1945-10-19

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM BRYCE (Selkirk):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, to whom I have already given notice. Has
he had a request from the council of Canadian beef producers to have a representative at. Wednesday's meeting in Winnipeg to discuss the threatened packing house strike? If so, will he invite a representative from that body?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I have had notice of a similar question from, I believe, the hon. member for Calgary East. Consultation is now going on with Mr. Justice Richards, who is the commissioner presiding over this particular industrial dispute. When we hear from him I shall be glad to notify my hon. friend.

BRITISH COLUMBIA CANNED SALMON On the orders of the day:


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked this question:
Will any British Columbia canned salmon be released to the trade in Canada this year?
The answer is this. Arrangements for the distribution of this year's pack of canned salmon in British Columbia contemplate the release of 300,000 cases for civilian use in Canada. Actual release by the packers to the wholesale trade is now going on, and details of distribution throughout Canada are under the direction of wartime prices and trade board. This quantity is 50,000 cases more than last year. The bulk of the pack is again going to the British government in conformity with the allocation recommended by united nations combined foods board and approved by Canadian food requirements committee.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question, which I believe will clear up an unfortunate misunderstanding. On October 15 the parliamentary assistant to the minister of defence very kindly and clearly answered a question of mine. To save time I will read only part three of this answer which appears on page 1071 of Hansard:
3. Yes, P.C. 132/6173 of 21st September, 1945, provides for payment of dependents' allowance to the dependents of discharged soldiers while held in the United Kingdom by the nonavailability of shipping. The dependents' allowance is the same amount as that paid to the dependent prior to the soldier-husband's discharge.
!292
Veterans Affairs

Since I received that answer there have been articles in the press which read along this line. Allowances will be paid to dependents in Britain after the serviceman has been repatriated and discharged, but this amount is deducted in Canada from the serviceman's gratuities. The question is, are these allowances deducted from the serviceman's gratuities?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: They are not, Mr. Speaker. That report is completely inaccurate.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Thank you very much.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I did not give notice because I did not think it would be necessaiy. Some time ago a royal commission on veterans' qualifications was appointed, headed by Colonel Bovey. This commission visited all sections of the dominion, gathering important information which would be of great help in rehabilitating our returned men. I understand the report has been made to the minister. Why has this report not been tabled, and when may we expect it to be tabled?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I should like with the hon. gentleman's permission to look into the matter and reply to the question later.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The report to which
the hon. member referred on the orders of the day is very voluminous; it is in the hands of the Minister of Labour and is being prepared for tabling in the house as soon as possible. The commission was appointed on recommendation of the Minister of Labour, concurred in by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Its purpose was to evaluate experience gained in the army in relation to industry, business and education.



REHABILITATION STATUS OF PERSONNEL JOINING INTERIM AIR FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It has to do with the units of the air force that are now being paraded before their commanding officers and given an

opportunity to join the interim air force. If they join that force for a period of two years, they want to know whether they will be protected in their rights to restoration in civilian employment under the act in that regard, provided that they stay on for two years or are sooner discharged. If they have that assurance it will make a great deal of difference.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): My impression is that the answer should be definitely in the affirmative, but I give my hon. friend the same reply as I made to the hon. member for Royal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The matter referred to by the hon. member is under study by legal officers who hope to have a report for consideration by privy council on Monday.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, October 12, consideration of the motion of Hon. J. L. Ilsley (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. J. M. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: In taking part in the debate on the budget, may I begin by regretting the absence of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley). I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if you decided he ivas absent on work of urgent national importance, everyone in this house would agree, and we all wish him success in what he is doing.
I presume the function of the opposition is, as it were, to act as the guide, philosopher and friend and to some extent the protector of the unfortunate taxpayer, who under present conditions of taxation feels, to use the language of the street, that he is losing his shirt. It does not matter whether his income is high or low; he feels exactly the same towards the fax collector. When the war was on and tnen were being killed and wounded in his defence, he could say nothing about it, but now he feels that the time has come when he should. He feels that the cart has been before the horse, that we have been spending and then trying to find out if we could afford to spend. He feels that we should now try to reverse that process. I should like to say a few words in his behalf this afternoon. The other evening I asked a few questions to that end, and I should like now to begin by referring to one of them. I said:
Are the expenditures so set out that we have i clear picture of what are ordinary and recurring expenditures, and of what are special expenditures non-recurring?

