April 30, 1948



Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: That the name of Mr. Timmins be substituted for that of Mr. Green on the special committee on veterans affairs. Motion agreed to.



Colin William George Gibson (Secretary of State of Canada)


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State) moved:

That the name of Mr. Cournoyer be substituted for that of Mr. Cote (Verdun) on the special committee to consider amendments to the Dominion Elections Act.


Motion agreed to.



Mr. D. F. BROWN (Essex West) moved the first reading of Bill No. 220 (from the senate) to amend the Loan Companies Act. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance) moved the first reading of Bill No. 221 (from the senate) to provide for the winding-up of the Penny Bank of Ontario and the repeal of the Penny Bank Act. Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



Bill No. 222, for the relief of Lucien Menard. -Mr. Maybank. Bill No. 223, for the relief of Sheila Trench Thomson Ellis.-Mr. Maybank. Bill No. 224, for the relief of Alexandre Hebert.-Mr. Maybank. Bill No. 225, for the relief of Anne Green-blatt. Pliss.-Mr. Maybank. Bill No. 226, for the relief of Sonnie Levitt Shereck.-Mr. Maybank. Bill No. 227, for the relief of James Young.- Mr. Maybank.


The house resumed from Thursday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):

Mr. Speaker, last evening in dealing with this very important subject I said I was speaking in all humility because I realized the breadth and diversity of the problems we face when we discuss matters having to do with foreign relations. I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who to a certain extent criticized the amount of money being voted for external affairs. Personally I have always been in favour of the strictest economy in all departmental activities, but in my view the total of some $9,000,000 being spent on external affairs is one of the finest investments this country could make.

The hon. member for Broadview, along with every other hon. member of this house and every citizen of this country, is to some extent responsible for the extension and expansion of the external affairs department; and I will amplify this statement. Up to the time of the South African war at the end of last century Canada and the United States were in a complacent mood, because in those days we realized, and had reason to believe, that we were protected by the British navy, while the Monroe doctrine was fully implemented as far as the great American nation was concerned. It is an historical fact, knowm now to everyone who wants to study history impartially, that the Monroe doctrine was capable of implementation purely and simply because of the wonderful shield and protection afforded by the British navy to all civilized' nations, and this applied most certainly to the American republic.

In the 1910's, for instance, who would have thought we were going to have a world war, in which every country would be directly interested and eventually participating? Geographically speaking Canada was supposed to stand

Supply-External Affairs

apart from any European conflict. We had then thrown aside any idea of participating in any imperialistic war. But the moment we heard that shot at Sarajevo, when the Austrian duke was killed for political reasons, even on this continent we realized that the world was smaller than we knew it in the nineteenth century. It was true that we had no fear from the north. We had no potential enemy there and were protected by nature, by the Arctic ocean and ice cap. It was also true that we had no fear from the south, because we thought and lived much the same as our American friends did. In those days many of us asked' ourselves why we should participate in a European conflict, and why we should not let the nations of Europe settle their own problems, by war if they wanted to do so. Undoubtedly that opinion was held even more strongly by our friends to the south. But it did not take us long to realize that we were part and parcel of the whole world, and that no longer could we consider keeping ourselves isolated from the rest of the nations, no matter how far away they are from our borders.

That is why Canada participated, rightly and gloriously, in the war of 1914-18. Eor many dreary, deadly months we hoped and prayed that the great nation to the south also would participate on the side of democracy and freedom. Eventually, after the Lusitania disaster, they realized that it was also their war. They knew their own shores were no longer immune; that if there was danger to England there was danger to France and the whole of Europe from the hordes of the Kaiser and of Austria; there was also danger to her own soil. They suddenly realized that they had to come into the conflict and stay until the bitter end so as to save democracy and freedom.

Then in 1939, after a period of peace which was all to short, again we realized that the world was growing smaller. National frontiers had disappeared owing to the great advances in physical science. We were all brothers together. It is true that we had to go through the humiliation of Munich; but perhaps that had to be because we were not realists. All the democracies were hoping and praying that we would not have another war such as we had from 1914 to 1918. But we know what happened in 1939; and to her great glory and honour once more Canada realized that she had to be in that battle for Christianity, freedom and democracy. As in 1914 we realized that even if it meant the tribulations of a horrible conflict, those barbaric hordes led by Hitler and Mussolini had to be confined within the borders of Europe

['Mr. Bradette.]

and detroyed there; that otherwise they would spread death and destruction throughout the continents of the world.

