1955-01-24

HOUSING


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: On Wednesday last, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Garland) asked a question regarding loans under the National Housing Act on property in the vicinity of airports. Subsequently on Thursday the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) asked the same question. This problem has been under study for some time by officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
For the most part, when airports were established they were located in relatively undeveloped areas, but because of the growth of most Canadian communities urban development has surrounded the airport. In recent years there have been marked changes in the size of aircraft and in the type of engines they use. These changes in themselves have a long-term effect on residential property in the vicinity, particularly in the areas at the end of runways.
The Department of Transport already has regulations and many municipalities have their own zoning requirements. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation must concern itself with the mortgage value of the properties on which they approve loans. After a study of all the aspects of the problem it has been decided that loans under the National Housing Act will not be made available within the rectangular area extending 5,000 feet from the end of a runway, and 1,000 feet on either side of a line that is a projection of the centre line of the runway; nor are loans to be approved within 1,000 feet from the side of a runway.
While the dimensions I have mentioned might at first appear to include large areas, hon. members will realize that in the larger airports there is a considerable distance between the end of the runway and the airport boundary. Similarly, the clearance from the side of a runway to the boundary is fairly extensive.
The restriction I have mentioned will have application to our main commercial airports
and some of the military airfields, but will not apply in respect of small or secondary airports which are not likely to be substantially developed in the future. A list of the airports to which these restrictions apply is being worked out between officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Transport so that there will be no misunderstanding in respect of airports to which the restrictions apply.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: wish to rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of an answer given to me by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on Friday last, a portion of which was inaudible to me. The question appears on page 403 of Hansard of January 21, 1955, and reads as follows:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the latest crop report and having to do with the sale of wheat. Why is it that in the first four months of the current crop year Canada's shipments of wheat abroad have dropped compared with increases on the part of the other three great producing countries? Why is it that Canada's share of the over-all market has dropped while the share of three other countries has increased?
The minister replied as follows:
The facts as stated by my hon. friend are not true.
Now, sir, I wish to refer to a publication by the bureau of statistics. Perhaps the minister misunderstood my question, but if he did not these are the facts according to the latest report issued by the dominion bureau of statistics on January 13, 1955. The answer to the first question is summarized by the Canadian Press as follows:
All major grain growing countries except Canada showed increased wheat exports in the first four months of the current crop year.
Canada's shipments dropped in the four months by 6,100,000 bushels to 97,300,000 from 103,400,000 last year, the bureau of statistics reported Monday.
United States exports increased to 72,500,000 from 70,000,000; Argentina to 45,200,000 from 43,200,000 and Australia to 26,700,000 from 22,000,000.
Thus, there was a decline in Canada's share of the over-all market with exports from the four countries rising in the four months to 241,700,000 bushels from 238,600,000 last year.

Questions
In so far as shipments are concerned, I have before me the bureau of statistics bulletin, volume 24, No. 9, dated January 13, 1955, in which the following appeared. It compares the dollar value of wheat exported from Canada between January and November 1954 as compared to the same period in 1953. It shows that the total amount of wheat exported in that period in 1953 amounted to $530,903,000, as compared to $339,871,000 in 1954, a fall in the dollar value of exports of $191,032 for wheat.
However, one has also to take into account wheat flour in the same period of time. According to the dominion bureau of statistics the exports of wheat flour from Canada fell from $93,590,000 in 1953, that is between January and November, to $81,371,000 for the same period in 1954.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Mr. E. D. Fulion (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Food and Drugs Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act, Mr. Speaker, provides for the offence of misbranding, and sets forth a number of circumstances and actions which are to be construed as constituting the offence of misbranding. It is the purpose of this bill to add a further subsection which would make it an offence to sell meat products wrapped in any wrapping which contains stripes, printing or other marking of a red or reddish-tinged colour, since it is considered the only purpose of such markings is to mislead the public.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How much money was disbursed to apple growers in Nova Scotia under the prices support act, during the past season, in respect to apples sold to processors, following hurricane damage in September, 1954?
2.	What was the average cost to the government per bushel?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Under the authority to buy apples at 90 cents per bushel of 45 pounds, the agricultural prices support board paid $967,831.51 up to

December 31, 1954. These apples were resold for processing purposes and sales returns are still incomplete since they are based orf utilization of the apples.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


DISASTER PAYMENTS, N. S.  HURRICANE DAMAGE
Mr. Balcom:: How much money was paid out of the disaster relief fund to take care of hurricane damage in Nova Scotia, to (a) standing timber; (b) fishing boats, gear and equipment; (c) buildings and other property?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian Disaster Relief Fund Incorporated is not a government agency. Accordingly, any amounts paid by the fund are not of government record.
J. o. RAWLUK


Mr. Bryson:: 1.	Is J. O. Rawluk now in the employ of the federal government?
2.	If so, on what date did his employment commence and in what department of government is he employed?
3.	What is his present address?
4.	At what salary is he now employed and what has he received to date in the way of travelling, sustenance and any other expense allowance?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	On March 22, 1954, he was assigned by the civil service commission to a clerical position in the Department of National Defence.
3.	The address given in departmental records is 1120-10th avenue, Regina, Saskatchewan.
4.	$2,160 per annum. To date he has not received any travelling or other allowances.



COAL EXPORTS TO UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Hansell:: How much coal, in tons and dollar value, was exported from Canada to the United Kingdom during 1953 and 1954 respectively, or in 1954 as far as records are available?


Mr. Dickey:: 1953-none.
1954, January to November inclusive-none.



CHEESE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	How many pounds of cheese were imported in 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954 from Great Britain, France, Holland, Switzerland, Italy and New Zealand?
2.	What was the value for each year of the imported cheese from the above mentioned countries?
3.	How many pounds of Canadian cheese were exported to the same countries for the same years?
4.	What was the value of our exported cheese to those countries?


John Horace Dickey: 1, 2, 3 and 4:



IMPORTS OF CHEESE FROM SPECIFIED COUNTRIES DURING THE YEARS 1950 TO 1954

[Stage Direction]
Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
lb-	$	lb.	$	lb.	$	lb.	$	lb.	$United Kingdom	
12,054	8,749	11,973	9,121	18,307	13,959	15,249	10,861	10,786	5,685France	
49,046	33,895	42,281	28,082	74,544	43,614	82,507	42,628	195,717	104,246Holland	
136,557	56,872	416,845	157,260	731,244	302,853	662,554	266,738	627,129	240,890Switzerland	
1,591,526	1,202,230	2,427,295	1,725,370	2,666,844	1,728,956	1,968,549	1,273,230	1,197,746	718,172Italy	
447,305	255,508	565,196	286,801	972,727	470,734	1,004,021	533,092	777,579	400,849New Zealand	
6,611,300	1,556,738	6,471,394	1,671,881	5,958,925	1,652,886	-	-	_	_

[Stage Direction]
___	January 1, to
1950	1951	1952	1953	November 30, 1954
Country	______________________ _____________________ ____________________ ______________________ .____________________
[Stage Direction]
 Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
lb.	$	lb.	$	lb.	$	lb.	$	lb.	$United Kingdom	
59,239,800 15,072,739 27,151,700	8,718,302	148,300	47,641 14,805,100	3,868,688	2,731,700	792,934France	
-	-	-	-	-	__ __________ __________ __________ __________Holland	
-	-	-	-	___ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________Switzerland	
-	-	-	-	-	__ __________ __________ __________ __________Italy	
67,000	20,100	-	-	-	-	-	-	_	_New Zealand	
-	-	-	-	-	-	__ __________ __________ __________
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Questions
CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS Mr. Knowles:
1.	How many retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month; (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month; (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month; (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month; (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month; (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month; (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month; (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month; (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month; (j) $100 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of retired civil servants are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired federal civil servants and also the number of widows of retired federal civil servants presently residing in each province?
William Moore Benidickson: Per month	Retired Civil	Widows(a) less than $20.00	Servants 	
344	1,071(b) $20.00 to $29.99	
551	1,046(c) $30.00 to $39.99	.... 734	955(d) $40.00 to $49.99	
854	815(e) $50.00 to $59.99	
804	661(f) $60.00 to $69.99	
869	416(g) $70.00 to $79.99	
876	294(h) $80.00 to $89.99	
930	188(i) $90.00 to $99.99	.... 869	133(j) $100.00 or over	
5,302	30612,133	5,8853.	Retired	Civil Servants	WidowsNewfoundland ....	. 71	24Nova Scotia 	. 454	225Prince Edward Island 63	30New Brunswick ..	. 289	178Quebec 	. 2,113	1,231Ontario 	. 5,367	2,753Manitoba 	. 548	253Saskatchewan	. 287	111Alberta 	. 552	205British Columbia ..	.. 2,060	666Elsewhere 	. 329	20912,133	5,885



HURRICANE LOSSES


Mr. Smith:: What amount has the government of Canada contributed to relief or rehabilitation of those in Ontario who suffered damage and loss in the hurricane and flood of October, 1954?


William Moore Benidickson: No payments have been made to date by the government of Canada to relief or rehabilitation of those in Ontario who suffered damage and loss in the hurricane and flood of October, 1954.



UNEMPLOYMENT PERCENTAGES

Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	what was the percentage of unemployment with regard to the population of Canada at the end of each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?
2.	For the same years what was the percentage of unemployment with regard to the total employment?


Mr. Gregg:: Labour Force	Nat'l Employ-
		Survey	ment Service
		Without Jobs	Applications
		and Seeking	for Employ-
		Work as % of	ment as % of
		Population (1)	Population (1)
Dec.	14,	1950(2) -	2-1Dec.	13,	1951(2) -	2-4Dec.	13,	1952 1-3	2-4Dec.	12,	1953 1-9	3-3Dec.	11,	1954 2-4	3-5(1)	-Population figures refer to persons 14 years of age and over in civilian non-institutional categories.(2)	-No labour force survey data available for December in 1950 and 1951.Labour Force	Nat'l Employ-Survey	ment ServiceWithout Jobs	Applicationsand Seeking	for Employ-Work as % of	ment as % ofCivilian	CivilianLabour Force	Labour ForceDec.	14,	1950 -	4-0Dec.	13,	1951 -	4-5Dec.	13,	1952 2-5	4-5Dec.	12,	1953 3-6	6-4Dec.	11,	1954 4-6	6-7



TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Mr. Dufresne:: 1.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation control advertising over its television network?
2.	Is the corporation of the opinion that on the Jackie Gleason show, televised every Saturday night to Canadians, commercials sometimes overrate the quality of products advertised?
3.	If so, will the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation take steps to protect Canadian listeners from misleading advertising?


Mr. McCann:: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises that:
1.	It has a right to reject any advertising.
2.	It has not an opinion as to whether commercials on the Jackie Gleason show sometimes overrate the quality of products advertised.
3.	It does not and cannot guarantee all statements made by advertisers, but will consider evidence that advertising is misleading, discuss the matter with the advertisers, and if found necessary reject advertising.



ST. LAWRENCE POWER PROJECT

Mr. Coldwell:: What precautions have been taken by the federal government to ensure that in the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project the federal government will not directly or indirectly or, in effect, subsidize in any degree the development of hydroelectric power?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The precautions taken by the federal government are to be found in the agreement of December 3, 1951, between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario as set out in the schedule to the International Rapids Power Development Act, chapter 157 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, in the application of the government of Canada to the international joint commission dated June 30, 1952 as approved by the order of the international joint commission dated October 29, 1952 and in the exchange of notes of June 30, 1952 between Canada and the United States.



TARIFF REAPPRAISALS

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How many commodities have been reappraised for tariff duties since Bill 29 became effective?
2.	What are the values of the various commodities so reappraised?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Four-viz.: Textile fabrics; garments; other textile manufactures; refrigerators.
2.	Textile fabrics	 $ 83,353.00
Garments	 3,478.00
Other textile	manufactures	591.00
Refrigerators	 49,425.76

H.M.C.S. CEDARWOOD Mr. Pearkes:
1.	Was H.M.C.S. CedarwoocL recently damaged while at sea off the coast of British Columbia?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the damage sustained?
3.	Is H.M.C.S. Cedarwood a wooden-hulled vessel?
4.	When was she first commissioned, and on what date was she acquired by the Royal Canadian Navy?
5.	On what service was H.M.C.S. Cedarwood engaged when damaged?
6.	Has H.M.C.S. Cedarwood been involved in any accidents during the past five years necessitating repairs to her bow and/or stern?
7.	If so, did any damage done during such accidents directly or indirectly weaken the hull of the vessel other than in the area immediately damaged?
8.	Was H.M.C.S. Cedarwood considered seaworthy in all respects, both for service in protected waters and also in the open ocean, when she left Esquimau on her last voyage?
9.	What crew and other personnel were aboard H.M.C.S. Cedarwood when she was damaged?
Questions
10.	What was the value of the scientific equipment on board H.M.C.S. Cedarwood when damaged?
11.	Is H.M.C.S. Cedarwood to be continued in the oceanographic survey service, or is she to be replaced?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	Yes.
2.	During a severe storm a cement seam filler in the hull weathered away causing a leak although the caulking was sound.
3.	Yes.
4.	Acquired in June 1947 and commissioned 22 September 1948.
5.	Oceanographic research.
6.	In April, 1953 H.M.C.S. Cedarwood suffered a slight collision with the caisson while entering dry dock which damaged her stem post.
7.	No.
8.	Yes, within the limits imposed by her size.
9.	Three naval officers, thirty-three other ranks and five scientists were aboard.
10.	Approximately $100,000.
11.	The question of replacing H.M.C.S. Cedarwood is being studied by the defence research board and the Royal Canadian Navy. She will continue to be employed on oceanographic research for the present.



JAPANESE WAR CRIMINALS

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Have the sentences of Japanese war criminals Colonel Isao Tokunaga and Captain Shunkicki Saito been reduced recently?
2.	If so, what was the original sentence, and what reduction in that sentence has now been granted?
3.	What were the grounds for the reduction of sentence, if any reduction has been made?
4.	Where are these persons at present serving their sentence?
5.	On whose authority was any reduction in their sentence made?


Mr. Blanchette:: As Colonel Tokunaga and Captain Saito are war criminals who were tried, convicted and sentenced by United Kingdom authorities, the following information has been obtained from United Kingdom sources:
1.	(a) Colonel Isao Tokunaga: No (b) Captain Shunkicki Saito: Yes.
2.	Captain Saito was sentenced to death in November 1946 by the military war crimes commission in Tokyo. This sentence was commuted on 13 February 1947 to 20 years imprisonment by the general officer commanding, China command, in his capacity as confirming officer. In July 1953 Captain Saito's sentence was reduced to 15 years imprisonment.

Questions
3.	The reduction of sentence from 20 to 15 years imprisonment was made on the grounds that Captain Saito had acted under orders and that, therefore, his responsibility was of an intermediate nature.
4.	Sugamo prison, Japan.
5.	The counsellors of state of the United Kingdom acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen approved the recommendation for reduction of sentence made by the war office review board.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY

Mr. Leboe:: 1.	Has the dominion government received any request from the British Columbia government, asking for assistance for the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the request and what action was taken by the dominion government?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A brief was submitted to the federal government on December 14, 1953, by the government of British Columbia, included in which was an offer to sell a half share or all of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. In addition, in a letter from Premier W. A. C. Bennett dated May 18, 1954, the federal government was asked to share in the costs of a proposed extension of the railway. This letter was acknowledged and a request was made to the provincial government for sufficient information to assist in forming a conclusion about the economic justification of the northerly extension of the line. Some information has been provided but it was not considered sufficient to enable a decision to be reached. Therefore, the federal government has continued to collect data in order to determine whether federal assistance for the extensions of the Pacific Great Eastern line would be justified at the present time.



SHAUGHNESSY VETERANS HOSPITAL

Mr. Goode:: Is any thought being given, by the Department of Veterans Affairs, to decentralization of hospital facilities at Shaughnessy hospital?


Mr. Bennett:: No.



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD


Mr. Schneider:: 1.	How many applications have been received and approved since the inception of the legislation providing for training assistance to children of the war dead?
2.	As of December 31, 1954, (a) how many are in training; (b) how many have already completed training; (c) how many have failed or withdrawn from their courses?

3.	Does the department provide a counselling service for the mothers and potential applicants and for those who have failed or withdrawn from their courses?
4.	In what courses are the students being assisted?
5.	Has the response to this legislation met the department's preliminary estimates?


Mr. Bennett:: 1.	From July 1, 1953 to December 31, 1954: 484,
2.	(a)368; (b) 45; (c) failed 14, withdrawn 15. Of 42 deferred cases, 25 are repeating courses at their own expense.
3.	Yes. In each of the departmental districts a record of potential applicants is maintained. Beginning at the secondary school level, veterans welfare officers counsel the mother and the child towards a firm educational program. The counselling service continues into the higher educational levels regardless of the child's academic achievements.
4.	Assistance is being, or has been, given in 46 different courses: Accountancy; Actuarial science; Agricultural science; Architecture; Arts; Biology; Botany; Business administration; Chemistry; Chiropractics; Commercial art; Criminology; Dentistry; Dietetics; Economics; Electronics; Engineering; Food analysis; Foreign service; Geology; Interior decorating; Journalist; Laboratory technician; Law; Library science; Medicine; Mining technician; Music; Nursing; Occupational therapy; Pharmacy; Photography; Physics; Physiotherapy; Psychology; Pure science; Radio and television; Radiography; Radiology; Research; Science; Secretarial; Social worker; Teaching; Theology; Veterinary.
5.	Yes.



PURCHASE OF GARLAND BUILDING, OTTAWA

Mr. Tustin:: 1.	Has the government sold the premises in Ottawa generally described as "the Garland building"?
2.	If so, when was the sale made, what are the price and payment terms of such sale, and who was the purchaser?
3.	Did the government, subsequent to the sale, lease the property, and if so, to whom was it leased, for what period was the lease, and at what annual payment?
4.	How much did the government, previous to such sale, spend for alterations and repairs including the installation of new elevators?
5.	Was any part of such alterations done on a cost-plus basis, and if so, what part and at what cost?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1. No, this building was never owned by the government.
2 to 5. Answered by No. 1.



MONTREAL NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE-FEDERAL GRANTS

Mr. Richardson:: 1- Has any assistance been given to the neurological institute, Montreal, by the federal government under the health grants program?
2. If so, what amounts have been paid to the institute and for what purpose?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$663,550 has been paid to the province ot Quebec on behalf of the Montreal neurological institute, for the following purposes: purchase of scientific and technical equipment, $450,378; construction of 130 neurological beds, $167,160; support of research projects, $46,012. Approval has recently been given for an additional $31,761.20 to provide for the purchase of technical and scientific equipment, for use in the newly constructed McConnell wing of the institute.



POST OFFICE SITE, ROTHESAY, N.B.

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works purchased a site for the erection of a new post office building at Kothesay, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, from whom was the site purchased, and what was the price paid?
3.	Were there any offers by other parties for the sale of land for this purpose?
4.	If so, what were the names, and the amounts asked in each case?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	No, but negotiations under way.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 227

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the appellant in income tax appeal board case No. 227, which was heard in November, 1954, as an individual, through the company represented in case No. 227, or through any other company, at any time had any contracts with the federal government, or any department or agency thereof?
2.	If so, were any such contracts connected with construction projects?
3.	Were any such contracts connected with the supplying of goods?
4.	Were any such contracts, either construction projects or the supplying of goods, related to national defence?


James Joseph McCann: Since the delivery of the judgment of Mr. W. S. Fisher, member of the income tax appeal board, in the case of No. 227 appellant, and the Minister of National Revenue, respondent, held in camera, 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 50433-29i
Orders for Returns
kind to the appellant company or to its subsidiary referred to in the judgment. It was found that during this period the federal government had not awarded any contract whatever to the said appellant company or to its subsidiary.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: What was the amount spent on research by each department of the federal government during the calendar year 1954?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, if this question could be amended as I think it is intended to read, so that it would deal with scientific research, it could be passed as an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES
Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: 1.	What was the amount spent for advertising by each department of the government during the calendar year 1954?
2.	What advertising firms were employed?
3.	What was the amount paid each advertising firm?


PUBLIC SERVICE
Joseph Warner Murphy: As of December 1, 1954-
1.	How many employees were in the service of each department of government?
2.	How many persons were in each branch of the armed services?
3 How many civilians were employed by each of these branches?


CIVIL DEFENCE
Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	What sums of money were allocated to each province, during the current fiscal year under the civil defence financial assistance program?
2.	What amounts have been taken up by each province against these amounts?
. 3-.Jpn what dates were the first payments made to the various provinces?


DEPARTMENTAL MOVES, CALGARY TO EDMONTON
Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What branches of government departments if any, have been moved from Calgary to Edmonton within the last six months?
2.	What branches of government departments, if any, is it proposed to move from Calgary to Edmonton during the next six months?
3.	What is the reason for these moves?
4.	Will the branches which have been moved or are to be moved go into government-owned office space or will office space have to be rented for them?

