1945-03-22

RECOMMENDATIONS OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO CLASSIFICATIONS, ETC.

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to lay before the house reports of the civil service commission classifying certain positions on the staff of the House of Commons and approving the appointment of a secretary of the executive in the library of parliament. These reports have to be taken into consideration by the house under section 65 of the Civil Service Act as amended by chapter 40 of the annual statutes of 1932. The commission's recommendations will come into effect as soon as approved by the house; and with respect to the executive secretary of the library, action has to be taken by both houses.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the report to which you have just referred has to do with the matter which I brought up last session with regard to the protective staff of the House of Commons?


Thomas Vien: Yes, I received the report from the civil service commission during the recess. According to the provisions of the House of Commons Act it must be placed before the house. It has to do with the matter to which the hon. member has just referred.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask Your Honour
what is the next step with respect to getting the adjustments through?


Thomas Vien: It is now in the hands of the Clerk of the House. The house will deal with it in due course.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Vien: There are two bills on the order paper in the name of Mr. Fair. I will have to refer the hon. member to the resolution that was passed by the house on March 19 as follows:
That on Tuesday, the 20th March, 1945, to the end of the present session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence at every sitting over all other business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
That was approved by the house. It does not cover introduction of bills; therefore I cannot place these bills before the house now.

Questions as Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by
an asterisk.)

Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	Does the government supply "walking out uniforms" to the armed forces?
2.	If so, what has the total cost of these
uniforms been to date?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	The "walking out uniform" was withdrawn from army scale of issue in January, 1945.
2.	Approximately $6,340,000.


ENEMY ALIENS-SEIZURE OF PATENTS AND FORMULAS
Mr. ROSS (Hamilton East):: 1.	Have patents and formulas owned by enemy aliens been seized by the government?
2.	If so, are same available to Canadian industries?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Under the regulations respecting trading with the enemy, the property in Canada of enemies is vested in the custodian and has been so vested since the 2nd September, 1939.
2.	Under the patents, designs, copyright and trade marks (emergency) order, 1939, provision is made for application to the commissioner of patents for licensing the use of any patent, design, copyright or trade mark which had previously been held by an enemy.


REFUGEES ADMITTED TO CANADA-RACLAL ORIGIN
Mr. DORION:: What is the number and the racial origin of the refugees who were admitted into Canada from the 1st of March, 1944, to the 1st of
March, 1945?


Mr. CRERAR:: Racial origin	Number
Austrian	 4
Beligan	 1
Czecho-Slovakian	 1
German	 11
Hebrew	 410
Jugo-Slavian	 2
Luxemburg	 1
Polish	   3
Portuguese	 1
Roumanian	 2
Russian	 2
Serbian	 1
Spanish	 8
Total	 447
32283-8i



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Was Colonel Allan Angus Magee, K.C., employed by the dominion government since the beginning of this war?
2.	If so, in what department, under what cabinet minister, in what particular capacity and for how long?
3.	How much was paid to him each year for salary, and for living and travelling expenses?
4.	Was he and is he still the president of Barclay's Bank (Canada), Ltd., and of Barclay Trust Co. of Canada?
5.	Was there any other president of a Canadian chartered bank who was "a dollar a year man" ?	'
6.	If so, who?
7.	Was Mr. Henry Borden, K.C., employed by the dominion government since the beginning of this war?
8.	If so, in what department, in what particular capacity and for how long each time?
9.	What were the duties and responsibilities of each one of the positions referred to in No. 8?
10.	Was he a director of Barclay's Bank (Canada) Ltd., and, if so, since when?


CHARLES J. BURCHELL, K.C., AND OTHERS- GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1. Was Mr. Charles J. Burchell, K.C., a partner of the law firms of Maclean, Burchell and Ralston from 1912 to 1922 and of that of Burchell and Ralston from 1922 to 1926?
2.	Was he appointed Canadian High Commissioner to Australia, Newfoundland and South Africa, and, if so, when?
3.	What was the date of his birth?
4. Was Mr. James Gordon Fogo, K.C., a partner of the law firms of Ralston & Hanway. Amherst, N.S., in 1924, and of that of Burchell & Ralston, Halifax, in 1925 and 1926?
5.	Is he still now a partner of the law firm of Burchell & Co.?
6.	Was he appointed associate coordinator of controls in the Department of Munitions and Supply, and, if so, when?
7.	Was Mr. Joseph Gerald Godsoe associated in the practice of law with the firm of Burchell & Co., in Halifax, from 1928 to 1930?
8.	Was he appointed coordinator of controls and chairman of the wartime industries control board in the Department of Munitions and Supply?
9.	If so, when and whom did he succeed?
10.	Was Mr. John Doherty Kearney, K.C., a partner of the law firm of Ralston. Kearney & Duquet, of Montreal, and if so, until when?
11.	Was he appointed Canadian High Commissioner in Eire, and, if so, when?

Questions as Orders for Returns
12.	Was Mr. Stuart Bowman Ralston in the law firm of Ralston, Kearney and Duquet, Montreal, and later on in the law firm of Kearney, Duquet & Mackay, Montreal?
13.	What is his age and when was he admitted to the practice of law?
14.	Was he appointed to do some work at the Patent and Copyright Office?
15.	If so, from what date to what date, what work did he do and how much was paid to him or to his law firm for his work and for living and travelling expenses?
16.	Did he make a report?
17.	If so, to whom and when?
18.	Did he make any recommendations?
19.	If so. what were they, and were they adopted and enforced by the government?



LEGAL SERVICES-BURCHELL, SMITH, PARKER AND FOGO

Mr. POULIOT:: Since the beginning of the war, how much was paid each year by the dominion government and any dominion board, commission and corporation and any other dominion agency to

1. the law firm of Burehell, Smith, Parker & Fogo, barristers and solicitors, of the city of Halifax?
2. The following partneis of the above mentioned firm: (a) C. J. Burehell, K.C.; (b) F. D. Smith, K.C.;	(c) E. T. Parker. K.C.;	(d)
J. Gordon Fogo, K.C.; (e) W. H. Jost; (f) C. W. Burehell; (g) A. J. Meagher?
LEGAL SERVICES-KEARNEY & DUQUET, MONTREAL,



AND KEARNEY, DUQUET AND MACKAY, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
2.	What are the terms of the lease by which part of the territory, granted to the people of the Six Nations Indians under the Haldimand treaty, was rented by Captain Joseph Brant, and what were the rentals?
3.	What is the total amount of money-the property of the people of the Six Nations Indians

now in possession of the Department of Indian Affairs, and how is it used and administered?

Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	How much did the government remit from the excise tax per 100 pounds of refined sugar to the beet sugar growers in September, 1943?
2.	Was any remission made by the government to the cane sugar industry at the same time, namely September, 1943, or at any other time since?
3.	To -what did the duty plus 10 per cent war tax on imported raw cane sugar per 100-pound bag of refined sugar amount in 1940, 1941 and 1942?
4.	Did P.C. 6582 dated July 27, 1942, abolish the import duty on raw cane sugar and the 10 per cent war tax?
5.	How much money has been paid into the sugar stabilization fund established by the W.P.T.B., June 6, 1940?
(a)	How much was paid by the sugar beet industry by years since its establishment in 1940?
(b)	How much was paid by the cane sugar industry by years since its establishment in 1940?



LABOUR CONDITIONS

Jean-François Pouliot: Since the beginning of the war, how much was paid each year by the dominion government and any dominion board, commission and corporation and any other dominion agency to- 1. the law firm of Kearney and Duquet, barristers and solicitors, of the city of Montreal, and Kearney, Duquet and MacKay, barristers and solicitors, of the city of Montreal?
2. The following partners of the above mentioned firms:	(a) J. D. Kearney, K.C.;
(b) J. E. L. Duquet; (c) R. de W. MacKay; (d) W. Mitchell; (e) S. B. Ralston; (f) D. L. Gales?



GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OP REAL ESTATE IN OTTAWA

Jean-François Pouliot: What are the persons, companies and estates from whom the government has bought real estate in the city of Ottawa since the beginning of the war, and how much was paid to each one of them?



INDIANS-HALDIMAND TREATY

Mrs. NIELSEN:: 1. What is the text of the Haldimand treaty under^ the terms of which the people of the Six Nations Indians were settled on territory on each side of the Grand river in Ontario?



WARTIME LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD-WRIGHT-HARGREAVES APPEAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: May I direct the following questions to the Minister of Labour? Has the minister received any protest from organized labour regarding the decisions of the national labour relations board on the Wright-Hargreaves appeal? Has organized labour requested the government to reverse the decision of that board and change the personnel of the board? Is the minister at liberty to indicate to the house what action the government proposes to take?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: At the moment I cannot say whether any protests have been received, but I can say to my hon. friend, to begin with, that no decision of the wartime labour relations board is going to be changed by this government. Neither is the complexion of the wartime labour relations board going to be changed. Of course hundreds of these decisions are made, but if I remember correctly the decision in this instance was unanimous on

Tractors and Trucks
the part of this board, which is composed of equal representatives of labour and the employers. Before my hon. friend asked his question he must have known that governments do not interfere with boards of that description; that is elementary and fundamental. That is all I have to say.



TRACTORS AND TRUCKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Munitions and Supply whether more tractors will be made available to farmers this spring than was the case in 1944. Apparently there has been some relaxation in the United States, and I was wondering if the minister would be in a position to advise what will be the situation in this country during the coming spring.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Munitions and Supply):: As my hon. friend knows, tractors are not manufactured in Canada; our supply comes from' the United States. We are on a quota basis there and if, as is suggested, the restriction on the manufacture of tractors has been relaxed in that country our quota will be raised accordingly, since a certain proportion of all tractors manufactured there come to Canada. Without going into the question in more detail I cannot say the extent of the relaxation, but I do know that if there has been any relaxation we will receive our proportionate share.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: In this connection would the minister be good enough to make a statement with respect to the release of trucks in Canada? It is a burning question in my part of the country. Trucks in use at present are wearing out. There is provision for replacement, but the population is constantly changing, and the demand is changing, and I understand it is impossible for any newcomer to get a truck. As a result the truck transportation system is bogging down. I should like the minister to make a statement on that matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The position in regard to trucks is very similar to the position in regard to tractors. We do make trucks in this country, but the release of trucks in Canada and the United States is proportionate. We think there is a fair distribution of such trucks as can be made available as between the two countries. As my hon. friend knows, heavy trucks are made in the United States and light trucks in Canada. There is some interchange between the two countries, but as in the case of tractors the distribution is proportionate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The point I am making is that a firm rule hais been laid down that a truck may not be sold to any person who never had a truck before, such as a man engaging in a new business to take the place of someone else who has dropped out. That man cannot get a truck. I realize that the situation is difficult, but it has been the cause of considerable hardship.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that it would have been an even greater hardship if we had refused trucks to established trucking businesses and had given them to others setting up competing businesses. I think the plan of giving priority to the replacement of existing trucks is the only sound plan.



SHIPBUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T L. CHURCH (Broadview): Has the government decided to close the shipbuilding plant on the Toronto waterfront? Could it not be used after the war for civilian shipbuilding purposes? At the present time we have no drydock at Toronto for large ships and they must be sent to Kingston or to Port Dalhousie or Montreal. This is an urgent matter.
Clarence Decatur Howe: The shipyard at Toronto was
established for one specific purpose; that was to build corvettes and minesweepers. There was no particular construction; the facilities at that point were adopted for that use. Those facilities are still being used for that purpose, and there is a fairly busy season ahead for the yard. After that the matter will have to receive further consideration.



PROGRESS OF OPERATIONS AT FORT MCMURRAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Resources if it is his intention to issue a progress report in connection with the production of oil at Fort McMurray.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That has not been considered, but I shall be glad to take my hon. friend's suggestion under consideration.
no

Housing



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Since members of parliament are
receiving letters daily asking for information on the housing policy of the government, I would ask the minister concerned to be good enough on the orders of the day to-morrow to make a statement of policy and inform hon. members of what is going on, and also to tell the house when the publications regarding housing will be ready for distribution. We have been expecting some of them for months; we are told every day they are coming off the press, but so far we have not received them. I hope it may be possible to have this statement to-morrow.
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I can make a statement to-morrow as to when the regulations are likely to be available to the public. They have been in course of preparation for some time, and I understand they will be available soon. The other part of the hon. gentleman's question, as to what is going on, is a little indefinite, but I will make a brief statement to-morrow.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.



WAR SERVICE GRATUITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity of giving him notice, for which I apologize. Has there been any reconsideration of the government's decision to exclude Canadian firefighters who have seen service overseas from the benefits of the service men's gratuities?


Hon. IAN  A MACKENZIE@Minister of Veterans Affairs: I can assure my hon. friend that this matter is now before the government for consideration.



PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN TORONTO &quot;STAR&quot; OF MARCH 21

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to a special article in the

Toronto Star of last evening referring to the opposition in connection with the debate now in progress in the house, in which it says that no member of the opposition was ready to take part. It goes on to refer to one of us over here as Richard the Unready, whereas the King of England they had in mind was Ethelred the Unready. I was ready to go on Tuesday night, but I understood we were not expected to take part in the debate that day. I may add that in debates I have adopted here the slogan of the Queen's Own Rifles of Toronto "Ready, aye ready."



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that to-morrow, if it appears that the present session will go beyond Easter, he might make a statement to the house, for the convenience of hon. members who are here, as to what the adjournment will be over the Easter week-end.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from March 21, 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.
Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: I have been impressed, Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate with the unanimity of opinion expressed by hon. members with regard to the resolution before the house. The Prime Minister stated that he thought the resolution would be non-eontentious, with which view the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) seemed to agree. Since then there has been a sweet reasonableness in the speeches of hon. members that has been delightful and yet somewhat surprising, when one considers that in the debate on this resolution this house is approaching the most momentous question that has confronted this assembly since the declaration of war. And yet that is reasonable enough as well, because who among us at the close of this terrible war would refuse to join at least in the hope for international peace and security? The blood of the fallen millions ini two wars on the battlefields of both Europe and Asia call to us who still live to take such

San Francisco Conference
action as is within our power to see that there be not reenacted the tragedies of 1914 and 1939.
Were Canada to defeat this resolution, were she to refuse to send a delegation to San Francisco, she would forfeit the high position she has now secured in the councils of the world. That would be the result should she stand aside at this critical time and refuse to join in the struggle which must confront the delegation to San Francisco.
I submit that this resolution should carry unanimously, and I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon his masterly presentation of the subject in opening the debate. I rejoice that the Canadian delegation to San Francisco will be led by a statesman of the knowledge and wisdom of the present Prime Minister of Canada.
I am also pleased that probably included in the delegation will be the amiable gentleman who leads the official opposition-although I must confess that so far he has contributed very little to the debate on the subject. But I would suggest that, if the delegation is to have a Progressive-Conservative wing, we place in the estimates the price of an alarm clock, so that when they are there they will have their speeches written on time. It might be worth while were we to pay the cost of some vitamins, to pep them up a bit, and enable them to recover from that inferiority complex in international affairs which has always afflicted members of that party.
The resolution provides, in the first instance, that we accept the invitation to San Francisco, and secondly that we approve the principles and purpose of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals
__in effect the maintenance of international
peace and security. Those proposals are put forward as a satisfactory general basis for discussion. The government's policy is expressed in the resolution. It is easy indeed for the house to approve in a general way any effort to maintain peace and security. The young lives and the treasure we have poured out in these last few years in the melting pot of war, and the horrors through which humanity has passed, are sufficient guarantee of our sincerity in that regard. We want no more of war with its loss and its bereavements.
It is easy to determine that Canada's delegates should go to the conference, but it is much more difficult to decide what our delegation should do when it gets there. Lest there be any misunderstanding in this regard, let me point out that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals are not a statement of Canadian government policy. Except as an observer, Canada was not even there, and Canadian representatives took no part in the discussion which preceded the statement of proposals. They are the proposals of the big four who were there and therefore Canada is free to express het welcome or her commendation of the proposals, if she feels that way-or to criticize them. She is free to improve them if possible. The proposals were drawn without the presence of the great body of the allied nations. I think it is fair, therefore, to assume that the proposals will be modified, perhaps materially modified, when the smaller nations are heard. I sincerely hope that they will be changed in the discussions to take place at San Francisco; for in my opinion the Prime Minister and his associates will need all the wisdom they possess if this conference is not to be wrecked on the tangled skeins of these practical proposals. It will take all the wisdom and good will of our delegation and other delegations to assure that the international house of cards which may be erected in San Francisco does not collapse in wrack and ruin as did the house of the league of nations.
There are many reasons advanced as to why the league failed in the crisis. But in my humble opinion, one of the primary reasons for the failure of the league of nations was that the big four assumed to boss the show. The next reason was that the nations, including the big four, failed to carry out in action the high principles they expressed in memoranda. It was because of the lack of effectiveness and will to hold together, and the set-up which in practice gave to the big four undue control in the councils of the nations. It was because the small and medium nations permitted themselves to be treated as inferiors. Had the set-up of the league of nations been more democratic; had it been in very truth a parliament of the world, the United States would probably have joined in the deliberations. Confidence would have developed among the nations, and in the time of testing they might have relied upon collective security instead of each trying to save his own hide, with a total disregard for the welfare of others.
According to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, the same general scheme is to be followed. The big five in matters of vital importance assume to be the whole thing. Frankly, I wonder how likely of permanent success is such an arrangement.
Let me pause to commend the men who at Dumbarton Oaks framed these proposals. They made a good beginning. One must realize that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals are an offer by the big five to all other allied nations of a scheme of association entirely satisfactory to themselves, something
San Francisco Conference

