RAYMOND, Maxime, K.C., LL.L.

Parliamentary Career

October 29, 1925 - July 2, 1926
  Beauharnois (Quebec)
September 14, 1926 - May 30, 1930
  Beauharnois (Quebec)
July 28, 1930 - August 14, 1935
  Beauharnois (Quebec)
October 14, 1935 - January 25, 1940
  Beauharnois--Laprairie (Quebec)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
  Beauharnois--Laprairie (Quebec)
February 10, 1943 - April 16, 1945
  Beauharnois--Laprairie (Quebec)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
  Beauharnois--Laprairie (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 34)

April 28, 1949

Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-La-prairie):

Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the house for speaking at this time, but after sitting in this house for twenty-four years this is my last opportunity to express the views I hold on certain questions. From those who do not share these views I ask the same respect for me as I have for them.


Mr. Speaker, when, on March 28 last, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) introduced a resolution to authorize the sending of representatives to Washington to sign the North Altantic treaty, the terms of which were being submitted to us, I was prevented by tactics which I shall not discuss from expressing my views on the treaty and had to be content with registering dissent.

I now have the opportunity of stating the reasons I would then have given to justify my attitude.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I propose to define my position very clearly on the following three points:

In the first place the desirability or the need of an international organization for the maintenance of world peace and security.

In the second place, Russia and communism.

In the third place, the pact, its scope and its consequences to Canada.

I shall deal first with the need for an international peace organization.

On January 1 1944, I clearly stated my opinion on this matter. It will be found in my answers to a questionnaire put to me by the representative of Maclean's magazine.

Question: ''Do you believe the victorious united nations should found a permanent organization to enforce world peace? If so, should Canada join such an organization and agree to assist, by force, if necessary, in restraining aggression anywhere in the world?" Answer: "I am uncompromisingly opposed to the idea of an international organization which is to be permanent and composed only of the victorious united nations who would dictate peace to the world. Such a permanent organization would nourish the desire for revenge among the vanquished; and it would not be able to establish a world peace. It would split the world into two groups-victors and vanquished-and it would be a wonderful instrument for world domination by three or four of the greater united nations. It could not help repeating, through sheer aggravation, the errors of 1918 onwards." .

' And I added:

"I am in favour of a permanent international institution which would have the characteristics of a genuine league of nations:

(a) It would group together all the civilized states or at least the majority of them.

(b) It would grant to them, small or large, equal rights; in consequence of this, it would not become the mere tool of imperial power and imperialists, as was the Geneva league.

Thirdly, it would prepare to establish a truly international order, both from the economic and the political point of view.

In our opinion Canada should work to form some such institution, then join it and take on responsibilities in proportion to her importance and interests.

Subsequently, in March 1945 I supported the resolution of the then Prime Minister authorizing the sending of representatives to a United Nations conference in San Francisco with a view to assisting the drafting of a charter that would create an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. I also supported the aims and principles of justice that were to be the basis of the charter, but I clearly expressed my objections to the setting up of a security council which granted the five great powers the right of veto, a subject that was later discussed at the conference.

North Atlantic Treaty

May I recall what I stated in this house on March 27, 1945, on that occasion:

The Prime Minister has set forth the aims and principles outlined at the Dumbarton Oaks conference and referred to in the resolution and they have been highly approved. These aims and principles must be upheld and our representatives must endeavour to set up an organization which will guarantee that they will not be violated.

The security council will be called upon to play an important part. In view of the extraordinary powers with which it will be endowed it must be more representative than is advocated in the suggested proposals if it is not to be made the tool of one of the great powers. Recent events make it necessary to act cautiously. Indeed the security council, which is the supreme author tv entrusted with the maintenance of universal peace, will be composed of five permanent members (United States, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R., France and China) and six other members elected by the other nations. Decisions must be approved by seven of the eleven members. Moreover, if any one of the five great nations were guilty of an act of aggression, it could use its power of veto against any sanctions contemplated against it. I feel that should such authority be granted to the five great powers it would be tantamount to recognizing that might is right. This would be a violation of the democratic principle, of the principles which are to be the basis of a contemplated international organization. Its hands would be tied. As this is one of the proposals which will be discussed, I would ask the Canadian representatives to demand a larger representation on the security council for the secondary and smaller nations, and to refuse the right of veto to any of the five great powers.

