JUNE 19, 1948 Supply-External Affairs5543
[...] thing that, rightly or wrongly, either party
might regard as making any change prejudicial to it, while the truce is in operation.
Mr. HACKETT: Has Canada sent any
personnel to Palestine and, if so, under what
conditions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, Canada has sent
no personnel to Palestine. So far as I am
informed, a very small guard of fifty is
being recruited voluntarily from the ordinary
staff of the secretariat of the united nations,
and I believe that that guard was being flown
from New York today. It consists of fifty of
the regular personnel of the secretariat of the
united nations, who volunteered to act as a
token guard to assist the mediator in his
undertaking to bring about a settlement
there.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No Canadians have
joined that unit. My information is that all
but five are United States citizens. Two are
French citizens who were in the employ of
the united nations at Lake Success; one is
of Swedish origin, and another is of Danish
origin.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They go as civilians
employed by the united nations in a custodial
capacity. They were guards of the premises
at Flushing Meadows and Lake Success, and
they probably went in the uniforms they
wore as members of the custodial staff of
the secretariat, but about that I am not sure.
Mr. JAQUES: Will those fifty people who
are going to Palestine be the nucleus of an
international police force?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not know that
there is any international police force other
than the custodial force the united nations
have at Flushing Meadows and Lake Success.
They go as bodyguards for the mediator and
to assist him in the organization of his office
on the island of Rhodes. I think it is for
the purpose of bringing together the parties
to this dispute and trying to get them to
recognize that certain solutions are inevitable
and should be accepted without bloodshed.
With respect to the constitution or semi-
permanent constitution for the three zones
occupied by the forces of the United Kingdom,
the United States and France, as I stated
some time ago in the house we did not ask
to be invited to attend the discussions which
took place in London, although we were kept
informed of everything that was going on.
The reason we did not insist upon being
brought in at that time was our recognition
of the fact that if we had been brought in, a
great many others would also have been
brought in and it might have hampered the
negotiations which were taking place for this
semi-permanent solution. However, we
reserved our position that when the peace
treaty was being considered we wished to have
a role commensurate with the role we had
in carrying on wartime operations.
Mr. HACKETT: I understood that Canada
has submitted a. memorandum suggesting a
form of government based on the principle of
federalism which might be applicable in
Trizonia. The suggested form of government
differed slightly from that of our own system,
in that the component states were to be the
residuary legatees of all power, whereas here
the dominion is. If my information is accurate,
I should like to know whether we submitted
that memorandum on our own initiative or
upon invitation.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was submitted to
the officials of six governments participating
in the London talks, as a comment upon the
information that was 'being communicated to
us. We have not published the memorandum
we submitted, because we thought that, by
doing so, it might further complicate the
negotiations which were being held. We had
nothing of a serious consequence to comment
upon in the drafts that we were receiving as
being then under discussion in that meeting.
The hon. member asked when we might
expect the Canadian representative on the
war criminal court in Japan to return to Canada. I am not able to give the exact date,
but I may say I had the privilege of having
a long conversation some days ago with Brigadier Nolan, who had acted as Canadian
prose—
cutor in these trials. He informed me that the
trials had been completed and the cases taken
under advisement. He told me that the mem—
bers of the tribunal would be there only as
long as may be required for them to prepare
their judgment and reasons for their judgment. I hope that Within weeks Mr. Justice
McDougall will be back in Canada. At that
time I am sure he will be glad to take up
his ordinary duties as a member of the court
of appeals of the province of Quebec.
The hon. member asked about Canada's relations with China at the present time. There
have been no recent developments in that
regard.
Then he asked as to what steps, if any, were
being taken with regard to the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. As hon. members
know, the first vote was not decisive and
5544Supply-External AffairsCommons
the second vote, which will be held on July
22, is to be on two questions only, responsible
government and confederation. We have maintained and are maintaining the attitude
that,
after having made what we consider is a fair
offer, it is exclusively the right of the people
of Newfoundland to express their acceptance
or rejection of that offer. We have been
most careful to avoid doing anything that
either party might regard as an attempt to
influence the votes of the inhabitants of Newfoundland.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER: During the past
couple of days I have received a number of
representations from Newfoundland in regard
to the question to which the minister has just
referred. I should like to refer to these and
then ask a question. The first representation
is in the form of a telegram which was sent to
the Hon. the Secretary of State for Commerrial Relations in London, and reads:
The undersigned members of the bar of Newfoundland are of the considered opinion and
firmly maintain that the address to His Majesty
by the Newfoundland legislature and the Newfoundland Act of 1933 enacted by the British
parliament provided specifically that Newfoundland's constitution would be merely
suspended
and would be restored to the people at their
request when the country again became self-
supporting. As the national convention has decided that Newfoundland is self-supporting,
therefore only two forms of government can be
considered and submitted to the people in the
referendum, namely, responsible government and
commission government.