Motions for Papers MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN IRRIGATION PROJECT
John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged since the 1st day of May 1954, between any department of government and the governments of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, relative to the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, of course it is understood in connection with all these motions for the production of correspondence with other governments that this government will communicate with them, and will file the papers after having obtained their consent.


Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents since the 1st day of May 1954, that have passed between any department of the federal government and the government of the United States regarding the application or imposition by the government of the United States of embargoes, in whole or in part, against import into the United States of Canadian farm products.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker, this motion concerns diplomatic correspondence with a foreign government, and deals with negotiations which are still in progress. Therefore I think that, according to the well established practice of the house, it is privileged, and it would not be possible to bring the information down at this time. I am hoping therefore that the order can be dropped.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow the matter to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must have unanimous consent to intervene at this point. Has he consent to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask if my hon. friend would allow it to stand.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; I have no objection to that, so long as it is quite clear that in the circumstances I have mentioned it would not be possible to produce the papers.


Mr. Speaker:: Then, under the circumstances, would it not be better just to have the motion dropped?
Motion dropped.


L. B. THOMSON
John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all correspondence, since the 1st iay of June 1954, which has passed between any
fMr. Harkness.]
department of government and Mr. L. B. Thomson, relative to his attempted resignation as director of P.F.R.A.


FRUITLANDS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, B. C.
Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the dominion government or any department or agency thereof and the government of British Columbia and any other person or persons, since January 1, 1952, regarding the renovation, etc. of the irrigation system of the British Columbia fruitlands irrigation district.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is of course subject to the same observations I made a moment ago, it being correspondence with the government of British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may ask the Prime Minister whether the effect of the statement he made a moment ago is that the government of any province has the right to veto what may be produced in this house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is a matter of courtesy which, to my knowledge, has always been observed in connection with correspondence between this government and some other government, and I think it is on the understanding that such courtesy is extended that the correspondence does take place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand that, and it is a matter of obvious courtesy that the provincial government should be informed; but I am wondering if we have gone beyond what I understood to be the rule of courtesy-a rule to which I subscribe-and have placed in the power of a provincial government the right to veto what will be produced in the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: I do not think so. After communication with a provincial government, to my knowledge the situation to which the hon. member refers has never occurred-and I do not think it is apt to occur. However, if it did occur the matter would be reported to the house, and the house could deal with the situation in the light of the facts as they would then appear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the point I wished to have established.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the reservation made by the Prime Minister.


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Byrne:: For a copy of all communications between the federal government and the government of British Columbia, relating to and resulting from the application of the Kaiser Aluminum company of America to build a low level storage dam on the

Arrow lakes at Castlegar, in the province of British Columbia, along with a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the international joint commission, Canadian section, and the federal government or government of the province of British Columbia, with respect to this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the first part of this order deals with communications with the government of British Columbia, and I am informed there are no such communications. The second part deals with communications, not of an agency of the federal government, but of an international agency. And, again, following the well established practice of the house, I suggest that such correspondence of an international agency cannot be produced here, and that therefore the motion should be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Tom Goode: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents since the 1st day of January, 1954 exchanged between the federal government and the government of British Columbia relative to the Oak street bridge and a proposed highway from Vancouver, through Richmond, to the United States.


Robert Henry Winters: This will be subject, Mr. Speaker, to the reservation the Prime Minister has already referred to.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the statement made by the Minister of Public Works, the motion is carried.
PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT AMENDMENT Mr. Zaplitny:
a ^copy ^ of all correspondence, telegrams,
For
memoranda and/or other communications exchanged between the Department of Agriculture or the minister, and the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, or any m'n's'e,r thereof, since January 1, 1954, dealing with the question of amendments to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


D. R. BISHOP
Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department or any officers thereof and Mr. D. R. Bishop, dated at any time since June 1, 1950.


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: discussed the matter with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In order that it may not be necessary to search thousands of files to discover whether or not there may be a letter, I think we agreed that there should be inserted after the word "Bishop" the following phrase: "concerning post offices and rural routes in the county of Carleton, New Brunswick."


Mr. Speaker:: Motion as amended agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry


PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, SARNIA
Joseph Warner Murphy: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport and/or the Canadian National Railways and Messrs. W. C. Nelson and D. F. Stonehouse, since May 1, 1953 to date, with respect to property in Sarnia or Point Edward purchased by W. C. Nelson and D. F. Stonehouse.


Mr. Marler:: I ask the hon. member whether he would let this motion stand.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? 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?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I regret I received notice of this question only a few minutes before entering the house. I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and reply at an early date.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-
Kings): Is the Minister of National Defence prepared to give the house any more information than has appeared in the press in respect to the unfortunate incident which developed on H.M.C.S. Magnificent?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I have of course received some information. I do not know that I have as yet complete information. In any event, the navy has instituted a board of inquiry which I believe commenced sitting today. I do not think it would be desirable or proper for me to comment on the matter while the board is holding its hearings and producing its findings. I might say, in view of the references in the press generally, that the consumption of alcohol on navy ships is not permitted to

Inquiries of the Ministry men except under two circumstances: One, they receive a rum ration if they are 20 years old and if they want it. If not, they get a cash allowance in lieu of it. Second, on very rare occasions in the tropics the captain of a vessel may allow the canteen to sell in individual bottles a limited amount of beer, which has to be opened in the canteen and cannot be taken away unopened. The stringency of the regulations governing the consumption of alcohol on ships is I think another reason why I should not make any comment on such information as I have been able to gather until the board of inquiry has established the facts.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, of which I have sent him notice. On what date did the dominion government apply for water lot rights on False creek, Vancouver? When may the seining fishermen anticipate the completion of the mooring dock for their boats?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is of a local character, which could be put on the order paper. However, if the minister is ready to reply, since he has received notice, I will leave it to him; but normally these questions should be put on the order paper.


Robert Henry Winters: I have received notice, for which I am grateful, and I have a reply. For some considerable time our district officials have been negotiating with officials of the British Columbia government for a water lot to build a 180-berth fishing harbour. Plans were prepared accordingly. We have been ready for some time to invite tenders for such a project.
In October last, the British Columbia government informed us they were unable to make available a water lot of the size required, but would arrange for a smaller lot. We have exchanged correspondence since that date in an effort to obtain the larger lot, but have now decided with the concurrence of the Minister of Fisheries to proceed with a project of approximately 150 berths. Plans are being redrawn and we expect to be able to invite tenders within the next eight weeks.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Have all provinces replied to the Prime Minister's letter of January 14, and has any province indicated that it desires to accept the option to its tax agreement, as set forth in the letter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: To the first question the answer is no. There have been some acknowledgments but not yet from all the premiers. To the second part of the question, the answer is that no provincial government has indicated any desire to avail itself of the option mentioned.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position to say something about the situation in Formosa and the islands adjacent to the Chinese mainland? Is Canada taking any stand to have the United Nations bring about a cease-fire? In any event, is the minister able to give some assurance to the Canadian people regarding the apparently perilous situation existing there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman's question deals with a very serious matter. I do not think I should attempt to reply to it without careful consideration. Therefore I shall take his question as notice and hope to be able to say something, possibly tomorrow.


BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given him notice. Will the Prime Minister comment on the Reuters report appearing in the Ottawa Evening Journal of January 22, to the effect that among the topics to be discussed at the commonwealth conference are the economic

and trading problems of the sterling area, to which all commonwealth countries except Canada belong?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No doubt the discussions among the prime ministers of commonwealth countries will include some consideration of international and economic questions, since these represent an important aspect of the world situation. There is no indication of which I am aware that they will be particularly considering the specific subject mentioned in this newspaper report.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, January 21, 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. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in continuing my remarks on this resolution, commenced last Friday evening, I rise to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, (Mr. Knowles) and for similar reasons, which he so clearly outlined to the house at that time. Like him, I am confident that we are expressing the views and fears of many good and patriotic Canadians. Letters I have received, conversations I have had with many people who are supporters of all parties in this house, clearly indicate very strong opposition in Canada at this time to German rearmament. At best, Mr. Speaker, there is no enthusiasm in the house or in the country.
I fully appreciate the difficulties, the doubts, the fears that this problem presents to hon. members, and I sincerely respect the views of those who do not agree with me. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the level, the tenor, of this debate is a good indication of the firmness and strength of our democratic and parliamentary institutions.
My opposition to this resolution is based mainly on two grounds: First, my fear of a rearmed Germany. I am afraid, as are many Canadians, of what a rearmed Germany herself may do in the future. Second, that in this step we will increase the danger of war because it is an irrevocable step, deepening the division, as I see it, between the east and the west.
North Atlantic Treaty
My fears of German rearmament and the fears of a good number of Canadians stem from the evidence that nazi elements are still too strong in Germany to place arms in their hands and the further danger of the revival of Prussian militarism, not necessarily associated with nazism. I have done my best to study every aspect of this problem and to read the opinions of those qualified to assess this situation. I have read a great deal on the subject and heard the opinions of those who speak with some experience and some knowledge of it, and in support of my argument I want first of all to quote from the Toronto Daily Star of September 29, 1954, the reported opinions of Rabbi Abraham Feinberg of Holy Blossom Temple, a powerful and highly respected figure in the Jewish community in Canada. The article, which is entitled "Lessons of History Flouted if Germany Rearmed-Feinberg", reads:
Rabbi Abraham Feinberg of Holy Blossom Temple charged today that in rearming Germany the west "flouts the bitter lessons of recent history" and that the treatment by the western powers of Israel as compared with Germany "is a shocking example of human error, a tragic betrayal of the ideals for which vast blood and treasure were spent in world war II, and a dire threat to peace".
"In the 1930's", he said, "western policy makers, urged by London, acquiesced in Germany rearming, as a defence against communism-with the ultimate and evil fruit of Hitlerism and unparalleled slaughter. Now, in the 1950's, western leaders, for the same reason, are being pressed by the U.S. into the same deadend of illusion, self-deception and fateful peril for all mankind".
Referring to nazi atrocities in world war n. Rabbi Feinberg said, "It would be suicidal to forget the bestiality of German nazis . . . the blithe, optimistic, carefree romance of the western powers with West Germany is a travesty on mature political thinking and a form of self-inflicted blindness which can lead all humanity to an abyss".
He said that many former top nazis now hold positions of influence in West Germany and named the following. Dr. Schroeder, federal minister of the interior, (formerly a member of the S.A. and legal adviser to Schacht); Dr. Theodor Oberlander, minister of refugee affairs, (who was an S.S. major until 1953, when he fell out with Himmler); Dr. Victor Emanuel Preusker, minister of housing, (an S.S. instructor on race relations); Hans Globke, state secretary of the federal chancellery, (who wrote the official commentary on the Nuremberg racial laws): Waldemar Kraft, minister without portfolio, (who did much to pave the way for Hitler's invasion of Poland).
The growth of new nazi splinter groups, the numerous articles in West German papers glorifying nazi leaders, the Nauman plot exposure, the prolonged campaign for the release of "martyred" war criminals, the frequent desecration of Jewish cemeteries and the belligerent diatribes of ultranationalist spokesmen-all these ominous developments do not support Dr. Adenauer's assertion that there has been no nazi revival in Germany. Throughout provincial and federal governments nazi membership is now practically a qualification for a position of public trust.

North Atlantic Treaty
Adenauer may soon become a venerated, powerless "wooden statue", like old man Hindenburg before Hitler, and the itch to retrieve heroic Teuton horror will soon be stirring in the German "superman's breast". Eabbi Feinberg stated.
"The German 'problem child' is of special concern to Jews", he said. The massacre of six million Jews by the nazis raised our casualties in world war II to a proportion of 25 per cent-far higher than those of any other people. We are entitled to feel intensely about the trend of moral and spiritual development in postwar Germany. He said he was "keenly conscious" of the threat to the west of "the possible plans of the Kremlin for world domination". But the Russian threat is compounded by the danger which arises from a renascent and rearmed Germany.
Western civilization, under the pressure of U.S. foreign policy, seems willing to sacrifice Germany's moral rehabilitation in order that she might be converted into an armed fortress against the Soviet union. From the strict viewpoint of religion and its eternal mandate to evoke the best in human beings, such a program cannot be upheld. "As a practical strategy in a hard and bitter struggle for existence, it is a grave risk", he said.
These are the views of a thoughtful leader of unquestioned integrity which merit the greatest consideration and respect. He states facts that have a great bearing on this problem. Furthermore, I am one who is disturbed by the fact that war criminals are receiving rousing welcomes on their return to their homes by a certain section of the German population. I am also disturbed to know that war criminals are receiving pensions for life, including the time they have spent in jail. The time they have spent in jail is considered as time spent in the service of Germany.
Even the text of the final act of the London conference gives some cause for concern. There is a section headed "German Declaration-Voluntary Limitations." This is section 15 and it reads:
That the federal republic undertakes not to manufacture in its territory any atomic weapons, chemical weapons, or biological weapons, as detailed in paragraphs I, II and III of the attached list.
The phrase "in its territory" is repeated in several places. To me those are ominous words. What about the plants being built at the present time by German industry in Spain, in Turkey and with the possibility of plants being built in North Africa. I cannot remember the source, but I have read of a possibility of Krupps coming to Canada. I hope to God they never do. That is one of the points in this document I would like the minister to explain, because the words "in its territory" do not appear to me to offer much hope of limiting German armaments.
Another fact which causes me great concern is what is contained in the text of documents agreed on by the conference of ministers held in Paris, October 20-23, 1954, and published

by Her Majesty's stationery office. A footnote explanation is given in connection with protocol No. II on the forces of western European union, article 1, clause (a). This footnote does not appear in our document and it reads:
The special agreement annexed to the European defence community treaty is not a published document. Authoritative German statements have, however, confirmed that the levels laid down for the German contribution to European defence community were as follows:	Army-12 divisions;
Air force-a tactical air force of about 1,350 aircraft; Navy-light coastal defence and escort vessels.
What disturbs me is the fact that in a document published by Her Majesty's stationery office and laid on the table of the British House of Commons the authoritative information had to come from German sources. Furthermore, I think that there is in these arrangements another great difficulty which concerns many of us. The main hope for tight control lies not in NATO but in the Brussels treaty for western European union and Canada is not a member of that union.
I have read as widely as possible and I want to quote here from a source which I think is well worthy of consideration. I wish to quote from an article entitled "The Dangers of German Rearmament" by Professor C. R. Hiscocks of the University of Manitoba, appearing in Canadian Business of November 1954. He can certainly speak with knowledge and from experience. For the information of the house, Professor Hiscocks has been associated over the past twenty years with various international organizations. British-born Professor Hiscocks joined the staff of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, in 1935. He spent five years of war service in the Middle and Far East, Crete and Germany, and then joined the British military government in Germany for one year. The next five years he was British council representative first in Austria and later in India. Since 1950 he has been at the University of Manitoba as professor of political science. In 1953 he was United Kingdom representative on the UN subcommission on the prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities. He was in Germany as recently as this past summer. I shall just quote from that article at various points. Professor Hiscocks has this to say:
There has been something very naive about allied views on Germany in their crudest form. Towards the end of the war the secretary of the United States treasury proposed the so-called Morgenthau plan for reducing Germany to a nation of farmers or, as some Germans now say with justifiable bitterness, to a nation of goatherds. Industry was to be drastically controlled and reduced. Then, within a few years, billions of American dollars were being poured out as Marshall aid to rebuild German industry and re-equip it with the most modern machine tools.

The period of rigid disarmament when a German could be executed for burying a shotgun in his garden gave way to the present phase, when one of the chief aims of western diplomacy is not only to allow Germany to rearm but to ensure that it does so effectively.
And then again:
It is hardly surprising that Germans are sometimes scornful of allied policy. Many sincere and enlightened thinkers are highly critical of American diplomatic pressure aiming at the rearmament of their country. Whether we agree with them or not, their point of view deserves respect.
I have never heard so many or such strong arguments against German rearmament as I heard in Germany this summer. It may seem curious that this should be the case, yet the average German has suffered more from German militarism than the average Canadian or American. Antimilitarism is particularly strong amongst the young. Some say bluntly that in no circumstances will they do military service again. Many more are determined that a new army should be different in spirit from the old. Only a very small minority would welcome the re-creation of the German army for its own sake with any real enthusiasm. One man told me that he was thankful for every day that went by without rearmament, because it meant that one or more of the old militarist gang had died off and that the danger of their restoration to power had correspondingly decreased. This sentiment is shared by many ordinary German citizens with no political axe to grind.
The quotation continues:
The real danger of German rearmament is the revival of Prussian militarism under some thin disguise, with its narrow nationalist outlook, its arrogance, its cynicism, and its belief in amoral Realpolitik. Such a revival would be compatible with a sincere repudiation of nazi doctrines, because the Prussian military caste included some of Hitler's strongest opponents. But without any admixture of nazi ideals it would be a development sinister enough in itself.
Towards the end he concludes:
For nearly ten years Germany has had no army. This break in continuity provides grounds for hoping that the militarist tradition has been broken and that any new army that is created will be different from the old. On the other hand, it is arguable that the interval has not been long enough. There are still many officers and NCO's available who are just waiting for an opportunity to re-create the old military machine.
I think the voice of that gentleman should receive some consideration.
The argument is often raised that since East Germany has been armed, West Germany should arm. The obvious answer to this is, however, that any contribution that a West German army might make to western defence would, in my opinion, immediately be cancelled out by additional rearming by the communists in East Germany.
Those who argue for the rearmament of Germany emphasize that West German forces would be controlled within NATO and WEU. Unfortunately, however, the great danger lies in the fact that German nationalists want reunification, and recovery of Polish-settled territory and Polish-held and Russian-held east Prussia.
North Atlantic Treaty
There is strong evidence that extreme nationalism is rising. When Chancellor Adenauer has passed from the scene another government might ignore his peaceful pledge. Civil war, war with Poland, war with Russia, might result, or perhaps even a Russian alliance may be entered into. NATO consequently might lose its defensive character. It is conceivable that under such conditions NATO might well be drawn into dangerous courses and increased armaments.
As far as arms control specified in the agreements is concerned, it should not be overlooked, Mr. Speaker, that between the wars Germany evaded arms control, assisted by Krupp and other big industries that are now in much the same hands. There is also the strong possibility that communist countermeasures would likely cause the west to relax control and raise more German forces.
I very much question the military value of German rearmament, and in support of my argument I wish to quote B. H. Liddell Hart, former British government military adviser, one of the greatest military critics in the west in recent years, and the only British military expert who foresaw the development of blitzkrieg warfare by fast moving panzer divisions, and whose advice the British government of the time refused to take in preparing to meet the oncoming onslaught from Hitler.
I quote from the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, January 4, 1955, carrying the headline "Expert Attacks Defence Strategy". The report reads:
A British specialist in military strategy says that much of the west's new plans for defence in the atomic era are a waste of time and money.
B. H. Liddell Hart, a former government military adviser, claims the realism of present defence planning is questionable under the implications of the hydrogen bomb. In the event of an all-out war, he says, there would be little value in the armies being built up by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, navies, ordinary bombers or air defence.
The only real defence is "the deterrent power of retort."
Liddell Hart, one of the first advocates of air power and mechanized warfare, presents his theories in a long letter to The Times.
Three things, he suggests, are necessary for defence:	A strategic air force of "superlative
technical quality and performance," an extensive police force and "fire brigade" forces of high efficiency and mobility, in constant readiness. "The supreme fact of the hydrogen bomb era," says Liddell Hart, "is that war has become palpably suicidal."
A "realistic" appreciation of the military factors, he concludes, could change Britain's whole economic outlook for the better, while also providing greater security. Big savings could be made in ordinary bomber forces, navies and air defence, since none is capable of preventing "a catastrophic penetration by "hydrogen bombers" or bombardment by atomic missiles.