We want an enduring peace based on right and not on might.

These statements should be sufficient to prove that I am no more an isolationist than an imperialist.

Unfortunately the charter adopted at San Francisco contains this defect, which I, for one, pointed out and which has paralysed its operation. The fears I had expressed have turned out to be true.

Chiefly to blame is Russia which, systematically and with revolting insincerity, used the right of veto to prevent the organization from playing a useful part. But the other great powers which insisted on introducing the right of veto into the charter, so as to hold sway, also come in for a large share of the guilt.

If you look up the conference proceedings for April 25 to June 26, 1945, you will see that the Big Five have insisted on that right of veto.

One does not call for a weapon unless one means to use it. Their stand is not calculated to inspire confidence among small nations; as far as their idea of justice is concerned, especially when we remember that article 2 of the charter says: "The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members."

North Atlantic Treaty

In short the united nations organization was based from the very beginning upon a contradiction, not to say several. Time does not permit me to enumerate them; however,

I shall mention another which allows us to question the sincerity of the great powers' intentions.

An organization was to be set up, the purpose of which was to maintain peace. But following a decision made by those great powers, only the nations which had fought with the allies during the war or which agreed to declare war before March 1, 1945, were admitted into the organization. This meant that the nations which did not want war were excluded. A strange attitude, indeed, after having stated that any country desirous of maintaining peace should be allowed membership in the organization.

And so, on September 24, 1947, referring to the sabotage of the new league of nations, the parliamentary reporter for L'Action Catho-lique wrote: "Are the other nations so innocent, compared to the guilt of the communists?"

I have had opportunity, during and since the war, to voice in this house my feelings towards Russia. I do not believe there is any nation in the world which has accumulated more atrocities, or more crimes, within the lapse of thirty years. They have been crimes against morals, humanity and freedom, countless crimes of all kinds which have horrified and disgusted the civilized world.

Russia is, besides, the centre from which all communistic activities radiate.

We can easily find in the history of bolshevism and in the teachings of Lenin the policy which Russia has followed since 1919 with a view to spreading throughout the world the nefarious doctrine founded on materialism and atheism that is known as communism, and whereby it is immaterial what means are taken to achieve results.

But the danger that such a pernicious doctrine might pervade various countries is not recent. It has for a number of years been proclaimed by the Pope. It has been known to all.

May I recall that in 1927, Canada, following the example of Great Britain, had broken off its diplomatic relations with Russia. The Russian commercial delegation, established at Soviet House in London, had become a centre of communist espionage and activities.

Those facts show that communist plotting, the Russian peril, had been known for 30 years.

What has been the attitude of certain great powers towards Russia, especially over the past 10 years?

Time does not permit me to recite the events which took place at Teheran and Yalta, between Messrs. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, nor the secret agreements arrived at to apportion certain spheres of influence, agreements which have contributed to strengthen Russia at the expense of smaller nations. The story of the designs of the Great Powers is a very sad one indeed. For the present, I will merely point out that the communist peril was known in 1941 and that, since that year, the association of Russia with the great powers was not designed to defend Christendom or civilization. When it is proposed that we should constitute an immovable bulwark against communist doctrines and infiltration, it is timely to recall the history of the recent years. Organized publicity and propaganda must not lead us to overlook the truth.

Communism is an ideology which is not to be fought by taking up arms but by social reforms. It was born out of want and want is the fruit of war. An evil must be fought by removing its causes. The only means to defeat communism is to build up a social system which will satisfy the conscience of men and suppress injustice.

To fight communism, it is not a military alliance that is needed but an economic alliance that will permit the exchange of goods, end starvation which is rampant in certain countries and constitute a barrier against want.

One of the organizations of the old league of nations mentioned the main economic causes of war: "The question of raw materials, that of manpower and that of markets."

And the famous American publicist, Walter Lippmann, wrote after the war of 1914-18:

The great crime of post-war policy in Europe was that , the victorious powers used their supremacy to monopolize the resources of the world.

