1945-03-27

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION IN RESPECT OF SHIPMENTS FROM CANADA TO THE UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, based on a report in the morning papers respecting proceedings in a senate subcommittee conducting an investigation into food shortages in the United States.	It is reported that the
director of supply for the United States Commodity Credit Corporation told the committee that efforts had been made to get large quantities of meat from Canada, but that the Canadian government would not permit exports. In view of the statement made on December 5, 1944, by the Minister of Agriculture in reply to a question asked by the house leader of the Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Graydon) that Washington had suggested that Canada should not send beef cattle to the United States and that the government of Canada was respecting that attitude, will the minister make a state-
ment explaining what appears to be a contradiction of his previous comments in this connection?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not notice the question of the hon. member until he had begun reading it and I saw the copy of it on my desk; therefore I have not had time to consider the matter. I should like to say, however, that I noticed in the newspapers this morning the statement reported to have been made by the director of supply for the United States Commodity Credit Corporation, and I find it most difficult to believe that such a statement was made without any statement being made at the same time as to what it may be related to. There may have been some request from the United States Commodity Credit Corporation for beef from Canada at some period or another during the war. However, the reference I made on December 5, 1944, was based upon an inquiry made personally by our own deputy minister in Washington a short time prior to the making of it. Any statement made in the house was in exact accordance with information we had from Washington.
Another question, to which reference was made in the house at the same time, had to do with two different matters, and I believe was referred to by one of the senators in replying to this particular statement. I believe I made the statement to the house in December last-and if I did not, I make it to-day-that at that time, when the peak in delivery was reached last fall, not only did we approach Washington, but we also took the matter up with certain packing plants in St. Paul, Minnesota. We asked them whether or not they would take delivery of a stated number of cattle per week over a short period of time, in order to relieve the Winnipeg stock market.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would that number amount to the quota?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; we simply asked them if they would agree that so many hundred or so many thousand cattle should bt taken off the Winnipeg market during a certain period, and sent down to St. Paul, to be processed in St. Paul plants, instead of at home. The plants were overcrowded in Winnipeg. We received in reply from the cooperative in St. Paul, a telegram, which I could place on the table of the house saying that it would be impossible for them to handle these cattle, and1 advising us to keep them on this side of the line.

Awards for Gallantry
Not only did we consult with officials of the department in Washington but we took the matter up with packing plants as well, and had the same kind of information from both. Of course it is understood by all, I think, in the United States and Canada as well as in Great Britain, that it has been the united wish of all three that as much as possible of surplus meat, not only from Canada but from this continent, should be sent to Great Britain or to other countries requiring it, particularly in these days when other countries are being occupied by the allied forces. We have been cooperating to the greatest extent possible in making the largest amounts available from this country for shipment directly to Britain. That has been understood by the representatives of all three governments. The matter is still under consideration and discussion, even more so now than it was last fall.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is the situation the same to-day as it was in December when the minister made his statement to the house?


James Garfield Gardiner: The situation is somewhat different to-day. I am sure the hon. member for Haldimand realizes, as we all do who are interested in the marketing of live stock, that the rush period of deliveries comes in the fall of the year so far as western Canada is concerned, and there is probably also a rush delivery in the spring of the year in the eastern part of Canada where cattle are grain fed. But the period of which I was speaking was the rush period of last fall, when it was natural that we should be considering the plants at St. Paul rather than in the eastern part of the United States. I presume that a similar situation might develop in the spring of this year, although it has not up to the present moment. Last fall we were not able to get all the hogs and cattle we had coming to market through our plants at the time they should go through. At the present time our plants are not running to capacity with live stock coming in, and for that reason I would say there would be less likelihood than there was last fall of anyone asking that we should ship our live stock to the United States for processing of meats on their way to Britain. We can probably put all that will come for-word in a short period of time through our own plants, and for that reason more meat can be got to Britain by keeping our own plants fully occupied than could be if we shipped more to the United States and kept our own plants only partly busy.


Mark Cecil Senn: I hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to ask another question, but evidently the director of
supply over there told the committee that efforts have been made to get larger quantities. Is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have checked all the records that have come from the other side and all the records we have here, and now that the question has been raised, I think 1 should say all the records show that there has been more meat consumed in the United States per head of population than there has in Canada. I think that fact should be made known not only in this country but in the United States. There has been so much discussion of this question by people who have not the facts before them that I am afraid some people may have got a wrong impression. The people of the United States appear to have the idea that we consume a much greater quantity of meat in this country in relation to our population than they do. That is not the fact. Their own statistics coming here indicate that while the figures for the two countries are approximately the same, the consumption per head of population has been slightly higher on the other side of the line than in Canada.
The fact remains that on the other side of the line they have a greater difficulty in equalizing the distribution than we have on this side. We have only five or six large cities, while they have a very considerable number of large cities, some of them much larger than ours. On this side of the line we have followed the practice, when there has been a threatened shortage in Toronto, let us say, of shipping meat in and paying the freight on it from some other part of Canada, to make meat available in the shortage area. To apply that same idea to the United States would perhaps be a little more difficult. Nevertheless that practice has resulted in a more equitable distribution of meat in this country, with a lesser per capita consumption that there is in the United States.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a suggestion rather than a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, also to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services and to the Minister of National Defence for Air? At the last session of parliament, approximately a year ago, not during the fall sittings, the three ministers at my suggestion placed upon
Privilege-Mr. Wood

Hansard lists of Canadian service personnel who have been awarded decorations for gallantry. I think it would be appropriate if before the session closes the lists were brought up to date by the three ministers. It would be an admirable idea to have these further names on Hansard.


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: Mr. Speaker, the list for the Department of National Defence for Air has been prepared and is ready to be placed on Hansard.


Gordon Graydon: Thank you.



INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO FARM LEAVE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I would like to direct a question to the appropriate minister, either the acting Minister of National Defence or the Minister of' Labour. As spring is now here and agricultural work is getting under way, especially in the west, what provision, if any, has been made for the release of men from the armed forces, either general service or home defence, to work on the farms?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: This of course is a hardy annual. My hon. friend can rest assured that we will get the crop in and get it off, as we have done every year in cooperation with the provincial authorities.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Don't say "we". It is the farmers.


Humphrey Mitchell: All right, you and I.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should just like to know what provision is being made.


Mr. HANSELL:: We are beginning to get letters asking about farm leave for spring work.


Humphrey Mitchell: The provision will be under somewhat similar conditions as those of last year.


Charles Edward Johnston: I notice the minister said, provision "will be". Does that mean that there is no provision made now, that no proposals are formulated?


Ernest George Hansell: Will the minister make an announcement to-morrow or the next day? Many letters are beginning to come in about farm leave for those in the armed forces. It is an annual question, but the time has come when it should be answered.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): May I ask the government if instructions are to be given that there shall be no crooning or jazz playing over the C.B.C. network on Good Friday? I would like to have an answer.
Hon. L. R. LaFLECHE (Minister of National War Services): The hon. gentleman's words will be noted and brought to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred yesterday at page 218 of Hansard to a statement that I had made, the correctness of which he challenged. I based the observations to which he referred on words he used at page 171 of Hansard, when he said, as I heard it from1 this section of the house: "Any nation that becomes a member of the world court, the security council and the like, has to surrender its rights to handle its own affairs regardless of how they affect other nations of the world." Also on page 171, where he associates himself with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), there is a quotation from section 5 of section B which I do not need to repeat, but which ends with these words:
The special agreement . . . should be in each case subject to approval by the security council and to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their constitutional processes.
The remark that prefaced that was on page 171 of Hansard:
Personally I believe such a course is absolutely wrong.
That is what prompted me to make the remark I did.

San Francisco Conference



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-eouata):	Mr. Speaker, when I make an error
I am the first to confess it. Yesterday I referred to an order for return which had been passed in the house regarding the brass hats who had never been in any theatre of war. There was no order for return, but I wrote a question and I sent it to Hansard. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. McNaughton) told me, "We will do our best to get the figures and give the member for Temiscouata the answer to his question." My belief is that the word of a minister should be as good as a vote of the house.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.:	[DOT]
Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, and I am sorry that I have not been able to send him notice of it. It has to do with a return received yesterday which indicates that the veterans' land act board have frozen tractors and a lot of farm machinery for future delivery. A number of our young men who own their own land have not the equipment to work it with, and it is late in the season. I ask that equipment be released to men who, having been overseas and discharged, are in a position to pay cash for tractors, in order to put their crops in.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs):	I shall be very glad to
look at once into the situation as analysed by my hon. friend.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from March 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King to approve a resolution to send representatives to a conference of the united nations at San Francisco to prepare a charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that after all that has been said in this debate I can make any worth-while contribution to the discussion. However I desire at the outset to say that,
notwithstanding all the weaknesses of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and notwithstanding all the difficulties which I know will be encountered at San Francisco, I am heartily in favour of the underlying principles of these proposals, and I think that every peace-loving, right-thinking citizen in Canada should be also. I am astonished that there has been injected into this debate even a note of dissent with respect to the principle.
Admittedly the subject matter is of very great importance. But I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it is not of such immediate supreme importance that at this time we should spend half of the short lease of life of this House of Commons in discussing it, having regard1 to the fact that another matter, which in my opinion is of vastly greater importance, must be dealt with, at least in a measure, before this parliament dies a natural death. I have always taken the ground that the winning of the war is the supremely vital thing before this House of Commons, and the war is still to be won, although we can congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the position of the united nations to-day enables us to see the victory, perhaps to-morrow. The winning of the peace stands in the second place, and the keeping of the peace is, in my judgment, of third importance only.
This house had a distinct mandate some five years ago this month from the Canadian people to win this war. The Canadian people have done their part manfully. Having said that, I now make the assertion that this House of Commons has no mandate from the people of Canada with respect to either the peace proposals or the post-war period. We have no mandate from the Canadian electorate to deal with the peace-making proposals or the peacekeeping proposals; and toe sooner this country has a general election the sooner will the atmosphere be cleared and someone will have a mandate from toe Canadian people to participate in the peace-making and in toe peacekeeping.
We listened yesterday afternoon to what may possibly be the valedictory of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar); and I want as an old friend to congratulate him on the general character of his speech. With much that he said I am in general agreement. There is only one point, I think, upon which we may be said to differ, and that is the point he raised with respect to the proposals of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), with which he made it quite clear that he was in total disagreement. But he sought to give to the proposals of the hon. member
San Francisco Conference

nations in the United States, and if they were to do the job over again to-day there would be a different decision arrived at. However, I do not wish to pursue that line of thought any farther. So far as I can discover, there seems to be a misapprehension with respect to the forces that will be at the disposal of the council of this new league of nations, the force that is essential if the decrees of the council are to be enforced against an aggressor. If I understand the position correctly-and the Prime Minister when he replies will correct me if I am wrong-the forces contemplated after the subsidiary agreements are entered into are not to be armies. This council is not to maintain a strong standing army. The forces are to be police forces only. I suggest that the forces provided for by Dumbarton Oaks are national and not international. I believe that some people fall into error there. I suggest that they will be essentially ad hoc forces, that is to say, mixed forces composed of contingents from various member nations of the new league mobilized for specific and temporary police purposes, not permanently organized as an international army. That is very different, and if the Canadian people understand that the position is as I believe it to be, those timid souls who view with alarm the sending of armed forces out of Canada may be reassured.
What I understand so far as Canada is concerned is that a contingent to take care of our quota, whatever it may be in this international police force, will be organized and nothing more; but if an army is required to put down aggression on the part of any wrongdoer, that will be a matter for further consideration. That is the time when we can very well meet the problem that the Prime Minister raised in the course of his address. I am not giving that view as my own alone. I think it is sound; but I cite- in support of that theory the statement made by what I consider to be the greatest military observer of the press in the United States, Mr. Baldwin of the New York Times. Anybody who cares to pursue that line of thought farther will, I think, find useful employment if he reads an article of Mr. Baldwin's in the March number of Harper's magazine.
Following along that line I do suggest that this police force will be large enough perhaps to prevent or suppress small wars, but it will have neither the size nor the power to prevent or engage in large wars. Indeed I do not think that either the agreement itself or the proposed supplementary agreements contemplate that they should be able to do so. That brings me to a further conclusion, namely, if there is

basic disagreement without an army, without sufficient force, and the three great powers do not agree, the new league will be simply a facade, a front, and nothing more. Let us pray that that will not be the case. If one of those three great powers commits an act of aggression, nothing the league of nations' police force may do can prevent it or alter it, and, of course, that is a vital weakness.
May I now be permitted to give some little consideration to Canada's position. Some of the nations will not be happy about the set-up of Dumbarton Oaks. Some of us will not be happy. I gather that the Prime Minister is not too happy about Canada's position in this new set-up, because all we get is a seat in the assembly and our turn in the council of the league. But I suggest to the Prime Minister, and I do so without offence, that there is a reason why Canada has not been given such a seat, which I think she has abundantly earned by her efforts during this great war. The reason is that heretofore in world affairs, for a quarter of a century, I was going to say under prime ministers of all political stripes, Canada's position has been to follow a course of no commitments. Is it any wonder, then, that if hitherto, except in the realm of waging war, Canada has refused to make any commitments in respect of foreign affairs, our position should be as it is to-day?
I regret Canada's position. We have never taken in international affairs the part which our standards of living, our production and all the other attributes possessed by this country would entitle us to take. All down through the years since 1919 the people of Canada, through their parliamentary representatives, have been asserting their position as a nation. We have been willing to ask for and to accept all the jurisdiction and all the kudos that go with nationhood, but we have never been willing, nor are we to-day except to the extent of our participation in the war, to accept the responsibilities that are the concomitant of jurisdiction and position. That, in a nutshell, is our weakness to-day.
As I have intimated we have had consultation, cooperation and collaboration during this great war; yet, having had all that, if we are to follow the lead of the Prime Minister as I interpret his speech, in time of peace we are not willing to accept our responsibilities in an affirmative manner by placing at the disposal of the new organization our armed forces, the only effective means we have aside from financial contributions with which to fulfil our obligations as a partner in this great undertaking. We are back now to where we were in 1919, when Sir Robert Borden moved his resolution in this house

San Francisco Conference
approving the treaty of Versailles. At that time Mr. Fielding,) as the spokesman of the [DOT]Liberal party in the House of Commons, moved an amendment designed to leave our armed contribution to be determined by the occasion. My right hon. friend was not a member of the house at that time but he was the leader of the Liberal party outside of this house; and I suggest that while the voice was the voice of Esau, the hands were the hands of Jacob. The spirit of isolation was the controlling factor behind Mr. Fielding's amendment. I have no hesitation in saying that his amendment was a purely political move designed to win the election of 1921, and it succeeded. Not world peace; not collaboration to carry out the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, but politics was the motivating factor of the Liberal party in Canada for the next twenty-five years, and they served their purpose. But, Mr. Speaker, chickens have an instinctive habit of coming home to roost, and the chickens of the Liberal party have done so. If you do not believe me, go down to the province of Quebec. Never for a moment during those twenty-five years did the Prime Minister and those associated with him in promoting that policy of isolation dream there would be a second world war. But it came. Canada has freely participated in this great conflict, and the contribution of the people of Canada, sometimes under very doubtful leadership, in human lives, industrial effort and material support, has been truly magnificent.
Does anyone doubt the assertion I make in regard to doubtful leadership? Just look at the man-power problem in Canada to-day. I am not going to discuss that question at the moment; perhaps there will be a little time to debate it when this resolution is disposed of. But now that victory is certain; now that we have collaborated so well in the winning of the war, we are to right-about-face and abandon that spirit of total cooperation in this effort to preserve peace. We are to revert to the system of isolation which dominated the political thinking of Canada between 1919 and 1939. The lessons of history and of experience are to be brushed aside. We are to revert to a position which the tragic events of the past five years have proved to be wholly untenable and wholly illusive, and which would make no contribution at all to the grand objective of Dumbarton Oaks. And why? Well, to me the answer is quite plain; because in some quarters of this country it will be politically profitable. What a pity! But I do not despair. The people of Canada want peace, and they want Canada to play a man's part in attaining that objective. They reject in toto the whole idea of isolationism.
If Canada is to play a man's part in keeping the peace in the days that are to come-and I am confining my remarks to that point- that great objective cannot be reached by reverting to a policy of isolation and no commitments, but only by active and earnest collaboration with those nations which have the power and the will to do.
Our sovereignty is not at stake. That is a bogy, a straw man that is being raised in some quarters. But our reputation as a nation, among the nations of the world, is at stake.
I ask this house and the people of Canada., [DOT] what will be the reaction of the people of the United States to the latest position taken by the Prime Minister?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not
expecting an answer from the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant), because he does not know what I am talking about. Our reputation over there is none too good to-day. They marvel at the situation that has existed in Canada during the last two years in the matter of reinforcements for our army.
I regret that we were not represented at Dumbarton Oaks. There is some mystery about that, at least so far as I am concerned.
It is a mysterious thing that we were not represented, and it has never been made clear to me why we were not represented. Through the sacrifices of our fighting men in this great war we have earned the right to. be represented at any world conference the deliberations of which so vitally affect our own well-being. Were we invited? If not, why not? If so, why were we not represented? If we were invited, did we make representations to the three great powers to be allowed to participate, or did we refuse to be represented. If so, why?
These are questions which should be answered; the answers might clarify the position. They should be answered truthfully. This is a query I put to the house: was it because it was known in advance that we should have to make more commitments, and we were unwilling to do so? And had this government already determined to revert to its historic political position of isolation? I ask that question.
These are not idle questions. The people of Canada are entitled to know. They are pertinent questions. The whole thing cries aloud for clarification. I think our position, as outlined by the Prime Minister, wherein he proposes that we become the leader of intermediate powers, so called, is untenable in the light of the framework of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and the set-up there contemplated. The Prime Minister is just asking for trouble
San Francisco Conference

at San Francisco if he proceeds with that kind of action. He will find other nations with greater populations and as large national resources as we have, but none of which have made contributions in this world war as great as ours. And there is the greatest danger of upsetting the whole apple cart.
Personally-and I speak for myself-I think Canada has earned the right to a permanent seat on the security council. But that has been decided against us. If we are anxious to exercise our maximum influence, I do not think it ' will be as the leader of the middle nations, a jurisdiction which to-day is not recognized within the framework of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and which I question very much will be interpolated at San Francisco. I think our only place in exercising influence comes from the fact that we are a member of the British commonwealth of nations.
I limit my remarks entirely to this question of observance of the peace. I think that there lies our destiny in this world peace organization. That is where I believe we can exercise the greatest influence for the attainment of the great objective we all desire-and not in playing a lone hand, perhaps in opposition to the three great powers. We may find ourselves as leader of the intermediate nations, and in opposition to those three great powers.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I know it may be difficult of attainment, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's attitude in London with respect to the Curtin proposals. 'I do not think it can be done so long as the present Prime Minister is in office, but it ought to be possible some day.
I pause here to ask why at the coming London conference of commonwealth leaders Canada is not to be represented by a minister of the crown, but only by our delegated authority, the high commissioner, and an Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. They will go there in a capacity not much greater than that of observers. At best they will go there with cast-iron instructions which may thwart all idea of empire or commonwealth cooperation.
If Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, at and after Dunkirk attained the moral leadership of the world, and with the support of the dominions and the colonies waged battle for so many years against great odds, against the beasts at Ephesus, and still maintains her position in respect of moral leadership in the world; and if, as I believe is acknowledged the world over, the British commonwealth is the greatest single factor making for world security not only during the trying period of the war before the advent of Russia and the United States; 
but long afterward; and if, as some of us still believe, the British commonwealth is still the world's best hope for future world peace and security, then why in the name of common sense are we not making common cause with her and the other dominions to maintain peace at this supreme moment of the world's history? Any other course is a reversion to type for Canada, and the reclaiming of a position which history has shown is impossible for any nation.
I know there will be many times when it will not be possible to have complete support-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not much more; and if I could have the indulgence of the house I would be only a few more minutes. I may not be addressing the house many more times.
I know there will be times and occasions when, in other spheres of international activity such as trade, and possibly defence, we cannot go the whole way with the mother country, Great Britain. There may be times when we cannot go the whole way with the other dominions or the colonies. I am referring now perhaps to India, which may soon be a dominion. But in maintaining the sphere of peace I do suggest we can go the whole way with Great Britain, and strengthen her hand in the security council. The hon. member for Vancouver South argued the position. Here is Russia, probably the greatest military power in the world to-day, and with more people- with the exception of the British empire-than are found under any one flag. Here is the United States of America, the greatest industrial power in the world, one of the greatest military powers in the world, and to-day the greatest naval power. Here is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, shorn by six years of war of all her wealth, of many of her best men, with her navy impaired and with the loss of the flower of her young manhood. With a bare forty millions, how can she, without the support of the members of the British commonwealth, hold up her hand against those two great giants in the days which are to come, if she is to exercise her proper sphere in the matter of keeping the peace? But apparently Canada will not help.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Why does my hon. friend say that Canada will not do her full part in the British commonwealth, after what she has done during this war?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad the Prime Minister has asked that question.