North Atlantic Treaty
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, Liddell Hart completely torpedoes the argument in favour of the military necessity for the rearming of Germany for western defence.
Fear of German rearmament is well indicated in debates in various parliaments and assemblies which dealt with this issue.
In Great Britain only approximately 40 per cent of the membership of the house voted in favour of the measure approving the rearming of Germany. The Labour party, with the exception of seven members, abstained, and nearly 100 Conservatives failed to record their votes. That was no doubt attributable to the expression of public opinion at that time.
In France the same measure was carried only by a minority of the French assembly voting under great pressure and after a lengthy and stormy debate.
In Bonn, Germany, the matter has been postponed further and internal opposition to West German rearmament is rapidly extending from parliament to the general public.
In this connection I wish to quote from the Christian Science Monitor of January 19, 1955, under the heading "Opposition Mounts", and then the main heading "Rearming Tears Germany". The report datelined Bonn, Germany, reads:
Internal opposition to West Germany's rearmament is rapidly extending from parliament and closed party circles to the general public.
The initiative in all this is taken by the Social Democratic party (SPD) supported by a large section of the trade union movement. Influential groups in the Protestant Evangelical Church also have come out strongly against rearming.
In fact, general indications and reports from different parts of the country indicate that the federal republic is more divided on rearming than it has been on any other problem for a long, long time.
The main argument against remilitarizing West Germany and tying it to the western powers is that thereby all prospects of reunifying Germany diminish to zero.
The decision to take the campaign to the country assumes that the Bonn parliament does not represent the will of the people. The Social Democrats are organizing meetings throughout their constituencies designed to prove to the general public the "dangers for unification arising from the government's foreign policy".
The Social Democratic party has appealed to the socialist parties of the world, stating its fear of a rearmed Germany and urging every effort be made for the calling of a four-power conference on unification. The West German trade union federation, by a vote of 391 to 4, agreed to make a similar appeal.
I am not going to deal further with that issue, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure other hon. members are more informed on that aspect of the situation than I am.
CMr. Herrldge.]
Opposition to the rearming of Germany is expressed by responsible people in all countries. Lord Beaverbrook has expressed his opposition through his press in Great Britain, and expressed it vigorously indeed. I am informed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was the guest of Lord Beaverbrook at Nassau-


Mr. Marlin:: We quarrelled violently on that subject.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -and I am sure Lord Beaverbrook expressed to the minister his views on that subject. In his last speech made in the House of Lords before he died, Duff-Cooper made a most passionate appeal against German rearmament. General de Gaulle, who certainly has not the same political opinion as has this group, has taken a strong stand against German rearmament because of his fears of the effects of German rearmament on the safety of the French nation. Thomas Mann, a great German novelist, a great democrat who fled from Hitler and who is now an American citizen, recently said this:
"The trend of world affairs is menacing, pregnant with disaster", and he warns that by putting "yesterday's mortal enemies back in the saddle the west is scandalizing the peace-loving majority of West Germans".
He should know. I expect he has a great deal of correspondence with friends in Germany.
Thousands of responsible and patriotic Canadians oppose German rearmament. I have received letters from, and held conversations with, many parents, wives and children who have lost their loved ones. I have also received letters from many veterans who have expressed their uncompromising opposition to German rearmament, and 1 shall refer to two, who have informed me of their opinions. One is a retired major of the Grenadier Guards, who is a resident of my constituency, and who had experience in Germany after the first world war, serving with the British military mission. From his knowledge of Germany and of the situation there at the present time, he expressed to me in no uncertain terms his belief that rearming Germany was a most dangerous step. Then since this debate commenced I received a letter from a comrade of mine who is now in Shaughnessy hospital receiving treatment for first world war disabilities. He said, "I am extremely glad to see that some of you people are opposing German rearmament". Sections of the Canadian Congress of Labour and other trade unions have expressed strong opposition to rearming Germany at the present time.

We have been asked the question: What is the alternative course of action? In reply, Mr. Speaker, I say that we believe that time is on our side. We therefore believe in playing for time as an alternative: time to explore further diplomatic possibilities; time to develop Colombo plans and further technical assistance; time to remove more of the economic ills of the world; time to allow the further strengthening of the democratic forces in Germany; time to work for the settlement of disputes as outlined in the charter of the United Nations.
As to that last point, I suggest that the United Nations should propose a deal by which a united Germany is admitted to the United Nations along with communist China, and that rearmament be postponed. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and in the opinion of some other people who have given this question some consideration, if we couple with this suggestion the withdrawal of Russian, British and American troops from Germany and the satellite states, the whole picture would be greatly improved.
At the Lambeth conference of 1948, a committee of bishops of the Anglican communion-of which the late bishop of Kootenay was a member and who is sincerely mourned by thousands in my constituency at the present time-dealt with problems the church has to face in the modern world, including communism, and reported in part as follows:
Communism cannot be overcome by argument alone. It has to be outlived, not merely outfought. Under the Providence of God its truths will pass into the experience of humanity, its untruths and half-truths will be self-destructive.
It was my lot, Mr. Speaker, to be born in an era of hope. No one who grew to maturity in the years before world war I could in his wildest nightmare have imagined the horrors which have been commonplaces of the daily press since the first world war of 1914. The science which men trusted has given those mad for power a capacity for the destruction of body, mind and soul on a vast scale, one so great that, in my opinion, comparisons with barbarian conquerors are grotesquely misleading and totally inappropriate.
The generation of my youth believed in a fundamental rationality of life and its essential goodness. Most of all, it believed in the sure and certain progress of the human race. This false confidence was somewhat justified in the light of modern history, particularly by the progress made in the latter part of the Victorian period in the western world. At the outbreak of the first world war, I, who was a progressive though not yet 50433-301
North Atlantic Treaty
a socialist, interested in peace and always opposed to imperialism, never thought of war in present basic and total terms. It is the hydrogen bomb, Mr. Speaker, which has made most articulate our fears for the future and which casts its black shadow over any hope of progress except towards destruction.
Today we face an unprecedented world situation. For the first time in history no general staff can guarantee its government victory, nor give any accurate estimate of the cost in military and civilian casualties or treasure required to assure any hope of victory. As Liddell Hart says:
The supreme fact of the hydrogen bomb era is that war has become palpably suicidal.
On that basis we must consider this situation. In brief, the logical deduction from the experience of our times is that if we cannot get peace, plenty and freedom together we shall get none of them. To achieve these objectives is an indivisible task.
Mr. Speaker, I have given this problem my best judgment and serious consideration. That is the situation as I see it today. I have brought my best judgment and serious consideration to dwell on this problem and I feel that, in the best interests of this country and of the future of mankind, I can do nothing else but oppose this resolution.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the debate has been carried on at an extremely high level. Thus there is little that I can say after the powerful and lucid speeches that have been made in the house. I shall not willingly, of course, lower the standard of debate by being repetitious. Unless I can say it better, I am not going to attempt it. For that reason the house will understand if I do not speak for too long.
It was in 1950, after the North Koreans had attacked the South Koreans, that Dean Acheson, secretary of state in the United States, drew a parallel to Germany. He pointed out the danger and suggested to the free world that consideration be given to the rearming of West Germany which was then, as now, facing an armed East Germany. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the distinguished hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the knowledgeable hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) have given us chapter and verse with respect to the arms in the hands of Germans who are in the east. These, numbering nearly 400,000, have been paraded before us in such great detail that we can almost recognize the regimental identification. It may be argued-as the hon. gentleman who just sat down argued-but surely it cannot be maintained that it is a virtue for

North Atlantic Treaty the Germans in East Germany to be armed and that it becomes a scandal when arms are provided for Germans in the west. Nor can it be maintained that those in the east are good Germans because their arms are provided by the Soviets and that those in the west are bad Germans because the free democracies will provide arms for them. When the fourth session of the twenty-first parliament opened on January 30, 1951, at the earliest opportunity, which was during the debate on the speech from the throne on February 6, I spoke at length of the dangers of rearming Germany. My words appear on pages 114 to 118 of Hansard for February 6, 1951. There I discussed at length many of the problems which now face this house. The tenor of my speech was that we must approach the problem of German rearmament with the greatest caution and safeguards, and with the memory of what an armed Germany cost the world in blood and tears in two world wars. We cannot afford to chance it once again without adopting precautionary measures, safeguards and controls.
Those words bear repeating because they are as cogent today as they were four years ago. I then recognized the inevitability of the step we propose to take at this time and my emphasis was on the controls. Whether or not the controls will control as we expect is the great unknown. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said, and I quote from page 369 of Hansard for January 20, 1955:
I do not suggest that we should ignore the lessons of the past. Indeed, as George Santayana has said, "those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
By those words he indicates that he is fully aware of our previous failures, in which he had no part. Thus we should be reassured that in this instance there will be no failure.
In 1952 the house unanimously endorsed the European defence community which provided arms to West Germany and upon which the French later changed their minds. Subsequently, the French endorsed rearmament by changing their vote.
The present debate has been a thorough one and every aspect of the question has been fully discussed. I am particularly impressed and I am influenced by the forceful, profound and powerful speech made in the course of this debate by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Cogent in its lucidity were the words used by the hon. member for Prince Albert to describe that speech.
[Mr. Croll.l

The effect of that speech has not been lost on the world. The Toronto Star of January 22 carries a Reuters dispatch headlined as follows:	"Thunderer praises Pearson's
Speech". The article reads:
The Times praises the 'wise and timely' speech given this week by L. B. Pearson, Canadian external affairs minister, when he opened the debate in parliament on ratification of the Paris agreements.
It says the speech 'provided one of the most reasoned statements in favour of the agreements which has yet been heard.
'Canada was one of the most influential members in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And in all that he said in the debate Mr. Pearson held fast to the original hope of a partnership of like-minded nations, wedded to a common purpose.
'As he looked ahead Mr. Pearson made a significant contribution to the present talks in Paris on the proposed European arms pool.
'It was a wise and timely speech'.
I found that during this week end there was a wider understanding and a better appreciation of what we had been trying to accomplish. For many years the Secretary of State for External Affairs has chartered the course of our international relations with remarkable ability. He has brought credit, distinction and peace to our country and helped preserve the peace of the world. I have, of course, read the Paris agreements noting fully the severe and binding limitations, controls and safeguards which are contemplated and which the minister has amplified.
It has been said in the house that foreign affairs are always a choice of problems. There is no sure or certain course. Decisions are made on unproved assumptions, weighing the advantages and disadvantages with the hope of a good result. The issue of war or peace in our time depends on our finding the right solution. This may be our last chance to solve this problem, and I think it is our best chance. None of us can be sure. Time alone will tell whether the rearming of West Germany is justified. Standing as we do at the crossroads of our existence, we can only hope and use our very best judgment, in the light of the information that is available to us, that in rearming at this time an aggressive and tumultuous people who were responsible for two of our deadliest wars in history we are preventing a third blood bath.
This is a momentous decision which, for good or ill, may determine the fate of generations. What we do now is with the hope and prayer that we are avoiding a greater catastrophe-at the very best it is a choice of evils. I believe this house knows my back-

ground, upbringing and family tradition. Seared and burned in my memory are names that will forever live in infamy. I have had thousands of representations and many delegations which have made a very deep impression on me. There is scarcely a home in one portion of my riding that has not suffered. I am a man torn. I have done much soul-searching. My heart, instinct, intuition and emotions say no. My head, logic and realism say yes.
I admit that the realities cannot be denied. There is no middle or alternative course. Without this step that we propose to take now, there can only be chaos. With great reluctance and a heavy heart I shall do what needs to be done at this time, without joy and with the Everest of misgivings.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, the present discussion, to which I would like to bring my modest contribution, is of extreme importance, and I firmly believe that everybody's attention is now focused on parliament hill.
Upon the voicing of our views, as well as upon the decision that the parliament of Canada is about_ to take on this question- much debated in certain quarters-of the rearmament of West Germany, depend, in my humble opinion, the future and security of our country, as well as the safeguarding of peace and democracy in all those countries which are increasingly proud to belong to the free nations of the world.
Within barely a quarter of a century, we have been engulfed in two horrible wars, both of them started by the arrogant leaders of a Germany hankering for power, whose unbridled ambition was to conquer the world. The German people, as the result of their leaders' ambition, came to the conclusion that they were a superior race and that, as a consequence, all the peoples of the world had to fall under their domination. The only recognized god then was the fuehrer!
I have certainly no intention of minimizing in any way the incredible number of horrors perpetrated throughout the last two world wars by our former enemies. It will be sufficient to recall the memory of those who fell gloriously on the battlefield, the memory of our Canadian heroes. It would be sufficient too to read once more the numerous stories of the unspeakable massacres and tortures worthy of darker ages which were the lot of those who had been crammed into con-
North Atlantic Treaty
centration camps. Neither are we forgetful of the martyrdom suffered by those of the captured soldiers of the free world who refused to abandon and betray their native land.
How many Canadian homes have known separation, worry and death? The losses sustained by those who mourn for a husband, son, brother, fiance, relative or friend, pitilessly torn from the love of their dear ones, run into hundreds of thousands. And this through a war willed upon us by the nazi hordes.
Following those deaths, at the thought that these dear ones would never again see their beloved Canada, for the defence of which they had just made the supreme sacrifice, we, in general mourning, damned Germany and the barbarousness of her leaders and wished for her complete destruction.
Why did these young Canadians, on which the country based its fondest hopes for the future, agree to leave behind country, homes and folks, to risk and give their life?
It was because these young men had faith in the future, that they wanted to prepare happy tomorrows, make Canada a country in which it would be good to live in peace and harmony, and leave behind the fine reward begot only by courage and sacrifice.
The hatred that Germany called upon herself has not been forgotten and no Canadian, least of all those upon whom these wars brought sorrow and mourning, can be asked to forgive and forget.
It is owing to these few considerations no doubt that quite a number of Canadians of all racial origins are not ready to give definite and enthusiastic approval to this proposal in which we are asked to ratify the agreement permitting Western Germany to rearm.
German militarism having always, or nearly always, been a menace to world peace, it is easy to understand that we should doubt its fairness and its honesty. Since Germany did not comply with treaties and agreements in the past but rather considered them as mere scraps of paper, it is easy to understand that we should be under some apprehension regarding these new commitments.
The unforgettable atrocities, the innumerable defaults, the treaties wilfully ignored, those are all factors which today explain the reluctance of nations who have suffered to forgive those who have so often been called tyrants.
What new guarantees have we should we decide to forgive the past and try-however hard it may be-to consign to oblivion the record of so much evil, of so much blood and tears?

North Atlantic Treaty
Is their word worth more today than it was yesterday, or are the Germans sufficiently smitten with remorse to atone, by doing good, for the immeasurable mischief of which they have been guilty?
The representative of God on earth forgives the repentant evil-doer, often in spite of his many grievous sins, because, he says, the Creator's mercy is infinite.
Must we not, at all times, use that last-mentioned maxim as a guide and he who repents should at least get the benefit of the doubt when his present or future good intentions are in question.
In my humble opinion, when we deal with that ticklish question, we must put our feelings aside and be truly realistic. Great Britain and France in particular have, more than we, been devastated and have lost an important part of their population but have they not reacted once more when confronted by the far greater danger which threatens not only Europe but the entire world?
What is that danger? What is that menace which lies heavy on peace-loving nations, which hangs over them like the sword of Damocles?
It is bolshevik Russia, atheistic Russia, murderous Russia, conquering Russia, godless Russia, which harbours the hideous canker, the destructive ideology of communism and whose deadly propaganda aims at nothing else but the poisoning, followed by the destruction of the souls and hearts of all who fall prey to that doctrine.
The communists, making use of every dishonest practice they are known to use, through recourse to cunning, hypocrisy, falsehood, have infiltrated every possible movement, including labour unions, in order to sow discord; they even have the gall to disguise some of their organizations under the title of "peace congress".
The communists up to now have shown by their barbarous deeds that they are international bandits, dangerous spies and the greatest persecutors of the church and of the faith that ever existed.
Every day we read with dismay in the papers that in the countries over which they rule they have thrown into slavery, imprisoned, tortured in the most horrible manner and cowardly assassinated men whose mission, whose calling is to guide the souls of others and to spread the belief in the Supreme Being, as if these men were the most wicked criminals.
[Mr. Dufresne.l
This pernicious and subversive ideology has been spreading even in this country where it must be admitted that communism has an ever-growing number of more or less conscious adepts.
On different pretexts they carry out periodic invasions of these parliament buildings where, following blindly in the wake of their leaders, they accomplish these little pilgrimages of theirs, dangerous and hypocritical, with a view to furthering their propaganda.
More than 800 of them banded together only a few days ago. They came to this parliament in order to meet the representatives of the Canadian people so as to ascertain their opinion on the point now at issue. For my part I took a few minutes off to receive them and to tell them, in a few words, what I thought of their doctrine, of themselves, after which I threw them out. I took advantage of this opportunity to voice once more my deepest religious convictions and to state loudly all my love for our democratic institutions.
These Canadian communists, who are afforded too much freedom in this country, since they are a constant threat to our national security, because of- the hatred they nurse for our system of government which gives happiness, peace and prosperity, should be considered outlaws. Now, then, when will the government adopt this urgent and oft-suggested measure and when will they prevent this filthy propaganda from reaching into Canadian homes through the postal services of Canada which, in this way, become an indirect accomplice to the overthrow of the system democratically established in our country? Let us face realities. Let us have courage. Let us apply the best preventive at our disposal, the outlawing of the communist party in Canada.
For the communists, the word freedom means abuse and it is more than ever time that the Canadian parliament be made aware of it. Let us never forget the sorrowful and fatal consequences of the complacency and indifference of some countries now behind the iron curtain and deprived of the freedom which is a source of happiness for those who enjoy it.
One thing can be understood or rather can be readily understood, when it is realized that all over the world the communists dedicate all their efforts to the service of their masters in the Kremlin, to whom they are blindly subservient.

All their devotion is dedicated to this foreign and dangerous power, at the expense of the best interests of the security of their own country.
No matter what conquering Russia may do, Canadian communists applaud unreservedly her machinations which are a menace to all mankind.
In this debate I think that Canadian communists who ask for a negative vote on the Paris agreements are guilty of the most infamous imposture.
Have you ever heard them lodge any protest against the steady flow of destructive arms to red China and other countries ruled by the Kremlin, arms which might sooner or later be used against our own country and our own people, which might bring us destruction and death?
These double-dealers, these traitors, through their wilful and unpardonable silence, are satisfied and no doubt happy to see that the nations which have taken up the communist doctrine, or which are made to put up with it, will be able to arm to the teeth in anticipation of further aggression inspired by Russia.
Their behaviour is all the more treacherous, traitorous and unpardonable that they learn of the fiendish intentions of their infamous masters through a spy network well organized by Moscow and directed here in Canada and elsewhere through embassies and consulates, as we have found out in the past.
What is going on at this time around Formosa and the adjacent islands constitutes even more convincing proof of the fact that we may, at one time or another, be drawn into the most terrifying and devastating war in the history of all nations.
Red China is delivering repeated attacks against certain islands still held by the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek, in order to prepare the invasion of that territory. That is no doubt the first step towards global and total warfare.
Those attacks have been inspired by barbaric Russia. It is the prelude to its attempts, born of boundless ambitions, to dominate the world and set up therein its regime of terror, slavery and idolatry. As for communist China, it only acts under the satanic orders of Moscow of which it is the contemptible puppet.
Whether we like it or not, and in spite of the optimistic statements made lately by certain chiefs of state, a sense of realism and an examination of what is going on should convince us that war is all but upon us at this time and that the free world is now
North Atlantic Treaty
being seriously threatened. Let us therefore adopt the appropriate measures now open to us in order to face the uncertain, perilous future that awaits us.
It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the government have not seen fit to convene parliament earlier so as to allow all representatives to give this matter their undivided attention. This is the most serious matter to come before us since the close of hostilities. Once more the government now in charge of the destinies of the country have, through this reprehensible attitude of theirs, failed to recognize the supremacy of parliament.
This new commitment on our part, which does meet with our almost unanimous approval, must not, nonetheless, bring about an increase in our military spending. These expenses are already far too heavy for the means of our small population who, ever since the end of the war, have been groaning under the weight of taxation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) must give us that assurance.
He will also have to tell us, unequivocally, what would become of our Canadian soldiers stationed in Germany at the taxpayers' expense if, some day, a rearmed Western Germany decided to invade the remainder of its territory now occupied by the Soviet, in order to proceed with the unification of the country. Would they be evacuated from a zone that had become dangerous for themselves and their families who had come to join them, or would the agreement we ratified oblige them to fight with the West Germans? These, Mr. Speaker, are questions that cannot remain unanswered and about which the Canadian people have a right to be informed.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and being aware of the responsibilities that weigh upon us as representatives of the Canadian people, I shall assume those responsibilities and vote in favour of West German rearmament. Of two evils, we must choose the lesser. I, therefore, prefer to absolve a repentant sinner than to become the accomplice of those who have decided to pursue their international gangsterism, in order to throw peoples into slavery and idolatry.
As far as we, who believe, are concerned let us implore the help of the Almighty and pray for the conversion of bolshevik Russia.
(.Text):


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, because of the far-reaching implications of the proposal that is now before us I hesitate to take part in this particular debate.

