1949-03-28

Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, having to do with an editorial in the Manitoba Commonwealth of March 19, 1949, referring to myself. The editorial reads in part as follows:
The average income of a skilled railway worker is now about $2,600 a year. Mr. Sinnott, the Liberal M.P., does not consider this a very big income, as incomes go, but he considers it too much for rail-waymen.
I deny that statement emphatically; I never said any such thing. In fact this is a dodge of the socialist party. They are holding their convention in my riding on April 9.


Mr. Maclnnis:: What did you say?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Are you sure you will not be a candidate at the convention?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I say to the man who wrote this half-baked article that he should refer to page 5421 of Hansard of 1948. If he does so, he will see where I stand as far as railway workers and all other wage earners are concerned.


Donald MacInnis: What do you say in 1949?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: For the information of the writer of the article, I may say that railway workers are my best friends. A railway worker was one of those who seconded my nomination last fall.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Hon. members will no doubt be interested to learn of the arrangements being made to mark the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. Brief ceremonies are being arranged at St. John's and at Ottawa on Friday, April 1, and they will be broadcast both by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and by the Broadcasting Corporation of Newfoundland.
The ceremony will begin with the reading of the commission and the swearing in of the lieutenant governor of the new province at St. John's. As part of the same ceremony, the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Gibson) will present a token certificate of Canadian citizenship to the newly-appointed lieutenant governor, who will receive it on behalf of the people of Newfoundland. This ceremony will be broadcast from St. John's, beginning at twelve o'clock noon Ottawa time, one-thirty p.m. St. John's time.
The ceremony at Ottawa will follow immediately. It will be held on parliament hill. His Excellency the Governor General, I as Prime Minister, and a minister from Newfoundland who will be sworn in that morning, will welcome the new province. As part of the ceremony in Ottawa the first strokes will be taken to carve the Newfoundland coat of arms on the blank plaque under the arch of the peace tower.
A program will be made public for Thursday afternoon's papers giving any additional details which may be of general interest.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I should like to move the motion of which notice is to be found at page 34 of today's orders of the day. It reads:
That on Monday, March 28 instant, government notices of motions shall have precedence over all other business except routine proceedings, introduction of bills, questions, and notices of motions for production of papers.
The purpose of the motion is to provide an opportunity to discuss today the resolution standing in my name having to do with the North Atlantic security pact. If the motion that I have just read is adopted, it is not the intention of the government to avail itself of it for any other purpose than to consider the motion with respect to the North Atlantic security pact. If that motion is disposed of before the end of the day the house will then revert to the business provided by the standing orders.
(Translation):


Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am unable to support this motion. The private

Business of the House members' privileges have been completely abolished during the past few years. During the war, such days as were allotted private members, under the rules of the house, for the introduction of resolutions, were abolished for special reasons. Since the end of the war, the habit seems to endure. Here seems to be a trend to perpetuate this sort of thing through motions inviting the house to suspend certain standing orders to permit the introduction of emergency legislation. This year we had the Newfoundland bill. And then, the extraordinary powers act, expiring at the end of March, came up for discussion. We agreed to these bills.
The North Atlantic pact is to be signed on Monday next only. I fail to see why the government does not wait until tomorrow before introducing its resolution. This would leave ample time for discussion before next Monday. Furthermore, I would point out that at present there are 47 resolutions appearing on the orders of the day and I have reason to believe that not one of them will be submitted to the house during the present session.
I would therefore ask the Prime Minister not to have this motion introduced today but to kindly wait until tomorrow, the day allotted for government business. As far as I am concerned, I do not support this motion.
(Text):


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I am sorry I did not take the precaution of speaking to the hon. member about this motion. I discussed it with the three leaders of the groups in the house which are rather larger than his own, and having obtained their agreement, and arrangements having been made, I do not feel that I can acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. member that the motion be deferred. This matter is one of urgent public interest. The hon. member will have noticed that my motion deals only with the procedure for today. I hope he will not insist on dividing the house on the motion, but I am not in a position to withdraw it.
(Translation) :


Maxime Raymond: With your permission, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has spoken once already. I regret he is not allowed to speak a second time.


Maxime Raymond: wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Would the Prime Minister agree to let the discussion go on until tomorrow? On that condition, I would be prepared to withdraw my opposition.

(Text):


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member is not making any offer at all. He asks if I will agree not to have this motion dealt with until tomorrow. The motion has reference only to this day, and when he says he will be prepared to consent to have the other matter considered tomorrow, that is an offer which involves nothing whatsoever.


Mr. Church:: I should like to see the motion of the Prime Minister carried today, because the proposal of which he gave notice on Friday involves the most important business before the house this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Maxime Raymond: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



TELEVISION


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement of government policy in reference to television.
The government has for some time been considering how television broadcasting could be developed in Canada in a way that would best serve the national interest. The early stages in the growth of television in other countries have been carefully observed, and the serious problems, which were seen to exist in both the production and transmission pf television broadcasts, have been studied. It was realized that television would go through a difficult and costly period of experiment. During this phase, which has not been entirely completed, it seemed wise to delay the introduction of television in Canada, and also to provide for further and more extensive study of methods which would be suitable to Canada. For this reason the government proposes to include television as one of the subjects of inquiry for the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences which is now being established.
In the meantime, however, while the commission is conducting its inquiry, the government has decided that the development of a Canadian television system on an interim basis should be undertaken. By entering the field now, Canada will benefit substantially from the experience of others in the establishment of proper facilities and operating methods. A further advantage of development at the present time will arise from the large new outlet which will be provided for

the electronics industry. Television will help to maintain and materially increase the contribution of this important industry to our national life.
From a social point of view, experiments in other countries have made it abundantly clear that television will become one of the most effective means of mass communication yet devised. This new medium can be of great benefit to the national life of Canada if properly developed. On the other hand, it could have a negative or even detrimental effect on our national life if it grew in a haphazard and unco-ordinated manner.
In making plans for television, the government has been primarily concerned to provide that Canadians in various parts of Canada will have the opportunity to receive Canadian programs. To ensure that this shall take place, the government is prepared to give the necessary support for the establishment of facilities in Canada that will meet the desire of the Canadian people to have a television system of their own. Because of our relatively small and scattered population, special efforts will be required to link together different parts of the country by vision as well as sound. For these reasons, it is clear that a large measure of public participation in television will be necessary.
It is not the intention, however, to exclude private operations from the field of television. The development of radio broadcasting in Canada through a combination of public and private enterprise, in a manner which a vast majority of disinterested Canadians approve and support, has shown the feasibility of this method of procedure. The Canadian Broadcasting Act provides that, for radio, there shall be a national system publicly owned and operated and that there shall also be private stations, the operations of which are co-ordinated with those of the national facilities. This procedure will be adopted, with suitable adjustments, for the development of television. The public operation of television will be established, to be supported by those who benefit from the system. At the same time private stations which will share in the development of television will be licensed. The government believes that in this way television will become a means of encouraging Canadian talent, of expressing Canadian ideals, of serving the needs of the country as a whole, and of stimulating and strengthening our national life and consciousness.
The government, therefore, proposes to adopt the following interim plan:
1.	The general direction of television broadcasting in Canada will, in accordance with the Canadian Broadcasting Act, be entrusted to the board of governors of the Canadian 29087-130
Television
Broadcasting Corporation who will arrange for television operations by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and by licensed private stations.
2.	In order to provide the required services, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will-
(a)	establish at this time national television production centres in Montreal and Toronto;
(b)	provide a service of television programs for broadcasting by stations which may be established in other areas of Canada, thus furnishing part of their programming. This service will be provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation either by means of kinescope recordings or by direct physical relays when available. The number of national system programs which any private station carries, and the terms on which they will be made available will be primarily a matter for negotiation and arrangement. The government considers, however, that a certain minimum of national programs should be carried by each television station;
(c)	establish transmitting stations in Montreal and Toronto.
3.	In any city or area in Canada, including Montreal and Toronto, a licence to establish one private station will be granted to a private organization giving adequate assurances of financial means and of service. In view of the high cost of television operations, it is felt that individuals or groups interested in establishing a private station in any city may wish to form an association for the purpose of applying for a licence.
4.	In regard to network arrangements, whether by teletranscriptions or direct physical hookups, the same principles will apply as in the case of radio broadcasting.
It will be some time before there are enough receiving sets in Canada for television licence fees and commercial revenues to cover costs of programming and operations. It is necessary, therefore, for the government to provide loans to the C.B.C. to cover capital costs of its necessary installations and to support the development of the service. For these purposes parliament will be asked to approve a loan of $4 million this year. It is expected that the national television operations will become self-supporting from licence fees and commercial revenues in a few years.
The plan by no means provides for the exclusion of non-Canadian material from our television channels. The public will wish Canadian stations, both public and private to carry some good programs from other countries. The national plan does make possible, however, a core of Canadian television broadcasting, reaching an increasing number of Canadians across the country.

Questions
The government believes that this national plan provides for the minimum amount of public support and co-ordination necessary to provide for the adequate development of television in Canada. It also provides conditions under which private organizations will have opportunities to use television channels, but in doing so will contribute to the building of nation-wide Canadian television service, at the same time being assisted in good programming by the national system.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he has just read? Will the radio committee have an opportunity of reviewing this policy and reporting to the house before the house is called upon to approve the loan of $4 million?


James Joseph McCann: The answer is definitely yes.



TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): I desire to lay on the table two copies in English and two copies in French of the international wheat agreement now open for signature at Washington. As this document is of general interest, if I may have the consent of the house I would ask that it be printed in Votes and Proceedings.

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I should like to read the answer to a question which was asked by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) on March 21, 1949, when I was absent from the house. The question reads as follows:
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, I shall ask his parliamentary assistant. Have representations been made to the Department of Agriculture alleging extreme cruelty to horses exported for slaughter from this country to Europe? Has the government given consideration to prohibiting the export of horses for slaughter?
The answer is as follows: Representations have been made to the department that horses shipped to Belgium for food purposes have been subject to undue cruelty. Reports made by competent officials of the department who witnessed the loading in Canada and the unloading in Belgium of some of these shipments are at variance with reports which have implied that the horses were subjected to unnecessary suffering. If shipments are resumed this year it will be possible for the department to check very closely into the various phases of the trade in order that all the facts may be assembled.

The answer to the first part of the question answers the second part. I should like to add that the government has had nothing to do with these transactions except the usual checks that are made of trade passing in and out of Canada.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	What did it cost to open navigation on the St. Lawrence river each year from 1940?
2.	When did icebreaking operations start each year?
3.	How many icebreakers were used each year?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Specific segregation of the cost of opening navigation each year is not maintained. The personnel and equipment used for that purpose are used also for other items of aids to navigation services, such as supplying lighthouses, laying buoys, transporting supplies to outposts (sometimes to the far north), convoying vessels, salvage and rescue work; and such other duties are frequently carried out simultaneously with the breaking of ice.
2.	Date of beginning of icebreaking operations: opening of channel Three Rivers-Montreal.
1940	
February	261941	
February	251942	
February	181943	
February	121944	
February	201945	
March	11946	
February	71947	
February	101948	
February	231949	
February	9
From December 1, icebreakers were on standby for assistance to shipping, ice jams and emergency work.
3.	Three.


PURCHASE OF SHIPS FROM THE CROWN
Mr. Hazen:: 1.	What company or companies received funds held in escrow for the purchase of two 10,000-ton stores-issuing ships from the crown for their conversion in Canada to dry cargo vessels?
2.	How much was received by these companies?
3.	What were the names of the two ships that were purchased from the crown?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Federal Commerce and Navigation Company, Limited.
2.	$497,177.
3.	S.S. Fort Wrangell and S.S. Fort Providence.


RESALE OF PARK STEAMSHIPS
Mr. Hazen:: 1.	How much money is deposited in escrow in the vendors' name from the resale of the S.S. Yarmouth County (ex-Park name Fort Astoria) by Acadia Overseas Freighters, Ltd., to San Martine Compania de Navigacion, S.A.?
2.	How much money is deposited in escrow in vendors' name from resale of S.S. D'Arcy McGee (ex-Park name Hamilton Park) by Canadian Coastwise Carriers Limited to The Netherlands government?
3.	How much money is deposited in escrow in the vendors' name from resale of S.S. Marchdale (exPark name Dundurn Park) by Canadian Shipowners Limited to Wallem & Company?
4.	How much money is deposited in escrow in the vendors' name from resale of S.S. Harmac Vancouver (ex-Park name Cromwell Park) by Canadian Transport Company to Amarylis Steamship Company?
5.	How much money is deposited in escrow in the vendors' name from the resale of the S.S. Federal Ambassador (ex-Park name Beresford Park) by Federal Commerce & Navigation Company to Jut-landia Steamship Company?
6.	How much money is deposited in escrow in the vendors' name from resale of the S.S. Harmac Westminster (ex-Park name Seacliff Park) by Canadian Transport Company to Compania de Navagacion
Sappho?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1. Gross sale price received... $650,000.00 Amount withdrawn on account
of expenses incidental to sale 32,500.00
Net proceeds of sale		617,500.00
Loan from escrow account to satisfy mortgage due war assets corporation, repayable within five years	 222,959.85
Amount of deposit	$394,540.15
2.	Gross sale price received... $618,000.00 Amount withdrawn on account
of expenses incidental to sale 40,000.00
Net proceeds of sale		578,000.00
Loan from escrow account to satisfy mortgage due war assets corporation, repayable within five years	 220,359.10
Amount on deposit	 $357,640.90
3.	Gross sale price received... $725,000.00 Amount withdrawn on account
of expenses incidental to sale 12,796.50
Amount on deposit		$712,203.50
4.	Gross sale price received.. 650,000.00
Amount withdrawn on account
of expenses incidental to sale 22,768.06
. Amount on deposit	 $627,231.94
Questions
5. Amount on deposit	 Nil
Note: This company, having used funds to purchase and convert supply vessels, has fulfilled its obligations under the replacement plan.
6.	Gross sale price received.... $625,000.00 Amount withdrawn on account
of expenses incidental to sale 25,047.06
Amount on deposit	 $599,952.94


MOTOR VESSEL &quot;W. S. NEWTON&quot;
Mr. Bryce:: What were the names and ranks of all engineers that have served on the M.V. W. <S. Newton registered in Winnipeg No. 156568, from 1933 to 1939 inclusive?


Mr. Chevrier:: Year		Temporal Certificate
1933	Oddur Olafson	19741934	Arni Anderson	2031Oddur Olafson	20411935	Arni Anderson	2104Oddur Olafson	21051936	Arni Anderson	2164Oddur Olafson	2165Olafur Olafson	22091937	Oddur Olafson	2239Olafur Olafson	22401938	Oddur Olafson	2301Olafur Olafson	23001939	Oddur Olafson	2373Olafur Olafson	2372
The annual inspection forms of ships, which record the ranks of the respective engineers, are retained in the departmental records for a period of five years only. As the years referred to above are previous to this period, there is now no record of the ranks of these engineers.


LOANS TO GOVERNMENT FROM BANKS
Mr. Sinnott:: 1.	What is the total amount of money borrowed from the chartered banks of Canada during 1948, in (a) long term loans; (b) short term loans?
2.	What was the rate of interest?
3.	How much money was borrowed by the government from the Bank of Canada?
4.	What was the total interest on Canada's national debt in 1948, and to whom was it paid?


Mr. Belzile:: 1,	2 and 3. See page xxxi of the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1948.
4.	Fiscal year ended March 31,	1948,
$455,455,203.64. As a large proportion of the securities of Canada are in bearer form, it is not possible to state to whom interest on the said securities was paid.
2054

Questions


HOSPITAL GRANTS-PROJECTS APPROVED
Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	What is the total cost for each of the hospitals listed on page 836 of Hansard of February 23, 1949?
2.	What is the total cost of all of these hospitals?
3.	What is the total dominion grant which has been approved for each of such hospitals?
4.	What is the total of all the dominion grants approved for these hospitals?
5.	Which of the above-mentioned hospitals fall into each of the categories $1,000 per bed and $1,500 per bed respectively?
6.	On what date did construction begin on l'lnsti-tut Medico-Pedagogique du Mont Providence?


Mr. Reid:: 1.	See table below.
2.	$52,997,228 (estimated).
3.	See table below.
4.	$5,903,707 (estimated).
5.	All the hospitals listed on page 836 of Hansard of February 23, 1949, fall into the category which would receive $1,000 per bed
or a proportionate payment thereof, with the exception of the following hospitals, which would receive $1,500 per bed or a proportionate payment thereof:
Prince Edward Island-Beach Grove.
Quebec-St. Joseph des Convalescents, St. Joseph sanatorium, Sanatorium Cooke, Sanatorium Begin, Sanatorium de Macamic, Sanatorium St. Georges, l'lnstitut Medico-Pedagogique du Mont Providence.
Ontario-St. Peter's infirmary.
British Columbia-Provincial mental.
6.	October, 1946. While orders in council P.C. 3403 and P.C. 5504 covering hospital construction grants were passed on July 28, 1948, and November 30, 1948, respectively, provision was made therein for payment, under certain conditions, of such grants in respect of hospitals which were already under construction as of the 1st day of April, 1948, which was the case in this instance.
(1)
Approx.
cost as	(3)
estimated Estimated by hospi- federal
Province	Hospital	tal body grant*
Prince Edward Island .. Beach Grove
Nova Scotia	 Eastern Shore Memorial	
Nova Scotia	 Queen's	
Nova Scotia	 Lunenburg	
Nova Scotia	 Twin Oaks Memorial	
Nova Scotia	 Guysborough Memorial	
Nova Scotia	 Victoria County Memorial hospital	
Quebec	 Hospital Lafleche	
Quebec	 Hopital Ste. Marie	
Quebec	 St. Joseph des Convalescents	
Quebec	 St. Joseph sanatorium	
Quebec	 Hotel Dieu de Montmagny	
Quebec	 Sanatorium Cooke	
Quebec	 Sanatorium Begin	
Quebec	 St. Eusebe	
Quebec	 Sanatorium de Macamic	
Quebec	 St. Croix	
Quebec	 Hotel Dieu Notre Dame de Beauce	
Quebec	 Sanatorium St. Georges	
Quebec	 Saint-Sauveur	
Quebec	 Notre Dame de Lourdes de Blanc Sablon...
Quebec	 Youville	
Quebec	 l'Hotel-Dieu d'Amos	
Quebec	 Hopital de la Providence	
Quebec	 l'lnstitut Medico-Pedagogique du Mont
Providence	
Ontario	 Sudbury General	
Ontario	 West Lincoln Memorial	
Ontario	 Hamilton General	
Ontario	 St. Peter's infirmary	
Ontario	 Leamington District Memorial	
Ontario	 Cobourg General	
Ontario	 St. Joseph's General	
$ 300,000	$ 85,667
168,000	18,744
250,208	41,667
355,150	55,000
54,944	10,000
45,000	7,000
106,381	17,794
1,390,250	106,968
1,800,000	67,843
675,668	173,599
4,900,000	564,019
1,118,000	118,000
2,412,430	124,660
3,200,000	206,558
1,500,000	67,356
2,750,000	256,698
2,500,000	191,684
1,200,000	176,017
3,399,853	248,556
1,417,364	69,676
247,000	16,759
2,301,000	31,599
2,300,000	189,412
288,775	56,333
7,463,082	1,498,277
1,500,000	168,667
203,000	38,667
1,071,070	181,000
115,000	38,333
450,000	57,000
5,000	1,667
515,000	65,000

Questions
(1)
Approx.
Province	Hospital
Ontario	 Haldimand War Memorial hospital	
Ontario	 Trenton Memorial hospital	
Ontario	 Alexandra hospital	
Ontario	 Oakville Trafalgar Memorial hospital	
Ontario	 Oshawa General hospital	
Ontario	 Cornwall General hospital	
Manitoba	 Killarney General	
Manitoba	 Gilbert Plains	
Manitoba	 Steinbach General	
Manitoba	 Benito hospital	
Manitoba	 Boissevain hospital	
Manitoba	 Altona hospital	
Manitoba	 Carberry hospital (Fox Memorial)	
Manitoba	 Cartwright and District medical nursing unit
Manitoba	 Fisher Branch outpost hospital	
Saskatchewan	 Assiniboia General	
Alberta	 Vulcan Municipal	
Alberta	 Olds Municipal	
Alberta	 Three Hills Municipal	
Alberta	 Stettler Municipal	
Alberta	 Rimbey Municipal hospital	
British Columbia	 Provincial Mental	
British Columbia	 Royal Columbian	
British Columbia	 Vernon Jubilee	
British Columbia	 Langley Memorial	
British Columbia	 St. George's hospital	
British Columbia	 Fernie Memorial	
British Columbia	 North Vancouver General hospital	
British Columbia	 Princeton General hospital	
*When construction is completed and actual cost is known, the am grant will have to be revised in certain instances.
cost as	(3)
estimated	Estimated
by hospi-	federal
tal body	grant*
350,000	53,667
642,477	58,916
365,000	61,333
340,000	50,000
52,121	4,758
642,727	66,580
110,412	5,203
50,000	12,000
100,000	34,000
60,000	9,000
64,439	3,049
210,306	10,672
53,000	10,000
50,000	9,248
56,750	12,000
52,430	9,996
96,200	17,000
65,000	12,000
142,156	9,224
178,279	34,333
148,280	13,420
262,795	87,598
1,600,000	140,782
575,000	115,455
232,710	33,546
164,781	30,977
305,000	40,333
20,000	6,667
5,190	1,730
lount of the federal


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many employees now working for the Canadian National Railways are making payments toward a supplemental pension in addition to the basic pension of $25 per month to which they will be entitled on retirement at age 65?
2.	How many employees now working for the Canadian National Railways will be entitled on retirement, according to their present status, to only the basic pension of $25 per month?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Contributors to C.N.R. pension plan, 35,267; contributors to I.C.R & P.E.I. provident fund, 5,462: contributors to G.T.R. superannuation and provident fund association, 23.
2.	There is no record of the number of employees who on retirement will be entitled to only the basic pension of $25 per month. Approximately only one third of eligible employees are contributing to a supplementary pension.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON PRICES
Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many persons (other than House of Commons employees) were employed by the special parliamentary committee on prices 1948?
2.	What are the names and occupations of such persons?
3.	How much was paid to each person for (a) salary; (b) traveling and living expenses; (c) what was the per diem rate of remuneration?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: 1.	Fourteen.
2.	Monet, Fabio, K.C., Legal adviser; Dyde, H. A., Legal adviser; Wilson, J. R. M., Accountant; King, H., Accountant; Dowe, M., Stenographer; Edey, P., Stenographer; Ghent, A., Stenographer; Lascelle, L., Stenographer; Lemieux, J., Stenographer; Morris, J., Stenographer; Richardson, G., Stenographer; Spears, M. E., Stenographer; Green, S. A., Stenographer, Wright, L., Supervisor.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of only the basic pension of $25 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of noncontributory service pensions (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59.99 per month; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month; (g) $80 or over per month?
4.	How many retired employees of the Canadian National Railways are in receipt of pensions in part basic and in part contributory (a) $25.01 to $29.99 per month; (b) $30 to $39.99 per month; (c) $40 to $49.99 per month; (d) $50 to $59 99 per month; (e) $60 to $69.99 per month; (f) $70 to $79.99 per month;
(g) $80 or over per month?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	55 under C.N.R. prior plan.
2.	2,743.
3.	(a)	$25.01	to	$29.99	per	month	....	841(b)	$30.00	to	$39.99	"	"	....	664(c)	$40.00	to	$49.99	"	"	____ 354(d)	$50.00	to	$59.99	"	"	____ 275(e)	$60.00	to	$69.99	"	"	____ 150(f)	$70.00	to	$79.99	"	"	____ 108(g)	$80.00 or over	
234Total	
2,6264.	(a) $25.01	to	$29.99	per	month ________ 476(b)	$30.00	to	$39.99	"	"	
2,095(c)	$40.00	to	$49.99	"	"	
1,440(d)	$50.00	to	$59.99	"	"	
1,258(e)	$60.00	to	$69.99	"	"	
731(f)	$70.00	to	$79.99	"	"	
652(g)	$80.00 or over	
2,292Total	
8,944


GARRISON BARRACKS, HALIFAX, N.S.,-REPAIRS
Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	Was Scotia Roofing and Sheet Metal Limited employed by the dominion government to reroof five buildings at Garrison barracks, Halifax?
2.	If so, what moneys were paid the said company for such services?
3.	Were tenders called for?
4.	If so, what were the names of the parties or firms submitting such tenders, and the amounts of each such tender?


