1955-01-25

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on yesterday's order paper standing in my name there was a question, the pertinent part of which read as follows:
Has the appellant in income tax appeal board case No. 227-
I shall skip the unnecessary wording-
*-at any time had any contracts with the federal government, or any department or agency thereof?
My question of privilege relates to the fact that, as I see it, the answer is hardly adequate. The answer as found on page 451 of yesterday's Hansard says, in part:
...the minister who was a party to the proceedings had a check made as to whether at any time since the appellant company purchased the property referred to in the judgment, the federal government had awarded any contract of any kind to the appellant company or to its subsidiary referred to in the judgment.
As Your Honour will notice, I asked whether there had been any contracts awarded to this company at any time. The answer given is that there have not been any since the time the property referred to in the judgment was purchased. Obviously this leaves an inference which can be drawn one way or another as to what happened prior to the time that property was purchased.
Then further, on my question of privilege, I would like to point out that the judgment referred to indicated that this property, up to that time, had not been purchased at all. It had only been leased with the option of purchase. That makes the phrase "since the time the property was purchased" meaningless.
In the light of these facts I would hope that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) might consider bringing down a more complete answer to my question.



INCOME TAX


Mr. W. G. Weir (Parliamentary Assistant to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) I lay on the table two copies in English and in French of a letter dated January 19, 1955, from the premier of Quebec to the Prime Minister concerning federal-provincial fiscal relations.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) I beg to table, under the provisions of section 18 (2) of the Canadian National Railways Act, chapter 40, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, a copy of order in council P.C. 1955-54, dated January 13,	1955, withdrawing from entrustment
to the Canadian National Railways the Pictou lodge and Minaki lodge properties.



LONDON, ONTARIO, CENTENNIAL    PRESENTATION TO MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. Would he accept from me a dollar's worth of wooden nickels celebrating the city of London's centennial this year.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do so. But I should point out that, from my knowledge of western Ontario, London is worth more than wooden nickels.


Mr. Fulton:: How much is a dollar worth?


Walter Edward Harris: More than was said the other day.

Inquiries of the Ministry THE BUDGET



INQUIRY AS TO PROBABLE DATE OF PRESENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this question is somewhat early, but I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can give the house any intimation as to when we may expect the budget.


Walter Edward Harris: Some time during this session.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosefown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I understand him to say that he would make a statement on the situation today with respect to Formosa. In view of the anxiety that is felt by many people in this country regarding the statements of policy made yesterday by the President of the United States, can the minister tell us whether the United States has been informed that Canada's policy remains as it was, and that we are not entangled in any of these Formosan adventures?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to what my hon. friend has said, and also in reply to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I shall make a statement on this matter now, as follows:
The President of the United States yesterday sent to congress an important message dealing with the situation in the Formosa straits. The President's proposals in this message are, of course, a matter of United States policy. The United States has particular commitments of its own in this area. These, and the effect of the President's message on them, will now be under consideration by congress and it would not, of course, be appropriate for me, or for any member of this government, to comment on this aspect of the matter.
Although we are not involved in United States commitments in this area, we are of course deeply concerned over the dangerous situation existing there and we, with other free governments, are anxious that steps should be taken to bring to an end the fighting which has now been taking place for some time along the China coast.


In this message the President of the United States referred to the possibility of action by the United Nations to bring about a ceasefire. The United Nations has, in Indonesia, Palestine and in other parts of the world, been successful in bringing to an end fighting which might have had dangerous consequences, and if it could achieve similar results in this case it would be a cause, I am sure, of great satisfaction to us all.
If the question is raised in the United Nations-and there are reports that it will soon be raised-this would presumably take place in the security council of which Canada is not at present a member. However, we are being kept informed of developments in regard to the possibility of such a reference, and we are watching the matter with great interest and some concern. Incidentally, an essential party to any ceasefire of this kind would be the communist government of China, which, though a nonmember of the United Nations, would have to be invited, I assume, to participate in the security council deliberations if they were to have any chance of success. Whether this particular government would accept such an invitation is another matter.
While it is not proper for me to comment on United States policy in this matter which is now being considered by congress, I think I can say that any move or proposal within the United Nations or through diplomatic channels which could serve to achieve the purpose as stated in the President's message "to improve the prospects of peace in the area" will be warmly welcomed by the parliament and by the people of this country.
Before the Korean armistice I expressed on more than one occasion in this house the view of the Canadian government that Formosa should be neutralized as far as possible while hostilities continued in Korea. We thought then, and we think now, that the final disposition of Formosa should be a subject to be discussed at a conference on Far Eastern problems which at that time we thought might be held after the cessation of fighting in Korea. That was the view adopted by the political committee of the United Nations general assembly on January 13,	1951.
Despite developments since then, it remains the view of the government that the final disposition of Formosa should be dealt with by international negotiation, at a conference, if you like, on Far Eastern problems, if one could be held. Certainly, in any decision regarding the future of Formosa the wishes of the people there, which are often forgotten in discussions of this matter, should be a primary consideration. Pending such a decision I think that a strong case can be

made for the neutralization of Formosa both in order to prevent any assault upon it by communist forces and also so that it will not be used as a base for invasion of the mainland.


Major James William Coldwell: The President did not say that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In this area of tension and danger a distinction can validly be made between the position of Formosa and the Pescadores and the islands off the China coast now in nationalist hands. The latter are indisputably part of the territory of China; the former, Formosa and the Pescadores, which were Japanese colonies for fifty years prior to 1945 and had had a checkered history before that, are not. I suggest therefore that the considerations which recommend the neutralization of Formosa and the Pescadores do not necessarily apply to the coastal islands so close to the mainland and a hundred miles or so away from Formosa. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I welcome that part of the President's message which looks to the redeployment of the nationalist forces which are now in these islands. "Some of these forces", the President's message states, "are scattered throughout smaller off-shore islands as a result of historical rather than military reasons directly related to defending Formosa."
My understanding of the basis of a truce or cease-fire is that neither the nationalists, the government of China which we recognize, nor the communists need be asked to give up their claims on the territory now held by the other side. What they would be asked to give up of course is the use of military means to achieve their aspirations. In other words, negotiations for a cease-fire need not involve any question of the final disposition of the territory in dispute; for in our view this is a suitable matter for international negotiation at a later date through the United Nations or otherwise.
I am sure this house will particularly welcome the closing paragraph of the President's message which is as follows:
Our purpose is peace. That cause will be served if we demonstrate our unity and our determination. In all that we do we shall remain faithful to our obligations as a member of the United Nations to be ready to settle our international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I ask a supplementary question? Would the neutralization of Formosa in the manner indicated by the minister lead to the immediate seating of
Inquiries of the Ministry the people's government, the communist government of China, in the United Nations? Would that not be the necessary consequence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No; as I understand it, that would not be the necessary consequence to the neutralization of the islands.


Mr. Maclnnis:: May I ask a supplementary question? My question is in reference to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to the invitation of communist China to any cease-fire conference that would be held. Would not the acceptance of an invitation to such a conference by communist China be facilitated if we recognized China as the de facto government of that part of China of which it is the de facto government? Would it not be a good thing if a start was made in that direction by this government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is another question on which I would not like to express an opinion at this time.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a further question? Does the Canadian government take the stand, or does it not, that Formosa is in the first line of defence for Canada's west coast?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That also is another question dealing with far-reaching matters of strategy on which I would hesitate to express an opinion at this moment.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production of which I have not given notice but he may be able to answer it now. My question arises out of a statement made recently by Mr. W. J. Bennett, president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, at Toronto's annual board of trade dinner.
Will the government give consideration to locating the proposed atomic power plant in Bruce county, considering decentralization and Bruce's distance from hydro sources?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: As I understand it, no decision has been made regarding the power plant that is now being contemplated. I can assure him that the merits of Bruce county will be very carefully assessed before the location is chosen.
500	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry IRRIGATION


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a communication from the premier of Saskatchewan suggesting a meeting of committees of both the federal and provincial cabinets to discuss the South Saskatchewan dam? If so, will the Prime Minister indicate whether or not the government will agree to appoint a committee of the cabinet to meet the provincial committee?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second question is that no arrangements for such a meeting have yet been made.


Major James William Coldwell: They might be made. It is under consideration. Did I get the last part eorrectly? I did not quite hear the last part.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No arrangements have been made for such a conference at this time.


Major James William Coldwell: I was asking if they would be made.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The request has been received but no definite answer has been made to it.


FERTILIZERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the concern expressed by farm organizations in respect to the high price of fertilizers, and in view of this has any consideration been given by the government to having the fertilizer industry examined under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the hon. member's second question is that the combines branch, as a result of informal complaints, made some inquiries in eastern Canada which failed to disclose any collusion among the mixers of fertilizers. The combines branch also made some informal inquiries into the possible restriction of supply and enhancement of price in the case of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate, but the information obtained did not indicate any situation forbidden by the Combines Investigation Act.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the government changed its policy regarding the construction of the eastern section of the Chibougamau railway and is it the intention of the minister to bring forward some legislation to that effect at this session?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers, I wish to say that the government has not changed its policy regarding the construction of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau section of the Canadian National Railways. As the construction of the above mentioned section of the railroad was authorized at the last session of parliament it is not my intention to bring forward legislation in this connection.


REPORTED REMOVAL OF FOUNDRY FROM TRANSCONA SHOPS TO MONTREAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the following question:
Is the minister aware of the steps being taken by the Canadian National Railways to move the foundry from the Transcona shops, at Winnipeg, to Montreal? In view of what this means to the employees affected, and in view of the central location of the Transcona shops, in Canada, will the minister ask the Canadian National to reconsider this move?
I have spoken to the management of the Canadian National Railways and they inform me that their dieselization program has now progressed to the point where there is insufficient casting work to justify the operation of two foundries.
At Point St. Charles the Canadian National has a modern foundry, the only one properly equipped for major casting work such as steam locomotive cylinders. The decision reached therefore, in the interests of economic operation, is that casting work should be consolidated at Point St. Charles and operations at the Transcona foundry discontinued.
I might add that there are 22 men now employed at the Transcona foundry. The transfer of work to Point St. Charles foundry will necessitate an adjustment in staff and 12 of these men will, in accordance with the provisions of the governing wage agreement, be given the opportunity of transferring to Point St. Charles.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de
Grace):	Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the Postmaster General if he is aware of the disappearance of some $44,000 from the post office at Britannia Beach, British Columbia, in December and, if so, has the minister been able to place the responsibility for the loss?
Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to investigate the matter referred to by my hon. friend.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, signed by Canada at Paris on October 23, 1954, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, by inexorable logic this house is moving to a momentous decision after what may go down in the records of the Canadian parliament as an historic debate maintained on a level worthy of the occasion.
There have been some truly remarkable contributions to this debate. One thinks of the illuminating and authoritative pronouncement made on the subject of German rearmament by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes). One admires the courageous stand taken in this house by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). One can admire courage wherever one finds it. One can commend as well statesmanlike utterances such as those the house has heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and others.
It was necessary that speeches of this quality should be made in this house on this occasion. The pity is that the country had not heard at an earlier date as authoritative and illuminating pronouncements from the government as those made in this debate by at least two government ministers. More than in any other aspect of public affairs it is in the field of our external affairs that the people need a lead from the government and from parliament, because so many of the decisions are arrived at in secret negotiations. We have
North Atlantic Treaty
seen in the vacuum of silence left by the government over the past several months the inevitable result: where ignorance and misunderstanding abound there is fertile soil for communist propaganda.
I say, therefore, that it is regrettable that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not make this same speech or similar speeches on a dozen earlier occasions in different parts of Canada. I wish the Prime Minister had delivered such speeches. Indeed I wish the government, when they decided not to call parliament at an earlier date, had undertaken to campaign across Canada for the purpose of bringing these necessary facts before the Canadian people. Therefore, while this debate in the house has now reached its fourth day, it has nevertheless furthered a vitally important purpose in bringing to the attention of the Canadian people important and inescapable considerations which bear upon the decision that is now to be taken in their name.
Events have been moving swiftly in the past twelve months. Who among us ten years ago could have foreseen that the House of Commons today would be on the point of taking a decision, not only on German rearmament but in relation to the association of Germany with the western world, ourselves included, in an alliance? This is one of the strange contradictions of history. It would have been different indeed had the Russians proved themselves trustworthy since the war. They are responsible by their aggression and by their duplicity for the fact that we are now taking the course that has been presented to us, a course which they condemn and seek by every means at their disposal to thwart.
We need look back no farther than last spring to the negotiations at Geneva when the western nations, and France in particular, were required to negotiate from weakness. And while at Geneva the best was done that could have been done in salvaging a virtually impossible situation, I hope that we in this house have decided we do not wish to face any more situations where we must attempt to grasp peace out of virtual defeat and weakness.
Few could have foreseen after EDC had been defeated in the French national assembly last summer that there would have been raised up in its place a new form of agreement which is now on the point of being carried to a decision.
During these post-war years, ever since the Russians embarked upon their program of conquest and aggression, the greatest danger to the free world has lain in Europe. I for one will not forget my visit to the Canadian

North Atlantic Treaty
infantry brigade at Hanover in the fall of 1952, and I recall that Canadian troops and the nearest Russian troops were just 45 minutes' travel by road apart.
If this greatest danger has receded in the past year or two, that recession is due to our growing strength in that part of the world, but the danger remains and unless we of the free world greatly strengthen ourselves in the west we will continue also to be weak in the east in the face of the continued probing by the communists for and exploitation of our weak spots in that part of the world. None know this better than the Russians themselves, as is evidenced by their frantic efforts to prevent, thwart, defeat, or delay, by every kind of pressure at their disposal, the decision we are now about to take.
It is regrettable, sir, and I am sure surprising, that in this house there should have been put forward by a particular group of hon. members of this house that formidable array of decoys which the communists and those who have been listening to them have been offering to the Canadian public. These have been reviewed and I do not intend to dwell upon them. But let me just mention them in passing.
First, there is negotiation, the idea of "another conference", another conference wherein the Russians, of course, hope again to divide the west. But the decision we are taking does not preclude further negotiations, if the Russians want them. But when these negotiations are held they should on the part of the west be negotiations from strength and not from weakness. That surely is the lesson of Geneva of last spring.
The next is the decoy of coexistence. But the purpose of this measure is defensive. There is nothing in it to prevent peaceful coexistence.
Third, there is the decoy of Russian reasonableness. But if the Russians truly mean to be reasonable, and really mean to turn over a new leaf by co-operating, there is nothing in the decision we are about to take that prevents them from being reasonable and more reasonable than ever before.
The fourth decoy, and it is as dangerous as any, was uttered with some feeling in this house two days ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It was the plea that we should not take the decision at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, time is running against the west. It has been running against the west for a considerable period, and time is the one thing that we cannot afford to give at this stage in any further measure to the Russians.
Then there is the fifth decoy, that we must not provoke the Russians because they may increase their arms. Well, sir, that is just

the old form of naked appeasement rearing its ugly head again. If that argument had been followed there would today be no NATO in the world, and we should not forget that the Russians have done their very utmost at all stages to defeat NATO.
The sixth decoy is that this measure is going to prevent German unification on some sound basis. But there is nothing here that will prevent German unification on any sound basis. There is, however, much here that would prevent unification of Germany on the tyrannical terms that Russia would impose.
I may sum up my view, and I believe the view of most Canadians in relation to these decoys, in saying that we do not trust communists. Have we forgotten Korea? Have we forgotten Czechoslovakia? Are we forgetting what is happening in Indo-China today in those areas that have fallen within the sweep of communist rule? No! There is one man who knew the Russians much better evidently than some C.C.F. members in this house know them, and that is Karl Marx, who said, in an historic utterance:	"The Russian
bear is certainly capable of anything-as long as he knows the other animals he has to deal with are capable of nothing."
Then on the other side of the debate there are those facts which have been overlooked by those members of the C.C.F. who oppose the resolution. The first of these is the existence in fact of a divided Germany. Second is the fact that Eastern Germany is armed. I have seen the military police, the barrack police, on the other side of the iron curtain. The existence of an armed Eastern Germany under Russian control is a fact, and Russia means to stay in East Germany until she has fastened her system, as she hopes, for all time upon the necks of the people of East Germany.
Third, rearmament is not the equivalent of war. Members of the C.C.F. in this house have treated rearmament as though it were the equivalent of war. That has been one of the hopeless contradictions obsessing those who have raised their voices in opposition to the resolution.
As we see it, rearmament in the view taken by this Canadian parliament in these momentous recent years has been a guarantee against the outbreak of war. We deplore that it should be necessary to lay upon the Canadian people the burden of sustaining rearmament. But, sir, when we talk about welfare let us remember that the first duty we owe to the Canadian people in ministering to and preserving their welfare is to make sure that Canada as part of the western world does not become a victim of aggression.
The fourth factor is that the guarantees have been overlooked, and if there are those

who are disposed to regard those guarantees as insufficiently strong, let us remember that they are just as strong as are guarantees in the United Nations or guarantees in NATO, because in every instance those guarantees rest upon the pledges of a nation through its accredited representatives and no more.
Fifth, the fact has been overlooked that this is a purely defensive arrangement. A great injustice has been done by the evidently innocent misrepresentation of this fact in this house by C.C.F. members.
Sixth, and a vitally important consideration is this, that it is strength in this world in which we live which deters Russian aggression today. It is the possession by the United States in recent years of the atomic bomb which has bought safety for the west. Those of us who were in Berlin in the fall of 1948 and flew in on the airlift can recall the events of those days when the Russians were attempting to drive the western powers out of Berlin. We should not forget, sir, that it was courage, firmness, and force on the part of Britain and the United States in that situation that marked the turning point in the course of events in these post-war years. At that point had Britain, France and the United States shown weakness in the face of Russian strength and determination the whole course of subsequent events would have been changed. But Britain and the United States stood firm and made it quite clear that they would resist the land blockade. They set up that marvel of organization, the airlift; and from that time, as a result of that stand, the smaller nations in western Europe realized that they could safely commit their lot to the western nations and could join hands with them. It was out of that firm stand that NATO was born and became possible. Let us not forget that the only god the Russians know or respect is the god who is on the side of the big battalions, to use Napoleon's expression. We do not put ourselves in that category, but we know that these Russians respect strength and that it is strength we need if we wish to live in peace beside them.
The next fact overlooked is that the risks with regard to German rearmament have been exaggerated. At least we have these facts, Mr. Speaker, which are entitled to be given due weight. Atomic weapons will come into the hands of the Germans only by decision of the western powers, and their arms will be subject to inspection. Last night in this house from C.C.F. members we heard speeches that proceeded on the belief that Germany is still nazi and that the rearmament of Germany is equivalent to the resurrection of nazism and the nazi war machine. We are not going to forget the nazi atrocities. We are going to remember the way in which
North Atlantic Treaty
those nazi atrocities bathed Europe and far parts of the world in blood. But is there anyone here who seriously thinks that the nazis control the government of West Germany today? It is a fact that there is no stauncher democrat in all the world today than is Chancellor Adenauer. But on the other hand, in Eastern Germany there are nazis in high office.
Several nights ago we heard an authoritative pronouncement from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) on the point of German rearmament. When it is said by C.C.F. members that the steps now being taken mean the resurrection of the nazi war machine, let us not overlook also some news items that have come to knowledge within recent days.
Here is a Reuters dispatch from Berlin of January 19:
The Russians have released former Field Marshal Ferdinand Schoerner, Hitler's war minister in the last days of world war II . . .
What has he been released for? Why is it that, as the news dispatch indicates, he has undertaken to send a letter of thanks to the Russians for his release? How does it happen that he is released at this particular time? And how does it happen that ViceAdmiral Voss was released by the Russians a few days ago? By the communists in Canada we have heard it charged that the purpose of releasing Kurt Meyer was so that he might lead some German army in the west. Yet we have a news dispatch of January 23 from Bonn which says as follows:
The wife of former German tank commander Maj. Gen. Kurt Meyer said her husband has no intention of accepting a communist offer to help build up East German armed forces.
Is there any greater duplicity we have seen in all of Russian chicanery, in all of communist propaganda, than to pretend that it was the intention of the western powers to make common cause with former nazi generals in order to build up a German army while at the same time the Russians were those who were fighting against the resurrection of the nazi war machine? This kind of authoritative information from Berlin and Bonn is surely the complete exposure of that type of Russian chicanery.
Let it be recognized that the lesson of destruction and devastation has not been lost entirely upon the Germans; that there will be on German soil the continued presence of British, French, United States and Canadian forces; that the German forces will be under the command of a NATO commander in chief; and that the Germans will simply not be strong enough, under the limitations that