San Francisco Conference


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why does he continue to say that?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I will answer it if you will sit down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All right, I will.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Sit down, then. You did not want interruptions when you were speaking. I will answer it; and the answer is the Prime Minister's attitude to the Lord Halifax proposals, the London conference, and the speech he made the other day. Read them for yourself. That is the answer.


James Arthur Ross: Actions speak louder than words.


Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask the hon. member a question-if he will pardon me?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, the hon. member for York-Sunbury interrupted me several times yesterday.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You invited it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Am I right in understanding that the hon. member for York-Sunbury supports the proposals put forth by Lord Halifax, concerning which there has been a good deal of discussion?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I made a speech before the St. George's society in Halifax last year, and I will send the hon. member a copy. But what I do say is that we ought not brusquely to brush aside the Lord Halifax proposals, but that we ought to explore them. My answer is that we never had a chance to explore them. They were denied by the Prime Minister the minute they were uttered, and there was no use opening up a discussion about them.
However, I do not wish to get heated up about this matter; I am warm enough as it is. In my view the Canadian delegates should go to San Francisco with reasonable freedom of thought and action, save in one respect. They are bound, if this resolution carries, and I hope it will, to support the principles of world security underlying the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. In all other respects, there should be freedom of thought, action and expression. That is what they demand, and that is the least that should be given to the Canadian delegates.
Again I express the regret which I feel that Canada as a nation is not to have a permanent seat on the security council. But that should not prevent Canada from doing everything within her power to help the great nations to preserve peace.
Again I express the warning, and I suggest that this is the main theme of my address, that considering the organization visualized by Dumbarton Oaks, and to be clarified, crystallized and ratified at San Francisco in the final analysis the Dumbarton Oaks plan is no insurance of peace, but that the preservation of world peace for tomorrow and the years that are to come depends, not upon the new league of nations to be set up at San Francisco, but upon the will to peace, with all that that implies* among the united nations, and especially the three great nations dehors the framework of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement.
I do hope and pray that Canada at San Francisco will make wise decisions. She has a powerful role to play if she will think internationally and not nationally. If she is to develop into a great world power, standing as she has done with Great Britain and her sister dominions during the war, she will play a great role. Isolated, she will exercise little power and little authority and influence.
There is yet time to reverse the position indicated in the Prime Minister's speech. He asserts a position of nationalism which can only result in our going nowhere.
Some time ago the Prime Minister had printed at the public expense, I assume, a book of his war speeches, entitled very appropriately, and I think he must have selected the title himself, "Canada at Britain's Side".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. My hon. friend has said without the slightest justification in the world that the book he has just mentioned which was published under my name was published at the public expense.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I withdraw if I am wrong-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He cannot
withdraw that remark too soon. But his remark is characteristic of him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am glad to withdraw it if I am wrong. I have not the book by my side and if it was published at the Prime Minister's expense I am glad to withdraw my remark. But there is no red herring going to be drawn across my trail, I am going to tell you that. The book was entitled, and this is the point I was going to make, "Canada at Britain's Side".


An hon. MEMBER:: Where else was she?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was a very appropriate title. The people of Canada willed it so, no matter what this government

San Francisco Conference
willed. The people of Canada, at least in that event, controlled. I put this to the Prime Minister and to this house and the country: Now that this country is faced with the critical task of winning the peace, does the Prime Minister believe that our position at Britain's side has become somehow less desirable and less necessary?


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege arising out of the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). During the course of his remarks at page 244 of Hansard he used these words:
The member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) did not think it was any impediment, because while it did not appear for one moment that he knew in advance what the government proposals were to be, yet he had his speech, a piece of propaganda, prepared-I assume by the secretariat paid from the sweatings of the labour unions in this country. I suggest, too, that his whole exhibition was that indicated by the old adage that fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
I leave it to the house to decide who is the fool. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that my speech was delivered from full notes, and I noticed that the hon. member for York-Sunbury was reading from manuscript to-day. Every line of my notes was prepared by myself in my office and dictated to my secretary.. On the morning of Monday, the day that this house was to meet, I prepared my speech because everyone knew that we were about to discuss not the Prime Minister's speech but the proposals for an international conference. I just wanted to set the record straight in that regard because of the aspersions that the hon. gentleman throws from time to time at members of this house.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Now that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has risen to a question of privilege, I should like to make my position clear with reference to the so-called delay with respect to the debate of last week. My hon. friend now states that he had his speech prepared with respect to the Dumbarton Oaks agreement on Monday. Let me say, despite what was said by my hon. friend on the radio-and I hope he will not be quite as bitter or intemperate or intolerant towards me again as he was then- that I had my speech prepared for delivery prior to the debate on Monday, and I want it distinctly understood that I was prepared to go on at the very commencement of that debate. But I did want to hear what the Prime Minister would have to say. Then afterwards, one-third of my speech consisted of an addition dealing with what the Prime Minister had said. I simply asked the Prime Minister for

what I thought was a proper time, just a few hours, to digest his speech, before I proceeded. I want to make the record clear on that, in case some people might think that my speech had not been prepared as early as that of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to refer to the speech just delivered by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), and I would not have done so but for the remarks he made in the concluding ten minutes of his speech. I think it behooves me as the first speaker to follow him to express on behalf of this side of the house, of the Liberal party, and of the government, if I may, and of a large part of the people of Canada, the resentment we feel at the implication he made against the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), for which there was not the slightest justification of any kind whatsoever, in which there is not the slightest amount of substance, and which the hon. member himself must have known from his knowledge of the Prime Minister and his life and record of service to the people of Canada was unfounded. These are strenuous days, sir, in which political heat is being generated, but it is time, I think, that the people of Canada began to recognize exactly what kind of opposition hon. gentlemen of the party opposite are putting up against the government of; Canada.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury, in almost the closing words of his speech referred to Canada's reputation being low in the United States. If that is so, and I do not believe it is, there is only one reason for it, and that is the imputation put on the soldiers and the army and the people' of Canada by the discredited statement of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. It has been my good fortune to travel in the United States representing Canada at various conferences and on government work of various kinds, and I can assure this house- and the people of Canada that never has Canada's reputation stood higher in the United States than it stands to-day, and never has it stood higher ini any other country than it stands to-day. I have been connected, having had the honour of being parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister, with the work of the wartime information board. I have seen thousands of clippings, newspaper notices, giving the most favourable attention to the work of the armed forces of Canada in every theatre of war, the work of the navy, the army, and the air force. I have read editorials in the New York

San Francisco Conference
Times, the Saturday Evening Post and numerous other United States papeTs expressing the utmost admiration for Canada's work, in one field or another, of the war; so much so that the New York Times referred to our economic conduct of the war as a "fiscal miracle"; and many countries have copied the economic policies of Canada. This practice of smearing our country is one which will earn the honest resentment of every decent Canadian at home and abroad. It is a practice which has gone on too long. It is a practice in which some hon. members opposite have indulged for political purposes, but it is not going to get them political results.
This is an important debate, and it is one to which the house has given attention for some time. I had intended to speak rather coolly about certain aspects of it, but I felt that I could not go on without making the references which I have.
The eyes of the world to-day are turned in two directions. On the other side of the Atlantic we see unfolding momentous military events which hold us tense with the expectation of the collapse of the organized resistance of the enemy. While the battle rages and reaches its final pitch of intensity, nations are preparing for the conference at San Francisco, and people everywhere are hoping that there we may lay the foundation of lasting peace. Only second in importance to the winning of the war is this new effort to win the peace; and our hope is that two world wars and a world depression, plus the obvious benefits and dangers inherent in the development of highspeed long-range aeroplanes, have brought it home to governments and peoples alike that there is little hope for lasting security except through the development of strong international organization with force to prevent aggression and machinery to promote prosperity.
Canada's interest will be furthered by international cooperation. We have as much interest in peace as any nation, and we can see now that lasting peace can be secured only through collective action in which the major and lesser powers alike are willing to play their part, to have their share of responsibility and power, and to carry their share of the load. The main reason why the league of nations did not succeed in its work before the war was not any defect in the text of the covenant of the league; it was the failure of the governments and the peoples of the world everywhere to recognize that it was in their interest to see that peace was kept and that the only way to keep it was through collective action. We failed because we did not recognize and act on
the recognition that peace was indivisible and prosperity was indivisible and security was indivisible. To that failure Canada contributed no more than any other nation; and this effort made by opposition speakers-the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), and the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence)-to show that Canada was more isolationist than other countries, that through her isolation she contributed, in some way definitely Canadian and distinct from other nations, to the failure to keep the peace, is completely unsound. I think if they read the record-[DOT]


Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I do not mind the hon. member disagreeing with my statements, but he must not put into my mouth statements I did not make. I did not say anything to the' effect that Canada was more isolationist than any other country.


Brooke Claxton: Well, I will come to my hon. friend's statement in a minute, and I will make it clear, that he did say we were very decidedly isolationist. But the point I would like to make at the moment is this. During the period between the two wars, did we see the Conservative party supporting collective security, either in the debates in the house, or in the working of organizations like the league of nations society, or in the Canadian institute of international affairs, or at Canadian conferences? Were they there?


Howard Charles Green: I was at one with you.


Brooke Claxton: Since the war.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; in New York.


Brooke Claxton: Since the war, in 1942.
The Conservative party and the Conservative press did nothing whatever to support the idea of collective security, to make it realized and felt throughout Canada that the one way to maintain1 .peace was through collective action; and now they blame-


Howard Charles Green: That is a lot of rot.
Mr. CLANTON1: -the government for their failure. That is not a lot of anything.


Howard Charles Green: You are quite right.


Brooke Claxton: The main reason we failed was because of this failure to recognize the interest of everyone in maintaining peace. The reasons why Canada should favour international cooperation for defence and trade are too well known to require more than a summary here. In addition to the
San Francisco Conference

reasons which every nation has for wanting peace and avoiding war, we in Canada have additional reasons. First, Canada is more dependent on international trade than any other nation. Foreign trade accounted for thirty per cent of our income before the war, and our high levels of income, wages, and standards of living are due largely to exports. As the second or third trading nation in the world, Canada wants conditions abroad which facilitate trade abroad. Second, take 3uch things as our tourist trade and our sale of gold, which depend on stable world conditions in which we can reap the benefits from these activities. Third, only through international collaboration can a satisfactory solution be found for our position on the cross-roads of the airways. Fourth, in the absence of international agreement, economic or political differences between Canada and the United States can force Canada into closer relations with one country at the expense of our relations with the other. Fifth, only through collective action can we avoid participation in war and the strain it places on the unity of Canada due to the different weights attached by different sections of the population to the competing pulls of history and geography represented in our British, European and north American associations. In view of this, it is not surprising that the Canadian government has throughout the war adopted every means to encourage collective action, and that in the speech from the throne read on the 27th January, 1944, the governor general said for the government:
My ministers believe that the time has come when all the nations now united in the common purpose of winning the war should seek unitedly to ensure an enduring peace. The dangers of future aggressions can be removed, and world security attained, only by a general international organization of peace-loving nations. You wall accordingly be invited to approve of Canadian participation in the establishment of on international organization to further national security through international cooperation.
That was the attitude taken by the government in January, 1944, and it is fair to say that up to that time no government had gone any farther. The attitude taken has received the widespread support of the Canadian people. The conservative party, speaking through Mr. John Bracken, in a statement in Maclean's magazine for May 1, 1944, took an attitude which closely followed that of the Prime Minister. The C.C.F. has taken the same attitude. The Bloc Populaire, speaking through its leader the member for Beauhamois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), took the same view in Maclean's
(Mr. Clfixton.l
for January 1, 1944. A Gallup poll, taken as recently as January 6, 1945, showed that ninety per cent of the Canadian people were in favour of joining an international organization. It is interesting, I hope, to my hon. friends in the far comer, who take a contrary view-such hon. gentlemen as the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), the member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), the member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and the member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix)- that seventy-nine per cent of the people of Quebec are in favour of joining such an organization, as shown by this poll.
The Conservative party has said that it will support the resolution, but various Conservative speakers have made two comments. In the first place, they have said that the government was in some way taking an isolationist position, and in second place they have said that it was failing in some way to collaborate with the British commonwealth of nations.
I wish to say a word on each point. The kind of attitude taken is perhaps best found in the words of the hon. member for Vancouver South, who quoted this passage from the Prime Minister's speech of March 20. I quote from page 114 of Hansard of March 22:
But it did not help to have the Prime Minister use these words in this speech of March 20. 1945, as reported at page 26 of Hansard of that date.
And then he quoted the Prime Minister:
As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no w'ay commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council.
Then the hon. member, for two or three columns, built up the notion that in these words the Prime Minister was talcing an isolationist position for Canada. At the end he said:
I hesitate to be suspicious, but it looks to me like an attempt to appease the isolationists of Canada.
Rather similar words were used, and the same quotation made, by the hon. member for Lake Centre in a passage which appears at page 163 of Hansard. The passage from the Prime Minister's speech, on which they base this whole case, is a passage in which he paraphrased the text of the proposals themselves from chapter 8, section (b) paragraph 5 of the proposals. What is more, you will find that the leader of the opposition himself (Mr. Graydon) uses language practically identical with the language used by the Prime Minister in explaining the proposals. Let me

San Francisco Conference
quote from the speech delivered by the leader of the opposition on March 21 as reported at page 65 of Hansard:
It would appear that the extent of our contribution with respect to force will be governed by the agreements rather than by the charter itself.
Almost exactly the same language as that used by the Prime Minister; and yet, on the basis of this language, these hon. members opposite build their case that the attitude shown by the government is one of isolation.


Howard Charles Green: Of course, there was no reference to not sending troops beyond Canadian territory in that statement made by the leader of the opposition. It is what I was objecting to.


Brooke Claxton: There is no reference in the Prime Minister's speech to not sending troops beyond Canadian territory.


Howard Charles Green: You read it just a moment ago.


Brooke Claxton: Now, Mr. Speaker this attitude as shown by the opposition is one that must be surprising at a time like this when, above everything else, one would think that it was in their own interests, if they hold the views they profess to hold, to see that we should all stand together at this time so as to show to the nations of the world that we are united and that Canadians of every race and of every party support the government.


Howard Charles Green: You mean, you want us to agree with your views.


Brooke Claxton: I want the hon. member for Vancouver South to agree with the views which the Prime Minister has expressed, when he agrees with them, and not to misinterpret them, as he and other members of his party have been doing all through this debate.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, that statement is not parliamentary and is not fair. The minister read from my speech, at page 114 and then read the extract. After quoting that extract, I went on to say that the Prime Minister's statement could be interpreted in two ways, and I explained what the two ways were, but the minister has carefully overlooked that fact and is now misinterpreting what I said.


Thomas Vien: There is no point of order.