Mr. Baker:: 1.	Yes.
2.	An amount of $10,779.20 has been paid to date.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Scotia Roofing and Sheet Metal Limited, 5 Tobin Street, Halifax, N.S. Tender amount, $10,827.
(b)	Standard Construction Company Limited, Halifax, N.S. Tender amount, $12,075.
(c)	D. A. Cummings Limited, 278 Upper Water Street, Halifax, N.S. Tender amount, $12,591.


EQUALIZATION FUND PAYMENTS
Mr. Charllon:: 1.	What amount per bushel per year was paid in each of the years 1944 to 1948 inclusive out of the equalization fund to eastern Canadian wheat producers?
2.	What further amounts, if any, will be paid for each of the above years to eastern wheat producers?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	1944-45, 3 cents per bushel; 1945-46, 3-725 cents per bushel; 1946-47, 5 cents per bushel paid at time of delivery. (Treasury payment of 9 cents per bushel paid in addition);
1947-48, 8 cents per bushel paid at time of delivery; 1948-49, none. No equalization fee collected.
2.	None.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Probe:: 1.	What is the present immigration policy of the federal government with respect to close relatives of Canadians of German stock?
2.	How many immigrants in the above category have entered Canada in each of the last four years?
3.	What is the purpose and set-up of the Canadian Christian council for resettlement of refugees?
4.	What subsidy and/or other allowances, if any, does this council receive from the federal government?
5.	What religious bodies and/or other groups have representation on this council?
6.	Is the Canadian Christian council for resettlement of refugees receiving fees or commissions for processing applications of prospective immigrants?
7.	Has the council authority to charge processing fees to individuals in Canada requesting admission of relatives?

8.	What reports are submitted by this council to any branch of the federal government?
9.	What officials and/or employees, if any, of this council are on the payroll of the colonization department of the Canadian Pacific Railway?
10.	How is the traffic of immigrants shared between various transportation companies interested in selling their facilities?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	Immigrants of German racial origin are subject to the provisions of the Immigration Act and regulations in the same manner as immigrants of other racial origins. As enemy aliens, however, German nationals are not admissible to Canada.
2. The following immigrants of German racial origin, destined to close relatives, were admitted to Canada:
1945 			 344
1946 			 791
1947 			 651
1948 			 2880
3.	The Canadian Christian council for the resettlement of refugees is a voluntary organization composed of the Catholic immigrant aid society, the Canadian Mennonite board of colonization, the Sudeten committee, the German Baptist colonization and immigration society, and the Canadian Lutheran world relief. The C.C.C.R.R. was formed in 1947 to assist in the location, documentation, X-ray examination, blood testing and presentation to the Canadian government immigration mission in Germany, for approval and visa, of refugees and displaced persons who did not come within the mandate of the international refugee organization. The C.C.C.R.R. operate an assembly camp at Muehlenberg, near Hanover, for the reception and accommodation of such immigrants until their departure. In addition, they maintain an administration office in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
4.	Order in council P.C. 54/4300, dated 28th September, 1948, authorized a grant to the Canadian Christian council for the resettlement of refugees, amounting to a maximum of $10,000 per month for a period of ten months, commencing June 1, 1948, to cover the cost of processing approved displaced persons in occupied territory outside the mandate of IRO.
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	Under the terms of order in council P.C. 54/4300, the C.C.C.R.R. is permitted to charge the nominator in Canada a fee of $35 per immigrant for extra personal expenses, on the understanding that this fee will be accounted for and any unexpended balance refunded to the nominator.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	The C.C.C.R.R. submits to the immigration branch a weekly report of its operations
Questions
overseas and an audited financial statement quarterly.
9.	Mr. T. O. F. Herzer, temporary chairman of the C.C.C.R.R., is known to be the general manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway's western subsidiary, the Canada Colonization Association.
10.	In order to facilitate the movement of displaced persons, the government in 1946 made funds available for the refitting of the s.s. Beaverbrae on the understanding that she would be used for the transportation of displaced persons from occupied territory to Canada. The C.C.C.R.R., in turn, have been directed to exert every effort to keep her filled to capacity. Railway transportation for such persons is shared equally between the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., as far as it is possible to do so and dependent upon the destination of the immigrant and the cost of the fare.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Lenr.ard:: 1.	How many members of the international joint commission of the St. Lawrence Deepsea Waterways is Canada entitled to?
2.	How many have been appointed by Canada to this commission?
3.	Who are they?
4.	Are any of them engineers?
5.	If not, what are the reasons for not appointing an engineer on this commission?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: A distinction must be made between the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin commission and the international joint commission.
"if the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin agreement of 1941 is approved and ratified by the United States and Canada, duties in connection with the St. Lawrence deep waterway will devolve upon the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin commission, set up under the terms of agreement, and not upon the international joint commission. The great lakes-St. Lawrence basin commission will consist of not more than ten members, of whom an equal number will be appointed by the United States and Canadian governments respectively.
Since this commission is not yet in existence, the following answers refer to the international joint commission set up under the terms of the boundary waters treaty of 1909:
1.	Three.
2.	Two.
3.	Hon. James Allison Glen; George Spence.
4.	Neither of the present Canadian members is a graduate engineer, although Mr. Spence has had practical engineering experience.

Questions
5.	In filling the remaining Canadian vacancy, consideration will be given to the advisability of appointing a person with technical engineering qualifications.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dorion:: 1.	Since January 1, 1946, how many applications for entry into Canada have been made by citizens of (a) Bohemia; (b) Moravia; (c) Slovakia?
2.	Of each of the above classes of applications, how many have been refused without previous reference to the Department of Immigration, in Ottawa?
3.	Of each of the above classes of applications, how many have been refused by the Department of Immigration, in Ottawa?
4.	Of each of the above classes of applications, how many have been acceded to?


Mr. Maybank:: No statistical record is kept of applications for entry into Canada either under the nationality or under the racial origin of the applicants.


PRICES COMMITTEE-COMBINES INVESTIGATION COMMISSIONER
Mr. Thatcher:: What action, if any, has been taken by the government to implement recommendation 2, made by the parliamentary prices committee last June, pertaining to the combines investigation commissioner?


Mr. Garson:: Amounts provided for the administration of the Combines Investigation Act in recent years have been:
Main Supplementary estimates estimates
1946- 47	
$ 67,430	$ 38,5931947-	48	
120,775	9,0001948-	49	
151,683	19,0001949-	50	
199,200	__


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: 1.	Who are the members of the national film board?
2.	When was each member appointed and for what term?
3.	What have been the expenses of each member of the board during each year from 1946, for travel, hotel, and other charges and allowances?
4.	Who are the manager and the assistant manager?
5.	What remuneration does each receive?
6.	For what term has each been appointed?
7.	What have been the expenses of each during each year from 1946, for travel, hotel, and other charges and allowances?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	The chairman of the national film board and the other member of the King's privy council for Canada hold office during pleasure; the other six members of the board hold office for three years. Retiring members are eligible for reappointment.
The present members of the board are:
Hon. Robert H. Winters, Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, chairman.
Hon. J. J. McCann, Minister of National Revenue.
Dr. G. Bouchard: appointed August 31, 1940; reappointed August 31,	1943; reappointed August 31, 1946.
Mr.- M. M. Maclean: appointed January 12, 1944; reappointed January 12, 1947.


Mr. J. F. MacNeill:: appointed November 11, 1942, reappointed November 11, 1945; reappointed November 11, 1948.


Mr. D. Cameron:: appointed August 31, 1943; reappointed August 31, 1946.


Mr. J. C. Falardeau:: appointed February 26, 1948, to serve the remainder of Mr. E. Turcotte's term of office which expires September 1, 1950.


Mr. J. A. Cunningham:: appointed February 22, 1949.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	Mr. D. Cameron: 1946, $455.62; 1947, $634.27; 1948, $1,058.35.


Guy Favreau: 1948, $291.65; 1949, $49.65.


Mr. E. Turcotte:: 1946, $61.90; 1947, $81.00.
4.	There is no manager or assistant manager of the national film board.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	See answer to No. 4.
7.	See answer to No. 4.


* SHIPMENTS OF B.C. APPLES TO BRAZIL IN EXCHANGE FOR ORANGES
Mr. Hatfield:: 1.	What quantity of apples was shipped from British Columbia to Brazil in exchange for oranges?
2.	What was the value of said apples?
3.	Were all the oranges exchanged for these apples imported into Canada?
4.	To what ports were the oranges delivered?
5.	Were they put into storage?
6.	How were the said oranges disposed of and what was the total amount received for same?


Mr. Howe:: Perhaps I can answer this question orally. While the Department of Trade and Commerce lent its assistance to this transaction, it was a private business deal and the department has no official information concerning it.


OFFICIAL RESIDENCE FOR THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Ashby:: 1.	Has the government acquired property in the city of Ottawa to be used as an official residence for the Prime Minister of Canada?
2.	If so (a) where is the property located; (b) what was the price paid for it; (c) when will it be made available to the Prime Minister of Canada?
3.	If no such property has been acquired by the government, is an official residence for the Prime Minister being considered? If so, will it be located in the city of Ottawa?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	This question has not yet been formally considered.


NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Of the $2,500,000 appropriated by parliament last year for purposes of the national capital plan, how much has been expended to date?
2.	Has any specific part of the said sum been approved or appropriated for expenditure in connection with the acquisition of lands in the Hurdman's bridge area?
3.	What are the details of such expenditures or appropriations?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	Nil.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	See answer to No. 1.
(See also page 2333).



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Is Canada represented on the intergovernmental maritime commission consultative organization of the united nations?
2.	If so, by whom?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	The convention of the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization has not yet come into force because it has not been ratified by the required number of countries. However, a preparatory committee of the intergovernmental maritime consultative organization is in existence; and the chairman of the Canadian maritime commission, Mr. J. V. Clyne, is chairman of the preparatory committee.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



ANNAPOLIS BASIN


Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	On what areas, if any, of the foreshore adjoining the Annapolis basin is one prohibited from the digging of clams?
2.	Under what statutory authority is such prohibition exercised?
3.	How many tests of the soil have been made in such prohibited areas since January 1, 1948?
4.	What is the name or names of the person or persons who obtained samples for such tests?
5.	From what particular location was each such sample taken?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 

EXCISE TAXES


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	What amounts have been collected In taxes during the past twelve months as tolls charged on cables, telegrams, telephones and desk telephones?
2.	What amounts have been collected as sales taxes on telephone instruments?


James Joseph McCann: The hon. member asks what amounts have been collected as sales taxes on telephone instruments. If he would indicate the period of time he has in mind, it would simplify the answering of the question.


Mr. Pearkes:: The question says "during the past twelve months".


Mr. Abbott:: That is in the first part.


Mr. Knowles:: That is a year.


James Joseph McCann: Stand.
Question stands.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Miller:: 1.	What was the total cost of (a) land acquired; (b) construction; (c) materials, in connection with the Kirkfield park, Manitoba, project for the Department of Veterans Affairs?
2.	What disposition has been made of (a) land; (b) buildings; (c) materials, in connection with said project?
3.	To whom and at what price respectively?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: Return tabled.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Mr. Adamson:: 1.	What was the value of the overage at the Royal Canadian Mint in the fiscal years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, for gold and silver?
2.	Are there any restrictions as to the export or import of platinum?

North Atlantic Treaty



CROWN COMPANIES AND BOARDS

Mr. Stephenson:: 1.	How many crown companies and boards are in existence as of March 15, 1949?
2.	What are the names and locations of these companies?
3.	What is the business nature of each?
4.	How many employees are employed at the present time by each of these boards or companies?
5.	What has been the net profit or loss of each, by years, since their inception?
6.	How much capital has the government invested in each one since its inception?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Young:: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams since January, 1946, exchanged between the Department of Labour and the Canadian seamen's union, on matters pertaining to collective bargaining.


Rodney Young: For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams since January, 1946, exchanged between the Department of Labour and the Canada Steamship Lines; the Colonial and Sarnia Steamship Company Limited, and/or the solicitors of these companies, relating to collective bargaining.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING


Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of the recommendations of the railway subcommittee of the national capital planning committee made to the federal district commission concerning the acquisition by the crown of approximately 6,600 acres of land, and a copy of the recommendation made by the federal district commission to the governor in council respecting the same, if any such written recommendation was made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of the order in council or minute approving the recommendation made by the railway subcommittee of the national capital planning committee to the federal district commission concerning the acquisition by the crown of approximately 6,600 acres of land.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the following resolution:
Whereas article 51 of the charter of the United Nations recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, and
Whereas representatives of the government of Canada have been participating since last July in negotiations looking towards the preparation of a treaty for collective self-defence within the framework of the charter, and
Whereas it is proposed that a conference be held early in April in Washington for the purpose of completing such a treaty among the following states of

the North Atlantic area-Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States and such other states as might by agreement become parties;
Therefore be it resolved: (1) That this house declares anew its support of the United Nations as the world organization established to maintain international peace and security and to promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and reaffirms its faith in the principles and purposes of the charter of the United Nations.
2.	That this house recognizes that the conclusion, among states of the North Atlantic area, of a treaty within the meaning of article 51 of the charter is, in present circumstances, of vital importance for the protection of Canada, the preservation of peace, and the development of political, social and economic co-operation among north Atlantic democracies.
3.	That this house agrees that Canada should be represented at this conference, and that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavour to assist in the completion of an acceptable treaty based on the proposed text as tabled on March 18.
4.	That any such treaty should, before ratification, be submitted to the houses of parliament for approval.
He said: Just four years ago today, Mr. Speaker, on March 28, 1945, this house adopted, on a division of 202 yeas against 5 nays, a resolution endorsing the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the republic of China, to send representatives to a conference of the United Nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco, for the purpose of preparing a charter for a general organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. The terms of that resolution provided that this house endorse the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference; that this house recognize that the establishment of an effective international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada, and, indeed, to the future well-being of mankind, and that it is in the interests of Canada that Canada should become a member of such an organization.
This house then approved the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four sponsoring governments, and declared that it considered those proposals a satisfactory general basis for discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization. The house agreed that the representatives of Canada should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter for such an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and that the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.

The adoption of this resolution had been preceded by a lengthy debate which made it abundantly clear that although the people of Canada had-in your generation, Mr. Speaker, and mine-participated in two victorious wars, they realized at what terrible cost in human life, human suffering and anguish, to say nothing of the cost in material wealth, these victories had been and were being won, and that the establishment of an effective organization for the maintenance of international peace and security was of vital importance to Canada, and, indeed, to the future well-being of mankind.
The conference was held, and the representatives of more than fifty nations affirmed their determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, reaffirmed their faith in the dignity and the worth of the human person, and agreed to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours; to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and, moreover, to refrain in international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
This great charter was solemnly signed by the delegations of fifty nations, and each one took it back to his respective constitutional authorities for ratification. It was ratified by those fifty nations in the most solemn manner in which international obligations can be made binding. Actual hostilities having come to an end in the meantime, a new hope spread its rosy radiance over most of the civilized world.
The charter was not, however, a perfect instrument, and some of us did have grounds for misgivings. I remember listening with mixed feelings to the closing address of Mr. Gromyko, in which he stated that the charter in itself could not be a guarantee that its provisions would be carried out and ensure the maintenance of peace, but that to achieve this important and noble task it would be necessary to have united and co-ordinated action by the most powerful military powers of the world. He went on to say that it would be necessary for all members to try to settle ail disputes by peaceful means. These words had an ominous sound after we had listened earlier in the conference to the statements of Mr. Molotov about the great part-and it was indeed a great part-that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had taken in saving the civilization of Europe, 29087-131i
North Atlantic Treaty
and about the great strength of their armies and their intention to maintain them at great strength. Mr. Gromyko went on to say:
Under the charter, the members of the International organization obligate themselves to achieve peaceful settlements of the disputes. Let us hope that this aim will be fully realized.
We were not unmindful of the fact that each of the great powers had been given a right of veto on the operation of the principal organ of the international body, and it would seem that any one of them could prevent it from being effective unless, if it were so disposed, it were allowed to have its own way in every regard.
Unfortunately these misgivings were soon to be converted into positive anxieties. When the general assembly met for the first time in London in January of 1946 I remember whistling to keep up our courage and pointing out that these obligations had been undertaken in the most solemn way in which international obligations could be contracted, and saying:
It is true we have also agreed that, on most important matters, the decisions of the security council shall be made by an affirmative vote of seven members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members, and we have called that the "veto" right of the great powers, and there are many to whom it has given some concern. But is not the charter itself, its purposes and its principles, solemnly accepted and ratified by those great powers, a firm pledge on which each of us can implicitly rely that they will use their privileged position only as a sacred trust for the whole of mankind?
I think events have shown that it was rather a vain hope. Speaking for the Canadian delegation at the second part of that assembly in October, 1946, I felt constrained to point out that the security council had not proceeded to complete its organization, and I did so on behalf of the Canadian delegation in the following words:
Canada therefore urges that the security council and the military staff committee go ahead with all possible speed in the constructive work of negotiating the special agreements and of organizing the military and economic measures of enforcement. It appears to us that it would be in the interest of all members of the United Nations to see the security council equipped and ready in fact to enforce proper decisions for the maintenance of world peace and also to see serious consideration given to the reduction of national armaments so that the productive capacity of the world thus conserved may be used for improving the living conditions of all peoples.
There was no very enthusiastic response to that suggestion from our friends of eastern Europe. A month later, speaking again for the delegation, I said:
The Canadian delegation feels that it would be premature to call in question in this first session of the general assembly the rule of unanimity set out in article 27. What we do call in question is the manner, or perhaps rather the number of cases and the kind of cases, in which that rule of unanimity has already been applied.

North Atlantic Treaty I went on to say:
The security council was given primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations. But the experience of the past nine months can scarcely be said to have demonstrated that the security council would be capable, under its present practices and procedures of taking prompt and effective action.
And further:
In the unsettled state of the world, which is the inevitable aftermath of the war, circumstances or disputes may be expected to arise where it would be important that the security council should be capable of taking prompt and effective action for the maintenance of peace and security. In such circumstances we would all like to feel that the council would be ready and able to take effective action promptly and not after a dispute or source of friction was fanned into a conflagration; that it would not wait until it is necessary to resort to force or until men, desperate from the frustration of waiting for a decision, might take whatever action they thought apt to serve their own interests.
That warning was applauded, but got very little beyond applause. The next year, when the succeeding meeting was held, speaking again for the Canadian delegation on September 18, 1947, I made, among other remarks, the following:
There is a growing feeling in my country, as in other countries, that the United Nations, because of the experience of the security council, is not showing itself equal to the discharge of its primary task of promoting international confidence and ensuring national security. The economic and social council is functioning fairly successfully. The specialist organizations are doing good work. But the security council, founded on what is called the unanimity of its permanent members, has done little to strengthen the hopes of those who saw in it the keystone of the structure of peace. It has done much to deepen the fears of those who felt that, with the veto, it could not operate effectively in an international atmosphere of fear and suspicion, where pride is often allowed to take precedence over peace, and power over reason.
I went on:
Nations, in their search for peace and co-operation, will not and cannot accept indefinitely an unaltered council which was set up to ensure their security, and which, so many feel, has become frozen in futility and divided by dissension. If forced, they may seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace-loving states willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for a greater measure of national security. Such associations, it has already been pointed out, if consistent with the principles and purposes of the charter, can be formed within the United Nations. It is to be hoped that such a development will not be necessary. If it is unnecessary, it will be most undesirable. If, however, it is made necessary, it will have to take place.
Let us not forget that the provisions of the charter are a floor under, rather than a ceiling over, the responsibilities of member states. If some prefer to go even below that floor, others need not be prevented from moving upwards.
Two or more apartments in the structure of peace are undoubtedly less desirable than one family of nations dwelling together in amity, undivided by

curtains, or even more substantial pieces of political furniture. They are however to be preferred to the alternative of wholly separate structures.
This, you may say, is defeatism of the worst kind. It is not. It is merely sober realism.
During the months which followed there had been disturbing developments in eastern Europe, and very disturbing developments in the security council. These had been and were continuing to be demonstrations of the fact that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and their satellites did not intend nor expect the United Nations to perform any useful function, unless it were the function of enabling them to extend their influence and domination. Everything else was blocked by the veto. Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, Yugoslavia, and then Czechoslovakia and many others, had seen their free democratic institutions ruthlessly crushed out of existence. Methods which had succeeded in those countries were being resorted to in Greece, in Italy and in France; and the upholders of genuine democracy were seeing with alarm that chaos being fostered and extended in their countries as an organ to bring about the kind of constitutional changes of which we have seen so many terrible and consequential examples.
This fateful march of events had made it unmistakably clear that the soviet union was a threat to peace and security-directly, or according to the size of its armed forces, and indirectly, by its support of communist parties in countries which had not yet been driven into the soviet orbit.
Its record of international co-operation for peace was a bleak one. Ever since the San Francisco conference the soviet union has insisted that all measures for assuring and enforcing peace should be agreed to in the first instance by the security council in which it has a veto. It has refused to participate in almost all the international organizations set up under the aegis of the United Nations. It has refused to join the food and agricultural organization, the international refugee organization, the international labour organization, UNESCO, the international monetary fund, the international civil aviation organization, and the proposed international trade organization. It had spurned almost all the organizations set up for international co-operation in which it could not use the veto.
Meanwhile it had given its own unique meaning to the concept of defence through the methods of indirect aggression; and one has only to look at what happened in Czechoslovakia to realize how effective those methods can be, even in a sincerely democratic country.

