this afternoon, and it is a situation that will not be met by threats in this house or across Canada. I mean threats against the "Big Four". Nor will it be met by whining or by weeping or wailing here in Ottawa. That type of approach is far more likely to prevent us from getting proper treatment than it is to help. The situation is made quite difficult because this great power procedure has been accepted among the nations, including Canada. I would refer the house to a statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to be found at page 7 of Hansard of this year, which illustrates the point:
We are fully aware of the major interest in this settlement of those states which, because of their power or proximity, must carry the main responsibility for enforcing it.
That has been the procedure not only in the council of foreign ministers but also in the security council. All the nations taking part have recognized that there are four or five great powers. In reality there are three great powers: the United States, Russia and Great Britain, with France and China added as the other two. That fact has been recognized principally because the league of nations failed for the reason that it had no power to enforce its decisions. There was a good deal of talk, and worth-while talk, but no power behind its decisions, and rightly or wrongly the nations decided this time that there had to be power. That is why the big nations were given a preferred position.
Another great difficulty is that if there are too many sitting in there is apt to be confusion. I believe that was the situation at Versailles. There were so many nations there that at times there was the utmost confusion and great difficulty in working out the treaties. As Professor Corbett says, a town meeting cannot run a war, and I think the same is true of a meeting for the purpose of drawing up a peace treaty. I merely point out these difficulties to show that the situation is not as simple as it was made to appear this afternoon.
I make these suggestions. First of all, let 83166-62
Canada get all the representation she can. I am all for that and every one in the house is for it. Let us get just as much representation as possible. But let the minister when he speaks make Canada's position clear. It has not yet been made clear. For example, do we want the conference extended from four nations to twenty-one or twenty-two or twenty-three? Is that what we want? Do we want a conference in which all the nations I mentioned a few minutes ago shall be represented on an equal footing? Do we want preference over any of the other belligerents? If so, over what group are we asking the preference? What kind of hearing do we want? What kind of participation do we want?
These are questions to which this house and the Canadian people are entitled to have answers and they have not been answered today. I would ask- the minister to make these points clear. I suggest that the Canadian government should propose a procedure now. Let the Canadian government say what it thinks is fair, what it thinks these great powers should grant in the way of an opportunity for Canada to take part in the meetings of the conference.
A further suggestion is that if we are not granted the right of full participation we should take advantage of our membership in the British empire. Let us send a representative to Moscow with the British foreign minister, because Canada is a partner in the British empire, and right from the start the real fact has been that the third great power is not Great Britain alone but the British empire. Over half or approximately half of the power used during the war was empire power as distinguished from the power of Great Britain alone, and Great Britain has always been the first to recognize that fact. But our Canadian government has never been so willing to do so. That, however, is the fact, that the third great power is in reality the British empire as a whole.
There could have been, perhaps could yet be, empire discussions on these German and Austrian treaties. I see by Saturday's press that Great Britain and France are having discussions about the treaties. They are negotiating a treaty. A press dispatch states:
While it is assumed that there has been discussion between France and Britain on various problems relating to Germany which will come before the four-power foreign ministers at Moscow, it is not considered probable that Britain and France will take up identical standpoints during the Moscow conference.
Blit they are obviously discussing the settlements between themselves. Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India could have met to decide what

Peace Treaties

terms they want put in these treaties, and probably Canada could have got agreement to the submissions we had filed with us here on January 30. Then those submissions could have been presented at Moscow as the joint submissions for the peace treaties. Certainly Great Britain would not have objected to that procedure. You see, Mr. Speaker, no other belligerents are in the same position as are the nations of the British empire. Our organization as an empire is such that the various nations of the commonwealth can sit in, and we could take advantage of that position now. I suggest that, if we cannot get full participation in any other way, we should follow that course. Later, when the conference is called, we could attend as a nation, just as we did the conference called for the settling of the treaties with the satellite states; and we would, of course, ratify the settlement, treaty, or whatever it might be, individually as Canada.
These peace settlements or treaties are the unfinished business of the second world war. They are not, as I have already pointed out, to be confused with the united nations organization. We fought and won the war as a British partnership. For one whole year we stood against the enemy alone and saved civilization; we stood and fought as an empire, and we could make the peace treaties in the same way.
In conclusion, let me place just two questions before the house and before the Canadian people. First, how can Canada exert the most authority in world affairs? Second, how can Canadians best make sure of world peace? I submit that the answer to both those questions is as follows. Not only by her stand as a nation on the issues that come up, but also by strengthening the British empire. That is the best way for us to have our ideas put into effect. I have an authority for that statement Right Hon. Vincent Massey. Speaking in Vancouver on November 15, 1946, he used these words:
We have, in my belief, far greater influence in the world as a member of the British family than otherwise would be ours. We have, in a sense, a double status. I am quite sure from any experience that I may have been able to gain that the fact that Canada appears on the international scene, not only as an important country on her own account-which we are-but also as a member of a great association gives her both enhanced prestige and increased importance.
World peace is the greatest concern of every thinking Canadian. In the world today we have two giant powers, the United States and Russia, each very conscious of its strength,
(Mr. Green.]
each in effect having a veto over any actions by the other nations because they have such great strength. Those two great nations have ideologies that are totally different, as was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard). If they alone dominate the world scene, sooner or later they will clash; and if they ever clash, Canada will be the Belgium of a third world war. Canada will be the nut in the nutcracker if that happens. The surest way to prevent a clash is to have a strong British empire. It will relieve the tension between the United States and Russia and it will help western Europe to remain democratic.
The empire will always be for peace. Why do I say that? There are several reasons which, I think, cannot be disputed. In the first place, it is so far-flung that it must have peace. It has always been vulnerable in the more remote parts, but today, with the development of modern weapons, Great Britain herself is vulnerable. More and more the empire is dependent on a working united nations. I do not think it can be questioned either that toJay Great Britain is the most ardent for peace of the three great powers.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would you not include the United States in that?


Howard Charles Green: As I said, I think of the three, Great Britain is the most ardent for peace. So I repeat that the answer to these questions is: not only by Canada's stand as a nation but also by strengthening the British empire. I believe that the majority in every party in this house will agree with that. Certainly that is the opinion of everybody in my own, the Progressive Conservative party.
Let us see to it that Canada stands beside Great Britain. You have only to look at the Ottawa Journal of last Friday and you will see this heading, "Britain asking United States to take over in Greece." In the first paragraph of a report from Washington we find these words:
Britain, her domestic economy near the breaking point, was reported in congressional and diplomatic quarters today to have proposed that the United States take over her commitments in Greece on a large scale.
We all know that Britain is in serious trouble. Let Canada accept more responsibility for keeping the empire strong. Canada has grown stronger during the war, much stronger than she was before, largely because she was remote from the fighting. We were able to develop and to grow strong. I believe that eventually Canada will be the strongest

Peace Treaties
nation in the empire. Let us show the world that this man Tim Buck did not speak for Canada when he spoke last week in London-


Mr. BRADETTE:: London, Ontario?


Howard Charles Green: -London, England, and as reported in the press, used these words:
Tim Buck, English-born leader of Canada's Labour Progressive party, today told a conference of empire communists that the Canadian government "wants to see the empire maintained -preferably by the blood and sweat of the British people."


Humphrey Mitchell: Why advertise Tim
Buck?


Howard Charles Green: Well, you yourself have advertised him a good deal. Tim Buck was never much of a friend to either Great Britain or Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: How have I advertised him?


Gordon Graydon: He is sort of fellow traveller of yours.


Howard Charles Green: Yes. He was working hard for the minister in the last election.
Let us help Great Britain in every way possible. She has suffered grievously to save civilization. Her people are showing the same courage and the same sturdy character that they showed after Dunkirk and right through the war. No people on earth are more deserving of support and encouragement from the other nations of the world. I believe that Canada now, in 1947, holds the key to the future of the British empire and, perhaps, through that empire, holds the key to the peace of the world.
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker,
with the first part of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) 1 was finding myself in entire agreement because, as I will show in just a moment, my notes were along the lines of what he was saying, and I hope I may be able to add something to that very informative part of his address. With respect to the second part of his speech, as I understand its implications, I must say I am in sharp disagreement. I am not prepared to recommend to this house that we go back to the pre-statute of Westminster days.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything of the kind. If the Secretaiy of State for External Affairs is trying to twist my speech to take that meaning from it he is being unfair and unjust to himself. I can assure him that
I did not have that meaning, and that I am just as strong for Canada as he is, or any other member on that side of the house.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I said the implications of the hon. member's speech led me to believe that he wished us to retrace steps which I was not prepared to recommend retracing.


Howard Charles Green: You were 100 per cent
wrong.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I trust that the hon. member will not suspect me of trying to twist his speech. It is on Hansard; it can be read and appreciated, and will speak for him.