The Budget

Mr. Macdonnell
J must admit that I asked this question with some trepidation, fearing that when I came to read the budget carefully I should find that it was answered. I now stand here to say that I have read the budget, as I believe,.carefully. It is not answered1, and not being answered it seems to me that the Minister of Finance has left the people of Canada without any statement of their affairs, and without any knowledge on which this house or the people of Canada can arrive at a sound judgment on the budget.
What information are we given? We are told that in the current year we are going to raise some $2,500 million in taxes. We are told that in the current year our main estimates, that is our ordinary expenditures, will be just over $1,000 million. We are told that the war expenditures will be $3,650 million, in addition to some $800 million to be used for foreign credits, which incidentally I thoroughly approve; so that we have altogether an expenditure of some $4,650 million, without counting those additional' credits. In other words, on the basis of this $4,650 million we have a deficit shown of some $2,000 million. Therefore we have this situation: on ordinary account we have what might be called a margin of the difference between $2,500 million and $1,000 million, in other words, SI,500 million. But on the other hand if war expenditures are taken into account we have an over-all deficit of $2,000 million without taking into account the special expenditures of some $800 million and other amounts which the minister mentioned.
I submit that any business man, even an intelligent child, if shown a statement of this kind, would say, "Well, now, this does not tell us very much. We want to know when this deficit is going to disappear, how much it is going to come down next year, how much the year after, and so on." All we are told is that during a year from the coming November, that is, from November 1945 to November 1946, we are going to spend some $4,000 million. The only further thing is general references to the reduction of expenditures, but I submit that no attempt is made to let the people of Canada and this house know in an intelligible way what their position is.
Is it an unreasonable request? In answering that I should like to bring to the attention of the house this fact. The other day in England a business man, representing, I believe, the chamber of commerce, asked the government this question: "Will the government disclose to the country the general outline of its financial proposals for the whole of the next five years?" Hon. members might say that this is going pretty far; nevertheless the chancellor of the exchequer, Doctor Dalton,
although I am not sure that it was in answer to this question, said to a public gathering in London recently:
We can follow, through the years immediately ahead, a consistent and developing financial plan.
That is all I am asking. I submit that these figures must be in the possession of the Minister of Finance. It is not conceivable that he has not thought about these things; it is not conceivable that he is not ready to look down the alley. We should know where we are going. Can it be that we are to be kept in a state of tutelage? Is this another instance of what we might call order-in-council government, against which some people in this house have protested? Is there anything in that? Whatever the reason is, I contend that there is no objection to our being given figures at this time. When the war was on, of course, we could not ask for these figures. There was no means of projecting the wrar expenditures then. I submit, with confidence, that the minister must now be able to calculate, with considerable accuracy, subject to coming back later and saying some of the figures must be altered, how much these war expenditures will come down next year, how much the year after that, and so on. If any business man came to an annual meeting of his company, showed a deficit of the kind and gave no picture of the future, he would either be sacked on the spot or told to go back and prepare an intelligible picture. '
I should like to put one further question, again on the assumption-and I hope the fair assumption-that what I am asking is reasonable. Let us assume some intelligent American investor-I imagine there are such people- was thinking of buying bonds of this country and was shown this budget. What would he say? This is what he would say: "This does not give me the picture. It just shows for the year of grace 1945 to 1946 you are going to have a large deficit that it is hoped will come down because of the reduction in military expenditures, but it makes no attempt whatever to give a picture of the future which will let me know whether the country is broke or not." I submit therefore that the people of Canada and of this house are being asked to deal with this question in a vacuum, that we are being sold a pig in a poke; that we are being asked to jump off the deep end in the dark, and I see no reason for it. I see no reason why, before we come to vote, we should not get those figures which I am sure are in existence. Incidentally, other people have predicted those figures and perhaps have not made such a bad job of it. I see no reason why the minister should not take us into his confidence.
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell

I should now like to read the second question I asked, which is as follows:
Does the budget furnish us with a definite plan whereby we shall begin to work ourselves back into the position where we pay our way without borrowing?
I sometimes think, Mr. Speaker, that borrowing has become a great national industry in this country; at any rate it employs a large number of people. I am quite certain that the minister was speaking sincerely the other day when he assured us that he was worried about the extent of our borrowings. I do not doubt that for a moment; but I did not detect in his speech that sense of compelling urgency which is the only way that will ever bring those borrowings down. I do not believe that the people of Canada are com- placent about those borrowings. I think they have the feeling that some day we may borrow too much. As I indicated the other evening, when fifteen billions become twenty and the twenty become thirty and the thirty become forty, the taxpayer believes at some time the lender will go on strike.


Mr. HOMUTH:: And then you cannot borrow anything.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Some day the lender will go on strike and will Dot lend. The ordinary taxpayer believes he knows what will happen if that day arrives. There have been examples of what happens all too frequently in the world in these last twenty years, and he thinks the results are very clear indeed; he recognizes them and knows them to be inescapable. They are as follows: (1) rapidly increasing prices; (2) frantic and unsuccessful attempts to set up controls of all kinds; (3) black markets, which of course react most heavily on those with small incomes, and (4) inflation, which is devastating on the people with small incomes.
I now come to the third question I asked which is as follows:
_ Has the government really developed a peacetime mentality in the question of public finance? Does it realize that if we do not get on top of expenditures, expenditures will get on top of us?
I repeat what I said a moment ago. I do not doubt that the Minister of Finance is deeply concerned about those expenditures; but the expenditures will not come down merely because he is concerned. Expenditures will come down only if there is some kind of yardstick which he uses to prevent people from going on spending. I was in the army once, and I think I know that the idea of getting army people to reduce expenditures without having the pressure put on them is just a pipe-dream. I was brought up in a

rather thrifty, narrow Scotch way, and when in the last war I tried to cut down the waste and extravagance in the small sphere in which I was engaged, I was regarded as a common nuisance. Nobody wanted to have expenditures cut down. As a matter of fact I may say, with due respect, to the people on my left, that one of the things that made me believe that socialism would not succeed was that I found in the army that what was everybody's property was nobody's property and apparently you could not get any sense of responsibility. They said: "This is government property; we can always report that it had been destroyed by shell fire." I do not know whether you could do that in this war, but when anything was lost in our war, you just said it was destroyed by shell fire.
I do come back and most sincerely to this point. I do say that we are not going to get economy unless the Minister of Finance stands up and states certain things which have to be done. I mentioned the other night that in Britain in 1920 and 1921 they set out to get economy, and how did they do it? They said "This is how much we are going to spend, and not a nickel more"; the Minister of Finance just told the various departments what money they could get, aniF that was all they got.
I do not feel that it would be quite fair to blame the Minister of Finance unduly for this. He is a member of a cabinet, and of course we all know that evil communications corrupt good manners, and that a man is known by the company he keeps. So I submit with great respect that the Minister of Finance has had certain difficulties put upon him which were not of his own making and to which he referred very feelingly in the budget speech; in fact he referred to them three times. I should like to read all three quotations, but I do not want to detain hon. gentlemen as long as that would take. I shall read one quotation, however. The minister evidently was feeling very worried, as you will remember, because the dominion-provincial conference had not yet come to a conclusion, and the first remark he made in this connection was at page 1005 of Hansard:
If the present tax agreements with the provinces lapse without being replaced by new agreements, the government is bound to reduce the corporation rate by ten per cent. If new agreements are reached the rate can be reduied promptly but to reduce the rate now by any substantial percentage and be bound to reduce it by ten per cent more at the end of 1946 would, in my view, establish too rigid a programme of tax reduction.
I will spare hon. gentlemen the other two quotations, but you can take it from me that the minister seemed to have the dominion-

