Canada's Impact on World Affairs

Dr. Goldring introduced Mr. Trevor Moore, President Canadian Club, who introduced the speaker.

MR. TREVOR MOORE: Our speaker today is a man whose multiplicity of activities would challenge the scope of a full-scale biography, let alone that of a brief introduction.

To give you a few indications:

-he has toured Europe as a member of a Canadian hockey team,

-he has accepted the surrender of the German forces at Amsterdam as a Seaforth Highlander in the Canadian army,

-a graduate of Bishop's College and Bishop's University, he was proposed for a Rhodes' scholarship partly as a result of his eminence in debate,

-he decided instead to perfect his French, which he chose to do by playing hockey in Europe. This comes as a surprise to most people because tennis is his favourite game.

Actually all these activities, together with a distinguished career as a reporter on The Globe and Mail, were to become contributory to his real career which, until recently, many of us had thought to be the publishing of newspapers. Certainly, a man who has published the Sherbrooke Record and is now publisher of the Toronto Telegram would normally be thought of as a publisher.

Latterly, however, it has developed that he is still a reporter at heart, and, to use a phrase which for some reason is seldom heard on Melinda Street, a Star reporter at that.

Gentlemen, the subject of this address for members of the Empire Club is "Canada's Impact on World Affairs." For the Canadian Club the address has been entitled "Allies Revisited." To handle both of these subjects at one and the same time, before the three clubs represented here today, I introduce our speaker, John Bassett, Jr.

MR. JOHN BASSETT, Jr.: I wish first to say how delighted and honoured I am to have this opportunity of reporting personally on my recent trip to Europe to such a large and distinguished audience.

During the ten weeks I was away, I had an opportunity of meeting and talking to the most important political leaders of Italy, France, Belgium and Great Britain and also to many journalists, diplomats as well as a number of men and women in every walk of life who, like most of us, are representative of the great masses of free men and women who are so dependent upon our parliaments to steer a wise course through what is still a very complex and dangerous world. I am glad of the opportunity to tell you some of the things that these people told me, to describe some of these men personally, and also to share some impressions which I formed about conditions in the world generally, and the part Canada and Canadians can play in affecting these conditions.

The first part of my trip took me from the very south of Italy through that country to its northern border and into France. I crossed the country by car three times from the Mediterranean to the Adriatic and had a very good opportunity to study conditions there, and I should like to speak about Italy first.

During the war I spent eighteen months in Italy, a year of that time as an officer in an infantry battalion. Quite frankly I did not develop any great affection or respect for the Italian people. The beautiful scenery of the country was a gift from the Almighty and the great art treasures were contributions from Italians of a bygone era. Italians under the pressure of war seemed to be doing little to deserve either.

Today, ten years later, I have developed both affection and respect for the Italians. They have come through a very difficult time; their country had been devastated by war and many thousands of Italians had had the war brought home to them in a most personal way as first German and then Allied troops came and fought through their farms, villages and cities and remained to occupy the country.

In the past ten years the strides made by the Italian people have been immense. On the political front they have met and now defeated the most powerful and concentrated Communist threat to any country still outside the Iron Curtain. We are prone to forget that it was the allies that brought Communist participation into the French and Italian governments immediately after the war, when our own leaders still believed that the wartime co-operation with the Soviet Unon could be carried into the years of peace.

The late Alcide de Gasperi will certainly rank with the very highest of Italian and democratic leaders for the courage and skill he showed, first in keeping the Communist members of his post-war government in control and finally dismissing them entirely.

It is safe to say that the Communist tide in Italy has been stopped and there are signs that it is going back. While in Rome I talked with the number two or three top Communist, Pajetta, as Togliatti, the leader, at the last minute would not see me. Pajetta, is one of the party secretariat of seven who run the party, is a member of the Italian parliament and is in charge of all propaganda for the Communists in Italy. He had, incidentally, not heard of any of our home-grown Communists such as Joe Salzberg, Stewart Smith, Tim Buck or MacLeod.

