Mr. SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave so to move?

Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman may proceed.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the house I do not approach this subject lightly or without due regard to the serious international situation not only as it affects this parliament and the government and every party in parliament but as it affects so substantially the very lives and homes and firesides of the people of Canada.

The house and the country I think will welcome this opportunity, the first that we have had since the San Francisco charter was debated in 1945, to have a full-dress debate on external affairs. It seemed to me, and this is my object in raising the question at this time, that here is the place to thresh out our difficulties and mobilize public opinion, the place to find common ground upon which we may work so that we may march with a united front and if at all possible speak with one voice in the councils of the world.

In 1946 Canada was represented at no fewer than ninety^eight international gatherings, including the all-important peace conference at Paris, while parliament spent in the meantime fewer than two days out of 119 in discussing foreign relations. That is not good enough. Parliament must keep abreast of the movements and developments in international affairs the same as it tries to do with domestic affairs.

It is true that the standing committee on external affairs met some twenty times last year and did an excellent job under the capable chairmanship of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) ; but there was little if any discussion of general policy. The estimates of the department were brought before the committee and considered, but only a fraction of the membership of the house had an opportunity to participate in the discussions. The committee did however bring in a report, later

unanimously concurred in by the house, in which they recommended that time should be set aside each week for the discussion of international matters. I am of the opinion that it should not be necessary to bring in a motion such as the one I had to make at this particular time in order to discuss external affairs.

We should have the opportunity of dealing with external problems in a regular and orderly way. From now on parliament should make up its mind to give more time to discussion of foreign affairs.

First of all I wish to deal with the question

of our participation in the peace settlement. Maclean's magazine of March 1, 1947 put in a nutshell the argument between Canada and the special deputies of the big four who have been meeting in London. I wish to read a few words from an article headed "Peace Isn't Private Property", because I think it will expedite the proceedings and give to the ordinary citizen of Canada a fair picture of what happened in the meeting of the deputies. The article reads as follows:

Canada's argument with the big four deputies charged with drafting the German peace treaty was no mere matter of wounded vanity. Here's what happened:

Deputies met in London to prepare drafts for the real big four meeting in Moscow. They invited seventeen smaller combatants to _ send in written statements, with oral comment if desired, on the treaties with Germany and Austria.

Canada didn't think this good enough and suggested that smaller powers be given a share in the early committee work. _

That "suggestion was ignored. Our high commissioner, Norman Robertson, was then instructed to ask the deputies a question:

"If Canada does appear before you, how can you assure us that this will not be our last chance to say anything about the German

Still no reply. It became evident that at least one of the big four would prefer to answer "no." The German treaty was a matter for great powers who had "paid in blood;" small fry should be neither seen nor heard.

It was not for this that Canada put three-quarters of ia million men in arms, fought on every western European front, gave $3-5 billions in materials to allies, including Russia, who needed more than they could pay for.

It was not for this, either, that Greece starved and Poland suffered, that Yugoslavia pinned fifteen German divisions. Not to be told at the end of it: "Run along now, we shan't

need you again until next time. If you have any ideas about the peace, write a letter to our secretaries." ,

We fought for peace as an overriding national interest. We did not fight to maintain a balance of power, to serve any imperial interest anywhere in the world. We fought for our lives, which the international policies of great powers had put in jeopardy.

Now that the fighting is done, we must have a real voice in the shaping of that peace for which

Peace Treaties

we fought. We have an interest in it as well as the great powers-if we have not, we should have stayed home.

Canada, moreover, has one qualificatioin which is almost unique, to fit her for this task. We are one of the very few powers concerned in world war II who have no direct, immediate interest in any question of detail.

We don't care whether a boundary runs on this side or the other of a certain town or hill or river; we covet no colonies; we have next to no interest in reparations.

But we do have an overwhelming interest in the permanence of peace.

That is why we demand an effective share in the making of the postwar world. The Canadian government did well to make its position clear from the start.

With all but the last sentence perhaps there will be considerable agreement. But did the Canadian government make its position clear from the start? The Paris peace conference sat from July 29 to October 15 of last year. Canada was represented there for seventy-nine days. Twenty-one nations discussed the terms of peace for five defeated enemy countries. I am led to believe they were called in after the big four had discussed everything for an unusually long period of time. I am also led to believe that they could not touch the parts of the treaties which had received the unanimous approval of the big four. They could make only recommendations which the big four would guarantee or promise to consider privately afterwards.

In the British House of Commons last October, Right Hon. Winston Churchill, with all his experience and command of language, speaking on the question of procedure at the Paris peace conference, said:

The Paris peace conference is bad diplomacy, but it may be a valuable education.