Today, to cope with communism and a possible armed aggression on the part of Russia, a pact is proposed between certain nations. That is an admission of the failure of the United Nations, even though that organization was set up to the liking of the Great Powers.

What are the implications of the North Atlantic pact and what will be their consequences for Canada?

First we are asked to approve the aims and principles which are already contained in the United Nations charter. I am all for it. Besides Canada had already committed herself in that respect.

However, restating such principles is not enough to develop our confidence as to the

intentions of certain signatories to the pact and there are good reasons for that. The Atlantic charter, for example, contained wonderful principles which the Great Powers soon forgot, the better to violate them in the most odious manner.

The history of the last thirty years shows us that nations consider principles only within the limits of their interests. The late Geneva league, the new United Nations organization with a right of veto granted the Great Powers in utter contradiction of the principles of equality among sovereign nations as set forth in the preamble of the charter, seem to have been conceived solely for the purpose of serving the interests of the most powerful nations, thus sanctioning the slogan that "Right is Might". Too many facts have proven it. It is therefore with justified suspicion that I intend to weigh the meaning of the pact.

Under article 3 of the treaty, the parties agree to help each other, and to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

The first immediate consequence of article 3 is already seen in the considerable increase of our military estimates, which will represent this year about $650 million, and that is just a beginning. It should be noted that our total expenditures before the war amounted to only $500 million.

Why should our armed forces be increased? We are told that it is for the purpose of checking communist infiltration and meeting an armed attack on the part of Russia.

As I have already stated, ideologies are not fought with guns; the way to fight communism is to prevent or relieve destitution through social justice measures. For example, if instead of spending further hundreds of millions on armaments, we were giving more encouragement to the building of houses for those who are without shelter, we would prevent communism from becoming implanted in urban centres. A remarkable fact is that those European countries which remained neutral during the last great war: Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey, have not had to fight communism, while the nations to which war has brought the greatest hardships, such as France, Italy, Greece, Poland and other satellites of Russia, have been the scene of unprecedented communistic activities.

On the other hand, more sincerity would be shown in the struggle against communism if Spain, the most anti-communist of all nations, which has fought that doctrine without respite and with success, were not systematically excluded from the pact. But the

North Atlantic Treaty

materialistic interests at stake must always be reckoned with.

How can one explain the attitude taken by the Canadian government of failing to outlaw the Labour-Progressive party, which is openly communistic?

The Prime Minister has told us that the fact that the pact was fought by "the few communists living in our midst is sufficient evidence that it is in the interests of true Canadians to approve it".

Does the fact that the communist party of Tim Buck and Sam Carr supported the Liberal candidates and fought the Progressive Conservatives in the 1945 elections constitute evidence that the Liberal party favoured communism and that it was in the interests of true Canadians to vote for the Progressive Conservatives? Have they the intention of imitating the Conservative electoral propaganda of 1935?

I recall how indignant was the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, one of the Liberal leaders, when he exposed that kind of propaganda in the following words:

Infamous pamphlets and advertising are being distributed in the province of Quebec. Communists are shown crushing underfoot the crucifix and persecuting religion, for which King and Lapointe are held responsible. This is an infamy . . . They are endeavouring today to scare the electors with ghosts and bugaboos.

The Liberals were shown as friends of the communists because of their attitude in connection with section 98 of the criminal code. I have here these circulars where the communists are shown taking down the cross from the steeples, confiscating crops, burning churches, et cetera.

All this, it says, would be in order to prevent a possible attack from Russia. I do not propose to discuss, for the time being, the possibility of an attack from Russia, which is a very controversial subject. But let us assume that the danger exists.

The Prime Minister told us that the pact was a defensive measure, a measure of vital importance for the protection of Canada. That being so, why has Canada, a country of the American continent, systematically refused to join the Pan-American union? A chair bearing the name and coat of arms of Canada is still awaiting our acceptance. The union was organized on a basis of continental fraternity for the maintenance of peace and security in America. At the conference held at Rio de Janeiro in 1947, a pact of collective security was signed. Of the twenty-two nations of America, Canada was the only one not represented.