Well, the fear of subversive communism allied to soviet might is in fact the mainspring of the development leading up to this North Atlantic security pact. Hon. members know what those developments were. On January 22, 1948, Mr. Bevin declared that soviet hostility to the European recovery program and soviet obstructionism over the German settlement had convinced the United Kingdom government that the time had come to go ahead with plans for closer political and economic unity of willing western European states. Hastened in their negotiations by the communist seizure of power in Czechoslovakia in February and soviet pressure for a treaty with Finland, the United Kingdom, France and the Benelux countries signed the treaty of Brussels on March 17, 1948.
Under this treaty these signatory governments undertook that if any one of them should be the object of armed attack in Europe, the others would, in accordance with provisions in article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, afford the party so attacked all military and other aid and assistance in their power.
On the very day that this treaty was signed, hon. members will recall the impressive broadcast made by the President of the United States at noon, and will remember that the Prime Minister came into this house and declared, to the accompaniment of plaudits from all quarters in the house, that this treaty was a partial realization of the ideal of collective security by an arrangement under the charter of the United Nations, and in doing so he referred to a statement which the President had made just a couple of hours before.
The President, in reporting to congress on the critical nature of the situation in Europe, had given this treaty his full support, and indicated that he was confident that the United States would extend to the free nations the help which the situation required.
During the months which followed, members of the Canadian government, in a series of public statements, made clear their view of the gravity of the international situation. They also indicated the general line of the North Atlantic treaty which the government considered would meet the dangers confronting the still free countries of western Europe. On June 11, for example, I said:
The best guarantee of peace today is the creation and preservation by the nations of the free world, under the leadership of Great Britain, the United States and France, of an overwhelming preponderance of force over any adversary or possible combination of adversaries. This force must not be only military; it must be economic; it must be moral.
Meanwhile the senate of the United States had been considering a resolution introduced
North Atlantic Treaty
by Senator Vandenberg. This resolution was adopted by the senate of the United States on June 11 by a vote of sixty-four to four. It set forth six objectives of United States foreign policy. Three of these objectives were directly related to proposals for a North Atlantic security pact. May I just read them into the record? They are as follows:
1.	Progressive development of regional and other collective arrangements for individual and collective self-defence in accordance with the purposes, principles and provisions of the charter.
2.	Association of the United States by constitutional processes with such regional and other collective arrangements as are based on continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, and as affect its national security.
3.	Contributing to the maintenance of peace by making clear its determination to exercise the right of individual or collective self-defence under article 51 should any armed attack occur affecting its national security.
On July 6 the representatives of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States met in Washington for the first phase of the series of noncommittal and exploratory talks on security problems of common interest in relation to the Vandenberg resolution.
These talks have now culminated in the draft text tabled in the house on March 18. The text has been prepared by the representatives of the countries which took part in the original discussions, and by the representative of Norway who joined in the deliberations on March 3. The treaty, if signed, will bring together in alliance against war the free nations of the North Atlantic community which share a common heritage, a common civilization, a common belief in the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations and a common desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. Those are the nations which, when they put their signatures to an international document, intend that it shall be carried out.
This treaty is to be far more than an old-fashioned military alliance. It is based on the common belief of the north Atlantic nations in the values and virtues of our Christian civilization. It is based on our common determination to strengthen our free institutions and to promote conditions of stability and well-being. It is based on the belief that we have in our collective manpower, in our collective natural resources, in our collective industrial potential and industrial know-how, that which would make us a very formidable enemy for any possible aggressor to attack.
Of course it is not easy to venture forecasts, or to attempt to say what might have been in history; but one can wonder. The purpose of the treaty is to preserve the peace
2C64

North Atlantic Treaty
of the world by making it clear to any potential aggressor that, if he were so unwise as to embark on war he might very well finish up in the condition in which the kaiser found himself after the first great war. He might very well find himself in the position in which Hitler and Mussolini found themselves after the second terrible war. They were not told in advance what they would have to take on and overcome. I think it is fair, both to ourselves and to any possible aggressors, to tell them in advance that, if they attempt anything, they will have to overcome those who were great factors in preventing the realization of the hopes of the kaiser and of Hitler and Mussolini.
This is not a treaty to make war. It is intended by us, and intended by the others who participate in it, as the best possible insurance against war at the present time, in view of the inability of the United Nations to give us that insurance. I should like to put on the record a phrase or two of Secretary Acheson of the United States:
The paramount purposes of the pact are peace and security. If peace and security can be achieved in the North Atlantic area, we shall have gone a long way to assure peace and security in other areas as well.
I should like to refer also to the words of the foreign minister of Great Britain, Ernest Bevin:
I think I can say without exaggeration this is an historic occasion. It is certainly one of the greatest steps toward world peace and security that have been taken since the end of the first world war, and if we look at the history of relations between this European continent and the new world of the western hemisphere, I think we can say this agreement marks the opening of a new era of co-operation and understanding. This is the first time the United States of America have ever felt able to contemplate entering into commitments in peacetime for joint defence with Europe, and it is a most famous historical undertaking into which they are now entering in common with the rest of us. We shall with them, and the rest of those who join in this pact, make our due contribution in the firm belief that the step now being taken will bring peace and security for our common civilization for many generations to come.
Let me add one sentence from the speech of France's foreign minister, Mr. Robert Sehuman:
Today we have obtained what we vainly hoped for between the two wars. The United States has recognized that there is neither peace nor security for America if Europe is in danger.
We in Canada also recognize that there is neither peace nor security for Canada if western Europe, quite as much as any part of this hemisphere, is in danger; but we feel that, by uniting our efforts, by making our peaceful intentions clear, by making our preparations serious, and by forcing the
[Mr. St. Laurent.j
totalitarian rulers of the communist states to realize that we mean business, we are not contracting our strength but expanding it. We will create a situation which will enable us to speak in the only language they recognize, the only language they understand-the language that speaks from strength.
This is, of course, a serious step for this young nation, but I think it is a step that will implement the desire of all the Canadian people that civilized Christian nations should at some time abandon trial by might for the rule of law. Although I invite all hon. members to consider the general tenor of the draft treaty, and to express their views by their votes or otherwise on this resolution only after having done so, I do insist that there be full opportunity before ratification of the treaty-that is to say, before it becomes binding on Canada-to consider it again in detail in this house, with the knowledge that the language being considered is the definite language that is there to stand.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, to all Canadians of my own race and creed, the bitterness with which the pact is being opposed by the few communists who unfortunately live in our midst is sufficient proof that it is in the interests of true Canadians to approve the pact.
I would like to quote from one or two examples of the literature that is being distributed by those communists throughout the country. I was in Oshawa during the weekend. There, a meeting was being attended by several hundred persons. At the door of the hall, a young man handed out a circular entitled: "Don't Let Them Sign Your Death Sentence".
"Whether you are of military age or over, male or female, the signing of the North Atlantic pact concerns you directly. It might prove to be the signal for the U.S. brass hats to start dropping atom bombs. Your personal survival-the fate of your family and loved ones-as well as our country's national existence-is at stake."
"The fateful hand at Ottawa can be stopped from signing on the dotted line."
"Sign a peace pact, not a war pact!"
"A real peace pact can be achieved through the United Nations. War is not inevitable. Which path Canada takes, depends on you. Canada should speak up for peace and understanding between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. The soviet union is engaged in long-term rebuilding of her war-ravaged land that is meaningless without peace."
"Only if we have forsaken peace and decided on the path of war, will we by-pass the United Nations and join a military alliance

which gives real control of our future to Wall Street."
At a meeting held in Windsor, copies of the newspaper Canadian Tribune, issue of March 14, 1949, were distributed.
"Is peace treason? You have told the House of Commons that the Department of Justice is investigating the statements and policies of the Labor-Progressive Party".
"We communists do not have to answer for our patriotism. We warned the world in the thirties of the consequences of appeasing Hitler. We were right then-and we are right now when we warn Canadians that your government has sold out to the U.S. imperialists, that you have abandoned the charter of the United Nations, that you are deliberately working up a war hysteria, etc."
"I reject the charge of 'treachery' to Canada ... I say that Canadian foreign policy must be changed if our country is to be saved from disaster."
And in another column:
"We communists will in the future as in the past defend the highest interests of our country."
When we realize that, to them, "our country" means "their country behind the iron curtain"; when we examine the stand which their leaders have taken in Italy and France, there cannot be any question in that regard.
They want Canada to keep quiet, to permit the expansion of that ideology of communist and atheistic terrorism. I know that in my province, among the people of my race and my religion, there is no wish that disasters such as those which have come to so many European countries should be repeated here, and that the situation which within former democratic countries of Europe has given rise to religious persecution which has shocked the whole civilized world should come to pass in Canada.
We want peace, but not the peace of persecution, the peace of atheism, the peace of concentration camps and the peace of imprisonment without trial.
Mr. Robert Schuman, speaking on behalf of the government of France said:
We are obtaining today what we vainly sought between the two wars: The United States, recognizing that there can be neither peace nor security for America if Europe is in danger, offer us both immediate aid in the organization of our military defence and a guarantee of assistance in case of war.
And he added:
Far from being inconsistent with the charter, the Atlantic pact is within the framework of the charter. It is the necessary complement of the charter, it serves the same cause, that of peace and security.
North Atlantic Treaty
To all genuine Frenchmen, to those whose patriotism rises above all ideologies, he points out the following:
And is it not a well-known fact that the western allies, relying on the common victory and on a friendship born out of war, have demobilized their troops and reduced their armaments, while in Russia and the satellite countries not only has the war potential been maintained, but the troops on active service have been kept in uniform? That lack of balance between forces, which is not warranted by any exceptional circumstance, threatens security and causes anxiety. That is all the more true because these forces are shrouded in mystery and the Russians refuse to submit to any control whilst the western democracies hide neither their strength nor their armaments.
Finally, and above all, these forces are subordinated to an ideology which is avowedly bent on expansion and which has possessed since 1947, a powerful instrument, the cominform, a political manifestation of a military alliance.
We have the same mentality as our ancestors in the old country and we are aware, I feel, just as they are, of a situation which the press summarizes as follows. I now take the liberty of quoting Mr. Froissart in L'aurore France libre:
The pact promises nothing more than to allow us to live and die with our religious creed, under our laws, within a moral code which, at least, does not purport to make falsehood a patriotic duty, informing a family duty, and police terrorism a means of social emancipation.
Evidently, Mr. Speaker, we would consider it more satisfactory were it not necessary to sign alliances in order to ensure peace. However, we require a certain degree of security for ourselves, for our families and the families of our children. I feel we shall obtain this security only through an agreement for peace between those great nations who have the habit of respecting their undertakings and whose military and industrial strength is such that no aggressor will undertake lightly to overcome them.
The United Nations charter was enthusiastically accepted in this country. This pact devolves upon us certain moral obligations but the express obligations comprised by its terms are less formal than those in the United Nations charter.
Indeed, under the United Nations pact, we had undertaken, with the approval of this parliament and of the nation, to carry out the decisions of the security council, whenever a decision had been reached by the majority.
Under this pact, we undertake to consider any aggression against the territory of any signatory power as an aggression against ourselves, but we reserve the right to decide by ourselves, in this Canadian parliament, the form, the extent and the time of our participation in hostilities.

North Atlantic Treaty
It is a pact of mutual security, but one which under no circumstances can serve as a pretext for offensive aggression. We are signing it as a defence pact against aggression and I am positive that no Canadian would have it serve as an instrument of offensive aggression against anyone. None of the member governments would want to use it as communists claim we wish to use it, as a green light to shower atomic bombs upon them.
We want to avoid war. We want to resist any aggression; but if ever, which we do not recognize as a possibility, anyone sought to use it as authority to start an offensive war, we would be fully justified by the terms of the pact and absolutely bound by our responsibilities to our country and to our families to say: "That is not what it was designed for. It must not operate that way."
If, however, an act of aggression is committed against any of us, it will constitute an aggression against all the nations that have signed the pact. Then each will be bound on its national honour, to take in accordance with its own constitutional practice, such measures as the nation itself, its parliament and its government, consider best calculated to fulfil the obligations it has assumed in order to repel that aggression and restore peace.
I suggest that all hon. members of this house carefully consider the pact, and I venture to hope that, after they have done so, they will come to the conclusion that it constitutes a firm assurance to themselves and to future generations against the horrors of war.
(Text):


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that the draft of the North Atlantic pact has been before us for consideration. For that reason it is the first occasion on which the hon. members of this house have had the opportunity to discuss this vitally important draft agreement with actual knowledge of its contents. It is therefore desirable to review the events leading up to the presentation of the motion now before us and what it is we are called upon to decide.
It is my earnest hope, and in this I am speaking for the party which I have the honour to lead, that this resolution will receive the unanimous and wholehearted support of every hon. member of this house. But our responsibility does not end there. Those who represent Canada at Washington, when the North Atlantic pact is put in final form for signature by the representatives of the participating nations, should receive from

us a clear indication of the sentiment of this house as to the way in which this pact should and can serve the high purpose for which it has been prepared.
As we acclaim this declaration of collective responsibility for the defence of freedom, let us remember that words in themselves offer little assurance of security through the years ahead. Far more important than anything stated by written words is the spirit behind those words and the extent to which the agreeing nations are really prepared to carry out the declared intention of the pact.
We will be deluding ourselves in a very dangerous manner if we believe that the signing of such a pact in itself assures peace, or the preservation of our freedom. It offers the promise of freedom and peace only if it becomes a living instrument of effective and continuing co-operation between the nations. It creates a great partnership of free people, but the success or failure of that partnership will depend, not upon the terms of the partnership agreement, but upon the way in which the partners work together after the agreement is signed.
It would be easy and very comforting to hail this pact as the dawn of a great new day and the positive assurance of peace in our time. We would, however, be unfaithful to the people of Canada if our discussions here left any such impression. This is nothing more than the draft of an agreement under which the free nations of the North Atlantic community undertake to work together to protect themselves against aggression and to preserve their freedom. Although the words may be different, and the nations which are prepared to sign the agreement may constitute a different group, there is little which distinguishes this pact from others which have preceded it. The tragic history of the past fifty years is very largely the history of the failure of one peace pact after another to preserve peace. Let us not forget for one moment the dreadful reality to which all our discussion of this subject is now related. A new pact is before us because the security council of the United Nations has failed to give us adequate assurance of security. Any evasion of that unpalatable truth will confuse the discussion here and mislead the Canadian people whom we serve. Every Canadian hopes that the dream of an effective world-embracing United Nations organization may still become a working reality, but we know that this has not yet happened, and we hope that this pact, which is within the provisions of the United Nations charter, will bring us nearer to that great and much desired objective..
We should also remember that we take on no new obligations which we have not

already assumed. The first article of the first chapter of the United Nations charter reads as follows:
The purposes of the United Nations are:
1.	To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2.	To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3.	To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4.	To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of those common ends.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that while the words of the present pact may be different, those words which I have just read embrace, in their explicit and in their implicit meaning, all we are now asked to undertake in the draft convention which is before us. It would be appropriate, however, for us at this time to ask ourselves whether the promise held out in that first article of the United Nations charter has in fact been fulfilled. We all know it has not. The very basis of that charter was the proposition that all nations were entitled to their freedom and selfdetermination. If anyone be in doubt as to whether that promise has been fulfilled, ask the people of Poland, whose freedom became the symbol of freedom everywhere when we went to war in 1939, whether the United Nations charter has been effective in preserving their freedom. Ask the peoples of Roumania, of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, northern Greece, Czechoslovakia and eastern Germany. Yes, let us also ask hundreds of millions of the people of China, who for so long stood against Japanese aggression, if the United Nations charter has protected them from aggression. The United Nations charter can still become the great instrument of freedom that it was intended to be, but the veto exercised by the representatives of the soviet empire has so far defeated its primary purpose and made this new pact necessary if those who are still free are to remain free.
There are no more tragic pages in the history of civilized people than the repeated stories of the hopeless failure of pact after pact to preserve that measure of peace and security which was the dream-and the earnest dream-of those who participated in each succeeding and more terrible war.
North Atlantic Treaty There is no occasion to direct our remarks today to the question of whether or not Canada will sign this pact, when it is in final form. About that I do not believe there can be any real difference of opinion. I submit that what is really important in our discussions here today is that we indicate very clearly that we Canadians want this pact to work and that it is not just being signed as a matter of form. For that reason I think we should review the circumstances which brought about the failure of the other pacts which have preceded it. As we now express our hope for the success of the draft agreement that is before us, let us examine the reason for the failures of the past. While efforts have been made since the dawn of civilization to find some device for preventing the recurring and awful scourge of war, we can well confine ourselves to the past fifty years during which the most notable attempts to establish collective security have been made and during which events have occurred which are well within the memory of many hon. members in this chamber today.
The first time that an attempt was made to establish a world-wide organization under which there would be collective action to preserve peace was fifty years ago when the representatives of twenty-six nations met at The Hague. As a result of their deliberations, the participating nations signed what was known as "The Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes."
The second world peace conference met again at The Hague in 1907. To show the growing interest in the possibilities of collective action as a means of assuring peace, it should be recalled that on that occasion forty-four nations, practically all the independent nations in the world at that time, met to reaffirm the convention which had been signed in 1899 and to extend its provisions. The conference unanimously adopted a provision calling for compulsory arbitration of all international disputes and the setting up of a "court of arbitration."
Great hopes for lasting peace were entertained at that time. There is no dead page of history. People at that time believed, and firmly believed, that this offered the hope of lasting peace. But the nations which had signed the convention unfortunately acted as though they thought their work was done when the conventions were signed. When the Agadir crisis came in 1911 and brought Europe to the verge of war, the member nations of the Triple Entente faced the threat from the Triple Alliance with no real indication that they believed The Hague convention provided any practical means for avoid-

North Atlantic Treaty
ing an attack on France at that time. The Triple Entente stood firm and the crisis passed.
Then in the summer months of 1914-as so many of the hon. members will recall-event followed event in quick succession, after the assassin's bullet at Sarajevo had set flame to the explosive accumulation of military power. Again there was no recourse to arbitration and Germany disregarded every undertaking which had been given at The Hague. The Hague agreements were contemptuously described as a "scrap of paper". As the most terrible war of all history up to that time spent its course, the thing which became increasingly apparent was that it could have been avoided if German military leaders had believed in advance that they would be faced by the combined military strength which ultimately crushed them on the field of battle. As has already been pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), it was the uncertainty of those who finally joined ranks to win a decisive victory for freedom which undoubtedly encouraged military aggression at that time.
When the nations met at Versailles in 1919 and drafted the covenant of the league of nations, the thought uppermost in the minds of those who gave it form was that such uncertainty in the future should be avoided and that there would be positive collective action to preserve peace, with the assurance of judicial settlement of all international disputes by what they described as the "permanent international court of justice". That pact, which unfortunately was never ratified by the government of the United States, although it had been signed by President Wilson, was by far the most ambitious attempt to ensure peace and freedom by international agreement which had ever been made in the long history of mankind.
The tragic story followed very much the same pattern, however, and the failure to observe the strict provisions of the covenant and, what was even more important, the failure to carry forward the spirit behind the covenant as evidenced by the exchange of memoranda and expressions of opinion at Versailles, led to the breakdown of that pact as had occurred so many times before.
The first of those was the Locarno pact, signed by France, Germany and Belgium, under which they undertook "that they will in no case attack or invade each other or resort to war against each other." Those words were still the words of what was supposed to be a valid pact when war came in 1939. They further undertook to refer any difficulties which might arise between them to the International Court of Justice.

Another pact was signed in 1928. Most hon. members will recall the statements which were made at that time, and the hopes which were expressed. Because of the increasing recognition of the fact that the covenant of the league of nations did not in fact assure collective action to preserve peace, the representatives of fifty-nine nations met in Paris in 1928 and solemnly signed a pact renouncing war as an instrument of international policy.
As we recall today the reassuring statements made by statesmen throughout the world, following the completion of those pacts, and particularly the Paris peace pact of 1928, we realize only too well how little pacts mean in themselves and how allimportant is the action taken under those pacts when the threat they were designed to meet actually presents itself as a reality.
When the world was engulfed in a greater and still more devastating war in 1939, the pattern bore a dreadful similarity to that which had preceded the outbreak of war in 1914. Once again it became clear that if the aggressors had believed that the free nations would stand together to defend their freedom, it was unlikely that they would have invited their own destruction as they did. Once again the pacts meant nothing. No serious attention was paid to them. The mounting power of the aggressors was apparent to anyone but there was reluctance to take the steps which would have restrained that aggression without recourse to war.
Those of us whose memories embrace the tragic repetition of events which preceded the two world wars have compelling reasons to revive those memories as a guide to future action in seeking to prevent a recurrence of those disasters on an even greater scale in the future.
In spite of the clarity of vision of by far the greatest and most far-seeing statesman of our time, the people of his own and other free countries failed in the years before the war to heed the repeated warnings of Winston Churchill that the world was moving step by step down the hopeless path of appeasement to another and more terrible war. Others whose voices did not command the same large audience, but who had seen what was taking place, did their utmost to remind those who heard them of the dreadful similarity between what was then taking place and what had occurred in the months and years before August, 1914. It is important to recall those warnings and the way in which they were disregarded, because once again we have seen the bright hopes of worldwide collective action contained in the words of the United Nations charter dashed to the

ground, at least for the present, because of the impossibility of making it work while some of the member nations are determined that they will not let it work.
Just as the pacts of Locarno and Paris sought to achieve what the covenant of the league of nations had been intended to achieve, so the North Atlantic pact is intended to put into effect within a limited area, and under the terms of the charter, those principles which the United Nations charter declared to be in effect throughout the whole world. The pact now about to be signed will bring new hopes of peace, freedom and security to the free world which is so gravely threatened at this hour, or on the other hand it will be as completely impotent as were the pacts of Locarno and Paris, depending upon whether the intent, the spirit and the practical operation of this pact are given living reality or, on the other hand, the nations which sign it forget all the tragic lessons of the last half century and once again treat the declaration, which they now sign with such high hopes, as nothing but a pious expression of good intentions.
It was with the bitter memories of what had happened before that those who met at San Francisco in 1945 insisted upon a positive declaration providing for collective action, to preserve peace and to prevent aggression. Since then one nation, and one nation alone, has been the aggressor, but along with the flagrant violation of the letter and spirit of the United Nations charter by the soviet empire, we have also witnessed the failure of the other signatory powers to stand together in preserving the freedom of those nations which have been enslaved since that charter was signed.
Now, because of that failure, the draft of a new charter is before us. That charter can become an effective instrument for the preservation of freedom and of peace only if the tragic lessons of the past fifty years are remembered, and we act upon the lessons that we gather from the history of those years.
In effect, this resolution now before us amounts to an instruction by this house to those who will represent us in Washington that we mean business and that we are determined that this pact will work. We are dealing with no mere academic problem here today. We are dealing with the survival of our nation. That is what we are discussing. We are dealing with life and death. We are dealing with a choice between freedom and slavery. We are dealing with a fundamental issue between religious freedom and atheism, such as has been carried to the lands enslaved by communism wherever they may be.
North Atlantic Treaty
Never since civilization became general throughout the world have the free nations faced so great a threat. Not only are we challenged by the extending aggression of the soviet empire, but we are equally threatened with the destruction of civilization itself. In this case failure to defend our national independence carries with it nothing less than the destruction of our civilization, and the end of our way of life. To those who are unwilling to recognize that as a possibility, it is only necessary to point out that other great civilizations have disappeared completely in the past and centuries elapsed before mankind again emerged from the dark and abysmal ignorance which followed. The world is faced by the organized forces of the antiChrist who directs the aggressive plans of the soviet empire from the Kremlin.
We are told by the treacherous agents of that evil power here in our own country that this pact means war.
We have already had read to us extracts from a circular which is being distributed by those treacherous agents within our country. The truth is that failure to make such a pact a working reality will mean war, and a war in which the forces of freedom are not united to defend themselves aganst the threat of military aggression from without and treachery within.
Those who have seen the meaningless horror of two world wars have the greater reason today to think and to speak in a way which will help to prevent the recurrence of an even greater disaster. Those who have lost members of their own family and have seen their closest friends blasted into eternity before their eyes are the least likely to urge the adoption of any measure which would increase to the slightest extent the possibility that others would share that unhappy experience. It is because those who have seen war in all its horrors are so anxious to do all iir their power to prevent a repetition of that horror on a wider and more disastrous scale that they urge with such feeling and with such vigour that this pact in fact become the basis of real collective action to preserve peace in the years ahead.
In proportion to its population no nation is capable of contributing more to the hope of security than Canada. In two world wars men and women from every part of Canada have demonstrated their love of freedom. More than one hundred thousand Canadian graves in distant lands testify to the part that Canada has already played in the defence of freedom. The greatest tribute we can pay to the memory of our gallant dead is to do all we can today to prove that their sacrifice has not been in vain.