North Atlantic Treaty
exist, to embark upon a war of aggression for unification of Germany. Yes, the western powers must and will remain there.
Mr. Speaker, I now put to the house the proposition that it is the duty of every member-particularly of those who have voiced opposition to it-to oppose this measure only on the assumption that if it lay within their power they would defeat it. It would be a betrayal of the responsibility that each member of this house owes to the house and to the Canadian people if he cast his vote against this measure while at the same time secretly hoping that the measure would be adopted or, knowing that the measure is going to be adopted, indulged in some irresponsible objections to it.
Mr. Speaker, the defeat of this measure- and it is this that the hon. members of the C.C.F. must be prepared to accept if they are taking a responsible course in this debate -would have results which would indeed be too dreadful to contemplate. It is true that the major risks lie in this direction. The first result would be international chaos.
The second would be such an outburst of Russian glee as would be suitable and appropriate only to a great communist triumph in the world. We would then indeed have played into the hands of the Russians and of the communist cause.
The third result would be that inevitable agonizing reappraisal on the part of the administration and congress at Washington of United States policy and the course that the United States is to follow in relation to Europe.
In the fourth place, for Germans it would mean an effective rebuff by the west to Adenauer and to German democracy. It would mean that we would be violating the promise that has been given to a democratic Germany, namely that we of the west are prepared to work with a democratic Germany. Chancellor Adenauer deserves the support of the west for he has taken the greatest of risks.
The fifth result would be in relation to France. It would inevitably mean the crash of the French government and such a period of instability in French government as we have not yet seen. The whole course of French history would indeed be in a precarious plight. The strength of the communists would be bound to upsurge in France.
In the sixth place, to what fate would Germany be consigned? The Russians want all of Germany, west as well as east, with them. Their blandishments and all their efforts have been directed towards that end these many years.

In the seventh place-and let us put this issue squarely before members of this house who have indicated their opposition to this resolution-we would have dealt a body blow, it may well be a fatal blow, to NATO itself. NATO is needed in the world today as much as it ever was needed. We know that the United Nations are not enough. They are not enough to guarantee peace. We recognized that when NATO was established with the aid of Canadian inspiration. NATO's existence is needed. NATO's very existence would be challenged by defeat of this measure.
In the eighth place, in our own land it would mean, on the part of the communists, that their frantic efforts had been crowned with success, and a new boost to the morale and the effrontery of communists in Canada.
So I say, with reluctance and regret, that those who in this debate have indicated their opposition to this measure have shown no realism; they have shown no competence to assume any governmental task. When it comes to comparing them with those of whom they profess to be the counterpart in other lands, may I say that they are indeed ideologically the followers not of Mr. Attlee but of Mr. Bevan. Appropriate indeed was the title applied to that group by the Montreal Gazette yesterday when they were heralded as "the Bevanly host". "Bevanly" indeed! Thank heaven they are not a host.
One may sympathize with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F. party in the house, as he has had to submit to the humiliation of listening to the speeches that have been made by his followers in condemnation of the measure before us in this debate.
Sir, I think we must express surprise and at the same time regret that we should hear that the same organization, the C.C.F. national council, is about to sponsor a visit of Mr. Attlee to Canada. Let me make it clear, in relation to this news dispatch that reached us yesterday, that Mr. Attlee enjoys the respect of us all, whatever our political views may be. I am sure most members of the house have had the opportunity to meet Mr. Attlee, some of us on various occasions, and we all respect him. We respect and uphold the views that he expressed in support of this measure of German rearmament in the British House of Commons. Mr. Attlee will always be a welcome visitor to Canada, but, sir, it is something new for the leader of a political party in the United Kingdom to be coming to Canada on a visit sponsored by a Canadian political party. That is the news that came to us yesterday.

We are told that Mr. Attlee will make a coast to coast tour of Canada between April 11 and May 1 under the sponsorship of the C.C.F. national council. I am sure it would be regarded as effrontery if the Conservative party in this country invited Sir Winston Churchill or Sir Anthony Eden to come to Canada and undertake a tour under our auspices. It would inevitably be a political tour. Unquestionably use will be attempted to be made by the C.C.F. for their own political purposes of the forthcoming visit of Mr. Attlee which is to be sponsored by the C.C.F. national council.
If Mr. Attlee chooses to visit Russia or chooses to visit China on the invitation of the governments of those countries, I am sure it is no affair of ours, sir, but it is an affair of ours if the leader of a British political party comes to Canada to make a tour under the auspices of a Canadian political party. It seems to me, sir, while Mr. Attlee is widely respected by all of us here and will always be a welcome visitor to Canada, that he ought not to be accepting the sponsorship of a political party in Canada for his tour.
Finally, sir, I wish to say this about the course that we are taking. It is a momentous course, but I ask: Is it within the bounds of contemplation that Canada should follow a different course in this matter from that to which the British House of Commons has already committed Great Britain, that land which in its finest hour saved the world? Is it in this situation thinkable that Canada should follow a contrary course to that being followed by the United States which, whatever its faults and shortcomings may be. has at least taken the burden and responsibilities of world leadership in the post-war years? Is it thinkable that Canada should follow a different course from that to which the French national assembly has committed that nation, invaded three times in living memory, France which has bled? Is it thinkable, sir, is it within the realm of contemplation of hon. members of this house, that Canada should take a different course from that followed jointly by Britain, the United States, France and other western nations? I tell you if we were to take that different course this country would never again be able to lift up its head in international company, and that respect which Canada has won at international conferences over the years from the close of world war I to the present time would be lost forever.
There are dangers, yes. We are calculating those dangers, we are measuring and weighing them here and now; but is that any
North Atlantic Treaty
excuse for allowing ourselves to be paralysed by fear into insensibility and inaction? The western world has already suffered much by the fact that the communists have been outthinking and outplanning us. They have been planning ahead of us. We have been waiting always for them to take the lead and then we have been taking defensive measures to try to counteract those measures which they have taken in lead of us.
Sir, the measure now before us and the alliance to which it gives expression offer to us as part of the western world an opportunity, long sought and long awaited, to take the lead. The time has come indeed for bold and courageous measures. How often in this debate have I thought of those words of Shakespeare:
but I tell you, . . . out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
There are dangers, but in accepting what dangers run with this decision we shall yet win safety. That is the lesson of the airlift. That is the lesson of these years. We cannot guarantee the result. It is an imperfect world. None, I am sure, is more conscious of the limitations of human wisdom than we who are about to vote on this measure today, but we must take the best advice and use the best sense we have. For my part, sir, I have no hesitation in following the course recommended by Churchill, Eden, Attlee, Eisenhower, Mendes-France and the great majority of the members of this house in preference to the course recommended and sought by Bevan, Malenkov and those members of the C.C.F. who have spoken against this measure.
This is the means by which we must seek to strengthen the European dikes against the tides of communist aggression if we would hope to have either strength or time to erect similar dikes in Asia or Africa.
My reasons for supporting this measure are not merely negative. They are positive. I do not accept the philosophy or view that the Germans can never change. I admit that there is much yet to be done to establish the contrary, but I am not prepared to accept a course that commits me for all time to the view that the Germans cannot change. I believe that there are great numbers of Germans who are anxious, in the spirit of democracy and in the spirit of freedom, to purge the stains that nazi brutality has left upon Germany and upon the world.
Nor can I accept the view that Germany and France are forever destined to be enemies. It may be, sir, that we are here witnessing the great fulfilment of a dream,

North Atlantic Treaty
more than we could ever have hoped for, a dream that was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill in these words but a few years ago:
If we could only weave Gaul and Teuton so closely together economically, socially and morally as to prevent the occasion of new quarrels, and make old antagonisms die in the realization of mutual prosperity and interdependence, Europe would rise again. It seemed to me that the supreme interest of the British people in Europe lay in the assuagement of the Franco-German feud, and that they had no other interests comparable or contrary to that.
In this land, where our ancestors are drawn alike principally from Anglo-Saxon and from French sources, surely we must echo that hope and share that dream. Are we not prepared to believe now as an act of faith that when Churchill uttered those words he spoke not simply for the living but also for those heroes who in a thousand military cemeteries people the sacred cities of the dead?


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure all hon. members will have heard with a great deal of apprehension the news reported in this morning's paper, that in the area of Formosa there is a situation which could readily explode into a new world war. I think that on this occasion it will be at least reassuring to the people of Canada that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, replying to the leader of this party, has stated the official position of Canada, indicating that the problem of Formosa should be settled by the United Nations, or over an arbitration table.
And so, in prefacing my remarks concerning the very serious situation facing us in connection with Formosa, I cannot but be astounded by the government's position when an attempt is made to solve a far less urgent problem, by means of an armaments race which, undoubtedly, will take place in connection with the matter before us. I refer of course to the agreement which would permit the entry of Germany into NATO, and involves the rearmament of Germany.
I do not intend to take much time answering some of the criticisms which have been made of members of this group who, like myself, hold the view that the rearming of Germany at this time is ill advised and fraught with many dangers.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who has just taken his seat took a great deal of time in his speech by innuendo and other references in an effort to indicate that the members of the C.C.F. are not sincere in their convictions. The hon. members for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert) and Meadow Lake, did likewise. It is not my intention to take time to deal with these expressions. I am used to red baiting. I would say only

this, that it had never been the hallmark of Canadian democracy to have a slavish obedience to any political party or to any one idea. On the contrary the essence of parliamentary democracy in Canada is that any member can rise to his feet and express his opinion without fear of vilification.
And so today I intend to do just that. Each member who has spoken, whether in favour of the rearmament of Germany or otherwise, has expressed his fears as to the outcome of that decision. Each member, by one argument or another, has indicated that the proposal is fraught with many dangers and that a calculated risk is involved.
I believe it is ill advised and dangerous to the peace of the world to rearm Germany. One might very well argue emotionally about the atrocities committed under the nazi regime, but, in the light of the seriousness of the situation, I do not think we need do that. However, we must try to be realistic and objective in our approach to this great and complex problem.
The viewpoint expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs runs something like this: That there is a vacuum existing in Germany, and that unless the west moves to fill that vacuum, communism will move in. I do not agree with that, and I will support my contention with quotations. I shall quote first Dr. Russell who, in the issue of December 8, 1954, of The Nation has this to say:
The truth is so plain and simple that it seems as if governments must in time become aware of it: the communist and non-communist worlds can live together or die together. There is no other possibility. When both sides realize this, it may be hoped that they will choose to live rather than die.
And again, the well known writer George F. Kennan, former ambassador to the Soviet union, has this to say:
As many of you already know, I have never seen any evidence that the Soviet leaders have at any time since world war II (or before, for that matter) desired a general war between the Soviet union and the major capitalist powers, or looked to such a war as a likely means of achieving their objectives.
So I do not think there is any immediate concern in the matter of invasion of West Germany. As a matter of fact I believe that the rearming of West Germany can only mean that there will be reciprocation on the part of the Russians and that they, too, will increase their armaments to keep balance with those the west might provide for the Germans. Therefore I say the minister's argument that Russia will not take reciprocal action to keep her strength in armaments equal to that on the allied side is somewhat ridiculous.

Again, those who have supported the rearming of Germany have argued that, through strength, we can achieve the reunification of Germany. In this respect I believe that in rearming West Germany a curtain will be erected so that it will be very difficult to bring about any form of disarmament. And I believe there will be other dangers, one of which is that, in time, the German army, rearmed and under old nazi leaders and under the military control of the whole country, will begin flexing their muscles, so that in time there will be real danger that they would start negotiating with Russia to get the things they want.
I believe that is the greatest danger in connection with this problem of Germany today-the danger that when Germany is reunited or rearmed, because of her interests in the east she will negotiate with her former enemy, Russia. And when that time comes it seems to me there would be little hope that the guarantees indicated by the minister would be sufficiently effective to control the destinies of that country.
It is my view that, rather than a policy of immediate rearmament, the west should proceed step by step in a rearming program. By offering real democracy and better economic conditions to East Germany there would be a basis from which we could reach some solution. As it is, I believe there will be two armed camps standing side by side within a short distance of each other, a condition fraught with many dangers.
There are others with authority and good judgment in these matters who bolster my argument. I would refer first to Dorothy Thompson and Thomas Mann, both of whom believe as I do that German military power would be used eventually for her own interests. Thomas Mann says, as reported in the Citizen of January 20:
The trend of world affairs is menacing, pregnant with disaster.
And then he warns:
Putting yesterday's mortal enemies back in the saddle, the west is scandalizing the peace-loving majority of West Germany.
And so I believe the move to rearm West Germany is a very serious procedure indeed.
I might digress from my argument just to point out what is involved in a third world war. I hold in my hand a copy of the U.S. News and World Report of January 28. On the front page in large red and white letters I find the following: "No need to bomb cities to win wars." I do not agree with the contents of the article to which I want to refer. The article was written by Colonel Richard Leghorn. I do not agree
North Atlantic Treaty
with his arguments because they are fallacious, they are pregnant with disaster for the west. However, I want to indicate what he has to say in regard to the situation now facing the world, should a third world war come upon us. This is what he says:
One hundred assorted modern bombs on target can knock out one half of United States industrial capacity and tens of millions of Americans. The 100 largest cities of the NATO powers in western Europe contain one-quarter of its population and a greater fraction of its industrial capacity. Two hundred bombs on city targets would destroy the western world.
Further on this author indicates that an intercontinental ballistic missile has been invented. This missile can go from continent to continent at a velocity twenty times the speed of sound, and there is no method of defence against it. Therefore, we are facing a serious problem in trying to settle this matter.
My conclusions are not entirely my own. They are also those of our national convention which took place in the early part of last year at Edmonton and the decision of the national council. It, too, is the decision of the world council of churches and many other citizens throughout Canada. There has not come to my desk one letter indicating support of rearming Germany. On the other hand I have received many letters protesting the rearming of Germany at this time.
There are some things that plague the world today which prevent a real solution to the problems of war. The conference table of the United Nations has been plagued with the fact that people who go there with high hopes and sincerity have to work under pretty difficult conditions. I wish to refer to what I think is the basic cause of war today, namely, the international cartelization of the armament industry. Any hope of world peace is bound to be bedevilled as long as that situation exists. It is well known to hon. members that during the first world war Canadian soldiers in France were wounded and shot by machine guns manufactured in Britain. We also know the story of Madame Chiang Kai-shek when the Americans were in China during the last war offering military assistance. The story is told of Madame Chiang Kai-shek coming in with a piece of a Japanese plane of American make shot down over China. We have all these contradictions.
I want to dwell on one important world cartel which in itself proves the point I am trying to make. I refer to international capitalism and those merchants of death. They know no country; they know no patriotism; their allegiance is to one thing and one thing

