Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved

that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to empower the governor in council to do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existing international emergency deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada subject to the restrictions enumerated in the said measure.

He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):

I should like

to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he made a final decision with respect to acceptance or rejection of the invitation extended to him by the president of the general assembly of the United Nations to serve on the good offices committee with respect to oriental problems?

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Along with the delegate

for India at the United Nations, Sir Benegal Rau, I was asked by the president of the general assembly if I would serve on that committee. The president, Sir Benegal and I had constituted, as hon. members know, the cease-fire committee. I believe Sir Benegal Rau has indicated that he would be unable to serve on the good offices committee. Therefore I informed the president that in view of Sir Benegal Rau's inability to serve possibly it would be better for him if he selected two new persons. However, he has asked me to reconsider the matter, and at the present time I am reconsidering it.

Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):

should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether members of the house, particularly opposition members, will have an opportunity to examine in detail during this session the defence expenditures which he enumerated last night, either in the public accounts committee or in any other parliamentary committee?

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

I think I should probably answer the hon. member's question. There will be an opportunity for hon. members, including the members of the opposition, to examine in the public accounts committee all the expenditures that have been made. If the question refers to the estimates for future expenditures, there will be opportunity in the committee of supply to discuss these in detail.

Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):

Mr. Speaker, so many avenues of information, which are available to members of the cabinet, and particularly to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), are closed to private members of this house that it is with some diffidence that they approach the question of foreign affairs. But it is no mean thing to be a free member in a free parliament, and to be able to exercise the freedom of speech which we enjoy. So far as I am concerned, my wish is that we may long cherish and preserve it.

Now, sir, it has occurred to me that every day the world grows smaller. As nations we live upon one another's doorstep, and we have not yet learned to do it in amity and in mutual understanding. The very closeness of

112 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Knight contact which makes that difficult makes war global and the more disastrous. Its instruments can reach us without warning, overnight.

In our lifetime we have seen two wars, and many hon. members of this house have taken part in one or both of them. I think most of us have seen our sons-and some have lost their sons-in one of them. But even at that, we on this continent have no experience of the horrors of war as they have come to certain European nations: the horrors suffered by countries like Germany, France, Britain, Korea, or Russia-just to mention a few. We cannot hope for such immunity in another war. Thus it is the belief of every member of this house that the greatest problem of our day is the preservation of world peace. We wish for it devoutly, and indeed I think the peoples of every nation wish for it devoutly; but in spite of that we seem unable to settle our differences, and we drift and drift to what may be ultimate self-destruction. Indeed, the very instruments we create for the settlement of disputes appear to emphasize the differences rather than the agreements in the opinions of men.

I think the greatest deterrent to a condition of peace is the present division of the world into two and only two camps, built around two powerful nations-two great magnetic poles, as it were, attracting into their orbit all other nations, for ideological, economic or merely geographical reasons. Between the two is a great gulf fixed, and there seems no middle road. The fact that one of these powers has retired in surly reticence behind what we call the iron curtain, and does not permit its own people free intercourse with the western world, has added to the mutual fear and suspicion, as indeed have some of the ebullient and boastful statements of certain irresponsible people in the other.

In the state system which used to obtain in Europe, when a number of strong nations were divided into two camps, Great Britain, then a great world power, often achieved the preservation of peace through exercising what was commonly called the balance of power. The last war relegated Britain to a sphere of comparative unimportance, the status of a weak nation in comparison with either the United States or the U.S.S.R. Her voice at worst has been hushed by economic conditions, and at best has lost some of its authority; alone she cannot be a restraining influence. But in association with the other members of the commonwealth, Britain could be again a potent force in the preservation of world peace. Could she rally about her,

as she did of old, the other component parts of what was known as the British empire- Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries which comprised that empire-then the strength which would be in such unity might yet be a sobering influence upon any nation which, drunk with its own power, might contemplate disturbing the peace of the world.

I come now to the question which has been disturbing us of late, namely, Korea and the Chinese intervention there. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) said the other day, and better than I could have hoped to do, many of the things which have exercised my mind.