Howard Charles Green: That suits me.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	And I think those
who read it will find in it the implication I found in listening to it. With respect to that position, I am not prepared to recommend to the house that there be a common voice for the empire. That question has been discussed more than once in this house, and we have come to the conclusion, at least on this side of the house, that Canada was going to have a foreign policy of its own and was not going to be merely the instrument to carry out a foreign policy made up for us elsewhere.
The government has welcomed this debate, and I am sure all hon. members have welcomed it. The hon. gentleman said there should be more frequent opportunities for debates on external affairs. I trust there will be more frequent opportunities for such debates; but by general agreement since the house met we have been dealing, up to the present time, with that emergency legislation which requires to be passed before March 31. In the course of the session there will be many opportunities to discuss external affairs, because many times the government will have to come to parliament to ask for its ratification of agreements that have been entered into; and there can also be other occasions when the external affairs of the country may be discussed.
The hon. member says there should be reports of the position taken by Canada at these international conferences. No doubt the hon. member knows of this report on the united nations conference on international organization which was put out as conference series 1945, document No. 2. I can say to the hon. member that one is now being prepared, because I have had something to do with it over the last several weeks, and I trust that it will be made available very shortly, much in the form of this report, on
Peace Treaties

what took place at the meetings of the general assembly. If those hon, members opposite who attended the conference want to see the draft reports prepared by the officers of external affairs before they are published, they are welcome to do so. I have had to go over them, and it is quite a bit of work. I found, as one might expect from the staff which had been assembled in the Department of External Affairs before I got there, that this work has been ably done; and I am sure the officers of the department as well as myself would welcome the interest other hon. members of the house who were on these delegations might take in the drafts before they are published. But I think it would be going rather far to ask the leaders of the other parties to approve in advance documents to be put out by the government. We have felt that we should do our best to put them out in such form that they would not deserve criticism; but we did not think we could reasonably ask the leaders of the other parlies to approve them in advance.


Howard Charles Green: They were delegates to the united nations assembly.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They were part of the Canadian delegation, but they also happen to be leaders of other parties in the house. If either of them will say to me that he would like to share with me responsibility for the report before it is printed, I shall be very glad to accept that offer.
Views have been expressed here which require some explanation of the pertinent facts, but by and large, up to the difference of view which I have indicated with respect to the last part of the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South, there was fairly unanimous approval of the policy of the government in this matter of the peace settlements in Europe; and I thought that was very much as it should be. Of course the government has to take responsibility for the decisions made with respect to external affairs, just as it has to take responsibility for the decisions it makes in domestic matters. But we have endeavoured to make only decisions of the kind that would commend themselves to the Canadian public at large, and we felt that it would be very much to the interest of Canada to have Canadian policy with respect to external affairs, not the policy of a party government but the policy of Canada, and we have endeavoured to form our delegations in such a way, and to make our decisions along such lines as would carry out that intention. We have frequent opportunities to manifest

our differences of views about matters of domestic policy. I hope that will suffice, and that we shall not have to divide on these matters which affect our external relations.
The position being asserted by the western allies, other than the great powers, with respect to the peace settlements should not surprise three or four of those great powers, but apparently it has come as somewhat of a surprise to our Russian friends. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has pointed out, to a certain extent that may be understandable if one recalls the sequence of events from the beginning of the war to the final surrender of Germany. Poland, Holland, Belgium and France were soon overrun and their armies, as armies supported by independent states, ceased to exist. For a time the United Kingdom and the dominions stood alone against the axis forces. There were detachments of resistance members of the Polish army, the Dutch army, the Belgian army and the French army, but they were based on the soil of the United Kingdom and fought as part of the forces that were coordinated in the United Kingdom.
Then the U.S.S.R. was attacked and constituted a separate front. The United States was attacked, sent troops both to the orient and to the European front and was looked upon as a third group.
Of course we all realized that you cannot fight a war without coordination of efforts, and to achieve coordination there was a conference between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt in the early days. There had even been a conference between them on the high seas even before the United States got into the war, and the document known as the Atlantic charter followed as a result of that conference.
Then, after the United States were attacked, a solemn declaration was signed in Washington on January 1, 1942, by the allied nations to the effect that they approved the Atlantic charter, and stating:
Each government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the tripartite pact and its adherents with which such government is at war;
Each government pledges itself to cooperate with the governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.
That was signed by, I believe, twenty-five allied nations, including all the twenty-one who were at the peace conference. And that undertaking, not to make a separate peace, implied, I think, the other undertaking that there would not be a peace made which had

Peace Treaties
not been discussed between those who were going to make it to see if they could not make it a joint peace.
Nevertheless the first time there was any personal contact between the representatives of the western powers and the Russians, such contact was between Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin. Their foreign ministers issued and they themselves approved the Moscow declaration of October 30, 1943. It seemed at that time that all those who were fighting the axis powers were being spoken for at this conference by the three great civil leaders I have mentioned, namely Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin. There they declared that they would jointly pledge their united action for the prosecution of war until their respective enemies would surrender, and they stated:
They recognize the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace loving states . . . for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security pending the reestablishment of law and order and the inauguration of a stystem of general security, they will consult with one another and, as occasion requires, with other members of the united nations with a view to joint action on behalf of the community of nations.
It states that they will consult with one another and, as occasion requires, with others of the allied nations, with a view to joint action on behalf of the community of nations.
At Dumbarton Oaks the proposals for the establishment of the united nations were drawn up. In those proposals there was included as chapter 12 the following transitional arrangements:
Pending the coming into force of the special agreement or agreements referred to in chapter 8, and in aeordanee with the provisions of paragraph 5 of the four-nation declaration, signed at Moscow, on October 30, 1943, the states parties to that declaration should consult with each other and as occasion arises with other members of the organization with a view to such joint action on behalf of the organization as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
That was in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Then the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were followed by the Yalta conference, in the Crimea. Again, the Yalta conference was a conference between Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin; and there they agreed to set up a control commission for Germany. They stated:
Under the agreed plan, the forces of the three powers will each occupy a separate zone in Germany. Coordinated administration and control have been provided for under the plan through a central control commission consisting of the supreme commanders of the three powers, with headquarters in Berlin. It has been agreed
that France should be invited by the three powers, if she should so desire, to take over a zone of occupation and to participate as a fourth member of the control commisison. The limits of the French zone will be agreed by the four governments concerned through their representatives on the European advisory commission.
At the time of San Francisco we knew that was the way in which they were interpreting this transitory provision which had been put into the Dumbarton Oaks proposals; and when the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were being discussed at San Francisco hon. members who were on the delegation will recall what objection was taken to the continuation of that system, whereby the three or four were going to dominate the situation.
If hon. members will refer to page 63 and following of the report they will find summarized a record of the objections made.


Gordon Graydon: Doctor Evatt, for instance.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: And not only Doctor Evatt. It will be seen that Canada took an active part in disputing the advisability of leaving that kind of clause in the charter of the united nations. The big powers insisted upon putting it to a vote, and it was defeated by a vote of twenty-one to nine.
There was substituted a clause which was somewhat better, but which still contained some of the objections which Canada was making to the continuance of that system, a system which may have been all right during the war. It was necessary during the war to have this small group meeting and making decisions. But it was felt that that should not be projected into the peace.
Nevertheless we got at San Francisco the best that it seemed possible to obtain, if we were to get anything; and we accepted article 106 of the charter, which is a provision along those lines, with modified language. I shall not take time to read it into the record, but hon. members will find it as article 106 of the charter.
It was not the kind of article we wanted; but it formed part of the price we had to pay, with the other smaller nations, to get the united nations charter. And it was felt that it was better to get a charter with that in it, with the veto provision in it, and the other preferred positions that were given to the "Big Five", than not to have any charter at all.
It has been suggested that we should have left troops in occupation in Germany. Well, is it suggested that they should have been part of the Russian force? Is it suggested that they should have been part of the French forces of occupation? Is it suggested that they should have been part of the United States forces of occupation? Is it suggested they
Peace Treaties

should have been part of the United Kingdom forces of occupation? They were the only four for which provision was made, and the control commission is at the present time the government of Germany. We have a military mission there, but the head of our military mission is in the same position as an ambassador to a foreign government. He is no part of the machinery that is governing Germany at the present time. He is not part of the machinery provided for by the Yalta conference. He is our representative, as a representative of one government to another government.
The San Francisco charter was signed, and it was followed by the Potsdam conference. In the Potsdam conference there was established this council of foreign ministers. It was established by the great powers and was composed of their foreign ministers. The council was given the immediate task of drawing up, with a view to submission to the united nations, treaties with Italy, Bulgaria, Roumania, Finland and Hungary to propose a settlement of territorial questions outstanding on the termination of the war in Europe. It was then also agreed that the council would be utilized for the preparation of a peace settlement for Germany, to be accepted by the government of Germany when a government adequate for the purpose was established. The only provision made with respect to any of the others of the allies was the following:
Whenever the council is considering a question of direct interest to a state not represented thereon such state should be invited to send representatives to participate in the discussion and study of the question.
With respect to Germany it was provided that German militarism and nazism will be extirpated and the allies will take in agreement together, now and in the future, the other measures necessary to assure that Germany shall never again threaten her neighbours.
This council of foreign ministers prepares drafts for the treaties with the five satellite powers, and the big powers did then respect the letter and probably the spirit of the undertaking of January 1, 1942. They prepared drafts and then they called a conference of all those who should make peace together and not peace separately, as had been agreed in the Washington declaration. We sent a delegation to that conference and at the opening of the conference the Prime Minister said that it was not satisfactory. He said:
Let us frankly admit that the course which has been followed has not, in all respects, been that which some of us had hoped for. That perhaps may be said of all the countries represented here. We in Canada felt that the