North Atlantic Treaty
only, namely, the making of profit. They have no compunctions about the deaths they cause; their one idea is centred on the making of profit. I wish to refer to the I. G. Farben company, the great nazi Germany chemical empire.
This great cartel operated during the last war. As a matter of fact it was responsible for the near success of Hitler. In the early days of 1932 when Hitler was coming to power this cartel played an important part in his rise to power. At the Nuremberg trials in 1947 24 leaders of this German dye trust appeared. At that time the conscience of the world was awakened. Perhaps that has all been forgotten since. These 24 leaders appeared before the military tribunal at Nuremberg, and charges were made that the
I.	G. Farben company played an important role in preparing the third reich for aggressive war. This is one of the largest firms in the world. It has 400 participating firms in Germany and over 700 affiliated companies in 104 countries throughout the world where they gained the control. Where they have not direct control, then they control the companies by patents and other policies. The charges laid at these trials were that this company was guilty of wilfully engaging in activities indispensable to Germany's aggressive war.
On November 6, 1932, the Reichstag elections were held. The nazis lost very heavily. There was a conference between Hitler and the leaders of this great cartel. At that time the Farben company was going to cease manufacturing synthetic gasoline; but when they went to Hitler he promised them assistance, and from that time on there was friendship between this important company and Hitler. More than any other thing in the world, this company was responsible for the war machine of Hitler. Indeed the ramifications of this company went so far that they gave money to the Sudeten Germany free corps which was a sabotage association, and it did other work on the frontiers in order to cause trouble.
It is worth noting that Hitler had only a small segment of the people on his side, but he had this huge and powerful industrial concern. When we look through newspaper reports at this time we find that once again this huge chemical firm has been reinstated in all its ramifications all over the world. This company even has its tentacles in Canada. At the Nuremberg trials it was found that seven Canadian companies were in some way connected with this great chemical concern. Until people of good will in the world, people in responsible positions-I am now speaking to this government-are prepared to take
fMr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).!
a stand to decartelize these warmongers, these merchants of death throughout the world who govern and control by their assistance to governments and through their propaganda, we shall not have peace.
As a solution I have a six-point program which I want to put before the government and the house. The policy of the western nations should be: First, to accept the fact that coexistence or no existence is a reality and there can be no victory for either side if a third world war should come. That is the first thing we have to realize and accept.
Second, we must accept the proposition that genuine and permanent check of communist influence is possible only with better ideas, politically, economically and morally, and institute these in world policy at every level.
Third, we must reiterate our faith in the United Nations. I am very happy that the minister of external affairs has expressed this faith in the United Nations in connection with the situation developing in Formosa, and that Canada will again have faith in the United Nations for the solving of the great problems of mankind. We must reiterate our faith in the United Nations as the framework to establish world peace and justice.
Fourth, we must immediately attempt, stage by stage, a reduction in conventional and new weapons.
Fifth, we must set up a world arms control agency under the United Nations to control arms production, both conventional and new weapons.
Sixth, we must set up through the United Nations an agency to break the world-wide cartelization of profit-motivated merchants of death.
We are going to be plagued with this situation. These people have allegiance to international capitalism and to no other ideal. They have no allegiance except to the profit motive. Surely the good will throughout the world, surely governments in responsible positions in the democracies are going to see that something is done about this so that the world will not be faced time and time again with world wars.
In conclusion I want to say that I am against rearming Germany because I do not think that a solution can come through an arms race. The logical thing is to realize that you can never reach the pyramid by which one side will gain over the other enough tactical strength, enough armaments to assure victory.
When speaking at Estevan in 1945 I put forth the proposition that it was a case of finding out how to live with Russia or to die

with her. At that time I expressed the opinion that by the use of technological means at our disposal the western nations, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) said, by going into those areas where there are economic conditions from which communism can grow, and by correcting those difficulties, could gain the opportunity of living in coexistence with the Russians.
We are today fighting an ideological war and we shall not win it by force alone, except the force of conviction that we have the best kind of government in the world, democracy, and by showing that we have moral principles and that we are prepared to establish moral agencies throughout the world.
I think this is the hope and aspiration of all people of good will throughout the world. I only hope that what I have said may have even some small sympathetic reception in the hearts of people who believe, as I do, that war solves no problem.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make my position known in respect to the present resolution, and at the commencement of my remarks may I read what the resolution is:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the protocol to the North Atlantic treaty on the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, signed by Canada at Paris on October 23, 1954, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose there has been any one decision over the past few years that is so important as the decision which we are called upon to make in this resolution. We have often read in the past of the responsibilities of members of parliament. Sometimes those responsibilities have been depreciated by a cheap sort of journalism. Perhaps it appears that there may be some element of insincerity with our work at times; but when members of parliament come face to face with such a decision as we have to make in voting on this resolution, then those responsibilities are not child's play in any sense. The decision that we are to make in respect to this resolution as far as Canada is concerned may well determine the future course of history.
When facing a responsibility of this kind I cannot help turning my mind back to the time when the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King came into this house, after calling a special session of this parliament, and asked us to vote to declare war on Germany. To me that was perhaps one of the greatest decisions which I have ever had to make in my political life, because at the time my two stepsons and my first-born son were of military age.
North Atlantic Treaty
Of course I followed the events of the war very closely. I am not alone in this. Like the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) and others in this house, I suffered the heartbreaking experience of losing my own son in that war. Such heartbreaking experiences not only tear at one's heart but cause one to think and to think desperately. I followed the events of that war and the events that transpired after the war. I followed with interest the conferences that were held by the big men of the earth, the conferences between President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Stalin and later President Truman. I recall the conferences of Yalta and Tehran.
As I followed them closely, wondering how they would affect the future course of history, believe me, I have come to the conclusion that no greater treachery has been perpetrated upon the human race than was accomplished at those conferences. Time and time again we gave a foothold to what is now our enemy and helped it to build its strength to its present powerful position, and which today constitutes a threat to our civilization.
I must admit that as I looked at those things with the emotion that characterizes every human soul I was tempted to adopt an unchangeable decision that I would never, never again vote for any measure that would indicate in the least possible degree the possibility of war, for I determined that never again should I ever have any confidence in those who have the responsibility for determining international policy.
Now we are face to face with another decision, and in facing that great decision I am also faced with the knowledge that I now have another son of military age. But as I think of that other decision and that other son I must also remember that we have another enemy, and an enemy who is perhaps just as ruthless if not more ruthless than the enemy of a few years ago.
We have heard a great deal about German atrocities. I know that we all, each and every one of us, abhor them. Each and every one of us detests them. We do not even like to think of them. It is significant, however, that many speakers in this debate who have mentioned those atrocities have paid little attention to the atrocities of the present enemies of the west. Millions upon millions have been liquidated by Russia and her satellites for no other crime than simply a desire to own their own little farms, and live their own lives freely. We are faced now with that enemy and must now make a decision in respect to it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned I lost one son and I have another who is now

North Atlantic Treaty
of military age, and when I think of them I recall the remarks of an hon. member in this house. I was moved to tears as I heard the concluding remarks of the speech delivered in this house the other day by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl). Some of us perhaps think we have suffered, but I would like to refresh our memories by reading a few paragraphs of the hon. member's speech. I quote from page 401 of Hansard of January 20, 1955:
I know, Mr. Speaker, that all my colleagues in the house will bear with me if they find that I have spoken with some emotion an this subject. If I did so, it is perhaps due to the fact that, to a greater extent than anyone else in the house possibly, I have personally been a victim of nazi cruelty. My rather distressed feelings result not only from the fact that I belong to that ethnic group which suffered most, but also because my own uncles, aunts and cousins, consisting of a family of over 60 persons, were tormented and put to death by the nazis. Hon. members I am sure can therefore appreciate that if, notwithstanding the over-all record of nazi cruelty and my own personal grief, I am still led to the conclusion to vote in favour of this resolution, I do so only because, to paraphrase a Shakespearean line:
"Not that I dislike Berlin less,
But because I fear Moscow more".
By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one more personal remark, and it is this: As I stand here before my colleagues on the floor of this house, and as one of the spokesmen of my ethnic group, I most solemnly declare that I vote for the resolution, but not without a deep ache in my heart caused by my grave doubts, apprehensions and misgivings; and I therefore accompany my vote with a most fervent prayer that, in the wisdom of Him who guides the destiny of us all, this vote may be for the betterment of all mankind.
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the pronoun "Him" is spelled with a capital letter. I suppose those words now written in Hansard will finally be buried in our musty old archives, but though they might be buried there they will not be buried in the eternal record.
I have pointed out that we have another enemy to face. In this regard we have heard a good deal lately about the dangers of German rearmament. I know we are all very conscious of that danger and, as the hon. member for Cartier pointed out, we approach it with some misgiving. We have heard a lot about the German military machine. But the fact of the matter is that we have heard very little from the people who debate in this fashion about the tremendous power and ruthlessness of the enemy who now confronts us, and that enemy is not a German war machine but another war machine more powerful than any the world has ever seen, except perhaps that which is gradually coming into existence through NATO and largely because of the strength of the United States.

I declare that we have no choice, Mr. Speaker. We are faced with an enemy and we face him today. It is not a matter of what might happen in future years following the rearmament of Germany. The important question is what is happening today.
A couple of years ago it was my privilege to visit Germany. I cannot reveal the names of those with whom I spoke, but I will say that on one occasion I had an opportunity of speaking with three or four high German government officials. I believe that experience that evening will perhaps highlight many of the other experiences I have had. Those top ranking German government officials were not nazis. In fact, one gentleman, whose name I am not at liberty to reveal, was on Hitler's liquidation list, managed to escape, and because of his ability and desire to serve his country returned to Germany. He told me that the great desire of those in office in Germany was to bring Germany within the orbit of the free and democratic nations of the world. One might ask what confidence we could have in those words. But if we adopt that attitude we might as well ask what confidence we can have in anyone's word. I felt at the time that there was a great desire on the part of those in top ranking influential positions to bring Germany back-yes, I know, restore her sovereignty- but also back into the place where she would be known as a free nation, and take her place as one of the free nations of the world.
I now want to pass on to another subject that I think is extremely important. It has been mentioned a number of times. I refer to the subject of the necessity for continuing negotiations with the enemy. I say "the enemy". There is no other way to describe them. My hon. friend who has just resumed his seat talked about the possibility of coexistence. I am well aware of what that means. I am not so stupid as to believe that we are not living in a world side by side with the enemy. The propagandists for coexistence mean only one thing. They mean for us to live at peace by granting concessions all along the way to those who are proposing this idea of coexistence. It means negotiation by concession.
The other day the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) argued that progress had been made by negotiation. Let us not ever believe that Moscow has changed or will ever change its ultimate objective. It never will. When we talk about progress by negotiation, we can mean only one thing, namely progress by concession. I have yet to see that we have received any benefit of

negotiation with the Russians. Only the communist imperialists have come out on top. If it is progress at all, it is progress down hill. It must be remembered that you can make progress down hill.
I heard a great deal about this progress by negotiation and about pursuing peaceful means. I know it is a nice phrase. The Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon used it. What I think we must determine is whether or not this enemy of ours is evil. Let us determine that fact first. Is it evil or is it not? If it is evil, then is it right for us to coexist with it and to grant concession to that which is evil? That is the decision we must make. We talk about peaceful means, but what is meant by "peaceful means"? They are nice words; it is a glowing phrase. It is nice to use it, but there is only one thing that phrase "by peaceful means" can mean. "Peaceful means" is a delusion and a snare. It is a delusion and a snare to assume that evil aggression can be overcome by peaceful means.
I do not want to stand here and to sound like one who is anxious to fight or is anxious for war. Over and over again in this debate it has been said that nobody wants war. Nobody hates war any more than do I or other hon. members. But we must face realities with regard to this matter. The only place where peaceful means could be successfully employed is between men of good will; and our communist enemies-I will not call them our communist friends-have proven over and over again that they are not men of good will. Just how far would law enforcement agencies get if they notified the underworld that henceforth every criminal problem would be solved by peaceful means only? If the F.B.I. or the R.C.M.P. and all our police forces were forbidden to use arms and were instructed to resort to peace in opposing criminals and criminal acts, the resulting increase in violence and crime would terrify and demoralize the whole nation. The use of the term "peaceful means" is meaningless when applied to the acts of violence perpetrated by international communism. We must destroy the ability of the communists to inflict injustices upon others or we ourselves must face ultimate destruction. There is no alternative.
As to this particular resolution, may I say this. The masters of the Kremlin are more anxious to weaken and to make ineffective the North Atlantic Treaty Organization than they are to do anything else. They are more interested in pushing the United States out of Europe than in any other political objective today. Why? Because they know
North Atlantic Treaty
that just as long as NATO is effective, they will not be able to move with respect to their political objectives, at least in that part of the world.
Let me now say this, Mr. Speaker. Some of our friends have been warning against the possible dangers in respect of a rearmed Germany, as though when once it is rearmed it is going to turn on us. I suppose that might be a chance we have to take. But let me throw out this thought. If any conflict should break out in Europe, it would not result in a local skirmish; it would result in another world war. We do not want it to come but I say that in that event I would rather have Germany with us than against us.
May I read from an article written by William Henry Chamberlin. Of course there are some people who will perhaps denounce Mr. Chamberlin for his attitude on many things. But in an article he wrote not long ago he throws some light on this picture in respect of the rearming of Germany. I am not going to read it at all, of course, but there is a point here that I think is well worth consideration. He says:
Europe cannot be defended against occupation unless there is at least one strong European power.
I believe the idea of this resolution is to make NATO effective and to make it a strong power. Mr. Chamberlin continues:
Unfortunately not one nation on the continent qualifies under this definition today. It is no exaggeration to say that Germany offers the only hope of playing this role.
This is the particular thought I wanted to bring before you, Mr. Speaker:
. . . the rearming of Germany in alliance with America-
And under this resolution it is an alliance with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
-and the west is the most hopeful means of cracking the iron curtain. The inner rottenness of the Soviet puppet regime in the Soviet zone of Germany was exposed on June 17, 1953, when only the presence of Soviet troops made it possible to put down a widespread spontaneous uprising. Without the backing of Soviet occupation troops the red Quisling regime in the Soviet zone would not last five minutes.
Then the article goes on to say that "the Soviet zone is extremely shaky." The article continues:
Some opponents of German rearming, in and out of Germany, contend that the German people are more interested in national unity than in association with the west. But there is really no such alternative. The Soviet government has never consented to German unification on the only basis that would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of West Germans, conservatives and socialists alike: free elections accompanied by freedom of speech, press, assembly and political parties. The last "election" in- the Soviet zone late in October followed the usual totalitarian pattern: one

North Atlantic Treaty
official list of candidates, people prodded to the polls by intimidation, a 99-3 per cent majority for the official list.
Skipping a bit in the article, I read this pungent part:
And once the chain of Soviet empire snaps in its weakest link, in the Soviet zone of Germany, the crack-up of the whole jerrybuilt structure of Soviet imperialism in eastern Europe, with repercussions on the dictatorship in Russia, would become a possibility. No wonder Molotov gives the prevention of German rearmament the highest priority in his foreign policy aims.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it is an obvious thing of late that the prevention of German rearmament has had top priority in the Moscow propaganda program that permeates the world. I do not want to say that men have not spoken in this debate with a good deal of conviction, but I say that that conviction must be very naive if they cannot see that. Many speakers have expressed their approval of the high level of debate, and I do not want to minimize it. Should any members take a position that is opposite to mine, I am not going to call them communists. I am not very much concerned with whether or not a man carries a communist card. I am concerned about the men who follow the communist line. I say that it is the most illogical thing for one to bellow: "I hate communism, I do not like communism, communism is a thing I abhor", and then turn around and do the very things that the communists want them to do. That is illogical, and I cannot see how a person can be so naive that he cannot see that.
As far as I can visualize the world scene, I cannot see that there is any other position to take, with all our misgivings, than to vote for the resolution. We have Germany, a country with a high degree of national unity, with proved industrial and military capacity, with a negligible communist fifth column, and a bitter sense of grievance against the Soviet union. What more could we ask in the way of a co-partner with us in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? It is true that Germany has been our enemy in the last two world wars, but it is not a new thing for a former enemy to become an ally any more than it is a new thing, as has happened today, for a former ally to become our enemy. It is not a new thing.
One can talk about Germany, the ruthlessness of Germany and so forth, but I think we are all aware that we cannot tag the German people with that. The speech made by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) yesterday is most revealing. The German people came under the dynamic leadership of a dictator but there were circumstances involved in those years and, if I may say so, they fell for it. That does not

mean to say that the nature of these people is ruthless. Many of us have German communities in our constituencies. We mingle with these people and they are just as good citizens and good people as any of us. Personally I should like to keep them as my friends.
It is better to have this powerful nation as our friend in the face of any threatened war than to have her on the side of our enemy. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I take my position with our leader and other members of this group in supporting the resolution.
(Translation) :


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, even before this debate was initiated, I had decided to support the protocol of accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have not changed my mind. However, after considering some of the speeches delivered on the subject, I have thought it advisable to state my reasons for taking this stand.
In spite of all the propaganda to which we have been subjected for several months, when attempts were made to demonstrate to us the importance of the part Germany might be called upon to play in the defence of peace, I do not hesitate to give the benefit of the doubt to our allies of the NATO organization, and to grant that they are sincere in their efforts to achieve their aims.
On the other hand, we must not overlook the fact that in the countries where the problem has been referred to parliament, and even here in Canada, considerable opposition has developed.
Are the members of this last group equally sincere in claiming that Germany's entry into NATO would render peace more uncertain still and even make for added friction? I would feel like answering in the affirmative, which is the same as saying-and that is my sincere feeling in the matter-that it is possible to be opposed to the protocol and yet be no communist.
Between these two alternatives we must objectively seek the truth. It is impossible for a citizen of France not to remember or to feel in his very flesh the sufferings and misfortune which have thrice fallen upon his country in a 70-year period. For a German citizen it is not easy to forget either that these same misfortunes and sufferings, for which he is himself responsible, have by no means improved his lot even though, once out of three times, he emerged victorious from this venture.