North Atlantic Treaty

Canada, as a part of the American continent, should be more interested in a pact for the defence of America than in a pact for the defence of Europe.

Mr. Sumner Welles, former under-secretary of state for the United States, said in 1946 that:

The security of the other parts of the Americas should always be of vital importance to Canada, as it is recognized that Canada's security is of the utmost importance to the other countries of America.

But Canadian members of Great Britain's privy council are always more concerned with the security of the empire than with the security of Canada. The Right Hon. Vincent Massey took upon himself to remind us of this fact.

If the pact has no other purpose than to oppose a strong front to Russian aggression, why does it not include Spain, a pre-eminently anti-communist country, also wonderfully situated to serve as operational base for the defence of Europe. There again, other considerations, unrelated to international security, come into play.

There is, however, a far more serious factor. At the very moment when a pact is being signed whereby we agree to increase our armed forces in order to face eventual soviet aggression, several signatory nations are helping to rearm Russia and her satellites.

What does this mean, if not preparation for war? Will there be a repetition of what happened between the two world wars when armament makers in allied countries rearmed Germany so that, in the long run, allied soldiers were killed by shells manufactured by allied powers.

I have not the time to go over the whole story of Germany's rearmament by the allies who allowed Schneider, Zaharof, Wendel and others to amass colossal fortunes.

Suffice it to say that the Vickers-Armstrong Company, of London, England, a large armaments factory with customers in every land, had a contract with an insurance company providing that if, in the five years between 1928 and 1932, its profits did not amount to $4,500,000 a year, it would be entitled to a yearly indemnity of one million dollars. Among the shareholders were Mr. Neville Chamberlain, then chancellor of the exchequer, and Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who had just received the Nobel peace prize. This information is to be found in an article appearing in Fortune for March, 1934, signed by Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, then chancellor of Columbia university.

In the last two or three years there have been many trade agreements between countries behind the iron curtain and certain powers who signed the pact.

During a sitting of the United States senate, on March 30 last, Senator Malone listed no less than 35 treaties for the supplying by England, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark -countries who signed the pact-of war material and other material intended for the economic reconstruction and for the building up of the war potential of Russia and her satellites.

In 1947, when relations with Russia were already strained, in 1948 while the Atlantic pact was already being prepared, and even in 1949 when this pact was about to be signed, Britain passed and filled contracts with Russia, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia regarding the supply to those countries of steel, electric motors, generators, jet engines for warplanes, iron, copper, tin, rubber, aluminum, locomotives, trucks, excavators, steel rails, all types of machinery and equipment that could serve to increase their war potential.

Here are some of the most recent transactions. In May 1948, according to an item from U.S. News and World Report, Great Britain loaned thirty million dollars to Poland towards the payment of British machinery, wool and rubber. On January 14, she signed a new five-year contract for supplying Poland with ships, wool, rubber, gas, machinery and other goods, to the total value of $520 million. Around the same time, she entered into negotiations with Russia with a view to concluding a new trade agreement, although shortly before, Great Britain had authorized the Brash Electrical Engineering Company to sign a contract to supply Moscow with $22 million worth of diesel engines. According to a board of trade spokesman, the total value of goods exchanged between the two countries, under the provisions of the previous pact, was from $160 to $180 million for both countries.

England agrees to buy canned salmon from Russia and bacon from Poland at prices higher than those prevailing in Canada, and in return sells steel, sorely needed in Canada.

As recently as March 31 last, four days before the signing of the North Atlantic pact, we learned from an Associated Press dispatch that England was lending $36 million to Russia allegedly for the purchase of nonmilitary equipment. We know that when war threatens, everything becomes war material.

At the end of December 1948, a new Anglo-Yugoslav agreement was signed under which Yugoslavia was to get, in the course of one year, heavy industry machinery and rubber, of a value of $60 million. On April 2 last, negotiations were going on to set at five years the term of that commercial agree-

ment and at $400 million the value of the purchases.