North Atlantic Treaty
We would not be facing reality in our discussions if we did not admit with complete frankness what the threat is that we are preparing to meet. It is obviously a direct attack upon the free nations of western Europe which presents the most immediate threat. Only by keeping in our minds what the situation is there today can we appreciate the sense of imminent danger in which the democracies carry on their daily activities.
The heavy armour of the largest land forces in the world is massed along a line which is only a little more than twenty miles from the North Sea port of Hamburg, only one hundred and thirty miles from Holland, only one hundred and fifty-five miles from Belgium, and one hundred and thirty-five miles from France. The soviet armies are only a short march from the North sea, the English channel, and the Atlantic seaboard.
It was in the face of that ominous reality that the foreign ministers of Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg met in Brussels a year ago this month and signed a fifty-year treaty which bound them together in a military and political alliance for collective defence. Last July the nations which met at Brussels were joined by the United States and Canada in discussions which have since been expanded to embrace the North Atlantic pact which is now before us in draft form for consideration. Since then other nations have been asked to join and others will be.
I think it is worth pointing out, such is the rapid movement of events, that what we are now doing follows very closely the proposals of Mr. Winston Churchill made three years ago this month at Fulton. Hon. members of the house will recall how at that time many people who have no sympathy for communism were extremely critical of the practical suggestions which he put forward in that speech.
Since that time the inexorable march of history has convinced most of those who were critical at that time; and once again events have proved the clarity of his vision, and the wisdom of his judgment. As we examine the situation with which we are confronted today, and as we realise that other nations have been asked and other nations will be asked to join in signing this pact, there are considerations which should be in the minds of those who will be discussing in Washington next week, not so much the terms of the pact, but the way in which its terms can be carried into effect.
I have mentioned the imminent threat of those armed forces which are poised so close to the frontiers of Holland, Belgium and France. A number of hon.

members have flown across that line on the way to or from Berlin, as I have; and they saw, as I did, the massing of armour along that line in a way which gave anything but the suggestion of a promise of peace. But as we examine the possibilities of preserving peace, and as we think of those flat plains of western Europe, it would be well to bear in mind that there is a great natural defence line running across the north of Italy, through the south of France and across the north of the Iberian peninsula. The importance of the territory south of that mountain barrier should certainly be borne in mind by those who discuss the steps which will be taken to preserve peace in Europe and elsewhere throughout the world in the months and years ahead.
Those who meet in Washington to discuss the final terms of this pact will be considering, not only the words which give it form, but also the realities to which it relates and the military factors which it embraces.
The basic principle incorporated in this pact, so far as collective defence is concerned, is that an attack on one is an attack on the freedom and integrity of all. The fact that the United States is not only willing to ratify such a pact, but is giving wholehearted leadership in making it a reality, is an event of the greatest historic significance for the whole world.
There is every reason to believe that if it had been certain, as has already been pointed out, in 1914 and again in 1939 that the vast productive power and human energy of the United States would be brought into the struggle against aggression, those wars might never have been started.
The outstanding reality of the pact, therefore, is that the United States now stands ready to throw its enormous productive and military power into the combined efforts to preserve the indivisible freedom of the western world. That in itself undoubtedly offers the greatest hope of peace. But every nation which signs that pact must play its full part and contribute its own thought and action to the strengthening and improvement of collective measures for defence.
For that reason, as we discuss this pact today, it is essential that all of us bear in mind exactly what the pact proposes.
In addition to the undertaking to combine for their joint defence, the signatory nations will also undertake:
1.	To strengthen their free institutions, promote conditions of internal stability and encourage economic co-operation.
2.	To consult each other if the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of them is threatened.

3.	To maintain their individual and collective military capacity to resist armed attack.
Those undertakings are explicit and require little amplification at this time. They are, however, an essential part of this pact which should not now nor in the future be overlooked or disregarded by those charged with the administrative responsibility for implementing its terms. Those who discuss the means by which the written terms will be fulfilled should also bear in mind that soviet expansion has not been achieved in most cases by open military aggression, but through the success of treacherous internal fifth columns in those nations they have overcome. For that reason the suppression of internal treachery of this nature is inseparably associated with any broad plans for the defence of our freedom and security.
It will be possible to discuss the military, economic and other implications of this pact at another time when it comes before us in final form for ratification. On this occasion I hope that this house, and the parliament of Canada, will speak with one clear and ringing voice. May I add that to some extent the positive nature of our assertions in regard to this pact from every part of the house, and the promptness with which we express our approval, may well have a very marked effect upon those whose minds we hope will be influenced by what we do. The adoption of the resolution amounts to a statement on behalf of Canada that we Canadians are prepared to join with the other free nations of Europe and North America for collective action in any event, and particularly at this moment to stem the tide of soviet aggression.
In taking this course I think we should make it clear that we have no hatred in our hearts for the people of Russia, and that we are not ranging ourselves against them or the people of the nations which they have enslaved. On the contrary. By standing firmly together in a strong and determined partnership of free people, we not only unite to protect ourselves but by the very unity of our purpose and the example we offer, we hold forth hope to those in Russia, and the other enslaved lands, whose valour in the defence of their own soil has so richly earned for them the priceless boon of freedom and democracy.
Underlying this pact is the simple but vital principle that freedom is not divisible and that, in defending the freedom of those nations which are now free, we also hope that in God's good time the example offered by the free nations may encourage those who are now enslaved to find freedom for themselves.
North Atlantic Treaty
Those who meet in Washington next week will represent the sentiment of the free nations of the whole North Atlantic community. The purpose of this pact is to adopt practical measures which will hold high that torch which has been passed on to us by those who have paid the full and final price of freedom. By our vote here today let us tell the world that the people of Canada will follow that bright torch through the years ahead with faith, with courage and the hope of peace and freedom for all mankind. If the pact succeeds in fulfilling the high purpose it is intended to serve, this may well be regarded in the future as freedom's crowning hour.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate, not only because we are giving some guidance to the delegates who will agree to a draft treaty on behalf of Canada in a short time, but also from the point of view of the records of the house, and from that of informing the people of Canada regarding this important North Atlantic treaty so that they may understand the reasons for it, and why it is before us at this time.
The resolution before the house is a very clear and simple one. First it declares anew the support of Canada for the United Nations, and reaffirms our faith in the principles and purposes of the United Nations charter. Secondly it recognizes the proposed North Atlantic pact as a treaty within the meaning of article 51 of the charter, which provides for regional co-operation for the preservation of peace, and for political, social and economic co-operation among nations. In the third place, our approval of the resolution will signify agreement that Canada should be represented at the conference for the completion of an acceptable treaty based on the proposed text. In the fourth place, it recognizes that any treaty which is there approved shall be placed before parliament for final approval and ratification. In other words, the adoption of the resolution now before us gives authority to the government to negotiate, but reserves to parliament the right to make the final decision. That, I think is in complete accord with the best traditions of democratic procedure.
As has been said already, no new obligations are involved in this understanding. The obligations which are implicit in the document now before us are those we undertook when we signed the charter of the United Nations. But the object of the negotiations which have been in progress for some months now is to provide democratic nations with an alternative form of collective security within the orbit of the United Nations, but made necessary by the failure of the security

North Atlantic Treaty
council to take effective steps for the preservation of peace and the prevention of aggression in the manner agreed upon and outlined in the charter.
I shall endeavour to point out in a few minutes why a regional pact is necessary, even though we all regret that the failure to establish universal collective security has produced this necessity. Before doing so, however, I want to emphasize a point which appears to me and to my party to be of supreme importance. This point was made in the statement by the C.C.F. national council which I placed before this house on January 31 last. That statement said:
The C.C.F. Is convinced that mere military alliances cannot guarantee peace. Economic recovery must continue to be the primary objective.
I believe this is absolutely true. Nothing done or arranged through this proposed pact should be allowed to interfere with the rebuilding of the economy of western Europe and the world. Some rearmament is essential in the present circumstances and in view of the world situation, but surely it would be sheer folly to believe that armaments, at the expense of economic recovery or economic well-being, can serve as a basis for peace, even though armaments may still be necessary to guard it. The C.C.F. therefore urges our government to stand firm on this point; and when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) rises to speak I hope we may receive some assurance that this will be done.
Those of us who were at the San Francisco conference hoped and believed that the victorious nations would unite to prevent aggression, to end the threat of war, and to lay the foundations of that permanent peace for which men and women of good will hoped and prayed. But even whilst we were at San Francisco and the conference was in progress, indications were not lacking that understanding would be difficult. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), and others who were at the San Francisco conference will remember the reported disappearance at that time of sixteen members of the Polish resistance movement who had proceeded to Moscow under safe conduct to discuss the Polish situation, an incident which in conference circles caused very grave concern. The Prime Minister and others will probably remember also that every inquiry made at that time of the soviet delegation was met either by silence or by a shrug of the shoulders, and there were grave misgivings on the part of many of us who learned of the circumstances.
Shortly after that a Labour government was elected in Great Britain. As we know, they
[Mr. Coldwell.l
believed absolutely there was every possibility that they would be able to reach understandings with the soviet union on basic problems. It was not long, however, until it became obvious that the communist government and its parties throughout the world had launched a vicious offensive against democratic socialist governments and their parties everywhere. Because of that and the bitter attacks on countries with democratic socialist governments, to which we listened with grave and growing concern at Lake Success in the autumn of 1946, it became evident that far greater difficulties faced the world than were anticipated at San Francisco. Every attempt to reach agreement in the security council and to settle international disputes coming before it was thwarted, more often than not by use of the veto; and again, may I say, those of us who were at San Francisco will remember that it was with a good deal of apprehension that the Canadian delegates, at their private meetings, finally came to the conclusion that we had to accept the veto in order to get a United Nations organization. This afternoon the Prime Minister placed on record the statement I so well remember, the appeal by Canada and the small nations to the security council at the general assembly in October, 1946, to call together the military staffs as provided for in the charter, because, as he said at the time, otherwise there would be national defence commitments anew, and perchance the very recovery of all our countries and their rehabilitation would be interfered with and perhaps postponed indefinitely. I remember those appeals, particularly by Canada and the other smaller nations, for a meeting of the general staffs of the great powers to arrange for the joint international police force, and how those appeals failed to elicit any response from the soviet delegates. Attempts to provide for the control of atomic energy as a potential threat to mankind also have been without effect, as everyone knows. I listened carefully to the debate in the assembly early in December, 1946, when proposals for disarmament were blocked by Russia's refusal to agree to international inspection of armed forces and potential war industries. I heard Sir Hartley Shawcross's dramatic offer to hand over the keys of British industries and to lay bare all information with regard to the United Kingdom's war potential if Russia agreed to be equally frank. Unfortunately the U.S.S.R. has consistently refused to allow international inspection, to which other nations were ready to agree. She has maintained a vast army but insists on the destruction of the atomic bomb, even though at the time that insistence was first made the western

democracies were completing the demobilization of their wartime armies and disposing of their wartime factories and equipment.
Because of these failures to reach agreement in the United Nations and the necessity for the prevention of further aggression and for the maintenance of peace, the western democracies have been compelled to consider regional security pacts. No one will deny that regional pacts are poor substitutes for universal security based on universal national disarmament and reliance upon a truly international police force. It is indeed a second best. Believing this, we must make every effort to leave the way open to all other nations to join with us and the other parties to the Atlantic agreement in strengthening the United Nations as opportunities occur.
The pact now before us recognizes the existence of a division in the world and emphasizes that there are two opposing power blocs. Unfortunately in the present world situation there appears to be no alternative to that recognition. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the reason the western European democracies moved closer together for joint defence was that they viewed with grave alarm and misgiving the formation of a solid communist bloc under the leadership of the soviet union. It is not too strong a statement to make to say that the eastern bloc is under the complete control of Russia. Proof of this, I think, can be seen in the attitude of the cominform in its treatment of Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia has proved beyond the possibility of a doubt that no nation under communist domination is free to pursue a policy which differs in any respect from that of the soviet union. Events in Czechoslovakia last year, to which reference has already been made this afternoon, only emphasized the alarm which western European nations had felt during the preceding years. They watched the occupation first and then the absorption of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They saw the democratic institutions of those countries destroyed, and the leading social democrats as well as the leaders of other political parties disappear into captivity into Siberia. To this day their fate with that of many thousands of others is largely unknown. They watched the unilateral seizure of part of Poland and of Bessarabia. They saw the breaking of the promises made at Yalta and Potsdam regarding the future of Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria and Roumania.
As I have already said, the coup in Czechoslovakia just over a year ago frightened the western European nations into conferences and action for defensive purposes. Since then the institution of a completely totalitarian
North Atlantic Treaty
regime in eastern Germany and eastern Europe, together with the Berlin blockade, have underlined the fears which they then felt. Then, too, every attempt was made by communist parties to prevent the success of the European recovery program without which there could be neither hope for the European peoples nor economic recovery for any part of the world including North America itself, which has been the main source of supply in connection with this program during the past year.
The western European nations, realizing that under the best of circumstances they were too weak to resist aggressive pressure or an armed attack should it threaten their freedom and their democratic institutions, endeavoured to arouse the British commonwealth and North America to what they considered to be a very dangerous situation. I want to say this because of the propaganda that is heard from one end of this country to the other. Contrary to the propaganda against the proposed North Atlantic treaty, the proposal is not an attempt on the part of so-called American imperialism to bring western European democracies into an alliance for the purpose of destroying the soviet union. It originates in the anxiety of western European democracies to persuade North America to support them in a defensive union. They believed this would halt a threat of aggression and provide the necessary defensive strength so that if the soviet union has aggressive plans against them she will be turned from that course and thus make possible the peaceful solution of existing difficulties and problems.
In order to give some support to that statement, let me quote from the March issue of the Socialist Commentary, published in London, England, but representative of western European socialist thought generally. In a few paragraphs which I want to put on record, it sums up the concept I have just given.
These paragraphs read as follows:
The overwhelming military superiority of Russia in Europe and the realization that within Russia no powerful forces exist to modify or restrain the possible ruthless intentions of her rulers, present the decisive reasons for joint western defence plans. Even in its necessarily inadequate form the Atlantic pact is an important expression of the idea of collective security which can deter aggression and restore some confidence among weaker nations. For this reason, and not because of any illusions about perfect defence guarantees, it was right that the Brussels powers sought to commit America in advance. They were justified in doing this because American policy had been defined in the same spirit that animated the western European statesmen. In his inaugural address, the President re-affirmed this when he said:

North Atlantic Treaty
This article quotes the President's statement as follows:
The primary purpose of these agreements is to provide an unmistakable proof of the joint determination of free countries to resist armed attack from any quarter ... If we can make it sufficiently clear in advance that any armed attack affecting our national security would be met with overwhelming force, armed attack might never occur.
The article continues as follows:
Too much has been made of the constitutional difficulties which prevent definite American assurances of military help. In essence, they are not uniquely American, but are common to all democratic sovereign nations. This difficulty will only disappear with the establishment of a well-organized world security system in which an international police force functions as do the police now in a single civilized state. What matters for the present is that the United States is committed to Europe, and from a long-term viewpoint. That America became involved in so short a time, despite deep traditions of isolationism, is one of the most startling things in contemporary history. It happened largely thanks to Russian policy, though this was far from Russia's intention. It is also Russian policy that has compelled socialists reluctantly to accept the need for a degree of rearming and a military alignment with the United States.
As a matter of fact, this quotation summarizes also the main reason why the C.C.F. in Canada is giving its support to our country's participation in the conference to consider proposals for a North Atlantic defence treaty. I hope and believe that when the treaty comes before us, we shall be able to support its ratification.
We emphasize that the treaty is, in large measure, a defensive instrument made necessary by the failure of the security council to give the protection against aggression which we had the right to expect. The regional pact imposes upon the nations entering into the agreement the obligation of supporting every move in the direction of universal instead of regional security. The preamble of the proposed treaty makes that abundantly clear. We must bear in mind that in some ways more important than the military aspects of the treaty are those which obligate the nations to promote the economic wellbeing of their own countries and of the world.
The proposed treaty, in article 2, pledges the parties to contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They pledge themselves to try to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and to encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them. Indeed, in the opinion of the C.C.F., as it was of those who formulated the United Nations charter, plans for military aid and security are of little value

unless based upon a determination to build by mutual agreement the positive social and economic conditions of peace which involve wide measures of international planning for the common good.
Every proposal to increase and distribute food supplies and other necessities of life is a proposal to remove the causes of discontent which, in turn, cause men to grasp the promises of dictators whether they are of the fascist or of the communist variety. It was out of unbearable conditions of poverty, unemployment and want, that Mussolini and Hitler arose after the last war. It is because of intolerable conditions in Italy, Greece and elsewhere, that communist propaganda has been able to make such headway in those countries. In Britain, Norway and Denmark, for example, where farsighted social and economic policies have already been put into effect, communist propaganda is so weak that it is almost nonexistent.
I wish to emphasize, then, that while the reasons for the security pact for military co-operation have been made necessary by threats of aggression, the future of peace depends equally, perhaps more, upon the determination of the nations in the North Atlantic security pact to assist in economic and social development in their respective countries and to help each other in that regard. Indeed, economic co-operation among the democratic nations has preceded, not followed, the military proposals embodied in the proposed treaty. As soon as the war ended, the United Kingdom depleted her food reserves to feed the people in the liberated countries. The United States, Canada and other parts of the British commonwealth sent enormous quantities of food, raw materials and machinery to Europe for distribution by UNRRA. For several years to come the recovery of western Europe will be made possible, as it has been during the past year, by the European recovery program in which North America and the other signatories to the proposed pact have already joined.
Thus, economic co-operation for the removal of the causes of discontent and of poverty, which are fruitful causes of war, has preceded the proposals for defence and security under the proposed treaty. Then, too, under the pact the use of armed force is not necessarily involved in meeting a situation which might threaten peace. A joint diplomatic protest, backed as it would be by overwhelming economic and military resources, might be sufficient. Indeed, we hope and believe it would be, because that is largely the purpose of the pact.
The treaty recognizes the sovereign right of each nation, through its own parliament, to

decide what shall be done in a given eventuality. This would also enable an informed public opinion to decide whether or not a reported incident is an overt act that would justify action under the treaty. Parliament will have the obligation to obtain and consider all the information which it can possibly get bearing on the matter, and to make its decision according to the facts.
The recognition of sovereign rights no doubt has been accepted particularly because of the constitutional position of the congress of the United States. They are indeed implicit also in the constitutions of all democratic nations. This fact was recognized in the United Nations charter and will only disappear when government at the international level has been established and when a single police force can operate in the world to protect peace-loving nations just as police forces now operate in all civilized states to protect peaceful citizens.
Before I conclude, let me add that the C.C.F., at its national convention in August, 1948, approved the idea of a western European union for economic co-operation and security. Our national council, in January, carefully considered all that was then known of the extension of that union into a North Atlantic security pact, and gave its approval to the principles involved. The principles now before us do not differ from those foreshadowed before the terms outlined in the proposed treaty were made public.
Speaking in the House of Commons on January 31 last, I placed on the record, after consultation with our caucus, the entire statement of the national council which had met a few days before. The statement included these words:
The C.C.F. believes that Canada should support and join a North Atlantic security pact.
Today we reiterate this statement as the official position of the C.C.F. party in this country, arrived at through thorough discussion in the most democratic manner. The nations joining together in the North Atlantic treaty have in their resources, both industrial and human, an overwhelming superiority in strength. This superiority in strength does not threaten war anywhere on earth. Our peoples are peace-loving, in the best sense of the word. The fear that is widespread-and I admit that it is widespread in our own country-that this security pact may be a step in the direction of a third world war, is in itself an indication that the people of the democracies will not permit their governments to wage aggressive warfare, even under great provocation from any other nation or group of nations.
The very strength that lies in the nations agreeing to the North Atlantic security pact
North Atlantic Treaty
will enable us to act in a firm but conciliatory manner toward the soviet union and its satellite nations or toward any other nation which commits aggression by the use of armed force, or threatens aggression in any regard. If we do this, as I believe we shall, then the Atlantic security pact will be indeed a pact of peace enabling the world to move steadily toward the kind of world security which was contemplated in the United Nations charter.
The hope of mankind lies in universal peace. This, it seems to me, can best be secured at the present time by joining with other free and peace-loving nations in expressing a determination to resist all threats of aggression. At the same time we must insist that universal peace and security will depend in the final analysis on the extent to which poverty, misery and want are banished from the world. In such a security system Canada can play an important role. The world is divided into two blocs. We have no warlike ambitions. We desire peace for ourselves and for all mankind. That, I am convinced, is the desire of the masses everywhere. It is that desire which has brought into the North Atlantic security pact such nations as Norway and Denmark, nations which are adjacent to soviet Russia, much nearer indeed than the distances which were noted this afternoon.
I am certain also that neither the American nor the Russian people want war. Working in co-operation with the western European peoples who would be the first to suffer in an armed conflict, Canada can do much to preserve peace and to promote understanding. By agreeing to a satisfactory regional security pact we have at least a chance of influencing the course of events and maintaining our national independence. Isolation would deny the one and jeopardize the other.
Of course there are dangers in such a regional security pact. Russia and her European allies have, it is believed, fifty divisions ready for war. It is estimated that she could put an additional fifty divisions into the field within a month. The western European democratic countries have only ten divisions amongst them. The danger is of course that, in equipping western Europe with modern war equipment, recovery may be deferred and a dangerous armament race promoted. That is a danger we must guard against. It is because of this danger that we hope the determination of the North Atlantic nations to stand together against aggression may bring about a real attempt to eliminate all potential causes of war and to establish world security at last, within the United Nations. In any event, without the security