That was signed by what I am informed is
a majority of the members of the bar there.
Today I received a telegram which I should
like to bring to the attention of the minister.
This reads:
Forwarding information King stated Newfoundland should "indicate clearly and beyond
all possibility of misunderstanding their will to
become a province."
This telegram then asks if 50 per cent of
total electorate or 70 per cent, of vote cast
would be considered sufficient on the part of
the government of Canada to warrant their
accepting Newfoundland's application to join
the Dominion of Canada. At what point will
the government consider that the Newfoundland authorities and the people as a whole
desire to be included within the Canadian confederation ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say anything that would be binding in
that regard. I do not think the government of
Canada will attempt to examine the various
representations that may be made to the commonwealth relations office or that may
be
made to others.
There was received from the Governor of
Newfoundland a communication asking us to
receive a delegation from the national convention and then submit such conditions
as we
would consider fair for the entry of Newfoundland into Canada. Those conditions were
submitted. If the authorities recognized as speaking for Newfoundland report that
the people
of Newfoundland wish to join Canada on the
conditions expressed» in the proposals that
were submitted, it will then, I think, be the
responsibility of the government to bring to
parliament a recommendation that those conditions be made available to Newfoundland,
and it will be for the commission of government or the parliament of the United Kingdom
under which that commission of government
functions to complete the arrangements, which
will in my view no doubt require legislation
by the parliament of the United Kingdom and
possibly also by the Canadian parliament.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER: It would require
legislation by the Canadian parliament to be
consummated?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It would require action
by the Canadian parliament. I do not think
this government or any other government
would venture to consummate a thing of such
magnitude without having it decided by the
parliament of Canada. It will be the responsibility of the government to make a recommendation
to parliament, and the government,
of course, will have to accept responsibility for
the acceptance or the rejection by parliament
of its recommendation. But the government
will not attempt to say that it could complete
the union without the approbation of parliament.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER: Would the minister
not say it would require an almost overwhelming vote of the people of Newfoundland
in
order to justify Newfoundland being joined
to Canada?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The degree to which
the consent of the population of Newfoundland
would require to be expressed would have to
be appraised by those who are responsible at
the present time for Newfoundland affairs. If
the government of Newfoundland, having consulted the population, represented to us
that
the population wished confederation to be consummated I think we would not go behind
that declaration to examine to what extent
they were justified in making such a representation.
At the present time the constitution of
Newfoundland is still suspended, and it is the
parliament of the United Kingdom that has
legislative jurisdiction over Newfoundland. It
JUNE 19, 1948Supply-External Affairs 5545
exercises that through a commission of government, but it is under the legislative
jurisdiction of the parliament at Westminster and
I do not think the British government or the
British parliament would act in a manner that
it did not feel was proper in the interests of
the inhabitants of Newfoundland, after consulting them in these two plebiscites.
Mr. HACKETT: I understand that the
government might wish that a statute express
the will of parliament on granting to Newfoundland access to the dominion. Does that
mean that the minister considers that the
provision in the British North America Act
concerning the admission of Newfoundland
into confederation is but a power to be exercised in the ordinary way, that is, by
legislation enacted by parliament. I do not recall
the exact words of the British North America
Act, but it contains a provision which anticipates the possibility of Newfoundland
becoming a province of Canada, and my query is:
Does the minister consider that enactment
merely as a power which parliament may
exercise, or is it something more than that
which would only require executive action to
carry the admission into effect?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It makes a difference
as to the proper procedure to bring it about.
The British North America Act contemplated
that there might be union between Canada
and Newfoundland on a joint address of the
houses of parliament of Canada and the legislature of Newfoundland. That principle
could
be resorted to; but it would require, in order
to be resorted to, the restoration of self-
government in Newfoundland, and then joint
addresses under the terms of section 146 of
the British North America Act. On those
joint addresses, union could be consummated
by order of His Majesty in council without
legislation in the parliament at Westminster
or legislation in the parliament of Canada.
But if that method is not. resorted to, the
matter is not expressly provided for and
would have to be accomplished by new legislation that could, I suppose, be adopted
only
by the parliament at Westminster if there
were joint addresses from the houses of the
Canadian parliament asking that it be done.