to form a basis of discussion and of bargaining when these delegations meet shortly in San Francisco.
The real purpose of the institutions to be set up in San Francisco is the establishment of an organization to maintain international peace and security, a consummation devoutly to be wished. To this end it is proposed that we constitute a security council of eleven nations and endow that council with the drastic and terrible responsibility of peace and war. If you will turn to page 16 of the pamphlet containing the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, published by the wartime information board, you will notice that the council in question is empowered to settle any dispute which constitutes in its judgment a threat to international security. To that end it may take such action by air, naval or land forces as may be necessary. Then if you will turn to page 17 of the pamphlet, you will note that all the members, not the eleven only who constitute the council for the time being, are expected to make available to the security council the armed forces, facilities and assistance which may be necessary. This is qualified only by the fact that the military assistance shall be in accordance with the agreements concluded among themselves. That is a powerful organization for concentrating in the hands of a few the military forces of the united nations.
But the fly in the ointment is in the constitution of the council, which you will find described on page 11 of the pamphlet. This reads:
The security council should consist of one representative of each of eleven members of the organization. Representatives of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Republic of China, and, in due course, France, should have permanent seats.
The remaining six seats are to be competed for by the forty or fifty other united nations on a two year basis without the privilege of reelection. I do not wish to go through all the details of this constitution, with its voting privileges and so on. Sufficient it is for my purpose to say that the control of the armed forces which may be placed at the disposal of this council is to be in the hands of the permanent members of the board.
It has been urged in countless debates since these proposals were made that this control by the so-called great powers is made inevitable by the recognition of the facts of military might-as the Prime Minister phrased it, "the 
fact of might in this imperfect world." One cannot be a realist and not recognize the logical consequence of the possession of power, but those who assume the right to make decisions should furnish the military might necessary to enforce them. There is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I think the reverse statement should be equally true, that he who calls the tune should pay the piper.
The Canadian people, it will be found, are not prepared to be the tail of any one's kite- international ox otherwise. I notice that Anthony Eden, the British foreign secretary, seemed to have recognized that fact in a statement which appeared in yesterday's paper; I read from the Toronto Star:
There can be no freedom in the world unless the smaller states can be joined with the great powers in the protection of their common interests. Their right to their own way of life must be respected.
Note this sentence:
They must have their due share in making great decisions.
Mr. Eden must have realized that unless the smaller nations have had their share in the making of decisions of prime importance, they will not long cooperate in carrying them out. If it is necessary that we have a number of permanent members on the security council, to the exclusion of and superior to the great body of the united nations, then I ask, why is it that Canada is not included? I have been surprised Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate to observe the readiness with which members on all sides of the house have accepted on the part of our nation the role of a second class power. I submit to you that a nation that is able to enlist something slightly fewer than a million men in its armed forces, that has a hundred ships of war upon the sea and thousands of its airmen in the skies, that is able to pour out something in the order of twenty billion dollars for the war effort before this coming year is concluded-I submit that such a nation holds no inferior place among the nations of the world. When it comes to enforcing decisions of the security council, when militaiy action or economic sanctions are the order of the day, the concurrence of Canada will be essential to success.
I have been told that the reason we are not included among the permanent members of this board is that it is economic and military power that counts. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, how can it be said that France and China have anything comparable to the military and economic power of the Dominion of Canada?
San Francisco Conference
At all events, we are not fighting among ourselves as are the people of China-due, I grant you, to the statesmanship of the Prime Minister that we are not fighting among ourselves!
It may be answered that it is not present power that counts but rather potential power. If that be so, Mr. Speaker, who, I ask you, will look into the future and will limit the potential power of this great Dominion of Canada?
Perhaps the real answer to this question why Canada is not placed in the upper class lies in the fact that Canada is a part of the British empire, and it has been assumed1 by those who know less of our constitution than, do we that Great Britain speaks for the rest of the selfgoverning dominions, including this country of Canada. If Great Britain is to speak for Canada, let me point out that it involves both advantages and dangers. If the British delegation speaks on behalf of Canada, the question at once arises as to how the British delegation is to be selected. Does Canada have a voice in the selection and instruction of that delegation? If not, is Canada to revert in foreign affairs to the colonial status from which we have so slowly and painfully emerged during the century that has passed? And what, Mr. Speaker, becomes of the imperial conference resolution of 1926 in which it was declared that Great Britain and the self-governing dominions are equal in status, and not inferior one to the other in any aspect of their domestic or foreign affairs?
The old-time view of Canada's position within the empire as expressed by Kipling has long passed-"Daughter am I in my mother's house, but mistress in my own." That was a broadminded statement when Kipling penned those famous words, because it conceded to Canada autonomy in local affairs, but impliedly it asserted, as the facts then were, that Canada did not have control of her foreign affairs. Kipling would not write those words to-day did he know the changes that have taken place. Canada now is daughter in no man's house though still mistress in her own. She is the equal of any member of the British commonwealth and occupies no different relation to any other member from that which that member occupies to her.
It is important, in my view that these fundamentals of Canada's status be borne in mind by the delegates who attend the San Francisco conference. Let it not be forgotten by those delegates that Canada is a north American nation and that she has interests and problems which are essentially different from those of the nations of Europe and Asia. She is a north American nation and all that
this implies. With the United States on the south, with the great Soviet republic on our west, and with Great Britain on our east, Canada is strategically placed. In such a midway position no one can speak for Canada but Canada herself, and no one can act for Canada except with Canada's consent. I think this is thoroughly realized, though so far unexpressed, by the Prime Minister who will lead this delegation. I should like to read you a word from his speech:
It is the view of the government that the constitutional position within the organization of important secondary countries should be clarified-
That is, our position should be clarified.
-and that the delegation from Canada should exert the utmost effort to secure due recognition of their relative standing among the nations of the world.
No doubt the Prime Minister had Canada ini mind when he spoke these words. I hope that the members of this delegation will go to San Francisco bearing vividly in their minds the fact that they are there to further the cause of peace and security, to protect the interests and the future of the dominion which they represent, and to promote the future of mankind.
The Prime Minister, in the remarkable and capable speech with which he opened this debate, has said that our contribution to the fashioning of victory is far beyond what we could have expected six years ago, and that our contribution to the maintenance of peace and security may be even greater. That is true. The Prime Minister also said, as reported on page 30 of Hansard,'.
It is important that our representatives should speak with a clear, strong and united voice.
With that statement I heartily agree. I wish that I could imbue every member of this delegation with the militant and aggressive Canadianism which I myself possess. I would add to that excellent statement: speak not only with a strong voice but with a bold and confident voice, fully realizing and maintaining the dignity and importance of the brave country which it is their privilege to represent. The ancient leader Joshua, speaking in Israel, used these words, "Be thou strong and very courageous", and I repeat his words to the members of this momentous delegation, "Be thou strong and very courageous", and let them bear in mind throughout their most important deliberations that any human institution which they may set up for the exercise of military and economic power which they hope will endure must be based upon a foundation of democracy, of equality, and of respect for every member represented. If the security
San Francisco Conference

council is to endure, it must be subject to democratic control by all members who participate in the dangers and the costs of its decisions.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution under debate today provides for endorsement by this house of the acceptance of the invitation extended to the government of Canada to attend the conference at San Francisco; it provides that the house shall recognize that the establishment of an effective international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada and that she should become a member; further that the house approves of the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, known as the Dumbarton Oaks and the Yalta proposals, and considers that such proposals provide a basis for the discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization. The resolution does not provide that by accepting it this house shall be taken as approving all these proposals as distinguished from the purposes and principles; it merely states that the proposals are to be considered as a basis for discussion. Then it provides that the representatives of Canada shall be instructed to further the preparation of an acceptable charter for an international organization, and finally that such charter shall, before ratification, be submitted to the Canadian parliament for approval.
Anyone in this house or elsewhere in Canada who believes in world peace must approve this resolution. Surely it is obvious now that there can be world peace only if there is some effective world organization. So there is in my opinion nothing controversial about the resolution itself.
But the case is different with the proposals that were submitted to this house and to the nation by the Prime Minister (Mr. King) in his speech of two days ago. He outlined some of the changes which this Canadian government will ask in the proposals, and gave us some idea of the policy of the government with regard to an international organization. It is true that he did not give us as many details as some of us would have liked, but he did give a rough outline of the proposals which the present Canadian government will present at San Francisco. To-day I propose to criticize some of these proposals. I shall try to do that, not for the sake of criticism, but having always in mind the aim that Canada may make the greatest possible contribution to world peace.

International peace and security cannot be attained or kept by passing resolutions or by junketing trips to international conferences, whether they are at Geneva or San Francisco or any other place. It cannot be attained or kept by speeches at such conferences, but only by each nation being prepared, in the first place, to cooperate on friendly terms with all other nations, and, in the second place, to combine at once with other nations to fight any aggressor. That is another lesson we should have learned from this second world war. I have always thought that the basic principle in considering how world peace may be attained and kept is very clearly set out by Sir Norman Angell in his book entitled "Let the People Know". At page 50 he gives that principle as follows:
It is this exceedingly simple and basic social principle: unless the community-whether it be a community of persons or of states-is prepared to use its combined power for the defence of the individual member who is made the victim of lawless violence, there can be neither law, nor peace, nor justice, nor stable civilization.
Therefore for Canada it all adds up to this: she must be prepared to furnish fighting men for service abroad. It is to be hoped that there will never be fighting on Canadian soil. Surely Canadians should hope that any fighting which takes place will be as far away from our shores as possible. This means that we must be prepared to furnish fighting men for service anywhere in the world; it means, putting it on a personal basis, bringing it back to the Canadian father or mother in the home, that Canadians must be prepared to have their sons die abroad to protect some other nation; because we realize that only in that way can peace be maintained. It follows as surely as the night the day that only in that way can our homeland of Canada be secured. The Canadian House of Commons, the Canadian people, had better face that fact, had better realize that there may be a price to be paid in Canadian blood for world peace. I believe that Canadians will face it and will be prepared to pay that price. 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:
As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council.
I realize that that statement can be interpreted in two ways. It can be said that what was meant was that in the first agreement between Canada and the new world organization which provides for the forces that Canada must furnish, there would also have to be special provision if these troops

San Francisco Conference
were to be sent beyond the boundaries of Canada. But it may also be interpreted in another way, and I fear that it will be interpreted the other way by some of the Prime Minister's followers in the election campaign this year. It can be interpreted to mean that when trouble comes Canada will not have to send any men beyond her boundaries unless there is an agreement made at that time that such shall be done. If every nation or only a few nations take that position, there will be no effective world organization. The tragedy of his statement is that it gives the impression that in entering a world organization Canada has not very much to worry about, that there is very little obligation.
May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it would have been far wiser for him to adopt the attitude taken by that great leader the Right Hon. Winston Churchill when in 1940 he told the British people that he could offer them nothing but blood, sweat and tears. He received their whole-hearted support because he took that attitude. It would have been far wiser-and the Prime Minister can still make his position clear-to tell the Canadian people that there will probably be a price to pay, that almost certainly sooner or later Canadians will have to die abroad with the young men of the other peace-loving nations in order to suppress aggression; and it should be pointed out that for such a cause the sacrifice would be worth while.
The Prime Minister showed the same attitude with regard to Canada imposing sanctions. His statement will be found at page 29 of Hansard of March 20, where he used these words:
It would seem to be desirable to develop some procedure whereby states not represented on the security council-
Which, of course, under the present provisions will be Canada's position most of the time.

would not be called upon to undertake serious enforcement action without the opportunity or participating in the council's proceedings, or without agreeing separately to-
Here is the damaging part of the statement. 

or without agreeing separately to join in executing the decisions of the council.
That would probably mean a delay. It might defeat the whole purpose of sanctions being imposed. It is too much like the attitude taken by this same Canadian government back in 1935 concerning the imposing of sanctions on Italy. I hold in my hand a press dispatch of December 2, 1935, which reads as follows:
When Doctor Walter A. Riddell, Canada's permanent advisory officer at Geneva suggested on November 2 to the league of nations committee of eighteen that sanctions against Italy should be extended to include oil, coal byproducts, iron and steel, he was expressing "only his own personal opinion, not the views of the Canadian government," according to a lengthy statement issued by acting Prime Minister Ernest Lapointe on Sunday.
The Prime Minister's statement indicates that this government is still tarred with the no-commitment stick. Those of us who were in the House of Commons before war broke out will remember that right up to the outbreak of war the foreign policy of Canada, under the present government, was that she had no commitments to anybody, league of nations, Great Britain or other dominions, United States or anybody else. I am afraid that that attitude is still in the back of the minds of the ministry. The government is still thinking along this line and is trying to leave open an exit from some of the obligations that Canada will be asked to assume at San Francisco. I hesitate to be suspicious, but it looks to me like an attempt to appease the isolationists of Canada. In any event it is a very disturbing attitude. Our delegation must make clear at San Francisco that Canada is prepared to make commitments, to stand by them not only in word but in deed and with no thought of evasion.
I now come to Canada's position under the Dumbarton Oaks security proposals. First of all there is to be a general assembly. I need say nothing about that other than that all of the nations, including Canada, will be members of the assembly and every nation will have the same authority. Then there is to be an economic and social council. That is a council set up for the direct betterment of mankind. I agree with the Prime Minister's remarks of a few days ago when he said that he hoped it would not be very long before the work of that council should become the most important -work of this new world organization, although I doubt whether that will be so for many years. I hope also that that council will always keep in mind that portion of the Atlantic charter, that great charter for humanity, which gave us the vision of a peace which would offer the assurance that all the men in all the lands might live out their lives in freedom from fear and want. There are to be eighteen members on this council, chosen by the assembly for a term of three years, and I have no doubt that in her turn Canada will be a member of that council.
Then there is to be a security council, which is given the main task in the world organization, the task of maintaining peace and security. Of course the- primary purpose of this world organization, is to stop wars and to defeat any aggressor who starts one. The
San Francisco Conference

greatest power of the security council is set out in chapter VIII, section B, paragraph 5 of the proposals, in these words:
In order that all members of the organization-
Not just the greater powers, as the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) suggested.
-should contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, they should undertake to make available to the security council, on its call-
That, of course, is the reverse of the statement of the Prime Minister the other day with regard to troops serving beyond Canada on call of the security council.

and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements concluded among themselves, armed forces, facilities and assistance necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
There are to be eleven members, six of them non-permanent, elected for two-year terms and ineligible to serve a second term immediately. Five members are to be permanent; and they are named, in chapter VI of the proposals, as the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Greait Britain and Northern. Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Republic of China and, in due course, France. Those permanent seats on the council have been allotted on the basis of power; certainly that is so in respect of the first three named; the Prime Minister put it the other day, that those are the three greatest world powers. The nations holding permanent seats are given very wide powers. In the first place, on all vital matters such as the application of force or the imposition of sanctions, they must agree, which of course means that any one of the five may veto action. That is set out in chapter VI, section C, paragraph 3 the proposals, in these words:
Decisions of the security council on all other matters-
That is, other than procedural matters.
-should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under chapter VIII, section A-
That has to do with the pacific settlement of disputes, as distinguished from threats to the peace or acts of aggression.

and under the second sentence of paragraph one of chapter VIII, section C-
This refers to regional arrangements.
-a party to a dispute should abstain from voting.
That is the first very important power that is to be given to these nations holding permanent seats. In addition there is to be a military staff committee, which is provided for

in chapter VIII, section B, paragraph 9. It is really a general staff for this world organization, but in addition, to being given the power to make recommendations about the use of troops and to conduct a war it also has control over the regulations of armaments and the possible disarmament of all the nations of the world. That committee is to be composed of the chiefs of staff of the permanent members; it does not include the chiefs of staff of those who happen to be non-permanent members at the time but only the chiefs of staff of the permanent members.


Mr. KINLEY:: It is more than that.


Howard Charles Green: You can make your own speech.


John James Kinley: Well, you are wrong; that is all.


Howard Charles Green: The third power is in regard to amendments and is contained in chapter XI. This provides that amendments to the charter must be ratified by the five nations holding permanent seats on the security council, which again means that any one may veto an amendment. Finally they have great power because they are there all the time. They are to be permanent, with each of the five nations having a permanent organization actually at the headquarters of the world organization.
There is great importance attached to a permanent seat on the security council. Under the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta proposals Canada will never have a permanent seat on that council, though occasionally she may have a non-permanent seat. In other words she will seldom be a member of that council. That is a humiliating position for a nation that has raised nearly a million men during the present conflict and has given so freely of her blood and treasure. In effect, Canada is in the same position as the Irish Free State.
The Prime Minister now bewails our position, yet it is a direct result of the policies of his government. Had the Canadian government so willed, the great world power at Dumbarton Oaks could have been the British commonwealth of nations rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The British commonwealth of nations could have been the power named in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals as the power to hold a permanent seat on the security council. There can be no doubt of the attitude of Great Britain; Churchill and Eden have shown it on different occasions as clearly as they dared. I have here the press dispatch of a speech made by Mr. Eden in the British House of Commons over a year ago, in which he said that "if a close and intimate understanding

San Francisco Conference
could be achieved between the British commonwealth of nations, the United States and Russia, all our problems, however difficult, can be resolved." He did not say Great Britain, the United States and Russia; he mentioned the British commonwealth of nations. In October of last year, while in Russia, Mr. Churchill said:
I hope most earnestly and I believe with deep conviction that the warrior statesman at the head of Russia, through these years of storm and tempest will bring his country into the sunlight of a broader and happier age for all, and with him in this task will march the British commonwealth of nations and the mighty United States of America.
Here again Mr. Churchill did not use the term Great Britain; he was very careful to say the British commonwealth of nations. But our Prime Minister has maintained throughout that this great power must be the United Kingdom alone. On July 20 of last year he was asked in this house about the meeting at Dumbarton Oaks. He was asked who were to be the four great powers represented there. This was his answer, as it appears in Hansard:
The purpose of the meeting is that these four powers may consider the development of a general plan of world security. There wil be only the four powers at the meeting.
Then the leader of the opposition asked whether it was to be understood that the British commonwealth was included in those powers, or just the United Kingdom, to which the Prime Minister replied:
The four powers are the United Kingdom, the United States, the U.S.S.R. and China.
The actual fact is that the third great power in the world to-day is not the United Kingdom but the British commonwealth. There have been almost a million young Canadians in the forces, hundreds of thousands of Australians and thousands of New Zealanders and South Africans, as well as something like two million from India. So that between three and four million men who have been fighting in this war under the British commonwealth did not come from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
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.
I am sure there will be no objection to that request in Great Britain. I have here a dispatch from Great Britain dated March 2, and reading as follows:
Third leg of the massive tripod that is to sustain this structure of world order has to be provided by British power. Resources of this small island are inadequate for this, and only world-wide cooperation by the British commonwealth can be regarded as sufficient. Sovereign freedom of each dominion is no bar to action in peace, with similar concert as in war.
Thus if Canada makes this request, and if it is granted, Canada, still with a seat on the assembly, will be sitting in permanently on the security council, where the important decisions are being made. She will be sitting in as a very important part of one of the three greatest world powers, playing a vital role, making her greatest possible contribution to world peace, taking the place won for her by her sons on the field of battle, on the seas and in the air, in all parts of the world, and working with the other nations of the commonwealth as a team, in peace, as we have done in two wars. We would be taking our natural position.
The former prime minister of Australia put it very clearly the other day. A press report makes this statement:
Former Premier Menzies in the house of representatives in Canberra described as unwise and dangerous the tendency of the British commonwealth to meet as units and not as a team in the international conferences, like that of San Francisco. It was more important for the British dominions to aim at a common front than insist upon their independence, which nobody challenged.
But no, none of that for this government! The Dumbarton Oaks plan ignores the fact that there is a British commonwealth of nations, despite the fact that that commonwealth of British people stood alone against the aggressor for nearly a year, with only the help of little Greece. It stood alone and saved civilization. I believe the Dumbarton Oaks proposals ignore the existence of the British commonwealth of nations at the suggestion of this Canadian government.
The Prime Minister's plan to get Canada out of the humiliating position into which she has been put by his own policy is to set up a new group of nations. He wishes to have great powers, the middle or secondary powers, and the small powers. I am reminded of the fairy story about Goldilocks and the three bears-the big bear, the middle-sized bear and the little bear. The government wants Canada to be a middle-sized nation. Then, it wants those middle-sized nations to get more rights and a preferred position over the small nations.
San Francisco Conference