Brooke Claxton: It was very noticeable
that my hon. friend said that the speech might be interpreted in one of two ways and then he proceeded to interpret it in a way
different from that in which he interprets his own leader's speech in which there appears the same language.
This attitude which my hon. friends take is extraordinary when you find the hon. member for York-Sunbury saying to-day that he thought that when it came to the use of force it would be arrived at as an ad hoc measure, which I should think would be very difficult indeed for my hon. friends to reconcile with their criticisms of the Prime Minister's speech.
Then the hon. members for Vancouver South, for Lake Centre, Saskatoon City and York-Sunbury, criticized the government for not taking a more collaborationist position with regard to the British commonwealth. Here I must say you cannot find, either in the Prime Minister's speech or in the text of the proposals or in anything that has gone on in this debate, except their own statements, any relevancy whatever in the position they take. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals were not drafted by the Canadian government, and if they mention the United Kingdom instead of the British commonwealth that is no fault of Canada. If they had mentioned the British commonwealth, I would have been interested to ask my hon. friends who advocated that course how it would have worked out to have the United Kingdom sit in the security council representing four, five, six or seven nations in the commonwealth and yet undoubtedly and inevitably required on every important occasion to express views which were in her own fundamental interests. For how else could she act?
The course suggested by these hon. members is brought up time after time; it is an effort, without any doubt, to go back twenty-five years to the position which Canada had before the last peace, to go back to the time when Canada had no effective representation in any international assembly, when everything that was done was done by Britain alone. It is also a complete reversal of the position which Sir Robert Borden, who led my hon. friends' party, took at the peace conference itself. The first arrangement was to have no Canadian representation at all. Sir Robert Borden had to fight for the representation at the peace conference. Then having secured it this passage occurs at page 52 in a book entitled, "Canada at the Peace Conference" by G. P. deT. Glazebrook, an excellent publication of the Canadian institute of international affairs.
Borden had, in fact, discovered that neither of the two methods of Canadian representation was working as expected. The panel system was stultified by having only two United Kingdom members at the conversations of the great powers, and the separate Canadian representatives could be used only at plenary sessions.
San Francisco Conference

And of course, as everyone knows, there were no plenary sessions that amounted to anything. At the peace conference Sir Robert Borden fought to have Canada's place recognized, and at last succeeded in obtaining from the big three an acknowledgment that Canada had the right to be a member of the council of the league. That appears at page 66 of the book I have already mentioned. It was a memorandum that Clemenceau, Wilson and Lloyd George signed on May 6, and it reads as follows:
The question having been raised as to the meaning of article IV of the league of nations covenant, we have been requested by Sir Robert Borden to state whether we concur in his view, that upon the true construction of the first and second paragraphs of that article, representatives of the self-governing dominions of the British empire may be selected or named as members of the council, we have no hesitation in expressing our entire concurrence in this view.
That was the position which he fought for and which he obtained and which Canada exercised, and which the hon. member now wants to reverse. Well, the Canadian people do not want that position reversed.
The hon. member for Lake Centre quoted some Gallup polls. I should like to quote one which indicates that some eighty-four per cent of the people who were polled in Canada on September 13, 1944, indicated that they would like to have a separate vote for Canada at the conference.


Howard Charles Green: Nobody indicated that
Canada should not have a vote in the assembly.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member makes that change now, but it is not evident in his speech, and in any event it is not clear from the speeches of the other hon. members. Even if it were clear, you would then have this hopeless position: a country which was represented through the British commonwealth of nations in one body, the council, claiming for itself the right to sit as an independent nation in another body.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly.


Brooke Claxton: It would not be recognized by any nation on earth.


Howard Charles Green: That is what the minister says.


Brooke Claxton: I think the last word was actually said on this subject at the imperial conference in 1911 by Mr. Asquith in this passage. I shall read from the proceedings of the conference at page 71:
Sir Joseph Ward, in a speech the ability and interest of which we all acknowledge, which must and undoubtedly did represent the expendi-
ture of a great deal of time and thought, has presented us with a concrete proposition, but it is a proposition which not a single representative of any of the other dominions, nor I as representing for the time being the imperial government, could possibly assent to. For what does Sir Joseph Ward's proposal come to? I might describe the effect of it without going into details in a couple of sentences. It would impair if not altogether destroy the authority of the government of the United Kingdom in such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion of treaties, the declaration and maintenance of peace, or the declaration of war and, indeed, all those relations with foreign powers, necessarily of the most delicate character, 'which are now in the hands of the imperial government, subject to its responsibility to the imperial parliament. That authority cannot be shared, and the coexistence side by side with the cabinet of the United Kingdom of this proposed body-it does not matter by what name you call it for the moment-clothed with the functions and the jurisdiction which Sir Joseph Ward proposed to invest it with, would, in our judgment, be absolutely fatal to our present system of responsible government.
That is from the imperial point of view. Now from the point of view of the dominions, I cannot do better than repeat in my own words what was said by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So far as the dominions are concerned, this new machine could impose upon the dominions by the voice of a body in which they would be in a standing minority (that is part of the case) in a small minority indeed, a policy of which they might all disapprove, of which some of them at any rate possibly and probably would disapprove, a policy which would in most cases involve expenditure and an expenditure which would have to be met by the imposition on a dissentient community of taxation by its own government.
I venture to say that since that was said no truer words have been uttered on this subject. Since that was said it has not been a live issue in any community of the British commonwealth that we reverse the trend and go back to what existed then.
The case of the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and in part of other hon. members on the opposition side, seems to be built on the notion that Canada has failed1 in some way during the war, either in respect of her cooperation with the British commonwealth or in her negotiations and relations with other countries. They have never indicated a single instance in which there has been a failure, but they continue to create those fears of their own and then blame the government for it. May I be allowed to go over the record in that regard?
In 1938 we had the consecutive declaration of President Roosevelt and the Prime Minister at Woodbridge and Kingston. In 1940 we had Ogdensburg. In 1941 we had Hyde Park which started the whole basis of cooperation among the united nations and led to the formation of the joint boards and after the participation of the United States in the war formed

San Francisco Conference
the pattern, I think, of the organization of the whole system of combined boards on which collaboration was carried out among the united nations. Then we had the conference at Hot Springs, the international food conference, a conference at which Canada took a very active part. A Canadian was named as chairman of the interim commission to carry on the work of the conference. We had the UNRRA conference at Atlantic City, where that body was set up and given its corporate structure. At that conference Canadians took an active part, in consequence of which a Canadian, L. B. Pearson, was made the chairman of the committee on supplies, one of the most important committees of the organization. A second meeting of the council of UN'RiRA followed, at Montreal, and again a Canadian, L. B. Pearson, was appointed chairman and took an active part in conducting the negotiations and business of the council.
Then we had the conference at Bretton Woods, and the New York Times said that the plan ultimately adopted bore the closest resemblance to the Canadian plan. We had the meeting of the international labour organization at Philadelphia. There I had the honour of proposing a resolution which looked toward the future constitution of the international labour organization. A fellow member of the house, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) became chairman of a very important committee on employment, represented Canada at the meeting of the governing body of the international labour office, and there became chairman of the committee charged with the task of examining and revising the whole constitution of the labour organization, the most important committee to be set up in recent years.
This is the work of this small country. This is the part played by Canada in international affairs. Add to this the fact that we have a Department of External Affairs that in standing is second to none throughout the world, and that we have diplomatic relations with twenty-three nations-and I do not think any country on earth, and certainly no member of this house, could criticize our representation in any foreign office abroad, we have a group of men whose standing is second to none-when you consider all this, and that the great organization of Canada which has built up this name abroad is under the direction of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we * can see how much weight should be attached to these statements that Canada has failed to take her part in the affairs of the nations.
In this war we have accepted our full responsibility as a free nation. We took our full part in the struggle to preserve the freedom of mankind. Canada's geographical situation, her natural resources and her interests are likely to involve us in any world war; and we are filled with the growing resolve so to shape the peace that wars will not take place in the future. In shaping the peace, as in waging war, Canada should have a full share. It is a right we are earning by the service of our fighting men, the magnitude of our material contribution, and our spirit of mutual aid. Moreover it is a duty we owe to our fighting men and to all our people. The Canadian people should have a share in world responsibility in proportion to their share in fighting the war. Canada's part in the last war raised her to the status of a nation. Canada's part in this war has given her the opportunities and responsibilities of world wide interests. Canada stands to-day in the shadow of no other land. Our unique position gives us a unique opportunity to serve other peoples as well as our own. To serve humanity we need not sacrifice our own national interests. By furthering international cooperation we shall be furthering the highest interests of Canada as a free nation.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have carefully listened to or read the remarks of previous speakers in this debate. All hon. members, of course, desire peace, but it is evident that we are not agreed as to the best way to obtain it. Previous speakers have made their earnest appeals, and I can only hope that they will credit me with like sincerity. It seems to me that this is not a party question, or even a question of right and left. It is a question of right or wrong. Freedom and justice are the only bases of peace. Peace may be imposed by force but it cannot be maintained by force.
About a year ago it was my privilege to occupy a seat in the gallery reserved for members of dominion parliaments in the House of Commons at Westminster. In these days that gallery is occupied by members of the armed forces of the allied countries. I have heard some remarks as to what the members of the armed forces are thinking in connection with these matters. On this occasion I was sitting in this gallery in the middle of a group of men in uniform, while in the House of Commons the post-war treatment of Poland and other liberated countries was being discussed. I noticed that the man sitting next to me was a flight lieutenant in the Royal Australian Air Force, and when he turned to me I saw that
San Francisco Conference

he was a padre. He did not know me from Adam, of course, but he turned and said, "Is there no one in this house with the courage to get up and tell the truth?" That remark made a very great impression upon me. I may be asked, what is the truth? To me the truth is a matter between a man and his conscience. Since I have to live with my conscience my greatest desire is to remain at peace with it.
The British empire has come in for some discussion during this debate. Since in my opinion it is the only effective league of nations I cannot see the point of attempting to weaken the ties that bind the sovereign dominions of the British empire. I came back from England fully convinced that Canada is the most fortunate country in the world to-day, not only because of its natural resources, but in terms of justice and liberty, both of which have been gained while it has been a member of the British empire.
If Germany is disarmed, where will be the threat to world peace? Last fall I made this statement:
The defeat of German arms is certain, but the plots of international finance and communism, tlieir plans for world control by the surrender of national sovereignty to world government and police force, have become a greater threat to our liberties as Christians and democrats than the disaster at Dunkirk.
That statement has met with a great deal of criticism, but I can only say that nothing has happened since to cause me to change my mind. Let me quote from page 7 of "The Road to Serfdom" by Professor Hayek in regard to Germany:
Mere hatred of everything German instead of the particular ideas which now dominate the Germans is, moreover, very dangerous, because it blinds those who indulge in it against a very real threat. It is to be feared that this attitude is frequently merely a kind of escapism caused by an unwillingness to recognize tendencies which are not confined to Germany and by a reluctance to reexamine and if necessary to discard beliefs which we have taken over from the Germans and by which we are still as much deluded as the Germans were. It is doubly dangerous because the contention that only the peculiar wickedness of the Germans has produced the nazi system is likely to become the excuse for forcing on us the very institutions which have produced that wickedness.
Again at page 194 he says:
Apart from the intellectual influences which [DOT]we have illustrated by two instances, the impetus of the movement toward totalitarianism comes mainly from the two great vested interests: organized capital and organized labour. Probably the greatest menace of all is the fact that the policies of these two most powerful groups point in the same direction.
Many people seem to think that they could become more ethical by delegating their vices to larger groups. Then, again, how will we
determine who is the aggressor nation? Would that not depend upon who controlled the means of propaganda? Let me refer to the recent troubles in Greece, and quote some opinions in the matter. I hold in my hand a magazine supposed to stand for Christian democracy, and it has this to say on the Greek policy:
The Greek warfare stands out as part of a connected policy to maintain reaction and monarchy and the "right kind" of fascism everywhere in Europe. It becomes luminously clear now that the guns are actually turned against the heroic Greeks who for years have resisted singlehanded the weight of the German war machine.
No blow aimed by our enemies can match the damage inflicted by this present policy of Mr. Churchill.
Then, a press release in an Ottawa paper given by the C.C.F., and headed "C.C.F. Asks Shift in British Policy," goes on to say:
The situation in Greece and Italy shows a lack of support for the democratic people's movements and a readiness to impose, even by force, unpopular or discredited elements for reasons of power politics. Our masses are not working and dying to restore discredited monarchs to their thrones, and reactionary rulers to their pre-war power.
On December 10 I wrote a letter published in the Ottawa Citizen in protest of the criticism of British policy in Greece. A few days later Mr. Low, national leader of the Social Credit party, issued a statement to the press in which he described as utterly false and mischievous the propaganda directed against Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the British government with respect to the Greek situation. He pointed out that it indicated powerful world forces mobilized on the side of communism.
There you have divided opinion. So far as I know the people of Canada have never been told the truth as to what did happen in Greece, I have procured copies of the debates in the British House of Commons and have made copies of speeches by the Prime Minister and other members of that house. I have sent those speeches to various newspapers in Canada, but without success. Not a paper to which I sent the speech of the Prime Minister of Great Britain on the subject of Greece would publish that speech. Why?
I hold in my hand a white paper respecting the Greek crisis issued by the British government. While I do not wish to go' into detail I shall quote from this white paper a telegram from the British ambassador to Greece to Mr. Eden. This is dated at Athens, January 15, 1945, and is the text of a resolution

San Francisco Conference
passed at a mass meeting held in Constitution square, Athens, on January 14, 1945. It is as follows:
The people of Athens, the Piraeus and the surrounding country is now breathing in the air of liberty after four years of slavery under three barbarous invaders and after the recent unjustifiable revolution which has thrown the country into chaos, anarchy, destruction and slaughter. Coming together in a mass meeting, called on the initiative of the working classes of the country, with the collaboration both of its professional societies and of its intellectual foundations the people of Greece declare:
Their eternal gratitude to Great Britain, the friend and defender of Greece throughout two centuries, for the unstinting and noble assistance given by her to our country, for the restoration of her liberties, which were torn to shreds by the recent anti-national revolt.
They pay homage to the heroic British army, whose precious sons have sacrificed themselves in this sacred struggle for our liberties.
They denounce the criminals of this revolutionary movement to the public opinion of the whole world for the unprecedented and hairraising crimes, the looting and the destruction, which they have wrought at the expense of the unarmed population of town and country and which they stigmatize as entirely foreign to the noble soul and gentle customs of Greece; and they entirely endorse the measures taken by our allies to put down the revolt.
They demand that every means be used to secure the immediate release of the thousands of hostages who have been inhumanly arrested and are still suffering torments. They resolve to lay a wreath on the tomb of the unknown soldier in memory of the British and Greek heroes who have laid down their lives for the liberties of the Greek people and the resurrection of our nation.
While I cannot pronounce the names of those who signed, it is indicated that this document was signed by the general secretary of the general confederation of workers of Greece, the vice-rector of the university, and the president of the Athens federation of professional men and industrial craftsmen.
That, I think, should answer the Greek question. Since we have had several opinions from enlightened "liberals" in the house and elsewhere I should like to quote an American labour leader, who is now vice-president of the American federation of labour and chairman of the international labour relations section of the American federation of labour. This is a quotation from his speech as delivered to the American labour conference on international affairs on December 16, 1944. It states:
The prophets of neo-imperialism accept without murmur and even with lively aproval the open annexation of the Baltic states by Soviet Russia, the transformation of Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and perhaps also of Hungary and Austria into satellites of Russia as a progressive process.
The very same people are violently opposed to any intervention by Great Britain in the affairs of western or southern Europe, as in Greece, Belgium, Holland, Italy.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
It is contrary to the principles of international democracy, these liberal "realists" claim, to intervene in the internal policies of liberated countries.
However, these same "liberals" have never uttered a word in opposition to the intervention of Russia in the internal affairs of Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria. More than that, every word of criticism on Russia issued by anyone is regarded as a major crime and the culprit is systematically smeared and labelled as a pro-fascist and pro-nazi. Why this difference?
I hold no brief for the British empire or for British policies. Yet it cannot be denied that communist policy in the liberated countries has been divisive, provocative and dangerous to the cause of the united nations.
Those American "liberals" who do not see this connection of events and personalities are hopeless. Those who praise the fighting communists in Greece as a "democratic movement" are blind-or worse.
Mr. ROSE:: Who said that? Give us his name.


Norman Jaques: Matthew Woll.


Fred Rose: I knew it.


Norman Jaques: He is vice-president of the American federation of labour. There is an American. Now I am going to quote an Australian labour leader. I am quoting labour leaders only so that I cannot be accused of quoting reactionaries or Tories. I am going to quote now J. T. Lang, one of the foremost labour leaders in Australia, and formerly the prime minister of a Labour government of the state of New South Wales.
Mr. Lang has just published a book on "Communism in Australia", and I have taken some notes of what he says in that book.
Mr. Lang says that the communist party is organized. The party is shown to be a highly organized concern with unlimited funds, directed by a permanent general staff, almost every member of which has done a two years' study course in Moscow in the art of moulding and controlling the thoughts and actions of the workers. The book shows that in every issue, whether it is industrial, agricultural, national or international, the communist party slavishly follows the policy laid down in Moscow.
Mr. Lang shows how the communist party, in addition to holding the key positions in most of the labour unions, has infiltrated all channels of publicity, such as newspapers and radio. They have penetrated the teachers' federation, the theatre, all avenues of education, instruction and entertainment. And that is just as true in Canada and the United States.
Communists have all this control and they are pledged to use it in the interests of a foreign power whenever that foreign power so orders them. And, as Mr. Lang shows, it makes no



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
25S
San Francisco Conference
[Stage Direction]
difference that that foreign power is an allied power. The local communist party calls on the Australian government to support communist actions in Greece, Italy, Poland, Jugo-Slavia, and other countries. Now, you may say those disputes are only disputes between British and Russian foreign policy, and these countries are a long way off. Very well, then, take the Pacific. That is nearer home. For years to come there will be three great powers in the Pacific-Britain, America and Russia. Our fate depends on everything those three powers do. Should they disagree it means that all the power the communists can exercise in Australia will be exercised to get the Australian government to support the Russian policy, irrespective of whether it is to the advantage of Australia or to our detriment.
You may think we are too small to count. Well, what about your weekly wages, your home, your whole standard of living? How are they affected by the power of the communist party? Let me put this to you. The financial agents of all the leading countries are continually meeting to agree upon the financial system after the war. While there is yet no complete agreement there is general agreement that the scheme will be based on some modification of the gold standard. Russia supports America's claim of almost a full gold standard. After the war, Russia will want our goods to make good her war losses. How will she pay for them? There are only two ways.
One way is further to reduce the standard of living of her own people; the other way is to reduce the standard and cost of living in the countries from which she wants to buy her supplies. It is only common sense that she will prefer that the standards of the other countries be lowered rather than the standards of her own people. Under that arrangement the standards of living in Australia would have to be lowered.
When that comes about who is going to fight for the Australian workers and through them for the whole standard of living of the Australian people?
The Australian communist party will have to carry out the new policy of reducing the cost and standard of living in Australia. The unions will not fight for Australian workers because so many of the important unions are under communist control. If the present Curtin government is still there the communist policies of the post-war reconstruction department will not defend the standards; and if Menzies is there he will not fight either.
The communist party is just as much the agent of a foreign power as if the members themselves belonged to that nation. If you
[Mr. Jaquea.l
would not put foreigners in charge of your government, and important positions in the community, you cannot afford to have members of the communist party in those positions.
That is the political picture of Australia as recorded by Mr. J. T. Lang, a former premier of New South Wales, a fearless and most able leader of Australian Labour.
And how do Mr. Lang's words apply to us? How does the Australian political situation compare with our own in Canada? The communist party has infiltrated all channels of publicity, such as newspapers and radio, the teachers' federation, the theatre and all avenues of education, instruction and entertainment, and the church. All these openly advocate communism and defend its policies.
What about the Liberals? Why does the communist party, now known as the Labour-Progressive party, support the Liberal party? One very good reason is the post-war reconstruction committee, appointed by the Liberal government. Listen to Dr. James, chairman of this Liberal committee for postwar reconstruction. He says:
I warn my listeners against the very dangerous propaganda which would have you believe that mankind is about to enter an age of plenty. The end of the war does not promise plenty for us. Canada must depend, not on the demands of the Canadian people, but to a greater extent than ever before on the world market.
Just as Mr. Lang says of Australia, Ottawa supported by the communist party, is planning to bring about an age of scarcity in Canada, for the benefit of foreigners, by means of the gold standard. Who is Doctor James, or rather what is his background? Doctor James was trained at the London School of Economics, which was founded fifty years ago by British socialists with money supplied by German international finance for the purpose of training the bureaucracy of the future world socialist state, to maintain the gold standard which, as Mr. Lang says, is supported by the Soviet government. Of course it is, because the gold standard means world control by compelling nations to lower their standards of living.
Not only Doctor James, but Doctor Marsh, Mr. Deutch and I believe Mr. Rasminsky, in fact most of Mr. Usley's key men, were trained at this same socialist school of economics, founded in the interests of "gold" and socialism. But, you say, Mr. Ilsley is the great Liberal-defender of orthodox finance and of the gold standard and, therefore, he