North Atlantic Treaty
However, for the very same reason, I feel that I could not justify myself in maintaining silence. Therefore at this time I should like, at the risk of further repetition, to express my own feelings with respect to this particular, resolution.
It seems to me that this is a debate in which the emotions of hon. members of this house are being deeply stirred. It is a debate in which our powers of discernment are being taxed and our capacity for judgment is being tried to the limit. It seems to me that we are haunted by two fears, the fear of a revival of German militarism and, on the other hand, the fear of further communist expansion.
The first, of course, is not without foundation. Twice in the first half of this century Europe has rocked with the tread of German spike-helmeted, ironclad forces urged on by the dreams of power and their leaders' fanatical sense of destiny. Those forces have not hesitated to drench nations in blood. We do not propose at this time to recount again the stories of brutality perpetrated in an endeavour to carry out their policies. We do not close our eyes to these facts. We do not forget the cost in lives and material, lives especially, involved in the defeating of those forces. That is our first fear.
The second fear, that of communist aggression and expansion, is also based on fact. Read into the records of this debate have been statements made by leaders of communist thought to the effect that world domination is their ultimate objective, and we have seen some phases of that program become reality. I do not wish to labour this point further except to refer to the constant threat felt by men in governmental positions all over this world.
Privileged as I was to attend part of the recent sessions of the United Nations general assembly, I heard delegates from various nations refer to the process of infiltration, intrigue and subversion emanating from and aided by the Kremlin directed toward the overthrow of constituted law and order and the bringing of increasing millions of humanity into the slavery of communism. All this in spite of Mr. Vishinsky's declaration that Moscow does not export revolution.
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) likens communism to creeping paralysis or, in some cases, to galloping consumption, the virus of which is slowly penetrating into every corner of the world. It seems to me that communism is a high-crested flood that threatens to engulf the world. It is a power threatening the very existence of democracy and freedom. This, I say, is our second fear.

It seems to me that our prayer is not for courage to do the thing which is right; our prayer is for guidance that under these circumstances we will know the right. I believe that each and every one of us will do the right thing if he can discern what is the right thing. We have been carefully weighing the issues, judging the particular dangers which confront us, and we must register our votes and trust that history will confirm the wisdom of that decision or at least credit us with sincerity of purpose.
Just today I received a circular letter in the mail-I suppose all hon. members received a similar letter-from the church peace mission, care of St. Cyprian's church in Toronto. I call attention to it because to me it is rather misleading. I know nothing about the church peace mission; I do not know how many belong to it; whether it is a properly constituted group or just what it is. This letter urges us to take our stand against the ratification of the agreement and I should like to read a portion of this letter by the Reverend D. C. Candy, chairman of the church peace mission. Referring to a previous communication which he had sent to hon. members, he said:
The following excerpts from the resolutions adopted by the assembly of the world council of churches, which met in Evanston in August 1954, express the view of the great majority of Protestants throughout the world:
"We believe that there are two conditions of crucial importance which must be met if catastrophe is to be avoided: (a) The prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction, including atomic and hydrogen bombs, with provision for international inspection and control such as would safeguard the security of all nations, together with the drastic reduction of all other armaments."
(b) The certain assurance that no country will engage in or support aggressive or subversive acts in other countries . . . We are convinced that peace will be seriously endangered so long as the armaments race continues. . .
He adds this sentence:
We heartily support these views and urge that the efforts of our government be towards their implementation.
I am sure the council was expressing the feelings of the great majority of Protestants, as well as those of other people. However, I would not go along with the inference that in order to accomplish these aims and objectives we have to vote against the ratification of these agreements. I believe his views are erroneous on that subject. He goes on to say:
In the early part of last fall our own Canadian representative introduced a motion in the UN general assembly, which gained the approval of all the major powers, asking for the continuation of the discussions of the special subcommittee on the subject of the control of atomic weapons and by all peace-loving people.

The writer goes on to state:
It would be inconsistent with the objectives of this motion now to agree to the development of any large new military force, let alone the revival of a German army, with its criminal record. Continued support of the work of this UN body will have far greater possibilities for the promotion of world peace than the re-establishment of the fearful German war machine.
I would again like to place myself on record as being in opposition to the view that to vote for the ratification of the agreements would be contrary to the spirit of this particular United Nations resolution. I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made a plain statement in regard to the circumstances that led up to this particular proposal. Many of the things that have troubled us have been clarified, and we certainly appreciate that.
Again with reference to the time I was privileged to spend at the United Nations, I would like to say that I appreciate the diligence and devotion with which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), as acting head of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, sought and succeeded in bringing the east and west together through the co-sponsorship of the draft resolution on disarmament.
We hope and pray that further negotiations will achieve the desired results. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because of the tendency on the part of some to imply that we are now following a policy of provocation rather than negotiation. Therefore, like other hon. members who have given this matter great, and I may say prayerful, consideration, I feel I must, and I shall, vote in favour of the resolution before us.


Mr. A. M. Fraser (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the resolution to approve the Paris protocol to the North Atlantic treaty, I am fully conscious of the extreme gravity of the decision we are called upon to make. Implicit in this resolution is the question whether or not West Germany is to be rearmed. This question is one of the most momentous ever to come before the house.
I venture to suggest that there is not one of us who has not approached this issue with mixed feelings and with serious misgivings. The black record of German aggression, and particularly of nazi atrocities, generates in every one of us an instinctive revulsion against the idea of German rearmament. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue which must be decided not by instinct, or passion, however natural these emotions may be, but by reason and logic.
For my own part, Mr. Speaker, my misgivings have been diminished and my
North Atlantic Treaty
apprehension allayed by the clear and comprehensive statement made to this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). He has convinced me that the real choice is not between a Germany disarmed and a Germany rearmed, but between a Germany rearmed within an international framework of control and a Germany rearmed without control.
It is impossible to maintain a permanent power vacuum in central Europe. As Sir Anthony Eden said: "The question is not whether West Germany is to be rearmed, but how." We cannot treat West Germany as a perpetual pariah, an outcast among the nations, because if we were to attempt that policy Russia, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has pointed out, would be tempted to fill the vacuum thus created.
Let us try to imagine for ourselves what the situation would be if this protocol failed to be ratified. I venture to suggest that one of the first consequences would be to undermine the authority of the Adenauer government in West Germany, the government led by a man who is at one and the same time a good German and a good European.
It was my good fortune, Mr. Speaker, to be in West Germany during September of last year shortly after the rejection of EDC by the French national assembly on August 30, and I could not but feel that the failure of EDC had generated a sense of disappointment and disillusionment among the Germans. Chancellor Adenauer had pinned his foreign policy on the support of the west and one of the pillars of the western policy had been EDC. When it crashed to the ground there seemed to be a danger that West Germany would lose confidence in Dr. Adenauer, and his government might be overthrown.
That, I fear, would be one of the consequences, and we must remember that in dealing with the West Germany of Adenauer we are dealing with a different Germany from the German empire which Bismarck welded together by a combination of astute diplomacy and relentless force. We are dealing with a different Germany from the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm. We are dealing with a different Germany from the Germany of Hitler. From the West Germany of Dr. Adenauer Prussia is absent. I think hon. members of the house will agree with me that throughout the history of the German empire and of Hitler's reich it was the Prussian junkers and the Prussian militarists who spearheaded German aggression either directly or through their influence on the German general staff.
I would venture to suggest that the Germany of Adenauer could be even different

North Atlantic Treaty
from the Germany of the Weimar republic because I think experience has led the West Germans to remedy some of the weaknesses of the Weimar constitution. For instance, the powers of the chancellor are greater. Article 65 of that constitution declares that he is responsible for the principles of policy and determines them. Moreover, we know that the chancellor's position has been strengthened by the fact that the basic law provides that if the opposition wishes to get rid of him, it must do more than simply vote no confidence in him. It must agree on someone to take his place. So in West Germany today we have a government that is at once a democratic government and a strong government. I think it would be a tragedy for the west if that government were to be undermined before its policy of co-operation with the west has been brought to fruition.
Another consequence of the failure to ratify this protocol might be the driving of a wedge between Western Germany and the NATO countries and the forcing of Western Germany into the arms of the Russians. We have seen the tendency for Germany to draw close to Russia illustrated more than once in recent history. The treaty of Rapallo in 1920 occurs to one, as does the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact of 1939. I therefore cannot see any alternative to the protocol.
I come next to the second thought which was left in my mind by the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), namely the effective limitations and controls which are to be imposed on West German rearmament. As he pointed out, it is of course impossible for human ingenuity to devise absolutely ironclad, foolproof guarantees; but in so far as these guarantees can be devised and applied, they are devised and applied in this protocol, as was made clear from the masterly exposition which the minister gave us relative to the controls with respect to certain armaments and the prohibition of arms.
I should like to deal briefly with the reception that the protocol has had in one or two other countries which are intimately concerned. We know, of course, that in France the French national assembly has approved the protocol, albeit reluctantly. That reluctance is perfectly understandable. France has suffered the humiliation of three German occupations in some 85 years, each one of them more brutal than the last. While I was travelling through France last fall, the brutality of that occupation was driven home to me very forcibly by a memorial in the town of Auxerre. That monument is not, in the strict sense of the word, a war memorial but is a memorial to the men, women and children

who were taken from that town by the German authorities, who were transported into Germany to work as slave labourers and who died as a result. Engraved on that monument are terrifying sculptured forms of bent bodies bowed down beneath intolerable burdens, with a hand stretched piteously from the earth. No one who looked upon that memorial could help feeling how deeply the brutality of the German occupation had entered into the heart and soul of France.
France has good reason to distrust and to fear Germany. We can understand why the French national assembly rejected EDC. But let us not forget that the French national assembly has approved this protocol which is now before this house.
Reference has been made by several hon. members to the narrowness of the majority in favour of the protocol. But it is well known that the 53 members of the M.R.P. who voted against the protocol are nevertheless in favour of rearming Germany and that they voted against the protocol simply because they would have preferred the solution proposed by their own leaders, namely EDC. If those 53 votes were deducted from one column and added to another, the result would have looked much more impressive. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, that protocol has been approved by the French national assembly because of 86 socialist votes. Without those socialist votes, given in an almost solid body by the socialists of France, the protocol would not have passed the French national assembly. From the figures that I have seen, I understand that the socialist party in the French national assembly divided as follows: 86 in favour of the protocol, 18 against.
As to Britain, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the protocol we have before us was largely the result of the brilliant initiative of the British foreign secretary, Sir Anthony Eden. It was largely he who, following the collapse of EDC, mobilized the forces striving for the unification of western Europe. It was he who produced a solution in the form of a wedding, as it were, of the Brussels treaty with NATO, out of which has come western European union.
Not only did the British government take the initiative in bringing forward this protocol, but in order to make it easier for France to accept the protocol the British government undertook a new commitment, to maintain troops in western Europe in time of peace. This is something which has been correctly described as a truly revolutionary act. By that action Great Britain has sacrificed, if you will, an important part of her sovereign rights in the cause of international cooperation and collective security. By doing

so she has given practical proof of her conviction that absolute and unfettered sovereignty has become an anachronism in our atomic age.
So, Mr. Speaker, we find that in both France and Great Britain these protocols which we are debating have been approved by the legislatures. In Great Britain the majority in favour was 266 to 6. It is true, of course, that a great many members abstained from voting, mainly members of the Labour party, but only 6 out of the Labour party membership in the house of close to 300 actually voted against the measure.
In the course of this debate a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the time factor. We have been told that time is of the essence, and of course one must agree with that. When one agrees with the idea that time is of the essence the thought in my mind is that we must seize the most propitious time. I firmly believe that time is now. During the past four or five years earnest efforts have been made, not the least by our distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), to bring about a strengthening of the west for peace. It has been an uphill task, as we all know; but now, when the French assembly has approved the protocols, when Great Britain has made the sacrifice of sovereignty she has, when opinion in West Germany is more favourable to it than perhaps ever before and more averse to militarism than ever before, are we going to lose this moment? Are we going to undermine this fabric of international understanding in the west that has been built up by patient and skilful diplomacy?
I believe we should hesitate, Mr. Speaker, before we take that chance. Indeed, let us try to strengthen the cause. By doing so we shall be helping to strengthen the defences of the free world. We shall be deterring Soviet aggression, and I firmly believe we shall be improving our chances of successful negotiation with the Soviet union because we shall be negotiating from strength. If there is one lesson that the history of the post-war years has taught us in our relations with the communists, it is that we derive greater successes at the bargaining table when we can lead from strength. This has been the lesson of Azerbaijan, the Berlin airlift and even the success which we have achieved in Korea.
If we look at the rest of the world today we can contrast the situation in the Far East with the situation in Europe. What do we see? We see that communist aggression is
North Atlantic Treaty
more rampant in the east, where our defences are weakest, than it is in the west where our defences are the strongest.
This brings me to what I feel to be the fundamental question, and that is why this proposition is being put up to us at all at this moment? Why is this question of German rearmament coming before us? I should like to answer that question in the words of the French socialist leader, Guy Mollet. Speaking in the historic debate in the French chamber, he said:
Why is the question of German rearmament posed?
The answer he gave was:
It is because of the policy conducted by the Soviet union which menaces the peace of the world, and denies liberty to millions.
Yes, I feel that the danger of war today, the danger of aggression, comes not from Bonn but from Moscow.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to the very convincing speech made on Friday last by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in reply to certain comments made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). This was an immensely valuable contribution to the debate. I felt that the minister demonstrated conclusively that there is no inconsistency between Canada's efforts at the United Nations to achieve disarmament and this resolution which involves the rearmament of Germany. We have always felt that disarmament must be under effective international control and supervision. I believe we are more likely to obtain a successful result from the impending disarmament conference if we can negotiate at that conference from strength.
It is clear from what the minister said that Canada is not speaking with two voices, not speaking with one voice in New York and another voice in London and Paris. These two policies are integral parts of the same pattern, two aspects of the same policy. The Canadian government is speaking with one voice, a voice that has been listened to with increasing respect and admiration throughout the free world. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the parliament of Canada, too, will speak with one voice.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion since I entered the house that I have had the opportunity, perhaps I should say the temerity, to take part in a debate on external affairs. The first occasion was in 1953, when we were debating external affairs in a general way. This time we are dealing with a specific

North Atlantic Treaty
measure, and we are asked to make a decision as individual members upon the matter of the ratification of the German protocol.
I suppose one of the reasons the ordinary private member in the house hesitates to take part too frequently in a discussion of external affairs lies in the rapidly changing picture confronting us. When we realize that just nine years after the close of world war II the whole structure of power politics has reversed itself almost beyond recognition, we can appreciate the point I have just made.
Then, too, Canadian policy has changed rapidly since world war II. I recall that after the cessation of hostilities in 1945 Canada tried to get back to what we called a state of normalcy such as had existed in the prewar period. We demobilized; we withdrew from European commitments. Even though we perhaps realized that, in the light of world conditions emerging after world war II, such a policy was not realistic, we could not resist that deep-seated and almost subconscious urge to get back to the period of peace as it had existed prior to 1939.
In facing this issue upon which we must now decide, we can readily come to the conclusion that what we decide now is not a final or fixed solution, because both in Canada and throughout the world tremendous moral, political and economic forces have been set loose that no parliament and no country-and certainly no individual- could control by any decision made at any particular time.
I should like to emphasize at the beginning of my remarks that defence alliances are especially transitory. Any cohesive element that might lie within a defence alliance is dissipated or begins to disappear almost as rapidly as the ink dries on the signatures of those taking part in shaping the alliance. Because of the uncontrollable forces of power politics that have been unleashed in the world we are faced with a condition that, for any definite period of time, is beyond the control of human ingenuity and human understanding.
However, I do not have too much difficulty in making a decision on the question before the house because I feel that the question set out in the motion contains the only logical conclusion to which anyone could come. As I have listened to the debate during the last three days my decision in this regard has been strengthened.
NATO came as a logical development from the rapid disintegration of the UN following world war II, which had appeared at first to be the beginning at long last of a meaningful world alliance, including the powerful
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
U.S.S.R. After examining the circumstances I must conclude that the fact we were forced to take part in a regional defence alliance in 1949 was not the fault of the western powers, particularly those in North America, because we were forced reluctantly to take action for regional defence as a matter of collective security. This was largely because of the unco-operative attitude of the Soviet.
In 1949 the cry was that the western nations must unite for survival, and as the world situation has further deteriorated it seems to me that cry is even more urgent. In 1949 NATO restored the balance of power in favour of the west. I believe a logical development in that process, in view of the circumstances prevailing since the war. is the incorporation of Western Germany into this regional alliance of free nations.
As other hon. members have emphasized, in the changing circumstances of world affairs it is almost impossible to believe that at last we have France and the western section of Germany trying to get along within a mutual defence agreement. We must also keep in mind that, notwithstanding its excursions into military aggressiveness twice in the first half of the twentieth century, Germany is basically and essentially a part of our western Christian civilization.
Having said all that is to oversimplify. The issue is not as straightforward or as simple as all that. Indeed, it is one of the most complex I have had to face as a member of the house, and one of the most complex confronting the world today. This was revealed in the minister's excellent review of the situation at the opening of the discussion on Thursday afternoon. It is not a subject that could be presented in sweeping and simple generalizations.
I join with other hon. members, particularly those in the back rows and those sitting in opposition, in regretting that more information was not placed in our hands at the time of the original Paris and London agreements. I have been under assault, if I may put it that way, from certain influences in my own constituency almost since that time, and it has been difficult to answer queries raised and deal with criticisms made concerning those two important conferences without having the information at hand.
Sometimes we of the opposition are referred to as the paper opposition, in that we get most of our information from the press. I have found from personal experience that this is almost inevitable, particularly as government affairs become more complex. As a private member I find there is not too much opportunity to get the necessary detailed

information on a matter as complex as this. Neither do we have the opportunity to deal with the representatives of the various free parliaments. We must formulate our own understanding and develop our thinking from the information transmitted to us through the various paper means of communication.
I venture to say that members of the armed forces of Canada, particularly those who travel abroad, have a more intimate understanding of and a more intimate contact with the actual geographical setting where these tremendous issues are taking shape. Members of parliament have to depend on secondhand information. That is an unfortunate situation. What the remedy is I cannot suggest this afternoon, although I do recall that when I first joined the air force back in the beginning of world war II the slogan was "Join the air force and see the world", and we did see a considerable part of the world at that time. Any personal grasp I have of countries outside the North American continent came from contacts that were made possible during those days.
In spite of the fact that to a large majority of the house it seems to be inevitable that we must ratify this protocol, there are some who feel that at this time they cannot vote for the resolution before us. I can partly understand that reservation. It is similar to the attitude that prevailed in the mid-1930's, when a strong feeling of pacifism was the dominant sentiment of a good many citizens of Canada and in fact of most of the western nations. Our generation is saturated with what we might call a mixture of sentimental Christianity-because as fundamental Christianity becomes watered down it tends to taper off into sentiment-scientific humanism and social evolution dogma. It was a mixture of all these sentiments that produced in the mid-1930's that famous resolution that swept through universities of the free nations of the world and which said, "Under no circumstances will we take up arms for king and country." A good many students of those days affixed their signatures to that resolution because of the sentiments that had shaped their thinking and formed their personalities; leading them to believe that everything was for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and never again would there be any war.
The refusal to ratify a resolution as important as the one before us springs from similar sentiments, I believe. Just a few moments ago the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) referred to the belief in progress that was our heritage from the Victorian era; and that belief in inevitable progress
North Atlantic Treaty
still is very firm in a large segment of the population, even though in Victorian times, under relatively stable conditions, the wrecks of civilization were to be seen on all hands, particularly in the Mediterranean area. These evidences that civilizations do rise and fall only served to underscore the comparative security of our own era. It was not until world war II, when we saw within the confines of the western nations wrecks of cities, the debris of our own civilization, that our thinking in regard to inevitable progress was brought up short.
I remember that in the early 1940's, at the height of the devastating bomber attacks on Germany, the crews taking part in those mass raids, in order to provide a safety valve for their own emotional reaction to the horror in which they were actually engaged I suppose, used to refer to a successful raid something like this. They would say they had heard a newscast from one of the German radio stations which said that a mass raid of a thousand allied bombers appeared over one of their cities this evening. The broadcast would refer to the destruction of a number of bombers and concluded with the final sentence, "One of our cities is missing."
That, I think, underscores the problem that faces a good many hon. members, as we have to make a decision on this matter. We are now confronted with the prospect of total destruction, not only of the physical aspects of our civilization; but with the additional threat of what are called the ABC weapons the situation becomes even more ominous. Not only will cities be razed to the ground, but we are faced with the possible disappearance of soil fertility and interference with human biology itself. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) dealt with this subject a few days ago.
I want to emphasize that progress is not inevitable, and trends for good or evil can be disturbed by the actions men take, notwithstanding Marx and similar materialists -and our own civilization is saturated with strong potions of materialism today. I heard an authority speak on the subject not so long ago. He was rather cynical in his observation, when he said he saw very little difference between the atheistic materialism of Malenkov and the theistic materialism of western civilization. The materialists would always have us believe in determinism, that trends are inevitable, but I believe that man is capable of rational and creative activity. The decisions we make here in a free parliament, as well as decisions that may be made elsewhere, can be implemented into action, can change the course of events so far as human civilization is concerned.

