1955-01-21

CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE

Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the first report of the special committee appointed to consider with. Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, presented Thursday, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation recently taken steps to adjust the end selling price and down payment of homes built under the National Housing Act, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator of Wednesday, January 19?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has the end sale prices of N.H.A. houses under continuous study and this recent adjustment is the result of a review just concluded. It is related to current building costs.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: should like to answer a question asked two days ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. His question to me, as found in Hansard of Wednesday, January 19, page 331, reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has he been made aware of the steps being taken in my province of Manitoba to set up an independent commission for the redistribution of provincial electoral constituencies? In view of a motion on this subject that was passed
by the house last year, will the government consider arranging for a committee of the house to study that matter at this session so far as federal constituencies are concerned?
To the first part of the question I would say that no information has been received either by the Department of the Secretary of State or by the chief electoral officer; in so far as I am concerned the only information I have received is through the newspaper report which my hon. friend was good enough to send me the other day. In so far as the second part of the question is concerned, I wish to state that this matter has been under serious consideration for some time and no decision has been arrived at yet.



REPORTED DECREASE IN WHEAT SHIPMENTS BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: 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?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The facts as stated by my hon. friend are not true. The reason shipments dropped-


John George Diefenbaker: They are right in the records.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They may be in the records, but my hon. friend is looking at shipments rather than sales. The reason shipments dropped is that there was no carryover of sales as there was in the previous year, but I can tell him that sales this year are ahead of this time in any of the last several years. It is really the sales that count. Eventually that wheat moves, and we look for a good year in wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what that record shows.

Inquiries of the Ministry
PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS	PUBLIC BUILDINGS



SYNCHRONIZATION OF ELECTRIC CLOCKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he thinks his department will eventually be able to get the electrical clocks around the building back into operation and synchronized and, if so, when he thinks that might be done.


Robert Henry Winters: At the earliest possible opportunity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe I am correct in understanding that the hon. gentleman is a most highly qualified electrical engineer. Could he, therefore, perhaps take the matter under his personal supervision?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The province of British Columbia is expropriating land for the southern terminal of the Oak street bridge in Richmond, British Columbia. Some of the land is held by veterans under the Veterans Land Act. Will the minister make an investigation to assure those veterans that they are afforded full protection by the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Mr. C. E. Benneit (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond for giving me notice of his question. As a matter of policy, the director of the Veterans Land Act endeavours to co-operate with municipal and provincial governments in cases where land, the title to which is held by the director but which is under agreement for sale to a veteran, is required for public purposes, always assuring, however, that the interests of the veteran settlers are fully protected and that the price is fair. Any veteran whose property is required for such purposes, should he so desire, is assisted in obtaining a continued establishment on another suitable property. The time in which the veteran earns his conditional grant continues to run from the date of his original establishment. In the case of the Oak street bridge terminal, about 12 veteran settlers are affected. These have already been told to seek the advice of the Veterans Land Act appraisal staff before agreeing to any offer made to them.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works which he may take as notice. When is the parliamentary library going to be ready for use?


Robert Henry Winters: There is still a considerable amount of work to be done on it, but I will take the question as notice and endeavour to give a target date in a few days.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, January 20, 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.
Miss Margaret  Ailken@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate we have been listening to the experts. We have had experts speak on the political, military, security and defence phases of rearming Germany. We have listened to one hon. member tell us why he is opposed to rearmament. I think that at least on one thing we are unanimous in this house, and that is, this is one of the most difficult problems we have had to face. Certainly, it is the most difficult problem we have had to face since I came into the House of Commons. I am sure that is true for everyone in this house.
Having listened to the experts, I want to say something about the more human aspects of this problem and what I believe is going on in the minds and hearts of the Canadian people. It seems strange indeed that we should be asked to deliver arms on a silver platter to a people who were our bitter enemies ten short years ago. I believe that instinctively most of us would like to vote in the negative because our memories are not that short. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has explained why he is voting against the rearmament of Germany. We all listened *carefully and I do not think we ever doubted his sincerity. But, Mr. Speaker, he left us with the scales unbalanced. He highlighted the dangers of the rearmament of Germany, but he did not highlight the dangers of the alternatives.

What are the alternatives? During the past month I have received scores of letters asking me to vote against the rearmament of Germany. I have seen almost as many delegations. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have not refused to see any person or persons who had opinions on this subject. Even when I knew they were communist-inspired delegations or letters, I saw them and I read them. It seemed to me this was no time for one's personal prejudices. Many of those who came to see me were not communists, but loyal, patriotic and worried Canadians. On this same subject of rearming Germany one hon. member in the British House of Commons said foreign affairs is a choice of difficulties. No truer words were ever spoken. Our choice is a Russia armed to the hilt on one side and on our side an unarmed vacuum in the middle of our own defences.
When I have asked the people who came to see me and to ask me to vote in the negative what the alternative would be, they have said, negotiate and keep on negotiating. They have said, better 1,000 years of negotiating than one day of war. As the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said yesterday, the allied foreign ministers have already held 352 meetings with Russia over the Austrian peace treaty. We are no nearer settlement than we were 352 meetings ago. I say, by all means let us keep on negotiating, but not through fear. Let us negotiate in equality.
In arming Germany we are not, as I see it, obliterating our chances of negotiating. In fact, I believe we are actually broadening the avenue towards peace. There are no more realistic people in the world today than the Russian leaders. They know, as we know, that it is better to bargain and negotiate through strength than through weakness. I believe nothing proved this more conclusively than the Berlin airlift. When the Russians blockaded our lines to Berlin the ingenuity and imagination of men was enlisted to overcome the blockade. Brains, not guns, were used. There was no war. As soon as the Russians realized that they were beaten at their own game, they capitulated.
No, Mr. Speaker, I have come to appreciate that you cannot bargain or negotiate in weakness. But it does seem to me that the government has been woefully remiss in explaining to the Canadian people why Germany should be rearmed. In foreign affairs, this government seems to adopt a very patronizing attitude, a sort of papa knows bekt attitude; a children should be seen but not heard attitude. Perhaps that was all right when our voice did not amount to much in
North Atlantic Treaty
foreign affairs, but today it does count and no one man or group of men should take it upon themselves to make these decisions without consulting parliament.
An articulate politician in the United States in the person of Mr. Adlai Stevenson once wrote:
Unless the great political parties and their spokesmen assume responsibility for educating and guiding the people with constant candor, how can we be sure that majority rule will meet the test of these searching times.
I feel that this government has not assumed any responsibility for educating and guiding the people on this very complex problem.
There has been much talk in the house about an unarmed Germany being a dangerous vacuum in Europe. Yesterday the minister said that we of the democracies abhor vacuums while the Russians step into them. That is exactly what has happened in Canada between October and January. The government allowed a vacuum of ignorance to emerge. The communists filled that vacuum with the fears and natural apprehensions of the Canadian people. For one thing, the fellow travellers of communism have been playing hard on the fact Germany will be in the atom bomb race. Until yesterday the government did nothing to explain exactly where the atom bomb came into this picture. Until yesterday the government did nothing to reassure Canadians as to the safeguards that are being devised. Until yesterday the government did nothing about the elaborate system of arms control that the allied powers planned.
Is it any wonder the Canadian people are confused, apprehensive-yes, and fearful of what this parliament is doing. Those Canadians who look with favour upon the communist line have been quick to seize upon a Gallup poll which was taken on November 24, 1954. Their interpretation of this poll is that 61-6 per cent of the Canadian people oppose a new German army. That is not the true picture, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is the fault of the government and not of the people or of the poll that it is not a true picture.
I believe that any one of us, if we had been asked such questions without any background knowledge, with no explanation, no ramifications, would have said no, too. The government has made no effort, despite the millions spent on publicity and public relations bureaux, to inform the people. The first question in this particular poll was, can you tell me what the initials EDC stand for? Only one in five Canadians knew the answer. There were 74 per cent who could

North Atlantic Treaty
not answer at all. The next question was, if Germany were allowed to have her own army, do you think it would be a step towards peace or away from peace? There were 43 per cent who said it would be a step away from peace and 27 per cent said towards peace. There were 26 per cent who had no opinion whatever.
In summing up, the Gallup poll itself has this to say:
If it had been practical to include the fine shadings of the control question, results might have been different.
I question the word "practical". I do not think anyone knew the fine shadings of the control question in order to ask it, and certainly they did not know the answers. So there is a vacuum that this government has allowed to emerge between October and January.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for the inclusion of Germany in NATO-not because I like it but because, after a great deal of honest study and much soul-searching, I believe it is the only alternative. I believe it is the safest step for peace. I believe it is the practical rather than the sentimental step toward a sane and civilized world.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we have been presented with what is apparently, on the face of it, an innocuous resolution, and we have to give a decision on it. But I suggest that this innocuous resolution is more like a package deal than anything else-and I am supremely suspicious of package deals. Because while this resolution deals only with the admission of Germany to NATO, there is not one member in the house who does not realize that what lies behind it, unsaid and unwritten, is the rearmament of Germany. And there is not a member in the house who has yet spoken, either for or against the motion, who has not expressed his fear of it.
We have been told that we are faced with a calculated risk, and that is true. Most of our policies in external affairs must be calculated risks. But a calculated risk can be either a success or an uncalculated disaster. There is not one of us who does not hope that the net result of this agreement will mean success, for the sake of the peoples of the world; but there are many of us who fear that, unhappily, the outcome may be uncalculated disaster.
This is not the first package deal we have had in parliament. We had one some years ago when NATO was presented. I supported NATO then for reasons which at the time I considered adequate and which, in retrospect,

I still consider adequate. To some substantial extent the western world had disarmed after the war. But we saw what happened in Czechoslovakia; we saw what happened to Poland; we saw the encroachment of international communism, and for our own sakes it was essential that a line be drawn. But in diplomacy you can only draw a line when you have guns behind it, and that line is only as strong as the calibre of the guns.
And so I supported rearmament because it was put before us-and rightly so at that time-as something which was urgent, imperative and for our own well-being. But there was also something else in that package deal; and I supported NATO as much for article 2 as I did for the rearming of this group of allies.
Article 2 is the article which promised us some hope of economic and political co-operation on the Atlantic. I remember my friend, who was then the hon. member for Vancouver East and is now the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), saying back in 1947 that there was going to be no safety for the world in an arms race, or in military alliances, but that the solution had to be achieved in another area, which was the area of economic co-operation. Apparently the government of the day believed that. They went to Washington, and Canada achieved some prestige throughout the world because of this article 2, which was presented by Canada and which is known as the Canadian article.
Yesterday, dealing with aspects of NATO other than military, the minister said that NATO is potentially more than a military alliance. I thought so, too, Mr. Speaker. But how potential is "potential"? When are we going to get some results? When are we going to get some action?
The minister said that we are seeking to develop a North Atlantic community. I would like to see a North Atlantic community; but what practical proposal is this government going to make to develop that sort of community? I may be told, "Oh, we are making private protestations". I am not remotely interested in private protestations. I want public declarations of policy so that I know where the government stands in respect of its own child, article 2 of NATO.
We said-and I believe there are many who agreed with me

that if NATO was going to be strong defensively it had to be strong economically. We have iterated and reiterated this at -wearisome length throughout the years, and our warnings have been valid, even though they have been ignored.

In 1949 the government were all for article 2; they were proud of article 2. But through the intervening years, down to the present, there has been a weary shuffling back on the road from Damascus. There has been nothing done, so far as any significant effort is concerned, to achieve what we want. And one of the troubles today, not only in this House of Commons but in the western world, is that we are facing the problems of 1955 with minds which still dwell in the years before 1939. There has to be a shaking up in our thinking.
Some six or seven years ago the government saw the necessity for economic co-operation, because fear was in the hearts of the people. The government saw the light, but now that light is spluttering to ignoble extinction. It is not good enough.
Article 2, the creature of this government, up to the present has been a lamentable failure, and the government must take the responsibility for it. For we were in a position to give leadership. It is not too late to give that leadership, but if we fail to do so the failure will be a suicidal failure.
I have been told that there is no alternative to the calculated risk set before us. I do not believe it; I simply do not believe it. There is one, but we have never tried it out -for what reason, heaven knows. Whether we lack determination or vision I do not know; but I do know we have not tried out the alternative.
Yesterday the minister said there are certain courses which we can pursue. He said that we could keep Germany disarmed and neutralized. That is a policy which I exclude immediately. I do not say it is not possible, but I say it would be unutterably stupid to pursue such a policy, because the net result could only be that the Germans would be left so embittered and vengeful that war would be inevitable.
The minister said that, as a policy, we could do nothing, and hope that something would turn up. I repudiate that policy for reasons I have given before, the chief reason being that it is impracticable.
The minister suggested as another policy that we could give Germany back her sovereignty, without any conditions attached. I reject that, because it solves no problem and would not solve the problem before us in this house today.
Now we have been presented with another solution which the government itself accepts. We have been invited to vote to bring a rearmed, sovereign Germany into NATO.
North Atlantic Treaty
This is an invitation I decline, for the basic policy which the government has been pursuing in the last few years is wrong.
There is another policy, that of putting the horse before the cart. If I may digress for a moment, hon. members in this house realize as well as I do that throughout this country the concept of the Colombo plan has received acclaim, and is popular throughout the nation.
On the other hand, NATO is regarded with apathy. On the Colombo plan we are going to spend this year the niggardly miserly sum of $26 million, but because the people know that this is something positive and affirmative and something which will help the world, they are prepared to go for it in an infinitely greater measure than the government apparently believes; yet on NATO, if we include capital expenditures, we may spend $1,000 million this year. There is nothing but apathy and, in some areas, dislike. Who is to say that the instinct and the judgment of the Canadian people are wrong because they feel with justification that NATO is nothing more than a military alliance? NATO is something vastly different from that which we envisaged and that is why we feel that our hopes have been betrayed. There is a lesson to be learned from this.
But let me ask this question. Why must we always restrict our calculated risks to the area of defence? This is the only field in which we have done it up to the present. Is it not possible that, for the sake of all concerned, we should take a calculated risk in the field of economics? We have agreed that it is essential to our security that our allies be economically strong because only if they are economically strong can our defence be strong. That follows, I suggest, as day follows night, and yet there has been so pitifully little done by this government to make our allies as economically strong as I should like to see them, and therefore there is a possibility that our defence will be correspondingly weakened.
Obviously the more prosperous nations are the more they are able to share their prosperity with those who are less fortunate, and the more secure we all shall be. Prosperity is indivisible. But a lead has been given, of which this government is aware, by a most distinguished American who, in his wisdom, saw what ought to be done. He who is now the President of the United States said a few years ago, as commander in chief of NATO, that before we embark on German rearmament the first

North Atlantic Treaty
thing we must try to achieve is the economic and political integration of Germany with the rest of Europe. That is the course we should be pursuing, but the government has put the cart before the horse. Arms must come first. I say that policy is wrong. I say that economic co-operation with political integration must come before we do the other, if we desire security.
If article 2 has the validity which I, with faint hopes, still think it has, it is the duty and responsibility of this government to lead, to take a calculated risk in the field of economics, and I offer a suggestion. I today am speaking for myself and none other. What I say commits nobody and no other; but I offer this suggestion. If we are serious in this business of economic co-operation, we should suggest to our allies that, on a reciprocal basis over the next ten years, we are prepared to reduce our tariffs and barriers to trade 10 per cent a year. And I argue that, as a result of the enlarged markets which would ensue, all of us would be much better off than we had ever dreamed possible. Prosperity would become more of a reality than certainly it is now.
There is a risk. Certainly there is a risk, but it is a risk which would capture and hold the imagination not only of our people but of all those who are our allies and friends in Europe. It is an offer which would win acclaim, perhaps as great as Churchill's, when in the darkest days of the war he made that offer to France of which this house knows. There are those of you who may say that this suggestion is fantastically impossible. Mr. Speaker, there was nothing more impossible than that a member of this parliament should have risen in his place in this house a decade ago and said that we were going to rearm Germany within ten years. That was the impossibility of impossibilities, but it has happened. I question very much the validity of impossibility in politics anyway. As for it being fantastic, is there anything more fantastic than the threat of destruction by thermonuclear energy?
There is nothing impossible about the suggestion if we mean business. We pursue that course and we give hope to millions, we give leadership to those who are desperately seeking leadership. Unfortunately we have not yet been able to break away from the bonds of our own national sovereignties.
The government apparently prefers the calculated risk of rearming Germany before insisting on the economic and political integration of which I spoke. It may be said {Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]
that I am arguing for a European community. I am not, because I do not think a European community in itself is viable. I am arguing that we must work with Europe. Whether we like it or not, we are ineluctably bound up with Europe, so we ought to realize what the future may have in store for us.
Let me ask another question. Why is there this speed in rearming Germany? We have been told on all hands by those who are in a position to know that the international situation is such, that tension has so decreased, that we can perhaps feel a little more secure than has been the case during the last few years. Yet we intend to rearm Germany.
Now, I have no illusions about Soviet policy. We have to safeguard ourselves against the effects of Soviet policy, but I assume the same calculations are in the minds of those who say that the situation today is somewhat less tense than has been the case for some years. But why the hurry? Why the need for another 12 divisions when there are proposals before the United States congress now that there be a reduction in American forces between 300,000 and 700,000 men. Is it the idea that those 12 divisions will take the place of those Americans who will now return to their homes? Why this hurry, if other NATO nations feel that the international situation has sufficiently improved for them to reduce their own commitments? Why then the addition of another 12 divisions in Germany?
I have no means of knowing that this is so, but I read newspapers like other hon. members and I have read speculations on what happened in the last NATO meeting, where apparently those who in responsible positions suggested that the goal set in Lisbon two or three years ago was too high; that we do not need today the same level of conventional arms; and that therefore perhaps we could lower that level. If that is so, why do we ask Germany to rearm itself with conventional arms and throw another 12 divisions into the military kitty? The answer may be-this again is supposition-that the NATO staff may have decided if there is going to be another war atomic weapons will be used but merely in a tactical sense. I hope that is not true. I cannot believe it, because if they are used in a tactical sense, they are going to be used in a strategic sense. Once atomic weapons are used, thermonuclear weapons will be used, and the fields of the earth will be white with the ashes of humanity.
One can always argue, of course, that if there is going to be a war we have nothing