Not yet forty, Pajetta spent twelve years of his life in Fascist jails. He was later exiled to France by the Fascist government but was caught acting as a courier between the French Communist party and the Italian Communist party which was then, of course, underground. The war freed him and he became an underground agent against the Germans and through this came to power both within the party and as a member of parliament. He represents the new `soft' line which the Communists are now using everywhere in Western Europe - the line of co-operation with other political parties in the still free countries of Europe, in an attempt to gain power through political alliances with Socialists or anyone who will join them.

A day or two before my interview with him a very important Labour election at the Fiat works in Turin had been held and the Communist slate had been badly defeated and thrown out of their previous position of control of the Union. Pajetta himself said to me, "We have suffered a heavy blow."

The victory here of the Christian Democratic Party has been repeated in the provincial elections held in Sicily on June 5th when they increased their hold in the Legislature from 30 to 37 seats while the Communist and Socialist supporters were held to no gain.

The Italian government is also showing great courage in its plan for the industrialization of Southern Italy. I had a long interview with Dr. Vanoni, the finance minister, who is the originator of this plan, which envisages the development of water power plants first of all, and then the construction of a diversified industrial empire in Southern Italy where there are important reservoirs of labour manpower.

The carrying out of this plan requires real political courage because it is in the agricultural south where, in spite of poverty and a comparative lack of education compared with the people of the industrialized north, that the Christian Democrats and the parties of the right wing, which support them in parliament, draw their most consistent and solid support. Dr. Vanoni told me that as industrialization goes forward, it is only to be expected that in the first stages Communist organizers may make political gains. He said, however, that political expediency could not be a factor and that if Italy was to continue to prosper and grow, then the people of the South could no longer be held in the chains of poverty.

I do not think it necessary to go into too great detail about the material rebuilding of the country but it has been tremendous. I drove up the highways both on the Adriatic side and north from Naples and Caserta in Central Italy that had served as the axis, for the Canadian advance during the war. When one considers that every highway bridge, and railway bridge had been blown up by the retreating Germans, and that virtually every town had been destroyed not from the air but at close quarters by artillery fire and tank fire, the job of rebuilding that has been done is impressive. The traditional Italian love and appreciation of art has been given full play, and the examples of modern architecture, design, colour, and decoration, which I saw, could perhaps give our Canadian builders some worthwhile ideas that might be applied in our own country.

As is true in all the free countries in the world, inflation has played some part in post-war Italy, and the cost of living has increased, but, of course, by Canadian standards is comparatively low.

The Italian people, in my opinion, have found a new pride in what their country is doing, are proud and grateful to have been re-accepted into the family of free nations and are determined to accept their responsibilities as a member of NATO. Their government is strong and certainly by European standards is stable and is giving constructive leadership.

Unhappily I cannot be so optimistic about France which is, of course, basically far more powerful than Italy and more important to Canadians not only because this country shares part of her heritage with France, but because we have now along with the other members of NATO approved the rearmament of Germany, and a strong France is necessary to balance a strong Germany.

To the outward eye France is strong and prosperous. I drove from the Southem-most tip of the nation from the Mediterranean, right across to the Atlantic coast and war-battered Caen, where the Canadians entered July 12, 1944, and then north to the Belgian border. The broad, rich acres and vineyards of the Burgundy country, the Rhone and Loire valleys never looked lovelier. The fruit trees were heavy with their April blooms. The fat, sleek French Percherons were plowing the rich fields and the French farmers were looking forward to a bumper crop.

Paris was full of tourists and the hotel keepers and shopkeepers were filling their pockets with American and Canadian dollars in what is Europe's most expensive city with prices now on a par with New York.