At the end of the Paris sessions an unofficial poll of newspapermen from twenty-seven countries indicated that thirty-one regarded the conference as a success, fifty-six called it a failure and thirty-three called it a farce. I am not prepared to go that far, but it does show that there was dissatisfaction with the manner in which the procedure of the Paris peace conference was carried out, particularly so far as the smaller and the middle powers were concerned. Canada was there and in my opinion should have taken the attitude of "once bitten twice shy". I should like to have seen the statement with respect to participation, which was placed before the special deputies in January of this year, laid before the nations of the world and the big four while the Paris peace conference was in session; because January was too late for this country to put its arguments before them and have them properly considered. It was then and there that the government should have nipped

this plan in the bud. That would have been better than waiting for a similar situation to grow up in Paris, or waiting until similar plans for the Austrian and German settlement had been almost fully developed. In my opinion we missed the boat in Paris. January was too late. The plans of the great powers had taken shape before we grasped the opportunity of putting our case before them, and this has made our task immeasurably greater, though not I hope insurmountable.

Another factor which has weakened our position as far as full participation in the peace settlement is concerned, was the withdrawal a year ago of all our occupation forces in the German reich. It is now plain, I think, that this government ought to tell parliament and the people, for the first time, why at that particular time we ceased to play our part in policing naziland. True, our forces wanted to get home. I was over there and I know that they wanted to get back. But there were just as many in Canada who at that very time were prepared to take on the job of relieving and replacing those who felt that the work had become monotonous for them and that they ought to be home.

Was it because we could not have a greater say in administration and policies in Germany that we withdrew our troops at that time, or what was the reason? I would ask the government to give an answer, before the debate ends, to that simple but direct and pertinent question. Considerable weight must, I think, be attached, from the standpoint of the withdrawal of our occupying army, to the clear outspoken remarks of Right Hon. Vincent Massey, former High Commissioner for Canada in London, who, speaking only last Wednesday at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, made the following statement as reported in the columns of the next day's Montreal Star:

"Our moral position is strong," Mr. Massey declared, adding: "It would, I think, be stronger if like other smaller countries we had continued to play even a modest part in the forces which at present police the German reich. Our withdrawal at so early a date did nothing to enhance our prestige or to give evidence of our readiness to assume responsibilities in peace as we had so willingly done in war."

These words cannot be dismissed lightly, for they fell from the lips of a senior Canadian diplomat who by virtue of his position was closer to the scene of that withdrawal than any other representative Canada had at that time.

I express my personal view only in this regard, but it has always seemed to me that the commonwealth members, and particularly Canada, missed a grand opportunity to lift

Peace Treaties

a little bit of the white man's burden which has been borne by Britain so well and honourably and at such expense, and to join with Great Britain in attempting to carry part of that load with her. It would have, for one thing, meant that we would have had closer contact with the problems of Germany. It would have meant, too, that our hand would have been strengthened in pressing our claim to a rightful position at the peace table and in making our representations there. Since we have gone out of Germany it makes it harder for us to get in again and to come to grips with the problem.

Moreover, I think that those who have been through the situation in relation to the military government in Germany realize as well that it is common knowledge over there that the Canadian government gave little or no encouragement to Canadian personnel who wanted to have a part in the military government structure of Germany under the allied control council. Added to that is the fact that, having withdrawn our troops, our position has been weakened.

I do not wish to emphasize unduly this latter point, because after all I want our position to be as strong as it possibly can be, but I wish to point out the weaknesses which parliament and the country have to consider. In making our representations now, we must of course avoid the appearance of being long on talk and short on works. That is one of the things that we must keep before us; it must be one of Canada's policies, to make sure that we do not fall into that temptation. I stand, and this party stands, with the government in this matter as solidly as parliamentarians can, recognizing that inasmuch as Canada went into the war through the front door, we do not relish being merely a keyhole-peeker when the peace is discussed over there.

This is a matter upon which all political parties, and people regardless of their political views, can join. It is about time the big four discarded this new international slogan of theirs, which seems to be that "four is company and five is a crowd". That appears to me to size it up in commonplace terms and to indicate what we are up against in the circumstances. This nation must not take this thing lying down, and at the foreign ministers' meeting at Moscow in a few days' time the Canadian government will, I hope, vigorously press our claim to adequate participation in the peace that we helped to win.

In this position this party will give the government its active, unqualified support and help, because we must show to the world

that we mean business as a nation, and in such a stand we are prepared to throw our political differences aside and to speak with a united and powerful voice in every council of the world.

I come next to the question of the German peace settlements. One has to see the battered, and blitzed and beaten Germany to have a real conception of the problems of reconstruction, there. It will be a long time before prostrate Germany even gets up on her knees, let alone on her feet, economically, financially and perhaps politically. Canada does well, I believe, in her submission to recognize that Germany is not just a European problem. She is everybody's problem, and we may as well face it; she is a highly inflammable pile of international kindling. Therefore it is important to every person in Canada that the government's stand for a stronger and more powerful participation in the peace treaties should be supported.

Germany is the international trouble spot No. 1, because over this fallen German frame powers could and might clash in the days that lie ahead. Shall defeated Germany be a part of the western conception of democracy or part of eastern totalitarianism? Which way she leans will make a substantial difference to the future of the world and the prospects of permanent peace. Germany is not simply at the parting of the ways. Germany is actually in the parting of the ways in the matter of geography and in every other respect. Therein lies the danger for this country. Germany is no longer a nation. Germany is just a people. That, I believe, makes Canada's argument even stronger against following the precedent of 1919, against putting Germany too early into a ready-made straitjacket of peace, because if Germany is put into a straitjacket now two things are likely to happen: either she will become dwarfed in that straitjacket or she will expand beyond its capacity. Either will be bad, and I think the international statute idea of the government is a good one. It is one that gives an opportunity for Germany to come out of the convalescent stage. Germany today has not even the legal capacity, even if a shadow government is put up for that purpose, to make a bargain with the victor nations. Because of that, this government's policy in connection with the international statute deserves every possible commendation.