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
provincial conference very much in mind. I think that is just worth a word, because if you will look back you will see that various things emerge. There were quite enough difficulties facing the government without their making any brand new ones for themselves, but they seemed determined to have as many as possible, so they did make some new ones. This dominion-provincial conference could and should have taken place long ago. The problem has been staring them in the face for five years. After the end of 1942, when our sickening war anxieties lessened, we could look to the future, and there seems to me no reason why that conference could not have taken place then. But while they were thinking about it, an upsetting event took place; there was an election in the province of Ontario in 1943, and that might have muddied the waters a bit. Ontario was impertinent enough to elect a Progressive Conservative government. However, after the election it did appear likely that there would be a conference and certain negotiations took place between the dominion Prime Minister and the Ontario premier; but, as hon. members will recall, they did not ge-t very far and in August, I think it was, the federal Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), referring to the fact that Mr. Drew had expressed a desire that the Progressive Conservative leader (Mr. Bracken), should succeed in the election, said:
Such being the declared aim of the prime minister of Ontario, it must be apparent that any conference held before a federal election would have little or no hope of success.
To me that seemed a strange reason for postponing the conference, but if you look further back into the statements of the federal Prime Minister it becomes a little less strange. I should like to read a short statement nlade by the Prime Minister of Canada in the summer 1935, just before the election of that year, because I find it very interesting indeed. He said:
A guarantee of provincial cooperation is to be found in the fact that, save in one province out of nine, Liberal governments are already in office.
Later in the same speech he said:
It would seem that this is the kind of national government which the people of Canada really want; a government, in the dominion and provinces alike, that will be able to give expression to the will of the people as unmistakably expressed at the polls.
That is a very pleasant and even affecting picture, though in the light of what has happened since I suppose we may say it is now one of those pictures that "hang on memory's wall", because things have changed. It was a picture, you might say, of King Arthur and the knights of the round table,
all going out to do batfle in favour of truth and justice. Since then, however, certain things have happened; there are some vacant chairs at the table now. Quebec's chair is empty; Ontario's chair is empty; Saskatchewan's chair is very empty, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows; Alberta's chair is empty, and in the case of Manitoba and British Columbia, while the chairs are not empty neither are they full. There is a sort of blur there. So, as I say, we have come to this situation. We have had to wait for the dominion-provincial conference, for the reasons I have indicated; without wishing to cry over spilt milk I think it is a serious situation, and I think the Minister of Finance has disclosed to us very clearly indeed how serious it is.
There is another "old man of the sea" that the taxpayer has on his back, and I should like to say a word about that. I am referring to controls. A great deal has been said in this house about controls. I thought I knew a good deal about them, but when I got a sort of full-dress statement on controls I found I did not know anything at all about them. They are really something when you come to see what they amount to, and I should like to just bring to the attention of the house some information in connection with these controls; it may interest you as it interested me. I have here a statement dated August 1 last, so I presume it is pretty well up to date. Out of this I will take the wartime prices and trade board. First we have the chairman, the deputy chairmen and members of the board. Then we have what are called the head office divisions, of which there are twelve, each with a supervisor or secretary or controller, as the case may be. Then we come to what are called the associated companies, of which there are several. Then we go on to what are called coordinations. These include capital equipment, foods, pulp and paper, textiles and clothing, and emergency shelter. Then we go on to a directory of administrations, and here we really plunge into big things, because on a short count I find that the directory of administrations includes about 150. I should like to direct your attention to just a few of them. There is one for books and writing paper; for cork and cork products; for fertilizers and pesticides; clothing and woollens; honey. There is jewellery, which is divided into seven categories. There is meat and meat products; there is fruit. Power has only one man; apparently Mr. Symington is regarded as a host in himself. Then there is one category which I find very interesting:	cleaning,
decorating, hairdressing, painting, renovating, undertaking, warehousing and storage. The