The parliament at Westminster amends the
British North America Act and makes provision with respect to Canada, but only on
the request of the houses of the Canadian
parliament; and that could probably be the
method adopted. The one provided for in
the British North America Act would require,
as a condition precedent, that self-government
be restored to Newfoundland, that a legislature be elected in Newfoundland and that
there be an address from that legislature as
well as from the Canadian parliament for an
order in council.
Mr. HACKETT: I had a little difficulty in
following the minister when he seemed to
consider the disability of Newfoundland as
creating a disability in Canada. I readily
understand that the government might wish
to pass a statute. I understand that, but I was
not certain whether or not it would be necessary in order effectively to carry out
the union
to do more than pass addresses in Canada; it,
of course, being necessary that Newfoundland,
in view of the suspension of parliamentary life
there, go to Westminster for the authorization
which results—I do not say this in any disrespectful way—from its temporary tutelage.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the hon. member is technically right. that it would be
sufficient to justify legislation by the parliament at Westminster placing Newfoundland
within Canada to have addresses from the
houses of parliament in Canada, and the
agreement of Newfoundland to the legislation
would be a matter that would be the responsibility of the parliament at Westminster.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER: One question arises
from that. Has the minister given consideration to the Newfoundland Act of 1934? A
perusal of that act would indicate that the
United Kingdom pledged itself to restore self- government there at any time that Newfoundland
became self-supporting. In view of the
section of the British North America Act
which the minister has just read, and having
regard to the Newfoundland Act of 1934 that
self-government is to be restored in Newfoundland, would it not be a condition precedent
before confederation between the nine
provinces of Canada and Newfoundland could
be consummated?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think so.
I think all we have to do is to look after our
responsibility, and leave it to those who have
constitutional responsibility for the fate of
Newfoundland to ascertain whether they are
fulfilling their obligations, whether the obligations arise out of the Newfoundland
Act or
otherwise. I think we can in perfect confidence leave it to the Newfoundland and
British authorities to clear everything required
on their side to enable a proper union to be
consummated.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER: Has the minister
received any representations from Newfound—
land, or the peOple of Newfoundland or any
group in that country, against any action on
the part of Canada?
5546 Supply—External Affairs COMMONS
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The department
would, of course, receive courteously and file
anything that would come from any group in
Newfoundland, but the department would not
act on anything that does not come from
those who have the constitutional responsibil—
ity for the government of Newfoundland at
the present time.
Mr. MacINNIS: With noted lawyers on my
right, I was wondering, since the position is
now that a referendum is to be taken on two
questions—union with Canada or responsible
government—if the vote decides for union
with Canada it decides against responsible
government. Surely the United Kingdom
would not then insist that Newfoundland
should have responsible government before it
could have union with Canada. It seems to
me that the question we are discussing is
purely academic.
Mr. DIEFENBAKER: It is not academic
so far as the people there are concerned.
Mr. MacINNIS: But the people there are
going to decide. If they decide by whatever
majority they do decide I do not think
Canada can say to the authorities in Newfoundland or to the authorities in the United
Kingdom, if they should be acting for Newfoundland, that we cannot accept Newfoundland
as a province because the decision of the
people has not been decisive enough. I claim
that this discussion is purely academic until
such time as the referendum is taken and we
begin to work it out. Certainly we cannot do
anything about it tonight.
Mr. CHURCH: I wish to say something on
the administration item.
The CHAIRMAN: Order. The discussion
is on Newfoundland. We should try to complete that discussion before discussing other
subjects. If the hon. member is to speak on
Newfoundland it will be proper for him to
speak now. If not, would he mind waiting until
we have exhausted the discussion on this
subject?
Mr. CHURCH: I do not wish to be here all
evening waiting for others to speak. I have
made a study of this question since I came here
in 1921, and am not like some of the amateur
diplomats who are now appearing on the
scene. I have been following this situation for
many years past. I want to find out from the
Secretary of State for External Affairs what is
or What is not the policy of the government at
the present time regarding foreign affairs. We
may have an invasion just like a thief in the
night, the way it came at Pearl Harbor. What
are you going to do about it? There is no use
in our pretending that we are a first-class power
when we are not. I have never been at one of
those UNO conventions because I do not
believe in them.
In his opening address this session, the
minister said that the foreign policy of Canada
was wrapped up exclusively with the UNO.
That is the present policy of the government.