In the U.S. News and World Report, dated June 4, 1948, one could read this:

Great Britain is the European country which sends the largest supplies to Russia. Her exports to the Soviet bloc last year amounted to $213 million of which Russia accounted for one quarter . . .

The bulk of the purchases in Great Britain consist of machinery, generators and electric motors. According to a treaty which is now in force, Russia is to receive in addition 1,100 locomotives, 2,400 trucks, rails, excavators, rubber, aluminum, etc.

Such transactions were vigorously protested against and comments were made in the American and London press, in the American senate, in the British House of Commons and in the House of Lords.

Here are a few examples:

Lord Amery, former secretary of state for India, wrote to the Times last December protesting against the shipping of diesel motors to Russia instead of Canada, adding that this was "strengthening the economy and political power of those who are a potential source of danger."

In the House of Lords last December, the Conservative leader, the Marquis of Salisbury, vigorously protested against the shipping of war material to Russia. He mentioned the shipping of rubber from Malaysia, the selling of military aircraft jet engines, of machinery, industrial diamonds and other essential goods to Russia.

The same protests were heard in the British House of Commons. On November 1, 1948, replying to David Eccles, M.P., who had protested against the shipping of war material to Russia, Mr. Strachey, the food minister, stated:

We are doing business with Russia because we judge that is a good policy.

On November 29, 1948, Mr. Byers, M.P., asked the following question:


Has not the time now come to reconsider our decision to send strategic war materials to Russia, while the blockade of Berlin is persisted in by that country?

Mr. Bottomley, secretary for overseas trade, said:

So long as it is in the interest of the United Kingdom to do that trade, we shall continue to do it.

(Translation) :

On February 21, 1949, the minister of supply, Mr. George Strauss, replied to a member, Mr. Bonner, that Great Britain had delivered to Russia in 1947, 55 Rolls-Royce aircraft jet engines.

On March 24, 1949, the chairman of the British board of trade, Mr. Harold Wilson,

North Atlantic Treaty

replied to another member, Mr. Holt, who was inquiring about the government's policy with regard to trade agreements with Russia, Bulgaria and Hungary:


The government is guided in its trade relations with these countries, by considerations of economic advantage and cannot make it a rule that trade agreements with these countries shall be subject to the settlement of political questions.


In spite of the British government's reluctance to give details on its transactions with Russia and her satellites, the questions asked and the answers from ministers indicate that the rumours of an eventual war with those countries do not interfere with a trade that increases their war potential.

My time is so short that I cannot give a list of trade agreements between France, Belgium, Holland, Norway and Denmark, on the one hand, and Russia or her satellites on the other hand. I shall merely add that through their export of war material and other goods, these countries, which have signed the pact, are helping to increase the war potential of Russia and her satellites, from whose attacks, we are told, we should help to protect those countries.

To conclude my remarks on that subject, may I quote what the leader of the opposition said on January 17 last in an address delivered before the Vancouver Canadian Club:


Progressive Conservative Leader George Drew today advocated a "free nations" ban on the supply of potential war material to Russia . . .

"Such a course might bring Russia to her senses," he said. It might avert another war "without a shot being fired."


Those facts, to my mind, offer food for thought to those who are not ready to blindly accept this pact. I ask this question: Is it

reasonable, under the circumstances, to increase the Canadian taxpayers' burden in order to increase our means of armed defence against a possible enemy to whom weapons are being supplied to 'attack us?

That is not all. There is another fact, pregnant with consequences, that cannot be ignored and which is alarming.

The North Atlantic treaty is in fact an alliance directed against Moscow. It is represented to us as such.

Now, among the signatories to the treaty, there are two nations, Great Britain and France, which both have treaties of alliance and mutual assistance with Russia.

The one with Great Britain is dated May 26, 1942-at which time communism prevailed

North Atlantic Treaty

in Russia as intensively as today-and the second is dated December 10, 1944. Both are valid for a period of 20 years and include the following clause:

Each of the high contracting parties undertakes not to sign any alliance nor to be a party to any coalition aimed at either of them. (Section 7 of the treaty between Britain and Russia; section 5 of the treaty between France and Russia.)