San Francisco Conference
must be opposed to socialism. Then wliv does he appoint socialist trained experts to plan Canada's future?
These Liberal-Communist planners were trained at the London School of Economics. One of its professors is H. J. Laski, who is one of the most influential socialists in the world to-day. Laski is the idol of the C.C.F. "brain-trust", and a confidential adviser to the New Dealers of the gold standard. Prof. Laski has written a book, for private circulation, from which I quote:
Christianity has failed, and the Russian ideal is taking its place as the inspiration of mankind, and as the standard of public morality. The Old Testament is the gospel of hard work, while in the New Testament the central figure of Jesus shows no concern for the workaday world. The trouble with Christianity is that it is subdued to nationalism.
So that our future is not to be based on Christian ideals; yet hundreds of religious leaders who call themselves Christians are subject to and working for Moscow because their faith in Christianity is dead; and it is these very men who believe that Christianity has failed-men trained by communists-who are planning the future of Canada. At the same time a rabid propaganda is being directed by certain religious leaders against the Christian religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, presumably because it is opposed to communism. Certain religious leaders are quoted by socialists and communists because they offer totalitarian philosophy as Christian democracy. Certainly these religious leaders have not uttered a single protest against the wholesale persecutions of people in recently liberated countries in eastern Europe. Will these religious leaders confirm or will they deny the persecution of political opponents by communists in Greece and elsewhere? Will they justify or will they condemn these political crimes? Dare they compare the freedom of religion, the press and politics in Russia with our own British freedoms? Do these religious leaders support or do they oppose the monarchy and the British empire? Do they agree with Professor Laski? Should we look to Russia for our ideals and moral standards? Have they lost their own faith and vision? Do they stand by the Atlantic charter? Are we fighting to preserve democracy or to create a totalitarian world? Are the gospels unreliable and unauthentic? Are we to follow Christian ideals according to the gospels, or communist doctrines according to Karl Marx?
Now what about Bretton Woods? My friends the hon. members for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and Acadia (Mr. Quelch) have stated their objections to the Bretton Woods proposals. I should like to add just one or two 32283-17J
statements of my own. I might say that I brought the matter up in a speech on this subject which I made in this house on July 12, 1943. On that occasion I quoted Mr. White, who was a member of the United States congress. He said, speaking of the plans:
Both contemplate the surrender by the individual countries to the international monetary power of a large part, if not all, of the very heart of national sovereignty, that is mastership over monetary and credit resources.
Section 8 of the constitution provides that congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. ... If Mr. Morgenthau and the forces back of him should he able to get around this provision of the constitution, then the last vestige of our great charter of liberty will have disappeared. All hope of restoring it would be gone, and the totalitarian state would be complete.
No, I cannot believe that the American people have as yet been beaten into such abject submission that they will allow this to happen.
Then recently a statement was made, I believe in the British House of Commons, and given to the English press, by Mr. Robert Boothby, M.P. I quote from the report in the London Evening Standard:
It was American big business, not the united nations, which won the great victory at Bretton Woods. For that agreement was a victory for gold over goods. And practically all the gold of the world is at present buried in the vaults of American banks.
If the House of Commons accepted Mr. Mor-genthau's advice and ratified the Bretton Woods agreement, it would deliver this country, bound hand and foot, to the money power represented by the vested interests of international finance.
It would prevent us from ever making any attempt at carrying out an internal expansionist policy designed to achieve full employment.
It would deprive us of all the weapons with which we could protect ourselves from the consequences of an American depression.
It would prevent us from developing the sterling area into a regional group of nations with similar economic interests and objectives, and a complementary trade-which is our greatest hope for the future.
Last, but not least, it would subject us permanently to the economic domination of the United States; for the whole basis of the agreement is in favour of the creditor, against the debtor nation.
Mr. Morgenthau gives the game away when he says he wants to increase his exports "provided his customers are in a position to find dollars to pay for them." We don't want to have to find dollars-which, under the Bretton Woods agreement, means finding gold. Still less do we want to borrow them. We want to pay for our imports with goods of our own.
Bretton Woods does nothing to help us to do this.
Always it is the same old story-this insane American passion for "exports". . . . The main purpose of trade is not to get goods out of your country at all at any cost. It is the mutually advantageous exchange of goods. If you cannot do this, it is far better to make, and consume, the stuff at home.
San Francisco Conference
[Stage Direction]
"Here is an organization," says Mr. Morgen-thau, with enthusiasm, "which has teeth in it." It has indeed. Nasty sharp teeth, which can bite. Under the Final Act of Bretton Woods, if we don't do what we are told by an international authority situated in the United States, we can have penal charges imposed on us, for the payment of which we shall have- somehorv-to "find the dollars." We may even be blockaded by our own dominions!
I am all for cooperation between Great Britain and the U.S.A. But not at this price.
One final point. The present British government has no mandate from the electors to jeopardize the economic future of this country by putting us back on a gold standard, and attempting to resurrect the economic system which was one of the prime causes of the war.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an article by Mr. Paul Einzig, one of the world's best-known economists. The hon. member for Lethbridge has already put part of the statement on record, and I shall not repeat it. But this particular statement by Mr. Einzig was published by the Daily Express, which is owned by Lord Beaverbrook, and more than three million copies were printed and distributed in Great Britain. At the end of the article is this warning:
On this page to-day is an article that should be studied closely by the vast "Daily Express" public, even while the news of victory in battle fills the imagination, even while the pleasures of the August holiday month tempt the multitude into more light-hearted distractions.
The article deals with the decisions reached at the Bretton Woods monetary conference. It establishes clearly that those decisions enslave Britons to gold, and are even liable to imperil British good will with the other nations in the empire.
The future of every man, woman, and child in this country is involved. Surely there will be a mighty national protest. Surely there will be a firm rejection of these proposals when they are submitted to parliament.
May I remind hon. members that, apart from all sentiment, Great Britain is by a long way the best market we have. I would like the hon. member who has just taken his seat to tell us where he proposes to market the produce of Canadian farms if the standard of living in Great Britain is lowered. Will he dispose of it in the United States? Or perhaps he will market it in Soviet Russia? I do not know, but I know that Bretton Woods is going to reflect on the prosperity of the farmers of Canada just as it did before. I remember hauling grain for seven cents a bushel when it cost me six cents to thresh it, and I remember selling hogs for two cents and shipping a carload of cattle and getting a bill back for part of the freight. That was due to the imposition of the gold standard, and the same men who imposed it then are in power to-day. They have never been discredited,

and the power behind it is international finance and totalitarianism. You cannot separate them. That is the situation we face.
With regard to this San Francisco conference, legally I am not trained sufficiently to get the full appreciation of what the motion really means, what it really implies. Perhaps before the vote comes we shall be enlightened, but at the moment I will say this. I cannot support any proposal that might weaken the ties between the various sovereign dominions of the British empire, and I can have nothing to do with any proposal to reestablish the gold standard, not even in the interests of peace, because I know very well that it would destroy the possibility of any permanent peace as it did before.
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: There can be no difference of opinion on the broad question of the necessity, when this war is brought to a victorious conclusion, of setting up some organization to ensure that all nations of the world will in future enjoy the blessings of peace. There will be general unanimity in favour of the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to send representatives to the conference of united nations to prepare a charter for the general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security on the basis of the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.
Undoubtedly the most vital question to be discussed at that conference will be the provision of sufficient power to ensure that the decisions of the new organization to maintain peace will be carried out. The position of this party has been ably presented by our leader (Mr. Graydon), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and others, with all of whom I am in complete agreement. I shall endeavour not to traverse the same ground unless for purposes of emphasis.
In order to understand the government's attitude on this resolution it is necessary to try to interpret the Prime Minister's speech given on March 20 last. I must confess to a deep feeling of disappointment on hearing the Prime Minister's expressions of idealism apparently unaffected by any sense of realism such as should have resulted from the lessons learned from developments since the last war and the tragic events of this.
Some of the Prime Minister's expressions and suggestions reminded me of the impractical dreams of President Wilson, whose influence at the last peace conference resulted in a treaty devoid of the necessary power to

San Francisco Conference
prevent war. The following will illustrate what I mean. I quote the Prime Minister's words:
A new world order will be born, not made. It will be something that lives and breathes, something much closer to the soul of man than a mere mechanical or legalistic device. A new [DOT] world order needs to be worked out and have its place in the minds and the hearts of men. It should express itself in brotherhood and good will. It will be the application, in all human relations, of the principle of service and of mutual aid.
This is the Prime Minister of Canada speaking in 1945, as reported at page 31 of Hansard, and not, as one might assume, President Wilson in 1919. President Wilson's theory was that morality could be an effective power, that the morality of the rulers of nations and of civilized mankind must be the force to do good. Mr. Lytton Strachey, then editor of the London Spectator, warned him that a league based on nothing but promises could not stand the test of reality. After such a war as that of 19141918 every nation would exploit every loophole to avoid taking up arms in another's interest. To this Wilson replied :
I feel the weight of your fear, but it seems to me that the effects of this war may just as reasonably be expected to operate in the other direction.
The theory of a league for perpetual peace was not original with Wilson or with to-day's planners. Humanity has always dreamed of peace. The trouble is that so often these plans are worked out in the minds of idealists with little appreciation of the nature of men and of peoples. If they could at the same time create a new kind of humanity there might be some hope for their theories.
Speaking in the British House of Commons on February 27 last, following the Yalta conference on security organization, Mr. Churchill, who is a realist, said in part:
The new body will differ from the league of nations in the essential point that it will not shrink from establishing its rule against the evildoer or evilplanner in good time and by force of arms.
There seem to be some lucid moments in the Prime Minister's mind when he has a sense of reality, for in the speech of March 20, as
reported at page 30, he said:
Were another great war to break out in twenty or thirty years, or at any time in the future, it is certain that Canada would not escape its fury. The development of new weapons, the development in particular of the flying bomb and the rocket projectile, are making it impossible for any country to claim immunity from sudden aggression.
The Prime Minister, however, soon lapsed again into another state of unreality when he declared his intention to refer all matters of
aggression to parliament and to await its decision before taking action. The delay and uncertainty, if such a procedure were carried out, would be the most certain way of bringing about a third world war.
I was glad to hear the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) say yesterday that commitments for quick and certain punitive action against an aggressor must be written into the charter of the world peace organization if it is to be effective. May I hope that this statement coming from a senior member of the cabinet will make a deep impression upon the mind of the Prime Minister.
I believe I am voicing the opinion of the majority of the people of Canada when I say that we much prefer the advantages which accrue from being a part of one of the three big powers, where we can exert our influence upon the vital decisions which will be made, than if we occupied a place of our own in the security council as a secondary power. Within the empire Canada's voice can be powerful. Once out of the empire she will be just as one of a score or more of secondary nations and be as helpless as Belgium or Holland or become a state in the American republic.
It will be obvious that Canada cannot sit on the security council as a separate nation; for if she attempted to do so Russia and perhaps the United States would be certain to claim more seats. Britain cannot retain her position as an equal in strength with the other two great powers without the support of her dominions, owing to the sacrifices she has made in this war in material wealth and in man-power. Her navy is no longer mistress of the seas. We all know of our own magnificent war effort, and Mr. Churchill has been most generous in his praise of what Canada has done. But I do not think that all of us realize what a tremendous contribution Great Britain has made to the winning of the war. She has called up twenty-two million men and women between the ages of fourteen and sixty-four, who have been mobilized for direct war service and industry. This represents sixty-nine per cent of her people between those ages. Her army numbered 384,000 when the war broke out. In July of last year it had increased to four and a half millions. Her casualties in the armed forces have mounted to nearly six hundred thousand men. One in three of her houses has been damaged by enemy action and 57,298 of her civilians have been killed. But in spite of this Britain herself produced seven-tenths of all munitions and merchant vessels used by the British commonwealth and empire since the outbreak
San Francisco Conference

of war. Only one-tenth of those munitions were supplied by other empire countries. Her scientists and inventors have led the war in the development of Radar, in the fight against the U-boat and magnetic mine, and in the development of jet-propulsion planes. In five years the war has cost Great Britain S9S,000,000,000.
From purely selfish motives it is in our best interests to continue to exert our influence as a part of the British commonwealth of nations. If we indicate our intention of doing so at the San Francisco conference our example will probably be followed by Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the British commonwealth will continue to remain one of the three great powers.
Not long ago the Prime Minister was desirous of being the head of one of the small nations. Now he has become more ambitious and wants Canada to be regarded as a secondary state. I would remind him that a higher place of influence on the security council will carry with it increased responsibilities. It will be totally inconsistent with) his pre-war policy of no commitments and isolationism, to which he still seems to cling. Modern instruments of war have brought all nations so close together that it is no longer possible for anyone to live in isolation. May I express the hope that when the Prime Minister attends the San Francisco conference he will promise on behalf of Canada to place at the disposal of the world security organization a reasonable quota of our resources, including armed forces, to ensure future peace.
Since there will be no Canadian parliament in existence at that time it will be necessary to get the approval of the new parliament on the decisions arrived at. If this is all the Prime Minister contemplates there will be general agreement, but when peace is threatened, to make a proviso that the consent of parliament must be obtained before our armed forces can be used, as proposed by the Prime Minister, is to invite another world conflict.
I should like to say a word in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Bence) that representatives should be chosen from men who have served in this or the last war. These men have shown their willingness to fight and, if necessary, to die for Canada. They have earned the right to have a voice in determining the measures necessary to ensure that never again will the world suffer the terrors of another war.
It is significant that the meeting at San Francisco is described not as a peace conference but as a security conference. Already

comments upon this conference in many countries leave no doubt that it is generally agreed that the main purpose of the conference will be to establish some basis of collective action for the preservation of peace in the future which has behind it the sanction of armed might. If that is a correct inter- . pretation of the general attitude, and if it is the intention of the government of Canada to commit this country to participation in such a plan for collective military security, it is the first duty of those who are called upon to vote in support of Canada's participation in that conference to examine carefully, and with the utmost frankness, the full implications of our undertaking, to be one of those nations which will, if necessary, use military force to preserve peace in the event of any law-breaker in the future once again threatening the outbreak of another general war.
Any nation which becomes a party 'to a collective security agreement under which force, if necessary, will be employed to restrain an aggressor must be prepared to contemplate the possibility of war itself. Anything less would only be a repetition of what led to the collapse of the authority of the league of nations and the progressive steps of appeasement which culminated in the war in which we are still engaged. If there is one lesson which emerges more clearly than any other out of those years of crushed hopes and disillusionment, it is that pious expressions of peaceful intentions are little more than an invitation to aggression, unless those who believe in peace are prepared to keep peace by force, if necessary. Recent history teaches us that the surest way to prevent a recurrence of the world-wide catastrophe of these past six years is to be willing to pledge our whole strength in a joint effort to prevent such a thing from happening.
If we are to take the first step, we must be prepared to take the last step. Not to do so would be repeating the weaknesses of the league of nations. If we are to give our undertaking to other nations to standi by them in preserving peace, we must have a clear understanding here at home as to how we will raise those military forces which might become necessary through such an undertaking. The fact that we would hope that such collective action would itself prevent the possibility of another war can be no excuse for ignoring the possible consequences of our undertaking and leaving ourselves in the position where, if we were challenged, there might be any doubt about our fulfilment as a nation of the obligation we had assumed. We must, therefore, support the principle of collective action for the preservation of peace, and Canada should