measure of our participation in the war against aggression would have warranted a similar measure of participation in the decisions of peace. In the event, these hopes are not being realized.
Nevertheless the draft treaties were submitted to them and were discussed, I think, for seventy-six days, and the results of those discussions were sent back to the council of foreign ministers. The council met in New York and accepted many of the recommendations that were made and finally determined the form which the- treaties would have and fixed the date for their execution in Paris, the 10th of February. Of course we were not satisfied with the procedure, which was long-drawn out in Paris. We felt and we still feel that if the others had been associated with their preparation at an earlier stage there would not have been this long wrangling over trying to have modifications made at the Paris conference. Nevertheless w'e signed the treaty and one of these days after the 31st of March the treaties will be brought to this house and submitted for its action.
With respect to the other settlements, in Washington the council of foreign ministers, which derives no authority from us, expressly said: We are going to elect special deputies who will meet in London and who will hear the views of the governments of the neighbouring allied states or other allied states who participated with our armed forces in the fight against Germany and who wish to present their views on the German problems. They will also consider questions of procedure with regard to the preparation of a peace treaty with Germany and will submit a report on these matters to the council of foreign ministers by February 25, 1947. The same deputies were instructed to proceed with the preparation of a treaty with Austria and to take into consideration proposals already submitted or that might afterwards be submitted by the governments of the allied nations and to hear the views of those governments on the draft that they were instructed to prepare; they were also to submit their report on the 25th of February.
The secretary of these special deputies invited us to submit our views. We were concerned lest the submitting of our views at that time might be taken by the council of foreign ministers as satisfying us with respect to the kind of treaty we would be expected to sign with them to carry out this undertaking not to make a separate peace, and we said: No, that is not good enough. We are not satisfied with merely submitting views to your deputies. That is not appropriate to our participation in the war. We must have a larger share than

Peace Treaties
that in the settlement of the European situation. We sent in the document which I communicated to this house on the 30th of January. We got no answer to that document but we received an invitation to appear before the deputies. We instructed the high commissioner to ask the deputies if they could give us any assurance that if we complied with their invitation their principals would not regard that as satisfying us as to our participation in the making of the peace. They replied: Under our instructions we can give no assurances. We had preliminary views about what the settlement should be and as wre did not want to appear before the deputies, we sent in a statement of our views with a covering letter saying: We understand that by sending these views to you we are not prejudicing our right to be further associated in the preparation of the settlement.


Major James William Coldwell: Was any attempt made to get in touch with the other nations who were in much the same position as ours, particularly other members of the British commonwealth like Australia?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Our high commissioner in London was in constant communication with the representatives of the other dominions and with the representatives of other allied nations, and we were informed by him of the communications passing between him and the high commissioners of the other dominions and the representatives of the other allied nations.


Major James William Coldwell: Was there any suggestion of joint action being taken?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, there was no question raised of any joint action to be taken by the allied nations. Each one made his own position known in that regard.


Gordon Graydon: I know we are not in committee, but as a matter of information will the minister tell us what was the main objection that Canada took to appearing before the deputies?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: We had no objection to giving information to the deputies, but we did have objection to doing anything from which it might be argued afterwards that we had had o'ur measure of participation in the preparation of the settlement, and we were not going to consider that going before these deputies was giving us the measure of participation to which our part in the war entitled us. And it was that question which our high commissioner submitted to the deputies when they sent him this invitation: what assurance can you give us that our complying with your
invitation will not be considered as giving us the opportunity we feel we are entitled to in the preparation of the settlement? When we got no assurance in that regard we preferred not to appear, but merely to send this statement of our views with a covering letter that they were preliminary views, and that the sending of them did not satisfy us that it was giving us our proper participation in the preparation of the settlement.
It would have been desirable for the deputies to agree on some recommendation to make to their principals. They did not agree. I think I should perhaps give a little more connected account of what has taken place since I made the statement to the house on January 30. We had what we thought were constructive suggestions for the improvement of procedure in the early stages of the preparation for the settlement, and we also made available to the special deputies in London the general statement of Canada's views on the German problem. Since that time a similar, though a much briefer statement, has been sent in on the Austrian settlement.
I should now like to repeat what I said previously concerning the attitude of the government with respect to this problem. Throughout these discussions we have sought to take a constructive approach. We have no wish to delay or impede the conclusion of a peace settlement, nor have we at any time permitted mere considerations of prestige to influence our action. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose by a speedy settlement of the European situation; and we realize that unless the four European and American powers can agree, there will not be any settlement. It is not something which can be done by a majority ; it has to be something which each one will sign. It is much like the decisions of the security council, anyone can prevent it from being made, at least as far as he is concerned by refusing to sign it. But it seemed to us a sound and democratic principle that political relations among the nations are best conducted when responsibility is shared, not necessarily on a basis of equality, but as widely as possible among those whose interests are affected. It is simply because we believe in those principles that we have sought to indicate ways in which the settlement of Europe might be brought about with greater expedition and better chance of permanence if it did not appear to be a settlement dictated only by the great powers.
During the meetings in London of the special deputies concerning Germany they had before them a number of proposals as to methods to associate the allies in the prepara-
Peace Treaties

tion of the peace settlement with Germany. These proposals are all alike, in that they all provide for associating the representatives of the other powers in the work of peace-making through periodic communication and information, and also through opportunities for consultation and study.
Some of the plans proposed the establishment of committees, the functions of which would not be such as to provide for participation in negotiations but to carry on consultations and to provide the channel of communication between the council of foreign ministers and the other allies. The proposed committees have been called committees for information and consultation. All the plans make provision for other committees with varying numbers and terms of reference for the study of questions either of general or of particular interest. All the proposals that the deputies have been considering, although they provide for consultation and study by varying methods on the part of the associated allies, do not appear to make provision in their present form for any real participation in the actual drafting of the settlement by any body other than the council of foreign ministers.
So far as we can tell, none of the plans provides that any part of the draft settlement shall be placed at the disposal of the associated allies for review and revision at any stage prior to the calling of a general peace conference. I do not think I need give a detailed account of these various proposals. Instead, I shall give some indication of the general estimate we have made of them in terms of the extent to which they fulfil what would appear to us to be the essential requirements. Before I do that, I should like to refer specifically to one of these plans, namely, the Soviet plan which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to, and of which it is easier to speak because it has been published in the press. That is why I am in a position to discuss it more fully than the others about which I have received information from our high commissioner in London and also from our ambassadors in Washington and in Paris.
The Soviet proposals, like some of the others, provide for a committee to exchange information and views. This is called, in the Soviet plan, a standing committee of the deputies. This committee would be empowered to communicate information, hear views and discuss particular subjects with interested states. It could also set up special ad hoc committees to study separate questions. Essentially the standing committee is designed to carry on consultation by the method which was used by the special deputies in London.

The most novel and, from the Canadian point of view, the most objectionable part of the Soviet plan is the distinction which it contains between associated states with direct interest and the others which it would regard as not having a direct interest. I suppose this is to carry out the terms of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements that they would consult with states having a direct interest.


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I thank hon. members. I have a little more information on this matter which may be of interest.
The countries which the Russian plan would regard as directly interested are those which were occupied during the war. This would include Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece and Albania. The others, said to be without direct interest, would be the commonwealth countries and Brazil. The directly interested countries would take part in the discussion and study of these subjects assigned to them by the special deputies, whilst the others could only witness these discussions without participating in them.
This plan, in my estimation, embodies a curious and inadmissible definition of the countries which are directly interested. The Soviet deputy would include Albania and Luxembourg among those states with direct interest, and would exclude Canada. I cannot imagine that the Soviet authorities really expect us to take seriously a distinction which would bring about that consequence. The Soviet representative in London who presented these views to the special deputies is Mr. Gousev who was Soviet minister in Canada in 1912 and 1943. Mr. Gousev cannot be under any misapprehension as to the nature of Canada's contribution to the defeat of Germany and of Canada's interest in the defeat of Germany. He cannot really think that a country which mobilized A million men, more than half of whom served in combat zones in the war against Germany, made a contribution to the defeat of Germany of less consequence than the war effort of Albania and of Luxembourg. He, of all people in the Soviet administration, is in a position to know the significance of Canada's industrial state in the war, for it was during his period of office in Ottawa that negotiations were begun which resulted in the delivery to the U.S.S.R. of war supplies under mutual aid to the value