How could Great Britain and France be party to a coalition aimed at Russia without breaking a formal undertaking? What faith can we have in treaties?

Moreover, by virtue of section 4 of the treaty between Britain and Russia, Great Britain undertook, for a period of 20 years, to provide immediately to Russia all help, military or otherwise, and all assistance in her power in the case of an attack from Germany or from any of her allies during the war. Amongst Germany's allies, there is Italy, a signatory to this pact.

Should Italy declare war on Russia in order to prevent communist infiltration or to defend Trieste, Great Britain, having committed herself to military assistance, would be at war on Russia's side, but according to the Atlantic treaty she would have to fight Russia. Since the Liberal policy has always been that when Britain is at war, Canada is also at war, would we fight for or against Russia?

Those considerations offer food for thought to those who are not willing to accept blindly the North Atlantic treaty.

We are associating ourselves with two countries straddling the fence.

We are associating ourselves with allies of Russia, a country we regard as dangerous.

We are associating ourselves with countries that are asking us to increase our armed forces to help them fight Russia, while at the same time those same countries are rearming Russia.

In addition, we are associating ourselves with Holland in a pact against aggression. Yet that same country is guilty of infamous aggression against Indonesia, for the sole purpose of protecting material interests.

Such is the situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the pact.

What are our commitments? Under article 3, Canada agrees for a period of twenty years -for such is the duration of the pact mentioned in article 13-to maintain and increase its armed force continuously and effectively and to assist other signatories of the pact; under article 9, we entrust a defence committee with the task of recommending measures to implement this undertaking.

Under article 4, moreover, the parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, its territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened. Why should they consult one another if not to

fulfil the obligations assumed under article 5 by which we agree to assist with the means at our disposal, that is to say, with our armed forces, the party whose territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened? Remember that each party is sole judge of what constitutes a threat-and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Prime Minister in his speech of March 28 explicity defined the scope of the pact. He said:

We will create a situation which will enable us to speak in the only language they (the totalitarian leaders of communist states) recognize, the only language they understand-the language that speaks from strength.

Do you visualize the extent of the commitments embodied in these two articles, if words still have a meaning, if the signatures appearing at the bottom of the agreements still have significance?

For the next twenty years, we are bound by a solemn promise of effective aid to maintain a constantly increasing army so as to guarantee the integrity of the possessions of the signatory powers in every part of the world, since the limitation applying to the area described in article 6 does not apply to article 4.

We are implicitly undertaking, in the guise of justice and of vague generalities, to maintain the existing system of colonial status, to defend the integrity of the colonial empire of European nations, in Asia, in Africa, in the south seas, where the natives are exploited, treated like slaves and lead a miserable life, thus creating ideal conditions for communistic activities. Holland's revolting attitude towards the Indonesians is a striking example of what is taking place in certain colonies, yet this event occurred one month after a solemn declaration guaranteeing the freedom, the dignity and the rights of the individual.

Four of the signatory countries have an extensive colonial empire. We know that there is at present an armed conflict in Indochina where France maintains an army of occupation in order to defend its territorial integrity; the same is true of Indonesia, where the Netherlands are at grips with the Indonesians whom they hold under their domination.

Great Britain has armed forces in Malaya so as to cope with the rising of the population and the threat of a civil war.

Last year a conflict arose between Great Britain on the one hand and Guatemala on the other with regard to British Honduras and between Great Britain and Argentina and Chile, concerning the sovereignty of the Falkland islands which required dispatching of British warships.

These cases are covered by sections 3 and 4.

The territorial integrity, political independence, or security of a country may also be threatened in many other ways. Great Britain maintains strategic bases in several places throughout the world in order to protect its security. She has interests in the Middle East, in Asia and elsewhere which she believes to be essential to her economy.

If she considers her political independence or her security threatened because her strategic posts or her interests are in danger, we are committed to act.

If civil war in Greece threatens the security of England or of Italy, we must take part in that war.

If Norway, France, Italy or any other country which has signed the pact is threatened with civil war, either from communist activities or for any other cause, we may be involved in those struggles.

There is practically no limit to our commitments under articles 3 and 4 of the pact.