There is no use in our pretending that we can
rely on such agencies any longer. That was
shown by the action of Gottwald regarding
Czechoslovakia in the deposing of the late
president. It shocked the whole human world,
and shows us the grave danger we are in. What
is this famous UNO in which the minister has
confidence? We used to have an empire parlia—
mentary association. They safeguarded our
interests so far as foreign affairs were concerned. They forgot all about the empire
and
became pan—American. We are not a first-class
power. We have had two wars to teach us
that lesson. You have had this second UNO
league of nations. We had the first league of
nations on which this country expended nearly
$5,000,000 in sending deputations over to
Geneva. They built buildings costing fabulous
sums of money, millions of dollars in Switzerland and Geneva, and, after that was
done, it
was found that it was a hollow mockery, a
sham and a humbug, and drove us into a
second war.
There was not a newspaper in the country
except one or two which had three or four
lines about the collapse of Geneva, and- the
buildings there are wasted. We sent these
deputations over there, which was supposed
to be a consolation prize for those members
of the government and others to have a little
side trip after the session was over. My hon.
friends to the left believed in it. My hon.
friends to the left, away back in 1938, six
months after Munich, right up to the opening
of the war years, asked what was the use of
depending on Glasgow and London for
defence, when we would get all the defence we
wanted in Washington; but we had a rude
awakening in 1939.
The second war was caused by whom? It
was caused by the very people in England, in
Canada and in the other dominions who were
members of What they called this league of
nations society, which we are now recommending for a $5,000 grant, consisting of wellmeaning
highbrows, parlour pinks, professors,
and; others. Britain will come to life again
in Canada. There is no use in our depending
on any such agencies as UNO and similar
societies. It was the proposal of the late
great president of the United States to bring
Geneva to San Francisco, and New York to
Lake Success. Now the congress at Washington
wishes to get rid of the UNO. Congress wants
JUNE 19, 1948 Supply-External Affairs 5547
to get it out of the country. Next week a
Republican convention is to be held in
Philadelphia for the purpose of selecting a
candidate for the presidency. Opinions were
expressed in congress in favour of getting the
UNO out of the country. The second world
war had hardly ended when people started
their efforts once more to establish a second
league of nations, now known as UNO. There
was, as everyone knows, a great gathering at
San Francisco, and we had our own ambassadors there, ambassadors from our own party
and others. They were there trying to learn
diplomacy in a day, just like this magnificent
institution. that the minister has at the present
time at Lake Success.
The government has been spending vast
sums of money on this UNO institution. It
has gone up to nearly $10,000,000, there being
an increase this year of $1,074,974 for salaries
alone, or a salary total of $5,083,082. Just
imagine that! And What did they do at San
Francisco? They divided the nations into
powers, large and small, and our own representatives were there and agreed to give
the Big Five a veto power. Foreign affairs
will always be a political issue in this country.
It always has been and it is a blessing that it
has, instead of a non-party one, by giving a
few a trip to such farces as Lake Success.
Canada's policy in foreign affairs is the UNO,
and "Let us pretend".
In the first war we were not prepared, and
yet a million men went from the dominions
to participate in the first war. They went
under the individual sovereignty status and
autonomy of every dominion, and of those
men 130,000 fell on the field of battle. Those
men enlisted and died of their own volition,
and the men of the dominions repeated it in
the second war in five times the number. But
in the period between the two wars another
organization was started up. Efforts of this
kind in league of nations societies or peace
societies have been a failure for 100 years or
more. We remember the concert of Europe
from 1815 to 1823, when Russia, Prussia, and
Austria formed what was known as the Holy
Alliance. They were going to survey conditions in Europe every five years and when
war
seemed- imminent they would endeavour to
bring about peace. It was such a humbug that
a great prime minister, George Canning, proposed that Britain get out of Europe
altogether. It simply led to the Monroe
doctrine. The Holy Alliance lasted from 1815
to 1823 and culminated in what has come to
be known as the Monroe doctrine. What was
that doctrine? In a word, Mr. Chairman, it
was nothing more than the supremacy of
Britain on the seas. And that is what has
maintained the peace of the world for 100
years from 1815 to the great war of 1914—
British supremacy on the seas.
There has been talk, since the end of the
second war, about a new UNO, and they have
opened up in New York, at Lake Success after
San Francisco. They have opened up another
agency there, and two of the principal supporters and boosters of UNO, the London
Economist and the London Times, have been
compelled to say recently it has been a disappointment and a failure, and to demand
an
end of it.
The fact is that there is no use in our
depending on that organization any longer.