North Atlantic Treaty
In addition to the general confusion of a problem of this kind, the issue has been further confused by certain representations that have been making themselves felt repeatedly in parliamentary circles. I have had many letters; I have had many interviewers, all of whom have urged me to vote no on this matter. I have not had one letter urging me to vote yes. If you were to take that as a measure of public opinion you might be persuaded to move in the direction of the noes.
I am a little bit suspicious of the type of pressure that has been applied to members of parliament. First of all, it is highly charged with emotional content. It is not a rational approach to the problem at all. It seems even to have some subversive tendencies so far as the well-being of the western nations is concerned. It is an appeal to conscience, and that is an appeal that can always tend to neutralize the westerner because, notwithstanding the adulteration of the element of Christianity in our civilization, we are still pretty heavily saturated with Christian morality; and whenever anybody approaches us from the standpoint of a peace offensive we always think very carefully as to the stand we shall take.
I suggest that approaching members of a free parliamentary body such as this with a peace offensive is much like preaching to the converted. I do not think the North American countries offer any threat of aggression, and such propaganda efforts might be more usefully employed in quarters requiring a little more aggressiveness on behalf of peace. We are convinced that war is a scourge. When I have been confronted with this emotional, almost hypocritical approach, I hark back in my thinking to the peace offensive of Hitler during the 1930's, when he neutralized any possible resistance from the western powers by appealing to the western conscience.
It is largely, too, an appeal from the standpoint of fear, and it was Mr. Roosevelt who said at a critical period during world war II that we had nothing to fear but fear itself. The world today, because of the continuing threat of the international situation, is almost paralysed by fear. The other day I was quite impressed when I read in the press the story of the smog that suddenly descended over London causing the good citizens of London to fall on their knees in prayer, and in general distress and confusion thinking that it was the end of all things.
There is an atmosphere of fear in all the nations of the world at the present time. We are constantly reminded of the scourge of the nazis, of the possibility of the revival
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
of German militarism and the modern barbarism of nazism. I would suggest that this tactic of the appeal to irrational emotionalism was just the thing that made it impossible for the west to stand up to the threat of the nazis during the 1930's. The nazi propaganda machine painted communistic aims and methods in such a bestial light that they confused the issue-the old red herring technique-and concealed their own bestiality. By arousing this irrational response of fear the nazis gained the allegiance of many of the respectable groups in Germany. Hitler destroyed law on the pretext of saving it. He undermined free government on the ground that he was its only safeguard. He brought all property under state control with the explanation that he was the champion of free enterprise, and he finally opened the gates of Europe to Russian communism on the excuse that he alone knew how to fight it. As I have listened to these representations by peace delegates my mind has constantly harked back to the Hitler technique of the appeal to emotional irrationality.
This leads me to a consideration of what we are up against in so far as any possible threat to our western security is concerned. True, there is a possibility of revival of German militarism; but I think we are in much greater danger from the possibilities of Soviet aggression. We need merely go back to the record since the end of world war II. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate that dismal picture here; it is well known to all hon. members. It is the lack of good faith and co-operation on the part of the U.S.S.R. that has made this whole western defence structure necessary.
In addition to that, if you go back to the doctrinaire Marxist approach behind Soviet designs and ambitions you will find they make no secret of the fact that they are out to destroy what they call capitalistic society, and they have a method of attack that is very difficult to deal with because it has two aspects to it. First of all it appears in the form of a revival of czarist Russian nationalism, and second it appears in the form of communist imperialism. This communist imperialism has, to my way of thinking, many of the overtones of religious fanaticism.
I do not believe that the Soviets will precipitate an all-out war. That seems to have been demonstrated by the pattern since world war II; but there is no doubt, by the same token, that whenever the opportunity arises, whenever confusion and chaos occur, they will indulge in a session of smashing and grabbing that is bewildering to behold. Such was the case behind the iron

curtain as they absorbed satellite after satellite in the immediate post-war period.
Of course it may be they are hoping that according to the Marxist dialectic the capitalistic nations will be destroyed of their own volition, that the elements of destruction are inherent in them and that Russia will simply have to wait until we reach a point of disintegration and confusion, when they can walk in and take over. That is why I feel it is so necessary to preserve, to extend and strengthen the system of collective security that has already been so well established in the NATO organization.
Actually if you look at either threat, the threat from the revival of nazism and the ever-present threat of Soviet pressure, there is much in common between the two. I remember attending a debate in Hart House in 1946 when the topic was "Resolved that nazism and communism are essentially the same". I think the affirmative in that debate rather had the upper hand. Both fascism and communism are the by-products of despotism. They are the results of the concentration of power both politically and economically in the hands of a few state officials. Of course this must inevitably lead to the abuse of power.
In addition to that, despotisms, particularly the modern despotism of nazi Germany and the Soviet union, are completely amoral. Lenin declared himself to have no belief in eternal moral principles. Actually all modern despotisms, and especially the two I have referred to, are more dangerous than any despotism that has existed hitherto, because they have all the insights of modern science at their disposal.
I was impressed with the minister's phrase when he said that he hoped science might be used for welfare rather than for warfare. I do not think modern despots are using the discoveries of science for what you might call welfare. Early despots used physical torture as an instrument to ensure conformity. In some cases they destroyed the body. But now the Soviet-and this has been amply demonstrated-uses new discoveries, in the physiology of the mind, for example, to inflict psychophysical torture on the victim. The will itself is destroyed. We have seen pictures of the white-faced automata appearing in the Soviet courts and confessing in the very language of their accusers. We have come to the conclusion that not only has liberty itself been removed, but the very essence of humanity has been subtracted.
We also recall the campaign that came from the same source as the peace campaign, with reference to the use of bacteriological weapons in the Korean conflict. We have discovered
North Atlantic Treaty
that this same diabolical brainwashing technique has been used, that the insights of modern psychology and psychiatry have been used in extracting confessions from prisoners of war.
Notwithstanding this-and this shows the very amorality of the threat now confronting us-no state in history has been more obsessed with "righteous" faith in the infallibility of its policies than the U.S.S.R. It sends men to labour camps in the name of freedom; it wipes out minorities in the name of liberation; it puts millions of peasants to death by starvation in the name of efficient agriculture. If anything, and this conclusion has been reached by others in this debate, Soviet despotism is much worse in its threat to humanity than nazi despotism ever was. In this regard I am constantly reminded that to fail in the ratification of these agreements will further open the way to communist infiltration. That is why I feel we must move resolutely and firmly toward the furtherance of western unity.
Like most hon. members I have reservations on this score, and some of these reservations I mentioned in my opening remarks. We are dealing with forces and powers in a great many respects quite uncontrollable, and we are constantly afraid that anything we do will usher in a third world war which would be the final madness of the human race. I would emphasize some of the things already stated in this debate, namely the need for rigid control of the German military machine and also, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have emphasized, the need for continued discussions on the matter of disarmament, because nations armed to the teeth are always in danger even unwittingly of precipitating the last and final destruction.
Canada has tentatively attempted a lead in this regard. But it is interesting to note that any reference to disarmament by the Soviet seems to stress the ABC weapons, which have never yet been used to precipitate war. The atomic bomb was used to end the last world war; that fortunately has so far been the fullest extent of its use. It must be noted that wherever communist aggression has occurred in the world it has been carried out by means of superiority in conventional arms. It is therefore my view that any future war would begin with the use of conventional arms, and if our Soviet friends were sincere in their desire for disarmament they would have something to say on that score. Western frontiers have been engulfed by a slow process of attrition by means of

North Atlantic Treaty
these weapons, and that aspect of disarmament should be remembered in any discussions that take place.
I would like to emphasize again the nonmilitary aspects of the protocol now before us. It was at Canada's insistence that article 2 of NATO was inserted in the agreements. Unfortunately, due no doubt to our preoccupation with other matters, there has been very little attempt to implement the economic co-operation underlined in article 2, and in passing I would re-emphasize that if the responsibility the parliament of Canada is being asked to assume means anything at all it is the need to go much further than merely implement a defensive agreement.
Then there is the problem of the preservation of democracy in Germany, which is of basic importance. Only in a democratic Germany can we have any hope of avoiding a revival of the nazi military tradition. As I have already indicated, despotism always moves in the direction of the abuse of power, and certainly a nation having the recent historical background of Germany is in great danger from this threat. If the present democratic form of government in Germany collapsed, and despotism replaced it, all sorts of problems would have to be resolved on higher levels of foreign policy. We have to remember that Chancellor Adenauer is a very old man, and the fact that there will have to be changes in German leadership will present a problem difficult to handle by those entrusted with the responsibility of assuring the continuance of the democratic way of life in West Germany.
Then perhaps the greatest danger of all in dealing with this problem is the compulsion toward unification. It is rather significant that in any settlement or peace arrangement we have been able to come to with the U.S.S.R. the question of partition has always been involved. That was the solution in Korea; it was the solution in Indo-China; and unfortunately and tragically it was adopted as a solution in dealing with the problem of Germany. These arrangements constitute sore spots in all these countries, and the drive toward reunification on the part of all these national entities is likely to be the cause of a hot war breaking out in future.
Continuance of negotiations between east and west is of course fundamental. Since the change in the personnel making up the power structure in Soviet Russia there has been perhaps a new emphasis which is of utmost importance, and which should be remembered in any attempt we make to carry on negotiations with Russia if there is to be any hope
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
that the present policy of containment might eventually be replaced by some reasonable and sensible policy of coexistence.
Summing up in the spirit if not perhaps the words of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), we are forced to conclude that any action we take on this important matter is primarily an act of faith. The uncontrolled forces loose in the modern world make any other attitude impossible. Power politics turn the world in which we live today into a veritable madhouse. We wonder what Russia will do and what Germany will do. No one can say what the future holds, and perhaps even those countries cannot themselves provide a reasonable answer.
But I do believe we must continue to negotiate from strength. That has been the NATO solution, a solution which has worked most satisfactorily up to the present time. We must also remember that we are relying not only on military, economic, and political strength, but above all on the moral strength which lies at the very foundation of our Christian western civilization. That is why I say we must make this final decision as an act of faith. We must believe that the balance of western Christian morality will decide the issue in the long run on the side of God and on the side of humanity.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I listened the other day with a great deal of interest to the excellent speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. To my mind it was a speech designed to justify the action of the government in approving German rearmament. Since then several other hon. members have spoken along the same lines.
I noticed that the minister glossed over the history of Germany when armed. He glossed over the fears and dangers that engulfed us during two wars. Therefore, like several other members, particularly in this group, I feel that I should like to place on record my reasons for not supporting this resolution.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already given the house reasons, with which I agree, which cover my case almost entirely. I want to make it quite clear that I am not opposing the admission of Germany into the family of nations. That action, by itself, is an excellent thing. I believe that everyone would support it. I believe the German people would vote for being admitted to the family of nations. I think that has the support of everyone in this house. However, I object to the package deal that is now before us, including as it does the rearmament of West Germany.

My memory goes back to 1914-and it has done so consistently over the past three or four days-when as a young man in London I listened to speeches made by prominent people, including both members of parliament and members of the public in London. I read the newspapers of those days and the posters exhorting the youth to join in the service of Britain. We were told that we had to do it in order to preserve democracy. We were told that nothing less than the full flower of Britain's youth pitted against Germany would bring about victory. We were told then that the challenge of Germany, if successful, would mean the end of our way of life. I well remember that statement. We were told that Germany must be defeated and must be forever effectively controlled.
On the basis of those statements and promises thousands of us joined, thinking we were being told the truth. After a long and bitter struggle we won the war. I have not the time in which to tell you of the price we paid, of the youths who died in the prime of life, or of the thousands of others who were maimed and crippled for life. You know the history of that war. Suffice it to say that those of us who survived looked forward to a peaceful existence for the rest of our lives, having accomplished what we set out to do, namely to disarm Germany once and for all.
Germany was disarmed. But before long people forgot the misery of the first war. I could not do so. I still cannot because I retain the memory of the day I joined the forces in August, 1914, in London, with six others who were also about my own age, five of whom paid the supreme sacrifice at the Dardanelles. Those are my memories. As a personal duty to those boys I knew so well, who gave their lives for a principle, I feel that I now must stand up and speak in favour of the same principle.
As the memory of the first war faded we gradually relaxed our controls over Germany. Although she was not allowed to build an air force, an army or a navy, she managed to produce some fine fighter pilots through the use of gliders, thus overcoming the restrictions placed upon her by the victorious allies. She was not allowed to build a navy, but she surreptitiously produced pocket battleships. She was not allowed to have an army, but she produced a small army composed almost entirely of officer material that eventually developed to the point where they could take charge of a vast army. All this went on before Hitler came on the scene.
When Hitler came on the scene they had reached a point where they were again strong enough to challenge the democracies
North Atlantic Treaty
that had defeated them a few short years previously. Once again the cry went out for recruits to stem the menace of a new Germany. Once again, in almost the same words, the same speeches were made. The same articles appeared in the press and the same posters appeared on the walls of buildings in England-and I might say in Canada -and again with the same results. Our youth responded. Incidentally two of my own sons joined the services in the last war, responding to the call. I too offered my services in the second war, as I did in the first, serving in the reserve army. This time it was to be a final war against Germany. Never again would they be allowed to arm and menace the world. Those are not my words. They are the words of Mr. Churchill, the Prime Minister of England, supported by other prominent men in the democracies, including our own country.
Again, Mr. Speaker, after a bitter and bloody struggle we were victorious. The second war was far more vicious than was the first. In order to see how much more atrocious it was, you have only to read the recorded facts with regard to prisoner of war camps such as Belsen, the gas chambers and all the atrocities that were committed in the second war, and compare them with those that were perpetrated in the first war.
I am convinced that a third world war would surpass, in violence and atrocity, both the others combined. It is even conceivable that the use of modern nuclear weapons would exterminate the majority of mankind, civilians as well as members of the armed forces. I therefore view with alarm the emergence of Germany as an armed world power for the third time. For this reason I cannot agree to sanction the rearming of this nation after having, twice in my lifetime, given years to try to disarm it.
An armed Germany will not bring stability and peace to Europe. The history of the last 50 years proves that statement. History actually proves that Germany has been the most disturbing influence in Europe. On what ground then do we now credit the Germans with better intentions? President Eisenhower, Prime Minister Churchill and our own Secretary of State for External Affairs have told us of lessening tension. Both the United Kingdom and the United States are reducing their manpower because of the lessening tension and are relying more and more on their superiority of atomic weapons.
This condition has been brought about without the help of Germany. Why, then, at this stage enlist an army of foot soldiers? They will not be allowed to carry atomic

North Atlantic Treaty
weapons. We are now told we have too many. According to the experts, foot soldiers are already a surplus element in a modern defence system.
Instead of allowing Germany to rearm I think we should allow her to use that money to improve her own economic condition and the lot of her people. I believe building German homes would pay far greater dividends than would the building of a German army. The German people themselves would prefer an improvement in their economic lot. A happy prosperous Germany, to my mind, would be a more effective bulwark against the growth of communism than any German army could possibly be. For that reason there is a growing opposition even in West Germany to the proposal that is now before us.
In support of this contention that Germany itself is not in favour of rearmament I should like to quote part of an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail today. It is written by Dorothy Thompson, and reads as follows:
The rearmament of Germany was launched by Mr. Acheson in September, 1950, right off the cuff. Since then even strategic plans of how to meet a possible Russian attack on Europe have changed. The answer would be an all-out atomic reprisal-and the Germans are to have no atomic weapons. Thus the political stability of West Germany and France and the confidence of both countries in the United States are being sacrificed to 12 German divisions which, were war to come, would be worthless, but whose existence makes war more, rather than less, probable. So, at least, argues the growing opposition in West Germany.
In a few words, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason I cannot support this resolution at the moment.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: It has
been one of the richest experiences of my life, Mr. Speaker, to sit and listen to the discussion of this measure that has taken place thus far in this house among all hon. members. I honour every one of them, and in so far as I may disagree with any I do not mean that to be any reflection on them. This is a most contentious matter.
One thing I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, and which I wish I could get into the mind of everybody in the Dominion of Canada and the United States, is that we have been talking incessantly about the fact that Germany rearmed and fought. We have not heard a single word as to why she did. Not a single word has been said about the economic pressures under which Germany was placed. Not a word has been said as to how those economic pressures might have been removed and might now be removed, thereby removing the cause of war and probably solving our problem directly.

I am not saying for one minute that the Germans were not culpable. I hold no brief for any of them. Nevertheless, would you not naturally expect that in a chamber of 265 intelligent members some attention would be given to this question of the probable cause of world war I or world war II? I do not believe there is a member in this house who has not heard that a fighting war is the result of an economic war. I wonder if there is a single member in this house who has not heard that economic warfare brings on fighting warfare. Would there not be some reason to suppose that fighting warfare was brought on by economic warfare? It will be along that line, to some extent, that I shall aim to direct my remarks.
Many earnest people, Mr. Speaker, have asked me to vote against German rearmament. Many have told me that they would watch my activity and read my explanation of my vote. I feel called upon for their sake to give my personal reasons for voting for German rearmament. What I shall say will be said on my own responsibility as a member of parliament. My words will in no respect commit any Social Crediter in Canada, and that includes every one in this group. I support 100 per cent the position taken by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in his excellent speech on January 20.
First of all I congratulate the minister on a great forward step in organizing a counterattack against communism. A counterattack far broader and deeper than this has been in order for at least six years in this country, and very little has been done about it. All last year 1 argued in the hope of getting some sort of organization against communism, and now we have one step in this respect.
One of the main reasons urged by the opponents of rearmament is that the Germans, as a people, are unworthy to be trusted with arms. They seem disposed to believe that the Germans are in some hereditary way peculiarly base and unreliable. They seem to assume that the Germans have, of necessity, been the fundamental cause of each of the wars in which they have been involved. I was well pleased with the realistic approach of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). He indicated that a great deal of that thinking must be essentially fallacious.
May we examine the validity of the position that is taken? Emotionally I have much to set me against Germany. In world war I I lost nearly all the best friends I ever had, my university pals, who went into the service

and are lying in Flanders' fields today. In world war II of my three brothers who enlisted in the services, one fought all through the terrible scenes in western Europe. I had three sons involved, one of whom paid the supreme sacrifice in the attack on Peenemunde on the fateful night of August 17-18, 1943; that was my son Winston W.
However, I must not allow things like that to affect me. I am in a responsible position. It is my task to try to determine, along with my fellows, what is the best thing to do in the situation we face right now.
To what extent were the Germans responsible for world war II? If we can find that out, then we shall be in a better position to judge the validity of the contention that the Germans are unworthy in every way to bear arms. First of all, what are the causes of war? There are many causes, but we shall name five which, I believe, are the chief ones. The first is racial ambition. The second is religious ambition, and let that not be forgotten. The third is ignorance, and that
I	believe played a terrible part in this last war, ignorance on our part because we did not know the truth. The fourth is the struggle for safety, for instance boundaries that are easy to protect. The fifth is the struggle for existence.
Let us consider cause No. 5, the struggle for existence. I believe that everyone has an inherent and inalienable right to life. I believe every member of this house will agree with that. One of the great figures in world war
II	said that a child born in Tokyo has the right to just as good a living as a child born in Washington. There is no answer to be given to that statement. I believe we will all agree. I agree. The big question is how to guarantee the child born in Tokyo the chance to have the standard of living which the child born in Washington can have. We are not, in the main, directing ourselves to that problem and how to answer it.
Everyone has an inalienable right to the means of supporting life: food, clothing and shelter. This requires a set of circumstances under which, by his own effort, he can obtain those things. If in any part of this world we have any considerable number of people who are deprived of access to the means of life, then we have a situation which is a breeder of trouble. If people are denied the enjoyment of this fundamental right to life they fight, if they are strong enough to fight. And if they cannot fight, they die; they eke out a miserable existence and finally give up the ghost.
Access to the means of life is to be gained legitimately by delivering either services or goods. What services, what goods a nation
North Atlantic Treaty
shall deliver has to depend upon the resources it possesses in the territory occupied, and upon the number and nature of its population.
Have we examined Germany? Have we given consideration to the number of people there are in Germany or to the geographical situation of Germany? Have we considered the rapidity of increase of the population which is natural to Germany; have we considered their natural resources, or their need for trade? Have we given consideration to all those things, to see whether or not the Germans might be in an intolerable position? If we have not, then we had better look very carefully before we go too far with some of the items contained in this resolution.
Let us now consider Germany in relation to these fundamental principles of life, while we contemplate her history. In the light of all considerations, let us now seek the causes of world war II, from Germany's point of view. What were the causes of world war II, for Germany? Most people blame Germany for world war II. Let us begin by assuming that Germany was to blame, while we probe about in recent history seeking to assess the extent of Germany's culpability. Winston Churchill called world war II "the unnecessary war". It was unnecessary from whose point of view; Germany's? Or was it unnecessary from the standpoint of those who constrained Germany?
We shall begin with the treaty of Versailles in 1919. Germany was broken; she was bereft of all her colonies. She was burdened with a set of penalties impossible for her or for any people to sustain. Her war debt was so great that to service it forced her into disastrous inflation, ruining her property values. A number of investors, including many eastern European aliens- and I draw everybody's attention to that expression "many eastern European aliens" -swooped down upon her and bought up vast amounts of her properties.
The republic established by the treaty was feeble. Germany stumbled along, with numerous political parties, and a near paralysis of government. Two parties finally emerged as powerful. First was the communist party, many of whose leaders were eastern European aliens. Mark that. The second was the national socialist German workers' party. Faced with harsh alternatives, the Germans chose the native party, making Adolf Hitler chancellor on January 30, 1933.
Five weeks later Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as president of the United States. On August 2 President von Hinden-burg died and on August 19 Hitler was made both president and chancellor of Germany.