I should have liked to mention in the discussion of these matters what those of us saw who had an opportunity of going across Germany a year ago-and I am told there has

Peace Treaties

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

Mr. MITCHELL:

Is that not the price one pays for making a fool of himself?

Mr. GRAYDON:

I agree with my hon. friend for once.

Mr. MITCHELL:

What about Rotterdam?

Mr. GRAYDON:

One saw the great Reichstag, in ruins and two Russian soldiers conducting a black market in all kinds of materials with some ten or fifteen German women at the door of that great chamber. One could not help realizing that if Hitler could look up from where he is now he would see that things have changed; that the days when he used to thunder his challenges across the world have gone forever and that of him it could be said, in the words of Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, "The paths of glory lead but to the grave".

I apologize to the house for mentioning these personal impressions, but one thing which struck me particularly, and which I am sure I shall never forget, was the comment, after we had come through all this indescribable devastation, of a little English corporal whose house had been blitzed out in 1940 and again in 1941. Somebody in the party said, "What a distressing sight this is in Berlin!" The little corporal said, in his best English, which I could not possibly imitate, "These blighters asked for it, and they bloody well got it, didn't they?" It was, I think, an indication of the feeling of revenge which was then in the hearts of people who had suffered so greatly at the hands of those who are now suffering the pangs of defeat. If one can go by the feeling and the sense of the people who know something of the German problem over there-and I am not speaking of the Germans themselves-one of the things which stood out in what we learned from the people we had contact with from time to time was the fact that if you are going to make a new Germany, if you are going to make a nation which will not be a menace to the peoples of the world in the days which lie ahead, you

must do something more than is proposed in the Canadian submissions; you must educate the children of Germany into a new mode of life and a new conception of what democracy and peace really mean.

I think that one of the greatest omissions in the submissions of Canada is the lack of mention of the educational aspect of the treatment of the German people. In the Potsdam declaration we find these words, put in not by Germans or Canadians, but by the representatives of the big four themselves. This- reading directly from the Potsdam declaration -is their avowed objective:

It is not the intention of the allies to destroy or enslave the German people, but that they shall be given the opportunity to prepare for the eventual reconstruction of their life on a democratic and peaceful basis. If their efforts are steadily directed to this end, it will be possible for them in due course to take their place among the free and peaceful peoples of the world.

This leads me, Mr. Speaker, to suggest the most conspicuous omission in the Canadian submissions. In any settlement education along democratic lines must be included; because as I see it-and as those who know much better than I do seem to see it-it is the key to permanent peace. That is the view of those 'who are closest to the picture and who know.

I just wish to make one further observation with respect to the German peace submissions. I think this nation was again too late in presenting her submissions on Germany. It seems to me also that if our German submissions have merit-and I believe they have -particularly with respect to the international statute, they should have been presented before the big four had made their elaborate preparations for a peace treaty discussion in Moscow. The whole question had, in my opinion, jelled at that time; and by the time our submissions came to the special deputies on January 30 of this year, Canada was too late to have them properly considered. That, I think, indicates part of our position with respect to the German submissions themselves.

I now wish to come to our submissions with respect to the Austrian peace settlement. I do not want to be offensive with respect to this, and I hope the government will not feel that I am, but I am really speaking with some restraint when I say that the Austrian submissions, as I see them, are not much more than a nice harmless little essay on international affairs. As a positive, active, vigorous and constructive brief it is not in the same class at all with our German submissions. May I, through you, Mr. Speaker, put this question to the government: Why did twenty-six days elapse between the time we put in our submissions on Germany and the time we put in

Peace Treaties

our brief on Austria, in view of the fact that the special deputies in London were not dealing with Germany first and Austria afterwards, but were dealing with Austria and Germany concurrently during their session there?

What actually happened, and I am sorry this was so because to some extent I believe it affected Canada's prestige, was that when the special deputies were clearing out their desks and packing their bags to go home, our submission with respect to Austria arrived for consideration. That was just one day before the special deputies concluded' their work in London. I believe the thing can be put in simple terms. Either we are interested in the Austrian settlement or we are not. I believe we are; and if we are, I am dead sure we should have made our submissions concurrently with those we made in respect to Germany. If we were not interested, no submission at all should have gone in. That, I think, is clearly the position in which the government finds itself.

I want to make one further observation in regard to our submission on Austria. In that country two considerations-in the opinion of the foreign minister of Austria, in any event- stand out above everything else. One is the internal reorganization of Austria on a democratic basis. We cannot have a free Austria without the withdrawal of the occupation forces from that country at the very earliest appropriate time. But of equal and perhaps even greater importance is the question of the definition of the German assets in Austria, and what the Russians are entitled to do in the way of taking Austrian resources for their own purposes. That is one of the major difficulties facing Austrian rehabilitation; and until there is a clarification of the terms of the Potsdam agreement with respect to the title to Austrian resources there can be no real reconstruction of Austria's economy or her political structure. I believe our government missed an important point when, in the submission Canada made, that important matter was left out of our brief.