Are we going to spend another $10,000,000
this year on that organization? What is the
use of deceiving ourselves? Why cherish the
delusion that UNO can keep the peace? We
are as close to war as Churchill has said, as
Truman has said, as General Bradley, before
the congress committee at Washington, has
said, and as the admiral of the fleet at Washington said not so long ago. We are as
close to
war today as we were in August 1939. We are
back where we were then. Conditions have
not changed a particle. There is no use in
pretending that we can depend for peace on
any such agency as the united nations organization at Lake Success. I call it a Lake
Failure.
I have been trying to find out what the
foreign policy of this country is and I am
bound to say that I have failed in the attempt.
We have no foreign policy and we never did
have one. The foreign policy the minister
announced earlier in the session was simply
dependence upon the united nations organization. That was the cornerstone of our policy,
and if it is the cornerstone of that policy,
then I regret to say that I fear invasion.
We did nothing to encourage parliamentary
association within the empire. We tried to
bring on a debate in the spring of 1947 regarding the scuttling of the empire. The
empire
has been cut to pieces. We have seen what
happened in Egypt. We lost our lifeline in
the Mediterranean; we lost the Suez canal.
And there is Palestine. I will say nothing
about that tonight, because we all know what
the situation there is.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, this government has
no foreign policy and never did have one;
neither did our delegates to the UNO in New
York have a policy. Not a soldier was to be
sent by Canada or the United States to fight
in Palestine. What is the use of Trygve Lie
and all his works at the UNO? This second
league of nations has tried many agencies,
and what does Trygve Lie say about it all?
5548 Supply—External Affairs COMMONS
In my opinion we are simply wasting the
people's money at Lake Success. We are
throwing $10,000,000 into the sink-hole.
The situation in the Atlantic today is
dangerous. The British government, Canada
consenting, gave up all its bases from Newfoundland to British Guiana to the United
States for ninety—nine years. I pointed out at
the time what the result of that would be. I
pointed out the eflect it would have upon
Newfoundland's joining confederation, and my
predictions have been justified. What was that
lease for? It was a 99-year lease, practically a
freehold lease, entered into for a consideration
that proved of very little practical value. The
lease should have been cancelled long ago and
charged up to lend-lease. It was entered into
in the darkest days of the battle of the
Atlantic, and in return for that lease Britain
was given some fifty old, out-of-date ships.
Many of them had to go into dry dock, being
of no use. Others had no coal. Then Pearl
Harbor broke and we got a lesson, and
Canada was nearly invaded.
I have been talking about a foreign policy.
The United States has never had a foreign
policy any more than we have had. For 100
years it has been without such a policy. Its
foreign policy was that of Andrew Jackson,
George Washington and Madison. And what
was the essence of that policy? Simply this:
no foreign entanglement unless the shores of
America are invaded. When the United
States fought the Spanish-American war in
1898 that was the ground they took. Afterwards they wanted to abandon Manila. Our
foreign policy now is to depend upon the
league of nations at UNO and that we have no
commitments; we simply yet take the attitude
that "Parliament will decide" if war comes.
That attitude, as I have pointed out before,
has led to the scuttling of the British empire
during the past two years. Britain, together
with the dominions, stood' alone for two and a
half, nearly three years, from 1939 to 1942,
against the mighty forces of the enemy, and if
the war was to have been lost, then surely it
would have been lost in those three years,
before aid came. But Britain weathered the
storm. If Britain and the dominions do not
hang together there is little hope for peace
so far as the British empire is concerned.
But not only have bases been given up in
the Atlantic; we have given up bases in our
own country, Canada, to the United States.
Why, I do not know. Surely the United States
have enough to do to look after their own
country. We have a great ally in the country
to the south of us. The Anglo-Saxon race, the
British peoples and those of the United States,
are the hope of the world for peace in the
future; but they must be up and doing,
because we are living in an armed world in
which there has been no peace and in which
there is no real peace now. This will prove to
have been a forty-year war before it is all
over, from 1914 to 1954. Let us not talk about
peace when there is no peace. Look at the
situation in India where millions of people
are left to be massacred. Look at the situation in Palestine. Look at the Suez. And
we
know what the consequences were from the
invasion of Czechoslovakia. Thousands of men
in the Russian satellite countries in the Balkans and eastern Europe are being put
to work
on dry docks and more are sent to the Arctic
circle as slaves from Russia's satellite states.