We as Canadians have had little experience in dealing with the people of Asia. We must remember that a revolution is taking place, not only in Korea, not' only in China, but in all the countries of Asia. There is an intense desire on the part of these people to get rid of the exploiter, or foreigner- so far as many of them are concerned the terms are synonymous. While Americans are apt to blame the communists for all these troubles, the fact is that the ideological issue means little to the masses of those people. The demand is for bread, for equality, for a place in the sun, for a better way of life, for self-determination. The day will come, and perhaps before long, when the Asiatics will decide to run their own affairs and foreigners will have to give up their control or be forced out. We who fought a war in 1914-18 for self-determination of small nations and for democracy in general would find ourselves at a loss for good arguments against such a course.

The Labour government of Britain, a country old and wise in the ways of diplomacy, picked the psychological moment for retirement from India, and in such a way as to leave behind mutual esteem and good feeling. It is to be hoped that the present difficult negotiations will in no way interfere with that happy state of affairs.

The happy facility of the British in diplomacy does not appear to extend to our American friends. They are a fine and friendly people; they are splendid neighbours, as we have good reason to know; they are generous to a fault; they believe, as we do, in political freedom, but having said that, I must say that in my humble opinion they have made mistake after mistake in their dealings with Korea and China. It is easy for Asiatics to misinterpret their good intentions.

Since I am speaking in support of our amendment, which declares that the action

of the Canadian government in declaring China an aggressor was premature and unwise, I shall give as background a record of some of the mistakes.

For example, the Chinese people think of the United States as the nation which opposed their emancipation from the dictatorial and corrupt regime of Chiang Kai-shek, supplying him with arms which prolonged the civil war and resulted in thousands of deaths and in untold hardship to the Chinese, including their women and their children. They think of the United States as the nation which protected that leader in Formosa, the declaration of Cairo notwithstanding-a declaration to which, incidentally, the United States was a signatory.

The United States has consistently refused to recognize China and allow her to be seated in the council of the nations. That is a responsibility which the government of Canada must share, but one which this C.C.F. party does not share, since it has consistently advocated recognition, while repudiating the communist philosophy of the Chinese government.

One might argue that our present quarrel with China might never have arisen if she had been so seated in the United Nations, but the time to prove that is now past. When we consider the Korean sphere, the failure of the United Nations forces to halt at the 38th parallel would certainly be misinterpreted by many Chinese. The other day the minister simply and aptly described that line as the Rubicon. History tells us that while the crossing of the Rubicon was to the immediate advantage of Julius Caesar, it was the cause of his ultimate downfall. While it might have appeared necessary from the military viewpoint that General MacArthur should not stop at the 38th parallel, we thought that certainly he should have stopped very soon thereafter. That would have been a good time to call a cease-fire; that would have been an opportunity for what the Secretary of State for External Affairs quoted Mr. Churchill as describing as magnanimous appeasements, and a gesture of conciliation based on strength rather than upon weakness.

Apparently the minister was as much surprised as the rest of us, and as much surprised as were the Chinese, when the American general, on whose responsibility we have not learned, ordered that victory march right up to the Manchurian border. Can hon. members put themselves for a moment in the position of the Chinese on that occasion, crouching on the banks of the Yalu river? Most of those people are not learned in diplomacy. They know little or

The Address-Mr. Knight nothing about foreign affairs. I am sure most of them know nothing about the cause for which they are fighting, but they do know what it means to protect their homes. I ask hon. members to put themselves in the position of those common men of China, crouching there on the muddy banks of the Yalu, and watching the approach of that vast foreign army. What must they have thought? What would hon. members have thought had they been in that position?

Well, if we do not know what they were thinking, at least we know what they did. Even as they drove us toward the sea, we still refused to admit them to the only council in which we could talk with them as equals. Rather it stiffened our resistance, and we demanded that they appear not for consultation but for condemnation before a court to which we had consistently refused their admission on equal terms. Simultaneously we asked them for a cease-fire. What would hon. members have answered, had they been the Chinese, in the light of the background I have just described?