In the moment or so remaining at my disposal I want to say that no single nation has a greater stake in what happens in Moscow than has Canada. Our position, geographically, politically, militarily and every other way makes it impossible for this country ever again to be an optional participant in a world conflict. Making up our minds with respect to that perhaps we should be prepared to go a step farther and say that in another war this country itself might well be the battle area. Just as we rush to fight a fire in our neighbour's house in order to save our own, and at the same time save the town or city,

so must we see that no smouldering embers are left unextinguished which might start anywhere in the world an international blaze that could result in the destruction of humanity. The refusal of Canada in the past to make international affairs our own immediate personal concern has been a disastrous experience for us. Twice in about a quarter of a century we have been led down the pathway of war. A hundred thousand of the very flower of our Canadian manhood lie in alien countries, mute and powerful testimony to what our country was prepared to do in war. Whatever may be the cost of peace, it can never approach the cost of war. Whatever this country has to pay with respect to permanent peace I think must be considered in the light of what I have said.

Between the two great wars there were statesmen in this country-and this is not at all by way of criticism, because I suppose they reflected public opinion at the time-one of whom said that as far as war was concerned Canada was a fireproof house, and the other that nothing then happening in Abyssinia was worth the life of a single Canadian soldier. Add to that the spectacle one saw in the House of Commons the year before the war, when an hon. member asked the house to adopt a resolution of neutrality in case of armed conflict. These were all straws showing the way the wind blew.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we must do something to see to it that the world's casualty lists shall never again be published, that the savage dogs of war never again shall be unleashed. At international conferences I have listened to men who were skilful in employing their own language to make it meet various situations arising from time to time, but it remained for a little boy thirteen years of age, who I am told came up to London to be present at the first general assembly of -the united nations which a number of us attended, to put into words the thought so many of us have in mind as to the objectives of the united nations. While I cannot vouch for the authenticity of every word, I am told that this is what happened. The little lad came to London under his own steam and stood1 for a long time one dark, cold, foggy morning, and on into the afternoon, waiting to get into the visitors' gallery at that assembly. As he was going up the stairs someone asked him, "Why are you here"? The little lad stopped and said-, "I don't quite know why I am here, but I am going to tell my story and perhaps then you will know." This is the story he told. "I am only thirteen," he said, "but I lost my mother two

Peace Treaties

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

That is our challenge, Mr. Speaker; I suggest we accept it.

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, in view of the proximity of the meeting of foreign ministers in Moscow this debate is indeed very timely. The government, I think, should have some expression of the views of this house, both on the manner in which our representations should be made, and on the views to be expressed on behalf of the Canadian people.

One difficulty in discussing matters of this kind of course is found in the inflexibility of the rules of this house. Compared with the British house we have few opportunities of debating matters such as this which are of immediate concern.

There is, I am certain, unanimous dissatisfaction with the very minor role which has been assigned to us-particularly concerning the German settlement. It cannot be emphasized too often or too emphatically that in the waging of war against Hitler our nation contributed men and materials almost without question, and most certainly without stint. It is meet and proper then that we should demand recognition of Canada's right to full participation in the negotiations of the peace treaties, and insist that it should be in exact proportion to our contribution in the waging of war.

We therefore support fully, Mr. Speaker, the protests already made by the government against the limitations imposed upon Canada by the foreign ministers of the great powers. Experience at the Paris peace conference last July, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has just remarked, warns us that the position to which we were relegated at that time restricted our freedom of action, limited the scope of our contribution, and minimized any influence we might have exerted upon the peace treaties then formulated.

The original proposal, to limit the role of the lesser powers to mere statements of views-and more particularly, may I add, the

subsequent proposal of the Soviet Union to modify this by allowing fuller participation of the twelve smaller powers overrun by Hitler- is in my opinion outrageous, particularly so when five of the twelve include White Russia, the Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Poland. Albania is not yet recognized by either the British or the American authorities. This would exclude Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India, whose parliaments or governments all declared war and participated in it from the beginning; while the Soviet Union and some of the smaller nations were not only pursuing policies friendly to Hitler, but for almost two years were actually supplying him with vital war supplies.

We therefore wish to express our complete agreement with the government's demand for full participation in the German and Austrian settlements. As I said on January 30, an effort should have been made to secure a joint protest by nations treated similarly to ourselves, even to the extent of withholding the making of any written submission to the foreign ministers' deputies conference.

I feel this strongly also because I believe that nations removed from European and territorial squabbles, and which made substantial contributions in the war, could be of positive assistance in the discussions. This was demonstrated on several occasions at the general assembly of the united nations, last autumn when, for example, Canada broke the disarmament controversy deadlock by suggestions which for weeks the great powers had ignored. It cannot be argued that European settlements concern us little. As the hon. member for Peel indicated, twice in our generation Canada has been called upon to sacrifice her blood, her sweat and her tears, because of wars which originated in Europe and which were not of our making. Thus we have both a vital concern and a right to the fullest participation in the peaceful settlement of that sorely distressed continent.