And the memory of these sad events in both these countries is sufficient to cause an important section of the population to hesitate and to wonder whether armaments are really the best way of maintaining peace.
Under these conditions, the reasons expressed from all sides may quite properly be justifiable, by those who oppose the motion as well as by those who support it.
I should be quite inclined to believe that, in both of these opposing groups, there exists an equally sincere loyalty to the country and an unequivocal will to protect her from communism. To my mind, the difference lies in the appraisal of the means to be adopted.
In our case, however, the problem must be set in an altogether different manner. It should be discussed-publicly I mean-more calmly and more objectively. I exclude from this remark, of course, most of the speeches made in this house, and particularly the brilliant report made by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
There is being created among the public in the United States as well as in Canada some sort of mass hysteria, some kind of mass psychosis of which the leaders themselves in the end are not entirely free.
But, and this is true of masses as well as of individuals, the moves that are made in such a condition of nervous tension are often unreasoned, and they are sometimes detrimental and fraught with unfavourable consequences.
I readily admit that those who support the cold war are largely responsible for that condition of tension in which we live; but the cold war is not always fought on only one side of the barricade; and even among those who are beyond all question on the side of right and justice-I mean our allies in NATO -there is some overdoing which tends to foster that nervous condition so incompatible with calm judgment and cool reasoning.
After all, we should know chalk from cheese. A good example of the errors which are accepted offhand by whole populations who, owing to well-timed propaganda, seem unable to think for themselves and to react, is precisely that mutual defence treaty agreed to by the United States and nationalist China. We have proof of it at this very time when we can put our fingers, so to speak, on the very serious complications that are threaten-50433-33
North Atlantic Treaty
ing us as the allies of the United States, a consequence of that treaty which seems to me unjustifiable and indefensible.
Another instance of such exaggeration, which this time is shown by the Canadian government and but too easily accepted by a benumbed population-so to speak-as a result of well-organized propaganda, is our overexpenditure of public moneys for our participation in the Korean war and the sending and maintaining in Europe of the troops we are keeping there now, for our own protection perhaps, but mainly to protect countries which hesitate to a considerable degree to contribute to their own protection.
I express the hope that if parliament ratifies the entry of Germany into NATO-I hope and wish it will be so-measures will be taken to bring back as soon as possible to Canada the men and the materiel which we have in Europe at the present time.
By thus facing realities, we will ease the heavy burden of the Canadian taxpayers and keep our contribution to the defence of the west within reasonable limits.
In that respect, may I be permitted to quote a short extract from the editorial which Le Soleil published on January 22, 1955, under the following title:
Ottawa considers the German problem.
The writer devotes a few lines to the problem in general, then states precisely what I have said, that certain European countries seem to drag their feet, so to speak, with respect to the setting-up of their own defence. The editorialist then adds:
Such being the case, ratification by the Canadian parliament will in fact have but very little effect on German rearmament.. We should be humble enough to admit it. In this way we would be able to equate our international commitments with our small population. In this connection Canada could think of repatriating at least the ground troops we maintain in Germany, at colossal expense, quite out of proportion with their military usefulness, in return for our agreeing to the rearmament of a nation which, through its own fault or that of world politicians, has twice drawn Canada into war in the space of a single generation.
Nevertheless, even though we must be careful, even though we must guard against propaganda and try to look at things objectively when everything conspires to rush us, we must recognize that we are, at this time, faced with a dilemma which must be solved.
Shall we allow the German republic to rearm and to enter that group of countries with which we are associated for our collective

North Atlantic Treaty
defence on an equal footing or shall we allow her to rot in a state of forced neutrality, inaction and repression, which may be without danger when it is chosen out of free will, but which readily becomes a cause of the most serious disorder when imposed by coercion from outside?
In my humble opinion, it is not so much a question of deciding whether Germany will be rearmed or not, but whether or not she will recover her freedom. In spite of all the ills she has in fact brought upon Europe and the whole of humanity, by reason of her unjustified aggressions, it appears to me that we have no right and that it is not wise to keep this vanquished people indefinitely captive. That would be, moreover, a means of redeeming the errors committed after the last two wars when we seemed to be wanting to tighten to the limit the grip intended to crush an overly venturesome enemy. Undoubtedly, the rearming of Germany carries probable risks, but I sincerely believe that these risks are smaller than the ones we are running by letting this country fume under inaction and repression.
History does not relate a single instance where a young, strong and vigorous nation might have been kept for a long time in trusteeship, as has been the case, since the end of the last war, of both Germany and Japan. That might be possible with decaying and decadent nations, but it will never be possible in the case of present-day Germany.
We must also never lose sight of the fact that an opponent as treacherous and as unscrupulous as communist Russia will never be completely thwarted by armed might only. Even in defeat, they will continue to instil into our veins the poison of their doctrine.
Besides adequate military preparedness, in which I am willing to include German rearmament, we must put into play such other forces, moral forces, as honesty of intentions, superiority and integrity of purpose, honesty of means, a sincere desire for Christian justice, not only for ourselves and our allies, but also for our opponents and for the vanquished. Those are many factors of great importance in our struggle against the communists; factors which are not to be found, I do not hesitate to say, on their side, but that we must make sure to find here, in the heart and soul of free peoples.
I shall vote for the motion to approve the protocol, not so much because it allows Germany to rearm, but rather because it makes

her free again, hoping indeed that, in her love for liberty, she may join us in our efforts to repel communism.


Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: North Atlantic Treaty
However, we must do our duty. I am confident that we will give no respite to our common enemy, that we will take all necessary steps to fight that enemy and that we will agree to make more sacrifices to check the march of enemy forces.
German rearmament and the entry of Germany into NATO is a preventive measure which will make Russia think.
I am sure everyone wishes to see the present international disagreements which cause so much grief come to an end and hopes that mutual understanding may give us long years of peace.
However, we must always be ready for anything that may happen; in troubled times like these, the motto si vis pacem, para helium is justified. We are threatened by the forces of evil, well provided with munitions of war; we must therefore arm ourselves accordingly in order to repel the inhuman hordes that are preparing to swoop down upon the world.
I cannot conclude my remarks without challenging some statements made by two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). Those two members miss no opportunity of expressing their antagonism towards the government.
The member for Three Rivers deplores the fact that our country is always trying to play a leading part in international ventures. If he will only refer to Hansard, he will see that at the very moment when our war effort seemed to me far above our strength, his own leader thought that we were not doing enough. I am sure that the hon. member for Three Rivers would then take the first opportunity to change his mind as to the part our country is called upon to play in international disputes or international relations between Canada and other nations. I admit that, in certain circumstances, our efforts went beyond what could be expected of us. But where the hon. member becomes utterly ridiculous is when he inquires why the minister (Mr. Pearson) attended the meeting held in London by those we call the "big powers", especially, he adds, without having been invited.
The hon. member admits that we have interests to protect in Europe but he fails to see why we should seek information on the subject which was under examination at that conference: the rearming of Germany.

For my part I think that it was necessary for our Secretary of State for External Affairs to remain in touch with the question, in such a way as to make it possible for him to give facts and reasons to his colleagues in this Canadian parliament.
I would like to take this opportunity- though I would not like to be accused of flattery-to express to the Secretary of State for External Affairs my very sincere personal admiration for the leading part he has played in the United Nations and abroad. He has caused our country to be better known and, in so doing, he has informed all nations concerned of our firm determination to defend peace. At the same time, he has most certainly contributed to the solution of economic questions and of various other problems, to the benefit of this country of ours.
German rearmament is of very weighty consequence for humanity as a whole and everything done to promote it will be such as to serve our cause.
Our minister may have no lesson to take from me, but he will nevertheless be well-advised to remain in constant touch with all questions which are of close or remote interest to us and, on occasion, to make his views known. So far his presence has been of service to our own country and to our cause.
As regards the member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne), he also is bent on criticizing the government. In his opinion, parliament should have been convened sooner. Did that dear colleague of ours want us to make a decision before the very countries which, according to the member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), are primarily interested in studying the matter, had made their decision known as to the advisability of admitting Western Germany into NATO and consequently of granting this new ally the right to rearm? I say to these two members to agree with one another. One of them claims that we are proceeding ahead of time and the other, who shares the same political views, states that we are not proceeding quickly enough and that we should decide matters even before the parties primarily interested have made a decision. This I say with the best possible good will and spirit. Besides, it is not the first time that opinions do not seem to converge on the same point in the ranks of the opposition in this house.
However, such partisan criticism will not prevent, I am sure, a majority of members on the opposition benches as well as on the government benches from voting for the motion now before this house.

Our stand, which is not, I repeat, an aggressive one, will permit us to look to the future with greater serenity. God grant that the action we are now taking will bring us that peace we all pray for, and that the future of every country will be such that we will be glad to live there in human conditions which can materialize only through the behaviour of those who have but one wish: that the world may have peace and unity.
(Text):


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it has been stressed by many who have already spoken in this debate that at this time we face a difficult problem and an even more difficult decision. I agree with that. Perhaps I might go even a little further and say it is not only a difficult but an agonizing decision that will have to be made in this house within a matter of hours.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the previous speakers. I have listened with a great deal of respect to nearly all the previous speakers. But I regret that a small minority has seen fit to lower, in my estimation, the high plane on which this debate has been conducted by making inferences and casting aspersions on those who may be voting in opposition to this motion.
We differ in this house individually and along party lines. We comprise five groups, Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F., Social Credit, and independents. We differ in outlook, viewpoint and program. But I have always taken pride in the belief that we do not differ in our love of this country, in our patriotism, and in our anti-communism and anti-communist line. We are all the same on that. Therefore I think I am quite in order in saying I regret that for reasons known only to themselves a few hon. members of this house have cast aspersions, such as fellow travellers, followers of the commie line, and commie stooges, upon those who do not agree with them.
I listened with a great deal of interest to all that has been said thus far, and particularly to the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I could not but help note the great similarity in the proposals and terminology to that which was used over 30 years ago. In the past few days we have heard a great deal about the threat of Russian might; about the fact that we need a bulwark in Germany and that the price of Germany's admission to NATO will be the partial rearmament of that country.
North Atlantic Treaty
That expression rang a bell, so I went down to the library and found my memory had served me well. The request for our support of this motion at this time is similar to the request made for the same purpose over 30 years ago, not at that time by the western powers or the United Nations, but by the German foreign office. Gustav Stresemann was chancellor and minister of foreign affairs in Germany from 1923 to 1929, and I would like to quote a statement by that gentleman in order to demonstrate the similarity to the present proposal. I quote from "Stresemann and the Revision of Versailles", page 139:
It was the danger of a bolshevik penetration of Germany's eastern provinces, and the accompanying danger of insurrection, which caused Stresemann to demand an easing of the disarmament restrictions. Referring to allied protests against the citizens' militia which had sprung into existence everywhere in Germany, he addressed this warning to the west:
"If the path is cleared for a victorious advance of bolshevism by (allied insistence upon complete disarmament of Germany), then bolshevism will not halt at the Rhine, not at the channel, unless it is stopped in Germany."
That was not from the speech of a few days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; those words were spoken just after the first world war.
There were other items, factual, interesting, and logical, which drew my attention but one other statement also rang a bell. That was the important statement wherein the minister stressed that the rearmament of Germany as a member of the NATO family would be governed by controls and restrictions, and completely supervised. We all welcomed that statement and appreciated the detail into which the minister went in dealing with it. But it is exactly what was heard 32 years ago.
Article 8 of the covenant of the league of nations is of great relevance in this regard. Perhaps hon. members would like to read it when time permits. But on that point I would like to quote from what I understand is a very authoritative book, namely "The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences". I quote from page 480 of volume IX:
The treaty of Versailles imposed drastic disarmament upon the defeated powers; it also declared (art. 8) "that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations" and entrusted to the council of the league of nations the task of drawing up plans of reduction, which should be subject to reconsideration at least every 10 years. Members of the league also undertook to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments and military programs.
The ideas advanced at that time under the sponsorship of the western powers within the league of nations were similar to the

North Atlantic Treaty
arguments being advanced today in support of the protocol now before this house. Yet despite the controls and agreements drawn up after the first world war under the organization of the democratic powers, we landed into a second world war.
I admit, and believe, it is the sincere hope and belief of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that this time it will be different; that this time rearmament and control under the auspices of the western powers will not lead to another world war. I earnestly hope the minister is correct. But history repeats itself; and the arguments advanced so far do not, in my opinion, contain enough convincing evidence to show me that they are not out of the realm of prophecy and the problematical. There has not yet been given a sufficient cogency of argument to show that, just as we did not know of a Hitler at the end of the last world war, we may not in the future see in Germany the rise of somebody else, be he a dictator of nazism or a dictator of communism, both to be abhorred. Those two points, Mr. Speaker, I bring in only by the way, but they are important.
I noticed that almost without exception those who have spoken said they had arrived at the conclusion that this matter could not be discussed from a viewpoint of emotionalism but that it could be considered only from a standpoint of realism. I cannot understand that kind of thinking. In fact I completely disagree with it. I make no apologies whatsoever for the fact that, in the time I have left, I intend to speak on an emotional basis because real emotionalism is based upon deep understanding and deep feeling, and deep feeling is engendered by a study and analysis of the facts.
Because we face a most difficult and agonizing decision that must be made on the floor of the House of Commons, to the best of my ability, for a great many days, I have been trying to study and to analyse the facts. I have under my desk at the present moment something in the neighbourhood of 20 authoritative books and publications issued by the government, and which are to be found in the library. It is on the basis of study and analysis of these facts that I have a deep feeling, and therefore speak with deep emotion.
What are the facts? They are as follows. It is only ten years, approximately, since the end of the second world war. What was the purpose of that world war which ended only about ten years ago? The purpose was to disarm Germany. What again is the fact? Ten years later we are being asked in this House of Commons to cast our votes in favour of a partial rearmament of the country that we fought to disarm. Canada is a nation 
large in area and in influence but small in population. In our lifetime Canada has gone to war twice. What for? To disarm Germany.
In discussing this matter, Mr. Speaker, should we forget the price Canada paid? I do not think we should. In 1914 the population of Canada was 7,879,000. We played our part in going to war to stop aggression and disarm Germany. What price did Canada pay? The price was 56,634 dead and 149,732 wounded. In 1939 Canada had a population of 11,315,000, and again we went to war. For what purpose? To disarm Germany. What price did Canada pay in that war? The price she paid was 41,992 dead and 53,145 wounded.
That was the price in life and limb. In two wars to disarm Germany, what was the Canadian price in goods or in money, if you want to put it that way? According to the government records, it cost Canada $2 billion to wage the first world war and $20-25 billion to wage the second world war. We are obligated to take care of the dependents of our dead, and our wounded and their dependents. According to the department I contacted here a few days ago-and I want to thank them for their co-operation-as a result of those two world wars, in allowances to the dependents of the dead and the wounded until December 31 of last year-some 26 days ago- it had cost Canada $1,994,947,807. But that is not the end. The Department of National Defence has required money, to a great extent because of German aggression and the threat of German aggression and in later years, of course, because of another threat; but it is all because of war. Mr. Speaker, if we take all those publications called "Canada's Defence Program" issued by the Department of National Defence and add the figures together, we find that from 1919 up to and including the estimates for this fiscal year-excluding the cost of waging war, and excluding pensions-our defence expenditures have reached the fantastic sum of $19,828 million.
Let us for a moment just recapitulate the price Canada has paid, mostly to disarm Germany in two world wars. Here is the way it goes. In two wars, 98,626 dead and 202,877 wounded. That is the cost in life and limb. Then there is the cost of waging two world wars, namely $22J billion. Add to that the cost of pensions, and you get $24i billion. Then if you add the cost of the defence department, you get $44,047,947,807.
It is only ten years since the war to disarm Germany ended. We are asked to forgive and forget. Sometimes it is a good thing to do so. We are asked to believe that there has been a change in the national viewpoint and outlook in that important country. We are asked to believe that under control that country can be directed. We are asked to forget the price

Canada paid. We are asked to forget that, up until ten years ago, Germany was the nation that prosecuted, persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, crucified and murdered millions of innocents. We are asked to believe that all that has changed.
Mr. Speaker, it is my own personal and humble opinion that Canada could do more for peace and the guarantee of peace if we would expend our every effort and any monej we can spare to teach the new generation of Germans the meaning and practice of liberty, freedom and democracy rather than to rearm the generation that negated those principles throughout their entire lifetime.
I know there are many arguments in favour of supporting the resolution. I have heard it said that irrespective of what we do in the House of Commons this is a fait accompli and we cannot do anything about it. I agree that is correct. I have heard it said that even if it were not a fait accompli we cannot and should not try to keep Germany a secondary world power and keep her out of the family of nations. I can agree with that statement too. I have heard it said that even if this were not a fait accompli Germany will eventually become a sovereign nation, that she will rearm partially or fully and there is nothing we can do about it. I am inclined to agree with that, too.
But, sir, in view of the fact that it is only ten years since the last war, viewing the past record of Germany, viewing history and what it teaches, I say there is one thing that we can do, at least there is one thing I can do as a Canadian citizen honoured to have a voice and a vote on the floor of the House of Commons. I can decline to put my stamp of approval on the rearmament of Germany at the present time, and that is the way J intend to vote. Emotionalism? Perhaps. But it is based on deep feeling, and the deep feeling is based upon facts.
Two generations of Canadians have gone down under German guns, and at this time, with all the evidence that is before us, I cannot see myself giving approval to what might mean a third generation of Canadians having to face German guns.
As I said when I started, Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult matter requiring a difficult decision, a decision that is agonizing for all of us. I appreciate all the arguments that have been put forward in favour of the motion. I appreciate the arguments that have been put forward by those who oppose it. I hold all those who are going to vote for the motion in the deepest respect. I pay particular honour to my own leader who, because of conscience, conviction and judgment, has come to a different decision from some of the rest of us.
North Atlantic Treaty
So, Mr. Speaker, because I feel this way, because my feelings are based on facts, I intend when the time comes to stand in my place and be counted in opposition to the rearming of Germany at the present time.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be comparatively brief. I am one of those who feel that diplomacy with Russia is carried on better today with a sword in one hand and a treaty in the other than with a treaty alone. That is a harsh thing to have to say on Robert Burns' day, who sang of the time when men shall brothers be for a' that, but I think we have to realize the facts that face us in the world and not engage in wishful thinking when we are debating an issue such as the one now before us.
Two weeks ago deputations came here to call on us. A group of these men and women tramped out in the snow in front of the building a message which read, "Don't rearm the nazis". It was interesting to note that the message could be seen only from one particular point in the building, and only when the sun cast a shadow at a particular time of the day. At other times and from other positions the message, "Don't rearm the nazis" faded until it was unintelligible, until it became nothing more than depressions in the snow. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that much of what we have heard in support of that message, "Don't rearm the nazis", has had its origin in a comparatively narrow point of view, and that when we stand back and view all the aspects of the situation we must come to realize that at this time there is probably no other course open to us.
I think we come to that conclusion because "Don't rearm the nazis" is a negative attitude. On the other hand the entry of Germany into NATO, bringing her once again into the family of nations, is a positive step toward world understanding and world peace. In this connection I should like to pay particular tribute to one ethnic group in Canada and the attitude they have taken on this question. I have made a particular effort to discuss this matter with a number of leaders of the Jewish community, and I have invariably found, just as has been expressed in the house by two members who are of that particular ethnic group, that they approach this resolution and what it entails with misgivings, with unhappiness, but they are prepared to accept it because they feel it is in the best interests of all of us. I think that is a mark of true Canadianism.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one of the responsibilities of the house, if not the major responsibility, is to lead Canada and