San Francisco Conference
be a party to such collective agreement. But before Canada commits her national honour to any such undertaking it must be made perfectly clear to the people of Canada exactly how that undertaking will be carried! out, in the event that in spite of all efforts toward' peace this nation once more should be committed to the ultimate test of war.
Twice in a generation the emotions of this country have been torn by the fact that the burden of war was not borne in equal measure throughout the whole of Canada. This has done more to create division within this country than anything else in our national life. It has created bitterness in those parts of Canada where the heaviest burden has been borne, and it has created bitterness in that part of Canada where the load has been less because they feel that they were promised immunity from such an obligation. It would be blind folly to deny the depth of the division which has been created1 in Canada by that one fact. There is one way above all others by which this sense of injustice and misunderstanding will be removed!; that is to leave no doubt that never again will there be any possibility of divided responsibility for the preservation of the security of the state, either in war or in peace.
Universal military service equally applied throughout the whole country is the peace-time law of Britain. The President of the United States has already expressed his desire that a similar law be enacted in the United States. It is the only course consistent with any joint understanding that carries with it even the most remote possibility of military responsibility in the years to come. That being so, the new parliament will have to decide that universal military service to such extent as may be required in peace, and to any extent that1 may be required in waT, will be the law of the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to be applied without distinction in every part of Canada.
It would be illuminating at this time to give the house the important parts of the statement issued by the prime ministers of the British commonwealth after their meeting in London on May 17, 1944, quoting from the Associated Press dispatch appearing in the New York Times of May 18 of that year. The dispatch reads:
We, the king's prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, have now, for the first time since the outbreak of the war, been able to meet together to discuss common problems and
future plans. The representative of India at the war cabinet and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, have joined in our deliberations and are united with us.
I will leave out some passages that refer to the war and simply pay tributes of praise to those who participated, and continue:
We have also examined together the principles which determine our foreign policies, and their application to current problems. Here, too, we are in complete agreement. We are unitedly resolved to continue, shoulder to shoulder with our allies, all needful exertion which will aid our fleets, armies and air forces during the war, and therefore to make sure of an enduring peace. We trust and pray that victory, which will certainly be won, will carry with it a sense of hope and freedom for all the world.
It is our aim that, when the storm and passion of war have passed away, all countries now overrun by the enemy shall be free to decide for themselves their future form of democratic government.
Mutual respect and honest conduct between nations is our chief desire. We are determined to work with all peace-loving peoples in order that tyranny and aggression shall be removed or, if need be, struck down wherever it raises its head. The people of the British empire and commonwealth of nations willingly make their sacrifices to the common cause. We seek no advantage for ourselves at the cost of others. We desire the welfare and social advancement of all nations and that they may help each other to better and broader days.
We affirm that after the war a world organization to maintain peace and security should be set up and endowed with the necessary power and authority to prevent aggression and violence.
In a world torn by strife we have met here in unity. That unity finds its strength not in any formal bond but in the hidden spring from which human action flows. We rejoice in our inheritance, loyalties and ideals, and proclaim our sense of kinship to one another. Our system of free association has enabled us, each and all, to claim a full share of the common burden.
Although spread across the globe, we have stood together through the stress of two world wars, and have been welded the stronger thereby. We believe that when the war is won and peace returns, this same free association, this inherent unity of purpose, will make us able to do further service to mankind.
Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.
John Curtin, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Peter Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand.
J. C. Smuts, Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa.
It is to be hoped that the close cooperation which this declaration indicates has existed among the nations of the British commonwealth during the war, will continue at the security conference in San Francisco and in the difficult days that will follow after victory.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
San Francisco Conference

After Recess
The house- resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been- following with interest the speeches of hon. members during the present debate, and I think it can be said, speaking generally, that except for hon. members in the Social Credit group, and a few independents, members of the house are in- agreement in their support of the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which subject is to be considered at the coming San Francisco conference. The Social Credit group and the few independents referred to, although perhaps for different reasons, fear that by joining the world organization we will lose our independence or sovereignty. Hon. members who have indicated that they will support the resolution on the order paper favouring our taking part in the San Francisco conference appear to- me, quite frankly, to be holding too idealistic a view. I am afraid that a practical observer looking on would come to the conclusion that there are too many who, as in the case of the league of nations, fail to realize that high ideals are only of immediate value, in a matter of this kind, up to the point where they are possible and practicable in their application.
I wish to make one passing observation, however, with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). At page 117 of Hansard he is reported to have said this. .
The government's policy has been and is to-day based upon a false premise, with the result that now Canada finds herself in a humiliating position. But she can still get out of it. The way to get out of this humiliating position is not to shout for a seat for herself on the security council and to give more trouble in that way. The way for her to get out is to ask that in the charter provision be made for a permanent seat on the security council for the British commonwealth rather than for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
There is nothing new in this thought. It is one of the things already discussed in the house and, as indicated, one of the things which was considered when the league of nations was formed. It was considered and discussed when the post-war policy of the league of nations was under consideration. The question was then, as perhaps it may be said it is to-day-and I quote from G. M. Carter's pamphlet, "Consider the Record":
Should the commonwealth act as one unit or should nations of the commonwealth become particularists in policies, each determining its attitude toward commonwealth issues out of its own immediate interest.
I oppose the idea of one vote for the commonwealth. We have gone too far along the road of nationhood to retrace our steps. There would be danger of quarrels within the commonwealth, with the consequent possibility of the parts breaking away from the whole. It
is,	moreover, not difficult to visualize occasions arising when one member, with power to vote for the entire commonwealth, would be faced with one of the following possibilities: on the one hand he might find that one or more of the dominions would oppose any proposed stand, and threaten to leave the com- . monwealth; on the other hand he might find that the threat might be of such a nature that it would prevent the views of the other parts of the commonwealth from being put into effect in the proceedings of the security council.
I believe the Dumbarton Oaks plan shows some indication that it was going to follow what happened in the league of nations. When we examine how the security council of the league was formed we find that from September 15, 1927, as long as the league council remained operative, one of the dominions sat as a member. From the record there would seem to have been an understanding in that regard. We might describe it as a rotating member from one of the dominions, the rotation placing Canada first, Ireland second, Australia third, New Zealand fourth, and, I take
it,	if it had carried through, South Africa would have come next.
For a three-year period each dominion in its turn had the right to be and as a matter of fact was a member of the security council of the league. This meant that from 1927, as long as the league existed, the commonwealth had two members on the security cSuncil, one of whom was from the United Kingdom, sitting as a permanent member, and another from one of the dominions, each dominion taking its turn. As I indicated, the result was that, from 1927, on the security council of the league there were two members who had at heart the interests of the commonwealth, if we wish to put it in that way.
If we follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and ask for one member for the British commonwealth as a whole, striking out the membership of the United Kingdom, we would stand a great chance of losing one member on the security council. I cannot see any other conclusion from what took place and, having in mind that in large measure the Dumbarton Oaks plan will follow what took place in the league of nations, it seems to me that the same can be anticipated this time.
So much for that phase of the matter. May I now proceed to indicate that the greatest

danger in international policy, when plans for international peace are being worked out, is idealism. There are too many well-meaning people desiring to see world peace who work themselves into the belief that human nature can be suddenly altered, and forget what history has shown over and over again.
The idea or the attempt to stop world wars is an old story, and one which can be traced back for centuries. Not going too far back, we see the league of the great powers after the Napoleonic wars, and the need for a wider plan was felt after the first great war, a plan which would join all self-governing countries not , only with a view to bringing about international peace, but also with the thought of bringing material gains to the agreeing nations.
Not only have we now a new plan under consideration for a still broader attempt to maintain international peace, but still greater stress is laid upon international cooperation for the purpose of greater social and material gains in the different countries of the world.
The organization proposed by the Dumbarton Oaks plan is practically the same as the organization in the league of nations plan. We find the organization of the league of nations consisted of an assembly, a council, a secretariat, a permanent court of international justice, and technical organizations and advisory committees, dealing with financing, economics and the like.
The organization of the Dumbarton Oaks plan, instead of calling the large body an assembly calls it a general assembly; the council is called a security council and the secretariat goes under the same name. Then, there is provision for a permanent court of international justice. And in considering the material and social matters in the various countries we have under this plan a proposal to establish an economic and social council.
In the Dumbarton Oaks plan provision was made for eleven members, of which five, namely the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States, France and the republic of China are permanent, and the remaining six are elected by the general assembly.
Under the league of nations plan the council of the league, in 1935, was composed of fourteen members. Of these, four, namely France, Great Britain, Italy and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were permanent. The remaining ten were elected by the assembly.
I could1 go on and- show the similarity between the two plans in regard to the proposal for a permanent court of international justice, for technical committees of the league for the social and economic councils proposed1 under the new plan.
San Francisco Conjerence
I am not overlooking, of course, the fact that in some important particulars the jurisdiction of the general assembly and1 security council has changed, as well as the voting power, particularly of the permanent members of the security council. These are made to correct what were thought weaknesses in the league of nations plan and meet what the great powers demanded before they would join in an international organization.	_
I have gone to some detail in comparing the plan of the league with that of Dumbarton Oaks because I wanted to impress upon this house that the league of nations failed, and I am not sure that this plan is going to succeed. I am sure it will not succeed' if the men who have the responsibility of -this international organization lack the power of -practical consideration and the capacity of practical application in the working of the plan.
I am not one of those who believe that you can by this plan or any other plan, in one year, ten years or a hundred years, -make various peoples differing in races, environment and resources, propelled by impulses and power, and the frailties of human nature, become one great happy family.	_
Let us not be deceived- into thinking that human nature has so completely altered that all that is now required is a new plan.
Lord Birkenhead, in an address to -the students of Glasgow university, put it in this way:
Summing up this branch of the matter we are bound to conclude that from the very dawn of the world man has been a combative animal. To begin with, he fought violently for his own elemental needs; later, perhaps in tribal or communal quarrel; later still, with the growth of greater communities, upon a larger and more sophisticated scale. And it is to be specially noted that there have nevertheless almost always existed men who sincerely but very foolishly believed, firstly, that no war would arise in their own day; and, secondly (when that war did arise) that for some reason or other it would be the last. At this point the idealist degenerates into the pacifist; and it is at this point consequently that he becomes a danger to the community of which he is a citizen.
I -heard a few d-ays ago a very wise clergyman make the statement that this old world was a hard place to live in. There is no doubt that that is true. We are intended to survive by work and struggle. We cannot change overnight the forces that have been working for centuries in opposite and conflicting directions for survival. The league of nations failed because its too high ideals could not be worked out. Every nation was willing and- ready -to applaud slogans, dogmas, cure-alls and liberty plans, but we saw a dismal failure when the testing time came. It came, for example, when an investigation was requested through the

San Francisco Conference

league for the international control of raw materials. Very little progress was made, and a sense of frustration was felt on the part of the countries suffering from that problem. I have in mind Italy in that particular field. The same was true when the testing time for collective security came when the Japanese took Manchuria in 1931, and also when Italy went into Ethiopia. In the raw materials case, the countries which thought they would suffer from international control objected.
In the case of the Sino-Japanese conflict several things were demonstrated1. We saw first that great powers would not risk fighting each other for the sake of preventing aggression were they not directly involved. Second, powerful countries preferred looking after their own interests and would not compromise for the sake of the league. Third, secondary powers had little influence to bring about force. Fourth, great powers must be in agreement before pressure can be exerted.
In the case of Ethiopia the same things were demonstrated, with emphasis on the point that you cannot enforce a decision unless you are ready to use force. It was found that there had been a lack of previous planning and understanding of what the realities of the situation might be. The league had not developed a system to use force when it was necessary. To secure peace on a world scale may mean war, and if Canada joins the plan under discussion, we must 'be ready and willing to face this possibility,
I am afraid there may be too many people, as in the case of the league of nations, who believe that we are seeing the last world war, if we can arouse public opinion; in other words, that public opinion is sufficient to stop aggression without the necessity of force. If that takes place, they may succeed in arousing public opinion to an extent, but these ideals will build a house upon sand, and in the future it will be said-and I quote from the Good Book:
And the rains descended and the floods came; and the wind blew and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.
Let no one in this house assume that the millennium is promised by this measure.
The day is far distant when one note of concord or love will stir all mankind to a harmonious response. Nations will go on quarrelling and may come to fighting. There will be great resentment against the police power among peoples it restrains. There will be big problems to be solved and the solutions may involve violence in order for any part of this plan to succeed.
Canada, to take advantage of any benefits that may arise from time to time, must be prepared to give at times in material things more

than she will get. She must also be prepared to insist upon plans that are practical; she must not allow the idealist to degenerate into the pacifist, leading nations into a slumber away from the possibility of armed force, where the world will grow soft and our nation will let go from its own hand adequate means for our own protection.
I do not want to be misled by peace organizers who are premature. The world is ready for some things, but let us realize what they are. Expecting it to go beyond its strength will only bring wreck and ruination. A world meeting place should be encouraged, and it will:
1.	Make a world affair of any proposed conflict.
2.	Bring world judgment on any troublemaker.
3.	Bring about the only possibility of all countries joining against an aggressor.
I was not surprised to find that the question of voting power in the Dumbarton Oaks plan was one of the last things made public, nor was I surprised that the great powers were realistic enough to protect themselves by making provision for the power to veto, if I may call it such, an attack upon themselves. I doubt if the conference is able to change this provision and, if it did, I think ,it would be a mistake at the present time, in that when the testing time would come, a great power would either disregard the organization or leave the organization. In other words, better give them power, if they cannot be coerced, than take that power away from them and have them break away from your organization, for you will then have no organization at all. Let no one deceive himself; unless we can by some plan keep these great powers together there will be another war, and sooner, perhaps, than anyone in this house imagines. This plan must be realistic enough to keep the great powers together. That is why I am in favour of the provision giving any great power the right to veto-if I may use that term-any steps which are taken against it.
In conclusion, I hope my remarks will not be interpreted, first, as from one who is opposing the proposal for the establishment of a general international organization, or as from one who is a pessimist in thinking that the organization itself will not succeed. I believe there is a duty cast upon us, as one of the great freedom-loving countries, to join a world organization such as is proposed, and that by our ways of life and influence we can,

San Francisco Conference
in a measure at least, bring to the other countries of the world something which will be helpful and beneficial.
Our common experience with the United States in developing a great civilization on the north American continent, through the processes of idealism and realism marching side by side, will be of value in trying to set up a better world civilization.
We shall in turn profit from our association with other countries, and in the final analysis, by joining minds and hands in an open world, we shall in an increasing measure, as the years roll on, be striving to lessen man's combative instinct, replacing it with a growing conviction of universal good will.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the
resolution about which the Prime Minister requests the concurrence of the house implies: acquiescence in the sending of representatives to San. Francisco on April 25 next, with a view to helping in the preparation of a charter establishing an international organization for the maintenance of world peace and international security; recognition that such an organization is important for Canada and the future welfare of all mankind, and that in her own interests Canada should join that organization.
Further, it approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals drawn up as a result of the Dumbarton Oaks conference and it considers that these proposals constitute a basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization.
Lastly, it states that the charter, establishing the said: international organization, will be submitted to parliament for approval before ratification.
Let us note at once that the resolution involves no commitments for the time being, that the mandate entrusted to our representatives at the San Francisco conference is not to commit Canada to the charter that will be worked out, but only to help in the preparation of that charter, and that parliament alone can accept or reject it.
When that charter is submitted to us we shall judge whether it fulfills our hopes. And we shall accept or reject it, as the case may be.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) has put on this resolution a construction which is in no way justified and he did not bring up a single piece of evidence in support of his absolutely groundless assertion. He said:
To-day through this resolution we are asked
to declare, right off. that we will participate in any future war in the world.
32283-18i
Now, nothing like that is to be found in the resolution. Not only is there no question of participating in a war, but the only thing contemplated is the sending of delegates to a conference for considering the means of preventing war and ensuring world peace, without any commitment on our part. Besides, in his speech the hon. member himself recognized the true purport of the resolution when he said:
At a time when we are thinking of seeking the means to restore universal peace. . . .
Take part in a conference to "seek the means to restore universal peace" is entirely different from "participating in a war."
The interpretation which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay attempts, without reason, to read into a motion, reminds me of the stand he took in November last on a positively anti-conscriptionist amendment introduced by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Jean).
On that occasion, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, after inverting the wording of the amendment, claimed that it was favouring conscription, which was something entirely remote from the actual truth.
However, all the hon. members who favoured the conscriptionist policy of the government, whether Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F. or Social Credit, voted with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay against the amendment of the hon. member for Mercier, because it was against conscription.
If the hon. member intended to convey the impression that those who will support this resolution will thereby go on record as being in favour of world war in general, he is formally contradicted by the official text of the resolution, as last November he was contradicted by the wording of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier who took the government to task for having imposed conscription.
In an editorial which appeared in Le Droit of last Saturday, under the title "Should we participate in the San Francisco conference?", Mr. Camille L'Heureux, who is well known for his independent attitude, outlines the true meaning of the resolution. Here are some excerpts:
We do not understand the attitude of those who are opposed to Canada's participation in the forthcoming conference at San Francisco, the object of which is to prepare a charter for an organization entrusted with the maintenance of world peace.
Indeed, the House of Commons is not being asked whether it approves the plan submitted In- the great powers, although it is the duty
San Francisco Conference

of every member bo point out any defects therein and to insist that the government endeavour to correct them at the conference. The object of the resolution is to decide whether Canada will send a delegation to San Francisco.
It will be up to the next parliament and not to the present one bo ratify the agreements which may have been entered into at San Francisco.
What is the object of the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister? This resolution asks parliament, in the first place, to approve ''the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments," in the second place, to agree "that these proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organisation."
The editor then states the aims and principles set forth in the proposals which the Prime Minister has already brought to the attention of the house and he concludes as follows:
No member of the House of Commons may oppose the approval of those aims and principles. On the contrary, each member must strive in order that they might prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I respect the views of those who oppose our participation to the San Francisco conference, but I think the stand taken by some members who have expressed their opposition to this participation is most extraordinary.
Who are the opponents of Canada's participation to this conference? The hon. members for Charlevoix-Saguenay, (Mr. Dorion) for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and I believe that I am not mistaken in adding the name of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) unless he disapproves of the attitude taken by his leader, the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay.
This attitude, Mr. Speaker, is in formal contradiction with that taken by the same members only a year ago.
A glance through Hansard will show the zeal with which the hon. member for Gaspe denounced the fact that Canada was not participating in inter-allied conferences. Here is what he said on February 8, 1944, as reported in Hansard:
Since the beginning of the war we have had quite a few inter-allied conferences.
There was a conference which took place on the Atlantic ocean. At that conference there was drawn up what was called the Atlantic charter which is supposed to be the basis of governing all the democratic countries when the war is over. Was Canada asked to take part in that conference as an independent country? Was the Canadian Prime Minister invited to that conference? No. As I say, we were told that it was a charter for all the allied countries after the war is over.

We had another conference at Washington and yet Canada was not there.
We had a conference at Casablanca and we find that it was just like the others. There was no place there for Canada. We were just a negligible quantity.
Since then we have had another conference at Teheran. At this conference China, Russia, the United States and Great Britain was represented. Canada, being the fourth largest power in the war, was not represented by its Prime Minister. There was no place for Canada at all, although she is in the war with all her resources. What had then become of our independence ?
The hon. member for Gaspe closed his remarks by introducing a subamendment to the speech from the throne, which is to be found on Hansard as well as in the Votes and Proceedings of February 8, 1944.
He therefore proposed, seconded by the hon. member of Charlevoix-Saguenay, that the following words be added:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house Your Excellency's advisers have failed ... to demand Canada's partnership in allied conferences on account of her independent status and of her important share in the war.
Such is the motion of non-confidence submitted to the house by the hon. member for Gaspe, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. On the question being put, this motion was negatived and the Totes and Proceedings of February 10, 1944 show that, besides the proposer and seconder the hon. members for Quebec-Montmorency and Rimouski voted for the subamendment, together with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Choquette) and myself.
The hon. members for Charlevoix-Saguenay, Gaspe, Quebec-Montmorency and Rimouski are free to contradict themselves to-day, my hon. friend for Stanstead and myself will remain true to our stand of nearly a year ago, by supporting Canada's participation in the San Francisco conference.
This will be the acknowledgment of our independent status. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay seems to base his opposition on the fact that the Vatican will have no representatives at the conference. I am of a mind with him on that point. An invitation should have been extended to them, I shall return to this later on. However, is it reasonable to remain aloof because a party that should have been invited has been left aside? On the contrary, this is an additional reason to attend in order to represent the views of the absent party.