It took quite a while for our friends to the south to realize how serious was the situation, and again we must thank a kind Providence that in those troubled days the head of the great American republic was one of the greatest statesmen the world has ever known. He appreciated then the seriousness of the situation, though he was a pacifist like our Prime Minister, like the members of this parliament and every Canadian. We were praying and hoping for peace, but he knew the storm clouds which were hovering over Europe were bound to spread to every section of the world. Almost by himself, by his own courageous actions, he aroused American public opinion even before Pearl Harbor.

I have been told on good authority that in a discouraged moment Mr. Roosevelt confided to one of his best friends that though he had thrown everything he had into the battle, his great talent, his high office, his wonderful oratorical eloquence, he was afraid he was losing ground before American public opinion. But then came Pearl Harbor. It is true that prior to this Mr. Roosevelt and leading Americans of all parties in that great nation had heard appeals from Great Britain, which was almost alone for over a year, the only human rampart against the hordes of barbarism, paying the horrible cost in young lives and old lives and in destruction of indescribable magnitude. Mr. Roosevelt and the United States were told that Britain was fighting the barbarians in defence of democracy and freedom; but it was not enough. It took something like Pearl Harbor to make the American nation realize and to direct its policy accordingly, that though this occurred thousands of miles away it was an attack on the American nation, the same as if it had happened in the heart of New York, for instance. From that time on they have been fighting on our side, although their hearts were always with us, from the beginning of the conflict in 1939, through to the end.

That is why I say that it was not of our own choosing that we participated, but our way of life was in danger of destruction. I know that the contribution we made was a necessary one, although costly, and every citizen of this country has reason to be well pleased with our part, although dolorous in it.

As I said before, from the standpoint of geography it could be considered that we were not only pacifist but also isolationist. All that disappeared, because we suddenly realized

Supply-External Affairs

that every citizen in the world was to a large extent his brother's keeper. That principle has been evident throughout two wars, and it is being just as strongly pressed forward at the present time to emphasize our ideology. Because for every man, every woman and every child in this world, we pray and-wish for peace. In the back of our minds, however, and in our private and public deliberations, we cannot get away from the fact that there is a skeleton in the nation's closet, the skeleton of war. If it were possible to have a plebiscite today among all the citizens of the world they would vote one hundred per cent for peace. But there must be a diabolical genie that finds it possible periodically to develop a situation which tries the patience of individuals and of nations.

I maintain that through the united nations organization, to which we properly belong, and to which Canada has made a great contribution, we are fulfilling a high and constructive purpose. If the voice of Canada is listened to and respected through its spokesman, the right hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), to whose eloquence we listened yesterday, and if the ideals he has set forth prevail in that worldwide forum at Lake Success and at Flushing Meadows, we do not need to despair.

We shall have to guard ourselves in our own actions and pronouncements; but, at the same time, anyone who attended the meetings of the united nations last fall will say that the voice of Canada is highly respected and eagerly listened to. The reason for that is simple. In proportion to our population we have done more than any other nation of the world. And there is more than that to the reason why Canada is so highly respected in the forum of the United Nations. After giving of our lives and our resources through our courageous participation in the last two world conflicts, we do not ask for any territorial aggrandizement. We do not wish any additional territory in the Atlantic or the Pacific, nor do we want even any rectification of our own borders, which in some parts are anomalous. If we wanted to be selfish we could be; we could ask for some reward for what we have done in the two great wars, to try to rectify our borders. But we do not w'ant to do that, because we do not want to carry on agitation in respect of any question which might bring friction, when peace deliberations are our chief concern.