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
man in charge of that division must be a man of many accomplishments, though from the speeches which were made in this house not long ago we might guess that perhaps he is a man who does not know anything about these things.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: How about some face lifting, which the government needs?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
has upon the mining industry. The hon. member for York West has received some doughty allies in this connection, and I should like to quote briefly from them. A meeting was recently held of the mining ministers of all the provinces. Wonderful to relate, they arrived at a unanimous view. There were no good boys or naughty boys at that meeting; they were all good in that they agreed. This is what they suggested:
It is recognized that mining is hazardous and speculative in all of its stages, and that a mine is a wasting asset. In order to encourage capital in the mining industry, it is fundamental that the income tax structure should be of such nature as to offer a reasonable prospect of return of capital.
That does not seem to be unreasonable- "a reasonable prospect of return of capital."
It is felt generally that the present depletion allowances are not sufficient to ensure a return ol capital particularly in new ventures, and in fact, are having the effect of discouraging mining developments.
Therefore, the conference recommends that the rate of depletion allowances should be adjusted to conform with the principles set out above, and that immediate study be given this matter, in order to arrive at percentage allowances, both for companies and shareholders, which would be fair and equitable, for precious metal, base metal, coal and industrial mineral mines.
I suggest that with that unanimous view coming from all the provinces there is a splendid case where dominion-provincial relations could work harmoniously. It would need only one more consenting party to the nine which have consented already. Perhaps if there was success here it might take elsewhere; it might infect the others and lead to further successes.
I should like to say a word about tax administration. Sometimes the administration can be almost as important as the tax itself. If the law is clear, if it is known, if it is fair, and if it is speedy, that is an enormous help to business.
But none of those things are present -here. The law is not known. It is buried in a mass, not only of statutes but of regulations which are not made publicly available in toto. The law is not clear. A lawyer added to a' good accountant can hardly tell you what the law means. If it is fair, most people think the contrary; they think it is full of outrageous injustices. As for its being speedy, we all know of the terrible delays which go on and on and on. The truth is that business is being frustrated and discouraged and even enraged. Sometimes it thinks it is being despoiled. That is the situation we have at the moment.
I want it to be clear that I am not criticizing the officials who are in the unfortunate position of trying to administer this cumbersome legislation. The tools never were good and now they are worn out. The act is thirty years old. It was made in the horse and buggy days of income tax. It has never been properly revised. Amendment has been piled on amendment, with a sprinkling of provisos and counter-provisos thrown in. It was never made on a scientific basis; it is like Topsy, it "jest growed." It has become more and more contradictory as it goes on. It needs revision, and every year revision is delayed, revision will be that much harder.
There are so many defects in it that it is hard to know where to begin. First of all, there is the fact of over-centralization, which creates an enormous amount of delay. It means also that the local people are frustrated and not given a chance to do their best. Delays drag out so that companies carry unascertained liabilities for years. In the case of the paper companies I doubt if they have yet got a statement of their position after all these years. If they have, it is only just recently.
Then there is no procedure that is known and binding. The law is chock-full of discretions. I have analysed the discretions in the act. There are some ninety different discretions in the income tax act and twenty-six in the Excess Profits Tax Act. I have tried to indicate how perfectly fantastic many of these discretions are, and I should like to give the house an illustration. The discretions creep in in all kinds of ways, and you have to be very astute to find them. It takes a good lawyer to find them, because all kinds of words are used to introduce them.
We find nine references to "the opinion of the minister." There are ' twenty-one cases in which the minister has "power to determine." There are eleven eases where it is "in his discretion", and so on. I should like to give a short summary showing what these discretions produce. Really the results are almost fantastic-this is not too strong a word. I have summarized- the results, and with your permission, sir, I will give them to the house.
The minister can decide that any expense incurred by a company is in excess of the expense that should have been incurred, and he can disallow the amount he decides is in excess. He can decide that a company has made a bad deal on the sale of bonds or the borrowing of money and that it should not have contracted to pay as high a rate of interest as it did, and he can disallow a proportion of the interest. He can decide that a company should be allowed no depreciation, or a