It is impossible to find out from the united
nations organization how many people are so
treated. No one can find out anything about
them, so what use is the UNO? Roumania is
gone; the Balkans are gone and all that kind
of thing. I am far from satisfied with what
has been done in the British corridor over in
Germany. Canada has no say over there. We
are just a. minor power. We consented to be
a minor power at San Francisco when the Big
Five insisted on and obtained the veto power
and all that kind of thing. You will have
nothing to say about the peace plans whereas,
if you had hung together with the mother
country, you would have something to say
about them. The situation in South Africa is
hopeless. There are those in this house—and
I have never been one of them—who speak in
eulogy of the late prime minister, Lieutenant
General Smuts, of South Africa. He is a republican. He has all along wanted to set
up a
republic in South Africa. He has always been
against having a British governor general, and
would not give the ballot to the black troops
who marched across the desert with Alexander
and Montgomery. He was one of the cabinet
of the pro-Germans there before world war II.
He also signed the charter of the league of
nations. Yet he says now the UNO have no
power and no jurisdiction over the colonies.
No country in the world is going to give up
its control of its own affairs or sovereignty to
any foreign power or any foreign body like
the UNO, unless the country is so small or
has such poor defences that it could be captured in any event. Who is going to give
up
his sovereignty? Are we in Canada to do
that? One of the minister's deputies went
away down to Lake Success and Washington.
He has been making some speeches and he is
in favour of giving up sovereignty over our
bases in Canada to the UNO. Where would
we have been in the first war if Britain had
given up these bases at the Cape, at Gibraltar,
at Suez, or at Hong Kong to a foreign country
JUNE 19, 1948 Supply—External Affairs5549
or a league of nations? We would have had
to remain neutral also in the first and second
wars and we would have lost both wars. That
is what giving up bases would have meant.
Yet we have mischievous representatives away
down at the UNO at Lake Success telling us
to give up our sovereignty and to let foreign
powers establish bases here in Canada and
to let them keep the bases they have.
I think that is about all I have to say
about that, but there is another point I wish
to mention. The minister has referred to the
situation in the Suez, in Palestine, in Germany, in China and in India. It is a tragedy.
Wait till history is written about the situation
in India and all these places. Britain maintained peace, justice and freedom in India
for over one hundred years. She did the same
thing in Palestine. She took a mandate there.
As I said the other evening in the house, there
are about eighteen powers claiming a say in
the Palestine situation. The Arabs have been
there for hundreds of years. Turkey had it.
When the first war broke out, Turkey was
opposed to us. The Arabs had it. Egypt
had it. Rome had it. Persia had it. Greece
had it. Syria had it. All these nations have
ruled Palestine.
A great mistake was made in what was done
at the close of the last war, after General
Allenby marched into Palestine. I was on the
same platform when he spoke at the exhibition a few years ago and explained the
situation. If you are depending on the UNO,
you are depending on something that does not
exist. It has no defence force. Who is going
to be in a defence force to go to Palestine
in a situation like that? If you read the
articles in the papers and know the truth
about it, you will realize the situation.
Wait till the truth is known about the
scuttling of the empire in India and the Suez,
giving up the whole lifeline through the Mediterranean to a foreign power and the
UNO,
so that we have no control at all over the
Mediterranean. If war came, the enemy could
come down through the Red sea and right
across into Canada in about half a day. I
can tell you this: We are just pretending.
What is being done in Germany? Nothing.
In Japan the situation is the same. China is
on the verge of civil war.
What are we going to do about the title
of the king? It is not divisible, in my opinion.
We have had legal authority for that. The
king is now king of Canada, but no longer is
he emperor of India. The scuttling and the
dissolution of the British empire have gone
on. A large body of public opinion in this
country thinks the same way as I do about
the state of affairs.
Canada, which was first in the diamond
jubilee procession, is today nowhere. We
have no foreign policy except that of the
UNO, a sham organization, with the extravagance of the external affairs department
that
goes on down there, $9,000,000 or $10,000,000
being spent in this work, and no security at
all. If you look over the estimates you find
that thousands and tens of thousands of dollars are just wasted in administrative
offices.
Just recently in the city of Toronto we had
a trade exhibition to which came people from
the seven seas. It was magnificent to see what
these trade agents had done the world over,
long before we ever had this magnificent
organization of ambassadors and consuls general. Wait till the return is brought down
for
the travelling expenses. Here is a new group
of seven or eight of the health department now
on the ship bound for Geneva. Several hundred thousand dollars are being spent in
one
department on travelling expenses. When it
is all added up it amounts to $1,000,000,
$2,000,000 or $3,000,000 for Canada's travelling
expenses. Canada, a small nation with ten or
eleven million people, cannot stand that any
longer.