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


Gordon Graydon: There is something more to it than that.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Nor is it possible
that the Soviet government is under any misapprehension as to who will bear the burden of German aggression if ever it is renewed. It is to countries such as ours on this continent that the U.S.S.R. would again look for the industrial production that would have to be mobilized and used.
I should like now to indicate our attitude generally to the proposals on procedure which emerged in London. In our comments on procedure we have had two main objects in view. One has been to provide for a more satisfactory participation of the associated powers at a stage when their views could have some effect. It proved to be very difficult at Paris to have anything changed that the great powers had previously agreed upon. The second has been to avoid a repetition of the annoyance of that process by which the allies were assembled in Paris to discuss the terms of settlement with Italy and other satellite states at a time when you could not get anything altered without very great difficulty. In the Canadian view, the procedure best suited to achieve these objects would be to give the associated powers an opportunity to consider and comment on the drafts at an early stage. We recognize that the primary responsibility for the settlement will rest with the four great powers. We realize that the general principles of peace will be established by the council of foreign ministers, and we realize that they may insist on the right to review the settlement before the draft is put into final form for signature.
On the other hand, between the meetings at which the council of foreign ministers indicate the general principles of settlement acceptable to them at the meeting which will open next Monday, and the time when there will be drafts ready for signature, there will be ample opportunity for the work of dozens of committees on the terms of this settlement. There will have to be dozens of working committees to consider and prepare the detailed material that will have to
be incorporated in the final statute or treaty.
At the Paris conference in 1946, the conference, after a preliminary debate on procedure, separated into ten different committees; these committees had subcommittees, and it was in these committees and subcommittees that such achievements as did result from the conference were made. It was only here that the associated states had any real opportunity to recommend revisions of the text.
The Canadian government believes that a process similar to the commission stage of the Paris conference should be introduced at a much earlier period in the preparation of the settlement with Germany.


Gordon Graydon: That is between the
Moscow meeting and the general conference.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	At the Potsdam
conference, and even before that, as early as the Moscow conference of 1943, the general principles with respect to the settlement with Austria were agreed to and published. The general principles with respect to the settlement with Germany have not yet been agreed to and published, and it is at this preliminary meeting at Moscow, which will open next week, that it is expected that the foreign ministers will coordinate their views as to the general principles; and it will be weeks and months after that before the details to carry out these general principles will be worked out. It is, we think, at that period that the allied powers should be associated in the committee work.
There should be on these committees a wide membership of states which participated in the war against Germany. We do not suggest that every state would have to be represented on every committee, but we do think there should be a wide representation of all the allies on these working committees.


Gordon 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.


Gordon Graydon: There are two questions which I asked when I spoke, and which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has apparently overlooked. I wonder if he would mind dealing with them now.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: What are they?


Gordon Graydon: One of them was partly answered, but not completely. It was: What steps does the government propose to take now to bring to the attention of the foreign ministers in meeting, the plan which the minister has detailed to the house in the last few minutes?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The statements made by Canada, those made by the other dominions and those made by the other allies are all being reported by the deputies to the council of foreign ministers in Moscow.


Gordon Graydon: Yes; but there is this new suggestion made by the minister with respect to having some procedure which will partly fit the situation between the Moscow meeting and the general conference. I do not think that was dealt with in the original memorandum.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. We did not go into the details, but there have been discussions between the deputies and the representatives

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


Gordon Graydon: Should Canada not make some direct representation to the Moscow meeting?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sure that those representations will be made to the Moscow meeting. In addition to the representations that are made in writing, there are innumerable contacts between the Canadian government and the foreign offices of the United Kingdom, the United States and France; and I have no doubt that all the details of these plans are matters about which the foreign ministers have full information.


Gordon Graydon: The other question was this, and is asked in view of Mr. Massey's statement and in view of the question I asked. Will the government give an answer as to why the occupation force in Germany was withdrawn when it was?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The occupation force in Germany was withdrawn because we were left out. We were told by the great powers that there would be three zones; that there would be a fourth if France wanted one, but there were not to be any others; and that their commanders were to constitute the government of Germany. I suppose the Russians might perhaps have accepted our cooperation; the French might have accepted our cooperation; the United States might have accepted it and the United Kingdom might have accepted it; but we would not have had any occupation force of ours taking any separate part in the legal occupation of Germany.


Gordon Graydon: But we were there for a year.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


Gordon Graydon: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Our troops were there when the surrender occurred, and we could not fly them out overnight. We immediately started to demobilize our forces and to remove them just as expeditiously as transportation conditions permitted. When we had succeeded in removing our troops from the area, we appointed a military liaison to the government constituted by the four allied commanders, as I stated in my previous remarks.
83166-63i


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my remarks, I wish to make a brief allusion to the activities of the standing committee on external affairs. I have the heavy responsibility and also the honour to be chairman of that committee, and am ably seconded by the vice-chairman, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). We started to function in the fall of 1945 and, through the cooperation which was accorded by every member of the committee, and which continued through every one of our meetings, I believe we succeeded to a very large extent in doing what we set out to do. When we started to function, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was then Secretary of State for External Affairs, and he cooperated with us to the fullest extent although he found it impossible to be present at our discussions, and the same good will was shown by the officials of the department. This year the new department was formed, and the heavy responsibilities so ably discharged by the Prime Minister of Canada, were placed on the shoulders of the present occupant of that high position. He is fulfilling his obligations with his natural qualifications of high diplomacy and high statesmanship; and I believe this is the time and place to compliment our present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the honour he has brought to himself, to parliament and to the whole of Canada.
I was very proud indeed that during this afternoon and evening there was no sign of subduedness in his voice or in those of previous speakers. I was afraid that when we received that resounding rebuff from the "Big Four" Canada would take it impatiently, but Canada took it with dignity, but with some resentment. However I never saw the population so electrified, or rather stupefied as when the Canadian people learned that we were persona non grata as far as the peace treaties with Austria and Germany were concerned. I am not again going to cover the ground which was so well covered this afternoon as to the great renown Canada won for herself during world war I and also during world war II. We can go to a peace conference with a fine symbol. We do not want any territorial aggrandizement; we have no quarrel with any nation. We can go there with an open heart and open mind. I know that public opinion in the countries of Europe, even public opinion in the four big nations, will be so strong that it will compel them to allow Canada to take its proper place in the deliberations at the coming peace conference.
I want to say just a few words about some of the things which happened under the treaty
Peace Treaties

of Versailles, which was signed in 1919, and at the deliberations which preceded it. I always have in mind the statement of that great Jewish philosopher Spinoza, when he was looking at his times, which were very troubled indeed. He said we should not smile, not cry, but we should try to understand. I believe the whole world was highly elated over the treaty of Versailles and built up great hopes on it. Ail hopes for the future peace of mankind, not of any individual nation but the whole of the civilized world, were heightened by a great statesman, President Wilson of the United States, who left his shores with his ten points for the peace treaty. He was a great figure at that conference, carrying not only the respect due him for his personality and for the wonderful effort put forth by his country, which was one of the great reasons for our victory on the battlefield, and for the sacrifices made and the money spent by the American nation; he also created a feeling of hopr in every citizen worthy of being called a civilized person. However, within a few years the world knew a great feeling of despair, because that great statesman, that man who was carrying the hope of civilization, did not have the strong support he expected from his own nation and the military support needed <nder such circumstances.
We must learn from that experience of the y*.st. While I am dealing with the treaty of Versailles, I know I shall be forgiven if I mention some of its shortcomings. This is neither the time nor the place to compare what might have happened if we had lost the war, to suggest what Germany and her allies would have done to the democracies, to countries such as France, the United States, Great Britain, Canada and our other allies. This is not the time to say, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, just because we have been victorious. However, there have been some anomalies. I know that, while at the time I was not very well versed in world affairs, I was astonished at the dismemberment of Austria, creating in the middle of Europe an economic and political vacuum which was one of the contributing factors to world war II. There is no getting away from that fact. It is too late to go back and try to change history, but I maintain that the nations of the world in the treaty of Versailles committed a terrible crime against Austria in practically destroying that nation. It is true that it was an ally of Germany, but those people were the tools of Germany. We must also remember that, although the chief villain in that terrible play really was Germany, her borders remained almost intact. I shall never pose as a prophet, but I remember my thought a few years ago