Some doubt was expressed yesterday as to the respect in which the Canadian delegation is held. Let me repeat that the voice of Canada is highly respected. There are in these precincts some who were delegates of 5849-221J

or advisers for Canada in the united nations organization. They knew that the best way to win the hearts and minds of the people they met was to say that they were Canadians. Immediately there was a sympathetic response; they spoke their minds to us, and left no doubt as to how much they greatly admired the wonderful things that this relatively small nation has accomplished.

These are reasons for great pride. I have seen with my own eyes many nations asking the advice of and a lead from Canada, because they respect our views, and1 they respect the action we have taken in our own history. I appreciate sincerely the action taken by the government last fall when I was appointed a delegate to the united nations organization in New York. I know, as chairman of the committee on external affairs, that there were many occasions in the course of our deliberations in that committee on which I was agreeably surprised by the knowledge shown by members of the committee. I have in mind the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and others-I have no time to give all their names-who were sent as delegates, as alternate delegates or advisers to San Francisco, to London and to New York. They gave every evidence of having taken a constructive part in those deliberations. I can say that those who were appointed as delegates or alternates left a fine impression as Canadians and as men who understood both national and international situations.

Last fall, with others, I happened to be a delegate from Canada. All parties were represented. I do not wish to give the names, but I can say sincerely that each participated to the best of his ability, and I take pleasure in paying them this tribute. They worked there as Canadians, realizing fully the seriousness of the problems they were facing.

It is no sinecure to be appointed a delegate, an alternate or an adviser in united nations activities. I know that those from the press gallery who attended the last session of the united nations were unanimous in their report as to the activities of the Canadian delegation. They all agreed that we had worked-not eight hours a day, because there was no question of union hours in those circumstances, but from twelve to fourteen hours every day. We did it diligently and willingly. I do not hesitate to repeat that the hon. member for Peel, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and all others who participated in previous meetings and deliberations made a fine impression on all who had the benefit of

Supply-External Affairs

listening to and meeting them, because I often had occasion to observe their fine accomplishments.

It was a new experience for me as a parliamentarian, and one I appreciated. That was the first time in many years I have had the great honour of being a member of parliament that it had been possible for me to mix with high officials of the civil service-high officials in a very important department. I know I gained much by my contact with those career men.

I do not need to mention names, because Canada has been most fortunate in her high officials in the civil service, and particularly in the foreign affairs branch. I could mention the names of Mr. Pearson and Mr. McNaughton, and many others who are making it their life's work to serve in that important department.

It was inevitable that as members of parliament, we were not always familiar with the methods of members of the civil service, but I believe if there was any light friction or any personal reaction the parliamentarians benefited by having been in contact with those high government officials. I have no doubt, too, that the benefit was reciprocal, and that the members of the service benefited by being in contact with men who had taken part in the hurly-burly of active politics, men who must face all conditions, from day to day, and from year to year, and must be prepared to meet public opinion. The contact between those two groups was bound to be beneficial in our deliberations and actions at the united nations meetings.

If an invitation is extended to any member of parliament to appear before the united nations in any capacity, I would urge him to accept it. He will know in advance that he will have to work, but he will enjoy it, because there is a feeling of accomplishment. And we can say that so far as our consideration of external affairs is concerned, the matter has been taken practically out of politics, and this is certainly a great credit to our parliament.

I want to compliment the administration for the fine move they made when they found it possible to have every section of the House of Commons and the Senate represented at the united nations. It is in that way that the government gels closer co-operation and has better work done.

I wish to make a brief reference to our connection with the United States. I may be prejudiced, but I love the United States; I love the Americans, and this attitude does not lessen my love for Canada. The United States is a big exuberant country possessing

all the qualities and all the faults of a young, strong giant. Some of us would seem to be afraid of the size of the United States and the important place that it has been projected into. In the course of this debate reference has been made to two worlds, to two philosophies, Soviet Russia in the east and the United States of America on the American continent.

One colossus, Russia, was built up during the last seven centuries. That country carries on today the same imperialistic expansionist idea which was evident back in the ninth century and which has been her continuous policy. Europe and the rest of the world has often suffered from that expansionism. Today the United States is the second so-called world colossus. But she did not reach that stature of her own volition or with any idea of expansion. It was not done by her own work.