Canada, I say, is vitally interested in every phase of the peace settlement. Politically and economically the world is one. We cannot be secure or prosperous if any part of the world is insecure or depressed. All Europe is in a shocking state. The devastation of war has created economic and social chaos, and unbelievable distress. In Great Britain the crisis is acute; the outlook in France is uncertain. Last week 50,000 veterans demonstrated in Brussels, and we heard news yesterday of more demonstrations in that city. Widespread famine and disorder in Italy are actually threatening the rise of new semi-fascist organizations. In Hungary,

Peace Treaties

Bulgaria, Roumania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Greece, and at least in the western provinces of the Soviet Union, shortages and suffering exist, while starvation and disease are the potent cause of unrest in Poland.

In Germany and Austria the situation beggars description. I mention all this because plans for the economic rehabilitation of Europe are fundamental to improved political conditions. Unfortunately so far these considerations have not been emphasized in the statements already made, or at any rate not emphasized sufficiently.

The colossal reparations imposed upon Italy indicate that considerations of big-power compromises obscure consideration for European reconstruction. In my opinion the decision of the western democracies-United States, Great Britain and France-to forgo Italian reparations was a real contribution to the cause of peace. To the extent to which these huge reparations are not met, they will contribute to international friction; and if they are met they will make European recovery almost impossible.

Present distrust among the big powers prevents the tackling of the peace settlement on a conference basis. Canada is right when she says that Europe must be treated as a unit. Prosperity for the whole world depends upon the rehabilitation of that continent. Her resources, then, should be viewed as essential to all parts of it. Hence the peace settlement requires the adoption of a comprehensive plan to raise standards of living of the suffering peoples of the continent.

Common justice demands that we should do everything possible to bring peace and hope to the millions who suffer because of Hitler's brutality and oppression. It should be clear, I think, too, that the possibilities of democratic development are threatened when disillusionment, starvation, disease and despair are universal. It is in just such an objective and realistic approach that Canada could make her greatest contribution.

Up to the present time the preparatory meetings have been bedeviled by exhibitions of national rivalries, of selfish considerations, of national security, of arguments over territories and boundaries, when national sovereignty is powerless without international security, and when boundaries are meaningless in an age of atomic energy and universal interdependence.

In the February issue of Harper's, Mr. Henry L. Stimson, former Secretary of State for War in the United States, concludes his article-one which I would recommend to all hon. members, and indeed to the people throughout the country-in which he explains

and defends his recommendation to the president for the use of the atomic bomb against Japan, in these words:

In this last great action of the second world war we were given final proof that war is death. War in the twentieth century has grown steadily more barbarous, more destructive, more debased in all its aspects. Now with the release of atomic energy man's ability to destroy himself is very nearly complete. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war; they also made it wholly clear that we must never have another war. This is the lesson men and leaders everywhere must learn, and I believe that when they learn it they will find a way to lasting peace. There is no other choice.

What then should be our attitude towards the peace settlement with Germany and Austria? In the main I find myself in agreement with the views communicated by Canada to the deputies of the foreign ministers, but I feel that in several respects our suggestions should be elucidated. Canada seems, for example, to support the French view that henceforth Germany should be organized as a very loose federation with the principal powers in the individual states and only strictly limited authority in the central government. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, favours a strong unitary state and centralized control. So far the attitude of the United States is far from clear, but an indication of the attitude of the United Kingdom may be found in the Foreign Secretary's speech in October last, when he said this:

Looking further ahead, we contemplate a German constitution which would avoid the two extremes of a loose confederation of autonomous states and a unitary centralized state.

It seems to me that our own experience as a confederation should incline Canada to support what seems to be the British view rather than that of too loose a federation or a highly centralized state. Recently, and particularly in a report carried in the New York Times of February 11, there seemed to be indications of a modification of the Soviet attitude in Mr. Molotov's suggestion that later on a plebiscite or referendum might be allowed to decide the issue. Meantime our government supports the idea that for the time being an international statute should be adopted and imposed on the German people and that the formal signing of any peace treaty should be left in abeyance until political development inside the country evolves a properly elected government. This seems to me, as it did to the hon. member for Peel, an intelligent approach, but it is one which the meeting of the deputies seems to have discarded. A treaty now could only be signed by a German government created for that purpose by the victorious powers. The lessons

Peace Treaties

of Hitler's use of the treaty of Versailles as a potent propaganda weapon in the resurgence of German chauvinism should warn us of the dangers inherent in the deputies proposal. In any event it seems to me that the proposal for an interim statute has the advantage of preventing rigid decisions now which may cause trouble later on.