I have mentioned foolish and irresponsible statements on the part of Americans, which did not make for reassurance in the minds of the Chinese. There were:

1. The famous Truman statement, later qualified, but undoubtedly expressed, to drop the bomb on China.

2. The home-for-Christmas declaration of MacArthur, and the drive for the Manchurian line.

3. The speech by an individual American in a responsible position about wiping communism out of all Asia,

4. The threat to withhold United States wheat from the starving people of India, because of a difference of opinion between the United States and India on a phase of the Korean situation.

5. The general tendency for the United States to allow certain prominent American military men to make political statements, if, indeed, not to dictate American foreign policy.

A casual observer might be tempted to think, from all these things, that the United States was deliberately trying to provoke a war with China. I do not believe that for one moment, but I do believe the American foreign policy is panicky and vacillating. We in Canada must be no mere satellite to anyone. I am aware of the coincidence of our opinion in many things with that of our American friends. I am aware the time may come when we may be very dependent upon their good will and very thankful for their strength and assistance. But I believe that at this time any blind subservience to their foreign policy on

The Address-Mr. Knight those.accounts would negate the whole principle upon which the United Nations is based.

We should-we must-have an independent foreign policy. We must not be dragged into a war against China, where our forces would be dissipated and we would be left helpless to defend our country, if that need should arise.

I do not believe that this upsurge of Chinese nationalism is necessarily favourable to Russian-Chinese alliances. There are many points of difference. They have totally different cultures. But we have done much to cement such an alliance. We have thrown the Chinese people into Stalin's arms; we have provided him with a great propaganda weapon by slapping the Chinese, not on one cheek but on two. At least in words, Stalin has befriended them and in my opinion we have played right into his hands.

Someone will say that some of the statements I have made today have been made before by Canadian communists. That may be so. Those people have spoiled many good causes by their very advocacy of them. They have certainly hurt the cause of peace in this country, to the extent that their screaming for it has rendered it unpopular. But I shall not fall into the trap of deviating from my beliefs, or my expression of them, because of what communists may think or say or do. That method has been only too successful in certain quarters in the past.

On the whole question I have come to certain conclusions, among which are the following:

First, the restoration and preservation of peace by agreement among the nations is at the moment the important thing. The saving of face is not the important thing. I am mindful of what war has done to the Korean civilian population. Liberation has been expensive for them, and it could happen to other populations. Let us get on with the negotiations.

Second, I do not believe that attack upon us is inevitable or, indeed, likely; but machinery, preferably under the United Nations, to prevent aggression, will have to be maintained. As long as part of the world is shut off from us and there is consequent darkness and mutual suspicion, we shall have to build our defences, lest our very helplessness may provoke such attack upon us. In the meantime it must be part of our task to allay the suspicion and fear that now exists, so that disarmament, the ideal condition, may at least become possible in our time.

Third, eventually, and soon, we shall have to abandon intolerance and ideas of racial superiority. We shall have to admit the

equality of human beings as such; we shall have to admit the right of Asiatics-nay, of people everywhere-to control their own destinies.

Fourth, just as a loss of freedom in. one part of the world is a threat to freedom as a whole, so hunger and poverty and injustice anywhere should be the concern of all.

Fifth, to this end we cannot expect forever to maintain our high standard of living while there are millions who have never had enough to eat. We shall have to learn to give, and to give without hope of return. We shall win friends, and we shall only win friends when to our gifts there are no strings attached, either political or military.

Finally, the opinion that I expressed before, that a third force in the world might have a moderating and restraining influence on world affairs, indicates that by mutual aid and co-operation we can strengthen the ties of friendship that exist between the members of the commonwealth.

I have not resisted the temptation, as did the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) in his touching address the other day, of prescribing for the ills of the world. What I have said has been a background for my support of the C.C.F. amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe that the condemnation of China as an aggressor at this time is a mistake. It is without meaning; nay, it makes a laughing-stock of the United Nations, unless it is followed by sanctions or other punitive measures, which could lead only to retaliation and then to open war with China.

As it is, I believe that public condemnation at this time is a mistake in that it may close the door on negotiations, may keep China indefinitely out of the United Nations, and may widen the already existing breach with Asia. The C.C.F. amendment suggests that the Canadian government made one mistake in branding China as an aggressor at this time. I urge that it do not now make a second mistake in agreeing that sanctions be applied against the same nation. That course may be the next step that the United States may advocate, but in my opinion it would close the door to peace with China and might lead, in progressive steps, to the world war which we all wish to prevent.

Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, in the few months since we last met, many things have happened, some inspiring and some discouraging. As tension grows between east and west we in Canada seem to find ourselves in a perpetual crisis. On every side we are beset by dangers and obstacles which are not of our own making, and about which

even we can do very little. In the midst of this dark and confused picture I feel that the highest tribute should be paid to the Canadian people for their calmness, their good sense and the unity they have displayed under all circumstances. By comparison with other countries, the people of Canada have borne themselves admirably.

By the understanding and patience of the people, the government's contribution to world peace has been made effective. We are not a house divided. I feel that the government is entitled to a full measure of support because of the manner in which it has handled international problems. If any one man is to be singled out for special attention he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Time and again he and his assistants have shown a faculty for doing the right thing when Britain and the United States have differed on questions of policy. Too few understand his difficult position. He is trusted by both the United States and Britain. He has to explain one to the other. He has to help compose their differences. He has always been the bridge between the United States and the commonwealth-and I do not mean a Duplessis bridge.

Canada's contribution to the cause of world peace has been a significant one. For that, as I have already said, the government is entitled to full credit. I heard it said the other day, by a man who should know what he is talking about, that we have in Canada 14 million of the most influential people in the world. The minister of external affairs, as Mr. Canada, is making this country's voice heard and influence felt at the council tables of the world. I think this house will fully agree with me when I say that he is doing a superb job, and that he has in large measure captured the imagination of the Canadian people.

I think we have reached our present position in Korea because the United States in particular has refused to permit the actual government of China to take its place in the assembly. I have felt that for a long time, but there is nothing we can do about it at the moment. The criticism has been made in this house that, by voting for the United States resolution branding China as an aggressor, Canada helped to shut the door on a peaceful settlement of the Korean war. An examination of the cold facts indicates that there is no validity in that argument. The door to understanding has not been slammed; it has not been shut; the door is wide open today, and there is a welcome mat on the doorstep inviting China to come in whenever she so desires.

The Address-Mr. Croll

There is no doubt that Canada did not welcome this kind of resolution, feeling that the prospects of settling not only the war in Korea but other important Far Eastern problems would be increased by exploring all other avenues before naming an aggressor. But once the resolution came before the United Nations this country could not do anything else in good conscience; we could not vote against the resolution. We merely called truth as our witness and acted accordingly.

There can be no denial that there was aggression. These volunteers came fully equipped with jet planes and tanks. There was a definite act of aggression, and Canada voted accordingly. But what the minister of external affairs did before the first political committee of the general assembly has been to some extent neglected by this house and has been hardly understood in the country. He understood full well that a tough United States resolution would result in a splitting of the unity of the free world. He bent his efforts toward achieving two objectives: First, the softening of the United States resolution to emphasize negotiation and place the punitive aspect in a secondary position; second, to persuade the United Kingdom and other nations that if this modification took place it would remove the barriers in the way of a yes vote. How successful the minister was is shown by the vote in favour of a greatly modified resolution.

If the United Nations is to serve the high purpose for which it was created, it is of vital importance that unity be shown in the face of a world threat to freedom. What else could Canada do? This country did not, as some suggest, play along with the United States because there was nothing else we could do. In his powerful address before the United Nations the minister described the resolution as premature and unwise. But, having said that, he did not depart from consistency when he said that Canada would vote for the resolution because this country could not disagree with the paragraph thereof which condemned communist China as an aggressor.

Let us not fall into the fatal error of believing that aggression will become more widespread because we face the realities of the world situation. If all our problems and confusions are to be resolved not by negotiation of differences but by force against force, then we must equip ourselves to the full, not only in a military sense but also in a spiritual and moral sense. We have made our position very clear to the Chinese communist government. We have left no doubt in their minds and in the minds of the Russians that the days of appeasement have

116 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Croll disappeared with the realization that appeasement breeds the very aggression it seeks to halt. In future we intend to lead from strength.