In his speech the other day, in effect the Prime Minister warned the little nations away from attempting to get a non-permanent seat on the security council, because they were not able to iput up as much force as he could. A few months ago the policy of this government was that Canada should be a leader of the small nations. This is what I find in a press dispatch:
Canada to Lead Small Nations
Senator Wishart Robertson, president of the National Liberal Federation, last night asserted that Canada will go to the peace conference "virtually the leader of the smaller countries among the united nations."
This press dispatch is dated at Saskatoon January 19, 1944. Now we find that the government has shifted its stand and wishes to become one of the middle-sized nations. It is now trying to shove the small nations one rung further down the ladder. A few months ago the government was bewailing any attempt to play power politics. Now, in effect, the Prime Minister is advocating bare-faced power politics; and the C.C.F., dutiful as usual, is following along behind and advocating the same thing.
No other nation says there should be a new group of middle-sized nations with more rights. There is nothing about it in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals or in the Yalta proposals. The sad feature for humanity is that it is complicating an already complex plan. The suggestion for middle-sized powers may well be the source of much trouble. It asks for a dangerous distinction. What is a middle-sized nation? The Prime Minister mentioned Brazil, the Netherlands and Australia. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Martin) mentioned Belgium and Canada. Well, what about Turkey, Sweden, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Italy, Rumania, Czechoslovakia? They will all want to be classed as middle-sized nations too. The other day the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour admitted, rather dubiously, that it would be difficult to define just what a middle-sized nation is, and he was dead right. It will be even more difficult to determine the preferred position that these middle-sized nations are to get. And all this is caused because the government is dodging, twisting and turning to get away from a permanent commonwealth seat, with the result that Canada is not to get her rightful place in this world organization.
I had meant to say something about regional arrangements and regional agencies, particularly as they apply to the Pacific coast. As my time is almost up, however, I shall not deal with those matters in detail. But I think the government should tell the house what plans

it is going to advocate by way of regional organization. For instance, there is now a Pacific council, and we should like to know what that council has been doing. We should like to know what the government thinks about having a regional organization in the Pacific, where there are questions of defence, and communications; airways, through Alaska and into Russia, and thence to other parts of Asia, airways to points across the Pacific ocean such as Australia and New Zealand. There is the question of a highway to Alaska, and the connecting link by ferry with Russia, so as to join the two great continents of North America and Asia. There is the question of trade. Cauadians who live on the Pacific coast are vitally interested in all those questions. We should like to know what the government will be proposing at San Francisco concerning regional organization for the Pacific. Canadians, with our blood brothers the Australians and New Zealanders, have the responsibility of deciding, in conjunction with the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians and the Dutch, and of course the folks of the motherland, just what sort of future there shall be around the shores of that great ocean.
In conclusion may I say that there will be more world conferences. This is only the first. At every one of those conferences the lives of our sons and their sons, the survival of the nation and the continuance of civilization will be at stake. The Canadian people are in no mood and they will be in no mood to have their representatives make commitments that are only half commitments, that leave open a line of retreat. Canada's commitments must be clear-cut, they must be fully binding. Canada must fulfil not only the letter of the law but also the spirit. Then as a nation she will be acting as every true Canadian would act. Further, the Canadian people are in no mood to have their representatives start an argument or perhaps a dispute by insisting on a regrouping of powers other than those occupying the permanent seats in the security council under the Dumbarton Oaks plan, a regrouping into middle-sized or secondary states, or whatever you wish to call them, and small nations. There should be no demanding of recognition and extra rights for the middle-sized nations because Canada happens to be one of them. The Canadian people are not interested in having Canada declared a middle-sized nation or a secondary state, but they are interested in Canada's developing into a great world power, standing beside Great Britain and the other dominions in the British empire. That is the destiny of this nation.

San Francisco Conference


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity of saying a word in this debate. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the fine opening address he made. I do this because I respect his judgment and because what he said is in keeping with what he said in London, what he said before the labour congress in Toronto and what he has said on several occasions, that this is the beginning of a better day.
I also congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) upon the endeavour he made yesterday. I think he did pretty well with a most difficult job. He interjected a little politics into the debate, but I do not blame him for doing that because I am going to do the same thing. I do not agree with what the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) said about the places that would be suitable for the proposed house of peace. I think the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) will agree with me when I say that if the hon. member for Parry Sound would stand on the hill at Mirady park and look out over Thunder bay; if he could see Fort William sleeping quietly there; if he would see the sleeping giant away over yonder or the squaw looking for her husband coming home with his fishing boat; if he could stand on Mount McKay with all its majesty at the head of the lakes; if he could see Loch Lomond, from which that city gets its water eight hundred feet above Fort William; if he could see the background of Kakabeka falls with their one hundred and ninety foot head, he would then agree that the finest place in Canada for the peace house would be in the Thunder Bay district.
I was sorry the Prime Minister did not go further afield in his selection of the delegation. If he knew, and I hope he does, of the intelligent judgment, the practical common sense and the sweet influence of the fairer sex, both inside and outside the home, he would have then chosen representatives from both houses of parliament, from both sides of the house and from both sexes in the house. I say that the delegation will not be complete unless it contains one of the fairer sex to keep the men where they ought to be kept.
Knowing hon. members of this house as I do, I do not think that any member of this delegation will stoop to play politics, either on the way to the conference, while he is there or on the way home. I know they will all be big enough to get behind the scene and study the needs of the countries that are represented, especially Canada.
I was terribly disappointed at results after the last war. Nobody wanted war immediately after the last war. I sat on a school board at that time and I was criticized for advocating cadet training. It was said it was just the thin end of the wedge to bring back war. Women all over Canada, universities and high schools, labour and farmer organizations all passed resolutions condemning war, saying that it was all being done to satisfy the whims of the war lords of Europe and to supply cannon fodder.
What are we fighting for? The hon. member for Parry Sound said it was freedom, but I would go farther than that. You cannot have freedom without permanent peace. Before I am through I shall show you upon what permanent peace is based.
I expect that this will be the greatest conference that the world has ever known. There will be a sacred trust upon every one who represents us, every man or woman, and I am sure they will all measure up to that trust. This conference is to outlaw war. As someone said the other day, it will also put out of business the league of nations. I was disappointed with the league of nations. They did many fine things, but when they allowed Italy to sweep into Ethiopia and take over that country, when they allowed Japan to go into China, a large nation but one militarily helpless, I was disappointed.
I read that splendid book "One world7' by Wendell Willkie. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) is right when he says the small nations should be respected. W7hen I think of the way the Prime Minister looks out for the little men, the people with low incomes, then I know he is not going to pass up the small nations. He will see that they get fair play. I know it is important for every naan to have a job, but if every man in the country had a job there would not be heaven on earth just the same. I know that every nation should be free and enjoy security. I do know, too, that I was of the opinion that no nation taking part in this great war was going to seek territorial advantage. I remember that I stood up in this house, whether I was the first or not I do not know but I was first on the government side, to advocate that there be ambassadorial relations between Canada and Russia. Dear knows where we would be to-day were it not for Russia. She has kept us living. But I am not so optimistic when I find a big slice of Poland going to Russia. That is just a sign. of. the times, and I hope that Russia will be big enough to give that territory back to Poland.
San Francisco Conference

I would also say that no man and no group of men and no nation can live in luxury while others are living in abject poverty, for there afe the seeds of war.
Our delegation to the San Francisco conference, of course, should prepare thoroughly, thinking not of Canada only but in terms of the whole world. They should emphasize things that the nations have in common and forget the petty differences. We have plenty of things in common that stand out-our belief in the Divine Creator; the need for every man to eat and live and have his children educated and have a fair degree of comfort; the need for freedom to worship as we desire.
When the peace conference is called I hope the women will be represented there, indeed that every interest will be represented. I know I have my bias but I would say that labour has qualified for a position at the peace table.
It has been my sad privilege, Mr. Speaker, to visit many homes in the Thunder Bay district afflicted by casualties. I remember three days, one after the other, when I visited ten homes a day. I saw a husband standing beside his wife whose boy of great promise had been taken, and I listened to the wife saying to us, "Dan, do you think the peace will be worth it?" I wonder how you would answer that woman! I had my answer. There are two answers to that. First, I said, "If ouY boys and Canada and the United States had not gone into this war we would not be here to-day as we are now, because Germany would be in Canada." The other answer is, "The peace will be worth while provided that we build it upon a foundation that does not give way." I dare quote, Mr. Speaker, from the greatest book in all history, a book that took over a thousand years to write, whose contributors have been the greatest men in every age, and whose truth is infallible. I do not say that the book itself is infallible because we could burn it, but I do say that the truth that this old book contains is infallible and I dare to quote from it to-day.
We hear at Christmas time a great deal about the coming of the Prince of Peace. We have all heard in all our churches throughout the length and breadth of Canada of the only foundation upon which a peace that will endure can be built. I am convinced that that foundation is the teachings and character of the Peacemaker himself. You will find the principles laid down in his first sermon, what you might call the speech from the throne. There you will find laid down the principles upon which the peace conference should be founded, and I am sure that if the delegates

take into account the principles of the Prince of Peace, a peace will be built that will last. The Peacemaker sums up by saying that the man who builds upon the sands-it may be the sands of education only, it may be the sands of fame or ambition, it may be the sands of money, love of power, property-when the storm comes the superstructure will be swept away, but a house built upon the Rock of Ages will stand the test of time, and I hope that a peace will be built upon that rock because it is the only kind of peace that will last.
The Peacemaker outlines the principles, the foundation of the new kingdom, the new social order, if you like to call it that, which we are to have after the war. He says that they that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.
Take Hannibal, Nero, Napoleon, Hitler or any other would-be world conqueror-every one of them has had to learn that the man or nation that lives by the sword shall perish by the sword. I can hear the historian telling of how Napoleon said, "Talk not to me of Providence, for Providence is on the side of the heaviest battalions." But Napoleon lived to rue the day because he found that Providence was not on the side of his great battalions but on the side of the soft white snowflakes of Russia that froze half a million of his men in their saddles or where they lay upon the ground. Hitler had the largest and best equipped army in the world. Why did he not sweep into England when there was not enough ammunition there to keep the soldiers of Britain fighting one hour? I would say that it was in answer to the prayers of a Christian people in a Christian world. It was due to Divine intervention, just as it was in a time of crisis in the last great war.
Then He tells us how to deal with your enemy. Bless them and curse not, He says. Hon. members will agree that that is not so easy. You have to be completely unselfish to love even your political enemies in this house and to ask for a blessing upon them.
Then we have His statement about those who will not cooperate in the building up of the kingdom of peace. We remember His saying, "Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Did we not have a perfect example of that when Chamberlain as Prime Minister of Britain journeyed twice to see Hitler as leader of Germany in an effort to avoid war? But what did Hitler do? He trampled the arguments of Chamberlain under foot and prepared to rend England into smithereens. And it did not do him any good.

San Francisco Conference
I quote the saying of another great statesman who at first had a Jewish name, Saul, but afterwards changed it to Paul. He laid down the foundation which our delegation should bear in mind in following the principles of the Prince of Peace in building a new world, "other foundations can no man lay than that which is laid in Him." You may have geographical descriptions of economic needs and natural resources, but if you leave out the foundation laid by the Prince of Peace, the peace conference will be wrecked. I heard the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) quoting the words of Joshua, the successor to Moses-"Be strong and very courageous." I would quote a bigger man than Joshua, the apostle Paul, who said, "Fight the good fight", the fight against selfishness and cruelty and wrong. I have confidence in our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because I know something of his practical Christianity, that he will use his influence for the sake of peace, and he and his delegation, I am confident, will lay the foundation for the peace of the world upon the Rock of Ages.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: It is a
very healthy sign that there is almost unanimous consent of the house to the proposal for a world organization after this war is over to prevent in so far as possible the recurrence of such a catastrophe. I believe it is also a healthy sign that there is almost unanimous agreement that Canada should accept her place as a member of this world assembly. Possibly we do not agree in all details as to how that membership should be expressed. We heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) his opinion or that of his party of how our representation at that conference should act. I do not agree with him in his analysis in that respect, and probably some of our group will later make our position clear in this matter. It is also reassuring that the house is almost unanimously in agreement that when Canada accepts membership in the league she should accept all the responsibilities which go with it. I agree in that respect with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South; if we are to take our place in the world community we must accept the responsibilities which that membership entails.
This afternoon, however, I propose to deal with the economic angle of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, that part of the agreement which suggests the setting up of an economic and social council. We all agree that it is necessary to have machinery to settle disputes and maintain peace. I say it is just as necessary to remove the causes of these disputes. One of the greatest of these
in the international as in the national field is economic and social injustice. The Dumbarton Oaks agreement recognizes this principle, and I believe our delegation should ask for the strengthening of this part of the agreement. Wars can be promoted only when there is fear, want and inequality in the world; remove these and you remove the basic causes of war. Neither individuals nor nations as a rule start a fight on a full stomach. Therefore, I say, the increased production and proper distribution of food can be one of the major factors in maintaining world peace. I hope our Canadian delegation to the San Francisco conference will see to it that this matter receives adequate attention and discussion. Canada is vitally interested. She is in proportion to her population by far the greatest producer of food in the world. Last year we exported from thirty to forty per cent of our total production of food and produced over $1,750 millions of agricultural products. The raising of the nutritional standards of not only our own people but the peoples of other countries is consequently of paramount importance to us. Canada's delegation to the conference should therefore endeavour to strengthen the authority and importance of the social and economic council.
Under this council, I believe, will act the permanent committee set up by the united nations conference on food and agriculture at Hot Springs, Virginia, in May .and June, 1943. That conference appointed an interim committee to draw up a permanent constitution, that constitution to be ratified by the thirty-six nations represented at the conference. To date only nineteen nations have ratified that constitution, and Canada is not one of them. I believe that before our delegation goes to San Francisco this house should see that the permanent constitution of the united nations conference on food and agriculture held at Hot Springs is ratified, and that the permanent commission for carrying out the recommendations of the conference should be immediately set up. President Roosevelt about a month ago asked the congress of the United States to ratify that constitution. It is essential that Canada also should do so, and, as I said, before our delegation goes to the San Francisco conference.
At Hot Springs, Virginia, for the first time, an international conference recognized the principle that human needs should be the first consideration in setting up any new world order. They made definite recommendations as to methods that might be used in the carrying out of a world plan for the most economic production and distribution of food and other agricultural products. In this connection I
San Francisco Conference

would like to quote from the declaration of that conference, because I believe it is very-important to us here in Canada:
(1, The first task is to complete the winning of the war and to deliver millions of people from tyranny and from hunger. During the period of critical shortage in the aftermath of war, freedom from hunger can be achieved only by urgent and concerted efforts to economize consumption, to increase supplies and distribute them to the best advantage.
(2)	Thereafter we must equally concert our efforts to win and maintain freedom from fear and freedom from want. The one cannot be achieved without the other.
(3)	There has never been enough food for the health of all people. This is justified neither by ignorance nor by the harshness of nature. Production of food must be greatly expanded; we now have knowledge of the means by which this can be done. It requires imagination and firm will on the part of each government and people to make use of that knowledge.
(4)	The first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty. It is useless to produce more food unless men and nations provide the markets to absorb it. There must be an expansion of the whole world economy to provide the purchasing power sufficient to maintain an adequate diet for all. With full employment in all countries, enlarged industrial production, the absence of exploitation, an increasing flow- of trade within and betwen countries, an orderly management of domestic and international investment and currencies, and sustanied internal and inter-ational economic equilibrium, the food which is produced can be made available to all people.
(5)	The primarv responsibility lies with each nation for seeing that its own people have the food needed for life and health: steps to this end are for national determination. But each nation can fully achieve its goal only if all work together.
(6)	We recommend to our respective governments and authorities the study and adoption of the findings and recommendations of this conference and urge the early concerted discussion of the related problems falling outside the scope of this conference.
(7)	The first steps toward freedom from want of food must not await the final solution of all other problems. Each advance made in one field will strengthen and quicken advance in all others. Work already begun must be continued. Once the war has been wron decisive steps can be taken. We must make ready now.
Later on in this document they go on to show how these objects may be obtained-by a long-term food production policy, by adequate agricultural credit, by the encouragement of the cooperative movements throughout the world, by changes in our land tenure and farm labour conditions, by education and research, by conserving land and water resources and by the development and settlement of land for food production. To carry out this programme it would be necessary to facilitate the exchange of agricultural products between nations. We believe that one of the chief ways in which this can be done is to take the exporting and importing of food products

out of the hands of the speculator, as has been done to a very large extent during the war, and make it a government responsibility. We believe that it is in the interests of both importing and exporting nations to have long term agreements as to prices, quality and quantity of food to be exchanged. No country can get the maximum production of food without stability in the price structure. This has been amply demonstrated in Canada by the increased production during the war when we had stabilized prices.
It is equally to the advantage of exporting and importing nations to know that they are guaranteed a continuous supply of quality goods at a known price. Any return, therefore, after the war to the speculative handling of food should be vigorously opposed by our government. Long-term agreements should be negotiated between exporting and1 importing countries for periods of not less than five years and should be renegotiated at least one year before termination of the contract. This we believe would greatly assist in obtaining maximum production and continuity of supply. We believe that in the collection, processing and distribution of food within the various nations the cooperative movement should be encouraged. In this connection I do not think I can do better than quote again from the recommendations of the united conference on food and agriculture held at Hot Springs. The following paragraphs appear in the document:
1.	Whereas the cooperative movement has been of very great importance in many countries, both to urban and rural populations, especially in agricultural districts where farming is based on small units and in urban areas of low-income families;
2.	The proper functioning of cooperative societies may facilitate adjustments of agricultural production and distribution, as members have confidence in the recommendations and guidance of their own cooperative organizations which they know operate in the interests of their members and of society in general;
3.	The democratic control and educational programmes, which are features of the cooperative movement, can play a vital part in the training of good democratic citizens, and assist in inducing a sound conception of economic matters;
The united nations conference on food and agriculture recommends:
1. That, in order to make it possible for people to help themselves in lowering costs of production and costs of distribution and marketing:

(a)	all countries study the possibilities of the further establishment of producer and consumer cooperative societies in order to render necesary production, marketing, purchasing, finance, and other services.
In that connection the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan has been, I believe, the first government in the world to implement this

San Francisco Conference
recommendation made at that conference. One of the first acts of that government was to appoint a minister of cooperatives to encourage the cooperative movement in that province.
(b)	each nation examine its laws, regulations and institutions to determine if legal or institutional obstacles to cooperative development exist, in order to make desirable adjustments.
Yet we find that in Canada the cooperative movement has been asking for years for a dominion cooperative act to clarify its position with regard to taxation and several other matters. It has not yet received that consideration from our government. Instead we have shirked our responsibility and thrown the whole matter into the hands of a commission, thereby keeping the cooperative movement in Canada, at a time when it should be expanding, in a static state and endeavouring, one would almost think, to stop its growth.
(c)	full information as to the present development of cooperatives in different countries be made available through the permanent organization recommended in resolution II.
In Canada we have very little conception of the tremendous growth of the cooperative movement throughout the world. I must admit that I myself had very little conception of the growth of the cooperative movement in Great Britain until last fall when we were privileged to visit there. We were entertained by the cooperative wholesale society of England and by the Scottish cooperative wholesale society. They took us down to the Thames in London and showed us a flour mill owned by the cooperative there, the largest flour mill in the world, a flour mill which produces every day enough flour to feed a million people. They told us that they were producing fifty per cent of all the flour produced in Great Britain. We were taken up to Scotland and shown the tremendous cooperative development in that country.
When the British government asked the people of Great Britain in 1940 to register the stores with which they wanted to do business during the war so that there would be a fair distribution of supplies forty-two per cent of the people of Scotland registered with the cooperatives as the stores through which they wanted to do their buying. We were shown the banks which the cooperatives had started in Great Britain. Last year these cooperative banks did over five billion dollars' worth of business in Great Britain. The cooperatives are the greatest merchandising organization in the British empire. They have their own tea plantations in Ceylon, their own shipping facilities, their own factories and their own distributing centres. I believe that in the aftermath of the war they will be one of the stabilizing factors in Great Britain.
World trade and the freest possible exchange of goods are necessary if living standards are to be raised in the world. Manipulations of exchanges and tariffs to secure profit and provide gain must be eliminated. We believe that only in this way can a world of plenty be built when war is outlawed. If Canada is to export, as she must if our agricultural industry is to be prosperous, she must be prepared to import. This was emphasized by everybody we met in Great Britain last fall. It did not matter whether you talked to members of the labour party, the cooperative associations, their boards of directors, or the Conservatives, they were all agreed that so far as Great Britain was concerned she had to find markets for her products if she was to import the necessities of her people.
Great Britain's ability to raise the standards of living of her people, or even to maintain them are dependent on this. She has been and will probably remain the greatest market for Canada's agricultural products. If we are to retain that market it will be necessary for us to readjust our economy so as to use more British-made goods. Great Britain has one great asset, her ability to produce quality' goods and materials. Nowhere else in the world can you buy better quality leather goods, woollen goods, china or cutlery than in that country. Unfortunately, before the war the financial position of the average Canadian citizen was such that he had to be satisfied with secondary grade articles because they were cheap. We found our shelves in this country flooded with trash and cheap goods. When you looked at them you almost invariably found stamped on them "Made in Germany" or "Made in Japan". We bought them not because we preferred them, not because we would not rather have bought better quality goods that could have been supplied by Great Britain, but because we could not afford the better goods. If we again allow the purchasing power of the people of the Dominion of Canada to be decreased by the lowering of the prices of agricultural products, or the lowering of our wage scales, or by unemployment, we shall find ourselves in the same position once more.
One of the chief aims of our delegation to San Francisco should be to secure the freest possible flow of goods between nations, and we believe that this can be done only by one of two methods. A great many people, a great many newspapers and many members of this house say we must export, but they say very little about importing. They say we can solve all our problems by exporting more goods. We in this group believe that if we are to obtain export markets we shall have to be
San Francisco Conference

prepared to accept imports and raise the standard of living of the people of Canada so that they may use those goods that we bring into this country. The first thing we must do is raise the purchasing power of our people who need goods and services, and the second thing is to remove some of the artificial barriers that at present hinder the flow of trade. Permanent peace cannot be brought about by the more industrialized nations building up investments in other countries; yet this is what must take place if we export more than we are prepared to import. This has resulted in the past and will result in the future. I believe, in friction and dissatisfaction. These investments have often resulted in interference in the internal policies and governments, of the countries in which they have been made. This interference has resulted in ill-will between nations, and has been one of the contributing factors to wars. It also has been one of the methods adopted to build international cartels and monopolies, which in turn have been deliberately used to prevent the free exchange of goods. These cartels are not particularly interested in the nutritional or living standards of the peoples in the countries in which they operate. They are interested principally in maintaining their special privileges and profits obtained by monopoly control. We believe, therefore, that our delegation should be especially interested in seeing that through the economic and social council these cartels and monopolies which restrain trade are abolished.
In that connection I should like to refer to the recent judgment handed down by a special panel having the authority of the supreme court of the United States with respect to the Aluminum Company of America and Aluminium Limited of Canada. This judgment, which was handed down on March 12 and appears in the March 13 issue of the New York Times, states that the Aluminum Company of America and Aluminium Limited, the Canadian company, are part of a monopolistic conspiracy in restraint of trade. This finding amply bears out the evidence presented to this house in 1942 and 1943 by the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). In passing I should like to remark that both the government and the official opposition were loath to accept the evidence presented at that time.


Mr. GRAHAM:: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member. The committee which reported to this house on the aluminum contracts did not base one finding of fact upon any decision of any United States court examining into an alleged

infraction of the Sherman act of that country. Every single finding by that committee was based upon the evidence of witnesses who appeared before it, or upon documents properly authenticated by witnesses appearing before it; and the reversal of a decision of an inferior court in the L'nited States cannot affect in any way the report presented to this house by the committee.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I speak to the question of privilege, as the hon. member has done. The committee relied very largely upon the judgment of the lower court, which now has been reversed by the judgment of the supreme court of the United States.


Roy Theodore Graham: I am amazed at that statement by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, because he was a member of the committee and knows that it is completely incorrect and untrue.


Major James William Coldwell: I ask that the hon. member's statement be withdrawn. I know what I said was completely correct and true, and if hon. members will examine the report of the committee they will find lengthy references to the judgment of the lower court of New York, the findings of which now have been reversed. The hon. gentleman should withdraw his remark that my statement was completely unfounded and untrue.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman should withdraw.


Roy Theodore Graham: I am quite content to
leave the accuracy of my statement, as compared with the accuracy of the statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, to the report itself. The report will speak for itself.


Major James William Coldwell: I ask for the withdrawal of the statement that something I said was wholly untrue. I believe that is unparliamentary language.


Thomas Vien: It is. The hon. member who made the statement must withdraw.


Roy Theodore Graham: If the rules of the house compel me to withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling and withdraw it.


Percy Ellis Wright: As a matter of fact I did not mention the committee at all. I said both the government and the opposition in this house were loath to accept the evidence presented by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar with respect to the aluminum industry being a cartel and a monopoly; and I said that his allegations have been amply borne out by the panel of the supreme court of the United States. That is not the only monopoly or cartel we have in Canada; and I say

San Francisco Conference
further that these monopolies have grown under Conservative and Liberal administrations alike. So that when we hear hon. members opposite saying in this house that they are going to abolish monopolies we wonder why they ever allowed them to grow in the first place. Their promises certainly do not sound genuine to many of the farmers and working people in this country. We therefore believe our delegation should be especially interested in seeing that through the economic and social council these monopolies and cartels which restrict trade are abolished.
To sum up, I should like to say that we in this group believe our Canadian delegation should be interested not only in the setting up of machinery to outlaw war, but should be definitely interested in the removal of some of the basic causes of war. If we can build a world in which there is genuine freedom from fear and freedom from want we shall have gone a long way toward the establishment of permanent peace in the world; and one of the ways in which this can be done, we believe, is by providing an abundant food supply and seeing that it is properly distributed throughout the world.


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, the first thing that strikes us in reading the motion now before the house is the fact that the government has already come to a decision involving the participation of Canada, and is now asking us to ratify that decision. I wonder if we can call this procedure a democratic one. Since the beginning of the war our government has ruled the country almost by order in council, and by all kinds of decisions taken by controllers, boards and the like. We have always been told that this kind of government would last only for the duration, and that we would revert to real democratic government as soon as the war is over. But if we consider the fact that a great number of decisions regarding the organization for peace, of which this resolution is a striking example, have already been taken, and are still being taken by the government, the public is being led to the belief that if we want to revert to real democratic government we must have some real changes in the government itself.
I wonder what would happen if, after acceptance by the government to participate in this conference, the House of Commons were to refuse to adopt this resolution, as it has a fundamental right to do. I know that to-day the government can rely upon its majority in the house; but as my colleague the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) has said, we must not forget that those who will represent Canada at this con-
ference will have no mandate from the Canadian people, because after April 16 there will be no more parliament in Canada.
Therefore it may well happen that after the next general election the new members of the House of Commons will not feel themselves bound by the decisions or engagements taken by the Canadian delegates at this conference. So far as the group of independents is concerned, we must advise the government that we will not accept in advance the decisions taken at this conference; and as in the next government of this country we will surely have a word to say we wish to state right now that we will not feel ourselves bound by these decisions.
We are asked to endorse the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference. There is no doubt that this measure is one of the most important that has been introduced in the house since September, 1939. In fact at the beginning of September, 1939, parliament was asked to recognize a state of war with Germany and to accept participation in the present war. To-day through this resolution we are asked to declare, right off, that we will participate in any future war in the world. That is the real point. That is the only meaning of our accepting this resolution and our participation in the San Francisco conference. The question is: Shall we consent to engage ourselves and our country in participation in any war that may arise in the years to come in any part of the world? The resolution speaks about the safeguarding of mankind, and the magnificent part Canada is called upon to play in the organization of a new world. This is all very well and good. But I believe, as do other people, that we must first think of ourselves, rather than the world at large. I would like to see Canada's own interests just as vigilantly protected as Mr. Roosevelt intends to protect the self-interest of the United States, as vigilantly as Mr. Churchill intends to protect Britain's self-interest, and as vigilantly as Mr. Stalin intends to protect the Soviet republic's self-interest.
In view of the stand we are taking just now, hon, members in this section of the house may be called, as we often have been in the past few years, a group of isolationists. But I should like to ask whether it is a crime to stand for Canada first. Nobody will deny that Mr. Roosevelt himself stands for America first, Mr. Churchill for Britain first and Mr. Stalin for Russia first.
In the last few years we have witnessed the most extraordinary manner in which Canadian affairs have been conducted by the present
San Francisco Conference

government. If we examine carefully all the legislation that has been passed by the government we might ask ourselves what part of it, with the exception of a few social laws, has been really and truly enacted for the benefit of our Canadian people. Everything has been done to favour other nations, under the fallacious pretext that we have to save humanity and civilization.
I should like the Canadian government, before attending this conference, to give Canadian people a thought-instead of always endeavouring to save the world. I should like to see the Canadian government working in favour of the Canadian people's welfare, 'before going elsewhere to try to save 'humanity. Everybody admits that Canada is at present going through an internal crisis, and that we are suffering from disunity. All this is due to the present government. Would it not be the first and the most important task of this government to see to it that a true and lasting peace be established in our own country, before trying to organize the peace of the whole world? All right-thinking people are wondering to an even greater extent about wthat good may come from this conference.
We have witnessed many conferences in the last twenty-five years. We participated' in the league of nations, which was supposed to prevent any further wars. We have spent large sums of money as our share for the upkeep of the league, and to cover the travelling expenses of our Canadian representatives in that organization.
Other nations have organized all kinds of peace conferences and all kinds of disarmament conferences. But in spite of these we have been drawn into this terrible war, one which is upsetting the whole world. Now this question arises: What reason have we to believe that the proposed conference at San Francisco will offer any better guarantee or results than did previous ones?
I believe that, not only does this conference fail to offer better expectations but, because of its very organization, it cannot avoid driving the world to anything but another war.
All hon. members know that the conference will be controlled by only the three powers. These are the three powers which at present are fighting alongside each other-but for how long? What would become of the conference if to-morrow one of those three great powers happened to disagree with either of the other two?
If the powers controlling the conference could all be described as democratic powers, we might possibly entertain some hopes; but when we know that the one which, up to now,

has imposed its will1 upon all the others is a dictatorial power, exactly like those against which we are now fighting, we are not very hopeful nor can we rely very much on the results which may flow from the conference.
Then, when we see that Poland is the country which should have been the first to be asked to participate in the conference, and for whose safety our country was drawn into the war, is not only cast aside but has been broken to pieces in order to please that dictator, who is about not only to control the conference but also to govern all Europe after the war, we have serious cause for concern.
The situation is, I know, a difficult one. In many countries there are people of good will who will endeavour to correct the situation; but in Canada let us not lose all sense of proportion. Let us not try to convince ourselves that we can settle everything-and especially when we know that our international status does not- permit us to do so.
(Translation) Mr. Speaker, the question that comes up is whether, with feelings as they are now, it is humanly possible that the San Francisco conference may give the results expected from it, and bring a solution to the problems at hand.
If the establishment of peace in the world is eagerly desired, should not a beginning be made by redressing the wrongs suffered by the people within participating nations?
If a satisfactory result is expected, should it not, in the first place, be shown beyond any doubt to the citizens of interested countries that this new organization which it is desired to set up will not be solely in the interests of a group or of certain international influences which have always, so far, caused the wars that have plagued us.
In short, if practical measures were really desired, if there was a wish to bring the people to take a serious view of the discussions of that conference and of the commitments which it is proposed to take, proof should first be given that the governments concerned have as their primary purpose, the elimination of the factors that cause world wars.
No one will deny that the world is seriously ill at the present time. Everyone will recognize that if a permanent cure is to 'be achieved, it is not sufficient to apply temporary remedies, but it is necessary, first, to eradicate once for all the causes of the illness.
Should we succeed in putting back on its feet a wounded and bruised world, if we allow it to continue living among unhealthy surroundings, amidst the same dangers as those which

San Francisco Conference
prevailed before the war, it will only continue to suffer without ever regaining the full freedom which would enable it to live a normal life.
If we look for the cause of the ills which beset humanity, if we wish to seek these causes in good faith and in all honesty, it is easy to find that peoples themselves are not to blame. Indeed as Ernest Renan said: "The immense majority of mankind dread war." Therefore, if all nations loathe war why at ewer more frequent intervals, must they be dragged into conflicts in which they are suddenly pitted against one another? If we go through the whole world and analyse the thoughts of the inhabitants of the various countries, we shall realize that all peoples have a common wish: to live in peace one with the other. Therefore, all wars have been caused by the leaders of the different governments who, in turn, have often been drawn into them by international financial powers who have always found their interests in confusion and have immensely profited by these world conflicts.
As long as we refuse toi recognize these facts, as long as we voluntarily turn away from the light, as long as we refrain from taking appropriate steps to check these evil powers who work havoc with the whole world, so long will conferences such as the projected San Francisco meeting remain a delusion and a deception and so long will they be of no use whatever.
At a time when we are thinking of seeking the means to restore universal peace so avidly sought by all, we are not sufficiently concerned with guaranteeing social security as an indispensable foundation for international peace.
All individuals have a right to the full development of their personality; however, it is their duty to curtail their own activities so as to leave room for the expansion of their neighbours'. We should abstain from restricting the development of other people's personality; and it is not only our moral duty to do so, but it is equally a condition to the attainment of social peace.
When economic conditions are such that two opposite groups are created: one extremely prosperous, the other lacking the very necessities of life, society becomes unbalanced to a point where living is impaired. We see individuals interested solely in the building of their own fortune, grasping, selfish, unscrupulous people, who, in order to attain their ends, are willing to provoke the most cruel wars. On the other side of the abyss, we see the destitute, those who have no other alternative than to work for the wealthy, those who have neither the time nor the means to draw from life their share of happiness.
Such a society cannot long endure. It lacks balance. It is undermined by too much suffering, too much bitterness, by the injustice and humiliation of human life. And when, within societies, disorder rather than peace exists, international conflicts are not far off.
In order that economic life may be suitable within nations, international economic life must necessarily be cleansed; hence the need to fight egotism and greed. The reign of international justice and world peace will be possible only on a basis of social justice and altruism. So long as we have organizations like the International Settlements Bank which I have already had occasion to denounce in this house, peace will just be a mere ideal.
If, as I said a moment ago, wars have mostly been the handiwork of international finance, it is nevertheless true that in the last few years there has come to the fore another international power which must be watched closely and which, if it is not checkmated at once, will also lead us to new international conflicts. I am referring to communism. The Third International, which still exists, and is increasingly active in this country, as in almost all other countries in the world, means the destruction of a class to the advantage of another which is neither better, nor more intelligent, but which is less educated. Consequently, other countries cannot but lose by having anything to do with it. Communism, which was to save us from all ills through the formula "What is mine is also yours" and inversely, has been without any effect.
Every time an attempt was made to disregard the principles which are natural to men, society has gone to ruin and in spite of these warnings, in spite of these resuits, there are still a large number of promoters of communism who dream of the day when this nefarious form of government will rule the w'hole universe.
If, Mr. Speaker, every country were to clean its own house and do away with all its subversive elements, the need would probably disappear for conferences such as the proposed San Francisco meeting to seek a remedy to the ills which afflict humanity.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the principal reason which convinces me that this conference cannot produce anything worth while is that, I repeat it, the greatest international power in the world, the Vatican, is systematically ignored.
In the course of the debate on the address, on January 31, 1944, I said in this house:
Since the beginning of the war we have been told we were fighting for democracy and Christian civilization. For us Canadians, we cannot
San Francisco Conference