to worry about, for if thermonuclear weapons are to be used we shall not be here to do any worrying. Why the hurry then to have these 12 German divisions, if the situation is obviously better than it has been for some years?
The answer is American pressure. In 1950 the American chiefs of staff decided that Germany was going to be rearmed. In the fall of 1950 the NATO ministers agreed that such would be the case; and because of this, and the pusillanimity among the western allies in refusing to stand up to the United States, we now have this problem before us. Let me quote from a journal which I am certain must be the bible of all Liberals the world over, the Manchester Guardian, in its issue of September 23, which had this to say:
About EDC Americans really ought to realize that it was an expedient hastily devised because the United States blackmailed its European allies in 1950.
That is why we are faced with this problem today. There is no military need for this haste, but there is imperative need for haste in the field of economic and political co-operation and that is the one area in which we have seen none. It may be argued that Europe has failed. That could be so, but I suggest that whether it has failed or not the government owes it to its own people to try once again to make economic cooperation a reality.
We are being asked to rearm Germany. We cannot be blamed if our minds sometimes dwell on history. We cannot be blamed if we have doubts that history has perhaps outlived itself. I am not one of those who would suggest for a moment that the German people are inherently warlike. I do not believe that they are. I know far too many people of German descent in this country to believe that, and I know the active part they have taken in democratic organizations. Yet if I may translate what I have to say into simple musical terms, there is the Germany of Beethoven but there is also the Germany of Wagner.
I know that there are thousands of German refugees from Hitler who have returned to their own country in an attempt to recreate and rebuild it on a democratic basis. I know that in my own city there are Jewish people who are alive today because of the valour of individual Germans and groups of Germans in helping them to escape. I know that there are tens of thousands of Germans who are buried today in Germany who were victims of Hitler's concentration camps. To suggest for a moment that you
North Atlantic Treaty
can indict a nation is extraordinary nonsense. And yet we have these questions. We know that Jews and Ukrainians and Poles in their millions were murdered by German troops. Today it may be so that the relatives and friends and countrymen of these dead, in their magnanimity, are prepared to forgive for the sake of world peace; but they are never going to forget.
I am not going to mention the revulsion which all of us felt and still feel when we remember the concentration camps of Germany, because revulsion is not a substitute for policy, and abhorrence is not an alternative to policy. But these things cannot be forgotten.
There are certain facts which we must bear in mind. There is the fact that in the past the nationalists and militarists came to power and led their people, and those people followed them except for a valiant minority. There is the probability that Germans were politically immature. That can be argued against. It can be said that here is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc and that such a situation does not exist today. I can only hope that such is the case, but I have no proof.
There is the undeniable fact that today in Germany nazis are in key positions in government and business. To suggest for one moment that nazis will not again get into the army is arrant rubbish. We have been told that there are millions of young Germans who oppose rearmament. Are they likely to be the ones who will enter this new army of this new reich? No. Those who are going to enter the army will be the spawn of former nazis. To suggest that the screening will be sufficiently effective to keep out the nazis is nothing but wishful thinking.
I state as a fact that the reception given Kurt Meyer was not an accident, that it is indicative of a state of mind which is perilous to all of us, even although there were many Germans who deplored it. I state as a fact that what Frau Schlitter said in London was not an accident, that she meant it.
I state as a fact that the Russian face of Germany is a reality. I agree with what my leader said yesterday about what is happening in connection with a German aircraft firm and certain interests in Spain. We can also say as a fact that there is now a Spanish face to Germany. Some German corporations in their attempt to evade the obligations of their country are doing now what they did with Russia in the 1920's.

North Atlantic Treaty
I aver that this will be a fact, that within the predictable future the Germans will want and will get atomic reactors. I affirm as a fact that within the predictable future the Germans will want an increase in their forces and may conceivably get it. I state also as a fact that there are unscrupulous groups in Germany who will go to any lengths in an attempt to unite East Germany with the west. Then what will we do? We are told that there are safeguards, that those safeguards are in the treaty. What if the United States decide that they are going to support this war against communism and communist barbarism in eastern Europe? What then do we do? What control do we have as a matter of fact over what the United States may do, despite this talk of the Atlantic community. There is no community and this government must take its share of responsibility for that fact.
There is no one in this house who wants Germany rearmed. The only ones in Canada I can think of who want the Germans rearmed are the communists of Canada, and for obvious reasons. They know that the only country which can offer anything to Germany is the Soviet union. Russia can offer Germany a reunited country, and local communists may be looking to the day when a rearmed Germany will be joined with the Soviet union to try to dominate the world in so far as they can.
All of us have been subjected to communist pressure in the last few weeks. It is nothing new. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) said the other day, there is no group in Canada which has more gall. It is those same communists who in 1939 were prepared to fight Hitlerism, who a few days later were prepared to lick the boots of Hitler's nazis, and who now again because of Russian policy are prepared to pursue the course dictated by the Kremlin.
There are some who are quite in favour of German rearmament. One has only to read the business pages of the newspapers to realize how United States steel interests are looking forward with some anticipation to German rearmament. We know that there are industrialists in the United Kingdom who feel the ferocity of German competition in the markets of the world and who want to see Germany rearmed in the hope that it will curb their power to compete. Then there are those who welcome German rearmament, those who have been so aptly termed in the past as merchants of death. Yet surely the greatest fact before the house is that there are millions of Germans today, knowing their own country as they do, knowing their own countrymen as they do, who are opposed to its being rearmed, and we are thrusting arms upon them.

There is another aspect to this calculated risk. There is an element of gamble in it and the gamble is the possibility of an old man living another two or three years, the gamble that Herr Adenauer will survive the next two or three years. I would hope that he does, but what is the alternative? Suppose he does not; what sort of government do we get then? No one knows; no one can speak with certainty. But that is far too big an X in this equation to be glossed over lightly.
I do not deny the need for generosity to a beaten opponent. Germany must be brought back within the comity of nations and as rapidly as possible, though not on Russian terms. There are some who feel that further discussion with Russia would be futile; some who feel that further discussion might be useful; some who feel, as I do, that the suggestion offered by Premier Mendes-France is worthy of consideration, namely that meetings should be held with the Soviet union in May.
But surely again the obvious fact is that if Russia was afraid of Western German rearmament she would have reached an agreement long ago. I do not believe for a moment that the Russians have any great fear about the rearmament of Western Germany. But this much I am certain of, namely that Germany will be united when Russia is ready to give them union, and not one moment before. Not all our blandishments or speeches will alter that situation.
One of the unhappy facts we must face is that when we meet the Russians we never speak the same language. We use the same words but when the Russians say "democracy" they mean tyranny; when they say "justice" they mean iniquity; and when they say "life" they mean death. That is a fact we will have to remember.
I am one of those who feel that perhaps another discussion with the Soviet union on Germany might be fruitless. Nevertheless, it is imperative that there be discussions as soon as possible with the Soviet union on other and wider matters. The time is not far off when we shall have reached what somebody called "the intolerable atomic absolute," when certain people in the United States feel that Russia has got the air power and thermonuclear power necessary in one blitz to extinguish the west. What do we do then? What happens when some trigger-happy fool shoots? It will be the death of all of us. It is imperative that we meet the Russians and we continue to meet them until we can arrive at some modus vivendi and modus operandi. But this is an interpolation.
I come back to my charge that the government has not followed the path of economic

co-operation as I am convinced it should have done, and the government is wrong in saying there is no alternative. Of course, it may be said that no matter what I say, no matter what my feelings are, and no matter what my colleagues say, Germany is going to be rearmed in any event. I believe that to be the case.
If this agreement is not approved in other countries, I am convinced that the nationalists in Germany will rearm bilaterally with the help of Washington, and if not with Washington then with Moscow. No matter what I think or do, I for one am faced with a fait accompli. I am faced with the choice of an armed Germany with controls or an armed Germany without controls, and I must accept the controls no matter how ineffective ahd inadequate I may consider them to be.
But to refer to myself again, what do I want? There can be only one answer, to my mind. I want these controls in existence if Germany must be rearmed, because I think it is essential for the welfare of all of us that they be there.
We all know what happened with EDC but I still believe we have got to go forward with this concept of integration. I did not agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) yesterday when he paid tribute to the United Kingdom for departing from its age-old policy of not putting troops into Europe. I believe the EDC met with failure in the French assembly in large measure because of earlier British refusal to co-operate in Europe.
Too late the British again have divisions in Europe, and here, Mr. Speaker, is the supreme irony, namely that France agrees to German rearmament if the United Kingdom keeps a number of divisions in Europe to protect France against the consequences of that German rearmament. How illogical can we get? Yet I as an individual and as a member of the Canadian parliament am faced with this package deal. I am faced with a deal wherein German rearmament, which I oppose at this time, is tied in with the necessary controls on that rearmament. I am faced with the accomplished fact. I support the controls. I oppose this resolution for what is not in it, and I support it for what is in it.
Someone yesterday mentioned Scylla and Charybdis. I refuse to be devoured by one or engulfed by the other. Some perhaps may show their feelings in this matter by being absent from the house when the vote is called. I shall not be absent. I shall be in my place in the house and as a matter of deliberate policy I shall refrain from voting.
North Atlantic Treaty (Translation) :


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, the question which we are debating today is of major importance for the western powers which, for the past ten years, have had to withstand the constant aggression of communist countries.
For the past ten years, the western powers have sought the most appropriate steps to take in order to convince Russia and her satellites to abandon their ideas of aggression.
The experience of the past few years has established without doubt that the Soviet will keep on talking of peace while threatening the world with war as long as the nations on this side of the iron curtain continue to show disunity and weakness.
That is precisely the fact which we must not lose sight of during the present debate.
The problem we are facing, as an anticommunist country, is the mustering among the western nations of the strength required to deter the communist powers from pushing forward on the road to aggression to an ultimate world conflict.
The rearmament of Germany within the framework of the western European union and its admission into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are only means to an ultimate end: the safeguarding of world peace and the pursuit of happiness for the whole human race.
It is only natural that well-disposed people here and elsewhere do not see without some concern Germany becoming overnight a free and sovereign nation, and even an ally. It is a surprise for a great many people to learn that we are committing ourselves to defend, in case of attack, this very Germany which brought so much hardship and suffering to the world, and which has been guilty of heinous crimes against entire peoples.
Such a feeling of apprehension towards Germany should be easily understood, and we must, indeed, respect it. However, I think that the agitation that for the last few weeks has been coming from a small group of communist traitors here in Canada only shows how much confusion was thrown into the ranks of the Russians and of their varletry throughout the world by the stand taken in Paris by the western nations.
It is no doubt difficult to forgive Hitlerite Germany for all the misery she spread over the world from 1939 to 1945 and we will long harbour inevitable resentment on that score. But we must be realistic. It would be well to remember the words spoken by George Washington in his farewell message to con-

North Atlantic Treaty
gress in 1796. He spoke words which, to this day, remain topical, with regard to the foreign policy of his country:
Nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded . . . The nation which indulges toward another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave . . .
That is why I believe we must rejoice at the result of the London conference and the signature of the Paris agreements. On the eve of these historic conferences, the countries of the west were just emerging from a terrible impasse into which they had been thrown by the rejection of EDC by the French national assembly. It spelled disaster for the west, especially for American diplomacy in Europe.
Germany was again a vacuum in the very heart of Europe and we, who were preventing her from rearming, were in the obligation of defending her, in spite of herself, if she were attacked. The only alternative left was to abandon her to the Russians or to leave her in neutrality, which amounted to the same thing.
The unification of the peoples of western Europe appeared as a very distant possibility and the Soviets were already beginning to rejoice at our division. Those were indeed dark days for the governments of the free countries of the world.
Fortunately for the free world, France had at that moment the dynamic leader she had been awaiting for ten years, Mr. Mendes-France. He was able to regain the confidence of his country's allies, at a time when France was beginning to discredit herself. Thanks to him, she was able to assume her responsibilities.
England, which by keeping out of EDC would have made that pact non-viable, did not fail either to take her responsibilities. By undertaking to maintain forces in Europe for 44 years, England was able to take part in these negotiations, to direct them and to bring them to a successful conclusion. With England out of EDC, France would have been alone to bear all the odious part of the rearming of Germany. France would have been alone to face its secular enemy. The stand taken by England saved the day.
We must be practical and I think that the London and Paris conferences are happy dates in the lives of free peoples the world over.
The western European union gives back to Germany its full sovereignty and permits her to rearm, but we must not forget that that extension of the Brussels treaty of 1948 is a defensive pact and that there are in the new protocol some very sound guarantees against any intention which Germany might have of turning against its new allies.

Lastly, its admission into NATO, which, as I have said, is another defensive pact, guarantees to the countries on this side of the iron curtain an army of 500,000 men which we cannot do without. There again, NATO control of Germany's armed forces is an excellent guarantee of German intentions.
May I quote two statements that are expressive of the advantage this German rearmament may mean to the cause of peace and of the free nations.
This is what the assistant supreme commander of NATO forces, Marshal Montgomery, had to say after the Paris agreements:
The integration of German forces into the Atlantic forces will, once these troops are trained, constitute a solid rampart against an eventual menace of aggression by the Soviets.
The Paris agreements are decidedly more satisfactory than the former EDC, insofar as they leave much greater freedom of action to the allied military commander.
General Gruenther was equally categorical. He stated:
If an organization like this had reached the same efficiency in 1939, I am inclined to think that the second world war would not have taken place. We now have to perform the great task of putting the new agreements into effect. Above all we need the full support of public opinion. I am convinced we will get its support because the 400 million people protected by NATO realize that our essential aim is to prevent a new war and the destruction of our civilization.
The spirit of sincere co-operation and of trust which is so evident since the Paris conference inspires me to believe without reservation that in two or three years we will have solidly consolidated peace in Europe.
Such declarations, particularly that of General Gruenther, enable us to understand the military importance of these new agreements. I believe that every sincere Canadian will greet those agreements as a great step towards the establishment of a common purpose among our free countries in the face of the aggressive and destructive totalitarianism of the Soviet world.
There is only one way to live in peace with the Russians, and it is to show them unequivocally that their designs of world domination will never succeed.
I hope that all the members of this house will vote in favour of these agreements in order to indicate clearly that the people of Canada loathe communism, and rejoice at the evergrowing unity among the free peoples of the world.
I would like now to discuss another aspect of this question, and I must admit that there arises in my mind some doubt and apprehension.
We are called upon today to vote the admission of Western Germany into the Atlantic nations organization, of which Can-

ada is a member. I am convinced that it will be carried with the unanimous consent of the house, but I believe that this vote affords us an opportunity to review the situation, and to ask ourselves whether our government, in the international field, is not being carried away and compelling our country to play a part which is beyond its strength and means. I rather feel as if the government has an exaggerated tendency to play the part of a world power.
No doubt this country enjoys a fine reputation throughout the world. It does have very real importance in world affairs, but it must not be forgotten either that we only have 15 million people.
Canada too, whose people have a real craving for peace, must not, moreover, give the world the impression that it is a venturesome nation willing to take a hand in all wars, whenever and wherever they occur. The history of the last few years gives an opposite impression. We have unfortunately taken part in the last two world wars, and in the Korean war; we have troops within a few miles of the iron curtain; we have an armistice commission in Indo-China. In brief, we are everywhere in the world.
That is why I believe it to be important that, in this debate, the government explain clearly to us the new obligations involved in the Paris agreements and the part Canada will be called upon to play in the future by reason of these agreements.


Mr. Marlin:: Has not the Secretary of
State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) clearly explained this question and that asked just now by the hon. member?


Léon Balcer: He will never explain them enough. There still persist some doubts and I am going to voice them. I should then be very glad if it were possible to have still more explanations.


Mr. Habel:: Ask our leader.