But there is still a basic sickness in France. Besides having a long meeting with George Bidault, I was privileged to spend over an hour with General de Gaulle who, although, removed from practical politics still exerts the strongest political-moral force in the country. Both men recognize the weariness and sickness in the nation. General de Gaulle, tall and still straight and alert, believes that when the present generation of French men and women, who were too young to remember the war, assume positions of top power in politics and industry that France again will resume her rightful place.

He sees signs of this already, a most important one being the rising birthrate. He believes this will give France much needed manpower, and that the atmosphere of larger families will create a more vigorous and rough and ready spirit in the people.

He says that France needs time, ten or fifteen years. At the present time France does not appear to have the will to accept the necessary sacrifices at home to build back her power on the firm basis as England has done in the post-war years. There is a deep contempt for parliamentary institutions and political leaders which seems common to all classes. Leaders of all parties are referred to simply as `the politicians' and appear to be regarded as a distinct class of society unto themselves.

They are blamed for the defeat of France, and the postwar run-away inflation, which is only just now coming under control. The French do not appear to want a strong Federal Government. Competent observers say that no matter what change might be made in the constitution they would find a way around it to shear away any real continuing power from the government such as we know it under parliamentary responsibility in Canada.

In fact, many Frenchmen do not consider there is a political freedom in Canada. Their view is that with us parliament is subjugated to the government. That party discipline is so strong that the Cabinet can rule and parliament has no means of turning out a government. They claim that although ministries change frequently in France, policies do not change so materially, and that all the British, American and Canadian concern about `stable government' in France is unreal.

But the hard political facts of post-war France hardly bear this out.

There is no doubt that there is almost a national psychosis about the loss of French power in the world through disastrous defeat in the war, the loss of Indo-China, and the decline of French influence in world affairs.

Blame for all this is put on the `politicians', and the terrible loss of French manpower in the first war, from which the nation has not yet recovered.

It would take a braver man and a wiser one than I to predict what the future holds for this country. There are some who believe sincerely that France is through. They say that the basic will of the people is gone; that the humiliation of defeat and German occupation was so great that the nation will never recover.

There are others, just as knowledgeable, who say the tremendous vitality and thrifty qualities of the French people will not be denied, and once again, given time, France will be a truly great nation. General de Gaulle, of course, is one of these.

The words `given time' are important. All say that another fifteen years are needed for France to recover, if she is to recover at all. This time is needed for a post-war generation to grow to manhood. It is generally agreed that the young adults of twenty-one to thirty of today in France are far more serious and hard working than their parents ever were.

There is, of course, great distrust of the Germans, and grave doubts of the wisdom on German rearmament. This was strongly stated by George Bidault in his interview with me. But there is also reluctant acceptance of the necessity for a strong Western European army of some kind.

I found a greater acceptance of hard fact in Italy than in France. I was more impressed with the efforts of the Italian Government and the Italian people to rebuild than I was in France.

Certainly little Belgium is far more prosperous and on a sounder basis than her big neighbour. For instance one gets fifty Belgian francs to the dollar, as compared to 350 French.

Discussing these differences I was told that neither Belgium nor Italy had suffered the same deep degradation from war and occupation as had France.

I was told that the Belgians through all their history had been used to occupation and being a battlefield, and under the control of foreign governors. Due to this the Belgian people have developed a kind of inner freedom that immediately reasserts itself when the invader leaves.

Italy, also, has never been a nation is the same sense as has France. Until 1943 they were on the winning side with Germany. The Italians, I was told, united only in 1870, do not have the pride of nationhood that the French possess.

My informant compared France to a woman who had been raped, brutally outraged. He said the act itself was bad enough, but the psychological after effects were much more serious. He believed that in time, given understanding and help, France, like the woman, would recover.

Naturally the recovery of France is very important to us all. Without it Germany will completely dominate continental Europe from the English Channel to the Iron Curtain. Britain and North America will then be dependent on the Germans to a degree that I, for one, do not like to contemplate.