aspire to anything other than the reestablishment of an enduring peace in the world. We cannot expect territorial possessions. We cannot expect much compensation. Therefore, if we wish to reach our end, if we wish to be true to ourselves and to others, we have nothing to do other than to see to it that all the necessary precautions be taken to have this time not twenty years' truce, but a real, everlasting peace. One of the most necessary precautions would most certainly be the attendance at the next peace conference of the most powerful moral authority, the greatest friend of peace, the greatest advocate of the moral brotherhood of mankind.
As long as this great international power, the Vatican, is deliberately left aside and excluded from international discussions, the suffering and unhappy peoples of the world will be offered only incomplete and insufficient remedies.
I recalled then that in 1919 the Pope had been excluded from the peace conference on account of the secret treaty between Italy, Great Britain, France and Russia, and I added:
What wonderful success resulted from this policy of excluding the sovereign pontiff and of ignoring the rights of Providence!
The treaty of Versailles has probably lasted for a shorter period of time than any other treaty in history. Is it not very evident that after the present war, when we must start from scratch, it will be absolutely necessary to rectify the mistakes made from 1899 to 1919 and ask the Pope to enlighten by his moral authority the nations which will have the task of drawing up the next peace treaty?
Is there not, at the present time, another secret treaty, another convention designed to keep the Vatican out of international discussions? I hope not, for such a state of things would simply be a repetition of a crime for which we might have to pay very dearly.
Indeed, the fair-mindedness and the influence of the Pope have been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.
I wish to quote the following from a book on the league of nations by Father Yves de la Briere:
More than anyone else in the world, the Pope deserves to be the messenger, the nmpire, the legislator of peace and right among nations. His religious mission is to be the universal pastor of the souls. He has been entrusted with the evangelic doctrine of peace, justice and charity. The theological schools of which he is the supreme head, have been giving for centuries enlightening and coherent lessons on the code of peace and war. The institutions of Catholicism enable him to exert a deep influence on the moral, intellectual, social and spiritual formation of over two hundred million of human beings. Throughout the centuries, the name of the Pope of Rome has remained identified, in the settlement by arbitration of international conflicts with the best and most efficient effort in history.
In addition to his spiritual jurisdiction, the Pope of Rome possesses a temporal sovereignty which is no longer territorial but personal . . .

This book was written before the Pope became once more the head of a Sovereign state.
. . . which to-day is diplomatically and authentically recognized by international law. On this score, it is in order that the diplomatic representatives of the Pope should take part in conferences attended by the diplomatic representatives of all sovereigns and chiefs of state, especially so when tne aim of the conferences is to conclude or guarantee peace between nations, an object which is quite in keeping with the distinctive mission of the Holy Father.
To confer to international agreements the august and sacred prestige which are necessary in the eyes of nations, to give to the rules of mediation and arbitration, to international laws and sanctions, the moral authority which, frequently at least, will insure respect, what sovereign, what chief of state will be in a position to exert, by his recommendation, by his public endorsement, a more beneficial influence than the Pope of Rome?
As we have said, he rules spiritually over several million subjects in each state or group of states in Europe and throughout the world. He is not affiliated to any system of alliances, to any political, diplomatic or economic scheme; yet he is nowhere a stranger. In every country, Catholics regard him as their Pastor, their Doctor and their Father, and the right-minded non-Catholies see in him a moral force whose authority commands their esteem, their respect, nay their veneration.
Who could, in all fairness, deny the Pope the right to partake in the diplomatic and legal conferences involving international law?
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, considering all those reasons I have mentioned, I cannot place any confidence in this organization and I am satisfied I am loyally discharging my duties as a member and as a citizen of Canada in voting against this resolution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this resolution is in danger of becoming an orgy of wishful thinking. Every hon. member wants peace; but by blind adulation of the present proposals we are not assisting the Canadian delegation to the San Francisco conference, nor are we fulfilling our duty to our constituents. The failure of the league of nations was started by the hysterical praise of the idealism of President Wilson. The world forgot man's essentially human nature and for a period believed that all men were angels We forgot that each of us contains a great deal of the old Adam. This led the way for the destruction of the power of the league and eventually of the whole league itself by selfish' and sinister influences. Their

San Francisco Conference
methods were, first, to advance objections because the charter of the league was not perfect. They were devastatingly effective, and nowhere more so than in the United States Senate. The battalion of death headed by Borah and Lodge placed the demolition charges under the bridge of collective security, and Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo saw to it that electric wires and fuses were well placed and did not fail when the firing trigger was pressed. Now that the world believes nothing without reservations and that we call ourselves realists, when perhaps we confuse realism with cynicism, we can approach the international issue without the sugar icing of Wilsonian idealism. We now get to the meat directly, and the meat we get to is power, and is called by that name. This is a tremendous gain over 1919.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the first hypothesis is that the world wants peace. True, every member in this house wants peace and every Canadian wants peace all the time. But because we want peace, or because the huge majority of the rest of the world, war-worn and weary of devastation and bloodshed, wants peace, it does not automatically follow that all the world wants it too, and will continue to want it in the future.
The last effective long-time organization for peace was the pax Britannica; and the pax Britannica, which was in force for the years between the Napoleonic and the great wars- virtually a century-did not prevent war but it did localize war. During that time there were a number of wars in which the major countries of the world took part. First, there was the Crimean war in which Turkey, Great Britain and France were pitted against Russia. Because of Britain's command of the sea Russia was unable to attack the British isles; therefore the war was localized. Then there was the Franco-Prussian war, in which two major European countries, France and Prussia, fought bitterly. Alsace-Lorraine was overrun and Paris besieged and taken. But that war did not proceed any further. With the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to Prussia, which became Germany, the war came to an end. Then there was the Russo-Japanese war. Here again two major powers fought, but the war was localized. One major mutiny, the Indian mutiny, occurred, and there was one important civil war. the civil war in the United States. There was the religious war of the Mahdi against the British in the Soudan and Egypt; and there was what is now considered by enlightened people everywhere a predatory war, known as the South African war. All these wars were localized, and they were localized because the power possessed by the British 32283-9



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
fleet, which had a ratio of two to one over all the other fleets of the world during a great part of that time, prevented the spread of war. It was not because of modern inventions that war was prevented from spreading, because the Napoleonic wars were virtually world wars. They effected war in Canada, in the islands of Oceania, in Java and Sumatra, in southern India, and in Egypt, where, near Cairo, the battle of the Nile was fought; and almost the entire continent of Europe was also involved. At that time there was no guiding, overwhelming force to control and localize wars; and since the beginning of the German movement for equality of strength in naval armaments, Great Britain could not maintain a strong enough navy to guarantee world peace. So, in 1914, we had the first of the modern world wars.
Because we failed to heed the lesson of power we have had another world war within a period of a quarter of a century, the most devastating war in the world's history. We have now had a conference at Dumbarton Oaks, and for the first time since the ending of pax Britannica the world has admitted the necessity for power. I do not believe that this house is sufficiently aware of the tremendous import of the power clauses in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. I propose to quote briefly the major power proposals of this conference. The first is in chapter V, section B, 1. It compares the proposals with the league of nations. In the league of nations both the assembly and the council could take action with regard to the settling of disputes and the maintenance of international peace and security. Under the charter of Dumbarton Oaks such action would rest solely with the security council. In other words the assembly is now relegated to an advisory position only. Under the Dumbarton Oaks proposals the general assembly will have the right to discuss any question relating to world peace, but if action were necessary it would be for the security council to decide and act. That is the first fundamental difference between the new proposals and the old league.
The next power clause is chapter VI, paragraph 4, which reads as follows:
The security council would have the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security; such responsibility to be freely conferred upon it by the charter by the members of the organization. The powers to be conferred on the security council are greater than have ever before been given to an international body.
I should like to repeat those words, "greater than have ever before been given to an international body."

[Stage Direction]
San Francisco Conference
[Stage Direction]
Then the first instrument of power is that the security council be assisted by military staff committees whose compositions and functions are detailed in the proposals. We then go along a little farther and we come to chapter VIII, which reads as follows:
Members of the organization would be bound to give assistance in the form of quotas of national forces, or the provision of facilities, in a manner and to the extent previously promised by special -agreement or agreements . . .
I shall not quote the whole paragraph because, it is rather lengthy, but there is your clause binding all the members of the organization. We now come to the powers of the military staff committees, which read as follows:
It is the military staff committee that is to advise the security council on all military questions. This body, composed of the chiefs of staff of the members with permanent seats. . . .
That is very very important. The military 3taff committees are composed of the members with permanent seats.
John James Kinley: Read farther on.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Or their representatives.


John James Kinley: Go on.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Who work out the quotas to be supplied by the members of the organization and prepare schemes for the disposal of such forces for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace.


John James Kinley: Is the hon. member talking about military staffs?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, it is chapter VIII, B. 9. The hon. member can read it for himself.


John James Kinley: Paragraph 9 is the paragraph.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I am reading chapter VIII, paragraph 39.
We mow come to the right of members to amend the council.
The right of the members with permanent seats to veto any amendment was thought to be necessary', since they have the major responsibility in the question of maintaining international peace and security and could hardly be expected to undertake to carry out this duty under conditions not agreed to by themselves.
Your permanent council have the power to complete and absolute power of veto.
The next clause is very significant:
Amendments so adopted would be binding on all members, even on those voting against them. They are not allowed to withdraw from the organization on this ground as was provided by the covenant of the league of nations. This is undoubtedly a great innovation in inter-
[Mr. Adamson.7
national procedure, but it was thought to be necessary if the organization was to be able to adapt itself to the rapidly changing world, of to-day.
I believe you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a charter of power if ever there was one. I am not objecting to that. We have seen that these nebulous, indecisive charters, such as the first Hague court and the league of nations, failed because it did not have the power at its disposal. Because the Dumbarton Oaks proposals do have power it is necessary that we should consider where we stand in Canada as one of the- nations going into this agreement under the present proposals without a permanent seat on the council and exactly how far this will affect us.
The three permanent members with power at the present time are Russia, the United States and Great Britain. You will find in Russia a bi-continental country of some 270 millions of people, stretching from the Atlantic in Europe to the Pacific in Asia, probably the greatest military power in the world to-day. The second of the great powers is the United States, a country of 130 millions of people, certainly the greatest industrial power in the world to-day. Under our proposals at the present time and at Dumbarton Oaks the third permanent power outside of China and possibly France is the government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is a country devastated by war and crippled financially, whose industries have been wrecked by bombings, whose cities have been largely destroyed by fire, and whose population numbers scarcely forty-three million people. So under these proposals we have two great world powers with upward of four hundred million people, the greatest industrial and military powers in the world to-day, and we have a country with but one-tenith the combined population of the other two.
It is for this reason that I disagree with this proposal. The two major powers are fundamentally land or continental powers. If we can judge by history we see that if we are to limit war-and I only say . "limit"-we must have the freedom of the seas and the power of the seas. The government of England has said in unmistakable terms, through Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, that Great Britain can no longer undertake the job of securing the freedom of the seas. Now we are putting ourselves in the hands of one great land country, Russia, which has no need for international trade, and' another great land country, the United States, as nearly sufficient unto itself as any country could be in this day and age, a country which is now a great naval power, I admit, but only of comparatively

San Francisco Conference
recent days, and which in the past considering its trade has not been a great maritime power. I submit that if we leave the thing as it now is and do not take into consideration the importance of the freedom of the seas we will destroy our best chance for world peace by merely including in these proposals as the third member of the power group the United Kingdom rather than the British commonwealth.
That is my first reason for disagreeing with these proposals. You may say that if the British commonwealth acts as a unit there will be the danger of imperial commitments. I think I have shown that if we are going into this thing at all we will be undertaking very great and serious international commitments, greater than were ever asked of any nation before. Surely any British or imperial commitments we might be asked to undertake would be light as compared with the commitments we are hoping and willing to undertake under these proposals.
We have to look at the British commonwealth from the point of view of population and production. Great Britain is a country of some forty-three million people, with perhaps two-thirds that number of white people in the remainder of the empire. If we include India the empire population other than that of the United Kingdom is many times greater than the population of the United Kingdom; but if we base our strength on population and industrial production we find that even now the commonwealth, with India and the colonial empire, has a greater industrial potential than the United Kingdom. With the commonwealth acting as a unit in this power group we would have an equal voice with the great military and industrial powers of the world.
To me, Mr. Speaker, that is imperative. But there is another danger if we do not come into this thing as a commonwealth unit. To-day we find England virtually bankrupt, with her foreign investments gone. We have taken some of them, I think unwisely. She has been forced1 to endeavour to form what is known as a sterling bloc, a group of empire countries outside Great Britain, including also probably the trading countries of Scandinavia and the lowlands, two of the Mediterranean countries and the greater part of Africa. On the other hand Russia and the United States have definitely intimated that they believe in trading on some form of gold standard. In the past our prosperity resulted in large measure from being the sterling broker for Great Britain in New York. We sold to Great Britain and bought from the United States, to a very large extent. If we find ourselves, 32283-9i
depending on sterling for our exports, situated between two great gold countries, we will find ourselves in perhaps the worst economic dilemma we could imagine. I believe we must point this out with brutal frankness to both the United States and Great Britain, and I see no better way of doing so than by demanding that we take our place as a member of the commonwealth in the permanent seat on the security council. If we do not do that we may find ourselves ground between the upper and nether millstones of gold and silver.
There is another clause which is of some interest; that is the provision with regard to the world court. The world court was a judicial device brought about in the first place at the Hague as long ago as 1904. We know there have been many other attempts at a world court, but the great attempt was made in conjunction with the league of nations. It was upon this world court that we very nearly got joint action and cooperation from the United States. But the stumbling block on which the United States refused to enter the world court was that clause dealing with advisory opinion; that is, opinion of the court in an advisory capacity with regard to a dispute between two nations.
In the Dumbarton Oaks proposals it is definitely stated that the court could also be asked to give advisory opinion to the security council on questions where a legal issue arises. That fact is stated, and stated clearly. It has been decided, and I think rightly so, that the world court shall be empowered to give advisory opinion. I think that is one of the functions of any international judicial body, and one of its most important functions. But it is on that stumbling block that the United States senate foreign relations committee refused to enter the world court before. We must be prepared for that contingency this time.
One thing further I should like to suggest to the delegates who will leave for San Francisco, is in connection with the manufacture of armaments.	We have seen an
attempt-an abortive attempt it is true

to restrict the manufacture of armaments. All during the unquiet years of peace, from month to month one would see stories in the newspapers telling about some country that had a new gun, or some other country that had a new tank, or some other one that had a new type of lethal gas, or one that had an extremely powerful bomb, or a new type of aircraft. All of these things were developed and kept in secret in the war departments of the various countries concerned.
San Francisco Conference

We are not going to stop the invention of lethal weapons. We are not going to stop the designing of new bombs. We are not going to stop the invention of better and more devastating explosives. We are not going to stop the invention of faster aircraft, or new weapons such as the flying bomb. But I do feel that one of the things the security council should do is pool all information with regard to the manufacture and invention of ordnance. If we do that we will know each other's weapons; we will stop trafficking in arms; we will prevent the publicity of arms competition, which has done so much to keep the world in a state of unrest.
Because I have been critical of some of the measures and proposals resulting from the Dumbarton Oaks meeting, it is not to be construed that I am opposing in any way the San Francisco conference. We cannot be perfectionists; perfectionism is the path to war. All government is compromise. Certainly all democratic government is compromise, the very fact of having a government and an opposition indicates that compromise. Because we compromise internally we must compromise externally. To go to San Francisco with rigid minds or fixed ideas is fatal. Let us take this last chance, for if we fail this time we perish-and Canada is likely to be the battlefield of the future.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Kipling, let us say to the delegation that goes to San Francisco:	Do not look too good or
talk too wise.


Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):: Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of the resolution before the house the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has asked for free expression of the different points of view of hon. members. There appears to be unanimity of opinion as to the desirability of holding a conference, and of preparing a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and to that end taking collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and bringing about by peaceful means adjustments or settlements of international disputes which may lead to breaches of that peace. This is one of the purposes of the conference.
I agree with the government's action in accepting the invitation to the conference, and believe that now is the time to make preparation for world security, rather than leave it, as after the last war, to be added as an appendage to the peace treaty. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. There must be 
collective security, and the responsibility that any nation undertakes must be backed by power; because it has been amply demonstrated that no single nation of itself can ensure its own safety.
Personally I hope and believe that a workable arrangement for the maintenance of peace and the laying of foundations for world-wide social and economic justice can be achieved, if the free nations of the world show the same measure of good will and cooperation they have evidenced throughout the war. I hope, too, that the social agencies which were a part of the league of nation's set-up may be incorporated in the new set-up. I refer particularly to those agencies that had to do with the control of narcotics, the control of vice, and the standardization of drugs. Those agencies did remarkable work and accomplished much, and they should be continued and enlarged. Let me here pay a tribute to Doctor Nansen, a Nobel prize winner and great Norwegian physician who had charge of that particular part under the league of nations set-up.
Canada, a peace-time nation, has become a fighting world power. Let us maintain her position as a peace-time world power for the peace and security of the world. No doubt there are those who will advocate that Canada should line up with Britain and the commonwealth as one of the big three rather than take the position of having a voting power of her own. Should we follow such a course, much of what we have striven for and obtained under the Statute of Westminster would be thrown into the discard. We would once again revert to colonial status. I think we can continue to maintain our place in the British commonwealth of nations and yet at the San Francisco conference, and indeed at the peace conference, claim and take our place as one of the most important nations of the world and assert our position in that regard.
I have every confidence that our Prime Minister who will lead Canada's delegation will see to it that Canada's interests are protected. Our voting strength should be based on our contribution in men, arms, production and achievement in the present war. Our delegation should strive to that end and not be relegated to a position comparable with that of San Salvador or some other small nation whose only claim to a seat at the conference is that they have shown evidence of friendliness to the allied cause. Just as there has been a difference in the capacity of the different nations to contribute to the war effort, go too will there be a difference in their ability to contribute to peace.
But there are doubts in the minds of some citizens of this country as to the success of the

San Francisco Conference
conference. These doubts have some basis in fact and will continue and become of graver importance unless all countries and the free nations of the world are invited and represented and unless injustices which have already been committed are set aright.
Take the case of Poland. This is of interest to all of Canada and of particular interest to the Polish citizens of Canada. These are not an inconsiderable number. Do you know that there are in Canada 167,485 persons of Polish extraction, and over a million persons of Polish extraction in the United States of America? Renfrew county, which I have the honour to represent, has between five and six thousand citizens of Polish birth and ancestry. In this war Polish citizens from Renfrew county have joined the armed forces voluntarily in large numbers. Many have been decorated for gallantry, and many have laid down their lives for a cause which they deemed to be just and to give evidence to their fatherland and to their relatives in Poland that the ancestral ties were still strong and that they were willing and ready to make the supreme sacrifice if needs be.
Let me say that no county has a finer class of citizens than the Polish people of Renfrew county. They are honest, industrious, hardworking, good living and God-fearing people. They are men of the land and of the forest. They have been there for many years;, they have raised large families, have become prosperous and are splendid law-abiding citizens. They have their own parishes and churches. As a matter of fact the parish of Wilno in Renfrew county is called after Vilna in Poland and is the oldest Polish parish in Canada.
These people have made an appeal to me to present the case of their country to the Canadian parliament on their behalf, on behalf of their fatherland and in the name of justice and British and Canadian fair play. They ask this to be done in order that Poland may obtain the justice 'which she so much deserves for her loyalty to her British allies. I accepted that task gladly and I make no apology for making this protest or bringing up the matter here because it has been brought up already in the British parliament and in the congress of the United States.
I am mindful of the position which the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Blake took in the defence of the country of my ancestors w'hen her position was somewhat similar to that of Poland. No country under the banners of the united nations has fought more valorously, gained more of glory on land and sea or in the skies than has Poland. There were Polish paratroopers in that heroic band which
endured to the last at Arnhem. There is an armoured Polish brigade under General Maezek fighting in Holland. There is a Polish legion with the first Canadian army. There is a Polish division under General Anders with the eighth army in Italy. There are Polish airmen daily and nightly in the skies over Germany and forty-five per cent of all allied naval decorations granted by the British government have gone to Polish sailors-to that Polish navy which is but nine per cent of the allied naval effort. All of us, therefore, should be proud to salute Poland and proud also to hope that the Polish people fighting Hitler and tyranny with the finest heroism, will win for their own country the freedom it deserves.
Poland is a constitutional state, constituted under international law with boundaries de- _ fined. It was a free sovereign and independent nation, a very ancient state over 1,500 years old with a distinct language and strong powerful racial sense. Belonging to the western civilization, possessing a great degree of culture, having produced many learned scientists, musicians, poets, writers, painters and sculptors

to mention only a few, Copernicus, Chopin, Paderewski, Conrad and Madam Curie-Poland has always had a democratic form of government. It has some of the oldest universities in Europe.
On account of war-time conditions Poland, like Belgium, Holland and other countries, has had her legal government in London, which government is based on the principal of legal continuity and was the successor to the government of General Sikorski whom Mr. Churchill clasped so warmly by the hand, vowing friendship in life and death, saying, "We shall conquer together or we shall die together". Thus spoke Mr. Churchill in 1940. The Polish government in London is recognized by the Polish nation. An army of nearly 200,000 men is sworn to this government and the Polish underground is likewise sworn to this government. This government was recognized by all the countries of the world as the legal government of Poland. Even Russia recognized this as the legal government of Poland until the Moscow-made Lublin committee of liberation took its place.
The legal Polish government in London has not been invited to the San Francisco conference where it might be given an opportunity to present its case, and where a decision as to the matter of its present and future status might be honourably sought. We find that at the Yalta conference that government has been repudiated and one of Russia's choosing at Lublin recognized.
San Francisco Conference

We all recall that Hitler pounced on Poland in 1939. Great Britain at once declared war on Germany. Only a few hours afterwards the parliament of this country declared war on Germany to protect Poland and western civilization. I need not recall the course of events since that time as it is well known the part Poland played in keeping her part of the Anglo-Polish pact. Poland honoured and sealed this pact with her blood, shed at home and on allied battle fronts for her own defence and that of her ally.
Hon. members are familiar with the decisions of the Crimean conference with reference to Poland. Her eastern territorial boundary is now to be the so-called Curzon line, and by it Poland will have lost forty-two per cent of her pre-war territories. It is true, of course, that [DOT] she is being given compensation in being allotted German territory. The question of the frontiers between Poland and Soviet Russia is of secondary importance. The supremely important aspect of the whole Polish problem is the future independence of the Polish state and the freedom of the Polish people to elect the kind of government they desire. The government, both national and municipal, is to be of the kind prescribed by Russia and forced on the Polish people. Elections are to be held on conditions agreeable to Russia.
Poland has comparatively suffered the greatest losses during this war. More than five million Poles have been killed, murdered or starved to death. There are millions of innocent Poles who are alleged to be prisoners of the Soviets. It is surprising that the champions of liberty the world over have not demanded the release of these people. Poland has been done a grevious wrong; she has been sacrificed to appease Soviet diplomacy. The eyes of the world are on Poland. Hilaire Belloc said:
The test is Poland

watch Poland; see what they do with Poland.
Captain Allan Graham, a member of the British parliament, said:
Poland is the test case for European civilization. If Great Britain deserts Poland Europe will desert Britain and that will be Great Britain's ruin.
A few days ago Mr. Churchill asked the British House of Commons for a vote of confidence in the Yalta decisions, which involve Russia's annexation of nearly half of Poland. Let me quote from an editorial of the Canadian Register of recent date, entitled "Mr. Churchill's Speech on Poland":
He repudiated any suggestion that he was making a questionable compromise or yielding to force and fear! He thus showed his anticipation of the accusation of betrayal. It is very

Churchillian and it serves its purpose at a time when there are few willing to take the responsibility of depriving Britain of an effective government and causing a split between the three chief allies. But Mr. Churchill would not expect any informed persons to be converted by his rhetoric. He showed doubts himself that even the Polish troops who have covered themselves with glory fighting on the side of the allies will want to go back to their country. It was a strange suggestion to make, that victorious troops should not want to go back to the land they had fought to save. Of course it would not be strange if Mr. Churchill has a secret consciousness that they have fought in vain, that Poland has been robbed by its allies of far more than the corridor for w'hich she defined the might of Germany. Moreover. Mr. Churchill will know, though he will not say, that the Russians_ have established, and may be able to maintain, a system of purging in Poland whereby all men who could put up a fight against them are being eliminated. As soon as the Russians were able to advance into Poland and drive the Germans out they began to imprison or deport members of the underground. Mr. Churchill calls this the "liberation" of Poland. He thinks Poland should be so grateful to Russia for this "liberation" that it should surrender half the country to the liberators. At the same time he suggests that as this kind of liberation may not appeal to the Polish soldiers and airmen who have contributed so largely to British victories in Africa, Italy and on the western front, the British empire might be able to find new homes for them.
Although he paints the partition of Poland as just and fair, Mr. Churchill hastens to assure Poland she will be "compensated" for giving up what has justly been taken from her. Poland is to get large slices of Germany, not only parts of Pomerania and Upper Silesia to which Poland has some claims on ethnic and historic grounds, but cities like Breslau, which are thoroughly German. He offers Poland the assurance that she will have no difficulty in keeping these annexed Germans in subjection because Germany is to be so treated that she will never be able to arm herself again. "Never" is a long time and Mr. Churchill, who is a very good historian, hardly does himself justice in pretending to believe that any confidence can be placed in the durability of these arrangements of power politics.
Churchillian hardihood in squaring the circle is nowhere better exemplified than in his claim that the Great Powers must be allowed to have their own way by the rest of the world but are not to be called a dictatorship because their whole aim is not to rule but to serve. No, Mr. Churchill did not go so far as to say that this is the great powers' aim; he merely said it is their duty, and of course great powers never think of doing anything except their duty.
The world outlook has been made sombre, to use one of Mr. Churchill's favourite words, by the Yalta decisions, which make for a dictatorship by three great powers whose "overwhelming force" is flourished before the rest of the world. The rest of the world knows well, however, that the force is overwhelming as long as the Big Three are in agreement, and not a moment longer. As regards Poland the chief present desire of her friends for the immediate future will be that her new government, when it is formed, will be genuinely representative of the Polish people and that it will not consist of stooges

San Francisco Conference
like those at present installed in Warsaw by the Soviet and which the British government has not yet brought itself to recognize.
Mr. Churchill was quite right in saying that the question of the frontiers of Poland is much less important than that of the freedom of Poland, though he does not show much respect for the freedom of Poland when, against the protests of the legal government of Poland and without even the pretence of consulting the people of Poland, he helps a foreign country to take away nearly half her territory. Still, if a truly Polish government is installed Poland will be able to make the best of the territorial situation and work towards improvement. A genuinely Polish government will not be anxious to be saddled with German territories and to make its country a buffer to Russia against Germany. Britain had need of Poland in 1939, and it is easy to imagine circumstances in which she will be seeking Poland's cooperation again. The task of British statesmen, when that day comes, will not be facilitated by the remembrance of Mr. Churchill's speeches and actions in 1945.
The ordinary man on the street cannot understand why the empire went to war to save Poland, and now, when a conference is about to be held to discuss security measures, why Poland is not invited to sit in.
Mr. Speaker, I resent the treatment handed out to Poland and my resentment is based on the sound concept of justice and common decency and respect for freedom. I respectfully request this government through its Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to use its good offices with Great Britain and the United States that Poland may be represented * at San Francisco, where she may have an opportunity of presenting her case. I further request that, when the proper time comes, Canada may make representations that the Crimean findings be reviewed and justice done to Poland.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Will he permit me to be associated with these sentiments in defence of Poland?


James Joseph McCann: Very gladly.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I rise to support the resolution before the house. As for the resolution itself, I feel it should have the unanimous support of the house. Concerning the proposals which have been placed before us and which constitute the basis of discussion at San Francisco, I feel that there is no impropriety in any hon. member's discussion of these proposals.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to have your ruling. On March 20 you stated, as reported in Hansard, at page 34:
As I interpret the rules of the house 1 would have to rule that the leader of the opposition
would be taking part in the debate by asking a question, and would have exhausted his right to speak.
I do not want to stop the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) from speaking, but I want a ruling. As reported in Hansard, at page 101, the hon. member asked a question. What I want to find out, Mr. Speaker, is, is it all right to ask a question of an individual member and is it not right to ask a question of the Prime Minister?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: There is no difference at all.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, then, I want a ruling.


Thomas Vien: The position is very different. We had to-day a question asked by an hon. member of another hon. member on the other side of the house to which that hon. member may or may not reply, as he wishes; he has the floor and he need not reply unless he likes. The question addressed to the Prime Minister was of a totally different nature, and was based on the assumption that the Prime Minister would answer questions from any part of the house, not in the course of his speech. If an hon. member should interrupt the speech of another and inquire if he may ask a question, that is altogether different.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The question of the hon. member for York South was asked after the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) had concluded his speech.


Thomas Vien: If an hon. member who is asked to permit a question desires to answer it he can do so, but an hon. member asking a question cannot compel a reply, and the request for permission to ask a question does not debar the hon. member so asking from speaking later in the debate.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Speaker, may I have "time out" for this interruption?
As I said before, I rise to support the resolution before the house. As far as the resolution itself is concerned I feel it should have the support of every member of the house.
Concerning the proposals which were placed before us, I feel that there is no impropriety in any member's discussion of these proposals, that there is no sacrilege implied in suggesting changes in detail of these proposals. The agreements were modified at Yalta, and I have no doubt they will be modified again at San Francisco, and modified in a manner to which the five great powers of the united nations will agree. In fact I see no point in calling the representatives of forty or fifty nations together
San Francisco Conference

at San Francisco to discuss this agreement if it is impossible that any further modifications should be made.
The position of this party in regard to these proposals was set forth very clearly by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well). Our position in regard to the final outcome of that conference was also, I think, set forth in that speech. I wish to quore from the hon. member's speech at page 38 of Hansard. In the paragraph from which the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) quoted a sentence I find later the following statement:
And who is there among us who does not realize to the full that the entire future of mankind depends upon the maintenance of the solidarity of the united nations, and particularly the solidarity of the three great powers? Canada is in a position, for several reasons, some of which I have indicated-geographical reasons, and so on-to assist in the perfecting of this solidarity and unity.
Then on page 40:
It will be the duty of the Canadian delegation to obtain the best arrangement possible and then for our parliament and our people to support it even if it does not go all the way we should go, or does not do all that we would desire.
Then from the same page:
Canada ought to be prepared to press for improvements in the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, and, having done that, to join with the other peace-loving nations of the earth in establishing the most effective peace system obtainable at this time.
On page 39:
I should like to say that our party stands squarely for collective security with-and I use these words advisedly-all that this term implies.
Notwithstanding these statements by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, the hon. member for Cartier, as reported in Hansard, at page 97, said this of our leader's speech: Instead of telling the house that we should go to San Francisco to assure the immediate setting up of a permanent organization for world security the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar goes no further than saying-
"The Dumbarton Oaks agreement provides a good basis for at least a discussion at San r rancisco of concerted action among the nations to outlaw war."
I think it is quite clear from the statements I have quoted that we believe Canada must be ready to assume whatever responsibility membership in a world organization may involve. In my opinion only those blinded with partisan prejudice can possibly interpret that speech to mean anything but cooperation with the peace-loving nations to establish a world organization that will maintain peace in the

future. I might say, however, that we can maintain that cooperation without clinging like barnacles to the government's bottom.
Iam sure we all realize that for some years to come wrorld peace must depend upon the extent to which Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union can agree upon a common course of action. Together they can prevent w'ar. It is also true that either of the three has it in her power to start another war whenever she may choose to do so. Our only hope for the future lies in their use of that power to maintain peace.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asks for suggestions. I am going to make one suggestion. It is that the Canadian delegates to San Francisco will support the setting up of an international education agency or commission as an integral part of any international organization set up to maintain peace. I can find no mention whatever of education in the Dumbarton Oaks agreement or in the proposals placed before us by the Department of External Affairs. At the end of the last war educational authorities sought to have an international education commission established as a part of the league of nations' machinery. At that time the statesmen of the allied nations concerned themselves with national and international governments, with questions of national boundaries, with minority rights, international courts and other legal machinery. There is plenty of evidence to-day that the emphasis will be placed, and quite rightly so, I think, upon the economic causes of war, upon international trade agreements, upon equal access to raw materials and other economic problems. That is all to the good. It still falls short of what is essential to maintain peace. The men and women who will fight in world war III, if we should have a third world war, are the boys and girls of to-day. Whether they in twenty-five years' time will have developed attitudes that are conducive to peace or attitudes that are conducive to war will depend upon what and how they are taught in the schools of the world.
The future peace of the world will depend not only on the efficiency of the international organizations set up at San Francisco to prevent war by taking economic or military action, but also to a large degree upon whether the schools of the world foster, in the potential soldiers of to-morrow, an intelligent desire for peace with an understanding of the conditions necessary to maintain peace, or whether they sow the seeds of war. The important contribution that

San Francisco Conference
education could make to world peace was completely ignored in the setting up of the league of nations' machinery at the end of the last war. Not until some years later was any recognition given to education. Then the recognition was too little and was given very reluctantly. No statesmen took up the cause for which educators pleaded at the end of the last war. While these statesmen were attempting to bolster up the league of nations, the children in many countries were getting the kind of education that was to fit them for world war II.
Only the dictators saw clearly that the effectiveness of all social planning is based upon education. They alone lavished upon education almost unlimited attention, prestige and resources. Before they dared to place in the hands of youth the weapons which they had built, they regimented their minds and militarized their spirits in the schools in which they were taught.
It must be obvious to us that unless we can effectively train the children of to-day in those habits and arts that make for international sympathy and understanding all our plans for the safety of civilization may very well come to naught. It is also obvious that such sympathetic understanding must be fostered among all the people of the world. No one nation alone can wisely or safely conduct such education unless all nations do so. It is for that reason that educators believe that some provision for the international planning and organization of education must be included in any post-war planning that seeks to establish a lasting peace.
Educators in the united nations have already given much study to this subject. They have studied the need and the functions of such an organization. A conference of allied ministers of education has been meeting bi-monthly in London, England, since September, 1942. There have been other education bodies representing educational associations in Great Britain, the United States, Russia, China and other allied countries studying these problems. Conferences representing as many as twenty-six nations have been held and a number of reports submitted. I hold in my hand a report submitted by the wartime information board, entitled "Reference Papers" and dated July 27, 1944. Speaking on this subject this paper says:
Of all the efforts in this respect, two conferences, one in London, England, the other at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, are most significant. In November, 1942, in London was convened the conference of allied ministers of education under the chairmanship of Right Honourable R. A. Butler, president of the board of education. This conference has been sitting
once every two months since then. The ministers of education of all the governments in exile are members of the conference. ... In May, 1943, Right Honourable Vincent Massey, high commissoiner for Canada in the United Kingdom, appointed a Canadian observer to the conference, D. V. Le Pan. The United States, the Soviet Union, China and other dominions are also represented by observers.
An official press release coming from that conference on April 19, 1944, informs Us that:
A tentative draft constitution for the united nations organization for educational and cultural reconstruction was accepted by the conference of allied ministers of education yesterday, 19th April. It will be forwarded to the allied and associated governments, and if adopted by them it will permit joint efforts in this field in line with parallel work already being developed by the food conference and UNRRA. General acceptance of the creation of an international organization to undertake cooperatively the vitally important work of restoring the educational and cultural heritages of war-torn countries, would carry the united nations past another important station on the road towards lasting peace.
The Hon. Vincent Massey in reporting on this conference, has this to say:
Canadian participation in the work of the conference is warmly sought. It is hoped that Canada will be able to provide some of the educational supplies which will be urgently needed. Specifically, I have been asked to inquire whether Canada would be prepared to restock the national and university libraries in Europe which have either been censored and pillaged by the nazis or have been gutted by military action. The books and periodicals required would fall into four classes.
He mentions the four classes of books required and goes on to say:
It has also been suggested that, because of the shortage of paper, both here and in the occupied countries, and because of the dislocation of the publishing trade, arrangements might be made in Canada to publish the textbooks which will be necessary.
Another conference suggested that since hundreds of thousands of teachers will be required in the liberated countries of Europe, and since the facilities of these countries for training teachers and equipping schools are almost non-existent, Canada might devote some of the buildings formerly used in the commonwealth air training scheme to the training of large numbers of teachers for these countries. Other suggestions also have been made. According to the educational supplement to the London Times I find that this constitution drawn up by the conference of ministers in London was sent to twenty countries, of which I presume Canada was one. It is further reported that only ten or twelve of those countries had as yet indicated their willingness to take part in the establishment of this organization. I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us, when he makes his