San Francisco Conference
The hon. member is fearful lest the three great powers control the conference. This is a further motive for taking part so as to boost the number of secondary and small powers in attendance and thus be in a position to oppose the selfish designs of the others. If our representatives fail to discharge their trust, we shall judge and condemn them.
A number of conferences have been held lately, where decisions contrary to moral principles have been taken. Only three or four great powers were in attendance. This time the membership will come from forty-four nations. It will be the duty of all these nations, secondary and small,-who are being consulted at last-Canada among them, to see that the principles of good order and justice are upheld; this will offer them an opportunity to oppose certain subversive doctrines which tend to invade the world, such as communism. This will be the time to denounce the unfair treatment meted out to Poland and to take appropriate measures; however, the way to eliminate the causes of evil is not to abstain either from taking part in the discussions, or from joining the other countries who do not wish to witness the maintenance of social wrongs.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is right when he grieves over the evils assailing society, but he attributes them to the economic conditions prevailing in most countries and he adds:
In order that economic life may be suitable within nations, international economic life must necessarily be cleansed.
Is it not well known that one of the proposals that will be under discussion at the conference relates to economic and social cooperation in the international field? Among the basic proposals that will be discussed is the following:
The organization should facilitate the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems, and promote the respect of human rights and primary liberties.
Reform on an international basis is demanded; we are asked to participate in the discussion of such reform and we would decline to do so. That is an odd way of reasoning.
As regards the need of an international organization for the maintenance of peace, let me refer to the advice contained in the message which Pius XlII directed to the whole world on December 25 last, and in which I find the following:
It is indispensable that ill the world organization there should be some body able to maintain a body invested by general consent with supreme authority and whose duty it would be, among other things, to quell at the very beginning every attempt at aggression.
The decisions already announced by international commissions justify us in the belief that one of the main points of any future international agreement will be the establishment of an organization foT the maintenance of peace, of a body invested by general consent with supreme power, whose duty it will be to strike at its very source every individual or collective threat of aggression.
No one will hail such an event more joyfully than he who, for a long time, has expounded the principle that war, as a suitable means of settling international differences, is now obsolete.
Is the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, who has spoken at length about the Vatican, unaware of those directions?
However, the hon. member for Gaspe, who seems to oppose to-day the establishment of such an international organization, recognized last year that it might be in the interests of world peace and to the advantage of Canada's international trade, and he approved its creation.
Here is what he said on February 8, 1944, as recorded in Hansard:
We are told that after the war there will be a sort of international body composed of the allied nations, and in which the small nations will be on an equal footing with the larger ones. That would be a very fine thing for Canada as a peace policy and in so far as her international trade and commerce are concerned. That is all very well.
Does he know that the main principle set forth in the proposals which we are requested to approve in the resolution is precisely "the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states"?
Opposed to war, desirous to see the reign of peace, I do not hesitate to say that I am in favour of the establishment of an international organization for the prevention of war and the maintenance of international peace and security, and that I believe Canada should become a member of such an organization under acceptable conditions. And I am happy to heed the advice which the Pope has given along those lines. I have, in fact, already made a public statement on that matter: I refer to my declaration published in the January 1944 issue of Maclean's Magazine.
Speaking for the group which I represent, the bloc populaire canadien, I made the following statement:
We are in favour of a permanent international institution which would have the characteristics of a genuine league of nations:
It would group together all the civilized states, or at least the majority of them.
It would grant to them, small or large, equal rights; in consequence of this it would not become the mere tool of imperial powers and imperialists, as was the Geneva league.
It would prepare to establish a truly international order, both from the economic and the political point of view.
San Francisco Conference

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.
That is what I said scarcely a year ago.
Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve the object it has in view, the organization which it is proposed to establish will have to be truly democratic, rather than being, in some regards, a replica of the league of nations, formed in 1919 and which, in spite of the outstanding services it has given, has all too often been, in the hands of certain powers, the means of promoting their selfish and materialistic interests.
Its aim should be, as was said in a recent statement of the Catholic episcopate of the United States:
To include all nations, while respecting the equal rights of every one, great or small, weak or powerful.
Since the object is to devise means for ensuring international peace, I regret that neutral countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, Ireland and others have not been invited to the conference, and especially that the Vatican has not been requested to send representatives there.
No one can question the desire to cooperate in the general welfare, and the absolute impartiality of a world power like the Papacy. Who is unaware of the efforts made by the Vatican with a view to ending the conflict and ensuring future peace in a spirit of Christian charity?
And what about the absence of Poland, a country obviously doomed to be eternally victimized? If there is a country which should have an outstanding place on that occasion, it is surely the one which has suffered most from this war. The Prime Minister should make the necessary representations.
What part shall we play in that conference?
In the first place, the part of a free and independent country, with all these words imply. 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 authority 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 the 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.
The San Francisco conference must be approached in the light of past history and of possible future events. Since the outbreak of the war, England, the United States and Russia held several conferences. Canada was neither invited nor represented. And yet we were vitally concerned.
The Atlantic charter, which held out hopes for the post-war period, was the outcome of one of these conferences. Alas! what has become of this Atlantic charter which was accepted by the great powers? It has been violated. What are the views of the Prime Minister in this respect?
We have lost track of the number of treaties broken by Russia since 1939. On November 30, 1939 while Russia was a member of the League, of Nations, she ruthlessly attacked heroic Finland, notwithstanding a pact of nonaggression between the two nations; this prompted the Prime Minister to say in a broadcast on February 23, 1940:
Finland is fighting gallantly against brutal aggression.
Later on, Russia occupied the Baltic States and part of Roumania, and took Bulgaria and Yugoslavia under her control.
The partition of Poland, in violation of a treaty and of the Atlantic charter, with the approval of Mr. Churchill, is the latest act of brigandage committed by Russia.
A compromise has been mentioned! Who will benefit by that compromise?
One thing is certain; all relations between peoples are impossible when there is no mutual faithfulness to the pledged word, and no power

San Francisco Conference
may arrogate to itself the right unilaterally to break a treaty which does not suit its purpose.
What is to become of the reasons invoked to justify the declaration of war in September, 1939: respect for the treaties, for the territorial integrity of the countries; protection of weak nations; struggle for the safeguard of Christian civilization, of democracy?
I have said so already andi I say it again, there is no such thing as a war for ideologies; there are only wars of interests. It was true in 1914; it is true for the present war.
I enumerate these facts in order to prove how important it is for our representatives to oppose the assumption, by any of the great powers of the right to veto a decision and, further to obtain that the secondary and small nations be better represented on the security council, in accordance with the principle of the "sovereign equality of all peace-loving states," as set forth at Dumbarton Oaks.
As the control of armaments will come under discussion, I suggest that the export of weapons from one country to another be prohibited and that the various states alone be authorized to manufacture them according to their protection needs, to the exclusion of all private enterprises.
Let us not forget that the rearmament of Germany by gun manufacturers of various countries is responsible for the 1939 conflict.
One of the proposals to be considered at the conference deals with economic and social cooperation in the international sphere.
I shall refer, if I may, to a statement I made in this house on September 9, 1939, on the occasion of the declaration of war by Canada:
Border disputes are of little moment in comparison with the disorder in production and trade which reduces certain countries to famine.
The publications of the universal assembly for peace, a body established, by the league of nations with a view to deal with international situations which are apt to provoke war, contain a detailed analysis of the three principal economic causes of war: the problem of raw materials, that of labour and that of trade outlets.
In one of these works it is stated that:
"No more than individuals, can the proletarian countries resign themselves forever to remain such in neighbourhood of richly endowed and satisfied nations. Until such time as the world takes the necessary steps with a view to systematically and logically solving these problems in a spirit of international fellowship, there shall exist this struggle for economic life, too often the prelude of military war."
Walter Lippmann, the famous American publicist, openly sympathetic to the so-called democratic nations, has written:
"The great crime of post-war politics in Europe, was that the victorious powers took advantage of their supremacy to monopolize the resources of the world."
Mr. Speaker, post-war problems will be of various kinds; one of the most important will concern the economic and social order.
Real peace implies social peace. It matters little whether social life is simple or complex, whether the needs are few or many. What does matter is that the needs be met according to order and justice.
Society must sincerely devote its efforts to the improvement of material, intellectual and moral conditions; it must recognize the principle of equal opportunities for.all and realize that worldly goods, which are necessities of life, are not the privilege of a few, but exist for the benefit of the masses.
The peace that is to follow the present war must be more than a clever balance of military powers, it must be founded on real efforts to establish international justice.
Let us work for the realization of political understanding and reconciliation among the various nations, based on justice, while remembering that all human beings have equal rights to life.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on this motion to approve the acceptance of the invitation by four of the great powers to an international conference in San Francisco, I desire to make but a few observations. In the first place there should be the closest cooperation among nations for the preservation of peace and security. I believe, therefore, that the invitation should be accepted, and that a delegation representing Canada should attend this conference. In my own mind this is perhaps the most momentous conference to be held in the history of mankind. As a matter of fact, when I think of the issues at stake; when I realize that this conference may determine the destiny of the nations of the world for centuries to come, I am a bit surprised that so little time should be given in this house for the discussion of such great issues as are involved here.
As I say, decisions may be made that will seal the destiny of nations for centuries to come. There is perhaps one tiny qualifying clause in the proposals; that is the last clause, which provides that no commitments will be made until the results of the conference have been brought before this parliament and approved by it. But I am fearful lest in practice that last clause may turn out to be simple routine. As I see it, the real question is, what sort of world do we want? It is not enough to say that we want a peaceful world. We also want a free world, a world free from want, free from fear, free to worship God according to the
San Francisco Conference

conscience of each individual. We want freedom of expression. We want a world where we are free to live out our own lives, a world of freedom to live with our own consciences.
In my short experience and perhaps my limited thinking it seems to me that there are two great world philosophies. One is the philosophy of authoritarianism or totalitarianism, the philosophy which paves the way for a world dictatorship. On the other hand we have that democratic concept of the way of free men. I am going to suggest that the one philosophy is anti-Christian, a philosophy which regards man as the servant of the state, a cog in the machine, a philosophy which believes in force and compulsion. On the other hand we have that Christian concept which regards as of some importance the dignity of the individual, that man is a free moral agent, that man has a soul. That philosophy believes in the principle of persuasion rather than compulsion.
I have some very strong personal convictions along these lines. Each of those philosophies has a world programme. One is a programme designed eventually to bring to fruition a world dictatorship, and to enthrone in the world all that is anti-Christian. It has a programme of propaganda, and we must be very careful along those lines, for there is a programme of anti-Christian propaganda filled with deceitfulness and lies, the workings of which are after the order of the one who, from the beginning, was a liar.


Norman Jaques: And a murderer.


Ernest George Hansell: And, as the hon. member for Wetaslciwin says, a murderer. If it is allowed to come to fruition it will issue in world mass murder on a scale such as this world has never before seen. That is what I regard as the danger of that particular philosophy.
The other philosophy, whieh I describe as Christian, also has a programme of, shall I say, propaganda, although it is a vulgar word to use in that connection. It believes in the propagation of truth; for the greatest Man of all mankind once said: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." That philosophy proclaims the good news of peace and of righteousness.
Although what I shall say might be unpopular in some places, I would dare say that all the great conferences, and particularly those designed to determine the future destiny of nations, cannot leave God out, and expect an era of righteousness and peace, nor will there be peace until the Prince of Peace returns, whose right it is to reign.

I say I have some very strong personal view's along those lines, because I believe- and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would be with me in this-that the quotation from Holy Writ is true where it states that "We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
And I say that as this delegation goes to a conference as important as the united nations conference in San Francisco it cannot go without recognizing that behind all the scenes of human activity a battle is going on that will mean either the supremacy of right and truth, or the downfall of righteousness ana truth and the enthronement of all that is evii. That is one thing I claim we cannot escape.
If the Canadian delegation in its deliberations at San Francisco expects to bring these two great philosophies together, so that each will be in a league with the other, I am afraid they are doomed to disappointment. One is at war with the other.
I believe the ideals, the objectives, the desires and the beliefs of those nations comprising the British commonwealth are that the nations of the world should live in a world of free men. British idealism, if I may put it in that way, is opposed to the authoritarian philosophy, the philosophy of totalitarianism and world dictatorship. Let the British nations that are represented at San Francisco sell out to what might become a world dictatorship, and I say the day will come when people will read Holy Writ with a new meaning.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will be too late.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, it will be too late, for the time will then be that "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh". Make no mistake about that. I believe the British commonwealth as an association of nations has been and can be a bulwark against totalitarianism. This has been and will be because among the British commonwealth of nations there is a free association of nations with a common tie.
In this connection might I read a clipping of a reprint from a book by Sir Norman Angell, entitled, "What Comes First". So as not to detain the house, without destroying the context I shall abridge the article somewhat. Sir Norman goes on to say this:
Upon what do hopes of democracy and freedom in the last resort depend? The Germans are brave, but the world has little hope of democracy or freedom from them. The French are brave, and they passionately desire freedom and democracy. The Russians have shown bravery unequalled perhaps, certainly not exceeded, in any of the armies now fighting. They are dying as no other soldiers have died, not unwillingly, not forced, not driven and with

San Francisco Conference
a faith in their cause certainly as great as the faith of the young nazi in his. But the Russian has not yet achieved democracy in the western sense. His government is a dictatorship.
It was not merely or mainly British courage (no greater than the courage of other peoples) which first of all prompted Britain to challenge the Hitlerite power at a time when Russia, America and so many others who have since joined the struggle, were neutral, or like Russia, politically associated with Hitler. If the British community throughout the world has done some service to the cause of freedom it is not the service merely, or chiefly, of courage. It is the service of a certain political attitude or temper. No Vichy governments were possible in Britain or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or South Africa. The last-named perhaps came nearest such a possibility but the genius of Smuts kept it at bay. The British morale for resistance was not, first of all, a matter of "guts" but a capacity for national unity-a unity which did not spring suddenly into life with the war.
Those statements I believe to be correct, and right at this point I wish to ask a question. The Prime Minister has already stated that if there are any questions to be asked in this debate he would appreciate our asking them throughout the course of our remarks and then when he comes to Teply he will do his best to give satisfactory answers. Personally I believe that we should have moved into committee of the whole house where the debate could have been carried on with experts from the Department of External Affairs present, with the Prime Minister, so that we could have had question and answer on this very important subject. But such is not the case and the house is at a disadvantage in consequence, because the Prime Minister will close the debate when he makes his reply and then there can be no more questions. But since he is willing to answer questions I have a number to ask him. These are not necessarily all my own because the members of this party in the house are associated with me in asking them-and we want the answers.
Speaking of the unity which exists between the nations of the British commonwealth, I will ask the Prime Minister this question: Would adoption of these proposals in any way weaken the ties or relationship between the countries which comprise the British empire, and if so, in what manner and to what extent? I have these questions written out in order here, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on, and may comment on them a little bit, but for the convenience of the Prime Minister, and so that they will not be buried in Hansard I shall hand them to him' to facilitate his reading of them and giving the answers.
I would like to know whether the proposals now outlined as a basis for discussion at San Francisco will give us the absolute right to control our own internal economy; or is our own internal economy to be tied to some external authority? If it is, I claim that that is one of the greatest dangers there can be not only to Canada but to the British commonwealth of nations.
I should like to ask in my second question whether, if the proposals are adopted, would the control of this nation's currency and credit remain within our own power? In other words, would we retain absolute control over our own currency and credit?
I ask a third question. Do any of the proposals or principles involve a return to the gold standard, and if so, will the Canadian delegation oppose such a step, or will the government as far as it is concerned oppose such a step? In this connection, and to put my questions in somewhat of logical order I would ask another question which is important with respect to our own internal economy, and I want the members of the house to get this. If the proposals are adpoted would Canada and any other individual nation be able to negotiate a trade agreement upon a basis satisfactory to the two countries concerned without any interference by the world organization? If they are not able to do that, there is a red flag of danger just ahead.
I ask a fourth question, and this is in respect of the Bretton Woods proposals. Do any of the proposals or principles involve the acceptance of the Bretton Woods proposals, and if so, will the delegation oppose such a step, or will the government as far as it is concerned oppose such a step?
I notice that there is a good! deal of concern expressed in England about these matters at the present time and that public meetings are being held, attended not only by important individuals but by very large crowds of public-minded citizens. I notice also that some experts are beginning to put out warnings to the British government with respect to these matters. The other day I picked up the Ottawa Evening Citizen, containing an article by A. C. Cummings, of the London News Bureau, which no doubt appeared in several other papers in Canada. The article says in part:
The British commonwealth representatives, headed by Field Marshal Smuts, will begin their preliminary discussions on April i and consider details of the proposed economic council, world court and other business on the conference agenda.
That was not the part I particularly wanted to read, but since I have read it, I wonder if Canada will have any representative at these preliminary discussions. I think it would be well if the Prime Minister would tell us that.
San Francisco Conference

The article goes on to give an account of some warnings which are heard in England to-day. After discussing the relations of the three great industrial powers, namely the United States, Russia and Great Britain, the writer points out that Britain may find henself in a very unfavourable position should either the United States or Russia gain tremendous advantage by further developments of their immense industrial power. He states:
Despite Foreign Secretary Eden's assurance to the contrary, fears that British delegates at San Francisco may be confronted with the alternative that either they accept the Bretton Woods monetary proposals or they will not obtain the world security plan outlined at Dumbarton Oaks are expressed by the noted economist, Doctor Paul Einzig. He thinks that under the Bretton Woods plan Britain would be required to abandon existing monetary arrangements with the dominions, that within five years-
Here is something for my Conservative friends to listen to.
[DOT]-the so-called sterling area would have ceased to exist and that the Ottawa system of imperial preference could not survive.


Norman Jaques: That is the big idea.