If the Chinese government reacts to this resolution as Chinese rather than as communists, they will regard the condemnation as involving loss of face. It will be a blow to their pride. This is serious, but it is not insurmountable. They can be made to understand that the very basis of the United Nations made necessary such action by the sixty nations represented therein. On the other hand, if they react as communists-and it appears that is what is happening-then they will shout and bluster; they will threaten one day and change their tune the next, as may suit their particular purpose.

It must be becoming very clear to the Chinese communists that they are not going to attain their ends by force. If they want to be given a seat in the United Nations- and that is what they desire above everything else; if they want to replace the pigmy nationalist segment that is there at the present time, then that can come to pass only by the settlement of the Korean and other Far Eastern problems on a basis acceptable to them and to the democratic world. When the time comes to revoke the resolution of censure and admit China to the comity of nations, we shall of course act accordingly.

We in this house are in a fortunate position in that we can second-guess the government and play Monday morning quarterback. After the government has made a decision we are in a position to pass judgment on it. I said earlier that our great strength was our unity. We have had a full discussion of this matter. It has been complete, and it seems to me that discussion is one thing and voting is another. After all, the differences among members of the house with respect to the particular policy expressed in the amendment is a trivial one. I think it should not be exaggerated or magnified in order to indicate that our differences are greater than they actually are. When the time comes I hope that we can avoid a vote on the amendment.

I should like to deal with another matter, arising out of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton). It was a clear, concise and convincing statement of what the world of tomorrow may be like from Canada's point of view. He emphasized that we are committed under the North Atlantic treaty to do our share in the common cause; that we will stand together. Then he went on to translate that to mean that we shall be sending Cana-

dian troops to serve in the European army to be commanded by General Dwight Eisenhower. In that adventure we shall be full partners. Therefore it will become our duty to apply ourselves with others to the most perplexing question of Germany and German rearmament. Today for the first time Canada will be asked to help to find the answer to the German problem. It is a very old problem, and one which apparently must be answered by each generation in turn. During all my adult life we have been either arming Germany or fighting Germany.

All these decisions need to be taken in the light of the east-west cleavage, which is a real one. It is deplorable, but it is a fact and all our international thinking must be predicated on that fact. There are two important aspects of the question of German rearmament; there is the need, and there is the danger. First let me deal for a few moments with the need.

A good case may be made out for German rearmament. From a military point of view it may be a regrettable necessity. Nevertheless we must approach with the greatest caution the whole question of rearming Germany, and with the memory still vivid of what an armed Germany cost the world in blood and tears not so many years ago.

In girding ourselves against the threat of communism let us remember that not so long ago we regarded fascism as just as deadly a threat to our freedom. Therefore in putting arms into the hands of a people who still regard Hitler as having been unlucky rather than a scoundrel, let us take care that we do not create a Frankenstein as evil as the one hovering over the free world today from behind the iron curtain.

The existence of an armed east German force has doubtless been a factor in the decision of the Atlantic powers to consider the creation of a west German army as a part of an integrated European army. We may have to permit the rearming of western Germany precisely to the extent that the Russians arm eastern Germany. However, if we must rearm Germany on the advice of our military commanders, then there must not be moral disarmament. The west has already lost more than half the continent-a good deal of it by default, some by delay, but far more by appeasement. If we are to hold what little is left of Europe, as I believe we shall, we must make up our minds on certain fundamental issues. If Europe will defend itself, then we must be prepared to extend a very large measure of support when and as required. In his report General Eisenhower says there is a will and a desire on the part of western Europe to defend itself, and we are joining with them in this common undertaking. I

see no reason why we should not accept his assurance; but the statement he made on his visit to Germany, in which he suggested that we "let bygones be bygones," is not so reassuring. It seems to me that statement could well be construed as an apology for fighting against them the last time, or as an apology for the defeat we inflicted upon them. That sort of talk encourages the worst elements in Germany.