North Atlantic Treaty
pact and under present conditions, the burden of armaments and the threat to recovery would be greater if the western European nations alone, and one by one, attempted to arm against the overwhelming manpower of the cominform nations.
Then, too, because of our own geographical situation, our military preparedness would be a crippling burden to us. As a part of the North Atlantic fraternity both our danger and our burdens should be lessened. But whatever burdens in the field of defence are involved-and let me say this to the government with all the emphasis that I can give it -no one must be allowed to profit in the production of instruments of war. We urged before the last war that all munitions industries should be nationalized. We reiterate that now and demand that profiteering in related industries must be eliminated by every means at our disposal.
However, history alone will record whether the North Atlantic security pact will succeed or not. Failure will mean the end of civilization as we know it.
We must, therefore, in our strength seek understanding, friendship and co-operation with all nations so that the men and women who sacrificed, suffered and died in the two great wars which have plagued our generation will not have been sacrificed in vain.
It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that we support Canada's participation in the conference to be held at Washington, and we hope that the representative of Canada will endeavour to bring back to this house a document and treaty to which this house can accord unanimous ratification.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: At the
outset I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on submitting this resolution to the house. It is the first time in my experience here that the government has placed an international treaty before parliament in an effort to obtain the opinions and support of the representatives of the people before the signing of the treaty, and thereby in a sense committing Canada to the terms of the agreement. We of the Social Credit group think that this method of submitting the resolution is the right way to get approval before the people of this country are committed to international obligations.
One of the strenuous objections we took at the time of the United Nations charter was to the government's insistence on committing us to the terms of the San Francisco charter without giving the electors of this country anything like a reasonable opportunity to know what it was to which they were being committed, and more important still, sir, to register their wishes in regard to the charter
[Mr. Coldwell.l
before it was signed. In this instance the Prime Minister is playing the game of democracy. There is only one thing that sometimes makes us wonder. Why the rush?
The treaty itself was not tabled in this house until March 18, at a time when every single member was overwhelmed with other things demanding his immediate attention. I do not need to mention the three sessions a day which took up all of our time. Therefore I do not see how, under the circumstances, anybody could give the pact the study which it deserves.
Now we are told that our representatives must be in Washington on April 4 to commit Canada to the treaty. I am afraid this follows the old familiar pattern of doing things. One suspects something wrong under such circumstances. All over the country there has been elaborate propaganda in all of the newspapers long before the facts about the pact were divulged to people in this country. I remember the same kind of propaganda filled every nook and cranny of every newspaper in this country prior to the Rowell-Sirois report, Bretton Woods and all that sort of thing. It is high time that the government began to get wise to that sort of thing, because it is bound to continue to arouse suspicion, and there may be something really good which they want to put over sometime, and yet they will find the people suspicious of that because of the general pattern they are following. There is no doubt that all of the propaganda which appeared in the newspapers and periodicals preceding the instruments which I have specifically mentioned was designed to set the stage for rushing the matters through on a wave of emotional hysteria. If all of these agreements are important enough to be signed, they are important enough to warrant the most careful and searching study.
May I say a word about the resolution itself. The preamble seems straightforward enough. Here again there seems to be considerable departure from some of the practices of the past. All too often, the preambles to resolutions introducing international instruments which are introduced in this house are put in very high-sounding and beautiful phrases, the spirit of which is certainly unquestionable, but which all too often is completely at variance with the body of the resolution itself. I find myself quite in agreement with the terms of the preamble, but I cannot see why it was necessary to insert the first clause in the body of the resolution itself. This is what the clause says:
This house declares anew its support of the United Nations as the world organization established to

maintain international peace and security and to promote the economic and social advancement of all people . . .
To us, this seems hypocrisy in the light of what has been going on.
Look at the world today. Look at what has been happening with great rapidity ever since the United Nations organization was set up; nations toppling over almost like tenpins while the vaunted security council sits spellbound and helpless listening to the oratory of Gromyko and Vishinsky. In all but this, within the resolution itself, we feel like complimenting the Prime Minister on a much more realistic attitude than the government has shown heretofore in connection with international treaties. As I said on another occasion during this session, if there is a genuine need of an Atlantic pact, then we are four years late in drawing it up and getting at it.
I repeat, sir: Look at the world today and what has been happening since the United Nations was set up. During the years since the close of the war in 1945, the world situation has deteriorated most seriously. Communism has spread until it has encompassed half the globe and threatens the other half. What did the United Nations do for Poland, for Bulgaria, for Yugoslavia, for Hungary and for Czechoslovakia? And what is more, what is the United Nations doing now for Greece or Turkey? Somehow or other the framers of the San Francisco charter seemed completely unaware of the fact that a new form of cunning, insidious warfare had been devised which would not depend upon massed strength in armies, navies and air forces. Somehow or other the method of cold war did not enter into the calculations of those who set up the security council-or did it? That is the question we have to face. Did it? The cunning hidden hand of a diabolical world plotter could hardly have conceived a better way of enslaving the world than by giving the unwary nations a glittering and attractive plaything to engage their complete attention while he set in motion a new form of warfare which would go on and on unnoticed, conquering peoples, gathering momentum while the nations hold conferences, attend receptions and figure out limitations of armaments. While we have been thus engaged, what has been going on in China? The new secretary of state of the United States, Dean Acheson, says: "Wait until the dust clears so we can see." I will guarantee that when the dust does clear and rise over China the sight will give the communists much more confidence to strike on all their world fronts. And what about Burma? Burma seems all but lost. The communists and Karens have joined their forces to put the Burmese government out of business. Foreign investments in that coun-
North Atlantic Treaty
try appear to be lost, and more millions of people have come under the domination of the red flag.
Take Siam as another example, wherein is located the largest airfield in the east at Bangkok. Siam has been a country friendly to the western nations, but owing to communist-inspired uprisings, she is today in a serious state of emergency. And now India.
I am told that country is being stirred by
200.000	trained communist agents. While I was at the United Nations assembly in 1947,
I noted something of the bitterness of the representatives from India-bitterness toward the western world. I am not now attempting to say here whether that bitterness was or was not in some measure justified, but the fact remains that Prime Minister Nehru recently made the statement that:
The communists are using strikes to create chaos in the country. They are deliberately seeking to create famine conditions by paralysing the railroads.
When we swing into Europe and take a look at France, we see the communist leader, Thorez, there touching off a series of almost identical declarations by communist leaders in all countries. Thorez openly declared that the 1,800,000 members of the French communist party would welcome and assist invasion by the armies of Russia. Moreover, the largest French labour union, which has
3.500.000	members, is communist dominated. People who have recently visited that unfortunate land tell me that communist publications flood the whole country. Foremost French scientists are suspected of letting the atomic secrets of the French government leak out to the reds. At the same time, Russia drops hints about atomic bombs of her own, and about a new mysterious death ray which she possesses. I hardly need mention Bulgaria, where recently fifteen Protestant ministers were sentenced to life imprisonment. This is evidence that the communists are not only aiming at the Catholic church as they appeared to be doing in Hungary
' when they sentenced Cardinal Mindszenty and other prominent Catholics to life imprisonment; but it becomes quite plain that the communists are aiming to stamp out completely the spiritual nature of men. These recent attacks on religion throw into bold relief the declaration by Marx, "Communism begins where atheism begins".
Norway has declared her desire to become party to the Atlantic pact; but immediately that declaration was made, Russia moved in toward the 118-mile Norwegian border more army divisions than the western nations have ready to protect the rest of the world. Everywhere one looks, the pattern seems to be the same. The whole world has been

North Atlantic Treaty
caught in the tidal wave of a new kind of war, a kind that manages conquests without shooting. This is the cold war about which we have heard so much. That is a kind of warfare that we in the west have not yet learned to wage. That is the kind of warfare that has been going on while the United Nations has stood by impotent.
So often in the history of this present century, some nations of the world have awakened to find themselves involved in undeclared wars. Practically the whole world is involved in one of those wars right now. By the Atlantic pact the western nations are belatedly uniting to declare a cold war on the red tidal wave. We are in a titanic struggle between east and west for dominant influence in the world; that is what cold war means.
So these are days of decision. The next few months could easily determine the fate of the whole world. If we meet the present situation with wisdom and courage, fortitude and humility, praying for divine guidance, earnestly seeking to do what is best for man, then we in the remaining democracies might easily lead into a new phase of the struggle, where very powerful forces will spring to our help in stemming the tide and finally bringing peace and security to the whole world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at seven-thirty o'clock.
Solon Earl Low: Before the dinner recess was called I had traced what, in our view, the world situation really is. I wish to say now that, in the light of world conditions, as we now see them, this is no time for appeasement; the time for appeasement is long past. But equally I want to stress that this is no time for talk of aggressive warfare in the military sense. There is a homely adage which runs like this, "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far". I think it was Teddy Roosevelt who said that, if the American nation would speak softly and yet build and keep at a pitch of the highest training a thoroughly efficient navy, the Monroe doctrine would go far. What the western nations are considering today is a second Monroe doctrine in a sense, but I think the success of the whole venture is going to depend to a very large extent on how well each signatory nation curbs any instinct toward aggression, and how honestly the nations are prepared to co-operate under the pact-as well as upon how wisely each sets about to build its own strength, economic, cultural and military-in readiness to defend

themselves, individually and collectively against aggressors.
The terms of the Atlantic pact have been before us now for several days. They call for defensive military co-operation as well as economic co-operation.
Let me say that Social Crediters have always taken a realistic position in this house and out of it on the matter of defensive preparation. Our record in that regard is perfectly clear and unmarred in any respect. We do not believe, however, that Canada is strong enough today to do her duty to the other nations and to the world. We favour the utmost of effective co-operation now with the other nations in the Atlantic area to ensure peace and security, and to present to any aggressors the very strongest possible defensive alliance that can be arranged. I saw enough when I was at the United Nations assembly in 1947, and in Europe just last autumn, to make me realize that the remaining free countries of the world must stand together, and must speak with one voice, a voice of readiness and of warning to Russia and to her satellites or, for that matter, to any other uneasy nation or group of nations. Therefore we are in full agreement with the military and the defensive side of the North Atlantic security pact.
We insist that, when Canada signs the pact, she do so with full knowledge of every obligation it will place upon this country. Unless ever signatory nation does likewise, the proposed alliance of free western nations can never be the war deterrent that it is hoped it will be. There must be the utmost of good faith all round. We take it also that Canada's signing of the treaty is not an automatic commitment to war. It seems clear to us that, under article 5, we reserve the right to decide for ourselves what contribution we shall make in any case of attack by an aggressor upon one of our allies under the treaty. Our support of the proposed pact is predicated upon the assurance that it will in no case be used as an alliance of aggression, either military or economic, and that there shall be upon Canada no coercion or sanctions when we decide what action we think it best for us to take in any situation that does arise. If there were in its terms any implication that Canada was signing a blank cheque; if, by becoming a party to the pact, Canada were parting with our right to determine our own course by our own democratic processes, Social Crediters would oppose it with all their strength. I am sure Canada's record is such as to convince all the world that we will do what is right by our people and our allies under all threatening circumstances.

We Social Crediters are not so concerned about the words and language of the pact as we are about what is interpreted to be the meaning or implications of its terms. We have noted that the pact is designed to be more than a mere defensive alliance. I think it was the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who in his broadcast on Friday, March 18, spoke these words:
This is no mere negative proposal for a defence alliance. It is meant to be the beginning of a positive development in co-operation-economic, social, cultural-amongst the free nations of the Atlantic community.
May I spend just a few minutes on this matter of economic co-operation. Let me begin by quoting a striking statement recently made by a visitor to the United States from Denmark who was negotiating under the Marshall plan.
Danes know that, in a third world war, they will be completely destroyed. They look to America but often wonder if the inhabitants of America recognize that we live in an ideological age where food, weapons, and other material are not enough. We wonder if America has the real answer to communism. She has her un-American committees, her atom bombs, her money, but is America aware that communism is an ideology that can only be cured by a better idea? Does America have what is needed to convert communists into democrats? Mere anticommunism cannot be the way-only men who act like new men and live a new sort of life will have any chance to create a lasting peace.
I should like to paraphrase that statement in my own homely way: You cannot make the commies cry "uncle" if you have nothing better than an "anti".
Let me emphasize that by taking a look at the situation right here in Canada. I think most of us have a lot of blind spots in our eyes, especially in connection with this whole business of the war of ideologies. I think we are blind to the real nature and aims and strategy of communism. As one very clever writer has put it, "In this condition of blindness, we man the dikes, plug the leaks and curse the waves, but never think how we might turn the tide." I believe that our Canadian businessmen especially, and industrialists, ought to take a good look at themselves: they ought to stand aside and watch themselves go by. If they do, I am satisfied that they will discover amongst their blind spots certain basic misconceptions. The first of these is that most of us seem to think that the difference between a communist and a capitalist is about $100; that, with money to buy a potato-chips stand and start in business for himself, nobody would want to be a communist. I need not point out to hon. members that this could not possibly explain why university professors like Dr. Boyer, wealthy men, turned communist, or Paul Robeson, and a good many more like these.
North Atlantic Treaty The second misconception is that so many of us think we can contain the communists on the other side of the Atlantic by economic, political and military measures and keep them down here in Canada by throwing insults at Russia, which measures, I might point out, are just about as futile as using a peashooter to try to stop a charging elephant, or by beating our breasts and crying about the Canadian way of life. I imagine that when the "commies" hear us perform in this manner they are likely to say, along with John Kendrick Bangs:
I love to watch the rooster crow,
He's like too many men I know.
Who brag and bluster, rant and shout And beat their manly breasts, without The first damn thing to crow about.
Just try, for example, to convince the average office worker with a family, who for some years has been caught between inflated prices and terribly high taxes on the one hand and a constant income on the other, that it is always fun to live in Canada. Just try to convince an old age pensioner who has had to live on $30 a month with milk at 18 cents a quart, eggs at 54 cents a dozen and even tough brisket at 39 and 40 cents a pound, that the Canadian way of life is always good. Just try to convince an unskilled worker, who on a number of occasions has been laid off work at the first sign of business recession or depression and who has been forced into the breadlines of unemployment, that we have a wonderful economic system. Try to convince a communist in this country-and there are many of them-that democracy, as it has been allowed to drift and become anaemic and washed out, is what he wants.
Let me assure hon. members of this house that the methods we have been using in this country cannot possibly immunize frustrated groups of people who by their very frustration become susceptible to the appeals of communism. I have reference to the ordinary mill-run of frustrated, fearful Canadians. If that is true in their case, how much more difficult would it be to successfully use the methods we have been using to teach the hardened communists, who are trained to create and exploit frustration in every democratic institution in our land and amongst all income groups of our people?
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the first reliable step we can possibly take in winning the cold war in which we become engaged by the signing of this pact is to clear up in our own country, and encourage cleaning up in all other countries, those attitudes and passions and conditions that breed communism. I heard one speaker put it very clearly a short time ago. He said, "It is no use just swatting

North Atlantic Treaty
mosquitoes; clean up the swamps that breed them." In my judgment there would be no sense at all going into this pact without a firm determination that Canada will take the lead in ridding the western world at least of those evils which Stalin and his reds expect to turn to the uses of communistic revolution, amongst which would be recurring depressions-the reds count on depressions- poverty amidst plenty in all its manifestations and amongst all groups; abuses of private enterprise such as monopolies and cartels; dwindling human rights and freedoms; prejudices, hatreds and all such things. An intensive campaign ought to be undertaken to arouse the Canadian people, to the last man, in an effort to abolish these evils. Canadians must be aroused until they have a passion, all of them, for a truly Canadian way of life which really means something to the Canadian people on the basis of performance, and for which they will strive as dynamically as does the red for communism. When this condition comes, communism will disappear and an Atlantic pact against communism will not be necessary.
But this kind of passion for our Canadian way of life cannot be aroused by mere slogans and promises, nor by exaggerated claims. Businessmen and industrialists and governments and ordinary citizens of this country, as in all the western countries that aim to become parties to this pact, must realize that we cannot meet and beat the passions of the Marxists with a mere counterpassion of hate and greed and fear. These are the very tools with which the communists work. I believe the worst possible thing we could do would be to become passionate haters of communists. This is exactly what the reds thrive on in the fomenting of what they call class war. Moreover, when Canadian and American businessmen continue to pursue the almighty dollar, as they have been doing, they thereby put money before men. There again they play right into the hands of the communists, who know that materialism of this kind is sure to bring on the world revolution for which they yearn and dream.
Businessmen in all these western countries must clean up their houses. Governments and the people generally must join in the housecleaning process. If they do not, the money-grabbing greed of a comparatively few men may cause us to lose the cold war. The chief bet of the Marxists today is big business, against which there are already a good many black marks chalked up. There is no use in big business or anybody else trying to blame somebody else, as for instance the government. Blaming others is the communists' device for dividing men and conquering nations.

If we face ourselves and change our attitudes; if instead of blaming, fighting and exploiting others we begin to take personal and company responsibility for making a new world; we can find the answer to frustration without any difficulty. Frustration always comes from fuming at people and things about which there is nothing you can do. I think we should start with every man cleaning up his own back yard. I believe Canada can start by putting her own house in order. If we can clean up what is wrong with Canada, the communists simply cannot breed and flourish here. I think our cooperative efforts among the nations should be directed toward producing the kind of world everybody wants, and when we do that I say the communists will want it too. But let us not allow our attention to be so fixed on communists and communism that we do not notice other subversive forces that are hard at work in our society. There are such, and we have to be aware of them.
Now I want to say a word of warning to this government. In the past you have carried on as though you did not know there were forces at work in all the societies of the world, forces linked together in an international intrigue to get control of the economies of all nations, including our own. You have acted as if you did not realize that these forces were feverishly working to place themselves in a protected position above the law, where they might be free to carry on their intrigues and manoeuvres unnoticed and unchallenged. Some of the implications, at least, if not the wording of certain clauses of this treaty make some of us a bit uneasy, in the feeling that there might have been some soiled fingers of power seekers at work in the drafting of these clauses, such as article 8, which is full of vague, weasel words and phrases that might be interpreted to mean anything. The same could be said of article 2, which provides the basis for economic and cultural co-operation. Before the government sign the pact we think they should assure themselves and this house and the people of Canada that article 8 does not re-commit Canada to Bretton Woods and the principles of the Washington loan agreements. Moreover we think Canada should know in detail before signing the treaty by what means it proposes, as article 2 says, to-
-seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them . . .
We understand that changes may be made in the treaty at the forthcoming Washington conference. Let us therefore charge our representatives to make doubly sure there are no

dirty fingers in the pie, and that there is no doubt whatever about the exact meaning and all the implications of the terms of the final form of the pact they will bring back to this house for ratification.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we are prepared to work with all our might for the ostensible motives of the pact, and we pray God that the ostensible ones are the real ones. But we are not prepared to work for any hidden designs of international plotters who may be concealed behind a smoke screen. We propose to demand and elicit from all the ministers responsible for bringing this instrument before the house, not only statements of clarification but also commitments of clarification. We Social Crediters, Mr. Speaker, are unanimously prepared to support the resolution. We are prepared to vote for the woodpile, but not to commit ourselves to any niggers there may be under it.


Mr. J. A. Bradeite (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is considered an honour for a member of parliament to have the opportunity of speaking after the four leaders of the various parties in this House of Commons. That honour carries with it, however, a certain amount of handicap. I am starting my remarks, therefore, in all humility, realizing the magnitude of the subject under discussion.
I should like to express the opinions which I believe are widely held by what we call the common people. I am speaking because in the spring of 1946 this parliament established, for the first time in the history of our country, a permanent committee on external affairs. I was given the heavy responsibility of being its chairman. I must say at this point that I was greatly aided in discharging my responsibility by the efforts of the vicechairman of that committee, the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), as well as by the efforts of every member of the committee. I believe this is the moment to pay those gentlemen the tribute they deserve.
The government also found it possible to send me as a delegate to the United Nations deliberations at Lake Success and Flushing Meadows in the fall of 1947.
Before proceeding any further, I should like to say that I believe this debate this afternoon has shown our Canadian democratic parliamentary system at its best. When you find the leaders of the four parties expressing unanimity in their views on this Atlantic pact, it speaks well for the democratic system. I have seen this house in a different mood and, to my way of thinking, those moods were not typical of what the Canadian people expect from their national
North Atlantic Treaty
forum. If the Canadian people had been able to see and hear the proceedings in the house today, the statement made by the Prime Minister, followed by statements from the leader of the opposition, the leaders of the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties, they would have been highly elated.
This pact is so important and so fateful that it is surprising to witness the almost disinterested silence. It is not disinterested silence, however, because Canada has felt throughout her history that the great north country and the two oceans on either side formed an effective barrier against aggression but for the last forty years that security disappeared. In 1914 the Canadian people almost unanimously realized that there was war in Austria and that Canada would become immediately concerned. The same principle applied just as forcibly and perhaps even more forcibly in the year 1939, when Canada again went to the defence of the democratic system, the thing we cherished most. We knew some of our people must again participate martially in the different parts of the world.
No doubt the Atlantic pact is a great peacetime step. It is all the more striking when we consider the great part the United States has played in its formulation and propagation. When one considers the Monroe doctrine one realizes that it is a great change in her diplomatic history. The North Atlantic pact now being considered by the United States government vividly illustrates the difference between the two post-war Americas of this century. An agreement that is more specific in many instances than the old league of nations covenant thirty years ago is scarcely causing a ripple of public opinion. The people of the United States, however, are just as deeply moved when the Atlantic pact is applied to the civilized peoples of the world.
The United States is suffering from a situation that originated in Europe. Who will dare to say, following the foolish statements and advertising of the communist party in Canada and the communist party in the United States that the United States wants war? Why would the citizens of the United States desire war? It is the wealthiest and strongest country in the world. There is no desire for war amongst the people of the United States, no matter to what section of the country they belong, for the very reason that they thought a kind Providence had protected them. Most of these people are of British descent, but later they were reinforced by people from every section of central and southern Europe. They have one of the finest heritages ever given to a body of men. Those fine people never realized that the Monroe doctrine was

North Atlantic Treaty
possible of application only because the British navy guaranteed the freedom of the seas to the whole world. They thought they could develop their civilization, their natural resources and their way of life behind this barrier.
Providence did not want it to be so, however. In 1914, the United States hesitated quite a long time before entering the war because they thought they were immune to attack. They thought the great expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans formed a large enough barrier to prevent any people from Europe or Asia desecrating the sanctity of the American soil. After two and a half years they realized that the Kaiser's hordes were dangerous not only to European civilization but to the civilization of the whole world. At that time they joined the attack and were an important factor in our victory.
Following the signing of the treaty of Versailles, and remembering what happened to the league of nations, the Americans entrenched themselves behind their wall of isolationism. Did that show a martial spirit? It showed that the people of the United States were hoping, begging and praying that the people of Europe would find it possible to settle their problems without recourse to arms. They were hoping and believing that the league of nations would find a solution and thus prevent war. When the horrible clouds of nazism, communism and fascism appeared on the horizon, these people were hoping the clouds would be harmlessly dissipated and that understanding would again be predominant in Europe. This did not happen. They knew what happened at Munich. We were all at Munich because we were hoping that the hated nazism would never dare attack the democracies.
Nazism did dare to attack the democracies and the reason was a simple one. In those days there was nothing that looked like the Atlantic pact. Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin thought the democracies were weak, that the democracies were feeble, and that, under the strain of war conditions, they would dwindle away to nothing. It is true this did not happen. It is true that we found our soul, and it is true that we sensed the danger that was going to inundate the whole world. The hour was almost too late. During part of that time the great nation to the south of us was still thinking in terms of 1914. They believed the Atlantic and Pacific would be a barrier to the hordes of barbarism. When they were hit foully, however, in Pearl Harbor, they suddenly realized that even a small spot in the Pacific ocean situated thousands of miles from the mainland of the United States was an integral part of the