But political progress will depend upon a rapid improvement in economic conditions. Canadians, I am certain, desire their government to do everything possible to support those democratic political leaders who survived the concentration camps or who kept the idea of freedom alive in the underground. The success or failure of these democratic leaders will depend very largely on the solution of European economic problems. Section 22 of the government's submission to the meeting of deputies urges the early establishment of an economic commission for Europe. It notes that this has already been proposed in the united nations but has not been put into effect. Canada's submission suggests that it might be a useful agency for integrating German industry into the general European economy. While we can support that principle, the reference in the memorandum is vague and seems to suggest only limited functions for the commission. What is needed I think is something more comprehensive, an economic planning agency integrated with and responsible to the economic and social council of the united nations, the body which because of its obligations under the charter and its specialized agencies is most competent to undertake this essential task.

Concerned with economic and social conditions throughout the world, the council would be in the best position to make recommendations towards the achievement of that level of economy and standard of living which may be permitted to Germany in - order to prevent Germany from continuing to constitute a centre of economic depression-to prevent her, in other words, from remaining or becoming a European slum.

But consideration of German economic conditions raises the important question of the kind of economic activity to be permitted and encouraged. German industry before the war was highly organized and centralized in powerful private monopolies, trusts and cartels. The Potsdam agreement provided for their elimination. Since then the United States and the United Kingdom have declared their common intention to destroy these powerful and menacing consequences of private enterprise.

Canada's submission asks for the elimination of monopolies. But it is just at this

point that fundamental differences appear among the nations. The United States, and probably the present government of this country, approach the problem in the belief that the monopolies can be split up into small competing units. But neither in the United States nor in Canada have anti-monopoly laws such as our Combines Investigation Act or the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the United States prevented the monopolization and cartelization of powerful industries.

It is indeed fantastic to think of splitting up effective mass production units anywhere, when conditions demand immediately the most efficient production possible. European economists agree that the only way of eliminating the huge combines which characterized pre-war Germany is to socialize them. Speaking in the United Kingdom House of Commons on October 23, the Foreign Secretary said:

We have also to consider -the ownership of basic German industries. They were previously in the hands of magnates who were closely allied to the German military machine, who financed Hitler, and who in two wars were part and parcel of Germany's aggressive policy.

We have no desire to see those gentlemen or their like return to a position which they have abused with such tragic results. As an interim measure we have taken over the possession and control of the coal and steel industries, and vested them in the commander-in-chief. We shall shortly take similar action in the case of the heavy chemical industry and the mechanical engineering industry. Our intention is that these industries should be owned and controlled in future by the public. The exact form of this public ownership and control is now being worked out. They should be owned and worked by the German people, but subject to such international control that they cannot again be a threat to their neighbours.

I submit that this is a realistic approach to the problem, and one which in spite of differences in economic theory is, under the conditions brought about by Hitler and the powerful industrialists who supported him, the only possible solution now.

The private owners of German industry, even when they are not actual war criminals, have surely forfeited all rights to their property, which should be transferred to public ownership and supervised and used to rebuild a devastated Europe, and in due course minister to the common needs of all mankind.

This I think is the kind of policy that Canada should support. It therefore follows that we should urge the immediate implementation of section 14 of the Potsdam agreement, which states:

During the period of occupation, Germany shall be treated as a single economic unit.

Peace Treaties

And then goes on to provide for common policies on such matters as mining and production allocations, agriculture, forestry, fishing, wages, prices and1 rationing; currency and banking; central taxation and customs; transportation, communications and so forth. Not only has this section been completely ignored, but until the recent unification of the British and United States zones, there were four distinct and separate zones and policies. There seems to have been little contact between the British and the United States zones and the French zone, and no contact at all between any of them and the Soviet zone.

Section 19 states that-

Payment of reparations should leave enough resources to enable the German people to subsist without external assistance.

It adds that any German surpluses must be used to pay for necessary imports and so forth. This section has been completely ignored, and much of the distress and food difficulties of the United Kingdom herself stem from the fact that the food and raw material areas of Germany are in the Soviet zone, while the densely populated industrialized areas are a British responsibility.

Canada should1 insist on the carrying out of these sections of the Potsdam agreement, an agreement which, in so many particulars, has complicated the problem of the whole war settlement, and which was made by the great powers without the advice and consent of numerous other nations, including Canada.

This, of course, raises the problem of reparations. There can be no question that the Soviet union, France and other countries have the right to demand compensation for the terrific destruction and suffering caused by German aggression. As the government's brief to the deputies of the foreign ministers states, the German people bear responsibility, because they permitted Hitler to prepare for and1 make war against his neighbours. It is true that Hitler "openly proclaimed policies of shameless aggression." Again I quote from our government's representation. But it is also true that powerful interests, and yes, some political leaders in the allied countries, excused or financed his rise to power because they thought they saw in him a barrier against the spread of progressive ideas which they did not like, while, even after the aggressive war began, others continued to give him aid.

The principle governing reparations should be that of justice rather than of vengeance. To exact reparations which would not only cripple Germany but interfere with the recovery of her victims would be to repeat a mistake made at Versailles and1 destroy all

[Mr. Coldwell.l

hope of rebuilding a democratic Europe. Those who remember reading years ago a remarkable book published after the last war by John Maynard Keynes, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace," will I think take warning from the difficulties he foreshadowed, and which came about as a result of reparations exacted at Versailles.