North Atlantic Treaty
its people, and to make our own decisions once all aspects of a situation have been studied and we have heard all sides of an argument. In this respect-and it is regrettable-I think in the past few months the government have defaulted because they have made no effort to inform the people of Canada, as they should have informed them, of all aspects of this question. The government point of view may be well known in Bonn, Germany, Paris, London and all the other places to which these perambulating ministers go, but lamentably the facts are not and have not been well known to the people of Canada. I think perhaps the Gallup poll taken a little while ago which indicated that almost three-quarters of the people of Canada could not name one single cabinet minister is an indication of the lack of effort on the part of these hon. gentlemen to get their story across to the people of Canada.
One more point, Mr. Speaker. In February, 1954, speaking in Bonn, Germany, at a dinner for Dr. Adenauer, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said:
It may be, however, that European unity in itself cannot be expected to furnish an answer to the problems that face western Europe. Perhaps the time has now come to consider whether some of the steps towards closer integration, which we must take if our concept of civilization is not to perish, should be taken within the larger framework of the North Atlantic community. It would be difficult for me at this stage to particularize. But I suggest that we should perhaps be seeking solutions to the problems continuing to face you of achieving greater unity in Europe in a wider context and possibly in pursuit of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. It has become increasingly clear, I think, to all members of the NATO and to those many countries who are associated with us throughout the free world that our very survival and our continued development in freedom and in peace depends upon our ability to look beyond national barriers and to make them somewhat less artificial and more satisfactory.
There was more in the same vein. That was a year ago, and I think it is regrettable that in the year that has passed this government has not taken more forward-looking steps and more concrete action to implement the suggestions made by the Prime Minister at that time. There is no particular use going around the world preaching this sort of thing unless we are in a position to follow it up and do what we can to bring it about. Honeyed words without action to back them up are of as little value in international affairs as they have been here in Canada. To bring Germany into NATO and let NATO remain static is not going to be a lasting solution to the problems about which we have heard so much in the last few days.
I think the government would be well advised to go back and examine these suggestions of the Prime Minister, this promise

inferentially held out of something that will be done by NATO under article 2, to see just what they are going to do to implement the proposition set forth a year ago.
I shall vote for this motion and for ratification of the treaties, not on any emotional basis, not because of any reason other than that, having examined the facts of the case and having listened to the presentations made in the house, it is my firm conviction that a vote for this motion is a vote for peace.
(Translation) :


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, as has been said on various occasions during this debate, the decision we have to take following the motion made by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is of the highest moment.
For a great number of Canadians, the painful memory of the last years following the second world war is not without a morrow, and the rearmament of Western Germany brings to mind a page of history that is not easily forgotten. We remember with much grief the considerable loss of lives our nation has suffered at the hands of Hitler's men, and the wounds inflicted upon our people in concentration camps are not yet entirely healed.
But from the clear, brilliant and complete comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I gather that the decision we will reach should borrow from reason and realistic judgment that which the heart refuses to understand.
We can more easily understand the approval of this motion, when we recall the confusion caused among the free nations by France's refusal to accept the plan for a European defence community.
At that moment we feared that all the efforts made to maintain unity among western democracies would be of no avail and that a gap exceedingly hard to close had rent the wall of collective security which we had endeavoured to build against communist imperialism. Luckily for us, repeated efforts have made possible a new plan which we are called upon to ratify today and whose aim is approximately that of the European defence community.
Like many others, I received representations to the effect that the rearming of Western Germany could one day work against us.
It is certain that any international agreement is not riskproof. However, a study of the results which will follow the ratification of the protocol is enough to dispel any doubts

and make one decide in favour of the motion. Moreover, the clauses which limit the rearming of Western Germany and which are incorporated into the agreement remove a good deal of the fears that have been expressed.
Perhaps we might have better reason to fear the rearmament of Eastern Germany, which is already an accomplished fact, for who, among the free nations of the world, will dare say that in that part of Germany now under Russian occupation, they need more than one hundred thousand constables, abundantly equipped with tanks and artillery, to maintain peace and order. We all recognize that such a force under Russian control is nothing but a link in the powerful organization set up by Russia in order to make its ascendancy over the world more easily felt.
This decision to rearm our former enemy, which the latter is accepting without compulsion, not only is a direct result of the principles embodied in NATO, but also finds a justification in the continuous opposition raised by the Russians and the relentless stubbornness they show each time the question of an agreement on the unification of Germany comes up.
Moreover, this rearmament is always associated with the principle stated in the Potsdam agreement, namely, to unify Germany for the security of all nations.
Surely, this rearming of western Germany is a sad necessity, but it is the imperative duty of free nations to maintain all the forces required to prevent and deter aggression.
The experience of the last few years and recent events clearly show that the countries behind the iron curtain will be ready to stop their imperialistic march only when they realize that the wall of collective security that we are building in conjunction with our allies is unconquerable. This measure is another stone in the masonry of this wall and it would be unfortunate if Canada, by rejecting it, were to be an obstacle to the laying of this stone.
The welfare of nations in the face of communism requires a security based on the solidarity of all democratic countries. Once this security has been achieved, we all hope that it will then be possible to turn our efforts and our energy to the improvement of the common good in the peace we have been seeking for so long and which we pray divine Providence to grant us.
(Text):


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, much of what I would like to say has been said by my colleagues in this debate. Conse-50433-34
North Atlantic Treaty
quently I am not going to be repetitious. At the same time there are a number of observations I feel I should make at this time on this very important question.
It is gratifying to note the concern with which hon. members treat the subject now before us. The length and the quality of the debate are indicative of the growing interest in international affairs. I believe that parliament more and more should undertake responsibility in making decisions of this kind. I am rather disappointed that we are in the nature of a consultative body, asked to place the stamp of approval on decisions that have been made on our behalf by the minister. I realize that this is necessary in the diplomatic world today, but I do feel that on matters of general policy such as this it should be possible for the government to seek the feeling of the house. Along with other hon. members I think this house could well have met last fall to give more serious consideration to the matter now before us.
We find many hon. members rising and expressing deep concern and grave doubts regarding the wisdom of the step we are now taking. It is only logical that there are going to be differences in conclusions. I think it inconceivable that when so many hon. members are undecided, finding it difficult, as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) did last night, to reach a decision on this matter, there should not be differences in conclusions. I think that is a test of the strength of a democratic government. Only under an authoritarian or totalitarian regime do you find conformity with government policy a necessary thing.
I find it a little difficult to understand the attitude revealed by one or two members who have spoken, who seem to indicate that once the government has laid down its position on a particular matter, then it becomes automatically in the best interests of the country and those who oppose and who hold contrary views are acting against the best interests of the country. We had one speech along those lines last evening, in which an hon. member expressed surprise that there should be some members who have the temerity to question the wisdom of what the government is proposing to do. I believe that, certainly in the field of international affairs as with domestic affairs, a difference of opinion is to be desired. Just because there is uniformity of opinion does not mean that when a mistake is made the consequences of that mistake are any less serious. I think the

North Atlantic Treaty
Globe and Mail Struck that note in an editorial, when it pointed out that while the C.C.F. might be mistaken, at least they were bringing to the attention of the house many of the serious doubts that had existed in the minds of the people of Canada. That is our job as an opposition, and I for one have no apology whatsoever to make for taking issue with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The high level of the debate, with few exceptions which are hardly worthy of note, indicates that we can look forward in the future to a discussion of international affairs on a sane and sober level. In the way it is handling this problem the house can set an example to the country as a whole so that Canadian citizens will not find themselves in the position of those who were described by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) the other night when, at page 382 of Hansard, he said:
I believe that a good many serious-minded, loyal citizens of this country have possibly been silenced for fear that they might be classed as communists or communist sympathizers.
That such a situation could exist in Canada is a matter of serious regret, because it offers a threat to our time-honoured tradition of free speech and discussion. Those who resort to the tactics which might have brought about this situation have nothing to be proud of, because they are weakening the very fabric of our democratic system.
Many speakers have referred to the fact that the labour progressive party were quite active in trying to influence members of parliament in the past month or so; but to use this as an excuse for voting for the motion is absurd and ridiculous, to say the least. If an hon. member is going to allow himself to be influenced one way or the other, directly or indirectly, by what the communist party says, then I suggest he is placing in the hands of this discredited fragment of our population an influence and power far out of proportion to their position in the political life of this country. I am quite certain that hon. members are capable of deciding on issues of this kind without being influenced, as I say, one way or the other by the group I have just mentioned. It is rather regrettable that one or two hon. members have sought, strictly for political purposes, to create the impression that anyone who is voting against the motion therefore must have been influenced into that position by this campaign.
I am not going to be told by the labour progressive party how to vote, directly or indirectly, one way or the other. I have no respect for that organization. They opposed

me in the last election, and throughout my political experience I have had a great deal of trouble with them. For hon. members to seek cover on this particular issue by pointing to this delegation and using that as an excuse for going along with the rearming of Germany is to take a very weak position indeed.
In his address to the house last Thursday the Secretary of State for External Affairs put forth certain reasons why he felt the house should support the motion. Among other things he suggested that the rearming of West Germany would serve to unite the western democracies and knit closer together the members of the North Atlantic community. With this point of view I cannot agree. In my judgment no single issue in recent years has done more to divide the nations of the western world than this very question that is before the house today.
Other hon. members have pointed out that a motion similar to this was passed in the British House of Commons only by virtue of the fact that there were wholesale abstentions in the house vote. As the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) pointed out, there were around 100 Conservative members of the British House of Commons who did not go along with the government on this particular vote. I will grant you that some of the members may not have voted for other reasons, but in this instance it indicates an unusually large number of members, normally supporting the government, not going along with the Churchill government on this issue.
We know that a minority of the members of the British House of Commons voted on this matter. We know that when the matter was first brought before the national assembly in France the move to support German rearmament was defeated. The matter was introduced a week or so later; and after Mendes-France, with his tremendous prestige, had made it a vote of confidence and had wrapped up a package deal which included a social security measure, he was able to get it through the French assembly. But it must be pointed out that on that occasion the majority of the French assembly did not vote for it. I think the figures show that only 281 out of 627 deputies voted to rearm West Germany. Therefore it is correct to say that the majority of the members of the national assembly in France did not apnrove of German rearmament.
Opposition in France to German rearmament is not restricted to the communist party. As a matter of fact perhaps the most vociferous of the opponents of German rearmament have been the de Gaullists, the extreme

right wingers, and of course the M.R.P., the Roman Catholic party in France. So those who would suggest that objection to German rearmament is confined to the communists should pause and reflect, because if they follow that line of argument to its logical conclusion they are condemning most of the people in the western democracies as fellow travellers or dupes of the communists. I suggest that when we consider this problem we should dismiss from our minds any thought that decisions, apart from decisions made by the communists themselves, are made on any other basis than that of sober consideration of the problems involved.
But while France and Great Britain accepted the rearmament of West Germany very reluctantly and with very grave misgivings, the opposition to German rearmament is more solid in West Germany itself. To judge from the remarks made by some members in this debate one might almost get the impression that the German people are on bended knee crying out to us for justice and demanding that we give them arms. We are told that we cannot deny the German people their place in the family of nations, that we cannot deny the West Germans the right to rearm; and when those arguments are put forth one gets the distinct impression that the German people are crying out for this right. My intelligence would indicate that the reverse seems to be the case, and I would suggest that if this proposed rearmament of West Germany is to go through in its final stages it will depend largely on our ability to sell that idea to the German people themselves.
Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the rearmament of West Germany will be opposition in that part of Germany itself. The people of Germany have been the victims of German militarism in the past, and they are not anxious to saddle themselves once again with the military cliques which in the past have proved so disastrous to the continuance of German democratic institutions. It would appear that in so far as the people of West Germany are concerned, rearmament will have to be brought about as the result of outside pressure.
It seems ironical that just a few short years ago we were saying we were so worried about German militarism, and now we are setting out to convince the German people that they ought to rearm, that they ought once more to set out on the path which has had such tragic consequences not only for the people of Germany themselves but for the peoples of the world.
I agree with the statement made last Thursday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who said: "Does it not seem tragic and
50433-34i
North Atlantic Treaty
ludicrous that we should now turn completely around and plead with the Germans to think in terms of militarism, even if it is limited?" Yet in spite of this the minister would have us believe that the people of West Germany are insistent on their right to rearm. They want sovereignty, that is true; and I agree with the minister when he says that the first right of sovereignty is the right to arm. But I suggest that that right to arm is not a compulsion to arm. I suggest that this is a matter which could very well be left to the good judgment of the people of West Germany. I certainly feel that we as a parliament should not be asked to approve of something when we have grave doubts whether the people of West Germany want it at this time.
The division within Germany on the question of rearming is not difficult to understand. In the post-war years West Germany had the advantages of a demilitarized state. During this time West Germany made a remarkable recovery, due largely in point of fact to the happy position they were in of being able to devote all their energies and resources to peacetime pursuits. West Germany, free from the overpowering burden of a huge armaments program, has been able to rebuild her economy so that today many of our western businessmen are worried about the future of their markets in competition with the people of that country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I had been discussing the remarkable recovery of West Germany from the effects of world war II, and had suggested that this was largely due to the fact that an unarmed West Germany has been able to devote her energies to peaceful pursuits. That perhaps is one of the reasons the German people are reluctant at this time to take on the burden of armaments.
I suggest that if we give the Germans time to build and time to purge themselves of the effects of 12 years of nazi brutality, West Germany could become a tower of strength in the democratic world. It is not an easy task to counteract the long period of nazi indoctrination of German youth. The Germans must have time to complete this task and to build enduring democratic institutions. Nothing can make that task more difficult, or perhaps wellnigh impossible, than the restoration to

North Atlantic Treaty positions of power in Germany of a German military caste. Whatever may be the reasons advanced in support of West German rearmament at this time, let us not pretend too much concern over the German right to rearm, a right which at the present time they do not wish to exercise.
The point of view which I think best expresses German opinion is that enunciated by Erich Ollenhauer, leader of the German social democratic party. According to a report in the London Observer of September 26, 1954, Mr. Ollenhauer summed up his position quite tersely in these words:
First, no West German rearmament before another attempt at agreement with Russia about German reunification and on all-European security. Second, even in the event of failure of such a happening, no irrevocable integration of Western Germany into a supranational western system, and third, German conciliation with France even at the price of postponed German rearmament.
I suggest that the fulfilment of the conditions laid down by this West German statesman would do more to contribute to the building of western unity than the present efforts to force West German rearmament both on Germany herself and on a reluctant and suspicious western Europe.
I referred a moment ago to the proposition that German reunification should be a prior goal to any talk of rearmament. Among Germans in both east and west reunification is and will be a burning issue. One thing is certain; there can be no possibility of a settled and peaceful Europe as long as Germany is artificially divided into east and west. West German rearmament must be considered in the light of this fact. The question that naturally arises on this point is this. Will West German rearmament now help or hinder efforts toward peaceful reunification? On the strength of the evidence at hand I believe that the rearmament of West Germany at this time will make reunification more difficult than ever.
When we have an armed West Germany the logical consequence will be that we will have yielded whatever bargaining power we now possess. The Russians will hold the trump card, for they alone will be in a position to bargain with West Germany on the question of reunification. Russia alone could satisfy the German desire for a united Germany. And since, generally speaking, nations are motivated by self-interest, what reason have we to believe that an armed sovereign West Germany would not at some time in the future make a deal with the Russians?
The minister referred to a quotation the other day which went something like this: "Those who will not learn from the lessons of

history are doomed to repeat it." When the minister made that statement my mind went back to 1939 and the German-Russian nonaggression pact of that period. I suggest that if we take note of that quotation we will exercise a greater degree of caution than is shown by some of those who support the motion now before the house.
We are told by the minister that we will have controls, and that these controls are foolproof. In other words we have nothing to worry about. The minister has great faith in the present West German government, but Adenauer will not be chancellor forever; and after Adenauer, what? These are questions that should be settled before we take the irrevocable step of placing arms in the hands of West Germans.
The German people are worried about this problem. I suggest that if they are worried about it, we also should be worried about it. Many in Germany and elsewhere fear that German rearmament at this time will lead to a West Germany dominated by the military. Such a government could take one of two steps to achieve the goal of reunification, both steps being unpalatable to the west. With an army, West Germany could seek by force of arms to achieve that which she has not been able to achieve by negotiation, namely the reunification of Germany. This could well provide the spark to set off a third world war.
The other course of action would be for a West German government to deal unilaterally with the Russians. It may be argued that these are possibilities rather than probabilities, but I believe the danger is there. I believe all hon. members should give serious consideration to the step they are being asked to take at this time. Are the 12 German divisions-which, of course, will be offset unquestionably by a similar build-up in the east-worth the terrific risks involved? That is a question which this house must answer.
In my view West German rearmament can be considered only in the light of two assumptions: first, that the efforts at German reunification be abandoned; or secondly, that reunification could be achieved by force. The first assumption is unacceptable. It is difficult to imagine that the German people will accept as permanent the division of their country into east and west. The second assumption is utterly unacceptable, since it involves a most serious threat to the peace of the world.
No one in this house has denied the risks and dangers involved in the rearmament of West Germany. The minister spoke of it

as a tragic necessity. I too consider it tragic, but I cannot agree that it is a necessity. The arguments advanced by the minister have not convinced me of the absolute necessity of taking this irrevocable step. I shall vote against this motion because in my judgment the dangers and risks involved far outweigh the possible advantages.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the newest members of this house I had been hopeful that I could have been spared the necessity of taking part in this debate. I am sure this house also wishes that it could have been spared hearing me.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