Ernest George Hansell: That is the big idea.
Such a weakening of the British commonwealth, he considers, would be suicidal in the event of another world war-especially when it is recalled that in 1940 the only nations to give Britain effective help in her deadliest hour were the dominions.
These are words worth taking note of.
It was in my mind to ask whether the present vote is to be regarded as one of confidence in the government's foreign policy. Perhaps there is no need to ask that question, because it is expected that an election will be held soon, and there is no virtue in putting the government out at the present time because they are going to die the natural death of all governments when their term of office expires. When they are dead I hope we shall bury them so deep that they will never rise again.
Speaking of elections, I do not want to sound a partisan note. So far this debate has been pretty well managed in that politics have not largely entered into it. The Prime Minister, when he opened the debate, said that it was not of a political nature, and that we must stay clear of trying to gain political advantage, and we were told that the delegation which is to go to San Francisco is to be inter or nonpolitical. But I should like to ask him, when the election is called, which it will be before the report of the committee can possibly be presented to this house, will he refrain from bringing the matter into political discussion during the election?


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: You said something that time.


Ernest George Hansell: I will ask him, also, is this vote to be regarded as a vote of confidence in the delegation? If it is, perhaps the Prime Minister should have announced before this debate commenced who are to constitute the delegation.
Another thing I think the Prime 'Minister should have done is to have called this parliament in time to submit this whole question to the appropriate parliamentary committee in order that the subject could be thoroughly investigated, witnesses called, and nothing left undone to provide parliament as a whole with a full and complete picture of all the intricacies involved. But he has not done that. I suppose I could at this moment move that the matter 'be referred to one of the standing committees; if I did so a vote would be taken, and I understand such a motion is not debatable. But there is now no time for such action; there would have been if the Prime Minister had not been watching the political straws a few months ago. There is not time now; he has gained a round in this matter at the expense of all parties in the house. But I have a question which I will ask him and which I will also put to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I do so because I do not know who will be in power after the election.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You have an idea, though.


Ernest George Hansell: Whoever is in power will have to deal with this matter, because it requires ratification by parliament. I ask of anyone who may be prime minister in the next parliament, will he assure this house that as far as he is concerned this whole matter will be brought before the appropriate committees of the house for full investigation before any commitments are made?
I am not satisfied with the last clause as it stands. The statement that the charter will be "submitted to parliament for approval" is a very general one. Will he say that this matter, if economic proposals are involved, will go to the banking and commerce committee; if armed force is involved, to some other committee; if a matter of trade, to yet another committee? In other words, will he undertake that the proposals will undergo microscopic examination by the proper committees whose duty it will be to report to parliament, and will he promise that these committees will not be loaded with his own supporters; and will other parties in this house promise the same thing? I contend that this is important and calls for an answer.

San Francisco Conference
I shall make one statement on behalf of this group and then I desire to present an amendment. My statement is as follows: Speaking on behalf of the Social Credit group, I wish to state that we are desirous of seeing a delegation from Canada attend the San Francisco conference and take part with the representatives of the other nations in a sincere, determined effort to work out an effective method of guaranteeing peace and security with freedom throughout the world. Therefore, because voting against the main resolution as it is worded would of necessity be voting against even accepting the invita^ tion to attend the San Francisco conference, we will vote for the main resolution. But we oppose the acceptance of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals in any form or modification which embodies by stipulation or implication the international monetary stabilization technique of Bretton Woods, which gives any board of officials power to interfere in the monetary, financial or economic affairs of any state.
And now I propose the following amendment:
That the resolution be amended by striking out clauses three and four respectively, renumbering clause five as clause four and substituting for clause three the following:
3. (a) That this house is of the opinion that an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security should be constructed on a pattern in which the full national sovereignty of each cooperating nation is insured, and in which free peoples are freely associated for the mutual benefit of all striving for the attainment of a common ideal of peace, freedom and security.
[DOT] (b) And this house therefore disapproves of the monetary stabilization technique emanating from the Bretton Woods conference designed to fetter all peoples to the gold standard and which would result in rendering the Canadian economy subservient to external control.


Thomas Vien: Has the hon. member
concluded his remarks?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I concluded with the presentation of the amendment.


Thomas Vien: The resolution, which I
need not read in its entirety proposes:
1.	That this house endorses the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference;
2.	That this house recognizes that the establishment of an effective international organization of the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada, and, indeed, to the future well-being of mankind; and that it is in the interests of Canada that Canada should become a member of such an organization;
3.	That this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments and considers that these proposals
constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization.
I do not think I need read the rest of the resolution. I will simply refer to clause 3 which, I think, is the essence of the resolution now presented to the house.
In the amendment as proposed by the hon. member, 3 (a) might be considered an enlargement of the preamble of the clause, taken in conjunction with clause 2. Paragraph (6) imports a new subject of discussion which is not within the four walls of the motion. It is a subject which is foreign to the resolution before the house. I shall therefore have to rule it out of order.
The law is well established and has been the subject of discussion many times in the house. I will read the decision given by Mr. Speaker Lemieux on March 17, 1927. The remarks which I make with regard to the amendment now before the house are, I think, apropos and in accord with that decision. I quote:
Amendment ruled out, because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.
The house resumed the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Woodsworth-that, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
And the debate continuing;
Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Gott, moved an amendment thereto:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"it be referred to the standing committee of this house on mines, forests and water-powers, to consider and investigate all leases, grants, or permits issued during the past year in respect to natural resources under the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada, known as 'water powers'; with power to send for all papers and documents, to summon and examine witnesses, regarding any such leases, grants and permits.
"And further, with power to the said committee to report whether such leases, grants or permits are in the public interest, and whether the interests of the federal authorities are amply protected.
"And also, to report whether, in the opinion of the committee, the said lease or permit in respect of the Seven Sisters falls in the Province of Manitoba should be revoked and cancelled, and if so, upon what terms and conditions.
"And to report all matter and findings to this house."
Mr. Speaker:	In my humble opinion the
amendment is out of order for the following reasons. Beauchesne, section 397, states:
"An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice."
The honourable gentleman will notice that the question before the house is an abstract one. It reads:
San Francisco Conjerence

"That in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal parliament, shall be effective until ratified by parliament."
By his amendment the honourable gentleman asks, inter alia, that the lease of a specific water power called the Seven Sisters falls, be investigated by the committee on mines, forests and water powers. What is the procedure in this matter?
What is the procedure in this matter? I read from Bourinot, Fourth Edition, at page 321:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment has been proposed, and this rule has been invariably insisted upon by Canadian Speakers.
Then farther down:
If such a practice were tolerated, all the benefits of giving due notice of a motion, and allowing the house a full opportunity of considering a question, would be practically lost. A member would then be in a position to surprise the house at any moment with a motion of importance-
This is undoubtedly a question-of importance. -and the necessity of giving notice would be superseded to all intents and purposes. It is not, therefore, surprising that the latest English decisions are in accord with those of the Canadian Speakers. Sir Erskine May, in later editions, however, lays it down as "an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed."
I have, on many occasions, looked over the vexed question of amendments and subamendments, and the ruling is uniform on the subject that no new question must be introduced on- an amendment. It must be relevant to the main question. In the present instance the resolution is an abstract one while the amendment refers to a specific subject different from the main one.
No new question must be introduced by an amendment to the- question before the house. A new question has been introduced in the amendment in paragraph (b) which reads as follows:
And this house therefore disapproves of the monetary stabilization technique emanating from the Bretton Woods conference designed to fetter all peoples to the gold standard and which "ould result in rendering the Canadian economy subservient to external control.
I am satisfied that paragraph (b) in the amendment now offered is new matter which can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice. It is not relevant to the resolution before the house and I therefore rule it out of order.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Would Your Honour permit any discussion on the ruling?


Thomas Vien: There is only one method of discussing a ruling from the chair, and that is by an appeal.


Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):: There is no desire on my part to prolong unnecessarily this debate; therefore, my remarks this evening will be very short. However, as one of the junior members of this group I should like to make a few observations in connection- with the motion under discussion. May I express my appreciation to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the clear-cut, straight-forward wording of the motion he presented for our consideration. This is such a departure from what seems to be bis usual practice that it is no wonder our friends of the Progressive Conservative party were caught flat-footed and unprepared to proceed with the debate when it was opened by the Prime Minister.


Gordon Graydon: May I rise to a question of privilege? I know the hon. member does not desire to misinterpret the situation. I thought when I rose on- a question of privilege early to-day it would be sufficient to make every member understand that a statement such as is now being made is not in accordance with the facts. I do not want to protest again, but I trust that such allegations will not be repeated.


Joseph William Burton: I am sorry that the leader of the opposition is so touchy on this matter.
I accept his correction.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He is only telling the truth.


Joseph William Burton: But nevertheless the fact remains that the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party fumbled the ball. It was picked up by the leader of this group and he carried it over for a touchdown.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He
made a foul.


Gordon Graydon: It was only a part of the alliance of the hon. member's party with the government; that is all.


Joseph William Burton: If the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party will just have a little patience I may say something later on that will please them. Prior to the opening of this session of parliament the Prime Minister was quite frank in stating that certain people would not be chosen as delegates to go to the conference at San Francisco. He- furthermore gave the impression that this would be a non-partisan delegation consisting of members from both sides of the house.

San Francisco Conference


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Of his own choosing.
Mr. BURTON. But he did not say that it would be a fifty-fifty proposition. In my opinion anything less would be only a poor imitation of President Roosevelt's arrangement for the delegation representing the United States. When we consider that President Roosevelt has had a recent mandate from the American people and then stop to think that this parliament will have passed its allotted span of life before the conference takes place, we will realize that our delegation will be handicapped and weakened if the majority of its members are supporters of a party of which there is a question of its being able to obtain a fresh mandate from the Canadian people.
My purpose in raising that point is my keen desire and hope that our delegation should be in a position to carry as much weight as possible at the conference and leave no question in the minds of delegates from other nations as to whether or not our delegates represent the full viewpoint of all our Canadian people.
I can speak quite frankly in my plea for an equalized representation because I have no desires or aspirations to be a member of the delegation; nevertheless there are plenty of experienced members on this side of the house to choose from. When the invitations were being sent to the various nations inviting all peace-loving nations to attend, many people wondered why only those nations that had declared war should receive the invitation. My answer to such questions has been, that there are times and places when the only way you can love peace is to be willing to take off your coat and fight for it.
What some people, yes, and even a few members of this house forget is that this is not a peace conference to settle the present war. Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynba) make an eloquent plea for the people of the Ukraine. Prior to that, on Thursday, March 22, the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) pleaded the case for poor, long-suffering Poland. Both of these hon. members are to be congratulated for the able way in which they have presented their respective cases. I would, if they are so kind as to allow me, join with them in then-plea for justice. But in view of a statement made by the Prime Minister during the course of his speech, I would say that we are pleading this case in the wrong court at the wrong time. Let me quote from the Prime Minister's speech of Tuesday, March 20, when on page 22 of Hansard he said:
In some quarters there appear to be misconceptions as to what it is intended the San Francisco conference should accomplish. It might be well, were I at the outset to remove one prevalent misconception. The purpose of the conference has been set forth clearly in the communication of March 5 on behalf of the inviting governments which I have just read. The conference at San Francisco is not the peace conference: It will have nothing to do with the preparation of the treaties of peace. It will not discuss the terms which the united nations will impose on Germany and on Japan at some future time. It will deal only with the constitutional framework of the future society of nations. The purpose is to provide for the maintenance of peace, once peace has been secured.
Therefore in my opinion any discussion as to terms, boundaries and so forth in connection with any country cannot be of any help at the present time, because these are matters that can be dealt with only after the cessation of hostilities. Our delegates to the peace conference will have to deal with these problems. But we hope that at San Francisco machinery will be set up to guard the peace of the world' for many years to come; and if, unfortunately, the peace conference should leave unsettled' any questions such as those referred to by hon. members, I submit they can be brought quite properly before the security council under section A of chapter VIII of these proposals. I believe every hon. member has a copy of this pamphlet, which is headed: "Proposals for the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security." On page 10, under section A of chapter VIII, the heading is: "Arrangements for the maintenance of international peace and security including prevention and suppression of aggression." I contend that cases such as have been brought to the attention of this house, if they exist after this organization has been set up, will be dealt with in such a way that the people of these different countries may have their views considered.
Some people become quite vexed when suggestions are made warning our delegates of certain pitfalls or dangers. They seem to take such warnings as personal affronts to the leaders of the three great powers. Let me tell those of such mentality that the youth of the united nations have been called upon to pay a tremendous price to free the world from such slavish following of a fuehrer. While we are prepared to give all due credit to the ability and leadership of Prime Minister Churchill, President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin, our democratic people will never allow any one of these, or a combination of all three of them, to become Hitler's counterpart. I believe that if the suggestions and warnings offered by the leader of our group, the hon. member for
San Francisco Conference

Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), are carefully considered by the delegates they will be able to make a greater contribution to the success of the conference.
I also believe that the point of view expressed by the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) with regard to Bretton Woods, is well taken. The hon. member made one statement, however, with which I cannot agree, when he said the combined military strength af the British empire, France and the United States had not been sufficient to enforce oil sanctions against Italy when that nation was starting on its path of aggression. In my opinion the main reason why oil sanctions were not imposed against Italy, and why our delegate who had proposed such action was so quickly reprimanded, was that there were oil interests which had greater influence at court than did the people who later on had to pay the price, through their sweat and blood and tears. Those self-same interests and other cartels are still flourishing in most countries. Will they be lurking around the corridors at San Francisco? I leave that to your imagination, Mr, Speaker, but I believe my guess would be as good as any; in fact I would not be very much surprised if their emissaries should try to run the show.
The events of the last twenty-five years make it all the more necessary that our delegation to the conference should be as representative and as strong as possible. There will be need of careful consideration before many important decisions are made. Let no one kid himself or mislead the public by saying there are no causes for fear. Nevertheless every effort should be made to set up a fair and workable arrangement to safeguard the peace of the world in the years to come. If we fail in that endeavour there is grave danger that the next world war may destroy our entire civilization. Therefore, I am sure the prayers this young, virile, Christian nation will go with the Prime Minister and the delegation he leads to San Francisco.
In this connection I should like to add a word to what was said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who preceded me. I was very much touched when he dealt with this point. His training over past years enabled him to express his thoughts much better than I can do, but I should like to say I am satisfied that unless the delegation from this country and all the delegations that sit around that conference table at San Francisco pay heed to the warning given by the hon. member for Macleod; unless they are prepared to take God into that council and try to bring about a fair

and just arrangement, they will be erecting the framework of the new structure on a foundation of shifting sands.
There may be some who will scoff at the idea of trying to establish an organization to maintain the peace of the world. They may point to the failures of all such attempts in the past. May I remind such people that it is told of the late Thomas Edison that when he was informed of the failure of his two-thousandth experiment in the search for a suitable filament for the electric light he replied, "Well, that leaves two thousand less to try in future." Did he throw up his hands and quit? Just imagine the loss to civilization if he had done so! Other people adopt a hopeless attitude and say there always have been wars and we will continue to have wars as long as man inhabits the earth. That is only partly correct. It is true that there will be constant combat between the forces of good and the forces of evil, but only until the Prince of Peace reigns supreme in the hearts of men. Have the people of the world ever tried that method? Two thousand years ago the Prince of Peace came to bring peace to the world. This reminds me of the words of the gospel, wherein it says:
He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.
After two thousand years the greater part of the world pays only lip-service to that great commandment He gave us, to love our neighbours as ourselves. We have not only failed but have refused to follow His example and teachings. He drove the money-changers from the temple, but most of the nations of the world still worship at the feet of the golden calf.
At this time of the year, when we are commemorating His suffering, death and resurrection. it is also proper that we remember the suffering and death of many of His brothers, our fellow citizens, who have paid the supreme sacrifice so that we may live.
Let us pass this motion, unanimously and ask our delegates to give the necessary leadership along these lines, so that this structure will not be built on a foundation of sand. And, having done that, in future years we may look back to this Easter time as having also been the dawn of peace.


Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, before setting out my remarks on the subject matter of the resolution now be-for the house, I should like to say a few words of welcome to the hon. members for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe),

San Francisco Conference
Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) and Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), who have come to sit with us. Indeed I am very happy that these hon. gentlemen have joined the independent group in the house. This will prove an important factor toward assuring the election of all independent members in Quebec on the next polling day.
I was amazed when I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Beauhamois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). The hon. member questioned my logic, and tried to show contradiction in what I said last year on February 8 in respect of conferences which were held and attended by three or four of the great powers, but to which the Canadian nation was not invited. One is amazed to see a man attempting to find contradictions between what has been said in the past, and what one is going or not going to say in the future. Surely that is an example of good logic! Nevertheless the hon. member is permitted to discuss what he believes to be my opinions in respect of certain definite matters-although I have never dis-' cussed his opinions, particularly when I do not know what he is going to say or do. And even if I did know, surely it is the duty of one hon. member to respect the opinions of others. However, the hon. member need not worry; I am not annoyed; I have been amused, and what he has said has permitted me to relax a little.
The hon. member has recalled what I said last year when I blamed the government for not having insisted upon representation at those great conferences-the one at which the Atlantic charter was drawn up, the conference at Casablanca, those at Quebec and Yalta, and so on. I purpose once more to-night blaming the government for the very same reason. It is one among many other very important reasons why I oppose the resolution now before the house.
The hon. member for Beauhamois-Laprairie read some of the clauses in the resolution, number 3 of which states:
(3) That this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, and considers that these proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization.
While later on in his speech the hon. member emphasized his opposition to the consequences of those proposals of the Dumbarton Oaks conference, yet he said at the beginning of his observations that all that the government was proposing was acceptable. This looks to me like a contradiction.
I should like to say a few words about what was said last Friday by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand), when he raised the question of separatism. At page 159 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
The class of people to whom these gentlemen are appealing have only one definite article in their programme-the separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada. That is a programme which would bring immediate civil war if Quebec tried to enforce it.
That is the talk we always hear, Mr. Speaker; but the truth surely has its rights, even in the mouth of a minister of the crown. I challenge any one to find in any of our speeches or in any of our acts anything that could lead one to believe that we could have supported such a policy. On the contrary we have always preached and are still preaching sound collaboration between the two ethnic elements of our country.
I pause to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that at one time in our province there was a move for separatism. Some years ago a Liberal member in the Quebec legislative assembly moved a resolution to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. That Liberal member was afterwards a minister in a Quebec Liberal cabinet. He also came to this house as a Liberal member, and finally was appointed by the present government to one of the most important positions in our province, namely that of a seat on the bench of the court of appeal. I refer to the Hon. Mr. Francoeur. If this man, the only one in Quebec to promote a policy of separatism, could be so generously treated, then surely it goes without saying that we all must know those who are the sponsors of such a policy.
In order to be in a position to understand the matter under discussion we should first try to ascertain what is to be the true character of the San Francisco conference. When we understand its character, I should be very much surprised to find there are any others, like the hon. member for Beauhamois-Laprairie, who do not understand and respect our opinions.
Too many people are inclined to speak about the San Francisco conference as if it were to be a peace conference. That is giving a false impression. The conference has for its object the setting up of an organization having for its purpose the maintenance of peace. We should not confuse the maintenance of peace with the establishment of peace itself. The two things are altogether different.
After witnessing this horrible world massacre, Mr. Speaker, we all eagerly desire a true peace and strongly call for its permanent maintenance throughout the world. But before deciding to share in the working out of a scheme of the kind proposed at the Dumbarton Oaks
San Francisco Conference

conference, before leaving for San Francisco, we ought to know first what bind of peace the great powers controlling the conference intend to impose upon the world. What will be the spirit at the basis of the establishment of the peace which we are going to engage ourselves to maintain? And for whose benefit will the depositions of such a peace be?
Second, what will be the effect of this conference upon our country? How can we figure . out that our participation in this conference will be worth anything to ourselves as well as . to all the other nations when we know that our government, after having drawn our country into this war, has not found the means of having had a single word to say in any of the conferences which have taken place during the last five years?
Third, what is the exact international situation of our country when even here in this chamber we see the government declaring that they are going to try to obtain from other nations recognition of us as a kind of middle state between the great powers and the small powers, and on the other side we see the official opposition claiming that there should be another great power composed of the nations of the British commonwealth of which our country would be only a part?
Fourth, what are the prospective guarantees for a fair and durable peace so solemnly promised by our immediate leaders and which is expected by the whole of humanity when we' know what is going on in Europe at the present time?
Is it the proper time to set up that organization for the maintenance of peace before peace itself is made? What are the reasons for such a hurry?
It is only the answers to these questions that can enable one to form an opinion on the present resolution. The conclusion one would draw would be positive or negative according as he bases his decision on the policy of imperialism and international finance, on/or a policy of Canadianism against world-wide cartels and all sorts of international financial schemes.
As Canada was not represented in the most important conferences of the Atlantic at Casablanca, Teheran, Quebec and Yalta, we are not aware of the character of the decisions taken at these conferences. What were the secret agreements reached? Would it not be only elementary to know that before deciding on ' the course of action that we should take in regard to the San Francisco conference?
What must seem the most extraordinary to intelligent people is the fact that we are endeavouring to organize the maintenance of a peace of which we do not know the first word.
	,
Then the question may arise, what kind of peace are we to have? What role will Canada play in the establishment of the peace itself? Will we, as usual, endorse all the decisions already taken by the great powers? Will that-peace be based on democratic principles and Christian justice? Will the only guardians of social doctrine in the world'-I mean the representatives of the different Christian churches -be invited, as they were for the winning of the war, to bring forth at these conferences the sound directives upon which peace must be based if it is to be one of social justice and last forever? Will that peace be the Versailles kind of peace? That is to say, will it be the work of the international financiers and their representatives? Will that peace be only the expression of will of the dictatorial power and materialist thinkers, Russia ?
Would it not be the most elementary kind of wariness, Mr. Speaker, that we should' know these conditions before accepting the invitation to go to San Francisco? The main objective of that conference is to set up an international body empowered with the means to maintain . peace in the world. Its authority must be backed up by armies and guns. That is to say, if it offers a possibility for permanent peace, it alike represents a permanent danger of war. That possibility is interdependent on the nature of the .peace treaty that will be made at the conclusion of hostilities. The supreme control of that organization will ibe left in the hands of the four great powers only. That is full of significance.
The hon. leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) has made the clearest analysis of that significance that has been submitted to you, Mr. Speaker. Here is what he said on the subject and I thank the hon. member for having permitted me to quote his words. He said:
Now the governemnt is asking this house to approve a policy which involves the establishment of a world organization under an executive body which would have effective control of the armed forces of all nations and could mobilize economic sanctions against any nation for the purpose of imposing its dictates.
That is what the Dumbarton Oaks proposals involve which are to form the basis of the San Francisco conference. However, those proposals cannot be considered without reference to the Bretton Woods proposals, which involve a centralization of economic power on a world scale by setting up a world authority with control of the monetary policy of all nations.
It will be argued that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals specifically provide that each nation is to have its sovereignty. But what is the use of talking nonsense like that when you at once proceed to set up an organization where it is impossible for any nation to have its sovereignty? ,
It will be argued that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals envisage the control by each individual

San Francisco Conference
state of its military forces until it surrenders it. But there will be such mechanisms set up in this whole arrangement, including Dumbarton Oaks, UNRRA, the monetary fund, the international bank and all the rest, that such pressure will be brought to bear on any nation which hesitates to surrender the control of its forces that it will be obliged to surrender those forces in order to subsist.
Thus we find that the policy that the go-vern-ment is asking this house to approve involves the surrender of Canada to an international authority of all effective sovereignty and the concentration of power in an alien-dominated international group over, first, our economic policy, second, through this, our political policy, and third, of the armed forces. In short the power of the proposed international authority will be absolute. Every vestige of effective democracy will be destroyed and Canada will become a vassal state under an overriding international dictatorship. The British commonwealth will be swallowed up in a federated agglomeration of servile states. The relationship of this parliament to the world authority would be that of a Canadian village council to-day to this parliament. Human freedom would be a mockery, and we would have a world totalitarian dictatorship fastened upon us until conditions became so intolerable that a universal revolt would destroy it. And, Mr. Speaker, the design of the planners of this whole set-up is that when this universal revolt occurs there will be fastened upon the people in their helplesness and uncertainty and chaotic condition another dictatorship which will be one of militarv power.
The hon. member goes on to express his amazement at the Prime Minister being "so anxious to surrender every vestige of effective national sovereignty to some, as yet unspecified, group" whose interests are not ours.
This is the meaning, Mr. Speaker, of the proposals of Dumbarton Oaks which the government is asking us by the present resolution to endorse.
It is a tremendous responsibility which rests upon hon. members to authorize at this time a government to go to San Francisco with no mandate and engage Canada in such a perilous adventure, knowing, as we all know, that this government not only has no mandate but has no longer the confidence of the people, as is well proven by the results of all recent by-elections. Further, the government has not ventured to proceed with ten by-elections which, according to the law, should have been held.
In spite of an adverse mandate, the Liberal government has plunged Canada into participation and has made our contribution more tremendous than anyone by the stretch of the imagination could have thought of.
Now the war is nearing its end, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), not being satisfied with his responsibility for the actual war, goes ahead now, before being thrown out of political life by the people of this country,
in a desperate effort to engage Canada not only in the future wars which the empire may encounter, but in any war that may occur anywhere. His record as a participationist will be a nice thing for the Liberal party. The debate on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals may bring about all kinds of consequences. One of these is tied up with the maintenance of an international military force, which may very well mean for Canada the maintenance of compulsory military service. We should fear that probability. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that Canada's delegation will do its utmost to well serve Canada's interest. But what is the situation of us, members in this house, who are asked to take the tremendous responsibility of adopting a world policy of which we do not know anything, since it is based on decisions and secret agreements which are hidden from us? Our situation cannot but be false to the utmost. The point is that -we are required to rely entirely upon the ability of the government or of the Prime Minister.
I deeply regret that I, for one, cannot feel all the confidence in the Prime Minister which I should like to have. Past experiences have taught us to be careful. I will give a few examples of the Prime Minister changing his mind.
In 1937. after a political campaign waged by the Liberal party in the constituency of Lotbiniere against participation in any war, the Prime Minister wired to the winner as follows:
The electors of Lotbiniere have voted for a Canadian who places the national interest above all.
That telegram was dated December 28. 1937.
On August 11, 1944, the same Prime Minister made this declaration in the House of Commons, as reported in Hansard, at page 5275:
. . . I do tell this House of Commons to-day that my visit to Germany had as its objective to make it perfectly clear that, if there was a war of aggression, nothing in the world would keep the Canadian people from being at the side of Britain. That was known to the German government at that time, and my action in the matter was fully known to the British government; but I did not talk about it at the time, for it is just as well that some of these matters should not be spoken of until later years.
That contradiction should be enough to support my contention that the policy of the Prime Minister is one of furtiveness and concealment.
Speaking over the Canadian radio network on February 3, 1940, the Prime Minister warned the people of Canada against the National government proposed by Mr. Manion, saying:
Just recall conscription of the union government.
San Francisco Conference

On January 26, 1942, the Prime Minister made the following statement in support of the anti-war pledges of the Liberal party in Quebec, as reported in Hansard, at page 46:
Every hon. member of this house knows that, except for the assurance that, in the event of a European war, there would be no conscription for service overseas, this parliament would never have decided, in the immediate and unanimous manner in which it did, to stand at the side of Britain in the resistance of aggression and the defence of freedom.
Hon. members are also aware that if, at the time when Canada's participation in the war was challenged in an election in the province of Quebec by a government professing a different political faith, a like assurance with respect to service overseas had not been given in the name of the present government by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and other Liberal leaders and members of the House of Commons from the province of Quebec, the verdict of the people of that province might have been wholly different.
At that time, the people of the province of Quebec turned out of office the government that had sought to thwart Canada's war effort, and placed in office under the leadership of Hon. Mr. Godbout, a government which was prepared to cooperate with the federal administration in furthering the national effort. I doubt if any service at the time meant more to the allied cause than that rendered by the people of the province of Quebec in thus demonstrating the unity of Canada in its war effort.
Yes, it was unanimous, but it was obtained under false promises. I could give many other examples of the same kind. But that should be sufficient to prove that the people of Canada at that time were deliberately misled, and there is evidence to-day that they have also been misled by some other slogans and promises during the present war. Have we not been told that we were fighting for democracy, for liberty and for Christianity? Now we are watching the comer at the right awaiting the emergence of the victory' of democracy and Christianity. We have been informed that victory is about to be realized. At the same time we are looking at the left corner, the opposite corner, and there we see something of a different complexion. In other words, we may witness the victory of totalitarianism and materialism over democratic and Christian principles, and that may be the achievement for the maintenance of which we are asked to work.
Speaking on Friday last, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde)-I am glad to see that he is in his place-


Mr. LALONDE:: I am here.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I know you are there, in body I am sure, if not in spirit. The hon. gentleman accused the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay
fMr. Roy.]
(Mr. Dorion) of not being logical in urging the presence of the Pope's representatives at this conference and in opposing, on the other hand, Canada's participation at San Francisco. He went on to quote Pius XII as favouring the setting up of an organization of the type of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals inserted in the present resolution. But the hon. member did nob state the fundamental conditions on which such an organism could work in accordance with the Pope's suggestion. That is very important.
Should those conditions be observed and some of the guardians of Christian doctrine be invited, our attitude would be different, because then we would be offered a certain amount of security with regard to the results.


Maurice Lalonde: Would you be in favour
of the conference then?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: I have just said yes. If the hon. member is not aware of what has been done along that line he is not eligible for participation in this discussion. However, I will try to make clear to him that we are in favour of such a conference being held, but what we are opposed to is the wrong way in which our government and the great powers are going about it. We contend that it is untimely for two reasons. First, peace has not yet been made; and, second, the present government has no mandate to engage Canada's future.


Mr. DUPUIS:: You want to send Mr. Bracken instead?


Joseph Sasseville Roy: No, Mr. Dupuis shall be sent.


Vincent Dupuis: I will rely on my chief.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: You are getting tired, eh?


An hon. MEMBER:: Very much.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The people of Quebec are getting tired too, and you will find that out on the next polling day.


Vincent Dupuis: Your friends the Tories are enjoying it.


Joseph Sasseville Roy: The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) is nearer the Tories than I am because he has been supporting the Liberal party, which is on the road to imperialism and Toryism, and since 1940 it has been in accord with the Tories. So that a Liberal Tory or a Conservative Tory is nothing but a Tory.


Vincent Dupuis: You voted with the Tories; I voted against them.

2S3
San Francisco Conference


Joseph Sasseville Roy: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if
Canada is to receive consideration from international leaders only when needed for hard labour, we cannot agree to their expectations. These are a few of the reasons why I oppose the resolution.


Mr. ARMAND CHOQUETTE (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the remarks I intend to make this evening, I wish to take up a statement in the speech delivered by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy). I want to state immediately that I do so in the best spirit, simply to do justice to the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). The hon. member for Gaspe said that the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie blamed him for having, last year, demanded that Canada participate to the allied conferences. On the contrary, the hon. member voted last year for the proposal made by the hon. member for Gaspe. What he took the hon. member to task for, was the inconsistency of the attitude he takes this year against our being a party to the San Francisco conference with that he took last year when he urged upon the government that we be represented at the allied conferences. The government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the governments of the United Kingdom, of Russia and other countries, has invited the government of Canada to send representatives to the conference of the united nations to be held an April 25, 1945, at San Francisco to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.
I am not opposed to the setting up of a powerful organization that would strive to maintain peace and to adopt joint and efficient measures to prevent and eliminate all threats to peace, to encourage good relations between all nations and to establish international cooperation.
I do not think any one would object to such an organization that, would be truly democratic.
Does not the Pope, in the speech he delivered over the Vatican station on Christmas eve:
Consider that the unity of mankind and the community of peoples is a moral necessity and the crowning-piece of social progress.
And the Pope added:
The recognition of that principle is the key to both the future and the peace. No world reform, no peace guarantee can break away from that principle without losing its strength and without being inconsistent.
The inalienable rights of the individual require as their safeguard the authority of the state. The same holds true for the nations. Their individual sovereignty will always run
the risk of being violated by a stronger neighbour if it is not supported by the supreme authority of a truly democratic league of nations.
By these words, the Pope recognizes the necessity of an international organization for the maintenance of world peace.
And further down in his same message, Pious XII does not hesitate to confer the widest powers to a central authority which he would like to see.
invested, by general consent, with the supreme power to kill at its source any menace of individual or collective aggression.
In case of aggression, judicial intervention by the other nations will follow and the organization for the maintenance of peace will punish the aggressor by means of economic, or other, sanctions. However, whatever powers this authority may possess, it must never sanction any injustice nor detract from any right to the detriment of any nation, be it amongst the victorious, the neutral or the defeated countries.
Mr. Speaker, it is evident to-day that the people are divided between an ardent longing for peace and a genuine terror at the thought that this horrible war may be but the prelude of something still more dreadful.
Surely the world of to-morrow will not resemble that which we have known. There has been too much disruption, too much suffering.
The proposals set forth by the four great powers and which are to serve as the basis for the discussion of the functioning of this organization, are not all acceptable; some are even fundamentally opposed to the principles of democracy; I refer more particularly to the membership of the security council and to the right of veto granted certain powers. It shall be the duty of our representatives to oppose these suggested proposals.
A careful study of the decisions reached at Yalta by the leaders of the three great powers, viz., the United States, Russia and England, shows that these decisions are based much more on a brutal policy of force than on a policy of sound justice and right. The organization to be set up must see to it that such abuses are eliminated.
What has become of the Atlantic charter to which we had pinned so many hopes? We are now told that it was not a legal document involving real obligations. Was that all a joke? Or are we regarded as fools at the present time?
The decisions taken at Yalta will have to be reviewed by our delegates in view of the injustices which they involve and because they
San Francisco Conference

are not binding. President Roosevelt himself has given the American delegates who will represent their country at the San Prancisco conference the assurance that they were in no way bound by the decisions taken at Yalta, although the American government and the President himself were present at that meeting. Who would now suggest that such decisions could be binding on our Canadian representatives?
The bishops of Scotland have used harsh words in condemning the Yalta compromise, saying "that a Christian nation had 'been sacrificed to an atheist and totalitarian state."
The Polish government in London and their followers have no alternative; they must, whether they like it or not, yield to that decision even though they may feel that such an agreement places them in the hands of Russia.
Let us remember the fate of heroic Poland, set forth as the first motive of our participation in the war.
After having so gallantly withstood nazi opposition, Poland was entitled to the admiration and protection of all civilized nations; and particularly as regards the three great powers, she had secured the right to a restoration of the boundaries she had before 1989.
Since the opening of this debate, Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have contended that if we participate in the San Francisco conference we will be required to participate in any future war. I do not see how, by taking part in a conference the object of which is to discuss the setting up of an international organization for the maintenance of world peace and security, we would commit ourselves to a greater extent than if we had remained at home.^ On the contrary, the aim of the San Francisco conference is primarily to discuss means to prevent future conflicts.
Further, it must be remembered that the decisions taken at San Francisco, which will be accepted by our representatives, must be ratified by parliament before becoming binding upon Canada. For my part, if I feel that those decisions are opposed to the interests of Canada, which I want free and independent, I shall vote against them.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected to oppose the war policy of the present government. I was and I still am opposed to the participation of our country in that disastrous conflict. I already went on record as against conscription and billion-dollar gifts to foreign countries, and I also voted against all those measures.
It is suggested today that we should participate in the establishment of an international organization for the maintenance of peace and
fMr. Choquette.]
security. I agree with that principle and I believe that our government should send delegates to that conference.
I have no objection to Canada's participation in the conference as a free and independent nation, due regard being given to our interests. However, I wish to say, at this stage of the debate, that to my mind it is more important that our country should be represented at the San Francisco conference than that she should attend conferences of the British commonwealth, which unfortunately, smack of imperialism.
I consider that we should always have a free hand.
I wish to recall to Canada's delegates at the San Francisco conference, so that they may be guided by them, the following words of the late Governor General, Lord Tweedsmuir:
Canada is a sovereign nation and cannot take her attitude to the world docilely from Britain or from the United States or from anybody else. A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British commonwealth of nations but to Canada and to Canada's king and those -who deny this are doing, to my mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, the words I have just quoted are now more important than ever, and we cannot repeat them too often.
In the past, we have resented, and rightly so, the fact that we have not been invited to conferences held by the great powers, and at which decisions of deep concern to our country were taken. This time, we are invited to participate in the discussions, to state our views, to cooperate in the working out of the charter of an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. I do not see why we should withhold our cooperation.
I have not approved the war measures of the government, but I approve their peace measures, and this is one of them.


Thomas Vien: If the Prime Minister
;peaks now he will close the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to proceed
immediately with my reply to hon. gentlemen, but since it is nearly eleven o'clock possibly I may have the privilege of calling it eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Privilege-Mr. Pouliot
Wednesday, March 21, 1945