Leaving continental Europe on a lovely May day, I flew from Paris to London and I must confess that arriving in that great capital for the firs time in ten years, I had a strong feeling almost of coming home. One does not have to be in England long to sense that the driving urgency that has served those island people so well through the centuries and has had such a tremendously beneficial effect on the development of the free institutions by which we all live, is still strong. This spirit has brought Britain from near bankruptcy, and the after effects of war, once again to economic strength, political stability and a quiet confident pride in the knowledge of the great role that they must still play everywhere in the world.

Conditions in England are very good and the re-election of Sir Anthony Eden, which for the first time in one hundred years sent an existing government back into power with an increased majority, was a clear mandate from the British people to continue along the road which that nation has been following for the past three and a half years.

I had the great good fortune to meet and talk privately with the Prime Minister a few days before the election. Let me say at once that I have never seen him looking more fit. He is full of confidence in his own ability and the abilities of the United Kingdom to meet whatever tasks lie ahead. All reports about his health are good, and the operations which he underwent have now resulted in complete success. As most of you know he has the warmest and deepest affection for this country.

I also went out to the London suburb of Woodford to attend a meeting of Sir Winston Churchill's. I predict that he will still play a great role in British and world affairs, and now removed from partisan politics, the tremendous reservoir of respect and affection that is held for him by all Englishmen will enable him to become a great moral force and strength second only to that of the Queen.

You would all have enjoyed seeing Sir Winston with a twinkle in his eye referring to the Socialist election propaganda that he has been pushed unwillingly from the high office of Prime Minister. He said to his own constituency, "This is not so, and I am sure you all know me well enough to know that I could not be pushed from any position I was not willing to leave." These remarks and his mischevious smile were greeted with a roar of approval and applause.

But quite aside from the talents of the men who are now leading British politics is the force of all the fifty million English men and women who make up that nation. It was these people who after undergoing the tremendous hardships and sacrifices of the war, who saw their great cities bombed, their armies thrown back and their ships sunk, and after finally emerging victorious, accepted the rigours of rationing, and levels of crushing taxation, so that their country might be rebuilt, and their trade restored, so that once again their island kingdom might assume its rightful place, in full partnership with the United States, as leaders of the free countries of the world.

It is my considered judgment that now with full employment, wages at an all time high, savings at an all time high, and the balance of trade gaining, that as in the past, so in the future, the United Kingdom will continue to be a bastion of moral good and of freedom-giving inspiration and hope to all Europe, and indeed to the whole world.

The main and most important impression which I have brought back from this trip and from my conversations with those whom I met is that the tensions in Europe have considerably eased in the past twelve months.

Men with such different political views as the Italian Communist, Pajetta, and George Bidault of the MRP party in France, both feel, as did the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Belgium, that Russia is almost desperately looking for some way to live at peace with the free world.

This, of course, does not mean that the Soviet has suddenly developed any great love for us but is following this policy from necessity faced with the ever growing strength of the Western nations.

Evidences of this new attitude can be found in the Austrian Peace Treaty, the recent hat-in-hand visit of Khrushchev and Bulganin to Tito, and the willingness of the Communist leaders to attend a meeting at the summit.

It would appear that the Russians have perhaps been badly frightened by the aggressive attitude of their Chinese allies, and of the obvious readiness of the United States to face a hot war, if necessary, in the Far East-which could rapidly extend into a world-wide conflict.

My view is that if the Western leaders meet the situation with imagination and courage and always retain their position of strength, that real progress may be made to set up the means of peaceful co-existence.

Of great interest to me, of course, was the attitude toward Canada, that I found on every hand. The prestige of this country was never higher abroad, than it is today. At the political level the part that Canada played in the last war is not forgotten, but, perhaps, even more than this, the diplomatic skills of our Prime Minister, Mr. St. Laurent, and our Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Pearson, in the difficult postwar world of the past ten years, are greatly admired and greatly respected.

At the level of the man in the street, Canada is regarded as a land where dreams come true, a treasure trove of the Western world where work and bread are found in plenty and where the people are truly free and friendly.