If it is decided that under the circumstances there is need for a strong Germany, that brings up the question of the danger of a strong Germany. History is too fresh in our minds for us to forget what happens when Germany becomes strong. Can we afford to chance it again without adequate precautionary measures? It is all very well to say that we are dealing with a different Germany, but are we? I believe we are still dealing with a people who are undemocratic and unrepentant, who consider themselves unfortunate, and whose chief object at the present time is to figure out the winning side and get on it. They think they can make a deal on rearmament, to the point of getting themselves out of the doghouse, and they believe we must agree on their terms. I remind the house that the west built up a democratic Germany in the twenties, only to find itself with Hitler's Germany on its hands in the thirties.

We are fighting communism today on a world-wide scale, with all our strength and resources. In doing so, however, we must make sure we do not bring back a form of fascism. I am not concerned with the question whether communism and fascism are the same or different. One thing basic to both is that they are living denials of human freedom and decency, and we are unalterably opposed to both. That decision must be irrevocable. Let me remind the house of a declaration made just five years and two days ago at Yalta:

"It is our inflexible purpose to destroy German militarism and nazism, and to ensure that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the world . .

Germany was to be permitted no armed forces, no general staff, no military equipment; nazi and military elements were to be "removed from public offices and from the economic life of the German people"; German industry that could be adapted to war production was to be dismantled or placed under international control. "Only when nazism and militarism have been extirpated" would Germany be received into the comity of nations.

As I have already indicated, I am content to leave the handling of external affairs to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs who have shown themselves to be statesmen in the broadest sense of the word. However, I do say that in approaching the German problem we must not let the need to rebuild and rearm

The Address-Mr. Croll Germany blind us to the inherent danger involved. Nor are our fears allayed when we read of the reappearance on the present scene of left-over and warmed-over nazi generals, and some of the manifestations of fascism. Ex-German generals, former nazi leaders and war criminals are starting to roll off the allied amnesty assembly lines like Fords in Windsor. The recent action of the United States and British military in releasing large numbers of convicted criminals makes the war trials appear a farce, almost a scandal. The French, who know the Germans best, have not done any releasing. They know full well that when you give a German a gun he immediately starts marching towards the French border.

A report in the Montreal Gazette of February 1 indicated that the Americans and British had made a general release of various convicted persons. The Americans had set free thirty-three, had shortened the sentences of thirty-six, and were reviewing the sentences of more than four hundred others. The British were reviewing the sentences of some two hundred and forty. For reasons of their own the French confirmed the sentences of all their prisoners, and were not reviewing any.

One of the men released was Alfred Krupp. I wonder if the Germans will rejoice at his release, so that he can start again to make munitions for them. It is interesting to see the British reaction. The pro-Labour Sunday Pictorial had this to say, as quoted in the Globe and Mail of February 5:

They opened the gates of a German prison yesterday, and they turned loose a man with blood on his hands . . . the blood of British soldiers, of Russians, of Americans and Frenchmen, of Poles and Dutchmen and Belgians; the blood of millions . . .

Who can believe that Alfred Krupp has any contribution to make to the problems of the present-day world?

It is a slap on the face for human decency that he is free today . . .

The Laborite Reynolds News also had something to say:

Times have apparently changed. Does murder cease to be murder when political circumstances change? Is Krupp, who starved and ill-treated in his factories thousands of helpless victims drawn from prisoner-of-war camps or seized as slaves . . . less guilty in 1951 than in 1948?

Then Lord Beaverbrook's Sunday Express carried a cartoon showing monstrous-looking war criminals filing out of prison. A sign on the wall said, "Please collect your weapons and cash on the way out." A British soldier is telling an American: "Now I suppose they will have us in court for wrongful imprisonment." Another newspaper carried an even more cutting cartoon showing two United

The Address-Mr. Croll States military policemen translating for a cringing nazi general, and one of them says, "He wants to know if he'll get his gas chamber back."

We in this country are having a little problem of our own. I notice from the press that Major General Kurt Meyer now wants to get out. He is tired of his confinement in Dorchester penitentiary. An article appearing in the Globe and Mail says that Meyer was originally sentenced to be shot, but the sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. He was convicted in December, 1945, of responsibility for the deaths of eighteen Canadian prisoners of war at his headquarters in Normandy in June, 1944. The article goes on to say:

The youthful general was said at the time of his conviction to be the personification of German national socialism.