I think I showed at the beginning of my remarks that the United States, on account of her prosperity, her high standard of living, her strength, her wonderful natural resources, her climatic conditions, her isolation from Asia and Europe by two great expanses of water, never in her wildest dreams imagined that she would become the leading nation of the world. She was compelled to do so. I think this is an example of the ways of Providence as shown through history, as applied to individuals as well as to nations.

What would have happened in 1914-18 if there had been no United States? That democratic nation did not want to expand her territory. She was satiated as far as territory was concerned; but she answered the call of democracy which she knew was in danger in Europe. There is no doubt that she helped to a great extent to save European civilization, yes the whole world. She applied that principle just as forcibly, if not more forcibly, in 1939. She did not want to participate in a second war. Her people did not want a second war. Why should they want war? They were prosperous; within their own borders they had the highest standard of living of any nation in the world. They were a creditor nation; they were on friendly terms with everyone. They did not want to expand their territory. The territory which she might have annexed unjustly in the past she gave back. She gave those people their freedom. This house should realize that that great nation did not become powerful of her own volition. It was simply because there were compelling circumstances, and she

Supply-External Affairs

realized the role she had to play at the cost of great sacrifices, in defending civilization and freedom.

Is it fair to make a comparison between the United States ideology and Russian Soviet ideology? Can a favourable comparison be made between communism and progressive capitalism? Such comparisons are not right, yet they are made time and again in this House of Commons. As I said a moment ago, the United States has all the exuberance of a fine, powerful youth. She knows her strength; she knows her ability to produce, but she is also magnanimous. I listened attentively last night to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He said that in the last war we repeated practically the same errors that we had made in the previous war, that there had been an expansion of territory, the annexation of new population and the use of slave labour in the mines and forests of the victorious nations. Surely that would not apply to the United States.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar seems to deplore the fact that the United States wants to have defensive outposts on the Pacific ocean. I for one am in favour of such outposts. The United States does not want them for purposes of aggrandizement. T ask hon. members to think of the situation of Australia and New Zealand during the last war. A large number of the courageous sons of those countries were fighting in North Africa when the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred. After Pparl Harbor their countries were in deadly danger. In those horrible hours after the Philippines were crushed, over two-thirds of the United States navy was destroyed. General MacArthur had to leave the Philippines as a vanquished general, his magnificent armed forces completely destroyed. He went to Australia, and there he was received with open arms. The people in Australia were a little impatient. They wanted to know what was going to happen when their sons were fighting in North Africa and their own shores were in deadly danger. These outposts are needed. If I have any voice in advising my government I hope that we never find it possible to criticize them.

What do they mean? They mean that there is a safeguard for the civilized world, for all free-loving people, for all free-loving nations the same as the British navy to a large extent was a safeguard for the peace-loving nations of the world. This is not the time and place to propound any theories about the great British empire which is not

disintegrating but is merely growing into the British commonwealth of nations.

1 repeat that these outposts are not for United States aggrandizement; they are for the safety of the whole world. They are not a threat to any nation that wants to remain peaceful. There was no idea o{ threat in the outpost of Pearl Harbor. When the attack on Pearl Harbor took place the Japanese ambassador, who was supposed to be talking peace to the United States government, must have known that the attack had been planned by the military caste in Japan. We do not want a repetition of that situation. Prevention is better than cure.

Supposing the United States had had no outpost at Pearl Harbor? Supposing that that horrible holocaust had occurred in San Francisco harbour? It might have proved a deadly blow to the United States. With the situation that we must of necessity face in the world today we must have these outposts. They are not for purposes of war; they are merely to tell the nations of the world that they are more than United States outposts, that they are world outposts which will stand guard for all nations which desire peace and freedom. Any nation that believes in peace will not have to worry. The navy, the marines, the army and the air force will be there for one purpose only, the maintenance of the peace of the world. The United States are telling all the peaceful nations to call on them if anyone dares to attack them unjustly, and the United States will answer that call immediately and effectively. That is my way of thinking.


William Ross Macdonald (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)



Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)


I did not like to interrupt the hon. member, but if he will read my speech he will see that I was dealing with the Atlantic charter and I gave many other examples to show that it had been set aside at various conferences.


April 30, 1948