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

Peace Treaties
not start any rivalry which might prove detrimental not only to ourselves but to other nations of the world.
These are things which must be mentioned; and this is the first occasion I have had, since I have been in public life, to mention these anomalies which have been the cause of great tribulations in the past and in future will be the cause of great disturbances, national, mental, territorial and spiritual. There is no getting away from things of that kind; they will stay with us like the Macbeth ghost. Look at the history of the world and the history of Europe for the last twenty years. You could never pick up a German paper without seeing a great big headline about the Polish corridor. That was only a small thing in comparison with what has happened to the map of Europe since the second war, when historical nations have had portions of their territory taken away from them or their frontiers brutally and forcibly changed, as we would take an arm or a leg from a human being. For the rest of the world to be so complacent as to want to believe these will not be danger points in the future history of Europe, danger points which will have their effect on the whole of Europe, is like whistling when we pass a graveyard. There is no getting away from these facts.
Three years ago, I believe it was in 1943, when our young men were losing their lives by the thousands, while our allies the Americans were losing thousands of men, the magazine Lije sent some of their best artists to picture what was happening on the war fronts. There was published in one of the editions of Lije magazine in 1944, I believe it was, a series of drawings showing some young men who had been fighting on the shores of Europe and in the Pacific; it showed the blood running from their faces and their bodies, the sight of horrible wounds. The pictures were in natural colour, showing their actual expressions and the suffering which was shown on their faces, the redness of oozing blood, the ghastliness of horrible cuts. Considerable tumult arose in the United States among some of the readers of the magazine, some of whom went so far as to say that those pictures should not have been published. I believe it was a necessary thing to have published those pictures, for the good reason that those young men who lost their lives were not only on the allied side, but possibly in part were men on the other side who, generally speaking, had no quarrel with other ideologies. They were too young for that; in the prime of their young exuberance they had no quarrel with anyone.
I recall when early in the war I often spent
a half hour or an hour watching our young men parade in this city, presenting colours in front of these parliament buildings. I would look at their faces and realize that these were young Canadians, full of happiness and in the springtime of their lives, with their hopes and thoughts of a full life showing in their faces. Often I asked myself how many of those fine young men who had no quarrel with the other men they would have to face in the trenches and the foxholes, will come back with their lives and unscathed. I believe they had no quarrel with the world or the people in it, but quite a number of them never returned.
But they answered the call of civilization, the call of their country. We cannot forget the sacrifices they made, and the lives they gave. Those men will go down to martyrdom for a cause that they knew was theirs. It is not likely that they will be honoured by attending the peace conference. But I believe it is only right that they should be given an opportunity to express their sentiments in an informal way. I would have a shrine in Moscow, where these deliberations will take place, where one of the departed ones would be mummified and the time that life ebbed from his young body, showing how those men lost their blood, showing the suffering on their faces, so that those who are at that conference will remember who made the greater sacrifices during the last war. There would also be represented those men who have been horribly mutilated, men who have no legs today, men who have no arms and men who have lost their sight. These would be present, so that the members of the delegation would keep in mind what the war meant to the younger generation of our countries, to their mothers, fathers, wives, children and sweethearts.
Then, too, they would be reminded of those young, mutilated school children. I listened attentively this afternoon to the hon. member for Peel when he referred to the lad in London, the victim of the blitz, standing among its ruins. We have been told-although I did not see it, but I know that it is true-that one bomb which came from Germany and was dropped on one of the schools in England resulted in the deaths of eighty-two young, lovely school children, boys and girls. We are told that there were little limbs, little pieces of head, of the crania found 200 yards away on the tree tops-that distance away from the school which had been totally destroyed.
These things must, of necessity, be kept in mind at the peace conference, but must be remembered by all, so that those who are attending will remember the ones who have
Peace Treaties

suffered. It was the youth who suffered most, the flower of mankind, and they suffered by the tens of millions.
I make these statements in all the sincerity I possess, because those who speak to study groups in my community firmly maintain that, of necessity, we must make our statesmen fully realize the real importance of the destruction, devastation, death and suffering caused by the last war in every part of civilization, on every part of its population.
As a result of our participation in the charter of the united nations organization we have contracted some duties and obligations. However, in Europe today there are still millions of people who are suffering, millions who find themselves without a national home. More than that, we have today conflicts in ideology. Are we to have two worlds? Or are we to have only one world? On the one side we have the ideology exemplified by the United States and Great Britain and their allies, a system which has shown itself to be best from the point of view of production and which has brought about great advances in mechanization and industrialization, coupled with farming and agricultural production.
On the other hand we have the other ideology which promises food but not freedom to the famished populations of Europe. In contrast with that, our side has promised food and also freedom; and on that score I believe we are right.
What does this imply, so far as Canada and the allies are concerned? It would be perfectly ridiculous to make these promises without being willing and ready to make the necessary sacrifices to implement them. To make our ideology prevail, it must be supported by loans to needy people; it must be supported by industrial help so as to develop higher industrialization; in a word, to the advancement of a fuller life.
We read in the newspapers of the United States and of other countries that the present crisis in Great Britain is a crisis for the whole civilized world and which we must help to solve. That principle applies with even greater force to the whole of Europe and of Asia. WTe must do all we can to implement what has been set down in the charter and blueprint of the united nations organization. This will cost a good deal of money and will require many sacrifices. But if we draw up a balance of the cost we shall find that we are still in the black, still on the credit side, because it will cost much less to maintain peace that if we had another war, which, in my view, would result practically in the destruction of civilization as we know it.

The people of Europe are caught between two ideologies; for millions of them want something to eat. An empty stomach has no time for reason; an empty stomach has not time to listen even to ideologies. It will grab at the first thing that comes within its reach, hoping against hope that what is placed in its way will prove to be a solution for its problems.
I believe that the door should remain open, so far as the communistic ideology is concerned, if our own ideology based on Christian principles could be presented to the Russian people. But I believe, too, that this should be a two-way road. I admire greatly the attitude taken recently in the United States by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) when he tendered a hand to Russia, showing Russia that there was nothing sinister so far as the northern defence of Canada is concerned, showing Russia and her government that we have nothing up our sleeves. I believe, if the Russian people had an opportunity to listen to those statements, to listen to the voice of logic, they would receive them.
Perhaps this is not the time or place to discuss a matter of that kind, but I hope the Russian people will have access to the rest of the world and may know what goes on in it. I say that because I know a good number of Russian-born Canadians, and I have found them intelligent and democratic people. If they were given an opportunity to lead their own government, I believe it would be fashioned along more democratic lines. I say that because the Russians in Canada whom I know are democrats at heart, and the Russian people who were great Christians, desire freedom and happiness.
I listened to the hon. member for Peel who told us, and rightly so, of the great devastation which had taken place in Germany, and he spoke particularly of that fine German lad who was surrounded by destruction such as we know exists in Berlin at the present time. I believe, if a pointed question were asked of that German lad as to what had been the primary cause of what has happened in Germany, if he had been fair to himself he would have said, "It was the fault of my own government of my own people".
The hon. member for Peel referred to that fine lad in London who, too, was surrounded with horrible destruction. If the same question had been asked of that young boy he would have said, "My father told me that our government and that the people in the British isles did not want the war; that we have done all we could to avoid war. We even went so

Peace Treaties
far as to go to Munich to avoid war. But war was brought upon us, but we were not the cause of it. Our delegates and the delegates of the united nations will have to work with the French delegation, and the French nation is not going to forget readily that within three short generations their territory has been thrice invaded by Germany and that millions and millions of French lives have been lost on the altar of patriotism to defend their native land, within the material destruction. These were not offensive wars started by France but offensive wars started by Germany, in which every citizen of France had to rise to defend the sanctity of French soil. The French people will remember for a long time the three million French workers who in the last war were carried off to Germany, where 100,000 of them contracted tuberculosis. They will remember the thousands of young women who were taken from France and Holland-Holland which never was an enemy of Germany-and sent into Germany for one purpose only, prostitution to the military men. These are harsh words, but let us remember these things when we come to make a just peace, not to wreak vengeance on Germany, but to make a just peace that will ensure us against a repetition of what has happened in the past.
The hon. member for Peel spoke, and rightly so, of the devastation of Germany. But what happened to Rotterdam? Did the Dutch people have any quarrel with the German people? No, they had none. Yet Holland was the victim of a dastardly attack by the monsters from across the Rhine. Tens of thousands of innocent Dutch people, old men and women and young children, were destroyed. No nation can stand before the world and say that there was any justification for that attack. What happened to heroic Greece, which was called upon to defend herself against the hordes of fascist Italy all by herself? She was able to defend herself against the fascist hordes until Germany came to the aid of her ally and overcame Greece. Go and tell the Greek people to forget what happened to them under the Gennan regime. No, Mr. Speaker, these things must, of necessity, be remembered at the peace conference.
As a man of French descent I have studied and admired particularly one trait of the British people. It has been well said that in war there is no better fighter, no more heroic soldier, than the British but that they forget all feelings of enmity when the last shot has been fired. I want the delegates at the peace, conference which is to make treaties with Austria and Germany to remember what
General Foch said of the treaty that was made at the end of the war of 1918. He said that the treaty would surely bring another war within twenty years, and time proved him to be a true prophet.
The people of France do not want the pauperization or the destruction of Germany. No one on our side does. But the people of France are intensely realistic. They know what happened in 1918, when they were told that they were going to get the armed support of Great Britain and the United States. They did not get it. What happened? In that vacuum created in central Europe by the destruction of Austria you had in embryo the war that eventually brought a holocaust on the civilized world because France was left absolutely alone with hardly any support from her allies. France had a case to present to the peace conference. She may be hard to get along with but she is a nation with intense national pride; but she is realistic, and in proof of that look at what happened last week, when she formed, not an entente but an alliance with Great Britain. What a magnificent spectacle it was for everyone who has at heart the peace of the world to see these two great upholders of the civilization of Europe, France and Great Britain, forming an alliance for the advancement of peace in Europe. I hope it will be the forerunner of other alliances in Europe. I hope the day will come when every country in Europe, which was the birthplace of our own civilization, will come together, including Germany and Italy, for one purpose and one purpose only, and that the advancement of civilization, Christianity and peace throughout the world.
France is coming to the peace conference with some realistic policies. She wants a federation of the German nation,. in which its different states can cooperate together in a friendly way but can never become a danger to the rest of Europe and the world through centralization. France also wants the allied nations to take upon themselves responsibility for the nationalization of the industries of the Ruhr valley. These are two problems which, I believe, are capable of solution, and their solution will mean a great deal to the advancement of peace throughout the whole of Europe.
I repeat, France does not want Germany to become a weak nation. At times, when J look to France, the blood of which country runs in my veins, France, one of the proudest nations of Europe, and see some of its men taking their political ideology from Moscow it makes me shiver for the whole future of
9S0
Peace Treaties