I picked up an editorial in the Windsor Star of February 1. It has this heading: "Meyer wants out," and reads in part as follows:

If it were not for counter-excesses allegedly committed by Canadian troops. S.S. Major General Kurt Meyer would now be dead, instead of appealing for clemency from Dorchester penitentiary . . .

Public opinion will not take kindly to the idea of releasing him. although that would not be a reason to hold him if he could establish his innocence. It would be easier to argue that a man so dangerous potentially, as a rallying point for the worst German elements, should be kept in protective custody until that danger is past.

For our own safety, and in the interests of the west as against the east, we may decide that it is necessary and advisable to rearm Germany. But it must be on our terms. I make this further point. It is one thing to put arms into the hands of Germans to fight on our side and to be disciplined by us, buf it is another matter to arm Germany in the way that she wants to be armed. I for one am not prepared to give Germany carte blanche in this matter. Either Germany is with us in the west wholeheartedly, or she is not in our camp at all. This is certainly no time for mental reservations, either on a personal or a national level. If we have any doubts about Germany's good faith, then the time to correct those doubts is now, before the wheels start moving; because once they start, I am not so sure that we shall be able to stop them again.

It is a mistaken view, held, I think, widely in this country, that the safety of the west depends upon German divisions. I would point out that the Germans are not the only virile people in Europe. Let me point out to this house some inherent dangers which must be considered by the government. It is possible that in rearming Germany we may start the Russians marching. The Russians

have threatened that course on many occasions. It is a calculated risk, and it may be worth taking; I do not know. It is also possible that if we rearm Germany, and if she is confident of herself, she may well try the military adventure of conquering eastern Germany in order to bring about the unification of Germany. That is understandable. She may well commit us to a course of action for which we have no stomach and no desire. There is also the possibility, unless we are in full control of the situation, that she may decide, after being rearmed, that she will join up with Russia; then our boys would be facing the very weapons that we sent over there. This is not a fanciful suggestion, because twice within the last twenty-five years Germany has done just that. I think we must make sure, so far as we are able to do so, whether Germans will fight for French, American and British people against their own countrymen in eastern Germany. In this possibility another risk is involved. If we build up a German army under the guidance of people such as General Guderian or General Speidel, we shall be getting the only kind of army those people know, namely a replica of Hitler's army. Surely we should have no use for those shoddy, left-over German generals. In Europe the Germans are still distrusted and feared. There is great danger in the policy of supporting anything so long as it is not communistic. What is bad, rotten, outworn and hateful should be tagged as unworthy of our support.

There is in this country much anxiety and uneasiness over the talk of revival of German military nationalism. The German generals have a great responsibility to history. They supported Hitler in his endeavour to destroy democracy in Europe, and in the unspeakable massacre of millions of innocent men, women and children. They have in the past shown themselves to be congenitally untrustworthy. German rearmament is a matter that will be subject to negotiation at a high level. I plead with the government to go slowly in this dangerous German adventure.

Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):

In rising to take part in this throne speech debate, Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate the mover (Mr. McMillan) and the seconder (Mr. Breton) upon the able manner in which they performed in making their maiden speeches in this house.

As to the speech from the throne itself, as has already been said it is rather vague and ambiguous but it does point out the grave danger of the international situation and the magnitude of the defence effort which necessarily has created an emergency situation. As to external affairs, we heard a detailed

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross

account of events given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson); and with respect to the amendment before this house as to external affairs, my colleague the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) I thought did an excellent job and made our position clear in that respect. Last evening we had a lengthy discourse from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in which he pointed out the objective of a three-year program. He stated that it was the desire to have at the end of three years 148,000 personnel in the services. That was a real challenge both to the human and the material resources of this country. As to the program announced last evening by the Minister of National Defence, forecasting 148,000 men in the services at the end of the next three years, I should like to point out that, on a per capita basis, that is less than half of the effort already put forth by the United States of America or by Britain. The United States of America, with a population eleven times that of Canada, has a target for June of this year of 3,500,000 men in the services. To match the United States, on a population basis, Canada's program should be 318,000 men. Great Britain, with a population three and a half times that of Canada, had 1,023,000 men in her armed forces last October. To match Britain, on a per capita basis, Canada's program should be over 285,000 men in the services. I think it is well that we should keep that fact in mind, because throughout this country it is difficult at this time to get information.