The only neighbour which might conceivably survive the shock would be the Soviet Union, whose rigid political and economic controls might enable it to prevent the effect of a general European collapse from affecting its internal situation.

Ability to meet reparation payments and contribute to the rehabilitation of world economy are dependent upon the level and kind of production permitted in Germany. The United Kingdom is supporting a higher level of production than has been agreed upon. It seems to me that the important thing is not only to encourage production, but to establish the means of supervising and controlling the nature and the allocation of production. Reparation payments will depend upon the development of German resources to a level sufficient to contribute to the welfare of all Europe, as well as the future welfare of its own people.

This would be a policy of enlightened selfinterest. Prolongation of the terrible conditions existing in Germany, and elsewhere, is bound to lead to secret subversive activities. Recently many arrests were made in the British-United States zone of people connected with the continuing nazi underground organization. Press reports indicate a rebirth of extreme nationalism in Germany. These, if not due to despair, will be fostered by it. To offset it we should assist and encourage the rise of democratic leadership, the trade unions, the cooperatives, and present the opportunities for the common people to develop their own economic security as time passes.

It is obvious that for some time allied occupation will be necessary, if only to carry out policies in the general interest. How and by whom this shall be done will be a matter of controversy. One hopes that the old-fashioned concept of an occupying army will be replaced, as soon as conditions permit, by a body more in keeping with modern ideas and needs. If a German administration and a German police organization are carefully established to exclude rigidly any remnant of militarism or nazism, the actual military occupation force could be reduced to a minimum. And this is

Peace Treaties

essential to the occupying powers, who are deprived of absolutely necessary man-power because of the military occupation. It seems to me that more important than the presence of large bodies of foreign troops in Germany is the organization of carefully selected civilians from allied countries capable of assisting in the planning of the German economy and of the educational and social rehabilitation of the German people.

But above all it is important that civilian inspection and control by thoroughly competent persons and scientists should be established to ensure that no part of German science and industry will lend itself to the rebuilding of a new war-potential. Such occupation forces- the kind which I visualize-would achieve the objects of security, would assist European recovery, and would be preferable to a purely military occupation. May I repeat that the occupying nations, particularly Great Britain and France because of shortages of manpower, cannot afford to keep large armies in Germany if it can possibly be avoided.

My time does not permit to me to discuss the Austrian treaty. I agree with the hon. member for Peel that we might have had more to say about it, and perhaps said it sooner, but after all our primary interest is indeed in the German settlement; for it was in the war against the German Reich that we were ourselves most involved. We support the idea of an independent Austria whose boundaries should be established on the basis of the country as it was before the anschluss of 1938.

I have tried to emphasize the points which seem to need greater emphasis in Canada's representations at the peace conference. We believe that this continent, indeed this whole western hemisphere, including Canada, must be prepared to play a major role in the reconstruction of Europe as a whole. It is in this context that the German and Austrian treaties must be viewed. To my mind the abandonment of the policies underlying UNRRA may be a calamity. This is not our fault; for the Canadian delegation pressed strenuously at the recent assembly of the united nations for at least its replacement by an organization to handle relief which would be international in form and scope. We should continue to press this view. Worse still perhaps has been the failure so far to implement Sir John Boyd Orr's proposal for the establishment of a world food council. As the world's greatest exporter of wheat, we have an entirely proper if selfish interest in world food control to ensure proper returns to producers in times of surplus production as well as reasonable prices to consumers in hardly less frequent periods of

scarcity, and in the feeding of mankind as a whole. But so far, in spite of great hopes, the failure of the nations to organize effective international agencies for the exchange of goods, and the provision of capital equipment to the devastated areas, is not only disappointing but harmful to human welfare.

In short, Canada must not be satisfied merely to express its views on current issues and controversies. I repeat, we can, because of the unique position among the lesser powers which we achieved during the war, take a lead, by declaring again our readiness to play in full our part in assisting the starving displaced millions in Europe to rebuild their own lives and the economy in which their lots may be cast. What all this means, of course, is that we must recognize that peace and prosperity, like modern war and universal suffering, are indivisible.

As section 32 of Canada's submission to the deputies meeting has so well said:

In the long run, to settle the German problem and other world problems, we must build the united nations into an effective instrument for the preservation of peace. This cannot be accomplished without some surrender of national sovereignty and the institution ultimately of some form of world government.

With this conclusion we whole-heartedly agree.

Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): I do not intend to take very long, Mr. Speaker, to contribute in my small way to this debate. I do not intend, either, to multiply words on matters which have already been discussed quite effectively, I believe, by the two preceding speakers. With most of what both speakers said I could agree. More particularly I feel that the submission made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was well made. I appreciate, sir, this opportunity for the House of Commons to discuss the matter of external relations and the part that Canada should play in the formulation of treaties of peace for Germany and Austria.

I believe that parliament should have an opportunity at frequent intervals-just how frequent I am not at this moment prepared to say

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

Peace Treaties

of the submissions to the council of foreign ministers, or to the united nations, on almost any grave world problem.

Moreover, the government should not expect the members of this house to be ready to take the responsibility of ratifying treaties or international agreements without having had some responsibility, and I think a fair measure of it, in laying down the policy upon which these treaties or these international agreements have been formulated. The government has never yet, it seems to me, issued a frank forthright and definite policy on foreign affairs.