Europe. But we know what a wonderful recuperative power France has and that she will rise again from her suffering and humiliation, and I say that it is the duty of the other big powers to see that France again attains the place she formerly occupied in Europe. If we want a Germany which will be strong economically but weak militarily, we also want a France which will be strong in every respect as the only safeguard and guarantee that we have in Europe of peace for the next fifty years to come, but a weak France would mean a weak and a desperate Europe.
These are some of the things which, of necessity, the delegates to the peace conference will have in their minds. Someone may say that it is easy to theorize. I know it is easy. I know what blunders I might make if I had the qualifications to be a delegate to the peace conference. But there is a sound general principle which says that the people as a whole usually exercise good judgment, and I am voicing the sentiments of my own people who have studied these questions from all angles and am giving the conclusions to which they have come at the present time. I believe, therefore, that I cannot be far away from the truth in making these statements.
While the situation is serious, it is not desperate. I believe that if in time of peace we show the same initiative, the same enterprise and the same idealism that we showed during the war, not only this nation but all our allies, the impression created will be so great on those who were our enemies of yesterday, people of different ideologies, that eventually, perhaps within the next twenty or thirty or forty years at the most, we may have the spectacle not of a utopia or a Garden of Eden, for we do not want these things in this world which is built for constructive rivalry, and progressive thoughts and actions in the full sense of the word, but of a united purpose among the peoples of the world to see that no one shall go hungry, no one shall live in squalour, filth and misery, and that all nations shall progress to a higher degree of civilization. I believe that this is possible of accomplishment, with all the power and energy and generosity that is inherent in human beings. We must never forget that we are our brother's keeper. We all know what another great world conflict would mean, have experienced two world wars in the last twenty-five years. There are great hopes for the future. But again I say we must be realistic. We must remember that, wherever there is a danger to the peace of the world in 
some country, it is our duty to remedy that situation, to try reason and understanding for its solution. It is a duty to try not to crush but to remedy that situation, because crushing never rectified or cured anything, but leaves countless bruises and ill will. It is within our power and ability to see that the freedoms of which we speak, the four freedoms, are fully applied and honoured at this moment.
I should like to quote the words of Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt which he gave to the 27th congress on January 6, 1941. They are as follows:
The first is freedom of speech and expression -everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way-everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which translated into world terms means economic understanding which will secure to every nation a healthy peace-time life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear which, translated into world terms, means world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour-anywhere in the world.
That was a much greater message than Mr. Wilson gave to the world over twenty-five years ago, because it is within the reach of every nation in the world, including Germany, Japan and Austria, to implement these four freedoms. But they contain implications of sacrifice; there are implications of being your brother's keeper; there are implications of being willing and ready to some extent, no doubt to a great extent, to give up some of the so-called national sovereignty, for the cause of the welfare of mankind; because if every nation goes back into their shell, economically, nationally and politically speaking and acts as they did after 1918, within twenty years or twenty-five at the most we shall be facing perhaps a worse situation than we faced then.
These four freedoms are within the reach of all nations including China, which I am sorry to say is not one of the big five. China, that great, generous nation will come out of her internal, horrible and destructive insurrection because there is power and resilience in that nation. They showed us what they could do for nearly seven and a half years by holding back the well-armed and well-equipped barbarian invader from Japan. They held them back with almost nothing but their bare hands and their stout hearts and bodies. I am sure a nation like that will eventually find national unity which, I hope and which I know will be for the welfare of the whole world, when she will take her full place in the forums of the world's nations.
The things which I have mentioned are not rhetorical but practical things. They may not

Peace Treaties
be diplomatic, but I believe they have their raison d'etre. I believe I have given expression to thoughts which, generally speaking, are in the minds of the people of Canada and the United States.
In conclusion, may I say that I know Canada will be well represented. I know that the "Big Four" will need Canada to be there; otherwise there will be a terrific vacancy, the absence being greatly felt. That has been well said by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent). We all know of the huge sacrifices of Canada during the last two wars. They were undertaken not joyfully but seriously and loyally in response to the call coming from across the sea. Our men fought on every battlefield of Europe and Asia. Much of our young blood was spilled and many young lives were lost on every battlefield known to the world. We go to the peace conference not asking for the pound of flesh, a change of territory or aggrandizement in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Surely the voice of Canada being so clear and resounding should be listened to. It should be possible for our delegates-and I know they will do so-to tell the nations of the world to forget their own nationalism and their own political and ideological pride for the welfare of the whole.
I should now like to complete my remarks by quoting the words of a great humanitarian, a man who accomplished a great work during the last w'ar, and whose voice is highly respected. I refer to Pope Pius, the present Pope in Rome who on the 21st day of February, when speaking to a great peace gathering in Rome, used words to this effect: "Let us try with all our might on the great Christian principle, the primary one being charity, to work for the advancement of civilization and of peace; and may the nations of the world see reigning the angel of peace and that the empires will be led by God and not led by guns."


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The motion before the house is one to adjourn the house to take up a specific matter of urgent public importance. I am sorry that in dealing with these questions the politicians' have thrown away more than our forces gained in the last two wars. They have just thrown it to the four winds of heaven, for a song.
I wish to refer to one or two matters tonight. In the first place, I am opposed to the policy which has been adopted regarding the united nations. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the next meeting is supposed to be held at Moscow. One meeting was held at
Paris. It was started at San Francisco by the late President Roosevelt, who had an idea he was forming a new league of nations which would take the place of the one which caused the second war. None of the leaders went to San Francisco. Mr. Stalin did not attend there; Mr. Churchill did not attend there; President Roosevelt had died and did not attend there. They sent supernumeraries to chloroform the people, with the result that the "Big Four", as they called themselves did not accomplish anything. There is nothing big about the way they are handling the business, because the united nations organization is going to turn out to be a second league of nations, if one may judge from the way it is conducted. Mr. Attlee said on Saturday he was disappointed at the first year of the united nations organization. They give luxurious banquets and pay fantastic salaries. Even Moscow is complaining about the way UNO is carried on, particularly the security council. We all know about the deputies and all the rest of the frills which we have had since they started.
What are the facts on this particular matter? In the first place Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the then leader of the Liberal party, acted quite differently from the present leader of the foreign affairs department. Away back at the time of the diamond jubilee celebration in 1897 Sir Wilfrid Laurier said of the empire: "Invite us to your councils if you want our aid at any time." He was first in the diamond jubilee procession, and he said, "When Britain is at war Canada is also at war."
What is the policy today of hon. gentlemen opposite? I asked this question awhile ago:
Has the government been consulted or advised by either the government of Great Britain or any of the dominions on the abandonment of the Suez canal and Cairo military base by Great Britain.
This is the reply I received:
Commonwealth governments keep each other informed on matters of foreign policy in accordance with the practice prescribed by Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the House of Commons in London on May 8, 1946, as follows:
"It is our practice and our duty as members of the British commonwealth to keep other members of the commonwealth fully and continuously informed of all matters which we are called upon to decide, but which may affect commonwealth interests. The object is to give them an opportunity of expressing their views in confidence if they so desire. These views are taken fully into account, but the decision must be ours, and the other governments are not asked, and would not wish, to share the responsibility for it. Dominion governments follow the same practice.
Peace Treaties

They do not. That was never the policy of the dominions and Great Britain at any time. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that in the first great war one million men went of their own free will from the dominions to the aid of the mother country, went over under their own status, sovereignty, and autonomy; 130,000 of them fell on the field of battle, and what they did changed the whole history of the civilized world. But do we ever hear now of their achievement? I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is not going to be talked out of the British empire by all the Attlees, the Morrisons, the Cripps and the rest of them. Canada will have to be fought out of it. These British members never believed in our empire and want it to go into liquidation as their speeches for years show.
I was opposed to the policy of the government in connection with the meeting in Paris, at Moscow, Potsdam, Yalta, Casablanca, London, Washington and Quebec. The policy which I humbly suggest is this. It is not in the interests of responsible government that we should have a number of different parties to represent Canada in foreign affairs. The government of the day, so long as it is the government, must be responsible for deciding these foreign affairs questions, instead of trying to shunt them off onto somebody else, asking the opposition to throw out the lifelines, so to speak, in order to save them and their separatist policies; for that is what they do when they invite the various parties in the house abroad to take part in foreign meetings.
We had a number of distinguished visitors in this chamber addressing us at one time or another, such men as Prime Minister Curtin of Australia, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Fraser, Anthony Eden, Mr. Churchill and others. They came and made certain representations to us and they did not propose that there should be any interference with our autonomy or sovereignty. What they did advocate was empire councils, as in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, which would go into all these matters and come to some satisfactory conclusion, some basis upon which the members of the British commonwealth could take joint action. But they did not succeed in their efforts to secure an empire conference to deal with defence, trade and immigration and for a common empire foreign policy to speak with one voice.
For four hundred years the mother country has saved the world and safeguarded its freedom. At the time of Philip of Spain, of Louis XIV, under Napoleon, and twice in our own generation under the Kaiser and Hitler, the mother country has saved mankind from slavery and dictators.