Léon Balcer: The position of our forces in Germany was never too clearly defined, for at the end of the war, when the time came to occupy Germany, we were simply thrown out. But today we are back there, we maintain a brigade of 10,000 men a few miles from the iron curtain, and we maintain an air division in France.
But, as regards our troops in Germany, we were the only country which has had to pay its expenses. The United States, England and France had full divisions there but they were occupying powers and as such the care of their troops was borne by Germany.
North Atlantic Treaty
It is a good thing for Canada of course nbt to have a reputation for stinginess, for shirking her responsibilities, but why should our country do more than others and especially more than a nation of 15 million people can afford?
When the war in Korea broke out, our country's effort was far above that of most countries in the western world.
It may be that our friendship with the United States justified such an effort. But we can ask ourselves if, compared to all the countries of the western world, such an effort was really suited to our international status.
I sincerely believe that the government shows too much enthusiasm for international ventures and that it always wants to play a prominent part. It may be that it has very good reasons for doing so, but it could give us a lot more explanations than it has given us so far.
The other night, on a C.B.C. forum, one of the most distinguished members of the press gallery, speaking on that very subject, used a phrase which gives us, I think, a very good idea of the situation. He said;
Are we getting too big for our breeches?
That is why I say that if Canada, as a member country of NATO, had to be represented at the Paris agreements on October 23 by its Secretary of State for External Affairs, some may ask why the minister had to go to the London conference. Rumours were circulated in the press to the effect that he was not even invited and had to insist in order to be able to attend.
We have, no doubt, some interests to safeguard in Europe. But if the west European representatives were in London to discuss German rearmament, they were meeting as the delegates of EDC nations. Having signed the Brussels treaty, England was considerably interested in the matter, and the United States, as leader of the western nations in the cold war, also had to attend.
But Canada had no more business to be there than Greece, for instance, which is also a member of NATO. And yet, Greece, which had much greater reason to take part than Canada, was, during the last war, invaded from both sides at once, by Italy and Germany. That country was not represented there. It is still a victim of Hitler's Germany. Moreover, on one of its frontiers it touches the iron curtain. Still, it was of the opinion that the question could be decided without its intervention. The same thing applies to the other members of NATO who, as was the case for Canada, did not have to sign the western European union agreement.

North Atlantic Treaty
It may be that these great European countries, whose diplomatic traditions go back several centuries, could not make any decision without the advice and the knowledge of our minister. That may be but one may doubt it.


Mr. Lesage:: Have you not read the papers? If you had you would not doubt it.


Léon Balcer: It is possible to doubt. We have the right to ask ourselves whether we were then furthering the interests of our country or whether once more the government was not carried away by its megalomania.
Or whether our government, in order to gain an international prestige out of proportion with our means, does not run the risk of leading us into ventures likely to be detrimental to the economy of this country.
First of all, we must be realistic, and weigh carefully the means and needs of this country, before embarking upon too big ventures which might be very costly.
The colonial policy followed for the last ten years by England and France gives us a perfect example of that realistic view.
Realistic England, at the end of the war in 1945, granted complete independence to India and Pakistan. These peoples, following this action by England joined the commonwealth voluntarily, signed trade agreements and pledged themselves to safeguard British interests in those countries.
Great Britain had proved to be realistic and this realism had been to her advantage. But France, more sentimental, who likes repeating the sonorous phrase "France's mission in the world!", refused to act likewise in Indo-China so as not to lose any prestige. She was therefore forced to wage an impossible war in this colony, a war which deprived it of the best part of its young officer corps and shook the economy of France to its foundations for a period of eight years. Mendes-France's realism was necessary to end this conflict.
I feel that this little example should be considered by our government since, in foreign policy, especially, idealism must be replaced by realism. Here, as elsewhere, prudence is the mother of virtue. That is why I believe that the study of the Paris agreements provides our country with an opportunity of weighing its responsibilities with proper realism and of asking ourselves if our foreign policy is not such as to lead us into certain ventures beyond our strength, our obligations and our needs.

(Text):


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: I am not going to make a lengthy speech this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The reasons for supporting this resolution introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) were fully stated by our leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). We have given serious consideration to this problem, and in view of all the circumstances have come to the conclusion that we have no alternative.
Personally, I have come to that conclusion as a result of speaking with many of my constituents. I might say that I have had only five communications in respect to this matter; two of them from my constituency, one from Toronto, one from Vancouver and one from Ottawa. But in speaking to my constituents I have found that, without reservation, they believe there is no alternative to ratification of this agreement.
The reports coming out of the U.S.S.R. give us hope that Russian imperialism may have a difficult time in keeping its own people under subjugation. If time plays in our favour, then the decay and deterioration of the Russian dictatorship will be the largest single factor in establishing a lasting peace. Let us sincerely hope that time will be on our side.
Now, Mr. Speaker, many hon. members have expressed regret that parliament was not called to discuss this very important matter. At the conclusion of this debate, I should like the government to state clearly why the members of parliament were not called together to discuss this problem in order that they might make suggestions and give guidance in drawing up such an agreement. This would put an end to the speculation we have heard throughout the country. We have all heard speculation as to why we were not called together. Some say it was because of the by-elections; some say because of the Quebec tax situation; and others say it was because of the pressure of members of parliament. In conclusion, therefore, I request that the government state clearly and fully why parliament was not called and taken into the government's confidence.


Mr. G. D. Weaver (Churchill):: It is with a large measure of hesitation, Mr. Speaker, that I ask for the floor on this occasion. The subject matter under discussion is probably as important as any with which this house

will ever be called upon to deal. It relates not only to the security of Canada, which should have top priority at any time in our deliberations, but it relates also to the security of humanity itself. I am sure that since 1947 all of us have followed with deep concern the apparent unwillingness of the Soviet union to be satisfied with living her own life within her own borders in peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world. Slowly but surely we have reluctantly found it necessary to refashion our weapons and reconstitute our armed forces.
I can recall when Sir Winston Churchill came to this continent back in 1946 and made a very famous speech at Fulton, Missouri. I can recall the feelings occasioned by the Berlin airlift. I can recall listening to the radio when President Truman declared the state of emergency in 1947. I remember during the 1949 election, when I first came to this house, NATO was the word that was on everyone's lips. At that time our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would be the foundation of our foreign policy and our security. Later on I remember very well EDC and I am sure those words are recalled here very earnestly. All these events were steps leading slowly but surely to the erection of a defensive shield by the NATO nations of the western world. The erection of that shield was provoked only by the communist threat exemplified by Kremlin-directed action wherever on the globe defensive forces were not strong enough to discourage their forward movement.
Canada as a young country has been proud of the fact that the NATO shield was the outgrowth of an idea that had its birth in the mind of our own Prime Minister. And we are also proud of the fact that our own ministers, notably the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the former minister of finance and the former minister of national defence had a great share in building the NATO alliance, and played a prominent part in the development of that NATO idea.
I recall here in Ottawa less than a year ago the supreme commander of the NATO forces, General Gruenther, addressing most of us in the railway committee room. He pointed out a gap in the centre of that NATO shield which was to be filled by German divisions in EDC, and everyone at that time accepted that as a matter of course.
I think I should mention here that many well-meaning Canadians, many of whom served in the last two wars, have expressed concern over the rearming of Germany. We
North Atlantic Treaty
can only look at the over-all security picture, and make our decisions on the facts as we find them at any particular moment in time. We are not gifted with second sight, and we cannot look into the future.
The honest doubters could prove to be right. And in that connection I want to read one sentence-although taken out of context, it expresses very clearly the point I have in mind-spoken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). He said:
On the one hand we of the democratic world dare not be naive. It would be foolish and dishonest to pretend that those who are most sceptical may not be right.
That is taken out of context, and it does not apply to this particular subject. I do suggest however that the words are applicable.
On military matters we must accept the advice of the country's military advisers. That advice together with the advice of our allies in two world wars has brought us victory and made it possible for us to reach this point in time. This country has good military advisers. We have not the manpower available that is found in Asia. Our military advisers have said that from the point of view of manpower we require integrated in our western defence the divisions that can only be supplied by West Germany. They advise-and this has been done publicly in the newspapers; it is not new-that without a rearmed West Germany, together with our weapons, our shield is not sufficiently strong to defeat a thrust from the east. That advice was given before the latest hydrogen bomb development.
The risk in not rearming West Germany is too great, and not arming West Germany would not be keeping faith with those Canadians who have died in the first two wars.
Having in mind that picture, I remember last summer the feeling of dismay I experienced when I read in the newspapers about the rejection of EDC by France. And I remember with what feelings of suppressed alarm I, as a citizen, watched from a distance while our Secretary of State for External Affairs, Great Britain's Sir Anthony Eden, Mr. Mendes-France, Mr. Adenauer and Mr. Dulles resolved their different viewpoints and hurriedly but surely evolved the solution which was to fill that gap in our NATO shield that we are ratifying today.
The things being decided here today are fateful for humanity, and it would be unthinkable for Canada to refuse ratification when France, perhaps the one country that has suffered most in our memory from an aggressive Germany, after so much heart-searching finally found within herself the strength to

North Atlantic Treaty
rise above her fears and to agree to this important instrument. Let us hope their uncertainties are in the past.
However, this afternoon my purpose in speaking goes beyond this point. During the period of the events which I have outlined there has been a rapid change and growth in the power of atomic weapons, and I think there should be a clear distinction between atomic warfare and weapons and hydrogen or thermonuclear warfare and weapons.
I note in this agreement that hydrogen weapons are classed as atomic weapons, and rightly so, but the destructive power of hydrogen devices is so far beyond the power of what were first called atomic bombs that they should not be confused with one another. It is very important that the distinction be clearly understood.
The term "atomic weapons" should be confined to fission devices in which the nuclear power is produced by the splitting of the atom, as opposed to fusion devices, notably hydrogen or thermonuclear devices, whereby atomic power is released by a fusion of atoms brought about in the heat of the ordinary atomic bomb, which is used as a trigger. These devices are not limited as to size, as are conventional atomic weapons.
With this distinction, atomic weapons can and should be classed as conventional weapons because, terrible as they are, they are only larger concentrations of power of weapons already known and used. Thermonuclear weapons on the other hand are so far beyond this that they carry within themselves the possibility of the suicide of humanity- and I want to make that point with as much force as I ca .
To support this statement I would quote only a few Lines from a speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he spoke in New York last October on the question of disarmament. These are his words:
There are reasons to believe that progress under present circumstances may be less difficult than it has been hitherto. For one thing, I think it quite possible that men in the governments principally concerned on either side of the iron curtain are beginning to fear the awful power that scientists are putting at our disposal. Certainly I am not ashamed to admit I myself find the situation most disquieting. For the stakes are incomparably higher than they were even a few years ago. I think that only those associated with governments which have some direct experience of atomic processes and direct access to classified information of technicians working in this field can be aware how serious is the threat which contamination and other effects of nuclear explosions can pose to the very existence of organic life on this planet.
None of us should be ashamed, or too proud to admit that we are concerned. Humility before the awesome power which our scientists are placing in our hands is, I suggest, a becoming attitude for members of governments in any part of the world.

I want to make a very important point in connection with this protocol, in the light of what I have just read. If we show weakness anywhere, our only possible enemy has shown that he will take advantage of that weakness.
If we do not plug the hole in our NATO shield by ratifying this protocol and bringing into the western camp the necessary manpower represented by the West German divisions, we leave ourselves unprotected against the military advance of communism in the vital centre when considering only the field of manpower together with conventional atomic weapons. Communist manpower is many times greater than ours, and the only restraining factor would then be as now the hydrogen bomb which ought never to be used, but which we will surely have to use if we fail to meet our responsibilities. Man as an individual does not possess the right to take his own life. Humanity similarly should not have the right to take action that is tantamount to committing suicide. We are therefore morally obligated to do our utmost to maintain an adequate shield of conventional weapons-when I say "conventional weapons" I mean atomic weapons-integrated with available manpower against the threat of communist expansion. If we do not ratify this protocol, we are deliberately failing to meet our responsibilities not only to Canada but to humanity.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday said something that was very true. He said:
I believe that in this world today we are playing for time. We need it terribly. There are things that we can do if we are given the time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, as I have already suggested, referred to the tremendous forces being made available to us as science gets down to the power of the atom with its tremendous peacetime uses. If we had the time I think mankind could yet turn this world from one of recurring wars to one of permanent peace and human accord, with a high standard of living for mankind the world over.
I agree wholeheartedly that we must have time, but the only way we can get time is by plugging that hole.
I want to say just what having time means. It is not just something simple. We cannot say we must have a little time to do some more negotiating. I was fortunate a few years ago to work as an engineer in another country, on another continent, where those whom I was supervising, or many of them, were people whose skin was of another colour than mine. I had one lad who was a good smelter man, and I would match him with any of our Canadian boys. His name was Jampie. As in this country, when somebody does a good job and there is another job open that pays a little more money you are

anxious to promote him. Just such a situation came up and 1 said to Jampie, "There is a job open on a converter; would you like to have it?" He looked at me and said, "No, boss, I eat porridge; I don't eat bread." His pay was 4s. 3d. a day. The job he turned down paid 5s. a day. He had thought it over carefully. The extra 9d. would not give him the necessary bread to make up the extra physical work he would have to do on the other job. When he said "porridge" he meant cornmeal porridge; that was the basis of his food.
You can take all the grain surpluses you like. You can load them on ships. You can drop them in that country out of the goodness of your heart, as many tons of grain as you wish, but that act would not put the extra bread in Jampie's stomach. In this country we have been expanding our economy at the rate of between 3 and 4 per cent a year, and that is faster than human beings have ever done it before. In Jampie's country the rate is roughly the same. It would be unrealistic to expect to expand it faster, but that is the only way you can put the extra bread in Jampie's stomach and in the stomachs of other Jampies.
It is a problem that requires patience. The process of expanding the economies of these undeveloped countries is slow, and they must do it themselves in the long run. It will not be done overnight. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, their economies will truly and surely expand with our aid, and then the words of the hon. member will be fulfilled; but I should like to put it differently from the words he used in his paragraph. I would say I am confident that we shall have the time, and I am confident that we shall turn this world from one of recurring wars to one of permanent peace and human accord, with a high standard of living for mankind the world over.
I feel that my vote on this occasion will be only one among many that will contribute to that end. If we do ratify this protocol, if we continue to support the ministers in this house who have contributed largely to its present degree of success, then, in "keeping with the motto in the personal seal of Lord Ismay, secretary general of NATO, which was affixed to this protocol, we may "have no fear."


Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that had anyone in this house in 1945 suggested that by 1955 we should be doing what we are doing today that person would have been considered a very fit patient for a psychiatrist. Nevertheless the question before us is of great significance to every Canadian man, woman and child.
North Atlantic Treaty
In my opinion, nothing that has come before this house since the end of the war has been so important as is the question before us.
Notwithstanding the significance of the matter before us, Mr. Speaker, there is just no enthusiasm among the peoples of the world today for the ratification of this protocol, no enthusiasm except possibly on the part of those remaining members of the German military staff and on the part of those who believe that war with Russia is inevitable.
Could I believe that war with Russia is inevitable then I should certainly be supporting this protocol. War, like politics, makes very strange bedfellows, and certainly if it is inevitable that we are to get into a third world war with Russia, then it does not matter much whom we have for our allies so long as they have an abundance of thermonuclear weapons.
Although the protocol has been ratified by the assemblies of a number of the nations concerned, there has been little enthusiasm for this ratification in those assemblies. There was very little enthusiasm in the British House of Commons, where 51 per cent of the members representing both political parties refrained from voting. There was very little enthusiasm shown in the French assembly, which was induced to reverse its first vote by the threat that France would be isolated and that Germany would be rearmed with or without French aid. There appears to be very little enthusiasm in Germany itself, as is indicated by the report in this morning's press of the delay which is being caused there to the ratification of this protocol.
Certainly there is no enthusiasm across this country. A Gallup poll released by the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion on November 24, 1954, showed that 27 per cent of those who were interviewed thought that the rearming of Germany was a step toward peace, but that 43 per cent of those interviewed thought it was a step away from peace. It is true that one in four of those interviewed in that Gallup poll had no opinion on the subject; and it is true that 74 per cent of those Canadians who were interviewed had no conception of what was symbolized by the letters EDC. That, I suggest, is a reflection on the government, a reflection on the press of Canada, and to some measure a reflection on ourselves as members of parliament for failing to give to the Canadian people information on this subject which is one of vital importance to every Canadian. Certainly, 1 have found no evidence of any enthusiasm in my riding.
I have received, to date, well over one thousand personal appeals asking that I oppose this resolution. Those personal appeals

North Atlantic Treaty have come from individual trade unionists, from individual veterans and from other citizens. Some of these are people in my riding that I know to be communists, but I know the people in my riding well enough to know that hundreds of those protests came from people who are just as violently opposed to communism as any member of this House of Commons.
Why should there be any enthusiasm for this measure? Even the members of this chamber who have spoken in favour of it have shown their misgivings. Few of them have shown any great enthusiasm for the step we are taking here; the best they can do is to hope that they are right.
The objections and the misgivings of that small minority of us in this chamber who will vote against this resolution were very clearly set forth yesterday, in no uncertain terms, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and they were also expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) today.
Our objections were furthermore expressed by the C.C.F. leader yesterday, even though he could not in all conscience agree with us. They have been repeated by many other speakers in this house who are supporting the measure. I shall not take the time of the house to repeat some of our objections which have already been stated. As I have already indicated, I do not believe, I cannot believe in the inevitability of a third world war. I cling to the belief that such a catastrophe for the human race can be avoided, but I cannot believe that the step we are about to take can possibly achieve any purpose other than to make the avoidance of that catastrophe more difficult.
I am concerned with the possibility of the resurgence of German militarism, and I think it is only sensible to realize that by taking this step we are encouraging that resurgence. I just cannot for the life of me see how we can think otherwise. There can be no doubt that those who will control German rearmament will be members of the former German general staff. I do not think there is or can be a doubt in anyone's mind that many of those who were members of the former German general military staff during world war II will now be in charge of that rearmament.
It is only sensible to realize, as has been pointed out, that a rearmed Germany will in a short time become the predominant force among the western European nations. In this connection I should like to read one short paragraph from Lord Russell's new book, "The Scourge of the Swastika." He makes reference to the German general staff, some

of whom we must remember will be in charge of German rearming, and on page 4 he gives the verdict of the international tribunal in connection with the German general staff, as follows:
They have been responsible in large measure for the miseries and suffering that have fallen on millions of men, women, and children. They have been a disgrace to the honourable profession of arms. Without their military guidance the aggressive ambitions of Hitler and his fellow nazis would have been academic and sterile . . . they were a ruthless and military caste . . . Many of these men have made a mockery of the soldier's oath of obedience to military orders. When it suits their defence, they say they had to obey; when confronted with Hitler's brutal crimes which are shown to have been within their general knowledge, they say they disobeyed. The truth is that they actively participated in all these crimes, or sat silent and acquiescent, witnessing the commission of crimes on a scale larger and more shocking than the world has ever had the misfortune to know.
I believe, regardless of our opinion on the necessity of ratifying this protocol, that we must face the fact that a rearmed Germany will again come under the direction of those same military leaders.
If a third world war is inevitable, then the resurgence of German militarism does not much matter. It will make very little difference to any of us what general staff is in the ascendancy under those circumstances. What I am more concerned with than the resurgence of German militarism is the effect this ratification will have upon the process of negotiation with our enemy.
Three years ago we were told how vitally important EDC was. For three years we were taught that the western allies could not survive without the ratification of EDC. But for three years, without the ratification of EDC, we made what is admitted on all sides to be more progress in negotiating with our enemy than at any time since the end of world war II. Why then the haste? Why the hurry? For that period of time we have made real progress on reaching agreement through diplomacy and negotiation without having recourse to arms. Must we now take this step which, if it does anything, will in my opinion make negotiation extremely difficult?