I agree with the remark just made by the previous speaker, when he began his address, in which he said that the people of Canada were to be congratulated on their level-headed thinking in these times. I can tell you that throughout the province from which I come the people are wondering what this is all about. The men and women whom I have met in the streets in the cities and towns and the farmers have been extremely anxious as to just what is taking place in Canada' and are wondering what this is all about. They think they should have been receiving from the government much more detailed information than they have been receiving with regard to the expenditure of so much of the taxpayer's money, as to what it is spent for and as to what is required for the armed services.

The other day I received a copy of a newspaper article from a friend out on the west coast. It was taken from the Daily Colonist of January 14, and points out that the reserve army of Victoria is tragically undermanned. The city has only 580 men to defend it from attack. The article goes on to say that

after a detailed investigation over 3,000 personnel are required for the units there. That picture is very true of the reserve forces of the province from which I come. I know it is true of the many organizations in this province of Ontario today. I would be surprised if it is not the situation with respect to the reserve forces in every province throughout Canada at this particular time. With respect to both the United Nations and the defence of this country, it is very unsatisfactory at this particular time.

Turning to another matter which has been mentioned in the speech from the throne, with respect to production, I wish to deal with the matter of the five-year wheat pool following the last world war, 1945-50, and the contribution made by the farmers to the consumers of Canada and of Great Britain, and the money now owing to these wheat producers by the government of the day.

If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring the record up to date, because again these people find it very difficult to know just what the score is.

In discussing the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had this to say on August 14, 1946, as appears at page 4810 of Hansard:

When we are at the end of the four-year period, if in the last six or twelve months we find ourselves in the position that world markets, so-called, are not offering as much for wheat as we are getting for it, I hope people will still stand behind us to the extent they are standing behind us now. Even if wheat stays above $1.55 during the whole period, I hope people will still feel that it was worth while trying. If we are successful in this experiment, then we can talk to the grain trade people with some assurance. If they are able to show us at the end of the five-year period that we were all wrong, that over that length of time the farmer got less than he ever got before under similar circumstances and that the other system would have brought him more, then we shall be in a position to discuss the matter with them on an even footing. I am sure anyone who has taken this position and finds himself wrong will be quite prepared to discuss it from that point of view. In the meantime we are convinced that this is the best thing for the farmer. As long as we are convinced of that, and having another four years in which to try it out, we can put the policy into effect in a way that will at least help us to determine how this long argument between farmer and grain trade in western Canada ought to be settled in the interests of the great masses of the people.

Then on August 15, 1946, as reported at page 4848 of Hansard, the minister put on record the details and terms of the contract. In one of the articles there is this statement:

In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.

The Address-Mr. J. A. Ross

It is understood, of course, that the Minister of Agriculture received credit for having negotiated the deal at that time on behalf of the then minister of trade and commerce, the Hon. James MacKinnon. Then the Minister of Agriculture is reported at page 569 of Hansard of March 8, 1950, as follows:

What I wish to say to this house, and through the house to the country, is that the Prime Minister stated to the farmers that it was decided during the first discussion that every dollar the wheat pool was entitled to as a result of the British agreement would be paid into the pool by the end of this crop year, on the basis on which the British agreement called for the deliveries, and that therefore there would be no possibility whatsoever of any loss being taken by the farmers of western Canada as a result of that exchange. The money will be paid into the pool by the government of Canada and any loss which is taken-if any loss is taken; and we do not expect that there will be any-would naturally be taken by the treasury or by a settlement that we get from the British under the "have regard to" clause rather than by the farmers themselves. I thought it was necessary that that matter should be cleared away at this time in order that we may avoid discussion of the idea in the future.

And remember, the end of that crop year referred to was July 31, 1950.

In discussing the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act on June 5, 1950, as appears at page 3221 of Hansard, I am reported as follows:

The Minister of Agriculture and the then Prime Minister repeatedly stated that the farmers who were making these sacrifices would have that taken into account for many years following the war. However, I take it there is to be no further settlement expected from Britain under that contract?