American soil. Then immediately they went over to our side, and it is no doubt greatly owing to that fact that we have known the fruits of victory. Surely one must have realized also since that time that the great American republic and the fine American people do not desire war; it is the last thing they wish.
Let us put to ourselves the question that we could also put to the Canadian population: Why would the individual American desire war? What benefit will he get as a result of another world war, with the atomic bomb as a menace not only to other nations but also to the Americans themselves? What would the Americans collectively gain by a new world conflict? They have absolutely nothing to gain and a great deal to lose.
Those are things that we must of necessity remember in a discussion of that kind. The American people are not cool toward the Atlantic pact; they know in their own souls that it is the only solution they can find at the present time for peace and for freedom; because this pact is really not a pact of aggression but a pact of nonaggression-a pact of freedom as Saturday Night so well said in its last issue.
Who are the people that will sign that pact? Canada will be one of the signatories, and I know now that it will be with the unanimous consent not only of this parliament but of every section of our Canadian population. Does Canada desire war? Have we any grievances against the Russian people? Certainly our actions in the past are a guarantee for the present and for the future. We were obliged to stand at the side of our allies in 1914 and again in 1939. But after the conflict was over, Canada did not want and did not expect her pound of flesh. We wanted no territorial aggrandizement. We went there of our own free will, but never with any idea of benefiting territorially or geographically as far as the war was concerned. As was so well said this afternoon by the leader of the opposition, over one hundred thousand young Canadians are sleeping their last sleep on foreign soil; that is, on soil foreign to Canada. They were sacrificed on the altar of democracy and freedom. They went there because they knew they had to go in the name of the Canadian nation to defend the things which we hold dearest in our minds and in our souls.
In 1941, in front of the parliament buildings, nearly every evening for many months there was a trooping of the colours and a changing of the guard. Young soldiers from the various bodies of the armed forces-from the Royal Canadian Air Force, the army and the navy -were parading in front of the parliament buildings. I always made it a point to look

into the faces of those fine young men who were in their prime, in their mere adolescence. One could easily see that in their faces there was no hatred against the Germans or against anyone. They were at the threshold of their new life. All they wanted was the opportunity of living, working and loving. However, as the result of a situation not of our own creation, we were obliged to answer the call that was sent across the sea by Great Britain and France and our allies for the defence of democracy. We were obliged to go to defend their soil because in doing so we were defending our own.
At that time I remember asking myself this question: How many of those fine young men who belong to loving families will leave within a few days or even within a few weeks to go over to Europe in order to defend the things which we so greatly cherish; and how many of them will remain eternally under the sod of Europe; and how many of them will come back here mutilated for life or broken in health for the rest of their days? I make that statement because I know we all realize that not a single Canadian desired war. The same principle applies just as forcibly today as it did four, five or seven years ago. Canada will never desire war, but at the same time we understand what is our implicit duty. When democracy, freedom of worship and freedom of speech are challenged in any part of the world, we understand that we then become our brothers' keepers, and that we must of necessity help in that situation.
Does France desire war? France certainly does not desire war. An impartial study of what heroic France did from 1914 to 1918 shows that France lost almost an entire generation-five million men who sleep their last sleep in the sacred soil of France. After world war I, after the treaty of Versailles, she found out that she had suddenly become the bad actor in the play, when even the promises made by the United States of help in case of necessity, and even the promises made by Great Britain of help when France would be in danger, were taken away; and when those things were taken away from France, she began to despair.
Then in 1939, when the nations that had promised to give her help when help should be necessary, were not there, France found in her soul a lassitude which ultimately led to her defeat on the battlefield. France suffered in those years from 1914 to 1918. I know that we all realize and appreciate the heroic role that she played at that time, that she also played in the last war and is still playing at the present time. No, Mr. Speaker, France and the French people do not desire war. It is true that in the past France has
North Atlantic Treaty
been the battlefield of Europe, but she does not want that event to occur again. This generation does not desire to fill that role again. That is why I say that the Atlantic pact will do for France what the league of nations has not done for her from 1918 on. France must be realistic, because she has suffered in her soul. She has suffered in her national life, through the loss of life among her own sons, to such an extent that in 1939 she could not afford the sacrifices that were demanded of her in 1914-18.
Does Great Britain desire war? Some people said-and perhaps rightly-that prior to 1914 Great Britain was a satiated empire, meaning that she had all the territory that she desired, and a well-balanced economy. Her flag was flying on all the seas of the world. It was well said that the sun never set on her holdings. She did not desire war in 1914, but she was obliged to suffer to a great extent because of her territorial expansion throughout the world.
Great Britain did not desire war in 1939, because that fine and proud nation had to humiliate herself, go to Munich and practically kneel before Hitler, that dictator, and ask him for peace in our time. Great Britain knew that the situation was dangerous but she did not flinch. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Great Britain and her people who were, for over one year when she was alone, the only human rampart against the hordes of barbarism from across the strait of Dover. She not only suffered loss of wealth, but she suffered through her people, her young children, the sick-she suffered in her cities and towns, in her dales and valleys-in every section.
I had always been skeptical to a certain extent when anyone mentioned to me the bulldog spirit when we were speaking of the British people. But there was a clear demonstration of the real bulldog spirit during the last war, because I maintain that it was only because of that spirit that she was able to stand, when she was for over one year alone, against the hordes of Hitler and Mussolini. No, Great Britain cannot desire war. All she desires at the present time is peace in every section of the world. Great Britain will be signing the Atlantic pact because she wants to be left to herself to develop her own culture, to work out her own way of living and of civilization. This will not be allowed again, because we must remember this. We must be realists. During the last war many British, United States and Canadian newspapers were asking and begging the British government and the British royal family to come onto Canadian soil. In that instance,
2084

North Atlantic Treaty
in my view, a providential power in national politics raised up Winston Churchill who led that fine nation eventually to victory. Great Britain herself cannot afford the terrific blood bath that she had to go through from 1939 to 1945.
Take the Netherlands. That fine little nation had no quarrel with the world during the last conflict. By blood ties she was closely affiliated with Germany to some extent. She was supposed to be outside of the war highways in Europe, but what happened to that fine little nation? All you have to do at the present time is to look at the horrible holocaust and the near destruction of Amsterdam which was visited on her by the hordes of barbarism coming from Berlin who tried to destroy that nation. Prior to 1939 the Netherlands, like some other neutral nations, did not realize the dangers which existed at the time not only to her but to other neutral nations who tried to live by themselves without the support of other nations. They were playing into the hands of the aggressors, as are other neutral nations who speak only of neutrality without trying to take part in the pact which we are discussing at the present time, which is a pact for their own salvation, and to all democratic nations.
What happened to Belgium? For many years France, although thinking that she was strong in her Maginot line, made appeal after appeal to the fine Belgian people, whose king and his army remained within the borders of Belgium during war number one. He did not leave his own soil. He remained on a little piece of his own soil away from his capital for over four years. Certainly Belgium does not desire war at the present time. Through a terrific and costly lesson Belgium has learned, as have other smaller or bigger neutral countries, that she cannot remain by herself.
Did Norway ever expect that because of her situation in Europe the nazis would ever have the audacity or the thought of invading her? What happened without any provocation of any kind from Norway? Without any hint whatever that they were going to be foully attacked, the first thing they knew was that they were under the bondage of Hitler and his hordes. Although Norway is in a very difficult and delicate situation at the present time she is going to be one of the signatories of the Atlantic pact.
Luxembourg is a very small nation; that is, small in numbers it is true; but these nations carry with them the same national pride as the bigger nations have. The same thing happened to Luxembourg in 1914.
[Mr. Bradette.l
Luxembourg suffered on her own soil. She endured great losses of human life, and of material destruction.
I now come to Italy. I am glad of the fact that the Italian government and the Italian upper house have passed the Atlantic treaty and that Italy is sending her representative to Washington, because she is realizing the dangers and the deadly threats that a dictatorship has to a fine nation like herself. I know that she will be welcomed by the nations who are going to sign at Washington in a few days. Perhaps this is not the time to say this, but I hope that in the not far distant future the Italian nation will be part of the United Nations organization.
May I say one word about Denmark? Denmark will also be a signatory. She has suffered. She had no quarrel with the German people; she had no quarrel with the rest of the world. Those fine, industrious people, who are making a comfortable living in a section of Europe in which any other nation would, I believe, experience near famine, were crushed and almost pulverized under the heel of Hitler. She has realized also, as have some of the other smaller nations, that her salvation resides in a pact of this kind, because all real democracies will combine their resources for the protection of those who need it.
I have no time to read article 2, but I believe it carries within itself a message which will be considered by the signatories, and which will also be discussed. On second thought I think I shall read it. It reads as follows:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
I lay special emphasis on the two words "economic policies". Are we going to fall into the same pitfall as we did after 1918? It seems to me that as far as the economic condition is concerned, we are following the same dangerous line as we did three years after world war I, when we saw the jigsaw puzzle erected by all the nations of the world: higher and higher tariffs, embargoes and trade restrictions. When we saw that, we all knew that there was danger, because an economic war generally brings on a martial war. There is always danger when you stop, if not entirely, the free flow of goods into every section of the world. There is danger that somebody will suffer or some nation will be hurt internally, and in most instances this leads to armed conflict. Mr. MARCH 28, 1949
Speaker, this situation exists more forcibly today than it did ten or fifteen years ago.
At the present time we speak in terms of the sterling area or of the dollar area, of barter and bilateral deals, and the startling effect of embargoes and trading inside the iron curtain, or expulsion for trading in the British colonial countries. I could go on enumerating many of the factors which in no time will show that at the present time we are in a real economic war. I hope, and I pray, that in the deliberations on the Atlantic pact it will be found possible to smooth out these economic frictions; that it will be possible to comprehend one another.
I am not a man who believes that absolute free trade is possible in the world, but when we have the restrictions that we see at the present time, I believe that the leading nations are sinning, and sinning very grievously as far as the economics of the world are concerned. It should even be possible to smooth out some of these pacts. I do not say this in any critical way, but I cannot understand why it is not possible for Great Britain to buy more from Canada and vice versa. I will go further. We have said, and we shall repeat it time and time again during the present discussion, that behind all our talk there is always in the back of our minds the war of ideology in which two worlds are involved. On the one side there is communism, and on the other there are what we call the free democracies of the world. But in my view, any nation that signs the Atlantic pact should be very careful, after having signed it, that, when it deals behind the iron curtain in commerce and in trade, the goods that are purchased, perhaps more cheaply than they can be obtained from the United States and Canada, are not produced at the cost of thousands of lives or at the cost of sweat and suffering without remuneration. I make an appeal also to our United States friends. Is it not possible to soften what we call the dollar area, the sound money area? Although not well versed in economics, I admire the great principles the United States has shown since the end of the last war, when she poured out her riches, her money, her American dollars to help rehabilitate Europe. But it is still past my comprehension when I note the disparity between the so-called American dollar area and the sterling area. Let me repeat that we must destroy to a large extent the economic barriers and embargoes I mentioned a moment ago, if we wish to find real peace, even within the nations of the Atlantic pact.
One word about article 10, which reads:
The parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European state in a position to further the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this
North Atlantic Treaty
treaty. Any state so invited may become a party to the treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the government of the United States of America. The government of the United States of America will inform each of the parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.
I take upon myself the responsibility, when dealing with that article, to mention a section of the world which, for the last ten years, has been treated unfairly by the rest of the world. I mention the Iberian peninsula, that great country of Spain, where live those fine, proud Spanish people.
Let everyone realize that in the United Nations the gates have been opened to all democratic nations of the world. But at the same time, on that score, there might be a play on words. Because as a delegate to the United Nations I often heard use of the word freedom, and reference made to free elections, tolerance in religion and real democracy- and more particularly were those references made by Mr. Vishinsky and Mr. Gromyko, and the Russian satellite representatives from behind the iron curtain. In my view those words in their mouths were simply prostitutions of things almost sacred.
At the same time I am of the opinion that the gates should be opened to some nations which in the future may prove that they are really democratic. Spain is really a democratic nation. But, if we want to study the situation carefully, let us see what happened there. Some cohorts from the soviet stage went there and polluted and poisoned her national political life. No matter what one may say, the so-called elections that they had before the insurrection were not free elections at all.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the Spanish nation. And let me say this at the present time, that I hold no brief for its head. I am not in favour of any totalitarian chief or master of any nation. But we must remember that if communism has been stopped short in that section of Europe it is due to the attitude of Franco and of the people who fought on his side. There can be no question about that.
I deeply deplore what happened to Archbishop Stepinac, and what happened only a few weeks ago to Cardinal Mindszenty. And as a Roman Catholic I deplore deeply what happened to those twelve fine ministers of Protestant churches in Bulgaria, whom we all know were not guilty of treason. When we hear of the persecution of any church, we must remember that persecution is a dangerous and cancerous growth, one that is very easily started and almost impossible to stop.
In 1938 in the town of Timmins I was invited by the Jewish population in that
208B

North Atlantic Treaty
section of the country to attend a meeting of protest against the persecution of Jews in Germany at that time. It was a vast rally. Present were Protestant ministers and leaders in all walks of life in the Porcupine district, including Catholic priests. When the time came for me to say a few words I said, "My friends, every Christian, every Canadian worthy of the name must of necessity deplore the persecution of Jewish people in Germany. But, to me, it goes still deeper than that; because one persecution leads to another."
This is true, because we know that even in Germany not only the Jews were persecuted. No; they were not satisfied with that. They persecuted the Lutheran church, the Catholic church, and the other Protestant churches in Germany.
Let me clarify my statement by saying that during the insurrection in Spain six thousand priests were killed by communists. There is not one Canadian man or woman who will assert that that was a right thing to do. It was a horrible thing to do. Those men were not given a chance to appear before courts of justice to account for what they had done. Then, twenty thousand churches were destroyed. Was there any danger to the communists in those churches? Yes, there was; because in the teachings of our Master there is a primary principle of charity, a principle never followed by communism-the principle of understanding and of charity.
On many occasions it was not possible to get the truth, so far as Spain was concerned. It is important in a time like this not to try to ignore that great nation, that proud people, but to give them an opportunity to come back again into the field of democracy. Eventually the people of Spain will find their equilibrium.
Let us never forget this, that that fine nation was used as a crucible by the communists, the nazis and the fascists. That fine Spanish nation lost over a million people in that conflict. During the last war, no matter what v.e may say, Spain was fair to our side. And hon. members need not take my word for it. During the insurrection Franco received help from the nazis and fascists, but he certainly received none from Great Britain or France.
During the last war, had Franco desired it he could easily have taken Gibraltar, for instance. Spain could easily have stabbed France in the back, just as Mussolini did when France fell by force of arms. But Franco did not do that.
Let me at this point read an article which appeared in the March 14, 1949, issue of Life magazine, which printed a portion of the

memoirs of Mr. Winston Churchill. No doubt, because of the marvellous work he accomplished, and his relations during the war when she was under deadly strain Mr. Churchill might to some extent be prejudiced -not against Spain, but against Franco. One must allow a certain latitude for some statements he may make in this instance. But I believe what he says will show what his sympathies were with respect to the Spanish people and even the government of Spain during the last conflict. He writes:
The attitude of Spain was of even more consequence to us than that of Vichy, with which it was so closely linked. Spain had much to give and even more to take away. We had been neutral in the sanguinary Spanish civil war. General Franco owed little or nothing to us but much-perhaps life itself-to the axis powers. Hitler and Mussolini had come to his aid. He disliked and feared Hitler. He liked and did not fear Mussolini. At the beginning of the world war Spain had declared, and since then strictly observed, neutrality.
General Franco's policy throughout the war was entirely selfish and cold-blooded. Gratitude to Hitler and Mussolini for their help never entered his head.
Nor, on the other hand, did he bear any grudge against England for the hostility of our left-wing parties. This narrow-minded tyrant only thought about keeping his blood-drained people out of another war.
His Majesty's government were quite content with this unheroic outlook. We wanted not only an unmolested Gibraltar, but the use of the anchorage of Algeciras for our ships and the use of the ground which joins the rock to the mainland for our ever-expanding air base. Nothing was easier than for the Spaniards to mount or allow to be mounted a dozen heavy guns in the hills behind Algeciras. They had the right to do so at any time, and, once mounted, they could at any moment be fired, and our naval and air bases would become unusable. The Rock might once again stand a long siege, but it would be only a rock.
I will pause there for a moment to point out the loyalty of the Spanish people in these circumstances. Let us suppose for a moment that the Spanish people had held Dover for many, many decades or centuries. What would the British people have said about a foreign power holding an integral part of the British soil? That principle applies just as forcibly to Spain because the Spanish people have shown it in the past and I know they will show it again in the future. They have been friends to the British people and to Great Britain as a whole. I continue to quote:
There was another very simple manner in which the Franco government could have struck us this destructive blow. They could have allowed Hitler's troops to traverse the peninsula, beseige and take Gibraltar for them, and meanwhile themselves occupy Morocco and French North Africa. However, as the Duke of Wellington wrote in April, 1820-
And I want hon. members to listen attentively to his words, because we can apply them to the so-called persecution of the church in Spain. I am not in favour of church persecution. This is what he had to say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will you allow me five minutes more?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I thank the members of the house, and I will not abuse their generosity. This is what he had to say:
'There is no country in Europe in the affairs of which foreigners can interfere with so little advantage as in those of Spain. There is no country in which foreigners are so much disliked, and even despised, and whose manners and habits are so little congenial with those of the other nations in Europe."
More and more, people here, as everywhere else in the world, desire to avoid war, but we have the realism to perceive when neutrality becomes impossible. All persons who are enlightened on the present international situation regret to hear, still, many sophisticated speeches in favour of neutrality, because they know perfectly well that this is the attitude that gives impetus and encouragement to Stalin to prepare an ideological, economical and military invasion of the world, profiting by the political divisions that exist in the midst of democratic nations.
The only possible way to defeat communist Russia is to demonstrate to her that the nations which so far have escaped her deadly embrace have decided to unite, in a league such as the Atlantic pact, as an efficacious protection against her. Only the adoption of such an attitude could inspire in Stalin an apprehension that would be for him the beginning of wisdom.
In my opinion, no one could reject this treaty now in preparation. It is certainly a most commendable one on all points. Its only aim is to maintain world peace within the framework of established international organizations against a war of aggression. It is a temporary measure that must be created as long as the present international institutions cannot function in a manner that will assure a pacific solution of the differences between nations.
I shall soon be finished. In an allocution delivered by His Holiness Pope Pius XII last Christmas, we find propounded the principles which justify the present treaty under discussion. Its first aim is a condemnation against any war of aggression. His Holiness said:
All war of aggression is a sin, a crime and an outrage against the majesty of God and the orderer of the world.
It is equally the affirmation of the duty of solidarity of nations in the case when one of
North Atlantic Treaty
them is the victim of an unjust aggression. On that subject His Holiness said:
A nation already menaced by an unjust aggression, or which is already its victim, cannot remain passively indifferent, if it wishes to think and behave as it is proper to Christians; with all the more reason, the solidarity of the family of nations forbids to others to comport themselves as simple spectators in an attitude of apathetical neutrality.
According to Pius XII such an indifference toward any war of aggression, which is totally foreign to the Christian spirit, has resulted only to encourage the fomenters of aggression, while it compelled the many nations left to themselves to continuously increase their armaments. The collectivity of nations has the obligation and the duty not to abandon a nation unjustly attacked, and the certitude that this duty will be met will serve to discourage the aggressor or, if the worst happens, its sufferings will be at least diminished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member say that Spain, under its present government, is in a position to further the principles of this treaty? I refer to article 10 of the pact. In other words, would the member say that under the present government of Spain she should be invited to join the pact?


Major James William Coldwell: As a democratic nation.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I prefaced that statement by saying that, within the United Nations organization membership at the present time, there are many nations that are not in a better position democratically than Spain is at the present time, but yet they are active members of the United Nations organization.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not an answer to my question.


Mr. Georges H. Heon (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, there is now before this house the text of a proposed pact officially designated as the North Atlantic security pact, slated for signature by our duly accredited mandataries during the first week of April next in Washington. We are asked, as elected representatives of the people, to express our approval thereof. In seeking the approval of the house prior to affixing its signature, the government is acting strictly as it should if we are to remain an active Christian democracy instead of becoming a totalitarian state. We could not honestly bind ourselves to safeguard "the freedom, common heritage and civilization" of the peoples participating in the treaty and "the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law" invoked in the preamble to the pact, unless we observed them in our midst.
Briefly the signatories to the treaty express therein their faith in the purpose and prin-

North Atlantic Treaty
ciples of the United Nations charter, their desire to live in peace with all peoples, settle their disputes by peaceful means, unite their efforts for collective defence, develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack on any of the signatories in Europe or North America, and if such an armed attack occurs, to take necessary action, including the use of armed force.
Clearly the proposed pact, which is unfortunately only regional in scope, since a plan of universal co-operation has failed through no fault of our own, is a determined effort to seek and maintain peace in our time; but bluntly, the pact also means war if an armed attack occurs against any signatory. We cannot, in good faith, sign the proposed treaty, unless we are fully prepared to honour our signature in peace and in war. It is well that our people as well as our potential enemies be amply warned of this last alternative, so that no one may ignore the responsibilities, guarantees, rights and dangers therein contained. We shall gain in prestige and respect both at home and abroad if our foreign policies, instead of being laid in secrecy, sentiment or political advantage, are based upon easily ascertainable and avowable moral and Christian concepts which all men of good faith will clearly understand.
In listening to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the distinguished Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), and the leaders of the other parties in the house give their explanations of this proposed North Atlantic pact, I could not help but reflect on the relentless march and evolution of Canada's foreign policies during the course of the last fifty years, and the tremendous responsibilities and obligations accruing therefrom. This evolution has not come without friction, conflicts, deep resentment and marked divergences of opinion. Our geographical and economic tensions, the different racial origins, traditions and culture of our two major groups, particularly the head-on collision of a rising nationalism with an obstinate colonialism, the slow but enduring Americanization of many Canadians, particularly of the younger generation, through the persistent influence of United States movies, literature, radio, business intercourse and methods, have all contributed to the shaping or rather the reshaping of our attitude toward international problems. Too many stupidities and unfounded accusations have been uttered by theorists and self-styled directors of the national conscience concerning isolationism and international organizations. The wheat must be separated from the chaff. We can have no other foreign policy which will be acceptable to all racial groups than one based upon the autonomy and
[Mr. Heon.l	.'
sovereignty of Canada; because without sovereignty there can be no true international law. What liberty is to the individual, autonomy and sovereignty are to a nation: a divine and fundamental right. But it carries with it the corresponding duty to reconcile sovereignty with the right to collective peace and progress in international society. Through sovereignty a nation decides freely upon its form of government; signs or abstains from signing treaties, alliances and pacts; declares and wages war; proclaims and enforces its neutrality; organizes efficient defence of its territory. Here again, however, there necessarily arises the duty of every nation, big or small, either alone or through pacts and alliances with other sovereign nations, to vigilantly safeguard, even at the price of war, the sovereign autonomous action of its chosen government.
Viewed thus, it is not isolationism for one to proclaim the autonomy and sovereignty of his country, but intelligent and reasoned patriotism. And if the absolute and atheistic dictators of Russia today had this conception of autonomy and sovereignty there would be no necessity, much less urgency, for a North Atlantic regional pact. However, because these saboteurs of international peace and friendliness acknowledge no obligation to either God or man and persist in their belief that the outside world is hostile and should be overthrown, no one must be led astray by the broad principle of sovereignty, nor distort its true meaning in the present world crisis. Let us not for a single moment forget that today sovereignty is not only invoked by the righteous nations who are weak, but by the powerful who are wrong, much as in the fable of the lamb and the wolf. I have no hesitation in asserting that each and every Canadian, whether of English or French or other racial descent, in my constituency and indeed in the whole province of Quebec, is anxious and willing to sacrifice to international sovereignty that portion of the national sovereignty which may appear necessary or useful not only to establish the reign and respect of righteousness but to secure it permanently by power with justice.
Apart from the considerations I have just mentioned, Mr. Speaker, there is another stark reality which is inescapable. After total effort in two world wars, at the cost of thousands upon thousands of precious human lives and a national debt which runs to almost astronomical figures, Canada has greatly increased its international stature. With the radical redistribution of world power brought by the late war, our country has become a strong middle power, with commensurate obligations and responsibilities. Through our allegiance to a common crown,