North Atlantic Treaty
Hitler issued a series of tirades against communism, considering it a world menace. Roosevelt, on November 16, 1933, gave full diplomatic recognition to Soviet Russia-now there is an exceedingly important matter-as the result of the activity and influence of Litvinoff, Dean Acheson and two others, very prominent American figures whose names I shall not give here, but which I could give instantly.
One potent factor influencing Roosevelt toward recognizing red Russia was almost certainly the more than three million eastern European aliens who had immigrated into the United States and joined the Democratic party, and who had made known to the Democratic leaders that they would support the Democratic party in return for having men of their choice placed in certain administrative positions of influence in the American administration, where they could exercise control over United States foreign policy. There is one of the most serious facts in all modern history.
The German government had at that time the responsibility for feeding, clothing and sheltering 62 million people in a territory about the size of Texas. How would hon. members like to contemplate endeavouring to keep 62 million people in Texas, or in an area about one-third the size of Ontario? That was the task the German government faced in those days. I would like my hon. friends of the C.C.F., whose earnest remarks I honour, to ask themselves what they would do if they had a group of their own people in cha-ge of Germany under conditions of that i Ind. I would ask those members to think It through and not give just some careless opinion, such as ordinarily they give to Uf.
Germany began to implement a policy which might be characterized as Germany for the Germans. It was a policy which in some respects might be likened to the more recent policy of Mossadegh in Iran, relative to British control of the Iranian oil industry. In effect Mossadegh said, "These oil reserves belong to us. Let us control them. These people have come in here and built industries from which they derive the benefit, and from which we derive nothing. Let us see that we get adequate returns from these industries."
This pro-German policy of the German government naturally was opposed by the non-German stock numbering about 510,000 in 1933. In particular it was opposed by those who were eastern European aliens- mark that again-many of whom were communists. Most of these aliens had bought German property in 1923, greatly to the
rMr. Blackmore.]
detriment of Germany. Naturally these nonGerman aliens were unwilling to lose through the government's action any degree of their position of financial and other power acquired in large measure during Germany's hour of deep distress, occasioned by the famous German inflation and collapse of 1923. These non-German	aliens-communists-therefore
appealed to certain of their friends with influence in New York and elsewhere. Once again I ask my C.C.F. friends what they would have done, had they been in office.
In 1933 an international boycott was organized by these friends in New York to bring Germany to her knees, or to terms. Instructions went out to all friends of these nonGerman aliens of eastern European origin and loyalty, largely communists, that first, they should buy no goods made in Germany. Again I ask my C.C.F. friends, what would you have done under conditions like that? The second instruction was that they should refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who was selling any German-made goods. The third was that they should refuse to buy any goods from anyone employing German ships or shipping. Once again, what would my C.C.F. friends have done had they been in charge of the country when that happened? Think it through.
Arrangements were made by these aliens of eastern European origin, largely communists, to extend the boycott to include France, Holland, Belgium, Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other lands even as far away as Egypt and Finland. They did the job up pretty thoroughly, did they not? A C.C.F. government in charge of that country would have been facing real trouble, would it not?
In connection with the boycott, the antiGerman campaign that had been going on steadily in the United States ever since world war I suddenly broke out with great violence, almost as though it had caught fire. Who was behind that? Germany was denounced in several influential New York newspapers, as well as over the radio. In saying this I am just recounting history, and recording the facts as they occurred. I am making no comment and offering no interpretation of the facts.
The public were dazed by all this propaganda. The United States government soon placed upon German imports her general tariff rates instead of the lower most-favourednation rates which all other nations enjoyed. What would you have done about that? This measure slowed down German imports into the United States, but did not stop Germany from manufacturing export goods. The United States then took a further step. She raised her duties against German goods by amounts

ranging from 22 per cent to 56 per cent in addition, mind you, to having placed German goods under the general tariff. Within about six months this measure caused German exports to the United States to dwindle to practically the vanishing point.
Next, certain anti-German, presumably communist, international financial interests made an effort to call sufficient German treasury notes to break Germany. Men in the house with financial experience will readily recognize what that was. The German government successfully met this manoeuvre by giving a substantial bonus above the current exchange rate to all foreigners who would come to Germany, exchange their currency for German marks and spend the marks there.
Germany made great preparations for welcoming strangers to such gatherings as the world conference on recreation and leisure time in Hamburg in August, 1936. Special trains of school children came from as far away as northern Norway. Visitors were shown every courtesy. The result was that tourists spent enough in Germany to keep the German mark stable. That was an extreme measure adopted to meet an extreme situation, over which a C.C.F. government in Germany could have no control.


Mr. Winch:: How about telling us what you would do, instead of misinterpreting what you say we would do?


John Horne Blackmore: I am making this speech, and in time I shall tell you what I would do.


Harold Edward Winch: You have not the fortitude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Any time my hon. friend wants to enter into a debate with me on the floor of the house he is welcome to it. Evidently I am getting quite close to some place that hurts.
But this did not supply the increasing need of the 62 million German people for various* raw materials and other imports from abroad, such as wheat. These imports Germany could buy and pay for only with exports, which exports she was forbidden or prevented from making by those measures I have already referred to. Roosevelt continued his policy of economic warfare upon Germany; yet in his public utterances for some time he kept up talk about a policy of nonintervention in the internal affairs of foreign nations. In two speeches in the summer of 1937 he said:
Our national determination to keep free from foreign wars and foreign entanglements.
North Atlantic Treaty
Those were his words, but a few months later Roosevelt made a complete about-face, probably the most complete in the whole history of United States foreign policy, a very important matter leading up to the war. On October 5 in Chicago he delivered his famous quarantine speech. Let me quote:
... let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy, that this western hemisphere will not be attacked.
When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.
That was a most important speech. In the United States the speech was considered most inflammatory and provocative of war. It caused unprecedented consternation among people in the United States. Certain newspapers outspokenly opposed the quarantine speech. Chief among these was the Chicago Tribune. The communist New Masses enthusiastically favoured it. I wonder why. Earl Browder, a national communist leader in the United States, was so highly pleased with it that he promised the Roosevelt administration the "100 per cent unconditional support of the communist party", provided Roosevelt adopted a hands-off policy toward communism. The majority of United States people called for clarification of the quarantine speech. What did it all mean? No explanation was given. The conclusion most people believed obvious was that the speech referred to Germany and Japan.
The German government, first in 1937 and again in 1938, made "a sincere effort to improve relations with the United States, only to be rebuffed". The United States government gave as its reason "a fear of domestic political reactions in this country unfavourable to the administration". Germany was told that the American public would not tolerate a conference. The Roosevelt administration blocked Germany's further efforts for peace by withdrawing the United States ambassador from Berlin, thus peremptorily preventing future negotiations. Germany was then forced to withdraw her ambassador, "who was personally friendly to America".
Through censorship the United States public for more than ten years were kept from knowing anything about these appeals and their sequences. That was in America the free! Even then the facts were ferreted out and made known only by the un-American activities committee.
Being thus economically strangled by an international boycott, headed in New York, the Germans in the late 1930's had to provide work for their unemployed by hiring them on government-sponsored projects, including

North Atlantic Treaty
armament factories. The series of events I have just related, together with the reactions Germany met in countries around her, convinced the Germans that they were the victims of "encirclement" on the part of Britain, France, United States and Soviet Russia. This caused the Germans to make the deal with the Soviet union in August, 1939, to partition Poland. This move directly precipitated world war II.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, before the house took recess I indicated by my remarks that much of the blame for world war II must be fastened upon the United States, the communist party, particularly great international figures who played prominent parts in the communist party, and President Roosevelt, president of the United States from 1933 on.
I mentioned serious economic pressures under which debtor nations are placed in the conditions which surround them in the world today. Strangely enough the creditor nations are not so seriously suffering from these pressures, but the debtor nations who most need assistance are suffering. I shall aim to refer particularly to a number of them in a minute or two.
Before recess I made a number of statements of tremendous importance. I realize how serious the statements were and I made them deliberately. I would not have made them if I had not ample evidence in support of everything I said. These facts are important not only for appraising the past and the present, but for planning for the future. If we desire honestly to build up a world in which we can be free from wars we must be guided by the things which can be learned, and which I stated, in my earlier remarks.
Those desiring to check the accuracy of the information I have given thus far in this speech will find all the proof required in four sources which I now quote; firstly, in the works of Dr. John Beaty, who I believe is probably as great an authority on these matters as is to be found on the American continent; secondly, in a book called "American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932-1940" by Professor Charles A. Beard, published in

1946; third, "Design for War" by Frederick R. Sanborn, published in 1951; fourth, "America's Second Crusade" by William Henry Chamberlin, published in 1950. A careful perusal of these four authorities will satisfy anybody that what I said is moderate as well as true. I have referred to gross abuses of terrible power possessed by unbridled internationalists, all of whom appear to be much inclined to communism or are perhaps actual communists.
But besides all these particular provocations which were suffered by Germany in common with other debtor nations from 1933 onward, there existed a standing irritant that had been oppressing all nations other than the United States for a good many years. What I now refer to is the unconditional most favoured nation clause which was constantly urged and insisted upon by the United States.
The definition of this clause was first made in President Wilson's famous 14 points, announced in 1917. It is point No. 3, calling for the most favoured nation clause for every nation. The unconditional aspect of it had not yet been declared.
The most favoured nation clause called for in point No. 3 of Wilson's 14 points was changed to the unconditional most favoured nation clause by the United States in 1922, and from that time constantly insisted upon. If I have time enough I will give a little explanation so those people out in the country who read these remarks will be able to form some idea of the iniquity of the unconditional most favoured nation clause. Roosevelt's new deal administration demanded compliance with the clause, and this fact alone rendered the position of Germany intolerable, without adding all the other things which I have referred to previously.
Now I wish to say just a few words to the minister and to my fellow members of the [DOT]house. As I read the measure which is before the house, the only provision which is made to give economic help to nations in need is the building up of a set of vises by means of which we can clamp on every nation in the world the iniquitous features of the unconditional most favoured nation clause, whether they are able to endure them or not. If I am wrong the minister will have a good opportunity to reply, but I insist I am right.
What is the use of building up the United Nations, a central agency which will deprive individual nations of their sovereignty, without modifying those economic influences upon the nations which render their lot unbearable? How can anyone seriously contemplate such iniquity as that? Apparently that is what

the minister and the other planners who are working along with him have in mind. I hope 1 am wrong, but it all goes well I am going to give the minister ample opportunity to explain that situation to the house before we get through this year. There is just no use setting up a situation which is impossible.
We are led to believe by a wide variety of propaganda that all that is necessary to avoid war is to give away the sovereignty of the people. Take an illustration. We are insisting upon provincial sovereignty in this country, and in the United States they insist on state sovereignty. Would anyone in either of those two countries consider for a minute depriving one of those units of its sovereignty in order to place it in the hands of a central government, even though that central government were composed of the same flesh and blood, were the same kind of people as those in the provinces?
How can we seriously contemplate taking away the sovereignty of a nation, Canada, Great Britain, the United States, Germany hhd all the others, and placing it in the hands of a central power, especially when we have not the slightest idea as to who are going to constitute that central power, how the members are going to be selected or how they are going to be checked up and rendered responsible to the people?
I promised I would take a few minutes to illustrate the unconditional most favoured nation clause. Will you imagine two little countries like Czechoslovakia and Rumania, before either of them was brought in behind the iron curtain? Will you remember that each one of them is struggling to be sure that it does not import any more than it exports, trying to be sure that it produces as much of its own needs as it is possible to produce so as to avoid the dangers of international trade which would likely create international debt? We can fully appreciate that in Canada because of our adverse balances of trade.
These countries must have the needs of life. Czechoslovakia would be needing Rumanian oil, which that country would be able to produce in surplus, and Rumania would be needing the munitions or machinery produced by the Skoda works in Czechoslovakia. Rumania would be in need of those very things which Czechoslovakia had in surplus. Czechoslovakia would be anxious to have Rumanian oil just as Rumania would be anxious to have Czechoslovakian machinery and munitions.
A simple device would be for Czechoslovakia for instance to say to Rumania, "Now, Rumania, we will lower our tariff against your oil, we will let it come in at a much
North Atlantic Treaty
lower rate if not free entirely, if you in a complementary way will lower your tariff against our machinery. In that way you will get the machinery you need plus a market for some of your oil and we will get the oil we need and a market for some of our machinery. We will both be better off."
The unconditional most favoured nation clause announced by the United States in effect amounts to this: The United States says to any nation in the world, "If you lower your tariff against the goods of any other nation in the world, you also have to lower your tariff similarly against our commodities."
Let us see how these two little nations would find this to work out. Czechoslovakia lowers her tariff against Rumanian oil, and the United States sends in her oil, if you please; but she refuses to take in payment munitions from Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia would become indebted to the United States and Rumania would not obtain a market for her oil.
Rumania lowers her tariff against Czechoslovakian munitions, and the United States sends in munitions, refusing to accept oil in payment. Rumania falls into debt to the United States, while Czechoslovakia fails to get the market for her machinery.
We see those two countries thus put into a position which is ever so much more difficult because one power, the United States, has insisted that if any nation gives a reduction in its tariff to any other nation it must give it also to the United States. That is how the unconditional most favoured nation clause works out in action. When that mechanism is applied all over the world it creates a situation which is much worse, even intolerable. The lot of the weaker nations is made absolutely unsupportable, forcing them into debt and disaster.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what we as members of this house should ask ourselves is this. Is there any means whereby we can build up some medium through which we can bring the United States to use common sense in the application of the unconditional most favoured nation clause? We should also ask ourselves whether there is any means whereby we can protect nations with weaker economies. If there is not then all the talk of solving the economic problems and the peace problems besetting this world is idle and futile. An international organization which would deprive nations of sovereignty would only unnecessarily complicate the issues. In these terrible days when people of every nation are crying out for a lead my plea is, "Let us use our heads."
480	HOUSE OF
North Atlantic Treaty


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to declare myself on this issue, particularly in view of what I have seen and heard not only over the last few weeks but in the past few years. What I have to say tonight will not be quoted from a book, and the speech will be entirely my own.
I have received many delegations at Fort William; some of which have interviewed me many times. Most of them advocate the same line of policy. There was only one individual among them who did support the labour progressives, and I personally appreciate his reasons for opposing German rearmament. I told these delegations that I would not declare myself on this issue until I heard from the government leaders and from leaders of the opposition parties in this house. I have followed that policy. One delegation from Toronto requested me to ask the government to wait and continue to wait. He did not know my disposition. When I have a thing to do I do it now, because an opportunity comes only once.
These deputations urged me to vote for delay. I would like to briefly state five reasons why I support the resolution submitted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First, I support it because of the character of those who have submitted the motion, and of the leading men on the other side who oppose it. I do not require to name the two outstanding Canadians who support Russia. I do not know whether they are in the employ of Russia, though some believe they are.
When I compare the character, past record, influence, and service to God and country of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with the character of these two men supporting the opposing campaign across Canada, then I can conceive of no better reason why I should support this motion.
My second reason is that since the last war members of this government have planned, worked, and campaigned for a permanent peace. I do not think that can be denied, and indeed it is quite evident throughout their speeches. The government want peace, and in seeking that permanent peace they consider the rearming of Germany one of the major safeguards.
My third reason for supporting this motion is the government's announced policy in favour of disarmament. Fourth, I believe in the efficacy of the rigid controls which have been inserted in the agreement with regard to the rearming of Germany. Germany
[Mr. Blackmore.l	*

cannot do just what she likes in this regard, and the minister has convinced me that the controls will be effective.
My fifth reason for supporting this motion is the difference between Germany east and west, or between West Germany and Russia, which amounts to very much the same thing. The last election held in West Germany was a free election. When did we ever have a free election in Russia since the revolution? There is one party in Russia controlled by one man, and anyone who dared stand up and find fault with their conduct of an election might not vote again. I believe there is far more to be hoped for from West Germany than we could ever possibly hope for from the east.
I would like the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer one question when he rises to reply. If the United States, Great Britain and those supporting them had not stopped the communists in North Korea, what would have happened? Which country would have fallen next to the communists?
I have had some personal experience of communist tyranny through the arrival in Fort William of several families from Latvia and Estonia. One lady in particular is now serving in McKellar hospital as a nurses aide. Her first husband was a judge; her present husband is an outstanding lawyer who is now working in a camp, and he has made the statement that every time he uses an axe on a tree it is a blow for freedom. The other family lost everything, for they had to move out as the Russians moved in. Indeed, what was the use of being a judge in Latvia when the Russian government was in control?
There have been many fine speeches from the other side of the house, but the two speeches on this side which stood out in my mind and helped me come to a decision came from the hon. members for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) and Spadina (Mr. Croll). I know something of what the hon. member for Cartier went through. Indeed, I remember telling hon. members that he would be criticized by those who sent Fred Rose into this house, who afterward was the cause of his own dismissal.
When I think of Russia today I recall the statement by a very distinguished man who, in addressing a meeting at Fort William, said there would be a revolution in Russia that would overshadow the former revolution. It is well known that those who come from slave camps in Russia say that all that is now required is a spark to light the revolt. Why? Those people have no rights; they are half

North Atlantic Treaty
starved; they are tortured to death. Certainly they have not the opportunity to speak for themselves.
Look at what is happening in Korea, with new airfields rearmed up to the hilt. What would happen if they were now allowed to go south in Korea? The result would be that South Korea would not be there, that is all.
It has been said several times in the house, why rearm East Germany and not West Germany? As one hon. member said, we would give West Germany its place in the North Atlantic organization, but would not give them their freedom. If we admit them, we should give them everything the other nations have.
For these five reasons I must support the motion.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, the reasons we should support the present resolution have been, I was going to say, adequately but I would prefer to say brilliantly expressed already by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member for Prince Albert and others, and I have no intention of taking up the time of the house by attempting in a much less adequate way to repeat what has already been said. However, for a few minutes I should like to comment on some of the objections that have been raised to this resolution by some of the members of this house who have expressed their intention of voting against it.
As I have been able to gather the four reasons that have been given so far by those opposed to this resolution are, first, that many have deep personal convictions; second, that Russia might be irrevocably antagonized if the Paris arrangements were ratified; third, that Germany must not be rearmed as she is a potentially dangerous nation; and last, as one hon. member put it-I believe it was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre -the convention of the party of which he is a member had objected to it at a meeting last summer and had reaffirmed the objection a few days ago.
I should like to deal at some little length with each one of these points. First there is this matter of deep personal conviction. If a person is opposed to the ratification of these arrangements made in Paris on a personal basis, and if this opposition has been arrived at on a basis of reason, then nobody can quarrel with his position. Every one of us knows that one of the privileges we have in this house is that of arriving at our own conclusions after examining the facts. However, if anybody is basing his stand 50433-31
purely on emotion, without having thought the matter out, it is not a valid reason to say that he has a deep personal conviction. If the personal convictions are based on reasoning, that is all right; but if they are based on emotion, it is not.
As to the possibility of antagonizing Russia irrevocably, I am afraid I do not think this is a valid argument. From the things we have heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and from reading the debates in the British House of Commons and elsewhere, I think we may safely assume that Russia is undoubtedly armed to the teeth as it is, and that she has armed her satellites to the teeth. I do not think we are likely to antagonize her any further by rearming West Germany. We all know-and it has already been reiterated many times in this house- that you cannot negotiate and deal with people from weakness when the people with whom you are dealing have the morals and outlook of bandits. There is no use in trying to deal with people such as that when that is the attitude they have.
There are plenty of historical examples, and I shall mention one or two. If you go far enough back, to the twelfth or thirteenth century, you have the case of the famous Asiatic conqueror, Genghis Khan. Cities like Samarkand in central Asia had tried to treat with Genghis Khan. They offered him presents and tried to appease him. He took the presents, and of course he took the cities and the people were treated very badly, if one cares to go into the details of what happened.
We have, of course, a much more recent example of what happens when you are trying to deal with a country that is bent on world conquest-admittedly so-and is armed to the teeth. In 1939 I think we all remember that in numerous European countries-and, I am afraid, in many countries which are closer than that-people did everything they could to avoid war. Germany was appeased right and left, and we all remember the ultimate result. Germany accepted appeasement and took whatever she liked, until finally it was decided that she could go no further, and that there were some things worse than war.
It seems to me that those who have been objecting to the ratification of this agreement have been bringing out this old line of appeasement again. In fact it is virtually undisguised. Looking back, I can remember the 1930's when I was attending university and taking a course in political science. I think most of us who took the course in that period became greatly interested in socialist