But what is being done today in connection with Germany and Austria? It is inconceivable that English people in the Elizabethan or Victorian era under Burleigh and Palmerston or the French under Louis XIV or the Americans under Monroe or Lincoln could have dreamt of submitting their personal concerns of state control or of surrendering their sovereign rights and national interests of their country to the control of any international organization. It was never heard of in the old days. Why is it now suggested to hand over sovereignty by the deputy minister of foreign affairs in an address in Toronto?
At the time of the Venezuela controversy an eminent prime minister of Great Britain, Mr. Arthur Balfour, made a famous speech in 1896, in which he declared that the time must come when some statesmen of greater authority than Monroe will lay down the doctrine between English-speaking peoples that war is impossible. For my part, so far as a private member has any say in such matters. I refuse to be a party to the liquidation of the British empire. The British empire has stood for centuries like the rock of ages, for the peace and security of the world. Next to the Christian church, the British empire has been the greatest agency for the good of humanity, the greatest civilizing force in the world. No human organization has done so much to preserve the liberties of mankind as Britain has done for four centuries now.
As I say, the Prime Minister of Australia and New Zealand came here and asked to have a conference with this dominion, and to create an empire council. What was our reply? Canada replied that we had no commitments; that parliament must decide. Then came the meeting at Lake Success. I think we shall have next year to change the name to "Lake Failure", for what success did we have there? None whatever. Australia and New Zealand were anxious to have a conference in 1946 on these various empire matters, but they got no satisfaction from this country.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada must accept her responsibility as the senior dominion for what has been done, and failure to have the empire act as a unit. But one reason why we have nothing to say in connection with the peace terms is that instead of banding together with the other dominions and with the mother country, we have pursued a separate policy and separatism is the cause of our not having anything to say in the peace terms. If we had hung together we would have had a large say in the peace terms, not none at all. It has been said that Britain was the hardest country in the world to make a treaty with, for the

Peace Treaties
reason that there were so many separate states to deal with. That was what Clemenceau and the Premier of Prance said. That is true, because we are not banding together; we are not working along with the mother country, but acting with so many different voices.
We have a deputy minister suggesting that we should give up our sovereignty in connection with the security council. Fancy that!
I am opposed to the policy of the government. We have given up our bases. Where would we have been in the last war if we had given up Gibraltar, the Cape, the far east, the Suez, Alexandria and the West Indies, and the other bases around the world? Our position would have been impossible. The fact is, we have been under pressure to remain neutral. I cannot understand why the deputy head of the external affairs department should suggest that we must throw away our sovereignty. I do not know where we would have been in the last war if we had followed any such advice. The Right Hon. Mr. Nash, referring to the status of the British empire, proposed that meetings should be called to decide all these matters through an empire council.
The fact is that we need a good ambassador at Moscow. Why do we not send a man like General Montgomery? Why not follow the practice that was followed after the war between the north and the south on this continent, when great soldiers and sailors demonstrated that they could make good representatives in foreign countries. Field Marshal Montgomery's visit to Moscow has shown us the possibilities in this direction. He received every honour at the hands of the Russians. Premier Stalin went out of his way to entertain Lord Montgomery. He was given a fine fur coat and was also photographed in the uniform of a Russian marshal. He invited the chief of the Russian general staff to visit England. His portrait appeared in Russian newspapers together with accounts of his military service. The newspapers in England were greatly taken with it.
What was done so far as the Paris conference was concerned? We sent a whole carload of people there, twenty-five in all. Everyone had an advisor-first secretary, second secretary, third secretary; all kinds of people, where two or three would have done with a whole lot of advisers who were only amateurs as diplomats and learned by experience. The list is given on page thirty-five. There was one more sent to New York, to Lake Success. And what success did they have? They would have had more success if they had stayed at home; if they had stayed away from Paris they might have done better. Did they say
anything about the German peace treaty and the Austrian peace treaty? No. Just more talk and nothing done, and it was turned over to the deputies to meet with the smaller nations.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the smaller nations will have nothing to say in the peace terms. Why? Because in the general security council any one of the "Big Four" can veto what the others do, and we agreed to all this at San Francisco. Have they not done that? They used the veto at Paris where we had all this delegation. Messrs. Truman, Bevin and Stalin agreed on Poland matters and on the Baltic countries, Finland and Norway. They will do it all over again at the meeting in Moscow on March 10. The small dominions will have very little or nothing to say over there. If we had acted with Britain and the other dominions we would have had a share. The papers reported, the Toronto Star and Telegram and others:	"Canada
Snubbed by Big Four". Her request to have something to say in the peace terms was vetoed. Then we have the Russian delegate, Feodor Gousev, wanting to ignore Canada altogether. Then we have the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), in which he is reported to have had correspondence and tabled it in Hansard. Then we have the newspapers reporting with regard to the smaller nations and the way they were treated by the "Big Four" and the terms set up to ignore them and snub them. What a spectacle and show this whole UNO is!
It serves us right, after the experience we had with the first league of nations. Why do we go on then relying on the deputies and security councils and all that sort of thing when there is no world security? Another article reports that the Secretary of State for External Affairs warns Canada not to forget United States ties, and that is the correct thing to do. Britain got out a white paper on the security council, on Paris, about the meeting over there of the deputies, and all that. It has called forth a great deal of criticism. Britain has at the present time a million men and women under arms and 450,000 labour men to support and service and produce for them. The United States has practically no force in Germany. Neither has Canada, which has withdrawn its forces. Where is security going to be? Security will be just a scrap of paper as they leave Britain to do it all. You have here these deputies, we are told, some of them sitting in security committee now. We are told that they get into these Lake Success halls, with all the luxury described by the Patriot; the luxurious banquets, of about fifteen or twenty courses, the fantastic salaries,
Peace Treaties

and all that kind of thing. They are the ones settling the peace of the world. They are also immune from the law. Their officials live in luxury, pay no taxes, aiming to control the world's finances, the world's food, the world's shipping, the world's aviation, and to dictate to nations and taxpaying individuals how they shall live, what they shall spend, what food they shall eat and the very way they shall travel. A most dangerous set-up, a danger to human freedom, a danger to freedom of trade, and most certainly the fertile breeding ground of the next war. Then Time magazine, commenting on this London newspaper, the one article of Time reproduced in the Canadian Social Crediter just last month, referred to the united nations educational, scientific and cultural organization:
United nations organization is an evil organization at the back of which are dark forces who would trap the Anglo-Saxon race and enslave the world.
U.N.O. is built upon the sand and its doom is as certain as the league of nations which faded away unwept, unhonoured and unsung.
From the international standpoint the only coalition which can save the world is a coalition of the British empire and the United States of America.
That is correct. In addition to that, what have we? We have Time magazine saying that the UNO has deliberately ignored the Almighty in all its deliberations. I believe that is right. How does it come about that the government of the day can send a group made up of its members and of other leaders of the house to New York, others to Paris, some to London and now some are going to Moscow? How does it come about that we are ignoring the policies of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier? How is it that the dominions are not willing to make an agreement of that sort? They are not international at all. If we are not willing to join with other branches of the empire, the other dominions, as one family in a uniform empire policy of cooperation and collaboration with the mother country, as the leader from Australia and others told us in this chamber, we were together for war and we should continue to be together for peace in the interests of the country, instead of relying on all these outside organizations. Internationalism is a funny thing. It consists of a whole lot of sham. One war led to another. Why should we not, I said, have a league of nations of our own, to start with the British empire? As has been well said) today, the only league of nations that has ever achieved any success is the British empire. The United States knows that; the world knows it; and out of this war there should emerge a greater league of nations, namely, the British empire.
IMr. Church.]
Lord Milner said in 1919, speaking at Oxford, it was a most strange anomaly to hear the self-governing parts of the British empire should be joining a league, binding themselves by a formal tie to a number of foreign nations, when they had heretofore been unwilling to enter similar obligations with one another.
That is a fact. Where would the United States be if they spoke with forty-six voices, the way this country is supposed to speak by separate empire views with the dominions ail separate? Clemenceau has said, as have other French leaders, that we were the hardest country in the world to. make a treaty with, for the reasons given, that we speak with so many different voices. As I say, I protested against the thing. The mother country went to war on account of Poland. She declared war. She sacrificed everything she had for that great little land. But here you have had a meeting at Moscow of the "Big Three," and what did they do? They signed away the rights of the countries on the Baltic, Finland, and the rest. We had nothing to say about it. This is what a great writer said-and I think he is one of the greatest writers and the greatest missionary bishop of the Church of England; and I am very proud of him and the empire part he has played in two wars;
I refer to the Right Reverend Bishop Renison of Moosonee diocese, who comes from the riding of the hon. member for Cochrane. I am a great admirer of his whole life work for God and king and country. He said in a brilliant article of February 26, in the Globe and Mail; that what we need at the present time is a Job among the nations of the world. We have never had one. The bishop just last week was referring to this need on the very same day of announcements of the UNO and Moscow we that day had up in the house. What does he say? He says: of the glories of Britain and her empire!
We wonder whether there has ever been a Job among the nations of the world; if not, it would seem that we have one now. The legend of the British empire is only about seventy years old. It was Disraeli who first proclaimed the little white queen as empress of India, but ever since the diamond jubilee, this ancient conception of might has dominated the world's idea of the British family of nations. We almost forget that Shakespeare and Nelson did not live in an empire.
Let us look for a moment to what this people have done during a thousand years. When the Roman legions were withdrawn in the fourth century, the little islands off the coast of Europe seemed to have no future, but from this cradle something has gone to the ends of the earth which will never be forgotten. The spirit of adventure, the genius of the seas, the pioneer-