Canada is a member of the British commonwealth. Through our proximity to the mighty United States we are materially, economically and psychologically joined to them by the same problems of peace and security. Finally, through our little to be envied nearness to totalitarian, communistic Russia in the far north, we find ourselves in a most complicated if strategic position which calls for honesty, courage, cool-headedness, realism and prudence in the conduct of our international relations. It is not presumptuous to affirm, I think, that Canada always has been prepared to live in peace, security and justice with all its neighbours; but if one neighbour not only obstinately refuses co-operation but shows open hostility and a bellicose disposition, remaining largely mobilized while other friendly nations have disarmed to the point of danger, Canada cannot but join the other neighbours who share and cherish the same desire for peace, liberty and security.
One cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, that with the advent of atomic weapons, rockets, guided missiles, jets and other deadly and terrifying instruments of war, Canada has ceased to be "a fireproof house far from inflammable materials." We must, therefore, guard against an international conflagration.
There are other depressing certainties which, unhappily, are crystal clear and which command us to be on the alert. Our far northern neighbour, soviet Russia, is not only a police state but a military and militaristic one, whose basic and final ideology is world revolution by all or any means. The teachings of Marx, Lenin and Stalin are brutally frank and affirmative on this subject. The behaviour of soviet Russia at the council tables from the Russo-German treaty of 1939 to Teheran, Yalta, Potsdam, San Francisco and Lake Success, has been marked by deceit, trickery, unfriendliness and hostility.
The burglarizing tactics of soviet Russia towards Poland, Roumania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Hungary and eastern Germany; its bullying intimidation of gallant little Finland; the treacherous activities of such names as Thorez, Marty, Duclos, in France, and Togliatti, in Italy, and their carefully-timed joint statements that they would welcome the Russian army with open arms were it to invade their respective countries, constitute a direct threat to the peace and security of the Christian world which cannot remain unchallenged.
These tactics, threats and intimidation can and must be met by a coalition of the national strength of all those nations and peoples whose norm of international conduct is based on co-operation, peace and, con-
North Atlantic Treaty
sequently, security against war. Let us remember that "co-operation requires strength, while weakness can only appease and beg."
Mr. Speaker, there is another all-important issue which the proposed treaty should bring to our minds and consciences, particularly those of us who believe in and practise the Christian religion and its divine precepts. Those of us who have an unshakable belief that man is a creature of God with an eternal destiny should remember that moral and spiritual values should prevail over the material ones. The communistic policies which the Russian authorities have imposed on their own enslaved people, their chained satellite countries, and would impose upon the whole world if they could, are the philosophy of irreligion, atheistic materialism and are therefore intrinsically wicked.
One has only to refer at random to the many lucubrations of the founders of the present Russian regime to became convinced that that is so. In 1844, for instance, Marx had written:
The true happiness of the people requires that religion be suppressed.
Lenin, as quoted by Bezbojnik in September 1935, has affirmed that:
Any idea of religion or conception of God is an abominable thing. Marxism is essentially materialistic and therefore relentlessly opposed to religion.
In his "A.B.C. of Communism", Nicholas Boukharine writes:
Religion and communism are as incompatible In theory as in practice.
Without a doubt, however, the grand prize goes to one whom an unsuspecting and overconfident U.S. president nicknamed Uncle Joe Stalin. In 1936, this "Uncle Joe" made the following statement:
We consider religion as our worst enemy, and the struggle against it must be relentlessly pursued, because there can be no compromise with religion whose purposes are diametrically opposed to ours.
As if to substantiate these various affirmations of anti-religious policies, the communist leaders of today have in the course of the last two years imprisoned Archbishop Stepi-nac, Cardinal Mindszenty, and numerous Protestant clergymen, after mock trials and sordid procedure.
Mr. Speaker, bitter disillusion has now replaced our cherished illusions; the masks have fallen and the godlessness of our erstwhile ally is self-evident. With the yet unchecked advance of the forces of irreligion and atheistic materialism, avowedly bent on destroying those essential Christian principles and institutions, moral and spiritual values in which we believe and on which our whole way of life, autonomy and sovereignty are based, Canada like other Christian God-believing and God-fearing nations, must

North Atlantic Treaty
remain relentlessly firm and vigilant in the containment of these satanic forces. True, we should not lightly throw stones at the communistic adultresses abroad because our own individual, social and international consciences are not without sin. Our norm of morality has not been always equal to the precepts of the divine Peace-Maker which we are now called upon to uphold and defend. We must be courageous enough, however, and sufficiently spiritually-conscious to unhesitatingly choose the Christian way instead of the other.
It is to be deeply regretted that, the sacredness and righteousness of our cause being so evident, those who drafted the United Nations charter and the projected North Atlantic treaty did not see fit to insert at least once in the text the words "God", "eternal destiny of man", "spiritual and moral values". The preamble to the proposed pact would be strengthened if it contained the following assertion of faith:
They believe in God, the eternal destiny of man, and the safeguarding of moral and spiritual values.
The proposed North Atlantic treaty, although reticent in its text and only regional in its scope, affords at least partial assurance against the further progress of evil forces. It behooves all Canadians, therefore, in all the provinces without exception, to approve and support it.
It has been suggested in an official communique appearing in the press of March 19, 1949, that Canada hail with enthusiasm the proposed North Atlantic treaty. One cannot easily enthuse over the admission of failure by the security council of the United Nations to discharge its primary obligation of maintaining international peace and security, and the belated acknowledgment that Russia, by its abuse of the veto, never wanted an effective international enforcement agency. How can one enthuse over the apparent failure of an organization on which the civilized world had pinned its hopes for enduring peace, and over the confession of our statesmen that they have mistakenly relied on the good faith of a regime that has, from its inception, openly admitted as its goal world revolution, destruction of the Christian faith and the "construction of a communist society"?
It is my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the thoughts of my constituents and of the people of the province of Quebec as to the treaty now before us for approval can be summarized as follows: Although we believe and will always believe in the autonomy and sovereignty of Canada and its exclusive and absolute right to decide-unhampered, unthreatened and unfettered-which course it should follow in the realm of international
affairs, we shall fully approve, not with enthusiasm nor gladness in our hearts but with a deep sense of responsibility towards our fellowmen and ourselves, the North Atlantic treaty. We shall do so, not only to ensure the integrity of our territory, our political independence and our autonomy, but especially to underline our deep attachment to the Christian principles which should guide nations as well as individuals; our religious beliefs; our unshakable faith in the eternal destiny of mankind and the superiority of spiritual and moral values over the material. And because in Quebec, we remain unashamed to pray, we shall pray that the full implementation of the treaty will bring to our world peace, freedom and security.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, by concluding in French I only wish to do my humble share to encourage this praiseworthy and growing habit of introducing more French in the debates of the House of Commons. I wish to emphasize that the province of Quebec is being wrongly accused of hostility towards the North Atlantic pact or of trying to isolate itself in its small corner of the country, as is sometimes said. My fellow citizens perfectly understand the present international situation. They came freely to the conclusion that the pact will protect their sovereignty and autonomy as well their religious, political and cultural institutions. I can state without fear of being mistaken, Mr. Speaker, that all Canadians of the province of Quebec, whatever be their racial origin, will unanimously approve this pact.


Mr. Frederic Dorion (Charlevoix-Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to state very clearly my attitude on this question, which is generally acknowledged to be the most important of any that have been submitted to this house. The Atlantic treaty carries with it consequences of the utmost gravity for the signatory nations, consequences which will affect the economy of our country and the very life of our countrymen, especially those who may be called upon to serve in our armed forces.
Because of the well-known objective of the Kremlin, because of the manifest desire of the communists to spread their ideology throughout the world by any and every means, because of their refusal to co-operate with other nations in the establishment of an enduring peace, which is the goal of all civilized nations, and, more than anything, because of the real danger of sudden armed aggression against one or more of the countries which are not under communist control,
[Mr. Heon.J

an aggression which would not fail to spread to our shores, wherever it may have originated, there is no doubt that we are duty-bound to subscribe to the pact.
There is no doubt, that what has made this treaty necessary has been the failure of the United Nations to give us the results and the protection we had expected.
And now, Mr. Speaker, may I refer in passing to a previous debate on the external policy of this country which took place exactly four years ago when we were called upon to voice our feelings in the matter of Canada's participation in the San Francisco conference.
To the great dismay of many hon. members,
I had submitted that the organization then being set up could not give satisfactory results. I now quote the words I used on that occasion:
What reason have we to believe that the proposed conference at San Francisco will offer any better guarantee of results than did previous ones?
I believe that, not only does this conference fail to offer better expectations but, because of its very organization, it cannot avoid driving the world to anything but another war.
All hon. members know that the conference will be controlled by only the three powers. These are the three powers which at present are fighting alongside each other-but for how long? What would become of the conference if tomorrow one of those three great powers happened to disagree with either of the other two?
If the powers controlling the conference could all be described as democratic powers, we might possibly entertain some hopes: but when we know that the one which up to now has imposed its will upon all the others is a dictatorial power, exactly like those against which we are now fighting, we are not very hopeful nor can we rely very much on the results which may flow from the conference.
Then, when we see that Poland, the country which should have been the first to be asked to participate in the conference, and for whose safety our country was drawn into the war, is not only cast aside but has been broken to pieces in order to please that dictator, who is about not only to control the conference but also to govern all Europe after the war, we have serious cause for concern.
The events we are witnessing today clearly show, in my estimation, that we were right in entertaining certain fears at that time.
Thus a few days ago, at a press conference, Mr. Dean Acheson, United States secretary of state, said this:
(Text):
The United Nations, he said, is not working as effectively as we hoped because one of its members has attempted to prevent it from working.
(Translation):
Today, when we are entering upon a new road, I wish to point out that the pact to which we shall be a party involves certain dangers, certain deficiencies which should
North Atlantic Treaty
have been avoided if we wish to obtain for the world the results we expect.
The first thing that impresses us, as pointed out just now by the member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), is the materialistic spirit in which this treaty seems to have been conceived.
I do not see any reason why the countries signing that treaty, all of which were Christian, had not seen fit to place the agreement under the protection of divine Providence.
Those who wish to protect themselves against communism, to spare the people the hardships and the suffering engendered by that doctrine are unmindful of the fact that the fight against evil requires the help of God from Whom all that is good proceeds. Complaints are voiced against the persecutions now conducted against religions behind the iron curtain. We are told that once again Christendom must be saved. That being so, let no one hesitate to proclaim the principles to be defended and to request the assistance of the Supreme Being.
Down to the end of the last century, no treaty of any importance was signed by sovereign states without the signatories expressing their faith in divine Providence.
For instance, if we look at the first treaty of Paris, which was signed on September 26, 1815, by Austria, Prussia and Russia, we find that the preamble contains the following words:
Their Majesties, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia, as a consequence of the important events which have occurred during the past three years in Europe, and especially as a result of the blessings lavished upon these by divine Providence wherein these states place their hope and confidence, etc, etc.
Several other states subsequently joined the first three signatories. On being invited to sign the treaty Great Britain informed other nations that her constitution would not permit her to take part in it. The Prince Regent, later King George IV, wrote to the three monarchs stating that he wholeheartedly approved the principles put forth to the effect that the divine rules of Christian religion should guide their conduct. He added that he made it a point to put those principles into practice.
Some time later, on November 20, 1815, following the Napoleonic adventure known in history as "The Hundred Days", another treaty was signed at Vienna by Austria, Spain, France, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia and


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand the minister is closing the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think I have that privilege, but I should be glad to close the debate, if that is the wish of the house.


Mr. Pouliot:: Just a moment, on a point of order. It is only the mover of the motion who can close the debate. I do not see how the Secretary of State for External Affairs can close the debate, when it was the Prime Minister who moved the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Temis-couata is right. The motion has been made by the Prime Minister, and the debate should be closed by him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the discussion of this resolution has been encouraging; indeed it has been an inspiring example, if I may say so, of parliamentary unity, and a reflection of national unity in a fundamental question of international policy. It has shown that no matter how vigorously we may differ on domestic matters-as we should, in a healthy democracy-in the house and in the country we face as a united people the problems of peace and collective security.
Those who have the privilege of signing this treaty for Canada next week will, in fact as well as in theory, sign it as the representatives-and indeed servants-of the parliament of Canada and the whole people of Canada, except those of communist belief who clamour and scramble on the fringes of our national life.
Tonight I wish to say a few words about the background leading up to this draft treaty and, if I may, explain as briefly as possible the articles of the draft text, during which time I hope to deal with one or two of the matters raised by previous speakers.
At the end of the second world war, as has already been pointed out in the house, relief that the terrible struggle had been brought to a victorious end was combined with the determination that the disaster should not be repeated. The free people of the world, at shattering cost and desperate suffering, had defended or regained their liberties. They

North Atlantic Treaty
had vindicated the faith that lay behind their political institutions and proved the strength of their democratic way of life. They now demanded, in terms that could not be mistaken by any government, that in the future trial by such hard ordeal should not again be necessary. As they surveyed a background of the years of war through which they had come, they saw many occasions when the free nations, if they had acted in harmony and in strength, might have dissipated the danger of German aggression without war. Too late they discovered that the tools which might have meant their salvation had been ready to their hands, if they had only had the courage to use them.
The last war, then, taught us at least this one lesson, that the nations must act together to keep the peace, and, as the instrument for such collective action, some effective international organization must be set up.
The first consequence of this lesson was the founding of the United Nations. The charter, signed at San Francisco in 1945, is a long and complicated document, but its purpose is simple. Member states agree to act together; to resist aggression wherever it may occur; to co-operate for the purpose of removing the causes of war. In the United Nations they established an international agency which they thought at that time would be satisfactory for these purposes. But as has already been pointed out by more than one speaker today, the mood of 1945 was too optimistic. It was natural, then, that the nations which by their united effort had won the greatest war in history against the most ruthless and determined enemy that man had up to that time known should believe that they could accomplish what must have seemed at that time to be the easier task of maintaining peace.
Unhappily, however, the basic requirements for the full success of the United Nations did not carry over from war to peace. The unity of the great powers, upon which almost everything depended, was soon eaten away by the acids of post-war controversy. At the war's end a dozen or more great and contentious political issues rose from the political confusion of western Europe and eastern Asia. Basically these problems could all be reduced to one great question: How far would the soviet union go in exploiting the post-war situation so as to extend its territory and increase its might? That question was no idle speculation. We had seen the boundaries of Russia extended, first in 1939 and 1940 at the expense of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland. And as the war went on it became clear that the promise of freedom to Poland would not include those eastern Polish provinces which were in fact eventually sur-
rendered by Poland to the U.S.S.R. After the war, parts of Roumania, Czechoslovakia and Hungary were added to the U.S.S.R. so that by 1945 the boundaries of the soviet union had been pushed farther to the west than ever before in Russian history.
Not content with this expansion, the U.S.S.R. then proceeded to surround itself with a group of satellite governments; imposing its will upon neighbouring peoples through local communist parties supported by Russian forces. The list alone of these captive regimes is evidence of the coercion which created them. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) pointed out this afternoon, who could believe that the Poles, a people who for centuries with courage and resolve had fought against all comers for their freedom, would submit of their own free will to soviet control? For one hundred years the insistent demand for freedom of the Roumanians, Hungarians, Bulgars, Czechs and the Slovaks had been one of the strongest forces in European history. Only when it has been suppressed by ruthless physical superiority has this force lain dormant. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we already see in Yugoslavia a sign that the peoples of eastern Europe are beginning to realize that the yoke that has been laid upon them is heavy, degrading and unbearable. The one border territory which has managed effectively to maintain its independence is Finland, but even there the long and menacing hand of Moscow threatens dire punishment if the slightest soviet interest seems to be prejudiced.
The tight control which the U.S.S.R. has established by these oppressive means in eastern Europe has been given a false facade of international respectability by treaty arrangements. The soviet government, and communists throughout the world, have been charging that the proposed Atlantic treaty is an offensive threat aimed at them. But they had no hesitation in initiating and negotiating, by other methods it is true, collective treaty arrangements in eastern Europe long before the Atlantic treaty was even considered. We are not sure how many of these treaties and agreements there are amongst the communist states, because, in spite of the terms of the United Nations charter, only a very few of them have been registered with the United Nations. So far as we can tell, however, there are over fifty treaties and agreements amongst the group of communist states comprising the U.S.S.R., Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Roumania and Bulgaria. These are variously termed treaties for friendship and mutual assistance, co-operation and mutual assistance, collaboration and mutual aid, economic collaboration and reciprocal delivery of goods, trade and payment.

Their total effect, however, is to spread a thick net of political and economic commitment over the areas under domination of the soviet union.
In the presence of the problems created by this soviet expansion, what could we expect of an international organization like the United Nations which was based on the assumed unanimity of the great powers? How could there be any unity about the way in which the United Nations was to fulfil its basic function and protect the security of its members when this soviet communist expansion was the greatest threat to such security? Since we can find no immediate or satisfactory answer to these important questions we must consider how best to defend our own soil and maintain our heritage of liberty and law.
In the company of like-minded peoples we tried to find means by which the free world, of which this nation is a part, can remain free. More important still, we tried to find a way to work with other nations to search out and remove the causes of war. The North Atlantic treaty, the draft of which is before the house, is the present answer to these demands. It is the step which we can take now while we try to bring about conditions in which the United Nations can fully perform the functions for which it is designed.
The objects of this draft treaty are very simple and straightforward. In it the nations of the North Atlantic community will agree to pool their resources in the face of common danger. By doing so they will greatly increase world stability and the chance of lasting peace, for once this treaty is made effective further aggression against any of its members cannot be undertaken with any hope of success.
The North Atlantic nations have by this draft treaty decided to put an end to the casual and piecemeal destruction of freedom which has taken place when free states stood separately against aggression. By taking a stand now they may make unnecessary a desperate stand later like that of 1940. That year of danger and dread must never be forgotten. Is there anyone in Canada, no matter where he lives or what language he speaks; no matter what religious belief he holds or what political party he follows, who does not recall with dismay the events of June, 1940? France was prostrate and the whole vast continental area from Bordeaux to Vladivostok had fallen under the control of two mighty totalitarian powers in temporary evil partnership. Staunch and steadfast Britain alone stood between ourselves and the formidable military power of nazi Germany. Those twenty miles separating the German armies
North Atlantic Treaty
from the white cliffs of Dover, from the last free country in western Europe, were more important, so far as our safety was concerned, than the whole wide Atlantic ocean. Never was the future of this country in such peril. Those few miles of channel alone kept the war from our shores. This is the dire extremity which must never be allowed to recur. We can prevent it first by removing the causes of conflict, and secondly by demonstrating beyond any shadow of doubt to any possible aggressor that, if he takes a step against any member of this North Atlantic community of nations which are pledging faith to one another, he will face the total and unremitting efforts of all until he stops his aggression.
It is not enough, however, simply to stand on guard. Active and not merely passive defence is essential. In the long run peace can be assured only in a stable world; stability is reached when economic conditions are improving, when trade flows freely, when political problems are being solved by consultation among states determined to settle them peacefully. Security is a commodity produced as much-indeed, possibly more,- by economic well-being as by military preparedness, as was pointed out this afternoon by the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Cold-well). We must, therefore, co-operate as effectively to achieve the former as the latter. Security is also produced when men know that other men share and understand their basic beliefs. This is also something that we shall seek among the states which sign the North Atlantic treaty. They inherit common traditions, and the political and social practices they follow spring from a common background. The faith they have in the validity of their free institutions is strong, and it will be strengthened by the pledge which they are now giving to each other to maintain and defend them. Daily we see these beliefs attacked and defamed by the advocates of an alien, dictatorial, political creed-communism. The power of the communists, wherever that power flourishes, depends upon their ability to suppress and destroy the free institutions that stand against them. They pick them off one by one: the political parties, the trade unions, the churches, the schools, the universities, the trade associations, even the sporting clubs and the kindergartens. The North Atlantic treaty is meant to be a declaration to the world that this kind of conquest from within will not in future take place amongst us.
The purpose of the proposed treaty, therefore, is to increase the security of the North Atlantic community, and at the same time to make more effective the efforts of this group of states to remove the economic and

North Atlantic Treaty
political causes ol war. That is why this pact is an instrument of peace. It will promote those conditions of stability and security in which peace flourishes. Nor does it in any way conflict with the charter of the United Nations. So far as this government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it pledges itself not to take part in any activity under the North Atlantic treaty which contravenes the principles and purposes of the United Nations charter, or which is provocative or aggressive in character. I am sure the other governments which will sign this treaty can also give the same pledge. The aims and purposes of the North Atlantic treaty are precisely the same as those stated in the charter; and the effect of the proposed alliance can strengthen the United Nations by creating conditions in which it can do more effective work.
Canada's support of this pact, therefore, is not in any sense a change in our policy toward the United Nations and what it stands for. The Canadian government still hopes that the problems of post-war settlement, which have prevented the United Nations becoming what it was originally intended to become, may be solved. We hope, moreover, that the United Nations itself will contribute toward that solution. So far negotiations, either inside or outside the United Nations, on the major issues which divide the U.S.S.R. from the rest of the world have produced, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) pointed out this afternoon, little but failure and frustration. No doors are closed, however, and no one has permanently left the council table. So far as this government is concerned, no process of negotiation is too onerous and no conference too tedious that will lead toward settlement. We are prepared to support every effort in every council, every conference, committee, working group or whatever agency of negotiation may be suggested, to solve the problems which exist between the western world and the soviet union. More than that, we believe that by these methods the long-term problem of security can best be solved. But in the meantime the North Atlantic treaty will serve as an instrument which, by strengthening the position of the free democracies, will make it possible for them to use the United Nations with greater confidence and more hope of success.
The negotiations leading to the preparation of the draft treaty now before the house commenced about ten months ago in Washington. A series of exploratory and noncommittal meetings were held in that capital. In these meetings, which were attended by members of the United States state department and the ambassadors in Washington of

the interested governments, the draft text of the treaty was worked out. As is always the case when drafts are worked out by representatives of many governments, the text and indeed the ideas in the text represent compromises and the highest possible measure of agreement between representatives of differing governments. The preparation of this treaty, I think, is an admirable demonstration of the way in which foreign affairs should be conducted amongst democratic countries. While the discussions in Washington have been confidential, their general purpose and the principles behind them have been well known to the public in all the countries concerned. Each participating government has been able to test public opinion in its own country as the agreement was being formulated. In this country there have been frequent public references to the negotiations which were proceeding in Washington. The government has missed no opportunity to tell the public that a draft treaty was being prepared and that the Canadian government was participating actively in this work of preparation. We have also given a clear indication of the purposes of the treaty and the nature of the commitments which would be involved, as the work was going on.
At the same time, however, the men who actually participated in the discussions and the governments who instructed these men, have been free from day-to-day public comment on the specific details as opposed to the principles under consideration. In the result, it has been possible to reach a conclusion generally satisfactory to all parties in the give and take of private discussion, without the difficulties which often arise when the early stages of delicate, detailed international negotiations are conducted in public. Honest differences of opinion, when they occurred in the afternoon, did not become sensational world headlines in the six o'clock editions, and of course there is nothing more difficult for a democratic government to abandon than a headline. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is often somewhat difficult for certain governments to get headlines.
It seems to me, then, that the preparation of the North Atlantic alliance has admirably combined the virtues of classical and confidential diplomacy with free and open discussion of the general principles under consideration. We have now reached the stage of discussion in parliament prior to signature of the treaty. The result of all this will be an open covenant privately negotiated but publicly debated and decided.
At this point I should like to direct the attention of the house to the actual text of the treaty. On another occasion, when we discuss the treaty before ratification, I shall

be able to go into this matter probably in somewhat greater detail than is possible or desirable tonight, but if I may I should like to take up the treaty article by article and give the house the government's interpretation of the various articles before this resolution is dealt with.
There is first a brief and simple statement of the purposes of the states which propose to sign the treaty. I admit that in one or two respects the language of that preamble could be improved, and I admit also that there are some omissions from the preamble which might well have been filled in. But, as I have said, this is a text which represents the highest measure of agreement among a number of governments who negotiated it.
After the preamble, then, in article 1 the states reaffirm the pledge they gave in the United Nations charter, to settle by peaceful means all international disputes and differences in which they may be involved. Here is a clear statement of the peaceful intention and strictly defensive nature of this alliance, and I think it proper that it should be put in the first article of the draft treaty. By signing the charter every member of the United Nations has already given a solemn pledge to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The states which will sign the North Atlantic treaty believe in this pledge and will respect it to the letter.
We come now to article 2. The second article of the treaty is one of particular interest to the government of Canada. Under this article, the member states promise to strengthen their free institutions, and to bring about among their own people and the peoples of other countries a better understanding of the principles upon which those free institutions are founded. They also undertake to promote conditions of stability and well-being and to seek to eliminate international economic conflict within the North Atlantic community.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that any sinister or dangerous interpretation can be read into those words. Surely, they can be taken at face value. The face value seems to me to make it quite clear that all we are trying to do in those words is to take a pledge that we will do our best to remove economic conflict in our international economic policy. It is a pledge, if you like, for co-operation in economic policies to the greatest extent possible and subject, of course, to our complete control over our own economic policies. It is hoped that by this co-operation we will help create, not only in the the North Atlantic community but throughout the world, a pro-
North. Atlantic Treaty
gressive and prosperous society in which peace and security can flourish.
Positive and constructive consequences will, we hope, flow from article 2 of the treaty. It is by virtue of this part of the agreement that the nations of the North Atlantic community will work together to strengthen the common foundations upon which society rests in the western world. The Brussels powers in their treaty took the same kind of pledge a year ago, and have already taken effective steps to implement that pledge. I hope that under this article the nations of the North Atlantic community will undertake every practical step to promote the social progress of the western world. As has been stated by more than one speaker today, communism feeds on discontent and injustice which it stirs up without providing any real answer to the problems it exploits. A resolute and vigorous assault on these problems where they exist in the western world will be possible, I hope, under the North Atlantic treaty.
I shall deal with articles 3 and 4 next. By article 3 of the treaty the member states agree to strengthen the capacity of each member of the group to resist armed attack. This is based on the principle which proved so effective during the recent war, the principle of self-help and mutual aid. The term "mutual aid" is understood to mean the contribution by each party, consistent with its geographic location and resources and with due regard to the requirement of economic recovery, of such aid as it can reasonably be expected to contribute in the form in which it can most effectively furnish it; for example, facilities, manpower, productive capacity or military equipment.
Article 4 contains a pledge that the states which sign the treaty will consult together if the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any one of them is threatened. I suggest that this is a forward-looking document which takes account of the realities of the modern world. Article 3 underlines the preventive character of the agreement and so does article 4. We should not forget, as we have been reminded during this discussion, that the greater danger to a state today may arise, not from troops violating the frontiers, but from action committees overthrowing the government.
Czechoslovakia, as has already been pointed out, did not fall because of an armed attack. No war was declared and no frontiers were crossed. No bombs were dropped, yet the fate of Czechoslovakia was as clear a case of aggression as one could find in history.