Mr. Martin:: Will the hon. member permit a question? In what field or where has this progress been made with those whom my hon. friend refers to as the enemy?


Joseph William Noseworthy: I doubt if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has made a single speech in this house within the past year without emphasizing the fact that we have been making progress in the field of negotiation, and no one has been

louder in claiming that we must not close any door to the possibility of reaching agreement through negotiation and diplomacy.
We negotiated on Korea. We have made some progress in negotiations regarding Indochina. We have, thanks to the good work of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), made some progress toward convening another conference on disarmament; and, if we accept press reports, we are now on the point of negotiating a cease-fire on Formosa.
We have been making progress, Mr. Speaker, and to my mind the most important question concerning the ratification of this protocol is the effect it will have on the negotiations in future. Will it hamper or improve our chances of settling disagreements with Russia through negotiation? If I could be as certain as is the Secretary of State for External Affairs that it will open the way to easier negotiation, then I would have no hesitation in voting in favour of ratification. But for the life of me I cannot see how this is going to make it easier for our negotiators to reach agreement on the many international problems confronting us at the present time.
Most of all, I am concerned with the effect the ratification of this protocol will have upon the outcome of that conference which has been initiated through the good work of our delegation at the United Nations under the leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
All Canada was proud of our achievement at the United Nations. All Canadians rejoiced that our own delegates and one of our own ministers was able to do what the United Nations has been trying to do for many years, namely, get unanimous agreement on the possibility of another meeting on disarmament.
We have the communists with us, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to have to live with them. If we are to avoid a third world war we must, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us yesterday, find some way of reaching an agreement on an effective disarmament program. Just so long as east and west continue to pile up armaments of every known nature, just so much greater becomes the danger of someone somewhere sparking a third world war. Unless we want a third world war we must find some way of reaching an agreement on an effective disarmament program.
As I have already indicated, it appeared that we were making some progress. I am most concerned with what effect this will have on our meeting with Russia in a disarmament conference after and not before we have rearmed Germany.
50433-27i
North Atlantic Treaty
One effect of this protocol is certain. Both east and west will acquire more arms. Both east and west will strengthen their military forces. One result is sure, whatever else may be in doubt. We will be adding to our forces in the west, and we have no reason in the world to suspect that Russia on the other hand will not offset any military balance which may be created by the rearming of Germany by further rearming of the forces of the Soviet and her satellites.
There is another question. At the end of world war II I participated in a conference of the Canadian teachers' federation. As educators we were then concerned with the fact that there was in Germany a whole generation of German youth who had absorbed the philosophy of nazism. I well recall the concern of the Canadian teachers' federation and the world federation of teachers over what steps should be taken to try to eradicate from the minds of that generation of German youth some of the things they had learned under Hitler, and how we could possibly educate in Germany a generation of youth who would have some conception of the ideals and philosophy of democracy.
There have been a great many democratic leaders in Germany since then whose chief concern has been to train a generation of German youth with some conception of the ideals of democracy; to get them away, to enable them to forget the lessons they had learned under Hitler. Under this protocol we rearm Germany and we shall place these very youth, with whom democratic leaders have been struggling for the past eight or ten years, under the military leadership of at least some of the men who led the German forces in world war II. That, I think, is a matter which we should consider seriously.
The government, with the support of the majority in the house, will obviously ratify the protocol. I can only hope that history will show I am wrong and those who support the protocol are right. But I must be guided personally by my own conscience, and I can follow no other course than to take issue with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for whom I have the very highest regard, take issue with my own leader, for whom I also have the very highest regard, vote against the measure, and leave my constituents to be the judge of my actions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything in this debate. I did not feel that I had any particular competence in the matter now before the house. However, I think the speech made by the

North Atlantic Treaty
hon. member who has just taken his seat does justify a modest intervention on my part.
I should like to say first of all, as he has just said, that whatever the differences each of us may have in our various points of view we all respect the points of view of other hon. members on a matter of such great importance, and certainly nothing I shall say is to be taken as a reflection on what the hon. member has said, on what any of his colleagues have said or may say, or in any way a reflection on any other member of the house.
But I do think the hon. member is in error when he suggests that there is no enthusiasm in this country for this particular proposition. I am sure the word "enthusiasm" in this context should be defined. No one, for example, has any enthusiasm for the payment of income taxes, but our people recognize that if we are going to discharge the responsibilities of government at the present time taxes have to be paid, and in that sense there is "enthusiasm" on the part of the Canadian people for this particular obligation. Surely there is enthusiasm on the part of the people of Canada for the maintenance of peace and freedom in the world. Surely those of us who believe that peace and freedom can best be maintained at this time through this particular proposal will find it possible to justify the stand we are taking on this momentous question.
I have said that, within the context of my understanding of the word "enthusiasm", I believe there is a strong conviction, soberly arrived at, if you will, on the part of the people of the country that, having in mind the realities, there is no alternative for those of us who want to preserve what the west stands for other than to take every legitimate opportunity to align ourselves now with that potentially mighty nation that has always played such an important part in the history of Europe and of the world.
There is one group in our country, of course, that does not like this particular resolution, and I am not suggesting in any way that the hon. member or any other hon. member of the house is directly, willingly or unwillingly a party to the points of view of this group. I have noted in the Canadian Tribune that on December 10 the national committee of the labour progressive party met in Toronto at which time, according to this paper, the leader of the labour progressive party, Mr. Tim Buck, issued a call to all L.P.P. members for country-wide action against ratification of the London and Paris

agreements. I learned, furthermore, that a detailed directive was later issued by that party setting out with considerable care the manner in which the campaign against ratification was to be organized. I am sure that all of us in the house have already felt the effects of this particular way of impressing us with the extent to which there is no enthusiasm in the country for the decision that most of us in the house think has to be taken with regard to this matter. I have had placed in my hands through a responsible source a copy of the particular directive to which I have just made reference, and here it is:
Every section of the party should be activized in this campaign. All possible initiative should be developed in neighbourhood activities. Members of parliament should be visited by deputations in their constituencies.
The idea should be raised of a great national delegation to Ottawa at the opening of parliament, if necessary.
That petitions of a local character be taken up by individuals. We should have small, and preferably handwritten petitions organized in such organizations as the Y's, trade unions, shops, and neighbourhoods. Every comrade can write out a short petition and take it to his or her neighbours, getting 10, 15 or 20 signatures and then forward it to their M.P.
No single petition is being issued at this time in order to avoid the difficulty generally encountered of people refusing to sign a petition because it might associate them with the left.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if there is no enthusiasm on the part of the people of Canada, it could be because this directive has already been acted upon. But we are not unfamiliar with this technique, and none of us in this house is going to be in any way influenced except, as the hon. member who has just spoken has said, by the dictates of his or her own conscience.
I feel that the majority of the people in this country, in the exercise of what their conscience suggests and having in mind the great stakes involved as well as the challenge of the ideology which since the end of the first war has faced the free world, will recognize that, great as are the difficulties and so-called risks involved, it is our duty at this time to let the people of Germany know that the integrity of that nation and the preservation of the freedom of the world rests with the west and not with the east.
It seems to me that is the positive feeling which I, for one, would want the people of that nation to realize at this time. We want them to feel that, notwithstanding the justification of the judgment of history against the atrocities of another regime in that country, we would hope that in this interdependent

world we could march with them in the future toward the building up of a fabric of peace and not of human destruction, to which admittedly they have made their contribution in the past.
A moment ago the hon. member referred to the work of the Canadian delegation at the recent general assembly of the United Nations. What we should do, he said, is to work for disarmament. We should seek to channel the resources of the world, now being deployed into the building up of machines of war for destructive purposes, into channels for constructive purposes for the good of mankind. The hon. member said that should be the purpose of this government's policy and should be the attitude of this parliament and of this nation.
I am sure that upon reflection he would admit that that is the purpose behind the policy of this government, that that is the purpose behind the policy of the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom. I feel it is necessary that we should declare here and now, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did when he spoke in New Delhi, that we do not for one moment subscribe to the view that either our own policies or the policies of our great neighbour have any other purpose than to bring about peace among the nations of the world.
I went to the meeting of the United Nations to assist my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who realized that certain matters would take him to Europe on at least two occasions during the course of the autumn. During the first week of the ninth assembly of the United Nations I was able to confer with him on the purposes that should guide our point of view in respect of the various questions that were to be discussed at the United Nations. Naturally as a member of the government I knew of the difficulties that besieged the North Atlantic community in Europe, and the part that Canada would be expected to take at those important conferences in London and Paris.
My colleague left the United Nations before a speech was made by the permanent delegate of the Soviet union, the late Andrei Vishinsky, on September 30. This was one of the most important speeches made by the late Mr. Vishinsky at the United Nations, for it announced the abandonment of the traditional attitude taken by the Soviet union on disarmament. In effect he said that from now on they would no longer insist first upon an agreement to ban the use of atomic weapons as a condition precedent to disarmament in
North Atlantic Treaty
conventional weapons. That represented a very important declaration. I at once communicated with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and pointed out to him the nature of this declaration by Mr. Vishinsky. He replied that we should immediately take every advantage of this situation, even to the point of taking the initiative to see if we could not take some forward step on this question at the United Nations.
Those who criticize the proposal now before us as one that is contrary to the peaceful purposes to which this country is dedicated ought, therefore, to bear in mind that while my colleague was taking a particular step in London and later in Paris, it was as a result of his instructions, and I might say his inspiration, that we decided to take the initiative at the United Nations to see whether or not the time had arrived when we could count upon the support of the Soviet union to take solid steps toward a program of disarmament.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Will the minister permit a question? Would the minister agree that the steps we are asked to take now are the logical and inevitable result of our voting for NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think there can be any doubt about that. Now, because of the remarks made by the hon. member who took his seat a few minutes ago, I want to recall certain steps that we have taken. To make this particular question more understandable to hon. members, I may remind them that two years ago the United Nations set up a disarmament commission. It surely is the function and responsibility of the United Nations to do what it can to ease the burden of armaments.
Last June my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs had taken steps along with M. Jules Moch of France, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd of the United Kingdom and Mr. Patterson of the United States, in discussions in London, to see whether or not it would be possible to give new life to the cause of disarmament through renewed meetings of the subcommittee of the disarmament commission that had been set up for that purpose. Out of those discussions in June came a notable document known as the Anglo-French memorandum, which provided a formula for disarmament. This formula was subscribed to by the United Kingdom, France, Canada and the United States, but was opposed by the Soviet union, represented at that time by Mr. Jacob Malik.
The speech made by Mr. Vishinsky on September 30, therefore, came as a most heartening bit of news to the world, and

North Atlantic Treaty
particularly to those who had followed these discussions. They argued that even at this seemingly most illogical time we might bring about an easing of the burden of armaments. So we decided in Canada-that is, our Canadian delegation-to put forth a resolution urging the reconvening of the subcommittee that had met in London in order that the discussions that had ended there so abruptly, because of the attitude of the Soviet union, might be resumed. And in view of the speech made by Mr. Vishinsky we thought we were perfectly justified in putting forward this proposal.
As an earnest of our intention we took the unusual step of circulating to the United Kingdom, to France, to the United States and also to the Soviet union an advance copy of the resolution we proposed to introduce the next day, together with a letter addressed to the permanent delegate of each of these countries. I was given the assurance at once by the three countries of the west that we could count fully on their sponsorship of the resolution we intended formally to lay on the table the next day, and Mr. Vishinsky himself called me to say he greatly appreciated this act of courtesy, that his country was anxious to give consideration to the implications of our resolution, and that while he could not say more at that moment, certainly he would look on the matter with the greatest interest and sympathy.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the minister allow a question? I believe it is a very important one. Was this statement by Mr. Vishinsky, and also the speech, made after or before the London-Paris agreements were decided upon?


Murdo William Martin: It was concurrent. The London agreements had not been completed. The London conference was actually in session when his speech was made.
The following day we presented our resolution, which was a procedural one. I do not wish to read into it anything more than it contained, but it seems to me that disarmament has the quality of procedure in it, and that perhaps on that account I should neither underestimate the value of our proposal nor should I overestimate its significance. But at once the countries of the west gave their support and their agreement to sponsor the resolution. We were eager that there should be sponsorship of it by the Soviet union.
After the conclusion of the first session of our meetings, and after we had tabled our resolution, we had a meeting with the three other sponsors of our proposal. At that time it had ceased to be a resolution standing in the name of Canada but became one carrying
IMr. Martin.]
the sponsorship of the United States, Great Britain and France. Canada took the position that we should seek sponsorship of this resolution by the Soviet union as well, and I may say that the representatives of the other three countries readily concurred. The question then arose as to what contact should be made with the Soviet union to see what modifications were necessary in order to bring about unanimous sponsorship. Canada was designated by her three colleague countries as the liaison between the four nations and the spokesman for the Soviet union, Mr. Vishinsky.
At this point I want to pay tribute to the personnel in the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Pearson:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I refer to the three gentlemen who accompanied me in my conversations with Mr. Vishinsky. I can say that whatever credit there may be for what was done should go, in large measure, to them for their advice and their help, as well as their great industry.
But the fact is that after a series of meetings we were able to arrive at an understand-ing_the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France on the one hand, with the Soviet union on the other. I think I may say my impression is that we were able to arrive at an understanding with the Soviet union because by this time the masters of the Kremlin had come to the conclusion that they were negotiating with an area of the world that had become strong.
I am sure the Soviet union respects strength. I am sure we are now in a better position to carry out the proposals for the peaceful use of atomic energy because of our armed strength. I am not saying we will succeed in the matter of disarmament, but certainly we are in a better position to move ahead because of the contribution the western nations have made since 1947 in the building up of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
And so in any consideration of this matter of disarmament, and the part we played at the United Nations, it would be quite wrong for anyone to contrast what we sought to do there with what my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was able to accomplish in London and Paris. In passing I may say that his speech yesterday certainly did not reveal the very considerable part which he personally played in the successful outcome of the meetings in London and elsewhere during the past few months.
It would be wrong to say that because we were trying to bring about disarmament we were acting in a way that was contrary to what was being done in London, and later in

Paris. The fact is that I really do hope the steps taken by us last fall at the United Nations will mature into successful results. At the last meeting in which he took part at the United Nations Mr. Vishinsky, who acted as chairman of the disarmament committee of the United Nations, formally set in motion the operations of the subcommittee. When the meeting was over-and this was only a few days before his death-I happened to pass him and I said, "I really hope we mean business, all of us, this time."
I do not know whether all of us mean business or not; but I can say this-and I say it to the hon. member for York South- that we did our best at the United Nations to promote disarmament, just as in London my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs did his best, along with others from the west, to bring about guarantees for increased unity among the western powers.
We did nothing that could be construed as an abandonment of the main safeguards which the western powers consider essential for effective control. We made it clear in our discussion that we wanted to argue from a position of strength. If the world before the advent of Hitler had been strong enough, not to resist by aggressive action but by way of defensive measures, it is conceivable that the mad dream of Hitler's war would never have taken place. There was no change in this policy because of our efforts towards disarmament, nor was there any change in the resolution of all of us which would have the effect of weakening the unity of the west. Certainly the United States, Great Britain, France and Canada, who took the leading part in these discussions at the United Nations, did not in any way by that step indicate, or intend to indicate, that we were prepared to abandon the defensive strength that had been built up during the years since the end of the war.
Our policy in Canada, and I am sure the policy of our co-sponsoring western nations, has always been to consider the issue and the time. The Canadian government has always believed that our objective in building up strength for our survival is to attain a position from which successful serious negotiations can begin. As the Prime Minister has said, everything we have done in NATO, at the United Nations or elsewhere has been in an effort to prevent another war.
Now in asking this house to support this resolution we recognize the implications; we recognize the force of the irritations that are recorded in the pages of contemporary history; but at the same time we cannot blind ourselves to the fact that in Germany
North Atlantic Treaty
there is a powerful group of people potentially capable of doing good as well as of doing evil. Whether or not we bring Germany into the North Atlantic community the day will come when that nation will again enjoy its sovereign position, a circumstance which may come about perhaps by action on its own part or by bilateral arrangements made with the strongest power in the west. Therefore what we are now doing is not only to guarantee our own strength vis-a-vis a potential aggressor. At the same time we are giving evidence to the people of Germany itself of our desire to share a peaceful life and a peaceful world with them.
The Canadian government has pursued a seemingly illogical course at London and at Paris, but on examination a course that I am sure commends itself to this house and to the people of this country. By our acts at the United Nations we have demonstrated, along with our colleague nations, that we have no warlike intentions, that we would like to see the resources of our country and of the western world employed for more constructive purposes than the building of instruments for human destruction.
I said on two occasions at the United Nations, once during the disarmament debate and once on Mr. Lodge's proposal for the peaceful uses of atomic energy, that as Minister of National Health and Welfare in Canada I could be expected to have a special appreciation of the moves we were making. I share with every hon. member the hope that the day will come when we will be able to transfer to more humanitarian ends the great resources our people have put at our disposal for the purpose of building up defensive alliances against aggression; that we will be able to use these resources to improve the health and welfare of the people of this country and make additional contributions in these fields to the other peoples of the world. I look forward to that day, and so do the people of Canada. But if that day is not at hand it is not the fault of this nation, it is not the fault of the nations of the west; it is because the policy of the Soviet union, pursued over these years, stands in the way and jeopardizes all that we treasure most. I believe the resolution moved yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is constructive, is directed toward strengthening our position and thereby making us more respected and a stronger figure at the bargaining table. In a practical way this may do more than anything else to create in our world at this time an era of security, freedom and peace.