North Atlantic Treaty
same reason that was offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I cannot help feeling that probably some who have not yet spoken and some who intend to speak will be objecting to the ratification of these arrangements, and that one of the reasons they will give for their objection will be the one offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I find this a strange reason, because the decision reached at the national convention of the C.C.F. party last August was made before the present arrangements were drawn up. I find it difficult to understand how that convention or meeting could form a conclusion when the arrangements had not been made upon which they were deciding. I find that strange indeed. And the hon. member mentioned that the executive council of this party meeting last week had objected to ratification. Yet according to the information given to us by the Secretary of State for External Affairs it was not known at that time. Again we have a case of making a decision without knowing what were the facts.
I should like to refer briefly to the attitude of the C.C.F. party, or a substantial part of it, since 1939. I would point out that their attitude in respect of resistance to aggression has been rather out of line with the Canadian point of view generally. It has proved to be unrealistic and, if I may say so, wrong.
First of all I would refer to Hansard for 1939, the second session, where at page 55 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was setting out the views of his party concerning the declaration of the second world war. At that time he said:
In view of these considerations, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation believes that Canada s policy should be based first on the fundamental national interests of the Canadian people, as well as on their interest in the outcome of war. Canada should be prepared to defend her own shores, but her assistance overseas should be limited to economic aid and must not include conscription of manpower or the sending of any expeditionary force.
And again on the same page:
No military participation overseas. Any attempt to send a force abroad would rob us of the manpower necessary for the defence of our shores and for home production, would gravely endanger national unity, would threaten our civil liberties and democratic institutions, and would ultimately lead to conscription.
And finally at page 57 the hon. member said:
We believe, as I have said, that the sending of expeditionary forces is unnecessary and unwise.
Then to continue on from 1939 I would refer briefly to an editorial in this morning's Montreal Gazette, headed "Canada's Bevanly Host". I shall refer to only a short portion of

it, in which reference is made to the policy of the C.C.F. since the close of the second world war. It states:
In fact, varying degrees of opposition have appeared within the C.C.F. to nearly every step taken since the end of the second world war to resist communist expansion.
When the Marshall plan was inaugurated, it was officially condemned by the Manitoba convention of the C.C.F. as being "framed to provide capitalists with markets, rather than to help the people of Europe".
When the United States supported the Atlantic pact (out of which NATO has grown) the provincial convention of the C.C.F. in British Columbia passed a resolution opposing "any further expenditures on arms." After the Korean war broke out, the C.C.F. premier of Saskatchewan, Hon. T. C. Douglas, said that the United States was trying to use the United Nations to protect the interests of certain oil corporations, notably Standard Oil. Under such circumstances, the people of Saskatchewan were being called on "to send their sons to be slaughtered in foreign fields."
I have already referred to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in which he referred to the decision of the C.C.F. national convention last August and of their national council about a week ago. If hon. members oppose this motion on grounds of their convictions, they are quite justified in doing so. I feel that many who have opposed it, some of whom I know better than others, have done so because of their convictions. But if, to help them in making up their minds, they are using some of the suggestions that have been put forward by that party in the past, then I would suggest that before they vote they should refer back to some of those decisions, made by either a part of or by the whole party, and carefully review what actually happened.
Sometimes party directives are issued and members feel obliged to follow them; but hon. members should see that those directives are based upon reality. I repeat that under no circumstances do I make personal reference to any member in the house. My brief history of the foreign policy of the C.C.F. is the history of a group of which hon. members sitting in the house form possibly only a small part.
Then there is another matter I should like to touch upon briefly, one that has not yet been mentioned in this debate, and to which in my opinion careful consideration should be given. I refer to the leadership Great Britain has given in the drawing up of these various arrangements. This is something that, as yet, has not been emphasized. I believe we all know that after the failure of EDC it was Anthony Eden-and I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs would confirm this-who was able to effect a rapprochement between Mr. Dulles

and Mr. Mendes-France so they were prepared to compromise in order to draw up the present Paris arrangement.
This must have been a difficult task. Most of us are not personally familiar with the intricacies of French parliamentary life, but I think we have been able to gather that proceedings in the French parliament are quite different from those here. There are many parties and great rivalry among them. In the final ratification of these arrangements in the French parliament we saw the communists voting against it, along with the de Gaullists and the M.R.P., who had nothing in common with the communists but must have so aligned themselves for purposes of political strategy.
It is a great credit to Mr. Eden and to Mr. Mendes-France that these arrangements were drawn up in such a way as to be acceptable. We know Mr. Eden has effected a number of brilliant arrangements in the last year or so. We remember the Iranian oil dispute, a great source of world tension, which through the efforts of Mr. Eden was ironed out. Then there was the touchy and explosive situation at the Suez canal, also worked out successfully by Mr. Eden.
We know that shortly there is to be a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers in London. It would be well for us to watch and see what happens.
Sir Anthony Eden has been very successful in easing tension in the world. A great deal of account should be taken of the fact that England has shown a resurgence of leadership in these matters. I understand that India, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Ceylon and Canada will be represented at the commonwealth conference. After discussing the matters that are to be dealt with at that conference-we do not yet know what they will be-if Sir Anthony Eden is able to repeat what he has done in the last year or so, it may well be that this commonwealth conference will affect the whole future of international relations.
As I mentioned earlier, it is true that we cannot treat or try to make arrangements to deal with Russia unless we are strong enough to do so, because she will not pay any attention to us unless we are strong. If we are strong enough it may be that the diplomacy of the commonwealth countries will ultimately bring about a real state of coexistence in the world. I am sure that it will lessen the danger of war "to a point", to coin a phrase, "of no return", and we shall not have to worry about wars in the future.
North Atlantic Treaty


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: It is not
easy for me to resist the invitation of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) to become involved with him in a political debate, but the international situation is far too grave for me to take time to pursue a discussion with the hon. member tonight.
With very few exceptions the hon. members who have taken part in this important debate have set an exceptionally high tone, and I shall try to maintain that high level. The members of the press have reported objectively the discussions which have taken place in this parliament The Toronto Globe and Mail, in a comment on its editorial page this morning, said:
Dissenting C.C.F. members, even though mistaken, have performed a useful service by expounding the minority view in the debate which began last Thursday.
The first suggestion I should like to make is to recommend that this inflammable question be referred to the United Nations. Let me remind the house that before the second world war ended we spent a good deal of time in making plans to ensure that never again would the world be plunged into a war. We set out a worth-while goal in the preamble to the charter of the United Nations:
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,
And so forth. We have made provision to ask the security council to investigate any dispute or situation:
... to see if its continuance is likely to endanger international peace and security. Such a dispute or situation may be brought to its attention by any member or, if it accepts in advance the obligations of specific settlement contained in the charter by any non-member.
The council determines the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression. It makes recommendations or decides to take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The situation in Formosa, as reported in tonight's paper, is very critical. In addition, solving the German question is so essential that this matter should be referred to the security council. If the security council is unable to deal satisfactorily with it, I suggest that Dr. Bertrand Russell, in his article in The Nation on December 18, 1954, makes suggestions which should receive consideration. Dr. Russell said:
Mankind at the present time is faced by dangers to the whole species so great that the avoidance of them ought to be the common aim of all the powers. The facts are known to everybody who chooses to know them, but for reasons of propaganda they are not adequately emphasized on either side of the iron curtain. It is true that

North Atlantic Treaty
they have been stated in western countries but not in such a manner as to influence policy. They have been stated more clearly and forcibly in America than in any other country, but they do not seem to have made any impact upon the average congressman or the average American voter.
Further on Dr. Russell says:
There is, however, another alternative. It is that both sides should recognize, and should be known to recognize sincerely, that war has become futile. Neither side alone can be vigorous in urging the futility of war since to do so gives an impression of weakness. It is here that neutrals can, if they will, save both camps from destruction.
Neutrals have two advantages over the powers in either camp. The first advantage is that they can urge the destructiveness and futility of war without incurring the odium of seeming to advocate cowardly submission. The second advantage is that they can speak to governments on both sides without being thought to be actuated merely by bias.
Neutral governments, on the contrary, can speak in identical terms to both communist and noncommunist powers, and can avoid the suspicion that they are concerned to promote the success of either side.
Dr. Russell suggests that India and Sweden might be two countries that could be persuaded to act as a neutral commission to try to find out the consequences of a third war on neutrals particularly. He suggests those two countries because Sweden has its natural association with the west and India is most anxious to ease east-west tensions. Dr. Russell suggests that on such a commission there should be military, naval and air experts, first class nuclear physicists, bacteriologists, economists and men of experience in international politics. I am convinced that a body such as that could draw up a report which would make the futility of a third world war undeniable. In conclusion he says:
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.
Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, our first concern should be to try to get all sides to agree that the United Nations should be given a chance to negotiate to see if something could not be done.
The second part of my speech of course must deal with Germany. We have had a good deal of discussion about sovereign rights, about the privileges and responsibilities of the people in Germany and so on. We should clarify our thinking as to how far we can go in giving people the right to embark on programs to build up armaments and participate in the destruction of the entire world. However, I want to make it very clear that I feel Germany should be recognized as

a country that has made a worth-while contribution to the world. The German people must be given the chance to develop in the future. We should remember our ideals as set forth by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill when they suggested that their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorially or otherwise. They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them. I am anxious that people in Germany should have their rights.
There has been a good deal said about the fact that Germany is divided into East Germany and West Germany. We seem to have lost sight of the fact that Germany has been divided into four sectors. There is a part now in Poland and a part in soviet Russia. According to the ideals that were set out in the Atlantic charter we must respect the rights of all peoples to choose the countries in which they want to live, and I think the German people in these four sectors must be given a chance to live together again as a united Germany, as soon as they are able to convince the rest of the world that there is no danger of a revived militarism plunging the world into war.
In this morning's Globe and Mail there were two articles on the editorial page which I think deserve mention. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) referred to one paragraph in Dorothy Thompson's article. Another paragraph says:
The rearmament issue is tearing West Germany into vehemently opposing camps. Spearheaded by the social democrats and the trade unions, but supported by non-socialists, including outstanding members of the Protestant Evangelical church, a nation-wide campaign is under way to take the issue to the people. A 24-hour strike of Ruhr coal miners, though called for another reason, turned into an anti-rearmament demonstration. On January 29, the campaign will culminate in a huge mass meeting in the Pauls church in Frankfurt.
Speaking about Chancellor Adenauer:
The weakness of the chancellor's position is that he can offer no rational explanation of how Germany can be reunited once the step has been taken to create a German army in military alliance with NATO. Neither can the British, French or American foreign offices. In fact, Germans are coming to the alarmed conclusion that the "peace of the powers" (or coexistence) is envisaged as resting on a final four-power agreement to maintain and respect the existing status quo. They are vividly aware that the truces in Korea and Indo-China were won at the cost of dividing these two nations.

Then another paragraph:
Can It continue? Is it conceivable that a German government and army can indefinitely commit the nation actually to defend the partition of the country? If, behind the scenes, the western foreign offices are preparing to accept permanent German division as the price for "stability and peace" would that not constitute "containment" of a rump Germany, with a German army actually collaborating to police the condition? If so, how much popular support would such an army have? And unless it commands popular confidence what good is any army?
George Bain, in his "Ottawa Letter" this morning said:
After the first world war Germany was not allowed either,-
Referring to bombers and long range aircraft.
-and only a very few German officers were permitted to take flying training. However, leading German aircraft firms as early as 1926 had for some time been producing planes in Russia, Switzerland and Sweden, and within the civilian firm Luft-Hansa, a training system had been set up.
Germany after the first world war was not allowed tanks, submarines, heavy artillery, just as today it unconditionally guarantees not to manufacture such things as atomic, biological and chemical weapons and guided missiles.
However, ways were found to get around the bans following the first world war. Krupps, for instance, had bought control of the Bofors arms factory in Sweden by 1925. Submarines were being produced by German-controlled firms in Holland and Spain, even in Turkey and Finland.
And again:
In 1926, a three-nations commission reported that "Germany had never disarmed, had never had the intention of disarming, and for seven years had done everything in her power to deceive . . . the commission appointed to control her disarmament." Because the allied powers so desperately wanted to believe that Germany had been converted to peaceful ways, this report was buried.
Today there is not only a desire to believe in Germany's peaceful intentions, but also a recognition that a rearmed Germany is necessary to the defence of western Europe.
I was interested in an article on "Versailles and London" by J. Alvarez del Vayo, the foreign editor of The Nation and I quote from the issue of October 23, 1954:
The measures adopted, and to be adopted, to keep German rearmament under effective control are a constant theme in commentaries on the London conference. They cropped up in the debate which preceded the French parliament vote of confidence in Mendes-France. They are referred to repeatedly in the praise heaped upon the conference by statesmen and politicians.
And further on:
Apparently no one doubts that the arms control agency to be set up as part of the Brussels treaty organization will be able to keep the massive armament output of the Ruhr within the limits agreed on.
North Atlantic Treaty
To anyone over 40 years old-and the principal authors of the London agreement were grown men by 1918-such optimism is incredible. The story of Germany's secret rearmament in violation of the Versailles treaty, of the complete collapse of the allied effort to halt the rebirth of German militarism, is a story not from history books, but of our own generation.
I think the situation is so critical that we should pay more attention to the suggestions which have been made by other members of this group, that the time factor is most important and Germany should have a longer time in which to demonstrate to herself and to the world that the nazi elements which were responsible for world war II are not going to be in control.
Like a number of hon. members of the house I was in Germany this summer. My wife and I had a most delightful stay. I had been there before, in 1926, and on both occasions I marvelled at the courtesies extended to people who had been their enemies such a short time before. Last summer again and again we inquired how a maniac like Hitler ever managed to get to a position in Germany where he could plunge their country and the world into war. Again and again the answer was, "But I was just a little man, there was nothing I could do." Sometimes the answer was, "If it had not been for forces outside Germany we would never have allowed him to go so far."
So I think we should give Germany a longer time to develop the democratic organizations that are being built up in that country, to demonstrate to themselves that they are capable of operating a democracy over a period of time. I should say that we did not meet any communists in Germany; there are not very many pro-communists to be found in West Germany, and I think it is fair to say that there is a very real fear of Russia. I should say something also which is not so well known, that there is a very real fear of the United States. But above all there is a very real fear of war.
Most of the people we saw did not seem to think either the United States or Russia would start a war in Germany or Europe, but they felt that some incident in Formosa or Indochina might set a spark which would plunge the world into war; and they know from vivid experience what war will mean to them.
Before I leave Germany I might mention that in the air edition of the London Times of January 17 I found the details of the proposals made in a Moscow broadcast of a week ago. Unfortunately details of these proposals

North Atlantic Treaty
were not carried by such papers as the New York Times, or at least I did not see them. Here is what Moscow proposed a week ago:
1.	Paris agreements lead to a grave complication of the whole situation in Europe.
2.	Paris agreements can bring nothing good to Germany. They will finally involve the German federal republic in the adventurous plans of preparation of a new war, which always were and always will be alien to the interests of the peoples, including the interests of the German pepole.
3.	Paris agreements will consolidate for many years the splitting of Germany and will become an obstacle to the peaceful restoration of the unity of Germany.
4.	The ratification of the Paris agreements is incompatible witth the restoration of Germany as a united peace-loving state.
5.	In the event of the ratification of the Paris agreements, the Bundestag will assume a grave responsibility for the continuation of the division of Germany as well as for the position of inferior rights in which the population of the German federal republic will be for many years.
6.	If plans for a remilitarized West Germany are abandoned free elections can be had in 1955.
7.	U.S.S.R. will come to an agreement on establishing appropriate international supervision of the holding of all-German elections.
8.	The holding of free all-German elections and the restoration of the unity of Germany would create the necessary preliminary conditions for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany which would finally consolidate the independence, sovereignty and equality of rights of a united Germany.
It continues:
If. however, the Paris agreements are ratified, the "U.S.S.R. would take care not only of a further strengthening of its friendly relations with the German democratic republic-
This is East Germany, of course.
-but also of facilitating the strengthening of peace and security in Europe by the joint efforts of the peace-loving European states."
I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that these proposals are made with complete sincerity and that they would be accepted without qualification, but according to the London Times they have created a great deal of confusion in West Germany.
The London Times of January 20 carries a report from its Bonn correspondent outlining the views of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a newspaper which is usually found to be in support of the government's foreign policy. This newspaper feels that the politically undemonstrative nature of the German people conceals "a deep division disturbing the nation's subconsciousness."
The writer points out that the official western view of the statement is that it is a victory for the policy of strength, that the Russians have made concessions and will make even more if the same policy is pursued. But the danger, when the west eventually comes to negotiate with the Russians, seemed to be that the question on the agenda
TMr. Nicholson.]
will not be German reunification but the conditions for peaceful coexistence without the irritant of a united Germany. The eastern zone would then stand no chance of being freed.
I would next like to deal with the H-bomb. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) referred to this factor the other night. I have the greatest respect for the hon. gentleman personally and also for his very distinguished war record, but I believe the conclusion he reached is unsound. The hon. member intimated that the H-bomb probably would not be used because it was so dreadful and because both sides possessed it. I am quite sure that if the hon. member was the officer in charge the H-bomb would not be used; but unfortunately he is not.
In the U.S. News and World Report of December 31, 1954, there appeared a very alarming article by Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, former chief of the British air staff. It is headed "H-bomb Will be Used if Big War Comes." The writer claims that the weapon of mass destruction would certainly be used in any great war between major powers and he quotes Mr. Attlee, British opposition leader, as stating:
"The fact Is that once there is war, absolute war, in the modern age, and if the existence of a nation is at stake, any weapon will be used in the last resort.
The writer then goes on:
When is the last resort? It is beyond doubt that ultimately the bomb would be used-no nation would admit defeat with this terrible weapon of retaliation lying unused in its armory. Are we to wait to use it as a rat's dying bite? Are we to hold back and watch our enemy overrun Europe and set up his V-weapon sites again on the channel coast, and do nothing to stop him except with weapons of his own choosing . . .
I would like to refer hon. members to a speech by Sir Winston Churchill as reported in British Hansard of July 29. Hon. members may recall that Sir Winston was reminded by members of the Labour party of his famous statement that he did not become prime minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. Mr. Attlee said that if the Prime Minister were in opposition he would describe developments in Egypt as "scuttle." Captain Waterhouse, one of the Conservative rebels, said it was not a sell-out but a give-away. Sir Winston rose to reply as follows:
I have not in the slightest degree concealed in public speech how much I regretted the course of events in Egypt. But I had not held my mind closed to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the whole strategic position in the world which make the thoughts, which were well founded and well knit together a year ago, utterly obsolete, and which have changed the opinions of every competent soldier that I have been able to meet.