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
smaller amount than another company, or twice as much as other companies, and there is no appeal. He can tell a board of directors that their judgment is bad in setting up a reserve for bad debts, and if he thinks it is, he can disallow the reserve. He can give or withhold an increase in standard profits where more capital has been put into a business; he may give it in one case and withhold it in another, and there is no effective appeal. He is in the position of being virtually policeman, judge, jury and court of appeal, all in one. When I was reading that I was reminded of the old saying about the imperial House of Commons. It seems to me that, like the imperial House of Commons, the minister in his discretion can do anything "except make a man a woman or a iroman a man".
Another point is that appeals are extremely difficult. So far as the ordinary person is concerned, appeals are almost impossible. In the first place, there is no appeal against the minister's discretion. Second, an appeal cannot succeed unless the minister has applied the law wrongly. He has good lawyers to protect him against that. The third ground is where he has not heard the application. The net result is that you have virtually no appeal. Where a company wants to appeal, it must take its affairs into court and they are spread over the record for the whole world to see. Companies in competitive relationship do not want to do that.
The minister has admitted that he has revision in mind. He referred to a revision of the personal income tax, but he said that he had decided that the time was not yet ripe. I would urge that the time gets less ripe every year it is delayed. The longer it is delayed, the worse it will be. I urge that the time has come to do it, and this revision should not be confined to the personal income tax. I suggest that when the minister does come to do it he should associate with the inquiry some person with long business administrative experience who can bring in a more or less common sense point of view.
No speech on the subject of finance should ignore the question of employment. Employment in Canada has always gone along with foreign trade. It is wrong to say that we have never had full employment in this country except when there was a war. We have had virtually full employment whenever our export business was high. This raises a very serious consideration which we should all take deeply to heart. We have had tremendous exports over the last four or five years, and we all know why. We all know it has been because we have been exporting tanks, planes and other munitions of war. That has come
to an end. Unless we are able to replace those exports with other exports, the position of things is going to be very difficult indeed. We should be desiring with our whole being and facilitating in any way we can the creation of a world wherein trade will move with the greatest possible freedom. We should be praying and hoping that these discussions which are' taking place in Washington will succeed.
Let us take a look at Canada's position in the world. Where would we be in a regionalized world, in a world divided into blocs? Let us consider those blocs. Let us consider the sterling bloc and the dollar bloc. What countries will be in the sterling bloc? Presumably the Scandinavian countries, Holland, Belgium. perhaps France, probably India, the British dominions other than Canada, and the British colonies. And what will be in the dollar bloc? Canada, the United States, the Caribbean countries, the South American countries, possibly some of the Pacific countries; and someone has suggested China will be competed for. I want to correct myself. Canada does not fit into either bloc. History and economic development fit us into the sterling bloc ; geography makes us part of the dollar bloc. We fall between two stools. The London Economist, in discussing the question of the sterling bloc, said Canada would be of necessity outside, and the editor included Newfoundland too. "Canada would necessarily remain outside", he said.
I Say that that is a situation of the utmost gravity for us. I repeat that we ought to do everything in our power-I hope we are doing so, and I believe we are-to make these conversations succeed.


Mr. MAYBANK:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member allow me to finish?


Ralph Maybank: Just as you like.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was saying that I think it is of the greatest importance that we should try to free the channels of trade. We should hope with all the earnestness of which . we are capable that these conferences now going on in Washington will succeed.
I was going on to say that I can understand why people in Great Britain are troubled. They feel that if the United States steps into some arrangement, and later on seeks to withdraw, it will be much more competent for them with their huge home market to do so, than for Britain. I can understand that. Britain fears that perhaps the United States have not yet learned that trade is a two-way street. But it seems to me that we can
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell

properly represent to them that the dangers of regionalism and of bilateral trading are greater than anything else, because if we have regionalism, with a world divided1 into blocs, we shall have the United States as a tough competitor competing for a world trade which will be just that much less because trade will not foe moving so freely, and the chances of success will be far less than in trying now to cooperate with the United States with the object of freeing the channels of trade to the very greatest possible extent.
One final point on this. Canada is a country of surpluses. I warmly welcome the indication which has been given that we are ready to cooperate in giving credits. I think we should be prepared to give credits on easy terms to foreign countries, and this for two reasons, one higher, one lower. The higher one is that humanity demands it; the lower that good business demands it too. Wise people will go a long way to stake their good customers against the day when those customers, even though to-day they cannot pay in full, will be able to pay.
I have spoken about foreign trade and its relation to employment, but we must not forget that we cannot leave everything to foreign trade, and I therefore come for a moment to speak about employment at home. Undoubtedly we should bring to this all the imagination and constructive power we have. Employment at home is primarily a question of men. It is primarily a question of having enough men with knowledge and initiative and courage and the readiness to take risks and that superior drive which gets things done. Most of us will admit if we are perfectly honest that we want a job, we want to work for somebody else. We should not forget that the people who do not want jobs but who go out and create business are the people who keep the wheels turning. First in this class are the primary producers, the farmers and the miners and the fishermen. Heaven knows that their business is risky; nature has taken care of that. They know all about what it is to take a risk. Next we come to the manufacturers, the traders and people of that kind. Most of all we must have in mind the small men, the men who organize new businesses. We need a constant stream of new businesses year by year. Do not let us forget when we are looking at these people and sometimes being critical of them, remarking that they are not always soft and gentle and ready to hand you every dollar they have got, that these are the people we have to rely on for production. We do not need to worry if they sometimes make too much money; taxes will take care of that. What we need are the qualities of energy and

willingness to take a risk-qualities which we recognize as well in our farmers and other primary producers.
A word on the question of profits. Some people say, "But they are working for a profit. What a dreadful thought 1 It is disgraceful! We must think about human values, not property values." I am not going to philosophize about it, but it seems to me that, in some way I do not fully understand, human and property values are tied together. I do not think you can separate them in that arbitrary way. I should like to deal briefly with this question of profit. I have heard it disparaged so frequently that I have got rather tired of it, so I have gone to an authority who is well known to many people here.. I blush to mention that he is actually the master of a college in Oxford, and he is regarded in England as a leftist, even a near socialist, but he is in my opinion a very sensible man, or I would not be quoting him. I should like to read a brief extract from what he says on the matter of profits, and I hope hon. members will consider it. He says:
If we consider profit in itself, it does not seem clear why a man working for an assured salary is doing right while a man working for an uncertain profit is doing wrong.
That, I think, puts it quite simply. Then he says this,-and it is very important, because it brings up the old question of freedom which we are always thinking about:
As long as there is an element of uncertainty in the supplying of demand there must be profit.
In other words, unless the state is going to do it all, if we are to leave it to these men and ask them to take the risk of losing their shirts, we must let them have a profit; for nobody pulls them out if they get into deep waters: consider the number of new businesses which are started every year and see how many go broke, and nobody comes along and gives them credits or a hand-out-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who wrote that, may I ask?	.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A. D. Lindsay,
Master of Balliol.	.
I should like now to put the matter in a very homely way

get away from scholars and come down to common sense. I should like to ask, when any man has a job done for him by a small contractor, does he not want that man to make a profit? Of course he wants him to make a profit. The reason we get all wrong on this question of profit is that we look at it as affecting people afar off, people we have never met, and we abuse them roundly. I am reminded of someone who was abusing a man in very