North Atlantic Treaty


Joseph William Noseworthy: May I ask the minister a question? Does the minister agree that the unanimous agreement to his resolution at the United Nations indicates that there is a lessening of tension between east and west.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I can only give my own personal view of the situation. Obviously there is a greater absence of conflict at the present time, but my opinion on a matter of this sort is not of any great value. What I have sought to say is this. If there is an easing of tension-and I personally believe there is-it is because the western world had made itself stronger than it was before.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with a subject that is of critical importance in international affairs. There has been no discussion since the war of greater interest to the Canadian people than this one which deals with Germany. The attention focused on this subject by parliament has been impressive. It is under circumstances such as these that parliament fulfils its great function as a forum in which direction and guidance may be given to the Canadian people. It serves to give opportunity to those who wish to present differing points of view. Here is the place where all the facts may be disclosed, all the evidence examined, and false propaganda exposed and discredited.
It is my intention to support the resolution, for reasons which I shall presently state. If I do not show the great enthusiasm that some seem to think hon. members who support the resolution should show, and have expressed surprise in that regard, on the other hand I doubt whether I shall present very many reservations.
At this stage I should like to commend the minister on his statement yesterday. I think it was well done, though incomplete in some respects. Having commended him, and others have quite properly complimented him-to set the proper balance I should now proceed to offer a little criticism, not in any partisan spirit, for the subject is above party considerations, but because I have been dissatisfied for the last 20 years with the conduct of our external affairs.
My dissatisfaction goes back to the period before the second world war when we faced a crisis in international affairs just as momentous as the present period of uneasy peace. In those years I looked to the government of the day for information and direction, and was sadly disappointed. I have had no reason to change my opinion since that time. The official Canadian attitude to foreign affairs has all too frequently been characterized by
TMr. Martin.]
unwillingness to disclose any information until pressed to do so; to ask for parliamentary approval long after agreements and protocols have been signed; to encourage a so-called bipartisan attitude without prior consultation with the opposition, and to avoid discussion at home and commitments abroad wherever possible.
I remember the late Mr. Gordon Gray don drew attention a few years ago to the small amount of time given by parliament to the discussion of external affairs. Some slight improvement has occurred of late, but more is desirable. Competent as the minister is in his special field, he nevertheless has fallen into error on this occasion due, in my opinion, to long years of conditioning in the bad practices I have mentioned. I shall not blame him for the failure to summon parliament in the fall; that responsibility lies elsewhere. But I do place the blame on him, as did the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), and on his department for failure to appreciate the necessity of preparing the Canadian people for this measure which is of such historic importance. He has been outmanoeuvred and outwitted by the communists. We are now gathering the fruits of this method of conducting our external affairs.
During the past six weeks members of parliament have been deluged with letters, telegrams and other communications, chiefly but not entirely from communist-inspired groups across this country. The communists have had the best opportunity in years to mislead the Canadian people. Skilful communist propaganda has succeeded in creating in the public mind the opinion that the only issue at stake is the rearming of Germany. Taken completely out of its context and background the rearming of Germany would alarm almost anyone, but considered in relation to the whole sphere of international affairs it is a very small part indeed.
In the four months which have elapsed since the London conference, in the almost three months that have gone by since the signing of this protocol by Canada's representative, no effective information from a government source has gone out to the people of Canada. No official statements or documents were placed in the hands of members of parliament. Even now with parliament assembled the supporting documents have been tabled with diffidence; they have been reproduced in Hansard or in Votes and Proceedings only upon request, and are incomplete. Consider the resolution now before us. It states:
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.

In the British House of Commons the motion dealing with the same subject was expressed as follows, and I quote:
That this house approves the policy of Her Majesty's government towards western Europe as expressed in the agreement reached in London on 3rd October 1954 and in Paris on 23rd October, 1954.
I think the motion before us should have included some reference to those conferences. Technically, of course, it is correct. The admittance of Germany to NATO requires the approval of our parliament. Canada is not a member of the western European union, as is Britain. Nevertheless the admittance of Germany to NATO is merely the final step in a whole series, and would not have been considered without the other arrangements between Germany and western European nations. Furthermore, Canada was represented at the London conference and played a full part in the deliberations. Obviously, I think, parliament should have been asked to approve or disapprove of the government's policy as expressed in the agreement reached at London. All we are asked to do is to approve of Germany's admittance to NATO. I give this as an example of the method used for many years past to play down or gloss over matters that concern Canada's international relations.
Then just consider the documents that have been tabled. Instead of putting in our hands a white paper, which would have included the proceedings of the London conference and Paris conference, instead of giving us all that information, what happens? The minister tables what is actually a special supplement to a NATO letter which is undated. This gives practically all the information as to the Paris conference, but omits one very important matter which I shall mention in a moment. Several days later on request a reprint was tabled from the magazine External Affairs purporting to be a report of the final act of the London conference.
On request the protocol was printed in Hansard. Again on request the proceedings of the Paris conference were printed in Votes and Proceedings. The proceedings of the London conference remain simply as a sessional paper. I think following the British custom that documents of such importance, particularly in relation to a matter of this nature, should have been incorporated in a white paper and given to members of parliament as early in the session as possible. I do not understand the operations of the Department of External Affairs in tabling documents of that nature when the other method is available.
Then I say that they are not complete. One of the first questions I wanted answered
North Atlantic Treaty
when I came down here was the actual contribution required of Germany by NATO. What are the figures? People who interviewed me talked about the contribution in rather large figures. I did not know. I did not have the actual authentic information. Nowhere in the documents tabled by the minister is that information to be found. The minister disclosed it yesterday in the course of his speech. In the British white paper dealing with the Paris conference I find a subnote mentioning twelve German divisions, 1,350 aircraft, and naval vessels.
Similarly with regard to the London conference, the documents tabled in this house are not complete because they omit the text of the three statements made by the representative of the United States, the representative of Great Britain and our own minister of external affairs. I think those three statements should have been included in the documents tabled in the House of Commons here.
Having said that, I think the minister can now relax. I trust that he will profit by my suggestions for the improvement of the administration of his department. I would not have taken the time of the house to mention these matters had it not been for the great historic importance of this step that we are considering. We should have all the information that is available to us as members of parliament upon whom rests the responsibility of making decisions, in order that we may answer effectively those who write to us or send us telegrams or come to see us.
I just want to say a word with regard to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said last night. He was later supported by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), so perhaps the other point of view from that city may be presented. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expressed the fear that with Germany making a military contribution to NATO and being given the right to rearm, very soon Germany would dominate the councils of NATO. I cannot follow my hon. friend in that reasoning when there are actually 14 nations involved, and when the dominating powers are surely the United States and the United Kingdom.
Then my hon. friend mentioned the necessity of removing the causes of war. I quite agree with the hon. member that the problem of removing the causes of war is of profound importance. That is a problem that has engaged my attention ever since the end of the last world war, and I have given it more attention than anything else. But the hon. member suggested that poverty was one of the prime causes of war. I shall give his

North Atlantic Treaty exact words, so we may be quite clear about them, as reported at page 397 of Hansard for January 20:
Given the time I think we can remove some of the causes of the world's ills. We can change the picture so that instead of two-thirds of the world's people going to bed hungry tonight, as they do every night of their lives, there might be some sharing of the food and good things that we can produce.
I agree with the hon. member that everywhere in this world want should be removed. But I cannot agree that want is a major cause of war, as he implied in his statement. That expression is rather widely used, and people frequently say that if poverty were removed the danger of world war would be lessened. I do not know to what extent it would be lessened, though I agree with the necessity for removing poverty throughout the world.
However, I doubt if any evidence can be produced that any of the great wars of history occurred because people were short of food. It will be a long time before I am convinced that we are in any danger of a third world war because of any action that might be taken by a half-starved peasant in the wilds of Siberia, or a starving population somewhere else in the world. The decision with regard to a third world war or a war on a world scale rests with a few singularly well fed men in the Kremlin.
To digress for a moment, I believe the causes of war should be examined by this house on some occasion. We had a debate two years ago when we touched on that subject, but it should be further examined in order that we may be better informed. I take one of the prime causes of war to be anarchy, that lack of control among the nations of the world which leads to unrest. Each nation is sovereign in its own right and makes its own decision with regard to declaring war on its neighbour.
If we deal with that possibility I believe one of the prime causes of war will be removed. In this regard I believe it is in NATO that the most effective step has been taken to that end. The nations grouped in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have come closer together than at any time in the history of the world, and gone farther toward solving that problem. They have become so closely integrated that there is not the slightest possibility of any one of those nations declaring war or committing an act of aggression against another member of that group. The hope of the world is that some such system as that can become more widespread. It is in that connection that I look at the problem of Germany. I have not concentrated my attention on the rearmament of Germany. For me


that has been a secondary consideration. It is the problem of bringing Germany into the council of the western nations that impresses me most as it does others who have looked at this picture very closely.
It is a really astonishing step forward to realize that a former enemy-and a bitter enemy at that-is now going to unite with us and sit down at the same council table. When has Germany ever sat down peacefully with the representatives of the western nations with the intention of co-operating with them to maintain peace and security? Not in our lifetime, except perhaps during the short interval of the Weimar republic. Not for 80 years have we had the opportunity of getting close to Germany. Not in fact, since the time of Bismarck. Yet I cannot help but recall that earlier in our history the Germans were well thought of and even admired by some. We have only to recall the battle of Waterloo, when Wellington saw with pleasure and delight the arrival of German troops under Blucher.
I have no reason to like the German people as a result of the experiences I have gone through. I have nothing but scorn for Prussian officers, nazis, and arrogant German militarists. But I do not believe for one moment that all the people of Germany can be put into that category. I believe it is a bit difficult for us to blame anyone in Germany under the age of 30 for any of the atrocities committed during the war.
We have suffered severely at the hands of Germans. Indeed, is there a family in Canada that has not suffered? Nevertheless, has not every family in Germany also suffered? Once you engage in war it is difficult to draw the line between the opposing sides. I make no excuse for the frightful atrocities committed by the nazis in their concentration camps and other places of torture. I make no excuse for the atrocities committed on the battlefield. But in all fairness we must recognize that the German nation too has suffered. That nation has learned a bitter lesson in two world wars.
We have said of France that she would have been a great and powerful nation in our time had she not been bled white during the first world war. We have time and again lamented the loss of the flower of British manhood in the first great war. Is it not therefore likely that Germany for the next 50 years will be lamenting the loss of the flower of German manhood in the second world war? I believe there are perhaps as many widows and orphans in Germany as in any other country in the world.
The suffering therefore has not been solely on one side. We might say that they brought

it upon themselves. But we know that under our own democratic system of government decisions are made to which everyone cannot agree, and we have to go along with those decisions. Decisions were made by German nazi leaders which inflicted serious loss and injury on the entire German people.
For those reasons I am not quite certain there will be the resurgence of German militarism which bothers some people. There may be a reaction against German militarism for a long time to come. But even if there is a resurgence of German militarism I believe the present controls are effective. I do not propose covering those controls again, for they have already been dealt with, and I agree with statements made in this regard by the hon. members for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Well, that is the situation. If we examine history we see that over long periods of years there have been antagonisms between nations, 300 years of it between Britain and France, a very long period between Canada and the United States. It is practically within living memory that the antagonism and fear of Canada of the United States has been dissipated. We are aware of the antagonism between France and Germany ever since 1870. But what is the situation now? Surely this is one of the greatest forward steps in the history of the world. France and Germany, bitter, mortal enemies in so far as we have known their history in recent times, have now agreed to come together. It is something we could not have expected or foreseen.
That is not all. The United States of America, on whom we pinned our hopes during that difficult period in the 1920's and 1930's when the league of nations was formed and then had trouble, has altered its age-old policy with respect to international commitments. One of the reasons I suggested to the minister that Mr. Dulles' speech at the London conference should have been printed in our records was this sentence that caught my attention. He said:
The North Atlantic treaty was an engagement which was quite unprecedented for the United States-it was quite unprecedented for the United States to make that kind of long-range alliance with other countries. That was directly contrary to our earlier policies which had been pursued for over 100 years.
Yet we are living in an age when the United States has changed that policy, is taking an active part in international affairs, is stationing her forces overseas, and has been carrying on shoulder to shoulder with us ever since she entered world war II.
50433-28J
North Atlantic Treaty
Then consider, as the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) characterized it the other day, that courageous step by Great Britain. We know from the history of Great Britain that her policy was to have no commitments on the continent of Europe in the way of stationing troops there in any permanent sense; yet look at what has happened now. I think this was the great and decisive action of the London conference, the offer by Sir Anthony Eden that British troops would remain on the continent and would not be withdrawn unless under the most difficult and unexpected circumstances. Sir Anthony Eden, in the course of his statement at that conference, said this:
My colleagues will realize that what X have announced-
He was referring to the announcement that British troops would remain in Europe.
-is for us a very formidable step to take. You will know that ours is above all an island story. We are still an island people in thought and tradition, whatever the modern facts of weapons and strategy may compel. And it has been not without considerable reflection that the government which X represent here has decided that this statement could be made to you this afternoon.
That is leadership of a high order. I had hoped that Canada might have made as forthright a statement with regard to her forces in Europe as is implied in the commitment of Great Britain and the statement by Mr. Dulles. My hope is that nevertheless we shall remain solidly with Great Britain and the United States in this great commitment overseas. That, to me, has overshadowed this so-called rearming of Germany. Here we have the leading democratic nations in the world linked more closely together than ever before in their history, changing their centuries-old methods of dealing with foreign countries, the United States reversing a policy maintained for over 100 years, Great Britain reversing a policy maintained during all of her history in modern times, and both united with us and other countries in that great organization, NATO.
To bring Germany into that organization under these conditions, to forget some of the injuries of the past, to attempt to hold out the hand of friendship to Germany and to expect in return the hand of friendship from Germany-surely that is a great forward step in international relations. That is why I said at the beginning that I propose to support the motion now before us, and I support it with minor reservations. I was going to say without any reservations whatsoever, but they are extraordinarily minor because, as I see the picture, it is one of the most important steps that have been taken in the history of the world since the formation of NATO.

North Atlantic Treaty
I recall those words of Sir Winston Churchill contained in his history of the second world war. You remember them: In war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity; in peace, good will.
This is a period when we can show magnanimity to Germany and greet her in the company of the NATO nations with good will.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Welaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, like most other speakers who have taken part in the debate I want to deal mainly with the military aspects of these agreements, and especially with the problem of rearming Germany; because that seems to be the part of the agreements that has caused the most worry and upset among many people throughout the country.
Since it was indicated that it was intended to bring this matter before the house I have received dozens of letters and cards not only from people in my own riding but from all over Canada protesting against the acceptance of these agreements. Granted that many of them came from communists and fellow travellers, nevertheless a good many of them, probably the majority, came from people who are good, honest, sincere citizens and who are motivated only by the deepest concern as to what the result may be.
I share that concern. I am greatly concerned about what may happen with respect to the rearming of Germany. My memory is not so short but what I can look back to the five years I spent fighting these same Germans. I have not forgotten the good friends whom I lost during that war. Nor have I forgotten the cries of men who were wounded, hurt, dying or drowning. I have not forgotten the sound of the whistle of German bullets nor the whistle of their bombs. I can still remember vividly the white wake of their torpedoes and the dull boom as they struck merchant ships. More than that, I can remember the hours I spent digging in the rubble, with my hands bleeding, trying to get civilian survivors out of the bomb ruins in London. I can remember an overturned lifeboat floating on the water, riddled with machine gun bullets. These things are not easy to forget. When we recall that we have gone through this ordeal twice in one lifetime, it makes it doubly hard to forget.
I am not too sure how far Germany can be trusted. I am not too sure how far her leaders can be trusted. But let us remember this, that not too many years ago practically every nation which is a signatory to the Paris agreement was an aggressor nation. This is true of Great Britain and France and all of them. Gradually these nations have

developed beyond this idea of using aggression to become a world power. Gradually they have become more and more willing to co-operate with the other nations of the world. I am hoping events will prove that Germany has reached that point and will co-operate fully with the western nations.
As I said, I am not too sure how far we can trust Germany. However, we know we cannot trust the communists. For years their leaders have been telling us that their ultimate aim is world domination and nothing less will suffice. They have even explained the ways and means by which they are going to attain this end, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) put on the record yesterday. Let us not forget, too, that Germany is split in half. One half of Germany is already armed and ready to take part in any move against the western nations. If we cannot trust West Germany, then we cannot trust East Germany any further; and we already have East Germany on the wrong side of the fence, fully armed and ready to go. They are being pushed by the communist forces stationed there.
We have the safeguards laid down in the agreements. I do not know whether they are adequate. After reading the protocols and listening to the minister yesterday, I have been relieved of a good many of the fears I had prior to that time. One thing that strikes me is the guarantee given by West Germany that she will not use arms for the unification of Germany or any other expansion of her borders.
Yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked about the manufacture of arms outside of Germany. They brought to the attention of the minister the aircraft plant that is being established in Spain by a German arms company. I believe that is fairly well covered because protocol IV, article 7, deals with the setting up of an agency to investigate the importation of arms and the amount of arms stored within West Germany. I cannot see how it would be possible, therefore, for any nation to rearm, maintain arms, or import arms without that fact coming to the attention of this agency.
It should be noted also that article 10 of protocol IV gives the necessary control so far as atomic armaments are concerned. I shall not read the protocol because it is too long, and I notice it is getting close to six o'clock.