San Francisco Conference

statement, whether or not Canada has been asked to take part in this international educational organization and, if so, what position has been taken by the Canadian government.
An enormous task will lie ahead of the united nations in providing educational facilities for the liberated countries. A still greater task will be the reorganization of education in Germany itself. As to the need of education in the liberated countries I want to quote from a pamphlet entitled "International Planning for Education," by Doctor Robbins, of the dominion bureau of statistics. The quotation is taken in turn from a book entitled "Education and the United Nations," published in 1943 by the Council for Education in World Citizenship:
In the territories incorporated in the Reich, Polish schools of every kind were closed, only German schools were allowed. .	.	. Polish
education was for a time carried on secretly, but this was gradually stamped out by increasing terrorism. Teachers were deported, shot or sent to concentration camps. ... In the so-called general government a certain number of Polish elementary schools still exist. Their difficulties are immense. Reading books . . . have been confiscated. So. too, have all works in Polish or about Poland in the school libraries.
And later:
Sixty per cent of the elementary schools have been closed in Bohemia and Moravia. ... In twenty-three districts of the Moscow area occupied by the Germans they completely destroyed 947 out of 1,220 existing schools. . . . In the territories occupied by the Bulgarians, they are trying deliberately to exterminate all Greek culture and Greek schools have been destroyed or are rapidly being ruined by use as barracks or stores. . . . Fourteen of China's institutions of higher learning were completely razed: fifteen seriously damaged through aerial nombardment. . . .
It will be useless to provide international machinery for maintaining peace if the schools of any nation are left to sow the seeds of war. Military provisions will be of little avail if schools in Germany, Japan or any other country are left to teach the glorification of war, the myth of racial superiority or the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state. To-day those elements of the axis population and of the conquered peoples who are regarded only as workers are denied access to any form of education other than elementary, except vocational Those elements of the population regarded as the ruling classes have access to all forms of education. You cannot build a free world on any educational system that denies any section of the population, on the basis of race, creed or colour, access to the entire body of knowledge
There are numerous functions which an international educational agency could perform. I will summarize the three most important as,
	. I
first, the reconstruction of education in the liberated countries; second, the taking of the necessary steps to prevent any country from teaching in its schools the knowledge and attitudes that engender war; third, to see that greater educational opportunities are made available to the children of all countries. It ig because of the vital importance of education as a factor in world peace that I urge the Prime Minister and those who go with him to San Franciscu to do everything in their power to ensure for education its appropriate place in the plan for peace. Failing that, and I quote from a publication entitled "Education and the People's Peace," published by the educational policies commission of the national education association of the United States:
For as surely as the earth turns, force and violence shall be the law; and wars of cataclysmic destruction shall be the penalty; and blood and tears shall be the inheritance of that people who neglect to learn and to teach that the earth has growm smaller, that all men on it are fundamentally alike, that no human being need now lack food or shelter, and that science has made it necessary for men t<- live at peace if they want to live at all.
Mrs. DORISE W. NIELSEN (North Battle-ford) :	In rising this evening to take part
in this debate in support of the Prime Minister's motion, I am very conscious of the many people I represent back in the constituency of North Battleford. We are in effect really a small league of nations of our own. We are French and English speaking. We come from the Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, Germany and many other European countries. There have been plenty of differences between us in the past-even during this war. But I have no hesitation whatever in speaking on behalf of them tonight and stating that our unanimous desire is, of course, for peace.
Although Canada has been very fortunate in escaping to such a large degree the destruction which has overtaken other nations, we must not forget that many, and sometimes quite terrible sacrifices have had to be made by our farming people for the winning of this war. Our people long for peace. They long for the return of their sons and daughters, and for the reunion of their families. It is true that for the last few years we have had markets for what we could produce, which has contributed to some extent to our incomes. But the price of war for such markets is one which the farming people do not want ever again to pay.
I have no hesitation in supporting wholeheartedly on behalf of my people the sending of this delegation to San Francisco.

San Francisco Conference
I am reminded also, as I stand here tonight, of a section of Canada's people who would like, I believe, that their voices should also be heard. I refer to the Canadian women. I noticed that the other woman member in the house said that she had no authority to speak for women. I felt rather sorry about it, because I feel that both she and I should speak for Canadian women. After all, between the Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady there is no difference under the skin, any more than there is between any other women of Canada to-day in our fears and our hatred of war.
Canada's women in all strata of society have made a tremendous sacrifice. And not only that, but the role of women in this war has been far from passive. They have broken all precedents in their great endeavour to play a full and important part in the winning of the war. They have, I think, earned the right to make their voices heard. I cannot believe there is a single woman in the land who does not say with all the rest of us, "let there be no more war". We look forward to an era of lasting peace in which we can throw our full weight to more constructive efforts, to the building of a richer life and the making of motherhood and citizenship a task worthy of our abilities.
There have been, I believe, in the past some of my people at home who have favoured the policy of no commitments. But to-day there is one commitment which we all have to agree is necessary, above everything else, and that is that Canada as a sovereign nation in her own right be committed to uphold world peace. And not just that, but that we unreservedly support the decisions which are needed to establish a really effective instrument of peace which will work. That is the important thing.
There is every reason why we, together with other nations, can go forward to the actual establishment of a world security organization, with confidence and with high hopes. It is because of a completely new world which has arisen from the ashes of this war's frightful conflagration. The old ' league of nations was attempted in a world where economic isolation and hatred of the Soviet Union kept divided the nations that desired peace, thereby helping fascism to power and ascendency.
To-day the world picture is so different. All peace-loving nations, including the Soviet Union, have been welded by the fires of war. They are united to-day in their aims and purposes. Together they are destroying the fungoid and parasitical growth of fascism, tearing it out by the roots-roots which have 32283-10J
sucked at the very life blood of the people and fed upon the very vitals of humanity. And together they are freeing the great host of democracy for its growth, to maturity, for its flowering and for its fruition. Because of this new understanding which has been gained by nations during the war three men sat down together at Yalta'-strong men, men strong with the strength of determined peoples behind them. And because their united efforts have now made certain of victory, they were able to talk on the business of peace. It was not just their business; it was the world's business. And what they agreed upon is our business, for they committed the world's peoples, including us, to a new form of teamwork for tackling our problems and for securing all human endeavours. By deciding that the two great capitalist democracies of Great Britain and America, together with the Socialist Soviet Union, would work together in friendship and in mutual confidence, these three men created the one supreme condition for world security and prosperity without which there can never be any basis for a world security organization.
To my people at home this question of prosperity through markets both at home and abroad is all part of security, as it is indeed for all Canadians, and part of the question of peace. And the two cannot be separated. They are integral parts one of the other. Western farmers need markets; they cannot live without them. There is only one way of getting assured markets, and that is by having a world able, because it is at peace, to turn its full attention and energy to the question of international trade. It must be a world able to buy our products. Before this war we lived in a world of restricted markets, where the accepted pclicy was one of scarcity and limited trade. Any return to that would result in depression and misery and unhappiness, which western farmers suffered to the full once before.
It was at this conference in the Crimea, at Yalta, that a completely opposite policy, a policy for world expansion of trade and international cooperation, was accepted as being the only way for the world to proceed into the pp=.c* Canada's future depends upon that policy', being realized. The success of any world security organization depends upon that policy's being realized. That is why I say without reservation this evening that the proposals of Yalta together with the setting up of the world security organization must go hand in hand. They are of importance to every Canadian, man, woman and child. The facts are that not only lasting and increasing
San Francisco Conference

prosperity, but peace itself depend upon Canada's realizing that her interests lie in trying to help rebuild the economies of other countries.
Herbert Lehmann, as president of UNRRA, recently said that the minute fighting stops there will be an instant demandl for about
200.000.	000 suits of clothes. That, of course, is only one thing. Not only that, but in the necessities of the home, footwear and shoes, to say nothing of the greatest of all human needs, food, countries devasted by war will be almost insatiable in their demands. Let us not forget also how last spring millions of India's people died from sheer starvation- not through causes of war alone.
Our aim and our object must not be to keep these people on a diet just above starvation level, as they have been in the past. Our objective, if we are to realize the proposals of Yalta, which are bound up with the success of a world security organization, must be to build these peoples up to full health and strength by letting them have as much as they are able to consume.
Take China, that land of long suffering sorrows where the people's grief for centuries has been bound up with famine, that land where
400.000.	000 souls cry out for food which we can so amply produce to give them the dignity of human beings. These forgotten peoples of the world must be helped to lift themselves out of the mire and misery of destitution through mutual aid, through the establishment of a central bank and through all and eveTy kind of channel that is available to us. We must help to start these people with the equipment and means whereby they can become great new purchasing nations, providing in turn a vista of expansion in Canada which until now has been undreamed of.
It can only be when these things are done that we ourselves will know the blessings of peace and enjoy the right to a full and satisfied existence; it is only upon such a basis that we western people can build our own lives and communities into the fabric of a prosperous and peaceful world. These things will not come automatically; they must be worked for the same as the setting up of the actual world security organization. The position taken by our delegation at San Francisco will decide our foreign policy for some time to come. That is why it is so tremendously important that the whole nation understand our position.
Personally I think we should not seek to hide or to cover up, but rather should stress the unique position which our delegation will be in. After all, our delegation will represent the aspirations of a nation bound, first of all,

by tradition and also by strong ties of economic interest to the British commonwealth of nations, while at. the same time it is bound by geography and other ties of economic interest to the western hemisphere and the Americas. In my opinion it is precisely if we recognize the advantage of this position and base our proposals and policy upon it in the realm of international affairs that we shall be able to make our greatest contribution to this conference. Do not let us try to cover up this position; let us utilize it.
Conversely, it will only be if we fail to realize the significance of this strategic position that we shall fail to put into practice the concrete proposals which alone can ensure our future greatness and economic security as well as peace. There is every reason why we should actively participate in British commonwealth associations. Indeed our economic interests demand that we do. There is, however, a new and important feature to be recognized in our relationship with the British commonwealth of nations.
Let there be no doubt about- it, there will be some voices within the British commonwealth of nations which will again attempt to build the British empire into a unit of supremacy in the economic field through policies of self-sufficiency, attempting to repeat again the era of scarcity and trade rivalries. Canada's new role within the British commonwealth must be that of fighting against such a development and seeking to draw the British commonwealth into the orbit of world cooperation on the new conception laid down at Yalta. This has been begun by the speech made by the Prime Minister last year at the London conference, and I hope sincerely that it will be continued.
So in our relationship to the Americas I think it would be a good thing for us to become a part of a group of western hemisphere nations and to declare ourselves willing to be part of the declarations of the Mexico City conference; however, always with the understanding that Canada's vital role in such an association would be to fight against any new imperialism in America which would threaten the world with dominance in the economic field. There would be no contradiction in our occupying such a position. In fact it is there that we can make our greatest contribution. Mind you, this could not have been done before this rvar. It is only the changed perspective envisaged at the Crimea conference which opens up the way for such a constructive role in foreign policy being played by Canada.

San Francisco Conference
Let us think for a moment what the alternative might be if we were unfortunate enough to have a Tory government in power in Canada after the next election, which I sincerely hope God and the Canadian voters will forbid! Supposing they were in power and directing the foreign policy of Canada. By working and helping to make the British empire a centralized bloc, antagonistic to full cooperation with the United States of America and with the Soviet Union, they would undermine world unity and endanger peace again.
Such an empire bloc working for economic supremacy would start trade wars, destroying our hopes for both prosperity and peace. Let us recognize where Canada would be in this situation. Where could we hope for markets? Would we dare to go to Latin America if Britain and America were struggling for trade supremacy there? Would we dare to go to India? Would we dare to go to China? There would be no place for Canada to establish markets in the face of such rivalry and our economic existence would be in danger.
We must not fail the great aspirations of the people of this country who have with faith and courage given so much to win this war. The Canadian delegation must go to the San Francisco conference with confidence, ready to accept all responsibilities of building a world security organization. No war memorial, nothing could be raised as a memorial to the youth of Canada who have given everything to win this war that would be better than an edifice of world cooperation and peace.
It will be good, of course, if Canada's position as perhaps the most influential of the so-called middle nations is established in the peace organization, but I would like to emphasize this one thing: the Canadian delegation must never for one moment forget that the main consideration is that the three big powers, or the five big powers, who alone can enforce peace, are not impeded in the setting up of this machinery because of small differences which may exist between the relative voting powers which lesser nations think they should have. That is extremely important.
I must also bring to the attention of the house the fact that I regard the very mild criticism last night by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) of the address made by the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) to have been quite justified, and nothing which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) has said this evening has
changed my opinion. The times are too serious for anyone to indulge in carping criticism. The stake of peace is far too high a stake for that.
For my own part and on behalf of the Canadian people, particularly those who are followers of the C.C.F., I wish that we could be clearer as to the real feelings of the C.C.F. leadership with regard to this question of the setting up of a world security organization. There were some quite excellent statements in the speech made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on March 20 to be found at page. 38 of Hansard, where he is reported as saying:
And who is there among us who does not realize to the full that the entire future of mankind depends upon the maintenance of the solidarity of the united nations, and particularly the solidarity of the three great powers?
That is an excellent statement, but how are we going to understand the position of the C.C.F. when statements such as that made in this house are so utterly contrary to statements made by leaders of that party, both in their press and at public meeting? throughout the country. I have a number of quotations from speeches which have been made during the last two or three years, but I do not happen to have them in Ottawa with me. However, when I was in the reading room I picked up a couple which I believe will illustrate what I mean.
One of the leaders of the C.C.F., a member of the British Columbia legislature, Mr. Colin Cameron, writing in the C.C.F. News of British Columbia in its issue of December 21, 1944, said:
The hard, indisputable fact of the matter is that the real hope and aspiration of men and women everywhere-the complete and total outlawing of the idiocy of war-is not compatible with the foreign policies of Messrs. Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.
That appears to me to be a complete contradiction of the statement of the leader of the C.C.F. party here. In the same article, speaking about the conferences which led up to Yalta, particularly the Teheran conference, Mr. Cameron goes on to say:
Any such meeting would fail to bring about the hoped for harmony so long as the Big Three are Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt.
In that same paper of December 21, 1944, the C.C.F. News of British Columbia, there was an editorial which says:
The truth which is revealed through this sordid Polish deal is the fact that the Atlantic charter and similar pronouncements were nothing but a cold-blooded hoax, practised upon the common people of the world.
These are terrible statements in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot reconcile the present

San Francisco Conference
position of the leader of the C.C.F. with what has been his party's attitude right up until the summoning of this parliament.


Mr. COLD WELL:: At least I never said
in this house that Canada would be as well off under Hitler.


Mrs. NIELSEN:: That was said under entirely different circumstances.


Mr. MacINNTS:: It was during this war.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: The C.C.F. gets itself
muddled up over these things, and it greatly adds to the confusion of the Canadian people at a time like this when they should be so united in support of the efforts of these three great men. Taking the whole speech of the leader of the C.C.F. I feel that to the rank and file of his party it must prove as disappointing as it was to any of the rest of us in this house. All the way through it, while he seems anxious to, well, praise, shall we say, really he damns the conference with faint praise.


Major James William Coldwell: You know better than
that. Just be moral once.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I am taking the whole
speech.


Major James William Coldwell: Quote it.


Angus MacInnis: Read it.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I feel that in his speech
he dwelt on and emphasized the arguments which show up the various differences which may arise at the San Francisco conference, and certainly, specifically, when he dealt with the question of the right of discussion of the assembly


Major James William Coldwell: On what page?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: My inference anyway-I
cannot help it if my inference was not correct -was that the leader of the C.C.F. party was trying to make out that certain of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were comparatively undemocratic at least, in that they did not give the very fullest right of discussion.


Angus MacInnis: ' Terrible.


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: I am glad that we agree on something. He said on page 38 of Hansard:
Everyone, I believe, agrees it is essential that the security council should have the power to act and to act swiftly;-
That is very good, but then comes a "but."
-but the assembly representing the nations should have the right at all times to discuss any matter without limitation.


Major James William Coldwell: What is wrong with that?


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: Let us go a little carefully on this matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Exactly!


Dorise Winifred Nielsen: He goes on to say :
Canada as a member of the assembly but not of the security council should carefully review the present proposal to prevent discussion on matters being dealt with by the council of the great powders.
When I look over section B of chapter V of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals with reference to the general assembly I find this:
The general assembly should have the right ... to discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any member or members of the organization or by the security council; and to make recommendations with regard to any such principles or questions. Any such questions on which action is necessary should be referred to the security council by the general assembly either before or after discussion. The general assembly should not on its own initiative make recommendations on any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security which is being dealt with by the security council.
I fail to see where there is any limitation on democratic discussion relative to the work of that organization, but I am glad to see that there is a safeguard provided against the whole proceedings being bogged down by irrelevant discussion to the exclusion of the necessary action for which the assembly is being set up. I think that is an excellent safeguard.
The leader of the C.C.F. party says that the assembly should have the right at all times to discuss matters without limitations. I would say that such a procedure, instead of protecting democracy, would expose it to body blows and to futile discussions which would be very likely to kill it. I can think of no better opportunity for those interests that still exist and would destroy world security than to have, if they could, unlimited discussion in such an assembly. Unlimited discussion could kill it. It pretty nearly kills us sometimes!
The world and its peoples want action, not words. They want to see the security organization take on life, not to be strangled at birth by unlimited1 discussion of irrelevant matters. I would1 say that defeatism in time of war is a betrayal of the cause for which we fight and of those who gave their lives to fight. I wish to say openly in front of the whole house that any person to-day who is spreading even doubts and little fears about the possibility of our achieving democratic rights and so forth in this new peace and security organization which is being set up comes into the same category as those who

San Francisco Conference
spread defeatism in time of war. Mr. Speaker, let Canada have none of that type of person. Instead, let all of us wholeheartedly wish our Canadian delegation godspeed and send them forward with the greatest enthusiasm to carry out their part in the work that has to be done.