There should have been a conference of
Britain and the dominions long ago. Mr. Curtin and Mr. Fraser from New Zealand and
Australia, from where the Deputy Speaker is
now sitting, addressed this house. They wanted
to have an empire conference like the ones
we used to have every ten years, to take up
questions of trade, defence and migration. Sir
Wilfrid Laurier had one while he was in power.
He proposed a policy for this country that
when Britain was at war, Canada was at war
also. That was the policy we had in two wars.
I have referred to the first war when a million men went voluntarily, under their
own
status and autonomy, and 130,000 fell. In
the second war the situation was the same,
except that ten times the number went. That
was the policy : when Britain is at war, Canada
is at war. If we go into a third war I venture
to say the policy will be the same.
Are we to wait until the enemy sails up the
St. Lawrence? They were pretty close to it
the last time, in 1943, 1944 and 1945. They
were up to the St. Lawrence when a secret
meeting was held in this chamber in the
second war, and they came up fairly far.
Thousands of us, if not the whole House of
Commons, might have been carted away
overseas. They got a long distance up the
St. Lawrence. Are we to wait until that happens again? I say no. The way to avoid
it
is to pretend no longer. There is no use in
spending any dollars on the UNO at Lake
Success. As I have said before, if they would
only close up for about a year, and Canada
5550 Supply—External Affairs
COMMONS
get out of it altogether, we would be better
off and have a chance of peace and security.
ERP or the Marshall plan is just a blueprint.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury said the
other day in England, he was greatly disappointed in Lake Success and the way the
empire had been dissolved. I quoted his
remarks in the house the other night and I
will not do so again.
I am absolutely opposed to the policy of
this government on foreign affairs. I believe
that this item should be reduced to reasonable proportions, to about $1,000,000 a
year.
That would be plenty to spend on such agencies
as are now proposed, because you have no
foreign policy except the UNO. That is the
cornerstone of it. What has the UNO done?
It has just dissolved the whole British empire.
They want us to give up our bases on the
seven seas. If we do so, you know what will
happen. We shall have the enemy out here.
Owing to this league of nations, we lost two
of our great allies in the first war. In the
second war you have lost one of them already.
I can tell you this, that if you just keep on
pretending for another year we shall be just
as close to war as we were in 1939, when the
second war broke out.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I believe I had the
floor, but I took my seat to allow the hon.
member to ask a question—and with the
result the committee has seen. However I
am quite willing to sit down again if the
hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario wishes
to ask a question—because I hope it will be
a question.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):
It will be a question, and one in regard to
Newfoundland—which I take it we can now
return to. I wish to ask this question on the
point made by the minister as to the constitutional position. I understand that position
clearly, and I would ask another question, which, it seems to me, is relevant.
Supposing in fact that the constitutional
requirements the minister has outlined are
complied with, but that nevertheless we
know there is a strong minority—perhaps
almost half the people in Newfoundland—
who are opposed to any union with us; in the
minister's opinion would that be a matter
of indifference to us?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think
it would be a, matter of indifference to us.
But. we have made an offer to the consti—
tuted authorities of Newfoundland, and I
do not think we could back away from that
offer if the constituted authorities came to
us and said, "The majority in Newfoundland
want confederation." Of course this parliament might be disposed to say there is not
such a decisive majority, in spite of the
statement made by the constituted
authorities, as would require or justify the
carrying out of the offer we made.
My own personal view with respect to
these negotiations has been that it would be
a serious responsibility to do or say anything
which would prevent the entry of Newfoundland into Canada. I may be an optimist,
but I do believe that the Canadian nation
is destined to occupy an important place
in world affairs. I do believe, further, that
that place in world affairs would be better
preserved by a territory which extended
right out to the broad ocean and if access
thereto was not closed to Canada by another
sovereignty over the territories of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Because of that attitude, we made offers
which would involve quite costly requirements from the Canadian people at the
present time. But I think we would have
been remiss in our duty to future generations
of Canadians not to have done so. That
offer having been made, if there is a desire
on the part of the people of Newfoundland
to accept it, I think the government will
be disposed to recommend to parliament that
it be implemented.
It might be that there would come about
in Newfoundland a division of opinion that
would show that the time was not ripe for
union to take place, and that it would not
be easy to have it work satisfactorily in what
would then be a new province. That is
something which I hope we shall not have
to face, and about which I would prefer not
to have to express any views, unless we do
have to face it. I hope there will be a clear- cut decision in this second vote. I
hope it
will not be so close as to leave us in the
embarrassing position of having to take in
a large group of recalcitrants, or having to
renounce the opportunity of completing
what the fathers of confederation originally
intended.
Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):
One further supplementary question, if I may.
I did not understand the minister to say—
at least I hope I did not—that by our action
we have put it beyond our .power to go back
if, in fact, there is now a legal acceptance,
legally given to Newfoundland, but with a
strong and large dissenting minority.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That matter would be
one which would have to be faced in a statesmanlike manner by the authorities in the
United Kingdom and those in Canada. They are the ones who have legal jurisdiction.
I am reminded of the view I expressed about demo
JUNE 19, 1948 Supply-External Affairs 5551
cracy. In a democracy the will of the majority
must prevail; but a majority should not impose
a decision that is not in the real interests of
the community, or without giving careful consideration to the views of the minority
and
the reasons for those views. And I think that
when the time comes for a decision as to
whether this will he proceeded with or not, the
Canadian government and the United Kingdom government will have to take into consideration
the facts as they will have appeared
from the vote of the people of Newfoundland.
Then the hon. member for Stanstead asked
me to deal with two or three other questions,
one of which had to do with the St. Lawrence
seaway. Members of the committee will
recall that the basic agreement was signed in
March, 1941, was referred to the senate committee on foreign affairs in the United
States,
and favourably reported upon this year. But
it was recommitted to the committee on
foreign affairs by a vote in the senate of the
United States on February 27, 1948. That was
a vote of fifty-seven to thirty. It is therefore not being proceeded with expeditiously
by the United States senate.
There have been reports in the newspapers
as to the desire of Ontario and the state of
New York to proceed with certain power
developments; but there have been no official
communications to the government of Canada
in that regard and, so far as I know, no application to the international joint commission
with respect thereto. There is nothing I can
communicate to the committee beyond the
information I have obtained from the reading
of reports in the newspapers.
Then the hon. member asked me about the
royal style and titles. As hon. members will
recall, an act of this parliament was passed
last year expressing the acquiescence of Canada
in the dropping from the royal style and titles
of the words, "Emperor of India". We are
informed that a proclamation will be issued by
His Majesty fixing June 22 as the date from
which those words will be dropped from the
royal style and titles in the United Kingdom,
and the governor in council has adopted a
minute of council to have a notice to that
effect published in the official gazette, when
we get confirmation that that is the date to be
acted upon in the United Kingdom.
The hon. member asked if there had been
any changes in our relations with the South
African government since the election. There
have been no changes.
Then he asked what has been done toward
building up our relations with western Europe
and other members of the commonwealth.
There has been nothing accomplished, but what
we have been doing was recently reported in
the Ottawa Journal as a crusade by Canada for
the completion of a western union or north
Atlantic regional pact. I think that title, of
course, perhaps justly describes the attitude we
have adopted. We feel that, should war break
out that affected the United Kingdom and the
United States, we would inevitably be involved and that there might be great value
in
having consummated a regional pact whereby
these western European countries, the United
Kingdom and the United States and ourselves,
would guarantee each other's security.
We had hoped that the united nations would
guarantee the security of all of us, but that
has not been accomplished, and we think there
would be value in a regional pact whereby
these western European democracies, the United
Kingdom, the United States and ourselves
agreed to stand together, to pool for defence
purposes our respective potentials and coordinate right away our forces, so that it
would
appear to any possible aggressor that he would
have to be prepared to overcome us all if he
attempted any aggression.
We do not think a pact that did not include
those major powers would be sufliciently impressive to require us to be a party to
it. We
think this western union is a good thing, but
our adhesion to it without the United States
would add very little to it. We are hopeful
that it will develop into something which will
comprise the United States along with those
who are already members, and in that event
we think the people of Canada would wish that
we also be associated with it, not because we
want to assert domination over anyone, but
because we realize that if the group in this
regional pact became involved in war we would
necessarily be involved with them.
That is something that the people of
Canada might prefer to avoid, but it is something which they could not avoid even
if they
wished to. That being so, if there is any
value in preparedness we think the people of
Canada would be glad to see us making that
preparation in a co-ordinated fashion with
others whose way of life is the same as ours
and whose security is part of our own security.
That has not proceeded very far, although
there has been the adoption by an overwhelming majority in the United States senate
of
Senator Vandenberg's resolution recommending
the setting up of such a. security group.
The hon. member asked what our relations
were with the members of the commonwealth.
Our relations with the members of the commonwealth revolve around the United Kingdom
as being the pivot of the commonwealth.
We do not think anything that the United [...]
Cet individu a participé aux :