North Atlantic Treaty
Article 4 of this treaty provides that the members of the North Atlantic community shall consult together about this new and sinister kind of danger, indirect aggression. This does not mean that they propose to interfere in each other's internal affairs or hinder the healthy political growth of any member of the group. They will be able, however, to co-operate with a view to ensuring that no temporary difficulty in any state is exploited to impose by force a communist or, indeed, a fascist regime against the wishes of its people and with aid from outside.
We come now, Mr. Speaker, to article 5, which is really the heart of this draft treaty. Article 5 contains the most serious commitment which is placed on the states that signed this alliance. Should the treaty fail to achieve its main purpose, which is peace, article 5 will come into effect. If, in spite of our precautions, there is an armed attack on any of the parties in either Europe or North America, all the members of the group will assist the one which is attacked. Each will do so, and I quote from this article:
-by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
It is specifically provided that action under this clause shall cease as soon as the security council is able to take measures under the charter to restore international peace.
Under this treaty, then, each North Atlantic nation declares that it will in future consider an armed attack against any one of its allies as an armed attack against its own territory. An armed attack against one will be an armed attack against all. That does not mean that Canada would be automatically at war if one of our allies were attacked. We would, however, be bound, in company with the other members of the alliance, to take promptly the action which we deemed necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
I have heard no one suggest that the full weight of the North Atlantic alliance will be brought into play over some minor event of little consequence. In whatever action is necessary, however, we agree to play our proper part in co-operation with the others to restore peace. This action on our part may be small or it may be great; it may be brief or it may be of long duration. We shall have to decide upon it in terms of the situation which makes it necessary and the end to be achieved.
To be properly understood, I suggest that the commitment under this article should be compared with others which Canada has been prepared to take. Such a comparison

has already been made during this discussion. When we entered into war with Germany and Japan, the Canadian people accepted a commitment far more general, far more exacting than those imposed by the terms of this treaty. The charter of the United Nations also imposes on us an extensive commitment. Article 43 of the charter provides that military agreements shall be entered into by the member states for the purpose of placing military force at the disposal of the security council. Once those military agreements have been completed, we shall be committed in this country to giving military support to the United Nations at the call of the security council. We are, moreover, bound to do more than that in obedience to the decision for the security council. As you know, the charter gives that council the right to impose economic or financial measures, blockades, or other forms of sanction short of war. I think it is important, therefore, to point out that the commitments which we undertake in this North Atlantic treaty are, in fact, commitments which we have already accepted in the United Nations charter and commitments which we have already taken very seriously indeed, as is shown by statements which the Canadian delegation has made at United Nations meetings. We have already recognized then, by our statements and by our actions, that peace is not kept and freedom is not preserved-as the leader of the opposition suggested so wisely this afternoon- merely by wishing for them or by signing peace pacts. We are a realistic people and we know that safety is not gained without effort. I know, and you know, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people have been willing in the past, and will be in the future, to make that effort.
I need hardly add that if, in spite of our efforts to keep the peace, some member of this alliance is attacked and we are called upon to fulfil our commitments, this country, this parliament and this government will act with the necessary determination and dispatch. So far as this government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, in the face of a national emergency so grave as to call into force our commitments under this pact, it would immediately desire to consult parliament. This has now become a regular procedure in our history, and no one of course would wish to depart from it. No government could fulfil the responsibility which action under this treaty would impose without being certain of the support of the people of this country expressed through their representatives in parliament.
The remaining articles of the treaty define and amplify the articles I have already men-

tioned. Article 6 is a definition of the area within which the treaty has application. It reads as follows:
For the purpose of article 5 an armed attack on one or more of the parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the territory of any of the parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian departments of France, on the occupation forces of any party in Europe, on the islands under the jurisdiction of any party in the North Atlantic area north of the tropic of Cancer or on the vessels or aircraft in this area of any of the parties.
The effect of this article, therefore, is to limit the territory covered, and the obligation, to the North Atlantic area. It does not include colonial possessions or other territory outside the area which is defined.
Article 7 is a further statement of the purpose of the North Atlantic states to play their part as loyal members of the United Nations.
Then we come to article 8, which seemed to cause a certain anxiety in the mind of the leader of the Social Credit group when he made his distinguished speech on the draft treaty this afternoon. In article 8 the signatory states undertake to enter into no other obligations which conflict with this treaty. That is a normal and, I think, a useful provision in security treaties of this kind. It does not have the effect, Mr. Speaker- as I believe some hon. members have feared -of incorporating any other international agreements into the North Atlantic treaty or of giving any added sanction whatever to those agreements. As I understand it- and I certainly think I understand the interpretation that has been given to it by those who have negotiated this arrangement-it is merely a declaration of fact, and of intention, that the parties have not made, or will not make, any treaties or secret arrangements which are in conflict with the pacific purposes of this pact.
Article 9, to which I attach great importance, provides for the setting up of a North Atlantic council through which activities under the alliance shall be arranged. It further provides that the council shall set up whatever subsidiary bodies prove to be necessary: in particular, it shall establish immediately a defence committee.
In the North Atlantic council all the members of the group will be equally represented. Through it the democratic process of reaching agreement through negotiation, discussion and compromise will be carried out. In the event of emergency, the council will also be the instrument for deciding what policies shall be recommended to the members of the group. It is one thing for a group of states to accept, as we do under this draft treaty, common responsibilities, each undertaking its fair share in discharging them, and
North Atlantic Treaty
indeed in adding to or subtracting from them. It is, however, quite a different thing for one, two or three states to make decisions which may have far-reaching consequences for all countries and all peoples, and then one, two or three of them to ask other countries to jump in and help in solving the problems which those decisions have created. There are, no doubt, times when the requirements for consultation, for discussion and for co-operative action must be subordinated to the necessities of a grave emergency. But if there is to be genuine collective action, those occasions must be reduced to a minimum. That is one reason why I attach so much importance to the council which will be set up under the proposed treaty and which is a genuine agency for collective consultation and collective decisions, in which Canada will have the opportunity of making its voice heard in regard to those collective decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: With the Consent of the house, the hon. member may continue.


Major James William Coldwell: Finish, and take your time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to thank the house for its indulgence. I will not keep hon. members for long. There are just one or two more articles in this treaty, and when I deal with them I shall have finished.
Article 10 makes provision for the admission of any new European state to the group by the unanimous consent of its members if they are "in a position to further the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area". That seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to rule out any state which is not in a position to further the democratic principles of this treaty.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such as Franco Spain?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I will just leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. I think the definition is clear, and each member can apply it to each European state as he desires and sees fit.
Article 11 defines the procedure for ratification. As far as Canada is concerned, the government will not deposit its ratification until parliament has had a further opportunity to consider in detail and at length the terms of the treaty, and to give its approval. This article also declares

and this declaration is important-that the provisions of this treaty shall be "carried out by the parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes". So far as Canada is concerned, this government regards those

North Atlantic Treaty
constitutional processes as requiring both parliamentary approval and governmental action.
Article 12 provides that the treaty may be reviewed at the end of ten years, and there may be very important changes to consider at that time in the light of the situation which may then exist.
Article 13 fixes the term of the treaty at a minimum of twenty-one years. The final article concerns arrangements for official texts of the treaty in French and in English.
The states which have been asked to send representatives to Washington for the signing of the treaty are twelve in number. Eight have been participating in the preliminary discussions:	they are Belgium, Canada,
France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. These eight have invited four others to sign: Denmark, Iceland, Italy and Portugal. Of these four, I am sure that we are all happy to know that Denmark and Italy, democratic Italy, have already accepted this invitation. Together, these twelve states cover a wide area; they command great resources and great power. The strength of the group, however, lies not merely, as has already been pointed out, in its size or its resources, not only in its industry or its manpower. It will also be strong rather because its members have a common tradition of liberty, a common belief in the place of the individual in the state, a common heritage of political and social thought, a common resolve to remain free.
There are many states, not included in the alliance, which share our traditions, which believe in peace and freedom as we do, and which are strong and responsible members of this democratic community. Our relations with them will be no less cordial and our willingness to co-operate with them for mutual welfare and security will be no less effective because we have made this North Atlantic treaty.
There is nothing in this treaty that should produce an exclusive or isolationist or superior attitude among the members of this group. The world is too small, and its parts are too closely related, for even regional isolation. Because we shall have increased the measure of our own security, we shall not cease to be concerned about the welfare of like-minded and peace-loving states in other areas. Our commonwealth of nations, for instance, will be no less durable if two of its members sign this treaty. We shall continue to be aware that the various regions of the world are interdependent in security matters. We hope that elsewhere in the world peace may be strengthened by agreements similar to the fMr. Pearson.]
north Atlantic alliance or by associations such as the British commonwealth of nations.
The purpose of the North Atlantic pact is peace and security. It will fulfil this purpose in two ways.
First, it sets up administrative machinery for defence, for co-operation and consultation. This machinery can and will be effectively used by the members of this group, because they all accept the basic democratic principle that nations should conduct their business by mutual agreement, and not by force. Because these nations which sign this pact have mutual confidence and trust in each other, this pact should be effective.
Secondly, the treaty will be able to fulfil its purposes also because it will do what the United Nations has not yet succeeded in doing. It will call into being a preponderance of international force, subject to law, which will protect the members of the group and add to the freedom and the security of the world community.
The consequence of the pact may be, indeed must be, much more far-reaching than merely the provision of security. It can promote progress as well as preserve peace. If the outlines and foundations of this international community can be fashioned quickly and effectively enough to serve its emergency purpose, it should lead to the growth of freedom and order everywhere. It is in the confidence, therefore, that not only Canada, but with Canada, the whole of mankind will benefit from this treaty, that I have the honour to support this resolution approving of its draft terms.


Jean-François Pouliot: Neither Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau at Paris, nor Aristide Briand and Senator Dandurand at Locarno, nor Mackenzie King at Geneva spoke any better than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) did tonight. He divided his speech into three parts. The first part was a lesson in geography; the second part was a discourse on universal history, which reminded me of the chef-d'oeuvre of Jacques-Benigne Bossuet; and the third part was a lesson on constitutional law.
I have not the gift of eloquence and I shall try to be practical with this instrument which is supposed to serve the benefit of mankind.
I was on a parliamentary committee this afternoon, but I took cognizance of what was said here. Fine speeches were delivered: some speeches with punch and others with "oomph"; but the tenor of the debate was rather academic. I appreciate the fact that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) apparently spoke as follows. I do not quote him verbatim: "We should review the cir-

cumstances which brought about the failure of the other pacts which have preceded it." Very well said. But before the leader of the opposition came here we were told that the ideal government, the government far superior to the republic of Plato, was a world government, a world government in San Francisco.
I was very much concerned when the conference of San Francisco took place. I do not know on whose advice it was decided that the veto should be given to the major powers. A great responsibility lies on the head of everyone who attended that conference. But another great mistake was made in the Stettinius pact. It was that distinction, that abnormal, illogical, unjust, inhuman distinction between major powers and small nations. And afterwards we heard Mr. Vincent Massey declare that the international standing had risen very high because from a small nation Canada had become a middle power.
I must pay a special tribute to the sincerity and honesty of the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who told me that in virtue of the United Nations pact there were no middle powers, they were nonexistent; and therefore Mr. Vincent Massey, with his prestige as chancellor of the university of Toronto, and former high commissioner in Great Britain, former ambassador of Canada in the United States, had deceived the Canadian club in Montreal by telling them that Canada had risen from the condition of a small power to that of a middle power. They were only words, words to fool the people. And what about world government, when we see what is the government in Berlin at the present time? Can we accept such a government? Can we be ruled by the other nations, most of which are decadent or barbarous?
Until now no progress has been made for peace, and it is precisely because the United Nations pact has been an utter failure that we come now with another system. This one is praised just as much as the Versailles treaty was praised, just as much as the Locarno pact was praised, or as the Briand-Kellogg pact was praised, or as the San Francisco conference was praised. Every time there is progress; every time we see headway; every time we see the sun of peace rising on the horizon-then Vhomme s'agite, et Dieu le mene. This is what occurs; and it is pitiful to think of it.
I believe in the sincerity of my leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has done his best. I give the same credit to those gentlemen who lead the other parties in this House of Commons. They have all made fine speeches. But how many fine speeches have been delivered since
North Atlantic Treaty
hostilities ceased in Japan and in Germany? Members of parliament have received The United Nations World, a very fine publication.
I wonder how many have read it. There are splendid articles written by Rear Admiral Zacharias, who was head of the intelligence service in the United States during the war. He says clearly that wrong information was given to the late President Roosevelt by the top brass hats in the United States. They misled him about the strength of the military force of Japan. And it is precisely on account of that false advice that Roosevelt yielded to Russia to have their support against Japan -support which was not needed to win the war against that enemy.
The armies were successful in 1945, just as they were in 1918. Our armies were victorious. Our soldiers had been fighting the enemy to win peace for their fellow citizens throughout the world, and the peace was lost by men who were not equal to the occasion, and who were feeding themselves with words, instead of following the wise guidance of the Pope, who had no personal interest in any country. He was saying the needed word very often, and he was giving the right direction to all the diplomats of the world.
At the present time what do we hear? We hear complaints about Russia. I will tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I did more against Russia, to control them in this country, than he ever did at any conference, when I sent a memorandum to the former Prime Minister telling him it would be wrong of him to disallow the padlock law, and that he had to choose between Cardinal Villeneuve and Tim Buck.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member for Temiscouata would allow me to interrupt,
I understand he is the last speaker on the list and, if he would permit me at this time, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner):
That notwithstanding the order in effect as to the hour of adjournment, this house do sit this day beyond the hour of 10.30 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion (Mr. St. Laurent):
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the following resolution:
Whereas article 51 of the charter of the United Nations recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, and
[Stage Direction]
North Atlantic Treaty
Whereas representatives of the goverment of Canada have been participating since last July in negotiations looking towards the preparation of a treaty for collective self-defence within the framework of the charter, and
Whereas it is proposed that a conference be held early in April in Washington for the purpose of completing such a treaty among the following states of the North Atlantic area-Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States and such other states as might by agreement become parties.
Therefore be it resolved-
1.	That this house declares anew its support of the United Nations as the world organization established to maintain international peace and security and to promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples, and reaffirms its faith in the principles and purposes of the charter of the United Nations.
2.	That this house recognizes that the conclusion, among states of the North Atlantic area, of a treaty within the meaning of article 51 of the charter is, in present circumstances, of vital importance for the protection of Canada, the preservation of peace, and the development of political, social and economic co-operation among the North Atlantic democracies,
3.	That this house agrees that Canada should be represented at this conference, and that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavour to assist in the completion of an acceptable treaty based on the proposed text as tabled on March 18.
4.	That any such treaty, should before ratification, be submitted to the houses of parliament for approval.
Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. I shall try to be as brief as possible. We have heard so much being said about the threat of communism and the infiltration of communism in some public organizations in this country. But I thought it was my duty to warn my leader against the progress of communism at that time.
I knew several members of the cabinet were ready to disallow the padlock law. I thought that it was the right thing, and I appealed to the political acumen of the leader of the Liberal party at that time, saying to him, "Sir, you have to make your choice between Cardinal Villeneuve and Tim Buck". He did so, and the padlock law was never repealed. And it is precisely because I think now as I did then that I did my duty as a Canadian citizen and as a Liberal in advising my leader not to commit the blunder and mistake of disallowing the padlock law, when I did not see what business the Secretary of State for External Affairs had in denouncing the padlock law in the name of human rights and fundamental freedom.
He does not know what happened then. At least, I give him the benefit of the doubt, and my contention is that he did not know the trouble we had at that time when the leader of the Liberal party, the then Prime Minister, had to weigh the pros and cons and make a decision which would not divide Canada.
How is it that when a man is so busy remembering the names of all the capitals of

other countries-Afghanistan, and all the other places in the world-he should have the time to denounce the padlock law which was passed in 1936, which is still on the statute books, and which in my humble way I contributed to help keep on the statute books?
Well, there is more to it-much more to it. The hon. member spoke about manpower. He referred to article 3 and then to article 5, referring to it as the heart of the North Atlantic pact. He said what we needed was a pledge for economic affairs. The United Kingdom has a pledge for economic affairs in dealing with Russia, and the New York papers are full of it-full of the trade dealings of the socialist government of Great Britain with Russia. I wonder if Mr. Bevin finds there a pledge for economic affairs. He would need a padlock law on some of his papers.
Then the minister said that this was a more effective step to remove the economic and political causes of war, and added afterward that it was not a change in our policy toward the United Nations. Every speech made on the North Atlantic pact was a funeral oration of the United Nations pact-a fine oration, if you wish, but a first-class burial. I do not see how it can be said that it is not a change in our policy toward the United Nations. He said that no conference to bring about peace was too tedious. I do not think that conferences are tedious, because they are well attended by many people. People go everywhere to attend conferences. It reminds me of what one of my confreres, a counsel of the bar in Montreal, told me one day. I asked about something that had been said by one of my confreres, and I said that I did not see the use of it. He said, "You must understand that some people have to meet together, and as long as they meet, even if they decide nothing, everything is all right". That was what happened in all these conferences that people attended in all the countries of the world. No progress has been made. That is why we have another gadget now, and this is it.
I cannot speak solemnly about it, although I think very seriously about war, and I am very much concerned about war. It would be most unfair for anyone to say that I do not realize that at the present time the world situation is most critical. Probably it is. I do not know; I am not in a position to tell any secrets about it; but according to what we hear from all over, and from what we read in the newspapers of the United States, of England and of Canada, the world is in a condition of unstable equilibrium. It is unfortunate, but that is the situation.
The minister spoke about manpower. Who will decide about manpower? Did we decide

about international affairs at the time of the Cairo and Teheran conferences and all the others? I asked the right hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie King) that question and he answered me. I said to him, "Are we invited to these conferences?" and he said, "no." His answer was that what was decided there had great weight for us and was of great importance. That was his answer. We were not there, and yet we had to suffer the penalty for not being there, although we were told that we were on the same footing as all other nations. That was delightful. I heard the member for Argen-teuil (Mr. Heon) speak a little while ago. He talked about international sovereignty. Whoever thought of that? It is a square wheel; it is nonsense. I cannot understand such a brilliant lawyer using that expression. It shows how-I will not use the word "silly"- strange some people can be in their reasoning when they begin to talk on matters that they know nothing about.
Who will decide as to manpower? Will it be all the parties who will sign the North Atlantic treaty? Will they decide about the manpower that will have to be supplied by any country?
Before concluding I have one more thing to say. During the war I fought for respect of the dignity of man. I fought for respect of the man in overalls in any essential industry. He deserved praise. His role was less glorious than that of the soldier who was the victor on a battlefield, but it was no less necessary. I tried to defend all these men who were engaged in essential industries, farmers, railwaymen, all those engaged in the manufacturing of arms, munitions, and everything that would help the soldier. To my great surprise I had the support of Mr. Coleman, the president of the C.P.R., and I had the support of Mr. Vaughan, the president of the C.N.R., but I did not have the support of the brotherhoods whose cause I fought in the House of Commons when I discussed the matter in English in the house.
Therefore, sir, if we have an emergency I hope that we will keep our sense of proportion to a greater degree than we did during the last war. I hope that the organization of the army will be entirely different from what it was during the last war. There is no reason for continuing to receive wrong advice from the brass hats who won wars on their swivel chairs in the Department of National Defence. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has mentioned manpower, it entitles me to talk about brass hats. They are coming to the top. Who is that gentleman who makes pronouncements that we should be at war with Russia? What is his name? I forget glory so quickly that I even forget
North Atlantic Treaty
his name. Who was the one who was the commander of the Canadian army after General McNaughton left?


An hon. Member:: General Crerar.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps, but he made the pronouncement that we should be bellicose, that we should fight to the last man. Now he is retired. That is all right. I could tell some very funny stories about his truck, but I will abstain from that.


Mr. Williams:: Tell us one.


Jean-François Pouliot: No; I will tell you privately. The brass hats are out of the war, but they are preaching war; they are warmongers. Are they to boss all the countries of the world at the present time? I had so much trouble with them during the last war in my defence of the soldier, in my defence of the man in overalls, that I do not want them to start the same show now.
That is why I am very cautious about this treaty. I am not opposing it now, because it has the authority of many people whom I respect. All I can do now is to refrain from voting until I get more information from the Secretary of State for External Affairs as soon as the treaty is again before the house.


Maxime Raymond: I
move the adjournment of the house.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member moves the adjournment of the house.


Maxime Raymond: I
made a mistake. I move the adjournment of the debate.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The house decided that it would sit beyond ten-thirty. If the hon. member wishes to speak now I think we can hear him.


Maxime Raymond: You
cannot do that unless there is unanimous consent to sit after ten-thirty.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. member had remained in the house he would have known what happened. He would know now what was decided here about fifteen minutes ago. Just about fifteen minutes ago the house decided unanimously not to adjourn at ten-thirty.


Maxime Raymond: I
am informed to the contrary.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: All those who are here are in accord with what I have stated.


Maxime Raymond: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) was allowed to conclude his remarks. Is that correct?


Some hon. Members:: No.

North Atlantic Treaty


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Maxime Raymond: will have another opportunity to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Maxime Raymond: On
division.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.
And some members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.
He said: As the first order of business tomorrow it is proposed to move that the house go into committee of supply to ask the house to grant interim supply and also call one item of the regular estimates of the Department of Agriculture and one item of the regular estimates of the Department of External Affairs. It is proposed then to proceed with the second reading of Bill No. 87, an act to amend the Exchequer Court Act, and afterwards with Bill No. 83, respecting a national trademark; then the resolution in the name of the Minister of Fisheries, that it is expedient to present a measure for the purpose of regulating the export and import of fish and fish containers. If there is further time we shall take up the second reading of Bill No. 82, an act to provide for the marketing of agricultural products.
Perhaps I might add that it seems to be the desire of hon. members that on Thursday we resume the debate on the budget resolutions.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Tuesday, March 29, 1949