John Borden Hamilton: You may recall that last week, in speaking in the debate on the speech from the throne, I indicated that I could not criticize without offering a sound alternative. However, in this extremely serious problem that faces us tonight there is no alternative. I have received the delegations, the telegrams, the chain letters and the circulars. I have seen the results of German atrocities. Yes, I have even seen Belsen. Let me make it quite clear to the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) that in the stand I am taking in this debate I am not hiding behind any animosity I harbour for the labour progressive party. The issue is as clear-cut as set out by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). The sides have been fairly taken.
We have all heard the arguments in support of the resolution, and they are arguments based not on emotion but rather on cold, hard facts. I shall support this motion. But I cannot deny the sincerity of many people who have been in touch with me in the past few weeks from my constituency of York West on the subject of German rearmament.
If I cannot criticize the stand this government is taking at this time, I wonder whether there are not some lessons to be learned from the series of events which have led up to this situation, and also perhaps some warnings to us with regard to the future. First of all, I cannot help agreeing with the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) and the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) that this government has failed to inform the people of all the circumstances which led up to our present position. Under a democratic system it is the duty of any government to inform the public, to the best of its ability, of the conditions precedent to its policy decisions; and the blame cannot be placed on the press if access is not given to the necessary information.
North Atlantic Treaty
In the present situation the public have not been fully aware of the fact that our "no alternative" position is the direct result of Russian communist unilateral action. For the same reason the public has not been convinced that our decision on the question of Germany's admission to NATO has been taken on our own initiative and not as a free rider on the tail of the Washington kite. The people of this country need to be convinced that our decisions are made in Ottawa. Let us hear more of the strong, clear voice of Canada in foreign affairs. In addition, there has been no solid assurance that Canada will play an important supervisory role in the rearmament program.
We must look at our decision tonight not as an end to a problem but as the starting point of a new phase in our international affairs. If we are not to break faith with those who sleep in Flanders fields, this time, supervision must work. As we cast our votes in favour of this plan, let us resolve that on the anniversary of this vote in following years we shall ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs for a report on the part we are playing in the supervision job that lies ahead, and we shall ask this time for no failure.
(Translation) :


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed rearmament of Western Germany seems to upset and worry a great many of our fellow citizens.
As a matter of fact, if we were to take exclusively into account the history of Germany, the natural disposition of the German people to aggression and militarism, the atrocities and crimes committed by the Germans during the last war, then all that misgiving and worrying would surely be justified. However, I wonder whether it is fair to discuss that question only from the standpoint of Germany's past. I do not think it is. Since the last war, events have taken place that have deeply modified diplomatic relations between all nations, such as the creation of the United Nations Organization. Now less than ten years old, that organization has nevertheless marked a new chapter in the history of the world. Although we are generally inclined to look at the failings of UNO and to seldom consider its accomplishments, I think that some of these accomplishments will remain graven on the memories of men.
It should be mentioned here that in 1946, through a decision of its security council, UNO brought about the withdrawal of communist troops from certain provinces of Iran, at a time when their continued presence

North Atlantic Treaty would certainly have caused war. A few weeks later, through the work of the UNO security council, British and French forces were made to leave Lebanon, a move which prevented the outbreak of another war.
In 1947 the clash between Indonesia and The Netherlands was put to an end through negotiations and conciliation. We can add to that list the gradual pacification of the frontiers of Greece, the armistice in Palestine, the cease-fire in the struggle between India and Pakistan.
For the first time in the history of the world an international police force made up of soldiers from fifteen sovereign states fought under the United Nations flag against an enemy force which had just invaded Korea. It is also thanks to the United Nations that we have been able to bring hostilities to a close in that country. It would seem to me that these are important events that must be considered in examining the rearmament of Germany.
The setting up of NATO has been, in itself, a revolutionary undertaking in that it has banded together a group of European countries for the purpose of establishing collective defence and security, each country giving up a part of its sovereignty in order to contribute to mutual defence. That point, Mr. Speaker, is highly important with regard to this whole discussion.
Science has also contributed to changing the international scene. All of us will remember with what feelings we learned that it was the atomic bomb, in all its destructive power, which had put an end to the second world war. Since that time, we have been given the opportunity to ascertain the destructive force of the hydrogen bomb, which scared statesmen so, that nearly all leaders have exerted pressure to have the use of thermonuclear weapons prohibited.
Events moved on, so to speak, and at the suggestion of the president of the United States we saw the birth of an embryonic international atomic agency which nursed the hope of using thermonuclear energy for the welfare of the world rather than for its destruction.
You have no doubt heard about the progress made on the question of disarmament. Incidentally, on the question of disarmament, to those who seem to believe that Canada is assuming unjustified international prestige, I should like to point out that if there has been the slightest agreement on the question of disarmament, if there has been the least progress, it was due to the prestige, initiative and efforts of Canada in the United


Nations. I had the honour to be present when this matter was discussed. I had the opportunity of witnessing the efforts put forth and the work done by the leader of the Canadian delegation who was, at the time, the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I also realized that our country enjoyed in UNO and among all the nations of the world a measure of prestige which we do not even suspect here in Canada.
Everyone knows that we did not have to add to our military obligations; that did not cost the Canadian people one cent more. Besides we know that disarmament, if it could be achieved, would reduce not only international tension but also our foreign commitments and our national defence expenditures. As we all know, the amounts earmarked for the defence of our country make up more than half our budget. I cannot believe that we have come to the point where the government is criticized because Canada enjoys too great a prestige on the international plane.
However, Mr. Speaker, in view of all these happenings, we may say that our position is not the same as in 1914 or 1939. And what might not have seemed feasible at that time might be so today. For instance, I think we should now count on the rearmament of Germany on certain conditions.
All fears and worries that have been expressed about the rearmament of Germany have their source in two theories. In the first place, it has been said that, by giving arms to Germany, we are opening wide the gates leading to a new state of militarism that probably will bring about a third world war.
In the speech he delivered last week, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) did not try to minimize the risks and dangers we were incurring. He gave us to understand that the very powers who proposed to rearm Germany recognized those dangers and deemed it necessary, in fact, to include in the protocol strict restrictions with respect to the quantity and the types of arms Germany would be allowed to keep. Moreover, the army in question, as we know, will be placed under the control of the NATO forces.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of underestimating the dangers which may exist. There are dangers and we recognize them but on the

other hand we can be equally certain, morally certain, that every European nation, every member state of NATO, the United Nations themselves and, more particularly, France will watch closely for any tendency toward any expansion of the German army. If France, it seems to me, could ratify those agreements and accept the rearming of Germany, in spite of the sufferings imposed upon her thrice by Germany, we can be morally assured that every necessary precaution had been taken before approving the agreement.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) on the speech he made last week. It reflected profound and legitimate emotion, but it was also inspired by cold and calculated reasoning and logic. I am sure that the hon. member for Cartier is not enthusiastic about voting to rearm Germany, but that he will do so in the light of the present situation and as the lesser of two evils.
The second theory which has given rise to those misgivings is that, by rearming Germany, we will antagonize the Russians to the point that they might start a new world war. As for antagonizing the Russians, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the rearmament of Germany is going to antagonize them, but I am not ready to say that they will be antagonized to the point of starting a new world war. As a matter of fact, they have not made any important gain in the west European countries, because they fear the moral power of the European union and the military power of NATO.
It seems to me that it is our duty to bring more strength to that organization which, so far, has kept at bay the armed forces of the communists.
It must also be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that German rearmament and the integration of Germany into NATO is not only important, but absolutely necessary with regard to the establishment of adequate defences in western Europe. And it is precisely because Russia is afraid of this strengthening of NATO that, immediately following the London conference, she lost her head and sent out proposals and suggestions of all kinds, or invitations to conferences devoid of any meaning. It is for that very same reason too that Russia has contacted the communist party in Canada, enjoining it to exert pressure on every fellow-traveller group in this
North Atlantic Treaty
country, so that the federal government, and more particularly this parliament, would go on record as opposing German rearmament.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in the circumstances any attempt to diminish either the moral strength of the European union or the potential military strength of NATO would be a victory for Russian propaganda. And furthermore it is a notice, it is further evidence of the fiendish propensity of Russia to hide her hand so well, in the hope that the western powers be made to swallow gall for honey. We should not once again fall into this trap.
Besides, I sincerely believe that the true solution to this problem is much more important than the question of rearming Germany. This solution lies rather in the free nations giving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization all the support required to give it the strength and the effectiveness necessary to keep in check the communist threat of aggression on the one hand and, on the other hand, the necessary authority to be able to solve any problem likely to arise within the organization itself.
There will always be time, Mr. Speaker, to achieve universal disarmament once we have been given proof of the sincerity and good will of the communists.
If we cannot, Mr. Speaker, vote with enthusiasm for German rearmament, we should at least vote with determination and with confidence in the NATO forces which, since the beginning of the cold war, have held in check powerful communist forces in each one of the satellite countries of Russia.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should have faith in NATO. Of course there are serious dangers in this whole question. We have to choose the lesser of the two dangers which we have to face. Those are facts and conditions which exist and which we cannot change, and this reminds me of this prayer of an English philosopher whose name I forget: Lord, give us enough serenity to accept the things which cannot be changed; enough strength to change the things which can be changed; and enough wisdom to differentiate between the two.
Mr. Speaker, after having considered for a long time this question of great import for the whole world, I intend to vote with confidence and without mental reservation for the rearming of Germany.

North Atlantic Treaty
(Text):


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am going to begin by begging the indulgence of the house to permit me to cite one or two experiences I had last fall. I think perhaps I am entitled to that indulgence because you will recall that last year I was the sole worker in this particular vineyard of debate, whereas this year there has been such a rush of workers that I have been almost squeezed out of the gate. So I am going to take a few minutes to tell of my experiences last year in Germany and in Berlin.
About four months ago I was in west Berlin, speaking to various people there, asking them about conditions in Berlin both east and west, asking about the way one might travel from the west sector to the east sector, speaking to such people as an old bookseller who told us about his quite hairraising experiences the year before when he had had to flee from east Berlin to save his life because he had resisted police pressure to allow his bookstore to be used as a point of control.
I had conversations with many people, in particular one lady who lived in Wannsee, whose son was a doctor, and whose practice took him into the east sector. She told us of her anxiety until her son arrived home each evening. I heard endless tales of almost unbelievable brutality and oppression in the east sector, tales which tragically were only too well authenticated.
With my wife I inquired about going from the west sector to the east sector, and we got conflicting answers. Some people held up their hands in horror at the very thought of anyone taking the unnecessary risk of going into the east zone. Others suggested that there was not any very great risk, that it was easy enough to accomplish.
We had gone to Berlin with the express purpose of seeing in east Berlin what we could of the communist regime. So one day we started down the Charlottenburgersallee to the Brandenburg gate, which is the division between the east and west zones of Berlin, a very interesting experience. Perhaps three or four cars went down that street while we walked the mile to the gate. Those cars were stopped, and the drivers and passengers put through a most careful and searching inquisition by the east German police. Even the few people who were on bicycles were stopped and were interrogated. But apparently, with the irrationality which
[Mr. Cardin.'J
often distinguishes totalitarian regimes, no one had suggested to them that they should ask questions of pedestrians.
So when my wife and I walked past the Soviet war memorial and through the Brandenburg gate, all that happened was that some rather puzzled and wondering glances were thrown in our direction by the armed German police. Nothing more was done. It was a most unpleasant sensation, however, to walk through the Brandenburg gate with these armed gentlemen behind us, wondering just what was going to happen.
We went through the gate to the Unter den Linden. We went into various establishments. We went there to find out what we could, and our first experience of what it is like to be in a police state occurred when we were standing in front of Humboldt University on the Unter den Linden. My wife was translating for me the notice on the board outside the university when I observed that a jeep had drawn up alongside the curb and a very unpleasant, young-looking man in uniform was gazing at us carefully and very searchingly. My wife went on translating. Out of the corner of my mouth I murmured, "The cops are here." She murmured back, "I know", then she took a deep breath, twirled around and stepped across the sidewalk in front of this man and asked him if we could go into the building, not having any idea what the building was.
Wherever we went we were confronted with that. We experienced the unpleasant sensation that there was always a man in uniform, someone watching us very carefully, and a most unpleasant experience it is. We had it even in a restaurant. It was a very eerie experience. It was a very good restaurant, good meals, not too expensive, crowded-and almost dead silence prevailed. It was a most unnerving and eerie experience to sit in a restaurant and hear only the occasional clatter of tools, and perhaps a murmured request for the salt. There was no conversation.
We went into the Karl Marx museum dedicated to that communist worthy. It was a very disheartening experience for a socialist, I may say, to see men, whose lives were devoted to a critical analysis of human society and, whether we agree with their methods or not, to the introduction of a better form of society, to see such people made into the objects of really idolatrous veneration. It was to me most repugnant and most unpleasant. In east Berlin there are obvious signs, to the most superficial observer, of a very unpleasant and evil state of oppression.

One can readily understand why those people in east Berlin in June of 1953 took their lives in their hands, as is set forth in this pamphlet that we got in west Berlin. There are pictures here of young men throwing brickbats at tanks, pictures of communists fleeing to the west sector. One can readily understand that after being in east Berlin. It was a very unpleasant experience, and certainly no one in his right senses would want to see such regimes spread their influence any further throughout the world.
But, Mr. Speaker, I had a question asked me repeatedly by Germans, both in Berlin and in other parts of West Germany. "What is your alternative to coming to some sort of terms with these people, short of war?" That question was asked of me repeatedly. The question is one I ask tonight. It is a question I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson); because if, as we were told the other day, the Canadian government is committed to wholehearted support of the view of the German people that German reunification must be the foundation of all policy with regard to Germany, then I have this question to ask. How do we propose, without war, to rescue those 18 million people from the communist regime which is now oppressing them, unless we are prepared to sit down and negotiate?
There is something intellectually dishonest in pretending or even implying that there may be some third alternative to negotiation or war; that there may be some way in which we can avoid having to negotiate with these people and thus remain on good terms with our United States friends, and at the same time avoid war and remain on good terms with our common sense and reason; but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, there is no third alternative. We have only two prospects before us.
How do we propose to go about dealing with this great danger, this unpleasant situation? We propose to rearm a part of Germany in the face of widespread and growing dismay among the German people, and in the face of the often expressed fears of the Russians which, the Secretary of State for External Affairs admitted the other day, are understandable if possibly unreasonable fears.
What has been presented for approval in this house? When I was preparing notes for my speech, Mr. Speaker, I took occasion to check over some of the words of our Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I came to the conclusion that for one who formerly had at least some pretensions to being an historian, there were some remarkably shaky pieces of history in his argumentation. I was
North Atlantic Treaty
very interested tonight to note that the Ottawa Citizen is of the same opinion, and feels that poor history has had very rough handling at the hands of the Canadian parliament and no more rough handling than at the hands of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As proof of the reckless and characteristic intransigence of our communist antagonists, we were told on Thursday last that the Berlin blockade was an example of the senseless, dangerous attitude of these people, and evidence of the folly of hoping to come to terms with them. I am quite prepared to agree that it was a senseless and dangerous procedure on the part of the Soviet authorities, but I do suggest that anyone wishing to present an historically true picture of the situation would have been obliged to mention the fact that that move, that senseless, dangerous move, wicked if you like, the blockade of Berlin was the direct result of an antecedent event. That event had been, of course, the expressed intention of the western powers to integrate the three western zones of Germany into one and to give it at least semi-sovereign status.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is indispensable to anyone who professes to present an historical review of circumstances to mention the whole chain of events. I am not arguing the merits or the demerits of the action taken at that time, but I do emphasize that one was the direct result of the other. It is dangerous folly for us to take actions of the communists that we dislike, examine them in isolation and overlook the antecedent events that led up to those actions.
We are told also that the Berlin conference of last year proved that an honourable and acceptable basis for agreement on German unity did not exist. I myself, Mr. Speaker, of course would hesitate to question the infallibility of our Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I would remind the house that a great many observers of the foreign scene of almost such stature came to a different conclusion. I would place on the record again the comments made in the London Observer, which is usually considered to be a fairly authoritative and objective journal, certainly not one that is tinged with communism or socialism. Speaking of the Berlin conference Sebastian Haffner, a very eminent observer, had this to say:
It would be rash for anyone to claim positively at this stage that Mr. Molotov's plan provides an acceptable form of that general "Locarno" or "mutual security" idea in Europe for which many western statesmen, from Sir Winston Churchill to Dr. Konrad Adenauer, the West German chancellor, have been groping during the last year, and which is indispensable-as has come to be widely recognized-if there is to be a general pacification of Europe. It would however be rasher still to deny

North Atlantic Treaty
the possibility that something on these lines might be developed from a patient and serious exploration of Mr. Molotov's proposal.
The eagerness with which the three western ministers in Berlin tried to sweep it off the table without consideration has been rather terrifying. It is undoubtedly one of the more intriguing proposals which have turned up since the war, and it should be the subject of careful study and diplomatic exchange, not only between the powers which were disputants at Berlin but among all interested European governments. It would be a great pity if the hastily contrived conference speeches and press comments of these hectic weeks were to be considered the last word on it.
Unfortunately that great pity came to pass. We all know that our Secretary of State for External Affairs occupies an eminent position in the world, but he has not hesitated to follow the rather rash course deplored by Sebastian Haffner. Just what did we do at Berlin? The suggestion is made that it was only the Soviet union who, shall we say, behaved in an intransigent manner. Just what proposal did we put to them? In essence the proposal was that the Russians should withdraw from East Germany, that they should agree to the unification of Germany on a basis which they and everyone else know meant adherence of that united Germany to the western bloc, and moreover there was to be an armed Germany.
Regardless altogether of our views of the communist world, regardless of our views of the Soviet regime, will anyone make the suggestion that that was a proposal we could reasonably expect them to accept? I could quote a great many competent non-communist observers who have suggested that Sir Anthony Eden's statements at that time were at least a little disingenuous, particularly when he suggested that the west was so generous that it did not mind to which bloc the newly united Germany would adhere. I suggest that if he did not mind to which bloc they adhered he had no business speaking for us. I suggest moreover that he knew perfectly well that if Germany were united because the western powers were able to bully or cajole the Soviet union into moving out of East Germany, naturally because of gratitude and self-interest they would move solidly into the western bloc. Let us face that fact frankly.
It has been pretended that it was a reasonable proposition. The fact that the Russian counter-proposal also contained some unacceptable jokers and some dishonesties, which it did, is no excuse whatever for pretending that our proposals were reasonable ones offered in the expectation that they would be accepted. I think we have the right to expect perhaps a more intelligent and adult conduct of our affairs in the face of this very dangerous and cunning adversary.