In the minds of Europeans, Canada stands as a strong and united nation. Our representatives abroad in the diplomatic service are men of high calibre and certainly the voice of Canada in the councils of the world is listened to with respect. It must, therefore, be a source of tremendous pride and gratification to every Canadian that our country ranks in this high position.

Talking to the Prime Minister of Belgium, Achille Van Acker, he said to me, "I wonder if you Canadians realize what a wonderful country you have and what wonderful opportunities lie at your hands."

I share this doubt that we do realize how really important we have now become. Most of us know that we are the third trading nation of the world. Most of us are aware to some extent of the great industrialization that took place under the hot spur of war, and that it has increased three fold since 1945. Most of us have some idea of the tremendous developments taking place in our hitherto unexplored areas such as northern Quebec and northern British Columbia. But I doubt if we fully realize to what extent the eyes of the world are fastened upon us with such a mixture of hope and longing.

I submit for your earnest consideration that the greatest need in this country today is the development of a strong national feeling of Canadianism. I do not mean the development of a sense of narrow nationalism but I do mean the development of a deep sense of pride in our country, a feeling of brotherhood and common cause between those that live as far away as Halifax is from Vancouver, or as St. John's, Newfoundland is from Victoria.

I believe that Canadians must cast off old-fashioned thinking and outworn concepts of what can or what cannot be done. I also happen to believe that there is a quick and sure way that this feeling of Canadianism and brotherhood can be developed, and I mean through service.

I know of no better way for young Canadians to identify their own lives with the well being of their country than by accepting responsibility through service, and I think that the time is ripe now for our present government to institute a policy of one year's national military service for the young men of Canada.

We are fortunate in having as Prime Minister of this country, a man who is almost universally respected not only for his political leadership but for his great human qualities.

He also happens to be a French-speaking Canadian and leader of a party which strongly opposed national military service from 1917 until the Second War. It is my own belief that if Mr. St. Laurent would take a trip across this country explaining the need for this service, what it would achieve in building up the spirit of Canadian nationalism, and then return to the House of Commons and guide the necessary legislation through the House, scarcely a voice would be raised in opposition.

I worked as a journalist for some years in the Province of Quebec, and I stood for parliament in a French-speaking constituency when I was still in uniform. I speak French and consider that I know that province well. It is my sincere belief that if properly explained and removed from the context of war or heated political campaign, that there would be no more opposition to national military service in the Province of Quebec than in any other part of Canada. Anyone who suggests that Quebec is not willing to play its full part in the development of Canada, I believe is unaware of the true feelings of that province.

The subsidiary benefits of such a plan would, of course, be tremendous. One can easily visualize what a year of regular food, regular hours of sleep, a measure of discipline and exercise, and of living out in the open would do for the general health of Canadian youths.

If, God forbid, we should ever again be faced with a war, it would, of course, be far more fair to those who have to fight it, if they had been properly trained before the bombs fell or the bullets started to fly.

But important as these points are to me, they are subsidiary benefits. The main purpose and overwhelming good that would be achieved would come from the mixing up of young Canadians from every part of the country, from every type of home and background, from farm, from city, from town and hamlet, and letting them get to know each other, to know different parts of the country, identifying themselves with their country by serving it. I can conceive of no other method which would be as effective in teaching young Canadians that they have a responsibility to give as well as to take from the richness of this great nation and that Canada will only go forward to the extent of the sum total of the contributing effort of all her men and women.

Gentlemen, it is my conviction and I am sure it is yours too, that great as has been Canada's role in the past, that we are only on the threshold of great attainments. If this greatness is to be achieved, it can only be done by a united nation made up of people who know and respect each other. Let us not because of long past differences of opinion and of old-fashioned and outworn political beliefs, fail to grasp this opportunity now. But instead let us encourage our Prime Minister to grasp the nettle firmly and go forward with courage and imagination so that Canada can be ready to accept the great future that must be hers.