Peace Treaties
ing instinct, the power of commerce, the sense of law and order, a great literature, these belong to the ages. It has seemed many times as if her power was done, but over and over again she has surprised her enemies and her friends. Eight years ago she literally stood alone. While others hesitated she resolutely made up her mind to defy the lightning. She gathered power much greater than her own to stand by her side, and then at last victory was won.
During the past two years the plagues and boils of Job have been the lot of the British people. They were starved during the war, and still they undertook to feed their enemies. Before United States came into the war they threw their wealth and their savings of the centuries into the furnace; they began life again poorer than some of their enemies in natural resources and reserves, and then they are overtaken by dramatic events which are the result of the white man's greed in all parts of the world.
After the first great war there was a book called "The Rising Tide of Colour," which prophesied that the white man's hegemony was finished. One-half of the human race lives in Asia. Japan in two short years did something that Asia will never forget; not victories only, but cruelty and humiliation have done something which will change the history of the world. Think of Egypt and what it owes to Cromer and men like him. The Suez canal will probably no longer be a British highway. The four hundred millions of India are soon to be turned loose on the world; we have just read a story of Kipling called "The Man Who Was." Burma and Malaya may follow suit. Job in the days of his humiliation said that the boys on the street didn't salute him any more.
The world today is filled with village gossip; every one knows that material things are not the measure of life for men or nations. The patience, courage and the silence of the British people is not the least or the last of their glorious contribution to the story of mankind.
If any other hon. members wish to contribute to the debate I shall conclude, but I should like to say something further about the security council and the Paris conference. The work done there in connection with Germany and Austria has been a dismal failure. The talk that has taken place so far, and that will go on next week at Moscow, reveals a dismal situation, with poverty, hunger, disorder, violence, social upheaval and industrial stagnation dominating the entire continent. A few oases still remain in the north and west where law, work and relative well-being prevail, but the other conditions I have mentioned are so widespread and so menacing that limits cannot be set to their potential contagion. If these conditions go on without change, death and desolation must inevitably follow on a scale such as Europe has not known since the thirty years war, and much of the towering edifice of western civilization must crumble and perish. That is something our representatives at Moscow should remember.
Against this background the real issues at Paris, and next week at Moscow, become
clearer. The Germans are difficult to understand; they are in fact so difficult to understand that all attempts to reeducate them seem doomed to failure. The average German possesses neither a sense of cause and effect nor a sense of perspective, and therefore has no critical faculty. The Germans interrogated during the war seemed both immature and highly credulous. What Emperor William II began, Hitler finished. There always was in Germany, and still is, a surfeit of slogans and a lack of common sense. So, as I say, I see very little good that will come out of the proposed conference.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude in order to permit the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Macdonnell), who has a wide knowledge of these matters, a few minutes in which to address the house; anything further I have to say can be postponed to another occasion. This day, I believe, has not been wasted; it is a day we shall remember for a long time to come. We have seen that in this house there are one or two who are not afraid to say something about the British empire, which saved our shores and the shores of the United States for two and a half years, during much of which she was. save for the five dominions, fighting alone. If it had not been for the British empire and the dominions we would have had the awful horrors of war on our own soil, in Quebec and the maritime provinces, and along the United States seaboard.


Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has been kind enough to give me a few minutes, and there are just a few comments I should like to make. I had hoped, as a matter of fact, that the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) would have closed this debate, so that we might have had the opportunity of putting questions before him until the time came for him to speak. However, he intervened earlier, so that to that extent my remarks have somewhat lost their point. Nevertheless I wish to offer a few brief observations.
In the first place, I wish to express my admiration for the speech given a few moments ago by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). Notwithstanding the fact that he has left the chamber, I wish to say that it was pleasant for a man of British stock to hear the kind and generous things which he, a man of French stock, had to say about us. I believe those things make for good. As a matter of fact, I believe we have so much more in common than we have
Peace Treaties

dividing us that, if we were ready to speak to each other as he did tonight, it would take us a very long way. Further, I want to say that it seemed to me he was dealing with the really basic and moral questions which affect this matter.
I wish I could say the same about the speeches of the two ministers to which we listened today. As far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs was concerned, perhaps it was inevitable that he should deal almost entirely with what I believe the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) called procedural machinery. Those are long, ugly words which describe things I find extremely uninteresting, but I suppose we have to talk about them. I was sorry the minister had to spend his whole time on them, but perhaps it was unavoidable.
As far as the Minister of National Defence was concerned, I was certainly disappointed in his speech, because he spent forty minutes in telling us, first of all, that we had a good record in the war, with which I fully agree; then that we had good representatives at the various conferences, with which I am sure the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) agree; and then he went on to praise us generally as a nation, with which I am sure we all agree. But it seemed to me that he spent no time whatever and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had no time to spend, on the important questions raised by the hon. member for Peel and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, which have to do with the economical and moral background of this whole matter. I consider it a great pity that this should be so; but though this debate is ending now, I suppose, I hope occasion will be taken later on to deal with these questions.
I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, with which I believe we all agree; that is, that none of these procedural questions, none of these questions of status, which are important and on which I think also we all agree, are of any value whatever and none will have any importance unless the basic economic questions can be solved. The two hon. members to whom I have referred asked some searching questions.
I shall refer to one only, because time is short. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar pointed out the great economic question which faces us in connection with the great German manufacturing establishments, the great trusts of Germany. He asked what was to be done about them. If I remember aright, he said he understood it to be the fact
TMr. Macdonnell.]
that the Canadian and American view was that we were to try to work that out through private enterprise; on the other hand, the British view was that it should be worked out through the mechanism of socialism. That is an important question. The hon. member and I would not want the same answer, perhaps, but I think we are both entitled to an answer. It is extremely unfortunate there was no time for it; perhaps -time will be found later for a discussion of that important question.
Before I take my seat, I should like to refer to just one other matter. We heard a great deal of discussion about the matter of status. I do not think there is any difference in this house on that question. Recently I have been reading the memoirs of Sir Robert Borden. Anyone who goes back and reads what happened when he and his colleagues were in Britain in the winter of 1918-19 will find that, if ever there was a man who was firm and determined about the status of this country, and who would have no fooling about it, it was Sir Robert Borden. I should add that certain additions were made in 1926, but I believe anyone who reads the whole record will understand that the basic decisions were made in 1919. I raise that point, not because I am particularly interested in adjudging credit or discredit, but for the following reason.
There was only one reason Sir Robert Borden was able to - do such good work at that time, and that is that he was on the spot. He was able to take a firm position with other people in authority, and to press the matter after having taken a position. He never could have done that if he had been in Ottawa sending cables and reports to London. Anyone who reads the record will realize it was only his prestige and his ability to go and to take instant action which won these concessions, which are so important to us all.
Now we have today very difficult questions of status. I know-and if I did not, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would inform me-that the new situation is different, indeed. Sir Robert Borden was in London because he was invited to be there; there was no question about that. We realize that at the present time the situation is vastly different. Nevertheless I express great regret that it is not possible for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or both of them to be in London at this time. The minister may give cogent reasons against it. I realize that this condition has arisen in an entirely different way from the condition of 1919. Nevertheless I believe it is most unfortunate that we have

Peace Treaties
to deal with this situation through the media of cables and telephones, and through someone at the other end who, however trusted and valued a public servant, is not a responsible minister of the crown, who alone can speak with the necessary authority for the people of Canada. I put that forward, with respect, realizing that at the present time there may be difficulties in the way of it. But I think it is something which should be put on record.
I conclude by saying I hope that we shall not be left in this house indefinitely without any answers to these important questions which have been raised today by hon. members in the house and which, so far as I can remember, have not been even adverted to by the ministers, but which go to the very root of this matter and without which nothing else is of any value.


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


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

[Stage Direction]
\