My colleague the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) made reference to the latest Soviet note. I think it is rather significant that the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not see fit to mention that the other day in his historical review. One might have thought he would have considered it relevant to this discussion. Whether it be good or bad, or acceptable or unacceptable, one can only presume that it is to be given the same unintelligent and cavalier treatment given to former suggestions.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested reasons why the Russians refused free elections last year. I think he is quite right in this. What happened in West Berlin was that the communists received only some 2-7 per cent of the vote. I was amazed that they got even that. But there was another conclusion to be drawn from this. While it is quite true, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs says, that the communists must have shuddered at the result of this, I suggest that Dr. Adenauer also must have had a few tremors because his party also went down to defeat. There was an indication in that West Berlin election that a reunited Germany meant the end of the Adenauer regime. I have no doubt that Willi Pieck would shudder. I expect that Konrad Adenauer had a shake to himself. So much for what I have termed the rather dubious historical foundation for the case put up by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I should like to say a word or two about the manner in which this case was presented. I wish I could agree with those who have complimented the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I really cannot. There was a time when responsible statesmen in dealing with foreign nations with which their country was presumably at peace observed a careful reserve and decorum in their statements. It was considered that until war broke out abuse was not very helpful, that it might indeed place obstacles in the way of reaching conclusions. Naturally the minute war broke out the lid was off.
I was somewhat dismayed, to be quite frank, at the tone of the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I had the feeling that instead of it being an adult, sophisticated, cold analysis of a dangerous situation which we had the right to expect, it was, on the other hand, a rather embarrassing combination of, what shall I say, hillbilly self-righteousness and disregard of the real actualities. It was an oversimplified way of presenting a very complex situation.

Let me quote what he said, as reported on page 362 of Hansard of January 20:
The communist dictators have already dragooned hundreds of millions of men- into highly centralized empires which deny the dignity and worth of the individual except as a creature of the state.
That may be factually true, although if by that he means that those hundreds of millions are struggling at the leash and waiting for the moment when we can release them, then I suggest it is a most dangerous delusion indeed. I would commend to the Secretary of State for External Affairs the words of a very eminent statesman spoken only last month in the city of Boston, which I should like to quote. They were as follows:
An arrogant Pharisaism and smug satisfaction with one's own superior righteousness, in a person or in a nation, are not only unamiable qualities, they are not conducive to clear political judgment. He whose humility and moral sensitivity is least highly developed, is most likely to confuse principle with question of fact or expediency, and to make an easy subconscious identification of his own viewpoint with the cause of right.
Furthermore, self-righteousness in international affairs is likely to lead to rigidity of thought and intolerance of other views. This often- prevents a wise understanding of complex and changing situations; and tends to make diplomacy captive and inflexible.
The author of those admirable words-and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that they were wise and admirable words-was a gentleman by the name of Lester B. Pearson. But of course the Secretary of State for External Affairs was not addressing the Canadian House of Commons; he was addressing the assembly of the national council of the churches of Christ in the United States of America. Perhaps more important still, he was addressing them in the city of Boston, which has a well-deserved reputation of being allergic, shall I say, to the more illiterate forms of expression; of being allergic to oversimplifications and crudities of every sort.
I think it is to be regretted that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not considered the members of this House of Commons to be as worthy of that carefully considered and, if I may say so quite frankly, profound thinking that is expressed here, and instead saw fit to give us a sort of superman comic strip, a simplified and highly coloured statement about a very complex situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What are we getting now?


Colin Cameron: Not very highly coloured. I would suggest that it is not only discourteous to this house but it is also very dangerous to encourage the attitude that there is a simple, clear-cut answer to these difficult and complex problems, and that there is a simple, clear-cut analysis of conditions and
North Atlantic Treaty
events in many parts of the world. To suggest that, I believe, is merely to ask for trouble.
There are some questions I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should answer before he can satisfy a great many people in Canada. He told us first of all that 12 divisions or approximately 500,000 men mobilized into ground troops and with an air force in Germany are necessary for our safety against the threat of communist aggression. Here is the question I wish to ask. Is the minister seriously presenting to this house the suggestion that these 12 divisions will make any material difference in our strength vis-a-vis the enormous concentration of troops which he himself referred to the other day on the floor of this house? Is he seriously suggesting that 12 divisions of German troops are going to count against some 250 communist divisions plus 135 divisions easily mobilizable, according to a military expert in the New York Times? Is he suggesting that it is a serious matter of defence, and that is why we have to arm the Germans? I doubt very much whether the minister seriously contends that. If he does there is nothing more to be said. We shall have to leave him with his clay pipe and bowl-


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. gentleman would like me to do so I shall answer him now by saying that I never at any time in my speech made any such suggestion.


Colin Cameron: Then that clarifies the matter admirably, and the whole case based on the fact that the rearmament of West Germany is an essential part of western defence falls to the ground.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Your whole case falls to the ground.


Colin Cameron: Apparently the minister is not sure whether he takes that position or not, but I am going to suggest to him that if he is not prepared to clarify that situation in the minds of the Canadian people -and he has certainly given the impression to this house and to the Canadian people that these 12 German divisions are an important factor in our defence-then he had better tell us what the real goals are. Is it to be 20 divisions, 30, 50 or 100 divisions? Is it going to include thermonuclear weapons?
The minister also tells us that it is safe to rearm West Germany because we have devised means of control. But almost in the same breath he tells us that we have no option about it, because the Germans are a proud people and will insist on rearmament anyway. I would ask the minister by what process of reasoning he considers it will be easier to control a rearmed West Germany
532	HOUSE OF
North Atlantic Treaty
than a Germany which he says we cannot control now? It simply does not make sense.
He told us that the Canadian government fully support the German people in their insistence that reunification must remain an essential goal of German policy. But he must tell us how he proposes to bring that about short of war, unless it is by negotiation. I would suggest too, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot negotiate, even from strength-if by negotiation from strength we mean something more than the issuing of ultimatums-we cannot negotiate from strength unless we have something the other people want and we are prepared to give them in exchange for something they have which we want. That is the essence of negotiation.
In addition, I suggest there is only one thing the Russians want in exchange for reunification, and that is a disarmed and neutralized Germany. Now, I am told-


An hon. Member:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Colin Cameron: No. I had to listen to you the other day and it was as painful for me as this is for you.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was not as long.


Colin Cameron: We are told by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we cannot do this because it would create a vacuum in Europe. Quite apart from my objections as a purist to this silly journalistic trick of using terms in the political field which can apply only in the physical laboratory, I would say that if there is a vacuum in Europe right now into which soviet Russia is preparing to rush, why did they not rush in before? Presumably something stopped them. Something must have stopped them in 1945 when, as General Gruenther told us not long ago, they had a marked superiority over the west with regard to conventional weapons. Something stopped them, and I would suggest the thing that stopped them is the same thing that stops them now. Is there any reason at all why a reunified, neutralized Germany cannot be the object of guarantees which will place the same problem before the Russians that was placed before them at the end of the war, namely that the risk of invading western Europe is so great that it means the starting of a third world war with thermonuclear weapons? I have said nothing so far-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: I do wish the people of Canada could have heard that, because they are going to be awfully interested in the position the Liberal and Conservative parties have taken on this issue,


very interested indeed. They will be interested to find that anyone's remarks in a debate of this sort were presumed to be a suitable subject for levity. To me it is not surprising, because people who have abandoned their position of intellectual integrity are, of course, capable of anything.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What about your leader?


Colin Cameron: This year I visited Germany. I was fortunate in that I had perhaps better opportunities than many to find out what the people were thinking, because I was introduced to a very large circle of family connections by my wife and was able to obtain points of view that perhaps would not have been given to the ordinary foreigner. For example, I spoke to Mr. Artur Bratu, who is now superintendent of education in the state of Hesse. Mr. Bratu is a Jew who had to leave Germany during the Hitler regime but went back afterwards because he is also a German, and he considered he had a job to do in Germany.
Mr. Bratu was dismayed and distressed at the intentions of the western world. He said something of this sort to me. "We are now beginning to raise a new generation of young Germans with their faces turned against militarism. I cannot guarantee what is going to happen to these young men if you insist on putting them into an army officered and N.C.O.'d by former nazis."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Rubbish.


Colin Cameron: That is the only answer you have. I suggest it is very unwise for anyone in this chamber to be scornful of people like Mr. Bratu, who went back and put his head in the noose again because he felt it was his duty as a German to do so.
I had a talk with the member for Darmstadt in the Bundestag, Mr. Ludwig Metzger, who, like many of his colleagues, spent many years in and out of prison camps during the Hitler regime. He also expressed profound distress and uneasiness over the proposals now being made. I met another Jew, Heinz Putzrath, in Bonn, who had to leave Germany and go to England during the Hitler regime, where he was employed by the British government. He also went back to help build a new democratic Germany. He told me this. He said he himself was not so much concerned about the ex-nazis who were getting back into power-as they are doing in Bonn -as he was about the conditions that have been recreated in Germany by the western powers for the production of a new group of nazis. He said, "I find it difficult to have much confidence in a regime in which Alfred Krupp is again the dominant economic factor.

Then when it is again sought to add to Mr. Krupp a military arm, I am terrified at what may take place." One may well believe that he would be terrified. He was a Jew who had to get out. Most of his family died.
I had a long talk with Mr. Ollenhauer, leader of the social democrat party, who placed before me many of the arguments I have attempted to place before the house tonight. Mr. Ollenhauer also has an unimpeachable record of activity against the nazi regime, as have many of his colleagues in the social democrat party, such as people like Peter Blachstein who spent a year in Hitler's concentration camps and then escaped abroad; and Jacobi Werner, a man who spent seven years in Hitler's concentration camps. Now he is in the German Bundestag and is desperately afraid of the rearming of West Germany.
I could go on with an endless list of these people. Moreover, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that these are the people upon whom we have to rely if there is to be a democratic Germany arise, and that these are the people who tell us with one voice that we are insane to proceed with this project of rearming Germany at this time.
I do not know whether the clue to this situation is to be found in the statement with regard to United States policy which was made by our Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day, when he suggested that none of the alternatives was suitable or acceptable, particularly in the light of United States policy. Is that the milk in the coconut? Is that the real reason? Does that explain this determination to carry on in the face of a poor case in logic or, in fact, no case at all?
If so, Mr. Speaker, I can only express regret that our Secretary of State for External Affairs and our government did not follow the example of Pierre Mendes-France, the premier of France, who, when he laid the proposition before the French assembly, did not pretend it was a good thing but quite frankly admitted it was a bad thing and told them in effect, "This is it; this is the price of United States support; we have no option". If that is the situation, then we should be told frankly that it is.
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker-and neither is anyone else in this house-what will be the results of this move. I myself doubt that it will lead to war. I do not think so. I think the overriding danger of thermonuclear war will prevent that outcome. However, I think it may have disastrous effects for the very people in Germany who are our friends and allies, that it will place obstacles in the way of reunification of Germany in
North Atlantic Treaty
the foreseeable future and, perhaps even more important still, will be another obstacle in the way of lessening tensions in the world something which surely every sane and intelligent person is hoping for today. Surely we all realize that it must be the goal of all our foreign policy and the goal of all international relations today to effect some sort of slackening of world tension so the human race can get about its overriding business of improving life for mankind on the face of the earth.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) who has just spoken will not take it amiss if I say that the house, after so much brilliance, will consider my efforts to be pedestrian indeed.
I think every member who has spoken in this debate has referred to the importance of the question we are discussing and the difficulty of making a decision. The importance of the question before us is indicated by the seriousness with which almost every hon. member has approached it. I too feel that we are debating an extremely important question, and I hope that nothing I shall say will do anything to lower the high standard of the debate.
I wish to say at once that I am voting for the resolution. I am voting for it for reasons already stated by my leader, and perhaps for reasons which I shall put forward before I finish. I am also voting for the resolution because no acceptable alternative has been put forward by those who are opposing it. I say "acceptable alternative", although I think I could say equally well that no alternative has been proposed. I wish to say quite frankly that I have no alternative either.
The reasons for the ratification have been stated by a number of hon. members, including my leader. I shall try to avoid taking up the time of the house by repeating what they have already said. I shall, however, take a little time to try to analyse the arguments put forward by those who are opposed to ratification. I am in a most peculiar position this evening, Mr. Speaker, because my opposition, instead of being in front of me, to the left of me or to the right of me, is behind me. I think it is generally accepted that a person can do his best fighting when he can see the whites of the eyes of his opposition rather than when he feels their breath on the back of his neck.
I said I was going to analyse some of the arguments put forward by those who are opposing ratification of the agreements. What are those arguments? From a careful reading of the speeches that have been made I think they are as follows; First, that the arming

North Atlantic Treaty of Germany would widen the gulf between the democratic nations and the Soviet bloc. As one member speaking in opposition to the resolution said, it would push the division between the two camps "beyond the point of no return." Second, that the German people are not to be trusted; that Germany is still the Germany that twice in our lifetime has engulfed the world in war; that the Germany we would make a partner is the same Germany that was responsible for Dachau, Belsen and Buchenwald; or put more briefly, that the German people are not morally worthy to associate with the rest of us. Third, that the proposal to bring Germany into NATO- which we accept and which, of course involves the rearming of Germany-is premature and that another attempt should be made to negotiate with the Soviet union on the reunification of Germany. Fourth, that there is no enthusiasm in Canada for the ratification of the agreement.
I think these are the main arguments put forward by those who are opposing the resolution. I shall try to deal with the various points as they appear to me. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not approaching this matter lightly. I have gone over the various points made time and time again.
Let me deal with the first reason put forward for opposing ratification of these agreements. It was that the arming of Germany now would widen the gulf between the democratic nations and the Soviet bloc. When making this argument the speaker agreed that the west would have to negotiate from strength. If that is the case, what the speaker was really saying was that we must negotiate from strength but not from too much strength, that if the west becomes too strong the Soviet union will get cross with us and perhaps start something. The only logical conclusion I can draw from this position is that in the opinion of the speaker the west is strong enough now, and that any further addition to our strength must be opposed because it is likely to offend the Soviet bloc.
I cannot see the question in that way. I am quite satisfied that the only argument the people in the Kremlin understand is strength, and that the stronger we are the more likelihood there is of getting them to negotiate. Last year there were for the first time, I believe, in the history of the United Nations assembly, unanimous decisions on two issues. One was the resolution proposed by the United States with respect to atoms for peace, and the other was the resolution on disarmament initiated by the Canadian delegation. At the time the discussion and vote on the disarmament resolution were taking place, there were conferences in London and


Paris in an effort to bring about the agreements that we have been discussing for the last few days. It seems to me that if we show that we are strong enough the Soviet union, instead of refusing to negotiate, will be more reasonable and negotiate with us.
I want the house to understand that I am in favour of negotiation. The unanimous votes in the United Nations assembly this year must have been a really cheering sight. I was at the assembly in 1947 for a while as parliamentary adviser to the Canadian delegation, and I can assure hon. members that there was nothing more depressing than the fact that on every issue that arose the Soviet union was on one side and the western powers were on the other. Surely it must have been a heartening experience for those who were privileged to be at the last meeting to see unanimity achieved at least on those two points.
I come now to the second argument, that the German people are not to be trusted, that they are still the Germans who were responsible for Hitler's atrocities and consequently they are not fit to associate with us. That is an argument I cannot accept. I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) the other evening, that this is the master race doctrine in reverse. We may not be setting ourselves up as the master race, but we are certainly denouncing the Germans as a race of criminals.
I was-I hope you will excuse the word, but it is the kind of proletarian word you would expect from me-flabbergasted tonight to hear the statement that the Germans must wait until they have purged themselves of their national brutalities. If that is not setting ourselves up as something quite superior, I do not know what it is. But in any case I reject the idea of a criminal Germany with all the force of my being. I gave some years of my life to defending another people from the charge that they could not be trusted because of their race, and at this date I am not going to replace the Japanese with the Germans.
Let us admit that the Germans carry a very large share of the responsibility for starting two world wars. I have been walking around in this vale of tears for quite a long time- perhaps some people would say too long-and I remember some of the discussions that took place between the two world wars. The hon. member for Vancouver South will know quite well that most people with whom he and I associated at that time took the position that the Versailles treaty was responsible for Hitler, and that was the reason advanced by

many responsible people as to why Canada should not enter the second world war.
I think in the last few days we have overlooked altogether the part that Russia played in bringing about the second world war. Does anyone in this chamber tonight believe that if Stalin had refused to make an agreement with Hitler in 1939, Hitler would have marched on Poland? Of course he would not. If we are going to begin to apportion blame, if we are going to name criminal peoples, let us include them all.
However, let us agree that Germany must accept a very large share of the responsibility for starting two world wars. They have suffered for what they have done. I think I could say they have been punished for it. But it seems to me that if we want to give them an incentive for starting another world war the best way to do it is to ostracize them, to say to them that they are not fit to associate with other people, that they must be kept as a second-class nation. Let me repeat; if we want the Germans to start another world war, that, in my opinion, is the quickest way to get it started.
It also seems to me that those who are advocating such a course are overlooking the principles of modern psychology. In dealing with individuals guilty of crimes we have found that not only in their interests but also in the interests of society we must rehabilitate them as quickly as possible and bring them into association with other people. A sure way to have an individual guilty of an offence against society repeat that offence or another of its kind is to keep continually reminding him that he is different from other people because he once committed an offence.
I believe the same principle applies to peoples and nations. I think it is wrong to make every German responsible for the atrocities of the nazis. We know that hundreds of thousands of Germans refused to accept nazism. We know that thousands of them died because they refused. Thousands more rotted in concentration camps because they would not bow the knee to nazism.
As a matter of fact, a whole lot of people share the guilt for the rise of Hitler. I am going to read statements made by two prominent people, not communists, not socialists, not even Liberals, I believe. One of them was a former leader of the opposition in this house, the late Dr. Manion. Speaking in this chamber on the 8th of September, 1939, before war was declared by Canada, he said, as found at page 14 of Hansard:
One point I wish to make very clear is that to my mind we have no quarrel with the German people as a people. For generations they have given generously to the world in science and art and literature.
North Atlantic Treaty
We have well over half a million citizens of German descent in this country, and they are amongst our very best citizens.
And mark this one;
But, sir, Germany is controlled at the present time by an unscrupulous egoist. It is true he served Germany well, and had he stopped at a certain point he might well have gone down into history as a great German hero. He raised the German people from discouragement, gave them back their pride after a just but humiliating defeat. Had he stopped there he would have been accepted perhaps by all the world as a German hero.
That was after the Nuremberg decrees. That was after people all over Germany had been murdered by Hitler's minions. Now, Hitler could not have developed into the menace he became without assistance from other quarters. Let me read you another excerpt. The British people made great attempts to come to terms with Hitler. They sent an ambassador to Hitler in 1938, a man by the name of Sir Nevile Henderson, and his task was to bring about a working agreement between the United Kingdom and Germany. He failed. He wrote a book after he returned from Germany, when the second world war began, entitled "Failure of a Mission". This is a brief quotation from that book:
Nor are all dictatorships even if prolonged reprehensible. One cannot just because he is a dictator refuse to admit the great services which Signor Mussolini has rendered to Italy; nor would the world have failed to acclaim Hitler as a great German if he had known when and where to stop; if, for instance, after Munich and the Nuremberg decrees for the Jews.
It was an attitude like that of people who thought they were saving their possessions that gave Hitler his opportunity to nearly destroy the world. Now, let us not make other mistakes of that kind. What has taken place in West Germany in the development of democratic institutions since 1945 is, in my opinion, absolute proof that the people of West Germany, by a large majority, want to adhere to the democratic way of doing things. If we want to help them in that resolve we should welcome their co-operation and not spurn it. My own position is that West Germany should now be taken into the western comity of nations as a full partner, with all the privileges, responsibilities and obligations of full partnership.
Those opposing this resolution say they are not opposed to Germany regaining her sovereignty, or to bringing Germany into NATO, but only to the rearming of Germany. Now, I do not think it is possible to do the first two without doing the last. If we give Germany her sovereignty, then Germany is free to do whatever she likes. And I cannot imagine-and if what my hon. friends behind me