The letters I have received have opposed the rearmament of Germany because it was felt it might interfere with the ultimate reunion of free Germany. I do not think that would be so, because Russia is not going to agree to any union until that suits her purposes. Russia is not going to allow free elections for some time at least because she knows it would not be possible to win a majority. The Russians know they could not win in West Germany, because the elections held there have already proven decisively that the people of West Germany have no intention of embracing communism. When you recall that West Germany contains the larger population of the two sections, it becomes even more doubtful that the Russians would agree to free elections in the near future.
In addition they know they cannot possibly win a free election in East Germany, in spite of the brainwashing and educational programs they have introduced. East Germany, for one thing, is mainly Catholic and the Catholics are noted for being one of the strongest groups opposed to communism. What guarantee have we that free elections will ever be held in Germany when the Russians will not allow their own people within the Soviet union to have free elections? How can they be expected to hold free elections in any protectorate, as a result of which they might lose power in that section of the country?
This afternoon I was glad to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) give some idea of the cooperation extended by the Soviet union in the debates of the United Nations this year. My experience in the United Nations a year ago showed me how unwilling the Russians were to co-operate at that time with the western nations in working out some sort of formula for the reduction of arms and for peace.
Many of those who oppose these agreements do so because they feel that we are going to turn the communists against us. They seem to feel that by backing down we are going to gain favour, that because the strength of the Soviet union is continually growing we should become weaker. They probably feel that if we get weak and puny the communists will take pity on us, as we might take pity on a puppy.
Let us not fool ourselves. They have no pity in their make-up. The stronger they become and the weaker we become, the less chance we have of ever achieving peace on this earth, except on their terms. It is also said that because there is danger of a third
North Atlantic Treaty
world war which could entail the end of civilization, we should grovel at the feet of the communist aggressor and submit to slavery without doing anything to protect ourselves.
I do not think an arms race is the only solution. I agree with some hon. members who have said we should make a continued effort towards peaceful negotiations. I agree also with those who said that we should be sending more clothing, food and so on to the have-not peoples of the earth, because if we had shown to those underdeveloped people a few years ago any of that Christian charity we boast about, they would not be embracing communism today. And had we shown a bit of respect, a bit of charity toward the Chinese people in the thirties, we would not have had men facing them in Korea during the last few years, and standing by to protect themselves from the Chinese at the present time. But we made those mistakes, and at least partially because of that we have to keep the arms race going at full pace today.
Like some other hon. members who have spoken I agree that these agreements and the rearming of Germany can put us in a much stronger bargaining position, because strength and force represent the only language the communists understand. And if we can add 1,350 fighter planes, 500,000 men, and other armament to our forces it will greatly enhance our bargaining position.
We realize that there is a definite risk, but we must also remember that the continued occupation of West Germany could do nothing more than antagonize the people and drive them directly into the hands of the communists. No one likes to walk down a street in a town and see members of the armed forces of strange nations patrolling those streets and sharing the livelihood of that nation. They do not like it. People like to feel that they are free. It is much better for us to give them an opportunity to show their good will toward us and to show that they are willing to co-operate with us than to antagonize them to the point where we know very well we cannot hope for any peace with them.
I cannot see that we have any choice other than that of rearming Germany. Because, believe me, if it ever came to a hot war between us and the communists I would rather have the German fighting strength as an ally than as an enemy. I might as well be frank enough to say that my decision to support this motion was to some degree influenced by the fact that there is going to be no real widening of Canadian commitments. But it does make it possible for the

North Atlantic Treaty
Germans to help protect themselves, if the Russian hordes ever should pour across the border. Let us remember, too, that even if Germany does remain unarmed, Canada is committed to protect West Germany against invasion. Even if this entailed further commitments I would still feel justified in supporting the motion.
I think every Canadian having full knowledge of the facts would give support; because what we need now, in the light of all the facts, is plenty of determination, and to show that we are willing to back up that determination with acts of courage. I think, too, that any of those who think there is no war at the present time could not do better than read the article written by David Lawrence in the U.S. News and World Report of January 21. I am not going to read it, but I commend it to all members who think we are living in a period of peace. It deals with the border clashes in Indo-China, the bombing raids on nationalist China, the invasion of some of the nationalist islands along the Chinese coast, and so on. This article makes it perfectly clear that, in spite of the communist peace propaganda, there is an act of aggression taking place somewhere in the world every day. We have to arm ourselves against that, no matter how much we dislike doing so.
I support the motion, not because I want war; I do not. I hate it; but I hate slavery more.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Elmore Philpoil (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, before I start on the main part of my speech I want to refer for a moment to one remark of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) in a speech which I thought was otherwise an able one, when he expressed opposition to the proposal now before the house on the ground that the Canadian people were not very enthusiastic about it. As I heard him say that I could not help but remember the story of an American advertising man who was sent up to Canada to do a big job, to put on a big advertising campaign. After he had been up here for about a year he gave up the job in disgust because, he said, he never could get the Canadian people to think in terms of "greatest in the world" or "biggest in the world". He said the utmost in enthusiasm that he could ever get out of the Canadian people was "not too bad". I believe

the Canadian people will say of this proposal that is before us tonight, "not too bad".
If you will forgive a personal word, Mr. Speaker, apart altogether from the substance of what is before us in this motion, I want to say how proud I am to give my support to my oldest personal friend in the house, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sorry that my second oldest friend in the house, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), is not here also because, while I do not always see completely eye to eye with him, I do greatly regret that he is not here to make his personal contribution to this discussion on what seems to me to be the most important decision likely to come before this parliament of Canada for a good many years.
We have heard a good many arguments pro and con, and it must be very obvious to anyone who knows the facts that there is a great deal of concern in the minds of the Canadian people as to what is the right course of action of this Canadian nation and this Canadian parliament, which is the servant of the Canadian nation. I frankly confess that in the past few months I have given the question my own deepest personal thought, and partly to clarify my own thinking on it I went back to London just a few weeks ago. I got to London on the 1st day of September, and the first sight that greeted my eyes in that great city was great billboards put up by the Conservative baron, Lord Beaverbrook, blazing out to all the city "Don't rearm Germany".
Because I myself was going to NATO headquarters to discuss some of the military facts and political problems connected with NATO I decided that to clarify my own thinking I would do what I had never been able to do since 1918, namely revisit some of the old battlefields of the first world war. I had the privilege of going from London to Paris and being driven to the old battlefields of Flanders, Vimy Ridge and the Somme. And, Mr. Speaker, by one of those unbelievable coincidences that sometimes happen to us, I spent the night in Arras at the foot of Vimy Ridge in an ancient hotel which somehow or other looked familiar to me. When I checked up next morning I found it was the very casualty clearing station to which I had been carried on September 2, 1918, with a blue cross on my forehead which they tell me means that you are not supposed to get better. But here I am, how many years later-I am not good at arithmetic, but anyway quite a few years later-still carrying around in my carcass, shall we say, some of the bits of good German steel that landed there on September 2, 1918. The Secretary

of State for External Affairs complains about his voice trouble. People sometimes complain that my voice is too harsh, but if they do I say "Oh, well, the reason is that my tongue is literally edged with bits of German steel which have been there for 37 years."
When you approach at night from the rear that beautiful monument which is a great credit to this Canadian nation, with a full harvest moon highlighting those two pylons reaching to the sky, I do not know what you think but I know what I thought. I thought it was like the arms of a bereaved woman reaching up to heaven in prayer as if to say "How long, O Lord, how long!" Then in the daylight you see that immense battlefield. You see on the foot of that monument the names of 11,000 Canadians whose bodies were never found, 11,000 of the 60,000 Canadians who paid the price in the first world war. Then when you look around you see equally great numbers of names of British troops, of French troops and French colonials. Above all, Mr. Speaker, when you go down to that immense cemetery where the bodies of the slain Germans are buried two to one under painted wooden crosses and check up the figures you find that 44,037 German servicemen are buried there. You look at the two stone monuments erected by German regiments between the two world wars, and when you walk up close to one of those monuments you see marks of bullets on it from German machine guns of the second world war.
Then, Mr. Speaker, no one needs to tell you we are dealing with a very serious problem indeed when we are dealing with German rearmament. But when you drive away from Vimy Ridge on those wonderful national highways built I think by Napoleon-but for all I know perhaps originally built by the Romans and rebuilt by Napoleon-and find that young boys who are working on those roads, when they see the Canada sign on your car, wave at you and say, "Canada bonne, Canada bonne", it gives you a nice warm feeling. It does stir you a bit, and you realize that probably they are the sons or grandsons of the Frenchmen of the generation you knew.
Then, Mr. Speaker, you drive a little further en route to Paris and through the city of Bapaume. In the main square which so many of us knew during the battle of the Somme in the first world war you see that very striking statue of a recumbent figure. When you get up to read the inscription under that recumbent figure, you see that it memorializes the mayor of the city of Bapaume who was shot during the second world war for not having called off the resistance of the
North Atlantic Treaty
civilians to the German occupation. Then when your guide, a former Liberal member of this very parliament who is good on history, tells you that the Germans also shot the mayor of Bapaume in the first world war, no one needs to tell you, even if they did before, that this German problem is a very real problem indeed.
I want tonight, Mr. Speaker, in the clearest terms of which I am capable, to try to demolish one of the greatest of the fallacies which are sometimes bandied about. I frankly confess that I am appalled when people write me such things as "Never again trust the Germans" and "No guns for the Huns". I say that I am appalled when people talk as if all Germans by race, by blood, by ancestry, were incurably evil. I do not know what this house thinks, but the more I think of it the more I believe that particular theory is just Hitlerism in reverse. It is just the most vicious form of racialism, just as it was vile and foul for Hitler to convince the German people that they were the master race, that they were superior creatures and that all the rest of the world were lesser species. I think it is just as vicious to take the view now that all Germans are incurably bad and that the German people should never be able to live their own lives again.
But there is an even more immediate reason, I think, why that doctrine should be rejected by this house. Where would we be in regard to our own beloved royal family if we adopted the theory that all Germans were incurably evil? What about the Mount-battens? Where would we be in regard to our very great friend President Eisenhower of the United States or General Gruenther, the great military head of our NATO coalition? Or if we want to come closer to home, where would we be in regard to some, including one from my own province, very fine generals in the Canadian army in both world wars? And where would we be with regard to the very fine people of Waterloo county or the people of German origin who have served us faithfully in this parliament and in all previous parliaments since and before federation?
The problem with which we deal is not the problem of evil Germans as a people. We are dealing with Germany as a great national power which perhaps has been something of a problem because she came too late on to the stage of history. She came later on the stage of power politics and history than some other nations, but I submit that the theory that Germany is an essentially evil warmongering power is a theory which hardly stands up in history.

North Atlantic Treaty
I hold in my hand an original copy of the London Times which reported the battle of Waterloo in the year 1815. As a truthful newspaperman I am bound to say that in these four pages of the London Times published in 1815 there is much more news than in our newspapers of today running to perhaps 96 pages.
I see in the main item, which by the way did not make the front page because that page was all taken up with advertisements, that the Duke of Wellington was reporting on the battle of Waterloo, and it states that he pinned the whole battle of Waterloo on the attack of the Prussians. The whole purport of his dispatch was that if it had not been for the Prussians as well as the British, Napoleon never would have been overthrown and the history of our times would have been very different indeed.
When I hear people say that the Germans are incurably evil, that there is no hope for the Germans and that a German should never be trusted with anything stronger than a cap pistol or a water pistol, I wonder if that stands up in the perspective of history. I have in my hand an extract from a book written by Professor Quincy Wright of the University of Chicago. This is a massive two-volume study of war from 1480 to 1941, roughly between the time of the discovery of America and the second world war.
On looking at the score card I find Germany pretty nearly at the end of the list for the number of wars fought. To be precise, I find that Germany is fourth from the end in the list of all the powers. I will give you, Mr. Speaker, or any member in this house one guess as to the names of the two nations that head this list of the number of wars fought, because 99 per cent of the members in this house are descendants of either one or the other. The first is Great Britain with 78 wars and the second is France, which is very close behind with 71 wars. Germany is a mere piker, small-time stuff in the light of history and the matter of fighting wars.
The man who wrote this book is a very modest American. He seems to take great delight out of the fact that in 150 years the United States of America was engaged in only 13 wars; but then he puts down one of those little stars, those things they call an asterisk, and he has a note indicating that this does not include 110 expeditions against the Indians.
I think the real problem with which our generation has to deal, and with which this house is called upon to deal now, is that of the terms on which Germany is to regain her freedom of action in the family of
[Mr. Phllpott.l
nations. I have never, even in the worst and most bigoted days of the war, been among those who thought we could keep Germany down permanently by force. We tried to keep her down by force before, and we got Hitler. We can never keep Germany down perpetually by force. Those people who talk about keeping Germany disarmed forever are simply stating in another way that they think Germany should be deprived of selfgovernment forever.
I have made quite a study of the statements of the social democratic party in Germany, for which party I have great respect, and I have never seen any statement by that party which did not indicate very plainly that once they regained their unity, once they regained their self-government, they themselves would decide in their own interests to what level they should rearm. It seems to me that what we are called upon here to decide is upon what terms Germany is going to be given the right of self-government, and on what terms Germany is going to be given the right to rearm to a limited extent.
I confess frankly that had history taken another course; had the war come to an end; had we got first a Germany united and peaceful and willing to conduct itself, shall we say, as a greater Switzerland; had we got a united and peaceful Europe, including everything west of Russia, willing to conduct itself as a still greater Switzerland, then in my opinion everything would have been happier for all concerned. But we cannot make the waters of history run uphill. We are in our present position, and it is not an imaginary position indeed.
I referred at the outset of my speech to the fact that I had the great privilege of going to NATO headquarters. I happened to be there when Sir Anthony Eden was doing his great peace-making job, picking up the pieces of what had been wrecked through the destruction of EDC, in my opinion in a great, historic, adventurous and faithful way -faithful in the very sense of the word, full of faith. We faced tragedy at that moment. But I saw Sir Anthony Eden sitting on a bench with Premier Mendes-France. I didn't know what they were discussing, because I saw them only from a distance; but I think at that moment history was being made.
Then on the front page of every newspaper in Paris that afternoon I saw the picture of John Foster Dulles and Chancellor Adenauer studiously posed at a meeting in Germany. I do not think the French people are very slow on the uptake. I think every French person knew perfectly well what was the choice for the entire western

community at that moment. It was "Either let us get together; let us weld western unity; let us stand together; let us make the best arrangement we can, or else." As certainly as we are here today we would have been faced with a straight two-way alliance between the United States and Germany. Had that happened, then in my opinion we soon would have been faced with the proposal General de Gaulle was brooding about; that is, a counter-alliance between France and the Soviet union, and we thee, would have been further on the road to a third world war than we are today.
I sometimes wonder who will go down in history as the greatest peacemaker this country has every produced. It may be our present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). History will speak very highly of him, and of all of us who are members of parliament and members of the government at the time of making this decision. If this decision turns out well, history will say we were wise people indeed. But if this great decision turns out badly history will say we were ill-advised indeed. Unfortunately none of us has the faculty of being able to peer with uncanny accuracy into the future. At any time we can only do our best with the light the good Lord has given us.
From our own North American history I draw a great lesson. If you go to the town of Deseronto in the county of Hastings and look in the main square you will not find any monument to the greatest person ever born in that town; but for many years I have made a hobby of the study of North American Indian history, and I believe that a man who was born in the town of Deseronto was the greatest and most practical peacemaking statesman this world has yet produced.
If you dig through the dusty tomes in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, or read the annals stored in the archives at Albany, New York, you will find the history of this great Indian peacemaker, whose name was Deganawida, and who spent 12 years of his life in welding together the original five-nation Indian confederacy. Those were the five hostile tribes who for hundreds of years had been just as bloody and warlike as the great powers of our own century.
When at last his great statesmanlike effort was crowned with victory and representatives of the original five nations, who had been bitter enemies, were gathered together in a building, they sat down together for six whole days before anyone said anything. I sometimes think the United Nations would have got on a lot better if we had waited a little longer before we began to talk in the
North Atlantic Treaty
hostile and belligerent terms so often used in the past 10 years.
The original five-nation Indian confederacy was eventually broadened to include a sixth Indian group, and this six-nation Indian confederacy kept the peace absolutely by banishing the anarchy and lawless relationship that had existed between these former enemies for hundreds of years.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, believe that what was done by the six-nation Indian confederacy in North America hundreds of years ago is not beyond the possibility of achievement in our time. If we have anything in our Canadian history of which we can be justifiably proud-and sometimes I think we should not be too proud of it because neither part of our nation sought this destiny-it is that people from two great countries in Europe which for hundreds of years had been the bitterest of enemies and at one time fought a series of wars lasting a hundred years, now live together in perfect amity. Our greatest achievement is that we have enabled people of two races, two cultures, and two languages to live side by side in this great country and work together as partners to make a united Canada which is highly regarded by every nation on this earth.
I am not one of those who believe there is anything peculiar about the French and English, or that there is anything unique about their respective qualities. But I believe that the process which worked to enable the people of French and English origin to live together could possibly work also to include all the nations of the western alliance who have been allies in former wars. I believe also that that very process and that same approach will yet bring us great friends and great assets in the German people.
If you will forgive me for a personal reference, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall that one of my brothers went off to the United States after the first world war. He heard that members of one branch of the family came from Ireland, and another branch instead of coming to Canada went down into Kentucky. But much to his chagrin, when he went down to look up our relatives he found they had been the worst feuding, fighting lawbreakers in the entire state of Kentucky, up to a certain point. When he delved into their short history he found that some wise person at the proper stage of historical development had found a way of making these lawless, feuding, fighting people fit into the law-abiding picture. His formula was very simple. He just made them policemen.