I supported the government in their protest against the attitude of the council of foreign ministers towards Canada's participation in the German and Austrian peace conferences that open next Monday in Moscow. The people of Canada generally feel, and quite rightly so, that Canada should have a part in drafting the treaties with Germany and Austria which shall bear a reasonable relationship to the contribution which Canada did make in winning the victory over the German military machine.

I supported the government in their protest and in their claim, not simply because I wanted to see Canada intrude herself into the affairs of other nations, but because I feel that Canada has a contribution, and a real contribution, to make to world peace and international good will. I quite realize that by material standards, by comparison with other countries, Canada may not be a great power, but I contend that by moral standards Canada ranks with the greatest in the world. And just as we fought in the war to preserve the ideals of freedom and democracy, and in no sense because we wanted power or territory or material gain, so I claim we are prepared m the making of peace to exert our influence and our efforts into moral channels in an endeavour to establish justice and not power politics or selfish manoeuvring as the foundation upon which treaties are to be drafted and upon which world peace will be so dependent in the years to come.

By ignoring Canada the council of foreign ministers is certainly in no sense showing international good will and cooperation. They all want to see Canada contribute generously of her material gifts to feed a hungry world. They all acknowledge the sacrifices which we made in manpower, in machinery, in food, materials and in our scientific skill during the war. And every member of the council of foreign ministers, I feel sure, admires the further sacrifices Canada has made since the war to prevent suffering among the peoples of the

world. They all admit Canada's great sacrifices, but they seem to want us to do nothing but continue to make sacrifices.

No people ever took kindly to an expectation of that kind. I say that is akin to taxation without representation, a thing which is repugnant to freedom-loving people, no matter where they happen to live in the world. Surely the big four must realize that Canada cannot soon forget the brushing off she has suffered at their hands, and thinking people everywhere will remember too that Canada's position has been weakened to some extent at least by the failure of the government to adopt and adhere to a well-defined foreign policy.

It has long been my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that Canada should have a strong, non-partisan foreign policy. I believe the members of this group have always expressed their determination to cooperate with the government in laying down such a policy and to take their full responsibility in its formulation and application. I believe, moreover-and I have expressed this on various occasions

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

Mr. JAQUES:

And in Greece.

Mr. LOW:

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

Peace Treaties

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

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Leaving Britain to wash the dirty dishes.

Mr. LOW:

Yes. In her present exhausted state I claim that is not only inhumane but dangerous as well. In my opinion, the hope of the future lies in complete understanding of foreign policy and in readiness to cooperate amongst all the component independent parts of the British commonwealth, and, if you wish, of the Anglo-American world. Our duty, it seems to me, is clear. First, we must come to complete understanding with Britain. Britain does have a place on the council of foreign ministers and evidently she is expected to speak for the whole Anglo-Saxon world.

Second, Canada is the oldest, or I should say the most grown-up sister in the sisterhood of nations of the commonwealth; we should take the lead in rallying the other parts of the commonwealth, and, if possible, the United States and other democracy-loving nations, to stand solidly together with Britain in this hour of grave danger.

Third, we should maintain a firm stand. I commend the government on the stand it has taken thus far, that Canada should be given her just place in the peace conferences. I

have gone over the submission which Canada made with respect to the German and Austrian treaties, and I have little to add to what has already been said. I believe that the submission regarding the peace with Germany is good, and I find myself in substantial agreement with the government in that.

In the fourth place, since the united nations organization is a reality-the only reality, it seems to me, outside of the British commonwealth that the nations of the world have been able to devise thus far as a means of achieving world peace-the only sensible attitude that we can take now is to pray to God that it will be successful and to give it every opportunity to show what it can do. I for one, Mr. Speaker, propose to do just that. I am not a carping critic by any means, of the work of the united nations organization. I should like to see it succeed in establishing permanent peace on just foundations. To date it has not given much promise of being able to do so.

If we are to be able to assist in laying down an enduring peace with any nation, and to take our place in the councils of the great nations, ready and willing to exercise our moral strength for the good of the world, I believe we must go back to the spirit of the Atlantic charter. We must revive in our people the hope which that charter aroused in the people of the world. We must hold up the spirit of the charter as our ensign, and we must work unceasingly to see that the terms of the Atlantic charter are made realities. I like the way President Roosevelt spoke of it. I subscribe whole-heartedly to the spirit of his declaration, and I believe that if we remember it in our submissions with respect to the formulation of the treaties for Germany and Austria and any others which may follow, we shall have no difficulty in exercising that influence which Canada alone is capable of exercising by virtue of the fact that she is not seeking any material gain, and that she is anxious to demonstrate her sincerity by good works. Here is what Roosevelt said:

This is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for the kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the antithesis of the order of tyranny which dictators seek to create. To that order of tyranny we oppose the greater conception- the moral order. Let our nations place their destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women, and their faith in freedom under the guidance of God.

I subscribe to the sentiments in that statement, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that in the application of those principles we have the underlying hope for the future peace of the world.

Peace Treaties

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