North Atlantic Treaty
say is true, they cannot imagine it either- a Germany that would be free to be a Germany that would not be armed.
I believe it has been said on many occasions that Germany will arm anyway. The question, I think, for us is, on whose side will she be after she is armed? Of necessity, in the kind of world in which we are living, she will have to And allies. Will she be absorbed into the iron curtain bloc, or will she be co-operating with the countries of the west who have helped her to organize her democratic institutions? That is the important question I think for us here in Canada, and for the whole democratic world.
Now for the third argument against ratification, that the proposal to bring Germany into NATO, which involves the rearming of Germany, is premature; that we should first make another attempt to negotiate with the Soviet union for the reunification of Germany. Let us see what such an attempt would involve. I am all for agreements through negotiation, if we can get what the trade unionists call negotiation in good faith. But I think it should be noted that Russia's interest in negotiation for the reunification of Germany has increased in direct proportion to the approach of the time when Germany would be actually brought into NATO.
However, it may be noted that the price the Soviet union demands to enter into such negotiation is that the proposal for associating Germany with the western powers should be dropped. I think that is important. In addition to that, as far as I know Russia has never agreed in clear-cut terms to free elections in Germany. But if the western powers would agree to the Soviet union conditions for negotiation on reunification-that is the throwing into discard of all attempts to bring Germany into NATO-have we any assurance that when that was done the Soviet union would negotiate in good faith? The result, to judge by our past experience, would be that the western powers, once they had done what the Russians wanted and once free elections were refused, would be thrown into confusion, and the Soviet union would be laughing up their sleeves at the ease with which they can confuse us.
The great obstacle to negotiation with the Soviet union is that the communists never negotiate or co-operate with others in good faith. We in the C.C.F. ought to know that. In the early years of our movement numerous attempts were made by the communists for joint action on community or national projects, for a united front, for co-operation on this and that. But we always found that the communists would never stick to their agreement. Even when they called meetings to
[Mr. Maclnnis.f
denounce nazism and fascism, as was the case before the Stalin-Hitler pact, and brought well-intentioned groups from various walks of life to take part in such meetings, they always injected a resolution or a speaker or something else that was not provided for in the arrangements, all designed to give them control of the situation. The result has been- I may say the result has been good so far as we are concerned-that in the last 15 years, ever since the beginning of world war II, the C.C.F. has refused to associate with them in any way, at any time, in any place, on any issue.
The experience of the trade union movement has been the same. Not so many years ago I heard prominent officials in the two large labour congresses say they would never allow a man's politics to determine his right to belong to a trade union, or to be an officer of a trade union. But because of the disruptive activities of the communists in the trade union movement these congresses had to change that resolve. They had to throw the communists out. That was the only alternative to having the unions torn to pieces. It is no different in international affairs.
I remember many years ago reading a book by Bruce Lockhart, who was in the Soviet union at the time of the revolution. He was there as a very young man, in the British foreign office, and I think he spent some time in jail there. In his book "British Agent" he tells the story about Karl Radek, one of the old bolsheviks preparing to go to a conference with the mensheviks. It must have been early in the revolution, because the mensheviks were liquidated shortly after.
Mr. Radek, preparing his speeches in reply to the decision taken by the mensheviks, prepared one speech in case they took position A. He prepared another speech in case they took position B. He put the argument for position A in one of his coat pockets, and he put the argument for position B in the other. He was in a great flutter for a while after reaching the conference room because he had forgotten in which pocket was which speech.
The tactics of the communist party- whether in Vancouver, Regina, Toronto or Moscow-have not changed in the slightest degree since Radek's time.
I believe in negotiation. To negotiate on every problem that cannot be settled otherwise is a part of my philosophy of life. But in negotiation we should be very careful not to give away an advantage that we now have until we are pretty sure that we are getting value in return. In other words, in any negotiations on the unification of Germany we should be sure that the soviets will agree

to free elections in Germany. They have never, let me say again, to my knowledge made a categorical statement that they will agree to free elections under United Nations supervision.
Now for my fourth and last point, having to do with the argument that we should oppose this motion because there is no enthusiasm in Canada for the ratification of the agreements. I am going to overlook the fact that I think "enthusiasm" is the wrong word, but who am I to take issue on the meaning of a word with my colleagues who are university graduates? I quite agree there is no enthusiasm for ratification of these agreements. I think it could be equally well said that there was no enthusiasm for the North Atlantic treaty when it was ratified, or for entering the second world war, for that matter. But there was something else. There was determination, and that is the word we want here. We had on those occasions something to preserve, our freedom, our democratic institutions. What was happening in the world was endangering our freedom; there was a job to be done and, much as we disliked it, we did our part, if not with enthusiasm, with steady determination. We are in the same position today. If there is not enthusiasm for the ratification of the agreements, there is certainly no enthusiasm on the part of the people opposing them; that is, if you leave the labour progressive party and its fellow travellers out of the picture.
Some hon. members have referred to the delegations that interviewed them, when those people were in Ottawa a few weeks ago. None of them came to see me but I have had some letters. I have received 34 letters, 8 telegrams and 6 petitions such as those the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) mentioned in the directive, issued by the labour progressive party. Nearly all these letters, telegrams, and communications came from communist sources. There are two or three letters the writers of which I have not been able to classify. Outside of these I have not received a single communication from a responsible individual or organization, either trade union, board of trade, veterans' organization or any other organization opposing the ratification of the agreements.
Speaking for myself, as I said before I am going to vote for the resolution before us because I believe it is a step to prevent war rather than to make war. Socialist parties in the NATO countries in Europe, which are much closer to Germany than we are and who have in the past felt the full effects of German aggression, have already ratified these agreements. They have done so because they felt the only way to prevent aggression was to be strong.
North Atlantic Treaty
Everyone regrets the necessity of rearming Germany. I can say with equal truth that everyone regrets the necessity of any armaments, that is anyone with any sense. But as I said before, Germany will be rearmed in any case. The question then is, on whose side is she going to be? I want her to be on our side; consequently, voting on this issue as a Canadian and as one who is anxious above everything else to support every move toward world peace, I am going to support the resolution.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), and it was very encouraging to hear the soundness of his logic. This is an issue that is of solemn concern to everyone in this house and to thousands and thousands throughout the country who are stirred at times, as has been so well said, by emotion and sentiments born of days that are gone. One can look back over 40 years of turmoil in this country, filled with tragic realities of hot wars and cold wars and constant anxiety. These years have given us experience and education and I hope foresight enough to meet the future as stronger and more intelligent people, and better informed than we were before the first great war.
The dearth of information that was given to the house and the country prior to these international difficulties has been all too conspicuous. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as we were approaching the second world war it seemed to me we never did use the experience we had or the information that was available to us to face the realities as we should. I am not going to review past events because this is not the time, when we are dealing with this solemn issue.
There is not an hon. member here who was present at that time who does not understand what I mean. In 1937 we were told that there was no danger of war with Germany. We were told by our prime minister at that time, who had visited Germany and talked with Hitler, that there was no danger of war at all. Then in 1938, when great preparations might have been made in this country in close co-operation with the old land, we were still told there was not much danger. Steps could have been taken then, Mr. Speaker. They were not taken. And what a price we paid for neglecting to face reality!
However, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to find that since these years have passed and our experience has been ripened by the hard, cold and bitter penalties for neglect, you might say, we are no longer faced with political

North Atlantic Treaty
fears at home which becloud the glaring and tragic realities abroad. We meet tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud of the fact that the two historic parties in this dominion stand foursquare with their chins to the wind, as the saying is. Differences of class, race, creed, religion or party have not separated us in our determination, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings way (Mr. Mac-Innis) has said, that if it is within our power we shall spend the last vestige of energy we have to avoid another awful war. We must as a parliament, as Canadians, lead the way. I do not mean lead the way in world affairs so much, but lead the way in this country. We dare not mislead.
Following the first great war it will be remembered that we were told we were going to have no more war, that the old league of nations was going to solve our troubles. Then after the second world war we were told that the United Nations would save us from any such recurrence. Then we embarked on the Atlantic community pact. After each in its turn seemed to be inadequate we were sure that we had found the answer to at least a greater degree of security in EDC, which I believe was signed in Paris in 1952.
The French premier, Mendes-France, called the EDC partners together in Brussels in August, 1954 and tried to get the agreement amended so as to make it more acceptable to the French parliament. Mendes-France failed in this and the French parliament refused to ratify that agreement, and it fell through for the time being.
Again we were happy to find that the traditional British leadership, which has so often been like a beacon light in the world's darkest hours, led the way to new hope. The Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden offered to keep the British ground forces and the Royal Air Force in Europe for 44 years. That must have convinced France as well as all our other allies among the free peoples of the west that Great Britain was facing up to realities no matter what the cost might be. No one has intimated that any one country can stand alone as an independent vacuum in the heart of Europe.
I am endeavouring as best as I can not to take up the time of this house unnecessarily by repeating speeches which have been made already, some more from emotion than logic, and with little effect upon this issue. But I do think we should review the steps that were taken, and know exactly what is before this house.
I have mentioned EDC; I have mentioned its collapse; I have mentioned

how the great British foreign secretary, Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden, representing that greatest of all world statesmen today, Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, led the way as that country has done so often in the past. We had the London meeting at which a new Brussels treaty was agreed upon. Remember that we were not there. The parties to that treaty were France, the Benelux countries including Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, Great Britain, West Germany and Italy. This agreement which was signed in Paris on October 23 provided for the association of West Germany with Europe, making Great Britain a party to the arrangement and in fact settling West Germany's rearmament there and then.
The minister for external affairs made a very lucid speech on Thursday last. If some hon. members were not listening as closely as they should have been, if they read his speech again they will see that he explained that the sovereignty of West Germany was settled. We are not settling the sovereign rights of Germany tonight; we are not settling the rearming of Germany. We are deciding whether she shall be included in NATO. The aims and terms and safeguards of the agreement have been elaborately and sincerely expressed in this debate by the minister for external affairs and by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who made a splendid speech the other night on behalf of this party. The minister for external affairs presented a broad picture of the problem, and the hon. member for Prince Albert expressed our position most fluently.
We have made our choice as a party. We are going to support this resolution, confident that there is no other common-sense or available alternative at this time. In listening to the speeches made by my socialist friends to my left, the majority of whom appear to have made up their minds to vote against this resolution, I am at a loss to understand the basis of their cloudy and fantastic reasoning.
Let us suppose for a moment that my socialist friends had their way and West Germany's admission to NATO was refused. Stop and think what that would mean. In this matter as in many others they know they have no hope of having to assume responsibility. There are those of us who still hope to have responsibility in this country. I do not for one moment doubt their sincerity, but let us suppose again that their arguments are accepted and we are not going to allow West Germany to be included in NATO. What would be the obvious reality then?
West Germany is already admitted to the western European union. West Germany is

already recognized as a sovereign power. West Germany's right to arm is already established. Let us strip oft the cloak of unreality from this solemn issue. Let us look at what it means. We are still one of the 14 member countries of NATO. Our responsibility for the defence of the North Atlantic community still stands unaltered by any such rejection as my hon. friends now suggest. It is not to be changed by that. You would have six nations of the North Atlantic community and the republic of West Germany in one pact, while under the new Brussels treaty all six except Germany would be members of NATO. Our responsibilities would be in no way lessened; they would be still clearly defined under NATO, and our influence would be embarrassingly impaired by such utter nonsense.
The members of the socialist party to my left have expressed keen concern about the rearming of Germany, to which agreement our country was not a party. They now propose to forfeit any right to fix the terms and conditions upon which that country shall proceed with the armament program already established. Stop and think of it. They are loud in their opposition and protest against the rearming, but they propose to relinquish the only opportunity we would have for any control, supervision or direction of how they would use those armaments. I have listened very carefully to the speeches during this debate, because lately with my new responsibilities I have sat in the house more diligently than has been my habit in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Do not applaud too much, because if I did not have to I would not endure you hon. members opposite as much as I already have. But as I said, I listened carefully to the strange doctrine vigorously expressed by socialist members during this debate, and I heard their loud protests about rearmament despite the fact that we have little alternative in this matter. They refuse to accept the efficacy of the controls and supervision included in this agreement, and when I hear that I wonder what is happening.
I am amazed and shocked at such folly in reasoning. I do not wish to question their sincerity for one moment, but I would not dare suggest that their reasoning should be accepted. When I hear of the visit of Mr. Attlee to this country I think I might be pardoned if I suggest to my socialist friends that they arrange another visit for the Hon. Mr. Bevan, who has taken a similar position in the United Kingdom, so that at least half
North Atlantic Treaty
or a majority of the socialist members in this house can take the journey across Canada with him.
Who would dare say that if West Germany were refused admittance to NATO she would venture to stand alone? I believe she would be compelled to face realities in the same manner as other nations in these days. There would be only one other choice for her, and that other choice could only be toward those who would like to see her refused admittance.
To my mind the question is quite clear-cut, and it worries me when I hear that some hon. members in this house indicate their intention to register a vote against this resolution. I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but I hope I have said as much in a short time as some hon. members with emotional speeches have said over a longer time.
But, Mr. Speaker, I would not feel I was doing my duty if I did not underline the danger involved in this step, without indulging in emotional rhetoric. There is little need for me to review these dangers, for I see before me men who have fought in two great wars. I have heard them make speeches that would move the coldest heart and the most stolid temperament in this house. It has not been my practice to seek the indulgence of this house in order to read articles or quote the views of others because I know it is not recognized by you, Mr. Speaker, as good parliamentary practice, and in that you have my full agreement. But this solemn issue far transcends party politics-


Mr. Poulioi:: Mr. Speaker, ten o'clock.


William Earl Rowe: Very well, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, the rule states ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). We expect that upon the conclusion of the remarks of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) it might be possible for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to adjourn the debate so that he might conclude it tomorrow and we could then have the vote. I would hope that the hon. member for Temiscouata would be willing to accede to that request.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I have a keen respect for my old friend the hon. member for Temiscouata, and his agreement is very important. Since he is not prepared to agree I prefer to call it ten o'clock, and I shall conclude my remarks in a very short time tomorrow.

North Atlantic Treaty


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman
unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the hon. gentleman has unanimous consent?


Jean-François Pouliot: By the courtesy-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: You say that? I will not be bullied by any Tory in this house. I object.


Mr. Speaker:: May I now ask what is the wish of hon. members?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when you asked if it was agreed that we might proceed there were no dissenting voices, and I suggest that we proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the Acting Leader of the Opposition may now continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have full unanimity, but I am positive that I have a majority. As I said, I feel this issue far transcends party politics, and in the regrettable absence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) for whom I am acting as substitute, I would like to read a brief extract expressing his views, which was written before this issue came before the house. The article was written on October 16, 1954, and concerned the question of admitting Germany into the western community of free nations. It outlines his views on this issue as follows:
When I returned to Paris from Berlin the Arc de Triomphe reminded me very vividly that Wellington and his associates were confronted with somewhat the same problem after the Napoleonic wars nearly 140 years ago.
Wellington reduced the problem to a very simple proposition. He said that if they were prepared to remove from France every Frenchman and resettle the country with other people, then this idea might make sense. But if they believed that France was going to be populated by French people, then their purpose must be to try to bring France into full fellowship with the other nations of Europe. His views prevailed and as a result of that decision one of the greatest historic friendships of all history was established between France and Britain after centuries of almost continuous war.
There are always such developments in the history of human progress. Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and all humanity must overcome emotional prejudices and bitter traditional sentiment born of days that are gone.
We can face the future with justifiable hope if we have a steadfast faith in the co-operative efforts of all who wish to be free. We must stand up and be counted. We must not turn back. We must face the issue. There is nothing so fearful as fear. But under the eternal vigilance and co-operation of free men of the western world, I do not believe we need to be afraid. If we are strong enough, honest enough and bold enough to meet as we should these respective issues as they arise, I believe not only can we avoid a third world war but can achieve the lasting hope of all, namely that we may have peace in our time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. Pearson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Harris the house adjourned at 10.13 p.m.

Wednesday, January 26, 1955