North Atlantic Treaty
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, there is anything in the nature of the German people or anything in the nature of Germany as a country which makes it inevitable that Germany will again cause trouble. In saying that I am not unaware of the risks everyone has pointed to in regard to this arrangement. One risk I see very clearly is that at some future time the rearming of Germany might bring about again what Ludendorff did with Lenin in 1917, or what Hitler did with Stalin in 1939. But I think there are risks in any course of action or inaction open to us.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that when human beings are faced with a decision which depends on whether they take an outlook which is full of faith or full of doubt, when their decision depends on whether or not they are going to rely on the good will of another aggregation of human beings or are going to take for granted that this other aggregation will act for the worst, on the basis of ill will, we can never take a better guide as to what our decision should be than words of the illustrious Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when he said in almost the last speech he ever made:
Let me tell you that for the solution of these problems you have a safe guide, an unfailing light, if you remember that faith is better than doubt and love is better than hate.
It is in that spirit that I for one am proud to stand here tonight and say that with my eyes wide open, having a firm conviction of faith in the good will of Germany, having faith in the progressive organization of humanity towards a basis of international and world law, I shall cast my vote in support of the agreements which are before us tonight.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the tone of the debate thus far. it has been conducted with a seriousness which I think is worthy of the occasion. I note that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) has been able to follow on this occasion the entertaining and humorous vein he usually pursues. At least the debate has been serious enough that no attacks have been made upon those who have presented views contrary to those expressed by other speakers, and I propose to adopt the same course. I shall not even try to refute contrary arguments. I shall, at the risk of repetition, perhaps, say some things which have already been said. I shall advance conclusions to which I had come before the matter was mooted at all in this place and which I had previously jotted down to clarify my own thinking. These points I do not think I shall even embellish or elaborate.
The private member of parliament is at a disadvantage when discussing foreign affairs. He has, particularly if he belongs to a smaller


party in the house, no research facilities, and has had no opportunity to make contacts with the leaders of opinion in other countries throughout the world. He has to rely very largely for the formation of his own opinions on what he reads of the opinions of others; and what he reads may, as we have discovered, be mixed with a good deal of propaganda of one kind or another.
But after all a private member of parliament does have some feelings. He has, I hope, at least a modicum of common sense, and he does represent in a way the collective good sense of those who sent him to this place. Many people think, and this is proven by the letters we have received and the interviews we have had with people either at home in our own constituencies or since we have come here, that the opinion of a member of parliament like myself or the opinion of an opposition group such as we constitute here, can have some effect upon the ultimate decision as to the ratification of these agreements, including the rearming of Germany. On that point, as I have perhaps vainly tried to explain to them, they are quite wrong.
I think the people of the country should know that Canada was committed to the ratification of these agreements months ago. We are here discussing foreign policy after- and I emphasize the word "after"-rather than before the event. More and more the foreign policy of Canada is decided by the Department of External Affairs and, I think it is fair to say, less and less by parliament as time goes on. That department in its dealings with the diplomats of other countries shows complete assurance that anything it chooses to do, even months ahead, will later be endorsed by the government majority in the house; and that is so on this present occasion.
The protocol will be ratified. Rearmament of Germany will be ratified. I speak with assurance, particularly in view of the ratification by the French national assembly under pressures which I shall not discuss here. All we can do here is subscribe to a fait accompli or refuse to subscribe to it; and for myself, I refuse so to subscribe. With full consciousness of the ultimate futility of my action, a futility which I think I have explained, certainly to my own satisfaction, so far as its effect is concerned, I shall vote against this proposal. Under the circumstances I realize the futility of making a long speech about it, and I am not going to do so.

In the consideration of this matter one could be swayed by his emotions if he allowed his emotions to get the better of his reason. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that all of us, even the wise men, are swayed by emotions whether or not we know it. So far as emotion is concerned, one could quote the words of the great statesmen of the period of the last war and the justified vituperation that was directed against our nazi enemies. I have a recollection of Mr. Churchill hissing into the radio-those nazis. "Never again" was the slogan. May I remind you, sir, that never is a long, long time; and as to the "again" it is here with us. Today we have come to "again".
Another emotion that might be aroused in us springs out of the communist opposition in this country to German rearmament. I said that in my opinion the debate up to the present had been carried on in a serious and dignified manner, but I should like to make one exception. I refer to the rather snide remark-I do not like the word but I cannot think of a better one at the moment-of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who suggested that there might have been some softening of our opinion or the opinion of the country in this regard on account of certain propaganda from the handful of communists in Canada. It is true that the minister immediately withdrew that inference in so far as members of parliament were concerned. I have heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) do that sort of thing before. I believe, however, that inferences, accusations or slander once indulged in can never be completely withdrawn. I am sorry to have to interject that note, but I think the method which has become so familiar to the members of this house was fairly evident in the debate this afternoon.
Speaking for myself I might say my natural reaction to the opposition which has been expressed by a handful of communists in this country, if it tended to drive me in any direction, would persuade me to support ratification if I were not otherwise so inclined. But I am not going to allow a handful of communists in this country, or a mob of people in this country, to form my opinion for me. I do not admire the intelligence of people who would fall into that particular type of trap. The communists, as I have discovered, are difficult people with whom to live. Every time I have sought re-election they have opposed me. As I say, I am not going to fall into the trap of being swayed by the opinion of anyone else. I must stand on my own.
North Atlantic Treaty
Translating this idea of living with them, or to use a phrase that has now become rather trite, coexistence with communists, I may say it now has a wider meaning. We shall probably find it rather difficult to live with the communist nations; that is my own reaction. Distasteful as it may be to live with them, however, I think we would find it even more distasteful to die with them. This may be strong language, but in my opinion that will be the ultimate result if war, in its full force, breaks out amongst us. But enough of emotion.
I have said that we must be ruled by reason. I am opposed to the ratification of this protocol, which includes the rearmament of Germany, for the following among many other reasons which I could but shall not elaborate. I want my statement to be clear so that he who runs may read, and so there may be no doubt as to what my opinions are.
I believe that the rearmament of Germany now will be an irrevocable step in dividing that country, and will create an impassable barrier to the unification of that country. I believe it would be considered a warlike step, rather than as some of my friends on the other side have suggested, a peaceful gesture. I believe it is as a warlike gesture that it will be considered by what one might call the neutralist countries and particularly those in Asia, those countries that are watching us closely for the implementation of our oft-professed desire for peace.
I believe, in common with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that time is an important element. It is important in one way he did not mention. If it is granted to us, time will provide the opportunity for a new generation of German youth, unarmed over a period of years and living under peaceful conditions, to arise. This generation would be less military-minded than the generation preceding it. If we begin now once more to put German youth into military uniforms we will interrupt the impact of a period of peace upon the youth of Germany.
I believe further that the rearmament of Germany would be the ultimate step in completing the division of the eastern and western worlds into opposing camps. I believe that the rearmament of Germany to the extent of 12 divisions would be futile, because such action would only be reciprocated by the creation of an equal, double or triple if you like, force on the other side. The other side would have the advantage of manpower, and we should be merely accelerating the pace of the military armament race. In any event I do not believe

North Atlantic Treaty
12 German divisions, even if it may be assumed that they would be used on the side of the west-a point in regard to which some speakers in this house today have been uncertain-would make any essential difference in a total war. Military leaders such as Viscount Montgomery, General Gruenther, and a United States admiral whose name I can never recall, have expressed the view that there is no doubt in their minds that should war break out, thermonuclear and atomic weapons would be used. I ask you whether you believe 12 divisions will shift the balance in favour of the western world.
I believe that the creation of further divisions-this is something we should listen to and think about-proves that we are still clinging to the fantastic and obsolete idea that differences between the peoples of the world can in fact be settled through force of arms, and that one side can emerge victorious. I do not believe that war is inevitable. Somehow I have that faith. It is backed, I believe, by reasons which I could state if I desired to take the time. I do not believe that any of the people in this world want war. I do believe that all the peoples of the world want peace. The rearming of further legions looks to me like a peculiar way of expressing that desire for peace.
I am not sufficiently optimistic to believe that if you did grant Germany permission to create 12 new divisions, the creation of those 12 divisions would lessen the difficulty of control. Rather it would increase it. If conditions do not change, Germany is going to arm herself. Let us make no mistake about that. She will rearm, and that rearmament will be limited only by her own desires. But we need not thrust arms upon her.
I am aware that the nations of the western world have ratified these agreements. I am aware, too, that some parliaments, some under severe pressure, some by small majorities, and some by devious means, have ratified them. History has proved that on occasions the majority has been wrong, even an enthusiastic majority, as my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare has this afternoon-and quite wrongly, in my opinion -described the majority of nations supporting this protocol. But history has proved, as I said, that the majority may be wrong.
This government has set its mind upon ratification. Even this government, at times, has been wrong, and I believe it is wrong now. I must assume my own responsibility, and when doing so I do not speak for this group or for any other members of this group,
	*
but speak only for myself. And I speak as I believe. I must speak and I must vote as I believe, and I must oppose ratification.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I never thought it would become necessary to rise in this House of Commons in a debate of this kind, but I have been greatly surprised to hear some hon. members opposite take part in the campaign in which we, in this parliament, have been asked to vote against the rearmament of Germany.
It is in the light of the grim facts that we are forced to do so. But has Russia helped the world since 1945 to make us change our minds? I have been surprised in this House of Commons, in this parliament where freedom is our goal, to hear some hon. members speak against something which is a necessity in the life of this country as well as in the lives of those countries which, with us, are devoted to liberty and freedom.
Yesterday I listened to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I was greatly pleased with the manner in which he placed before the house the fact that today against our own will, we are confronted with the necessity of rearming Germany because Russia and her satellites are ranged against us. I read the minister's speech of January 1 in which he said that we have to do this, and that our people should not forget that the rearmament of Germany comes within the framework of a world organization in which the North Atlantic nations are united.
So Germany will be rearmed, and within what scope? We have developed the treaty of the North Atlantic nations, and under the procedure now being taken, Germany will be incorporated within a group of nations organized not for the purpose of waging war but rather that of waging peace. And this is something which Russia and her satellites have not done since 1945.
What about Poland? Is it not a fact that Poland was always an enemy of Russia? Yet Russia took Poland and we see that today Poland, without the consent of her own people, is obliged to suffer the reorganization of that country by Russia, with the Polish people having no right to say one word in the matter.
When we seek to rearm Germany we are criticized by some of our friends on the other side of the house. When we seek to rearm Germany to bring peace to the world we are criticized by some people, the same people who are satisfied when Russia rearms Poland, a country which over the centuries has been Russia's enemy. If hon. members opposite could give me any explanation of the stand they take, perhaps I would be prepared to

discuss the matter with them. But the fact today is that while Poland is rearmed by Russia, the people of Poland have had nothing to say about it.
Because of events since 1945 we have reached the point where we are forced to rearm Germany. This does not give us any pleasure, but we must keep in mind that as individuals we do not run the world. The world as it is today is the result of history, and history records that at times we have had to fight while at other times we have been able to get together. But we have to get together by peaceful means, by agreement and understanding. That is not what Russia has done since 1945. We are doing our best to build a world in which peace will govern the actions of each individual. I say it is a bad thing for Canada when, within this country, such campaigns as I have indicated have been promoted.
It may be that this is done in good faith. I will not question the good faith of those who are behind it. But these are the people who come to us and say, "Do not do anything. Be gentle. Be nice. Let it go. You know, Russia and communism do not carry with them any harm against any country or any people."
This is a bad position to take, because those citizens who undertake the campaign do not serve our faith in democracy, they do not carry out our faith in idealism, or our faith in freedom and liberty.
When I see some of my friends on the other side, who are always promoting the freedom of human beings on earth, working against themselves when they do not agree with us on the rearmament of Germany-because the rearmament of Germany is one solution which will create peace in the world-I am amazed. If we can get more countries to come on our side we can be sure that one day we shall convince those people who do not think as we do that there is only one way to build a peaceful world. That is: to give freedom to all men, women and children in every country in the world; to assure them freedom and liberty which will make them strong enough to change the form of their government, if the government is trying to subdue them under a form of dictatorship which is not good for any human being.
We are asked today not to rearm Germany, but to bring Germany within the nations which, since the implementation of the charter of the United Nations, are working very hard to bring about peace in this world. Can we get peace anywhere in the world if we are not sold on the idea that peace comes from our hearts and our minds? Do you think it
North Atlantic Treaty
is possible to create peace in any country in the world if you disturb the minds and the hearts of the people by trying to induce them to campaign against their own country, against peace and against a way to create peace? No, it is impossible; and no political ideas in this world will bring about peace if we do not get together in good faith and sincerity to promote peace in the world.
Peace is something formidable. Peace is something very difficult to understand. Peace is a relation between the life of any individual, anywhere, and his own country. Peace is something we carry in our hearts and our minds. I cannot understand why today some people in this country and in other countries are carrying on a campaign against peace for the benefit of the U.S.S.R. I have no criticism of their leaders; they might be acting in good faith.
What are the facts since 1945? We sacrificed our sons and ourselves, we sacrificed this country for the freedom of the world, and we were helping Russia in every way possible. Who would have thought at that time that after the victory was won we would be antagonizing ourselves over things which mean the destruction of the people's minds, because communism does not mean anything but the destruction of the people's minds.
They are building up in Russia today a mentality which does not appeal to the people but which is a form of obedience to their leaders and to the government which has no connection with the hearts and the activities of the people of that country. We want to keep our freedom to think, our freedom to pray to God, in which we have faith. We want to keep our liberty to do what we think is good for the country, and this is a resolution which might assure us that we are going to protect the free world against the forces of communism, the forces of Russia. We must remember this.
I do not care very much about what people might think. Liberty to think is the important thing. Of course we might use it for ends which are for the good of the country, or we might use our freedom for an end which has no relation to our own good. Canada is a country where we are free to think what we believe is the best for our country, what is best for humanity and what is best for the good behaviour of the people.
What have we received today from those who have spoken against this resolution which was so well presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? What have we? Nothing; just words, an expression of

North Atlantic Treaty
views, which might bring to the speakers a few votes or some sympathy. We have to be realistic. What is the world situation today? Russia has some bases in Prussia. She does not care about the sovereignty of Bulgaria and Roumania. Russia does not have any care for the sovereignty of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or even Austria today. It is a dragon with long arms trying to conquer the western world, and this fact does not seem to appeal to our friends who are talking against the rearmament of Germany. Look at what Russia is doing in Asia. It might have been possible for Russia to stop the Korean war, which cost the United States, Canada and the other free nations a great deal of money. What did Russia do to prevent that war? I would like someone to answer that question.


An hon. Member:: I will.


Maurice Boisvert: When will you answer?


An hon. Member:: Right now.


Maurice Boisvert: I am sure your answer would be no good. What did Russia and red China do to prevent the Indo-China war? When you tell me you will answer, it means to me that you are not free in your mind to give a free answer to my question.
We are facing difficulties. We are in a world where it is very difficult to balance the forces of one side and the forces of the other side, but there is one thing which cannot be contradicted by anyone; that is the fight between freedom and slavery. If Poland could rise and speak her mind she would not stay for one minute within the framework of what we call the satellites of Russia, because we know that the satellites of Russia are not free to express their will, their faith and their convictions.
It would be the same with any of the nations that are now subjugated by Russia. We have nothing personally against Russia. I do not want to antagonize any country in the world, because I have faith in the good will of the people of any country. I think it might be possible to bring the people of these countries together. We are told that if they could but understand the way we think, the way we feel and what we have in our hearts, they would join forces with us to establish a world of peace, a world of good will, a world which would be one of glory for our children, where war would be no more, where peace would dominate the minds of everyone.
I should like to say a few words in French before I conclude my remarks. We are told that we are rearming Germany.