The consequences of article 5 are obvious. In the event of an armed attack against a party to the pact, Canada shall be considered under attack. Our country will then be automatically at war and undertakes to supply forthwith military assistance to help restore security. It goes without saying that the only way to fight an armed attack is the use of armed force.

When we read again articles 3, 4 and 5, we can come to only one conclusion.

Adhering to the Atlantic pact is a solemn pledge which binds Canada for the next twenty years without allowing her to withdraw and which compels her throughout this period, whatever may happen, to maintain continuously and effectively and even to increase her armed forces in order to preserve and protect the territorial integrity, the independence or the security of each of the signatories, and commits her to take action, whenever necessary, each time one of the signatories is deemed in danger. Canada commits herself automatically to wage war should an armed attack be directed against one of the signatories.

Such is the meaning of the treaty from which there can be no withdrawal and the government, whichever it may be, is authorized to enforce it without the intervention of parliament-the latter having already approved it-without mentioning that under section 64 of the Militia Act, the government is authorized to put the militia on active service anywhere within or outside Canada.

This legislation is leading us to conscription In peacetime and will certainly lead us to a third world war if the majority of the signatories to the pact continues, as I have

North Atlantic Treaty

shown, increasing the war potential of Russia and her satellites.

What should we conclude from all that? I think I have given part of the answer. Based as it is upon a series of contradictions, that treaty affords no guarantee that the intentions of many of the signatories are sincere; on the contrary, it inspires mistrust and under such circumstances it cannot be deemed a contribution to an equitable and enduring peace. Rearmament is resorted to for the defence against a prospective enemy to whom weapons are supplied; an alliance is arranged against Russia with countries already pledged with her by a treaty involving alliance, co-operation and mutual aid, which precludes them from concluding any alliance or participating in any coalition directed against her; it is desired to fight communism while Spain, an enemy of communism is excluded from the pact; it is the aim to ensure the security of Canada in America, but there is a refusal to associate through a security pact with countries of America; an antiaggression alliance is made with a country like Holland which, at the same time, launches the most brutal aggression against the Indonesians.

Offered as a peace program, it is an armaments race which may lead any day to an undescribable catastrophe. And Canada is bound for twenty years to come, having given up, through her signature, her right to remain neutral.

I am not an isolationist, nor am I opposed to an alliance aimed at ensuring, in international life, the triumph of justice and charity principles; but I am not ready to give a free hand to any government, whatever it be, to plunge us, without consulting parliament, into armed conflicts, in order to serve, in the four corners of the world, the interests of powers actuated by a spirit of domination rather than by a spirit of justice.

Unfortunately, our policy is inspired by London and I hope the day will come when, following the example of Ireland and India, Canada will declare her full independence by proclaiming herself a republic.


Full View Permalink

March 28, 1949

Mr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):


cannot do that unless there is unanimous consent to sit after ten-thirty.

Full View Permalink

March 28, 1949

Mr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):


Full View Permalink

March 28, 1949

Mr. Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):


made a mistake. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Full View Permalink

March 28, 1949

Mr. Maxime Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie):

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am unable to support this motion. The private

Business of the House members' privileges have been completely abolished during the past few years. During the war, such days as were allotted private members, under the rules of the house, for the introduction of resolutions, were abolished for special reasons. Since the end of the war, the habit seems to endure. Here seems to be a trend to perpetuate this sort of thing through motions inviting the house to suspend certain standing orders to permit the introduction of emergency legislation. This year we had the Newfoundland bill. And then, the extraordinary powers act, expiring at the end of March, came up for discussion. We agreed to these bills.

The North Atlantic pact is to be signed on Monday next only. I fail to see why the government does not wait until tomorrow before introducing its resolution. This would leave ample time for discussion before next Monday. Furthermore, I would point out that at present there are 47 resolutions appearing on the orders of the day and I have reason to believe that not one of them will be submitted to the house during the present session.

I would therefore ask the Prime Minister not to have this motion introduced today but to kindly wait until tomorrow, the day allotted for government business. As far as I am concerned, I do not support this motion.


Full View Permalink