Mr. F. D. SHAW (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, a moment's reflection on the wartime achievements of the allied nations serves to convince us that these same nations can be a powerful influence for peace and security in the post-war era if the same determination which characterizes their present activities is also made to characterize their activities during their later associations. It is not at all strange that people throughout the free world to-day are turning with anxious eyes to the future. It is not at all peculiar that they should gaze even now before the cessation of hostilities into the distance for something which they hope will happen to prevent a repetition of the history of the past twenty-five years; for they know that shortly after the guns were silenced in the war of 1914-1S, only shortly after the armies had been demobilized and the war-weary nations turned enthusiastically to the task of creating a new world, certain evil forces were let loose upon the world to develop conditions which later plunged us into the most devastating conflict we have ever known. I feel, therefore, that we are quite justified, even at what might be a very critical stage of the war, in giving the utmost consideration possible to shaping so far as we can the conditions that will prevail after the cessation of hostilities.
The resolution which we have before the house at the present time I feel should not be dealt with in the manner in which we have been dealing with it in this debate. Like others I have a desire to express my views on this very important subject, but I would much prefer the type of discussion where through questions and answers we could secure the information which many of us feel we should have before we cast a vote on the resolution.
I notice in the first section of the resolution the house is called upon to endorse the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to San Francisco. I have ruo objection to that section. It is imperative in my estimation that Canada take her place among the nations of the world to discuss post-war international relationships. Canada can no more afford to be neutral on a matter of this kind than she could have afforded to be neutral during the savage struggle of the past five and one-half years. Moreover I concur in the oft-repeated
assertion that this nation has acquired a position among nations which renders our participation in international post-war discussions essential, not only for our own future welfare but also for the welfare of those associated with us. Canada is in an admirable position to constitute a tremendous factor in the establishment of general world stability. Her influence and contribution will be governed, I feel, by the representatives whom we send, if these representatives show vision and courage, and if they are imbued with the realization that a re-ordered world depends upon the reordering of each nation within the world.
As far as section 2 of the resolution is concerned, the house is being asked to recognize that the establishment of an effective international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada and the future wellbeing of mankind. Further we are asked to endorse the fact that Canada's interests dictate that we become a member of such organization. An examination of that section does not in my estimation commit us to any particular organization. We are given to understand that there shall be set up-at least it is hoped that there shall be set up-an organization which shall have as its purpose the peace, security and welfare of the nations, but as yet the exact nature of such an organization is not determined. Therefore it is not hard to agree that Canada should become part of some type of organization having as its objective the maintenance of peace and some sort of guarantee of security.
I come to section 3, which presents a slightly different problem. The house is asked to endorse the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments; and I feel very much as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) did yesterday when he inquired whether the proposals set down in the Dumbarton Oaks conference and the Bretton Woods conference are to become the basis for the establishment of the organization which it is proposed to set up. I feel that there is a good deal we must yet learn about the extent to which the decisions arrived at, particularly at Bretton Woods, shall enter into the determination of the nature and character of the organization which it is hoped to set up at San Francisco. We are asked in section 3 to consider that the proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization. I would not take very strong exception to that particular section of clause 3, but I do feel that it would have been very much better if those first few words,
San Francisco Conference

referring to the house approving the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments were deleted. One is placed in a position of this kind. One may support the sending of a delegation; one may support the belief that an organization of some kind should be set up; one may well agree that Canada's representatives should use the very best judgment possible in working toward conditions which will guarantee peace and security; moreover one may feel strongly in favour of the final clause of the resolution which states that the charter must be referred to parliament for ratification. But in order to vote for those, one is also placed in a position where, at least as near as I can determine, he must approve the final act of Bretton Woods, something which on the basis of the facts as we know them to-day may be extremely difficult to do.
I go on to clause 4 of the resolution, which asks the house to agree that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. I would not disagree with clause 4. We would expect Canada's representatives, regardless of who they are, to lend their very best efforts in endeavouring to achieve the purpose for which the delegations have gathered.
Section 5 asserts, as I have said, that the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval. That is exactly what we would expect if we are to continue our form of government in Canada as a democratic form. However, I should like to point this out. In this connection I think we are in a peculiar position. A delegation is to be chosen from the Canadian parliament; yet while they are in the midst of their deliberations it is quite possible that they may cease to be members of parliament. Having committed us, at least to a degree,
I feel that the next parliament of Canada may be put in the peculiar position that, let us say, one would be placed in who, being engaged to a young lady, suddenly decided that he wished to terminate the engagement. We know that in his mind would probably be a feeling that breach of promise action might be taken against him. And I feel that a delegation of this kind from a parliament which is in its dying stages may well place the incoming parliament in a peculiar position. However, I do not use that as an argument against sending a delegation.
I think I have made that abundantly clear.

I merely point out the unusual position m which we may find ourselves. I say to this delegation that the future peace and security of this world depend upon, first, the determination of those things which lead to war and the removal of those conditions. I have always felt-and I here give expression to my personal views-that the most potent provocation for all world wars has been economic insecurity and the struggle for foreign markets. It has caused perpetual strife within nations and it has caused perpetual strife between nations.
I would say also that the delegation should be mindful of the fact that history is rich with the aggressive tendencies of any centralized authority with powerful armed forces to impose its dictates upon its own people or upon other nations. These conditions have in the past at least led inevitably to war or to revolution. I think we might give some consideration to the history of our own British commonwealth. The history of the British commonwealth of nations has offered to us a practical demonstration of the strong bonds of unity and cooperation which can be forged in a policy of decentralization of sovereign authority, as well as the disasterous consequences which have inevitably developed when such a policy has been abandoned.
Let us go back for a moment and reflect upon the conditions which prevailed immediately after the last war. I say that never in the history of mankind did the people of all the countries desire peace more passionately than they did after the war of 1914-18, a war which we had been told was fought to end all wars. I said earlier that no sooner were the guns silenced, no sooner were our armies of that period demobilized, no sooner had the war-weary nations of the world turned to their new task of creating a new world than certain forces were loosed in the world which laid the foundation for world war II. I think all hon. members will appreciate that almost immediately after the last war primary producers, manufacturers, merchants and wage-earners were caught in the grip of a savage struggle for existence; against what? Against shrinldng markets, against falling wages, against increasing unemployment and growing poverty. I ask, w'hat a reward for the sacrifices which they made during the period of the first war. In the international field, almost immediately after the last war, fierce economic wars for markets developed. Rather than concentrate upon the task of making certain internal adjustments, almost in every case each nation turned elsewhere to find the solution of its problems. These other nations

San Francisco Conference
faced with similar internal conditions immediately established tariffs and embargoes, and did their utmost to increase their exports. I think it is a matter of history that this intense economic strife and the growing struggle for markets did lay the foundation for revolution and war.
We are often inclined to-day to speak in terms of Hitlers and Mussolinis as the causes of war. I say, let us never forget that conditions breed men of that character. I say that we should never forget that from the military war of 1914-18 we staggered into a war of economic strife, and out of the economic strife emerged men like Hitler and Mussolini to carry their nations and the rest of the world into military war. I feel that never in the history of the world have we, the nations of this earth, been better equipped to provide that national and international economic security which prevents the rise of dictators. In my estimation the people generally do not desire to embrace dictators and dictatorships. I say that dictators and dictatorships emerge as a consequence of a desperate hope of the people, usually the distressed people, that somehow such dictators can improve their economic lot. History also proves that, once accepted, dictators inevitably exert sinister influences in directions which were certainly not anticipated by the people who welcomed them, in certain countries at least, with open arms.
I should like to think that Canada and Canada's delegation to this conference might well bear in mind eight very important things. I think our delegation should recognize first that Canada is in a wonderful position to exert a powerful influence for good; and, second, that Canada can by example be also a powerful influence in the shaping of the world to come. I say that first by reorganizing our own national economy for economic security and democratic freedom so that we can at least in our own country guarantee a measure of contentment and toleration which will result in a decrease of human covetousness, when any other country witnesses in Canada conditions of the kind which I suggest, then it would be a powerful influence upon the other nations. Second, I say that Canada should give consideration to increasing trade on a reciprocal and mutually agreeable basis. We cannot hope, as so many have said, to engage in a cut-throat type of competition for foreign markets and escape the inevitable, which is economic war and military war, I say that Canada should also-and I think
our delegates should remember this fact- exercise and maintain unimpaired her position as a member of the British commonwealth, and that she should maintain her sovereign authority in the field of ordering her own affairs in accordance with the will of her people.
I agree with the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) who said that we recognize fully that to a degree at least it may be necessary for Canada to give up a limited amount of that sovereignty, but nevertheless I feel that Canada should guard jealously her sovereign position and her sovereignty. I feel, too, that any delegation must be very careful as to the distance it intends to go in turning over or in surrendering control over her armed forces to any external authority. I think Canada should also declare that we are fully prepared to recognize the sovereign integrity of other nations without interference in their affairs; but I recognize fully that following the cessation of hostilities it will be necessary for us to deal properly and effectively with those countries which have brought this catastrophe upon us, this second world war.
I feel that Canada should declare without equivocation that she is prepared to abolish all unnecessary barriers to trade and to travel. I believe Canada also should adopt in future a policy of making available to other nations whose domestic needs require them, onj reasonable and certainly on mutually agreeable terms, the raw materials of which we have an abundance and which other countries certainly are going to require when the war is over. Finally, in- the eighth place, I think Canada should make it a point to strive consistently with other nations for the establishment of good will among the countries of the world.
May I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that I have never believed in nor tolerated any idea of isolationism. We recognize that we should be one of a great family of nations; but we also realize that our association as a family of natrons must be the sort of association which one would hope to find in any family where unity prevails. It is my firm conviction that if our delegation at San Francisco gives consideration to the broad general ideas I have endeavoured to lay down in these eight points, they will be in a more advantageous position to set up Canada as an example which other nations will be proud to follow and also will have a greater influence upon those nations and their representatives with whom they may come in contact during the course of this conference.
San Francisco Conjerence


Mr. J. A. BONNIER (St. Henry) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments to make. I would urge the delegates attending the San Francisco conference to show much sympathy toward Poland. That nation was the first to withstand the onslaught of the invader. She fought back as well as she could, without waiting for the help of other nations. Her whole population rose against the aggressor. Poland is in a veiy difficult situation on account of Russia's demands and owing to the fact that she is at war with Germany. Poland was the first country to be invaded and to undergo the devastations of war. It was said, some time ago, that Poles had been buried alive, either by the Russians or by the Germans. The two nations charge each other with that heinous crime. No one knows which one of the two is responsible for such an atrocity. But, at all events, it is obviously one of the two.
I urge the delegates to the San Francisco conference to look after Poland's interests. Quite recently, Poland, not relying on the strength of the Allies, fought as well as she could. When the Russians launched their attack against Warsaw the Poles, believing that the Russians would soon enter the city, revolted. Unfortunately, the Russian armies halted at the gates of Warsaw and 100,000 Poles were slaughtered by the Germans inside that city.
I have read in a newspaper that the- Red Cross is not being permitted to bring relief to Poland. I hope that such a report is unfounded because if it were accurate it would be too tragical, after what that nation has had to suffer. It should not be forgotten that Poland has been despoiled of all her wealth and that only tottering walls have been left to her. Will any one abandon those of her citizens who have survived to suffering and death?
I hope the delegates to the San Francisco conference will take care that Poland is not subjected to further ill treatment. If it can be ascertained that the Polish nation is really suffering and starving, let us extend our help to her.
It is a satisfaction to me that Canada should be represented at that conference. Let us not lag behind after having made so many sacrifices both in manpower and in money. Let us not be indifferent to the pact of friendship which the great powers wish to make. No man is more qualified to lead that delegation than the right honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). His experience and his relations with the other great statesmen who lead the united nations are unmatched and no other man in this country could be substituted for him.

Mr. J. EMMANUEL d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the die has been cast. Another conference of the united nations will be held in San Francisco next April.
To my mind, we have had already too many such conferences judging from the poor results achieved. The Crimea conference, for instance, has given deplorable results from more than one standpoint. Poland was in a cowardly and cynical manner sacrificed for the benefit of communist Russia.
And yet it has been drummed into our ears since September, 1939, that it is for the sake of poor Poland that we have declared war against hitlerite Germany.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we are at war because chancellor Hitler violated Polish territory. Although the war has not yet ended, the delegates of the united nations meeting at the Crimea conference have authorized a communist, Joseph Stalin, to dismember Poland for the benefit of Soviet Russia. This constitutes a most serious motive to look with suspicion upon the convening of the San Francisco conference. I am very much afraid that the Canadian delegates will be coerced into agreeing that Canada should be once more involved in a conflict. Obviously the advisability of setting up a new league of nations will be discussed. It will certainly be a loss of time because the defunct league of nations was a colossal fiasco. Has the former league of nations ever prevented a war? I challenge anyone in this house to mention a single instance.
When the emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, whose country was a member of the league of nations, was appealing to the league to intervene at the time that Italy was brutally attacking his country, did that league raise a finger in response to his appeals? No, Mr. Speaker. That shows the deceiving part played by this notorious league of nations.
Therefore, the future league of nations which will surely be set up at the San Francisco conference does not appeal to me for, as was the case with the defunct league, it will be a colossal failure.
In support of my contentions, I shall quote a resolution submitted by the hon. member for Quebec South, my dear friend the former minister of defence for air (Mr. C. G. Power) during the session of 1923, which appears in Hansard of March, 1923, page 1529, volume 2:
Mr. Power moved the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Dominion of Canada should give notice of its intention to withdraw from the League of Nations and forthwith take steps to comply with article I of the covenant of the League of

San Francisco Conference
Nations by promptly freeing itself from all obligations which it may have contracted under such covenant.
I recall that as Mr. Power could find no one else to second his motion, I accepted to second it. I wonder what occult influence was brought to bear to cause him later to withdraw his motion. Mr. Power, seconded by myself, then moved another resolution which read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient to declare that, save in the case of actual invasion, the Dominion of Canada shall not be committed to participation in any war without the consent of the parliament of Canada.
And now, Mr. Speaker, here is what I said in .speaking on that motion:
Mr. Speaker, as it is quite late and considering that my hon. friend the member for Quebec .South (Mr. Power) has so ably set forth his resolution, I shall but add a few words in support of this very important motion; 1 shall, however, dwell long enough on the subject in [DOT]order to express clearly my views on this question of participating in imperial wars. It affords me much pleasure to second the resolution of the member for Quebec South, and, I sincerely congratulate him for having brought up this debate, thus affording the members the opportunity of stating their views on a question so vital to the interests of Canada. On that score he certainly deserves the thanks of every patriotic person in this country.
Members sitting in this house and having a meaning towards militarism or imperialism can no more parade as drawing room generals, or seriously cast a shadow of doubt on the motives which have prompted my hon. friend to take ' this step. This right is denied to them by the reason of his being one of the glorious wounded of the great war. It is because he was an eye-witness to so many horrors that he wants no more war, it is because he has a true knowledge of its frightfulness that he does not wish his country to be dragged into new conflicts without the people's consent, represented by their members in the nation's parliament.
In 1914, the Borden government decided to throw Canada into the most terrible war which history has ever recorded. They were willing to lay waste the country by sacrificing the last man and dollar to save the empire, and this without having first consulted the Canadian parliament. Such an act was unworthy of responsible government nor was such a procedure truly democratic. It is this arbitrary and despotic way of settling the destinies of Canada by making light of the rights of the Canadian people that we wish to prevent by asking the house to adopt the resolution which my hon. friend has so courageously and eloquently put forth.
In the month of August, 1914, the people of this country awoke one morning to learn with stupefaction, that the Canadian government had cabled to the imperial authorities that they were ready to lead the country into the most disastrous bankruptcy to save the empire. What right had the government of that day to plunge Canada to an unlimited participation in the war? What authority did it possess to cause the blood of thousands of Canadians to flow on the Flanders fields and drain the treasury to save the empire from floundering. It is under
a false notion of liberty that the government directing the destinies of Canada, in 1914, offered, without thought, to place all the nation's manhood on the battlefields of old Europe, for England's benefit. It is only after everything had been settled that the government called the parliament together to ask it not to decide if yes or no, we should participate in the war, but simply to approve of its line of conduct after having taken upon itself to decide what belonged to parliament alone to decide.
Since it is the people who shed their blood and give up their gold to the god of war, it is but just that it should be the same people that decide if they should or not take part in the wars of the empire or in any other war outside Canadian territory, except as the present resolution under consideration demands it in case of an actual invasion of Canada.
The Canadian people were highly pleased to hear on different occasions the leader of the present government state that parliament alone would decide in the future if, yes or no, we should participate in foreign wars or the empire's wars if you wish to put it that way. The whole of Canada sincerely applauded the noble and patriotic action of our prime minister when, during the Turkish entanglement, he answered, in a dignified manner, the British government who asked for contingents to be sent to Turkey: "The parliament of Canada is the sole judge in the matter and alone will decide on our participation or non participation in foreign wars, either in Turkey or elsewhere." Europe is actually resting on a volcano. France which suffered the most in the last war, was obliged, so as to obtain the payment of reparations, to invade German territory. The League of Nations is a huge joke and the sooner we get out of it, the better it will be for Canada. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the Canadian people should control their own destinies and have the last word to say, through its representatives in parliament, when the question again presents itself of pledging Canada to participate in the imperial wars. The people's duty is therefore to choose representatives whose views are well known in regard to the question of participation, and, who are in favour of previously consulting parliament before pledging Canada to new' wars to the exclusive benefit of the British Crown.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I claim, with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dor-ion), that the delegates who will attend the San Francisco conference will not be authorized to speak on behalf of the Canadian people. After April 17 next, the Canadian parliament mandate will have expired and, therefore, they will have ceased to be members of parliament.
This conference will inevitably draw us into another armed conflict and our soldiers, airmen and sailors will once more be called upon to wage war all over the world. In 1923, I opposed our participation in empire wars and I still hold the same opinion.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore, the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
War Service Electors

Friday, March 23, 1945