(Translation) :
This is not quite the case. We are associating Germany with NATO, and when voting for German rearmament, I shall feel the same grief as my learned friend from Cartier (Mr. Crestohl).
One thing must not be forgotten in this world, and it is that those who speak or agitate are not always those who decide the fate of nations. History is stronger than the individual action that might be taken in a particular place, and the course that nations have to follow at one time of their history is determined by the forces of history. We are surprised to have to rearm Germany, but that is what history has always taught us. Napoleon fought against his foes and a few months later he was rearming them and fighting along with them. I could go further back in history, and say that the best friends of Louis XIV were his former enemies whom he had defeated.
But we must not forget that we are no longer living in a world where wars must be fought. We are living in a world where we must live in peace, where we must make peace. And this peace will only come from such personal feelings as we may have towards it. It is these personal feelings which we must ourselves have and spread abroad by word and thought.
Some countries want war, but the very basis of the United Nations is that the world must live in peace. Statements to this effect also occur in the charter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Here, in Canada, we want peace, we are looking for peace. But peace is not a unilateral thing. It is achieved through agreements and the good will of nations working towards the same ends. Ever since 1945, every time that this country has thought it possible to seek an agreement with Russia, it has done so, not only for the good of our country but for that of every other nation. But Russia has always found a way of evading the issue, of delaying discussion and of preventing, by its actions, peace-loving nations from finding a solution.
I need not repeat the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We know that in her relations with the rest of the world Russia does not act in good faith and that she endeavours to implant here, as in all other countries, a philosophy which tends to destroy individual liberty in order to allow her to dominate nations. Communism is but one form of the activities of the Soviet republic. The Soviet republic pursues the

age-old idea that Russia should dominate Europe. Peter the Great, imbued with this idea, led his armies across Poland and tried to conquer her. Russia nowadays pursues the same idea of world conquest envisioned by Peter I, Peter the Great, father of panslavism. The outcome of revolution was that the idea of the aristocracy and of the middle class became that of the mass of the people.
The error of the communists makes possible this spiritual distortion being spread about by individuals fascinated by this doctrine which destroys the human community. By an act both just and fair, any individual can secure what is best from a society based on freedom and justice. Is it not unfortunate to see some of our fellow citizens work counter to the principles accepted by this government and counter to our natural propensity to accept the only solution? In France, in England, in the United States, the government of the country is in agreement. However, some groups believe, in good faith or in bad, that it would be better to be slaves than free citizens. The liberty of our country to choose the best means of maintaining the marvellous conditions which exist in this country must prevail. Security, as well as liberty, is the undeniable right of everyone.
Oh, I know very well that we may have, on the right or left, political theories which are different. But when these theories are applied by men of good faith they never affect the security of the nation. I have nothing against those who have accepted them since they may make a contribution to the well-being, security and liberty of the nation by fair and constructive criticism.
But still, I would not like to see in this country any move which would tend to scuttle what we have managed to accomplish since the turn of the century for the Canadian people. But for us, in the province of Quebec, communism is the fundamental error of those who have no confidence in themselves. It is the fundamental error of those who believe in nothing save in submission to the dominating power of a government which ignores them. We in Quebec still have faith in those ideas which are the very basis of this Christian civilization of ours. And having faith in that civilization we are convinced that no force will destroy man in his faith, conscience and spirit. And those who think they can dominate us through what I call a spiritual nebula and which some call communism will never succeed in convincing those of our faith that they should accept being slaves rather than the free men that we are.
North Atlantic Treaty
(Text):


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, it requires a good deal of self-assurance to believe that one can add anything to this debate, particularly considering the level at which it has been carried on and the ground it has covered.
But there are three reasons I wish to say something on this matter. First of all, because of the vast importance of the question we are discussing. Second, because I feel that with those who have announced they are going to vote against it I have very much in common. I go far along the same road, and I cannot help hoping that at the end of my remarks they will take the turn I am taking and not the one they have announced they are adopting. Third, I want to speak because I have had occasion in my own constituency to talk to deputations who visited me, and I feel I would like to put my views on record for their benefit and for the benefit of anyone else who may see these remarks.
It was rather shocking to me to find the amount of indoctrination to which these deputations had been subjected. Some of them, particularly a younger group, told me they considered President Eisenhower and Sir Winston Churchill warmongers. For that reason-and this is one of the excuses I have for taking part in this debate-I want to put on record quite briefly one or two of the things President Eisenhower has said, which seem to me to show that we are fortunate to have a man of such wide humanity in the responsible position in which he now finds himself.
He is describing the position he is in and the responsibility he carries, and he says: "... if we are going ... to take such a fateful decision as leads us one step toward war, let us, by no means, do it in response to our human emotions of anger and resentment, hut let's do it after we have prayerfully considered it and found, as (President Woodrow) Wilson expressed it, 'no other means of protecting our rights.' "
I want to put that on record because I think it is desirable that it should come to the attention of as many people as possible.
As to Sir Winston Churchill we know his record. We know that unworthy people for unworthy ends tried to represent him as a warmonger for election purposes. But we believe that has been long since swept away and he has appeared in his true light as a man whose whole desire at advanced age still is to do something for the cause of peace.
To the deputations that came to see me I made a very simple, perhaps naive answer.

North Atlantic Treaty
I said, "I will agree with you as to the danger. You do not have to argue with me, because there are dangers. But the best answer I can give you is the vote in the French chamber." Surely if any people in this world know the dangers it is the French. They have suffered again and again at the hands of the Germans, and if they can bring themselves to vote as they did surely the rest of us can do so also.
I pointed out to them that there are encouraging signs. I reminded them that the Germany which makes up West Germany is not the Prussia that we found so truculent and difficult. I reminded them that it was the milder Germans we were dealing with, the Germans for whom we used to have a friendly feeling as we faced them across no-man's land. When we found the Saxons there I think, if my memory serves me right, we were quite sympathetic, and we perhaps felt more irritated at divisional headquarters than we did at the Saxons.
There is reason to hope and believe that the democracy which failed to take hold in Germany between the two wars will take hold now. We believe Adenauer is serious and sincere. There is some ground for the belief that we may have a Germany which is not going to hand itself over to the military but is going to go out for peace.
I repeat that there is, of course, a risk in German rearmament. But in the case of Russian rearmament it is not a risk but a reality which we have with us now. That actuality is so real that I find it difficult to understand how my friends with whom I agree so much and with whom I go so far along the road apparently do not end up with me.
Now let us look back for a moment. Let us remind ourselves of our disarmament in 1945. Let us remind ourselves of our feelings during and after the war. Let us remind ourselves of the agonizing anxiety with which we followed the Russian campaign during the war. Let us remember the days of Stalingrad and how we agonized over what was going on then. Let us remember what Churchill said in 1941 when Hitler attacked the Russians. He said, "Whoever fights against Hitler is our friend." Let us remember the feelings we had in 1945 when we hoped that we were all going to co-operate in working for peace.
At this point I want to put on the record words used in the house by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in March, 1949, at the time we were voting on NATO. Let me here remind the house that we had a practically unanimous vote for NATO, and let me venture to say that it is utterly impossible
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
for me to understand how anyone who voted for NATO can now vote against this resolution, because it seems to me that the arguments which prompted us then are just as strong now. What I shall read sets out well our pressing sense of disappointment at the end of the war when we found that the cooperation which we had hoped for was not forthcoming. At page 2072 of Hansard of March 28, 1949, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said:
Those of us who were at the San Francisco conference hoped and believed that the victorious nations would unite to prevent aggression, to end the threat of war, and to lay the foundations of that permanent peace for which men and women of good will hoped and prayed. But even whilst we were at San Francisco and the conference was in progress, indications were not lacking that understanding would be difficult.
Further on on the same page I read:
Shortly after that a Labour government was elected in Great Britain. As we know, they believed absolutely there was every possibility that they would be able to reach understandings with the Soviet union on basic problems. It was not long, however, until it became obvious that the communist government and its parties throughout the world had launched a vicious offensive against democratic socialist governments and their parties everywhere. Because of that and the bitter attacks on countries with democratic socialist governments, to which we listened with grave and growing concern at Lake Success in the autumn of 1946, it became evident that far greater difficulties faced the world than were anticipated at San Francisco.
We can recall so well, as if it were yesterday, that disappointment. We disarmed then with almost feverish haste, and we had it almost completed before we woke up to the fact that the communist countries were not following our example. Now we are told that we must work for disarmament again, and apparently we are to do it by unilateral disarmament. Apparently we are to negotiate from weakness. That is what I understood the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) to say, and it is so hard for me to understand. Surely if we have learned anything in these last years it is that the only time we have got anywhere is when we have negotiated not from weakness but from strength.
It seems to me that we can say, with all our imperfections and all the criticisms we make of ourselves-and we are able to criticize ourselves and each other in this free country-nobody outside of a lunatic asylum has any but the most whole-souled desire for peace. Incidentally, when I listened to those young people who came to see me and realized they had been poisoned with the thought that in this free country on this free continent, and in Britain and the other free countries, there was anyone who had other than a sincere desire for peace, I understood better

than ever before what evil subversive propaganda was at work. So I come back to say that we wish to work for peace. We wish to disarm, but surely we have learned the lesson that unilateral disarmament is no good.
I want to deal for a moment with the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), whom I respect and whose speech yesterday I respected. But I suggest to him that he was not at his usual level of logical clear thinking. I read briefly from his words as found at page 395 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich dares to hope that the hydrogen bomb is so terrible that it will not be used; therefore we must have conventional armaments upon which to rely. We all hope that is true, but I wonder whether in our heart of hearts any of us really believes that a third world war would go very long without the use not just of the obsolete atomic bomb but of thermonuclear weapons.
He went on to say:
... I feel we have to start from that premise and somehow we must take the kind of steps which will make sure that war will not break out again.
But these are the steps that those of us who are in favour of the resolution want to take. These steps are the ones we believe give us the best chance. We realize the dangers, but surely we are entitled to argue that we have tried to negotiate from weakness and we have found it no good. What small success we had in Korea surely was by reason of what Churchill called the "valiant decision" of Truman in 1950, and how valiant it was, to stand up to aggression at that time.
Incidentally, while the debate was going on it occurred to me to wonder whether if we heard next week that Germany had turned down this resolution we would be very happy about it.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) said we might just as well face the fact that Germany is going to rearm. I was amazed to hear him say that and at the same time announce that he was going to vote against the treaty. If Germany is going to rearm, would we not rather have them rearm and be on our side, be part of our team? I could hardly believe my ears when I heard that. We all recognize the danger. We all know that safeguards can never be 100 per cent complete, but surely we have to take calculated risks and go ahead.
I should also like to put on the record what seems to me a statement clear as crystal emanating from that great man-and he has become much greater this year by what he has done-Sir Anthony Eden, speaking in
North Atlantic Treaty
the British House of Commons on the 17th of November last. I cannot see any answer to this. He said:
What are the alternatives that now face Europe? In the main, there are only three. Either the cold war will continue; if so, we shall have a continuation of the heavy financial burdens, to which the right hon. gentleman the member for Ebbw Vale-
I hope if there are any Welshmen present they will correct my pronunciation.
- (Mr. Bevan) referred, over a period of years with all the strains and stresses . . . that that brings with it. The second possibility is that the cold war will become a hot war. If that happens, I do not think, with all respect, that the calculations of any of the treasuries of the world will become very important one way or the other. There is a third alternative which is that, out of these arrangements which we have so carefully built up, it may be possible for negotiations to be developed in Europe which may lead to ultimate success and agreement. It is for this third possibility that we are now working. We think that the Paris agreements have taken us some steps towards that . . . The only real alternative to accepting the Paris agreements would be to plunge the west into confusion and despair. Is anybody seriously going to contend we should better be able to negotiate with Soviet Russia if we were in that particular condition? I cannot believe that to be so.
I should like to say a word more about the French attitude. Some of us had a good deal to do with the French more years ago than we like to count, and we conceived for them the greatest admiration, respect and affection. We were able for that reason to sympathize with them, particularly when the second war came and, bleeding still from the scars of the first war, they were overwhelmed.
They are now facing a third time of trial. When I was in France four years ago I recall travelling on a train and sitting in a dining car opposite a French lady. When she found I came from Canada she said, "Canadians are a very fortunate people." One felt the bitter anxiety which they were facing every hour of their lives. The French have agreed to this. It is true the majority was small but, as the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out, if you remove the communist vote the majority becomes substantial.
The last point I want to make is that we are told time is essential. I suppose time is always essential. Apparently what was meant by that argument, if I could understand it well, was that as time was essential we were to give more time for talks with Russia. We were not to sign this agreement because to sign it would make negotiations with Russia more difficult. We were, therefore, to give time and we were not to sign. I believe I have already said enough

North Atlantic Treaty
to indicate how utterly unsound that argument seems to be. Mr. Eden makes this point clear when he says:
Not for a moment do I accept the proposition that if these agreements are recognized, we have to give up hope of solving any of the issues of Europe today which affect soviet Russia ... X do not believe it for a minute. On the contrary, the fact that they are now in such a hurry to summon a conference that could not possibly meet in the time allotted is an indication of the fact that, if we proceed calmly and steadily with these proposals, we shall have better opportunities for negotiation than we have had for a very long time.
So, Mr. Speaker, I end where I began. We have two dangers and both of them are substantial. I like to think that the German danger is not as great as we imagine it. I like to associate myself with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). In spite of everything that happened during the last war, in spite of the bestialities inspired by Hitler, we all know that in a very real sense the great majority of the people in Germany are people who love and hate the same things that we love and hate.
The other danger is the Russian danger. I do not suppose for one moment that the individual Russians want war any more than we do, but they are in the grip of the forces of despotism. They can be turned to the purposes of a few men who may at any time act with a dreadful irresponsibility toward the human race. It seems to me, therefore, that while recognizing to the full all that has been said by those to the left, we come right back to a simple choice as to which of the two dangers is the greater. I know which I feel is the greater, and I shall vote for the resolution.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support the views expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre so ably and so clearly last evening. Like the hon. member, I am confident that we are expressing the views of thousands of good, solid, patriotic Canadians. I say this because I have had the opportunity of having conversations with supporters of all parties in this house. I have received letters from the supporters of all parties in this house, which indicate that there are large numbers of Canadians who are opposed to this measure because they are sincerely opposed to German rearmament.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare when speaking this afternoon suggested to the house that there might even be enthusiasm in the country for this measure. I think the tenor of this debate has indicated

there is no enthusiasm for this measure, because almost every member has expressed his justifiable fears of German rearmament and the possibilities of the future. I know that the communists in Canada are opposed to German rearmament. I know of the campaign they have waged in the country and even in this building. In my opinion that is no reason for my views to be affected.
This afternoon the Minister of National Health and Welfare read into the record a directive issued by the labour progressive party to its members. As the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) suggested he made, I think, a rather unfortunate inference, though he later qualified that statement. I much prefer the attitude of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) when you come to consider a situation of this nature.
In British Columbia the Liberals, the supporters of the C.C.F. and the labour progressives have expressed opposition to the building of what is known as the Kaiser dam on the lower Arrow lakes. I am informed that the labour progressive party has advised its members to campaign against the building of that dam. This fact does not influence my opinion one bit. I was glad to notice that, according to newspaper reports, it does not influence the opinion of the Minister of Fisheries. In a speech in British Columbia he mentioned that the Liberals, many C.C.F., communists and others opposed the building of the Kaiser dam, but the minister was apparently quite willing to let the issue be settled and dealt with on its merits. We take exactly the same view in a situation such as this.
I fully appreciate the difficulties, doubts and fears which this problem presents to the members of this house. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that along with other members in this group I most sincerely respect the views of those who disagree with us.
My opposition to this resolution is based mainly on two grounds. Personally, I fear the rearmament of Germany. In presenting my case I shall try to deal with the matter on a logical basis, although I am one who has had some experience with unconventional methods of warfare on the part of German militarism.
I oppose this resolution in the second place because I believe, in common with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this step will increase the danger of war. I believe it is an irrevocable step in further widening the division between the east and the west.

The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell)-and I listened to his remarks attentively-said he could not understand why those who voted for NATO cannot vote for this measure, or words to that effect. Mr. Speaker, because one votes for the establishment of a committee on procedure it does not necessarily mean that he is going to vote for all the things that committee does. Consequently I suggest that this is a somewhat different matter from voting in support of NATO, or in support of bringing into NATO recognized western democratic nations.
I think the hon. member for Greenwood said he could not understand why we are opposed to German rearmament and increased strength. In the opinion of those who are opposing the measure we believe the military advantages do not equal the risk. We are of the opinion that if you increase the German military forces by 12 divisions, or whatever the stated number may be, you are simply causing the Soviet bloc on the other side to increase their forces to a similar extent and that therefore, in the long run, you accomplish nothing so far as increased defence is concerned.
The hon. member for Greenwood also suggested that he could not understand our opposing increased armaments, or having our military strength increased; but we
North Atlantic Treaty
believe at the present time we are not negotiating from weakness but rather that we are already negotiating from strength.
My reading of published documents, newspapers, magazines and periodicals, and my study of this whole situation brings me definitely to certain conclusions. And as I have reached a point where I shall have to proceed with my argument, perhaps owing to the time I should now move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Herridge the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house would want to continue this debate on Monday, and in order to conclude it if possible on Tuesday it would be our intention if the debate is concluded on Monday that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would move the adjournment so he might make a proper answer on Tuesday with respect to what has been said. If that occurred we would then on Monday revert to the debate on the address in reply.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.


Monday, January 24, 1955