Later he continued:
Merely to try to imagine in outline the first few weeks of a war under conditions about which we did not know when this session commenced, and about which we had not been told-merely to portray that picture and submit it to the house would, I am sure, convince hon. gentlemen of the obsolescence of the base and of the sense of proportion which is vitally needed at the present time, not only in military dispositions but in all our attempts to establish human relationships between nation and nation.
In the Manchester Guardian of December 21, 1954 I read the following:
"We are trying to keep an element of sanity in a nightmare world," one senior officer said.
He was speaking of allied planning for the possibility of a war with hydrogen bombs. His conclusion was that the outcome of war would probably be settled within the first 20 to 30 days, and for Britain perhaps within the first 20 or 30 hours.
In his judgment, that greatly raised the deterrent value of the American and British long-range bombing forces. . . .
There was a time when it was thought that the superiority of air power in the western countries would give us an advantage, but Joseph and Stewart Alsop, writing in the New York Herald Tribune of August 20, 1954 said:
The pentagon intelligence analysts have reluctantly concluded that the Soviet union is already producing a jet engine about twice as powerful as any yet produced in the United States. This is the biggest shock, the bitterest pill in a development that was generally shocking and unexpected. Until a few months ago, the official forecasters were convinced that the Soviet aircraft industry would need at least two years more to turn out planes comparable to our B47 and B52. But now such planes are already in the air.
To find the Soviet strategic air development two years ahead of schedule was unpleasant enough in itself. It was even more unpalatable to find that this remarkable Soviet jump forward depended upon, and in fact probably resulted from, the successful design of a jet engine greatly surpassing any jet engine as yet designed in the west.
Those who maintained that the west had superiority in aircraft and atom and hydrogen bombs have had trouble in proving their claims. The opinion I have been expressing about the inevitability of the hydrogen bomb being used has been confirmed by Viscount Montgomery. In his "Ottawa Letter" in Saturday Night of December 18, 1954, Mr. Stevenson quoted him as follows:
Speaking not long ago at the Royal United Services Institution in London. Lord Montgomery said: "I want to make it absolutely clear that we at SHAPE (the headquarters of the NATO forces) are basing all our operational planning on using atomic and thermonuclear weapons in our defence. It is no longer a question of 'they may be used'. It is very definitely 'they will be used-if we are attacked'. We could not match the strength that could be brought against us, unless we used nuclear 50433-32
North Atlantic Treaty
weapons. We have reached the point of no return, as regards the use of atomic and thermonuclear weapons in a hot war."
In another copy of The Nation I ran across an article by Elizabeth Weideman on "The H-Bomb's First Victims". An appeal was sent to the Y.W.C.A.'s all over the world by a distinguished Christian Japanese woman, Mrs. Eumura. Her letter is written in restrained language. Along with her letter is given some information with regard to the facts of the H-bomb:
In the past three years there have been reported several cases of pitiful deaths of school children who as babies survived Hiroshima or Nagasaki seemingly unharmed. These children looked quite normal until they fell ill six or seven years after that day, their bodies giving way to the destructive operation that had been secretly working within them. So far, nothing can save those in whom the symptoms of the ''atomic disease" manifest themselves, and they die after indescribable months of agony. Grown-ups are no exception to this liability . . .
Then there is a description of the sailor who lost his life as a result of the explosion of the H-bomb in Bikini. In the New York Herald of January 7 I saw a note "Japan accepts H-bomb offer", and there is a picture of-
-U.S.A. ambassador J. A. Allison shaking hands with Japanese foreign minister after Japan agreed to accept a $2 million payment from U.S.A. for damage claimed by Japan caused by an American H-bomb test at Bikini last March.
When one considers that this fishing boat was 80 miles away from where the explosion occurred, and that the United States has paid $2 million for the damage caused at that distance, it gives one some idea of the implications if we insist upon using H-bombs in a third world war. I think probably I should use the word "last" world war with "last" in quotation marks, as there will not be a fourth world war.
The last point I plan to develop is what I call an appeal to reason and I am quoting some well known people. In the Leader-Post, Regina, Saskatchewan, January 3, 1955 on the front page I read the following:
Pope Urges Coexistence on Basis of Bethlehem Dispatch from Vatican City-
Pope Pius today published a solemn appeal for the peaceful coexistence of all nations on the basis of "the principles of Bethlehem".
The appeal was contained in a Christmas message to the world, which the pontiff was too ill to complete in time for Christmas and which he was still too weak today to broadcast himself.
In apparent criticism of the recent Paris pacts the pontiff said the accords no longer looked toward extensive European unification. In the past, he had expressed approval of the European defence community.

North Atlantic Treaty
Then I go back to the speech of Sir Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in England on May 11, 1953, when he made some statements I think we should never forget. He said:
I do not believe that the immense problem of reconciling the security of Russia with the freedom and safety of western Europe is insoluble.
Then he quoted his telegram which he sent Stalin on April 29, 1945. If it was a worthwhile telegram to send in 1945, I submit that it is a worth-while sentiment to express today. Sir Winston said in his telegram:
There is not much comfort in looking into a future where you and the countries you dominate, plus the communist parties in many other states, are all drawn up on one side, and those who rally to the English-speaking nations and their associates or dominions are on the other. It is quite obvious that their quarrel would tear the world to pieces, and that all of us leading men on either side who had anything to do with that would be shamed before history. Even embarking on a long period of suspicions, of abuses and counterabuse, and of opposing policies would be a disaster hampering the great developments of world prosperity for the masses which are attainable only by our trinity. . .
Then he said:
I must make it plain that, in spite of all the uncertainties and confusion in which world affairs are plunged, I believe that a conference on the highest level should take place between the leading powers without long delay.
I might say that a well known correspondent in London informed me that Sir Winston, with a view to what the future will say of him, would prefer to be remembered as the man who saved the peace rather than in connection with the extremely important role he played during the second world war. But apparently he has not been encouraged to have a top-level conference. Then I should like to quote a well known American, George F. Kennan, former ambassador to the Soviet union. McCarthy has never suggested that Ambassador Kennan had any communist tendencies. He said:
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.
I still have one other, a well known international figure, who spoke as follows:
If the nations of the world engage in a third world war, civilization would be destroyed, external affairs minister Pearson warned Sunday. . . Mr. Pearson said that "horrible devastation" would be brought about by the new atomic and chemical weapons devised by men.
"Should we ever get into world war III, there probably won't be more than a handful of people left", Mr. Pearson said.
He referred to the hydrogen bomb explosion in the Pacific and said he was glad that the public was "now becoming acquainted with the fantastic
[Mr. Nicholson.!
power of the weapon." "That one bomb in the Pacific was more devastating than all the bombs dropped on Germany and Italy during the last war."
Then he said:
"But we will never defeat communism unless we understand it. We must have faith and a positive approach. We have to confront communism with something stronger and more dynamic. . ."
"So often in the international field today, problems are not all black and white. They are often in terms of grey, and it is hard to find what is right and what is wrong."
I think the minister never uttered truer words than those, that things are not all black and white, that we cannot defeat communism unless we understand it. I suggest that if someone could devise a formula so that within the next 24 hours every communist in the world could be killed, our problems would not be solved. We really would be in trouble then, if there were no more communists left for us to attack.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the critical international situation has been created by men and women. It can be solved by men and women. I suggest that this house reject the motion which is before it and refer the question to the United Nations, an organization that we have helped to build, in the hope that this organization might be able to bring the dispute to a satisfactory conclusion.


Tom Goode: shall take a very few minutes in this debate, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who spoke before me and I entirely disagree on this matter. Because the people at home feel so strongly on the question of rearming Germany, I rise in my place for a very few moments to put their thoughts on the record.
I have given many weeks of thought to what my stand would be when the time came to vote on this question. I have argued in my mind both for rearmament and against it, hoping that out of some personal experience in this house, with years of debate in print in my office and the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to which to refer, some firm basis for an established opinion could be found.
I listened with profound respect on January 20 to the speech delivered by the minister, and I was particularly interested when he said that the democratic nations in and out of NATO seek to institute a search for effective control of thermonuclear weapons, not for warfare but for welfare. He said that agreement for effective disarmament was the goal of all those nations which comprise NATO and that for years the Canadian government had taken an active part-he could have said a leading part-in searching for such an agreement.

The minister's second point was built around the fact, acknowledged by all who welcome a permanent peace, that you can only deter aggression by strength. The improvement of relations amongst the friendly countries, the removal of the causes of war and the development of the international community, was a third area explored by the minister. Whether we forward these valiant ideas by bringing into being a rearmed Germany, though it may be under temporary control, is problematical. If we could rearm that country and guarantee to our people that this would be a permanent solution to a problem that has faced us in two wars, then we would be on sound ground in any personal action we take in voting on this motion.
Hon. members will recall that not too long ago we voted whether we should allow Kurt Meyer to return to Germany. I believe I was the only one on this side of the house who voted against his return at that time. I did it not for political advantage, not to create in the minds of the people of Canada the thought that here was a Liberal member who was against Germany, but I voted as I did because it was my opinion that concrete evidence was available that former senior nazi officials were coming to the forefront in German military matters.
If you need further evidence of that fact, press reports of Meyer's reception and consequent generous treatment in his country are proof enough. Read the headlines of the European papers and prove for yourself that the staff of any new German army will be former associates, personal or military, of the nazi regime.
It has been said many times in this debate that we can rely on Herr Adenauer to keep control of former military leaders in Germany. Perhaps he can. He is a great but elderly man, and who comes after him? Who will be there five years from now? No guarantees can be given.
I am one who believes that eventually we will fight communism in battle, communism headed by either Moscow or Peking. Indochina, Korea, Malaya, Costa Rica and Guatemala are all a pattern in an encircling movement that will force a war to the death. It may not come in my time or yours, but the Lenin formula of world domination is not too far off schedule, and certainly is not too far off course. I hold the opinion also that the war will not be an atomic war as we understand it. Complete destruction of the world could never be read into the words of Lenin.
If that war comes, or even seriously threatens, we in Canada will play a major role. There will be no choice of who will
50433-32i
North Atlantic Treaty
serve and who will stay at home. Every young Canadian, male and female, will fight that war. The fathers and mothers will fight it at home, too. There will be no static position, no trenches, no decimation of European countries and peace at home. Burnaby and Oshawa, Ottawa and Halifax, Yellowknife and Richmond, will each share in an ever-moving front line. The recent warning from General Ridgway to his President proves this possibility. He said that a reduction in the size of United States ground forces in Europe, a policy already decided upon, would cause a three-months gap in reinforcements, reinforcements to face a communist army now in being of 75 satellite divisions, over 2,500 planes, thousands of pieces of artillery both atomic and basic, and a Russian fighting force that is beyond civilian realization.
In the event of war, what would be the Canadian manpower position? As I have said, every young man and woman would be subject to immediate draft. Perhaps millions would die. Certainly Canada's casualty rate in two other wars would be fractional compared to this terrible holocaust.
I have faced up to this crisis with what I hope is mature and complete understanding. Many arguments present themselves to me and today I wish I could, in all sincerity, vote against this motion. We are voting, however, not only on what is to happen now but on what might happen to our children and Canadian generations yet unborn. I vote in support because I think there is a chance, a good chance, of delaying war for a generation. It is a far better thing that we do if we rearm a country in an effort to hold that country as our friend. If we refuse to rearm Germany, in time we create a physical enemy with only one country to which to turn, Russia. There can be no geographical neutrality in a great country surrounded by acquaintances and no military friends.
I look to the day when East Germans will join with their blood brothers in the west to bring back into being a great friend of the democracies. We perform no service to this hope by refusing to West Germany its rightful place in NATO. The defeat of this motion would mean that the western European peace alliance is dead, perhaps worse than that. I believe the defeat of the European defence community by France, and an adverse vote on this motion, would surely prove to the German people that their future does not lie with the west.
Unhappily perhaps, but with the honest opinion that I aid my country in its fight for peace, if only a temporary peace, I support this motion. The knowledge that we may face some type of aggressive Germany in

North Atlantic Treaty
the future must be outweighed by the fact we might produce a formula for world peace and understanding. This thought counterbalances any fear of the results that may come from a mistake now. If the decision of this house defends Canada against another world war in the immediate years ahead, we will have fulfilled our responsibility to those young people who attend the schools throughout Canada.


Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkion):: The previous speaker has shown, Mr. Speaker, how seriously the members of this house have taken this problem, and how deep has been their study. I am aware of the conviction with which many of them have spoken. It is possible that many of us differ. We ask that our convictions be treated as having arisen from equally great concern about the future of Canada and of the rest of the world.
Three months ago Canada's representatives signed the protocol admitting the Federal Republic of Germany into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was evident even at that time that there were many serious doubts in the minds of many people, in all NATO countries, as to the wisdom of that action. It was surprising to note that the Canadian government did not consider the opinion of the people of Canada of sufficient importance to call parliament before this time to find out what the people thought and what their representatives would say with regard to the protocol.
Be that as it may, the government accepts that responsibility. But it has this advantage, that many events have taken place since the fateful October 23, 1954, which I believe have confirmed rather than diminished these doubts and misgivings. The French assembly, when called upon to ratify this agreement, rejected it on the first vote. Later they reversed their decision, but quite evidently they were under pressure. The British parliament, the cradle of democracy, adopted it with over 55 per cent of the members abstaining. It was a silent protest, but it was a protest. It was a sign that there were grave misgivings.
I think it is proof that our democracy is in a healthy condition when members register their objections, even against an overwhelming majority, and are free to express their convictions. I believe it would be wrong for this parliament to pass this ratification unanimously when it is so evident that many sincere, thoughtful and patriotic Canadians are opposed to it. And I do not include the communists in our land, who are the agents

of Russia and who would use the privileges of democracy in this land to destroy freedom here. For them I have only the deepest contempt. I will not allow them to influence my thinking.
I want to pay tribute to the leader of this group, and to other men in high ranking positions in this group, who informed the house of their honest convictions, honestly arrived at, in support of the resolution. At no time was any effort made to influence other members, nor did the other members try to influence their leader to change his mind. The vote of our group is the vote of each member, speaking from his own convictions. I am proud of our leadership, and more convinced than ever that such leadership contains within it the essence of democracy, the essence of freedom.
There is every evidence that speakers in all parts of the house have very serious doubts, and that those doubts are shared by many other people.
I intend to vote against the motion because I believe it is wrong, and that it is premature. I believe it has within it an inherent danger to the western world. I intend to vote against it because I believe it is being forced upon a reluctant people. Evidence from all parts of the country shows that the rank and file of the German people are not in favour of restoring armaments to Germany, if it is to come under nazi leadership.
If this protocol is to be successful it requires confidence. I doubt whether it will give any real strength to the western powers until it has that confidence. I believe it is possible that the implementation of this protocol may bring war closer to us, not put it farther away, because it does not contain the safeguards which I believe are necessary.
If nuclear arms of war come to this earth because man refuses to live in brotherhood, then it will be divine retribution; man can destroy himself by his own stupidity.
I want here to reaffirm my faith in the rank and file of the German people. They are capable; throughout the world they have shown themselves to be capable of great achievements, of making great contributions to the betterment of mankind. But I have only the greatest misgivings concerning them when they are dominated by a military dictatorship. We of the western world find it difficult to understand how an army could possibly superimpose its will upon the state.

But those of us who have studied German militarism and nazism know that this does happen. Those who are in power look down upon the democratic processes. They consider themselves supreme.
The rank and file of the German people fear and detest nazism. They oppose the rearmament offered them today. This is where I think the great danger comes in. I do not know whether it is part of the calculated risk about which we hear so much. Has a calculation been made of the possibility that, once that German machine is again in power with 12 divisions, once these people are rearmed under nazi leadership, it may not be possible to trust them? All Germany wants a reunited Germany. All Germany would like East Germany to be united with the west. Might not the offer be made to a nazi West Germany that Germany could be united if they would only break with the west? And if that is a possibility we should certainly study it with great care. In such event, not only would we be opposed by Russia in time of war, but also by a Russia joined with a powerful nazi machine which we ourselves had helped to recreate.
History reveals that the character of people living in certain environments produces predictable results and trends. Nazi Germany is an entirely different nation from a free and democratic Germany. The German people, brought up under a democracy, and brought into an economic alliance with the western world, which has learned the meaning of true democracy, could be a great ally. But we do not know what a nazi Germany would do. No one knows what they would do. Give Germany democracy, real co-operation and time to build a true Germany, time to cleanse itself of nazism, and we will have hope. Some day in the not too distant future this could be achieved. At that time a rearming of Germany could be tried with some hope of success.
Had article 2 of NATO been properly implemented we might have had such a Germany today. The people of that country would have had a chance to throw out nazism. The teachings of Hitler remain too deeply rooted for us to hope that this change could be brought about in such a short time. If there were evidence to show that nazism had gone, then there might be some justification for taking a calculated risk. But instead of evidence that nazism is gone, what do we find? We find Kurt Meyer welcomed home. We find Adolf Galland, chief inspector of the luftwaffe fighting command, returning to
North Atlantic Treaty
Germany from Argentina. We have Frau Schlitter making a statement in London showing the tragic reality that the nazi thinking is not dead. Hitler's militarism can never be accepted in faith by the western world. That record can never be forgotten. That black page in the history of man is written.
We have not done our part to help build the real Germany, the democratic Germany. Canada must take her blame along with the rest. We must reap today the harvest of that failure. There is to be a new 500,000-man army under Adenauer, with its generals pledged to NATO. That is a fait accompli. The pact has been signed. The evidence that the majority here are with it is complete. We can only hope that there may be some force live enough and great enough to hold it within control.
The trouble is with that army of half a million men there may be a few staff members under Adenauer who are denazified and who believe in NATO, but who is going to officer that army, who are the staffs going to be, from the lieutenant colonels and colonels down to the majors, the non-commissioned officers and the ranks? Who is to be enlisted from the ranks of the German people? Therein lies the greatest danger in our control over Germany today. Reports confirm one or two things. One, that there is a great hope amongst all the German people that ultimate unification will take place and they will be united with their brothers in East Germany.
The other great thing is the great mistrust of the rank and file of the German people of nazi regimentation. I refuse to support a nazi German army forced upon a reluctant German people who know the real nazis. Give them time. Give the world time to appreciate the consequences of refusing to live together, to realize that war has never settled anything, that mass destruction can be the punishment for refusing to live in human brotherhood.


Mr. Harrison:: In view of the lateness of the hour would you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Harris:: Before we do that, would it be possible to continue a little longer tonight?
I am informed that there are a number who would like to take part in the debate, and we had quite sincerely hoped that we could conclude by tomorrow afternoon. While I would not want to inconvenience the hon. member for Meadow Lake, if it is possible for the hon. member to agree we might complete at least one more speech.

North Atlantic Treaty


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be fairly brief. In any case I think we can accommodate the minister and the house. My reason for speaking in the debate is the rather remarkable campaign that has been put on by our communist friends and such agencies as the peace congress prior to this debate in the hope, I suppose, of getting us to vote no on the admission of Germany to the western alliance.	,	) ...
I have been rather surprised-well, perhaps I should not be-at some of the, shall we say, support that has been gained in the ranks of the C.C.F. At the outset I should like to compliment the leader of that group on his courage, in face of the uprising he has had in his ranks.


Mr. Gillis:: Plain common sense, that is all.


John Hornby Harrison: You cannot condemn a whole organization if a part of it goes astray. You do not shoot a man just because he has gangrene in his leg, but there is occasion to cut the leg off if the whole body is to be saved. I think, though, this is a very good thing for Canada. Certainly, because of the speeches we have heard from that group and by the vote that will be taken we shall be able to separate the sheep from the goats, and possibly with the goats we shall have to put those who fail to vote; because I heard one remarkable speech from that side indicating that everybody should vote against the rearming of Germany. After a 30-minute speech the hon. member sat down, but before he did so he said he was not going to vote along the lines he suggested, and in fact he was not going to vote at all. The only thing that told me was that he did not have the courage of his convictions. It was a proposition of do as I say, but not as I do.
From time to time many words have come out from Moscow. We have had those echoed by the C.C.F. members of the legislature in Saskatchewan, who have always supported the ideas that have come from that country but without taking the alternative in any case. These things make one wonder.
In this debate these gentlemen who have indicated that they are not going to support their leader have taken one side of the story only. I have not heard any part of the other side. They have not discussed the alternative.

COMMONS	'	*
I have no objection to a man looking at both sides. He comes to his honest opinion; he decides which is which, and that is all right. But these gentlemen have discussed the terrible things that might happen if we allow those 12 divisions to be established in Germany. Well, they might have mentioned the other 250 divisions that are in existence in Russia and her satellites. In East Germany we have 180,000 so-called police, equipped with some 600 tanks, 250 mobile guns and 1,700 pieces of artillery. Well, that is some police force.
As the minister told us, there was no rearming whatsoever in Western Germany in 1948. There was not even a soldier there. But that was when the rearming of East Germany took place. In view of our experience with Germany, you might think there is cause for serious thought. The minister has told us of the safeguards we have there. But with the 250 divisions and this East German police force and another 400,000 Soviet troops in that country, what are the safeguards in that case? Do we hear anything about those? Not at all.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have had calls on members of this house. I have had telephone calls from some of these people, and I told them they had access to my office, that I was quite willing to see them and hear what they had to say. One delegation was supposed to meet me in the morning, but they failed to arrive. They telephoned me in the afternoon and said they were sorry, that there was some misunderstanding and they could not see me. But I did have a one-man delegation call on me. He was a gentleman from my own riding. This gentleman had been the communist candidate in the last election. He is quite forthright about what he wants; he always has been. I have no disagreement with that. What he wants here is a Soviet government. He is quite willing for Russia to come here and take over.
We have no communist members as such in this house, but when one reads the speeches that we have heard from some hon. members of the group across the way who are showing signs of dissent with their leader, it indicates that there has at least been some acquiescence in what has been proposed by the Soviet union, and that the voice of Moscow has not been unheard in this house.


Harold Edward Winch: How low can you sink?


John Hornby Harrison: You made your speech. If I may comment on some of the speeches I have heard, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) said that he had received letters from people of all opinions. I have had letters from all kinds of people, but they are all of one opinion. I think they all came indirectly from the same place, the Canadian peace congress. They all took the same line we have heard from these hon. gentlemen. No alternatives are discussed. In view of this I certainly compliment the other hon. members of that party and its leader in particular -I have great respect for him-for their stand in the face of that kind of opposition.
I think on the whole this debate has been most valuable for the people of Canada. As
North Atlantic Treaty
I have said, it is written that by their fruits ye shall know them. In this case it will be-


Mr. Campbell:: A little longer and you will turn the whole house against it.


John Hornby Harrison: If I have the hon. member with me then I am on the wrong track. By their fruits ye shall know them; but I think in this case we should say, "by their speeches and by their votes or lack of votes."
On motion of Mr. Fleming the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 25, 1955