The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell
strong terms and who was asked, "Do you know him?" He said, "Of course I don't know him. I could not talk about him like that if I knew him." I think that applies to many cases.
I should like to add one other word on this discussion of profit. The place where we are worried about it is some place that is quite far off.' We see it in connection with some big corporation. But I should like to remind people that profit comes a long way down the scale, so far down that if those who criticize will take the trouble to investigate, they would find that in a great many cases "she ain't there at all." After all, jobs come first, and quite rightly so; with proper and sufficient wages-quite rightly; then taxes. I am not sure that taxes do not come first, but I will leave it to the lawyers to tell you about that; at any rate they are near the top; the experts can fight that out amongst themselves. In the third place, the plant must be taken care of or there will be no taxes or dividends. Fourth and last-and often, as I say, there is no "last" to it-comes profit. I know that there are instances of extravagant profits, but they can be taken care of by the tax collector. The Minister of Finance is pretty good at that.
I have spoken of the individual side of employment. I come now to the state, and I propose to say very little about that. The state, of course, has recognized responsibilities which it never dreamed of recognizing ten years ago. I should like everyone to realize that all of -us have learned something in the last ten years. Not only the socialists have been learning; I think the rest of us have learned something too. I am quite willing to admit that we did not know everything in the nineteen thirties. I heard somebody say, and I must admit that it annoyed me very much, "We can't vote for you; you were wrong in the nineteen thirties." "Well," I said, "why don't you say that we were wrong in the eighteen thirties? Maybe we were." At any rate, I come back to this point, that we have all learned something. The state has learned something, and the state has to take some responsibility. However, it is not so much about that that I wish to speak. I wish to say something about the human element in employment, which, I believe, is terribly important and the neglect of which, in my opinion, is causing some of the troubles we are having to-day. It is giving the Minister of Labour some of his sleepless nights.
What do I mean? I mean that labour is entitled to be talked to seriously and on the level. The other day I was talking to a man
who had a good deal to do with the returning troops, and he said something that interested me greatly. "These fellows in the army," he said, "have been told what the score was. They have never been put into a show and told it was going to be easy and that everything would be perfect. They were told what the difficulties were and what the casualties would be. They were not sent in with the idea that it would be a push-over when they knew very well that it would not be a push-over. And when these fellows come back they want to be treated the same way in civil life and not like a lot of children. They will want to know what the score is, and if things are difficult they want to be told. That is the way to get their cooperation."
May I say with great deference and respect -I regret that he is not here-that in my opinion when the Minister of. Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) made his speech the other night he did not make a serious contribution to the discussion. I say that with respect, because I think we can admire, and I have no hesitation in saying that I admire, the courage and energy of the Minister of Reconstruction. But do we not need more than courage and energy in these days? Do we not need some sympathetic understanding and some wisdom?
I would venture to say with all respect as a humble member of the opposition addressing the minister-and I hope I shall show that respect right along; I do not think anyone will doubt that I have always had it: Do not let us have this Pollyannaism, this-I was going to say Coueism, but I am told that word is no longer in vogue. At any rate, I say, do not let us have this indiscriminate optimism, this auto-suggestion. Let us come out and talk to these fellows plainly, and I think they will respond. I would recommend to the minister that he should take an example from the Churchill technique of 1940 and tell these men the difficulties, and not pretend that everything will be lovely, because I think that is where the real progress will come from.
I am bound to say I thought my old friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) went for quite a ride the other day when he told us the wonders of the present administration. So far as I could understand his speech, everything had been foreseen, nothing had been left undone and, there really was not a single thing, which, in retrospect, they would have changed one iota. I understand the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) did admit-I do not know whether he was off guard or not-that V-J day did catch them a little unprepared. At any rate, I felt in listening to my old friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I should have been
The Budget-Mr. Macdonnell

more convinced if he had admitted that there was a 'slight, a possible, chance that everything was not after all quite perfect.
As I say, however, as I listened to the two all our difficulties, I wondered. And by the way, I forgot to mention that the Minister of of them describing how we could come out of Health went farther than that. He even suggested, as I understood, that the housing programme was good. I thought he was courageous when he did that. But I was going to say that as I listened to them both I was reminded of those lines of A. P. Herbert which were written on the occasion of the Beveridge report. Indeed, I understand that he did better than merely to write the lines-he sang them:
Oh, won't it be wonderful after the war,
For there won't be no war and there won't be no pore,
And we won't have to work if we think it a bore,
And we'll all have a pension about twenty-four,
And the beer will be better and brighter- and more!
And there's only one question I'd like to explore,
Why didn't we have the old war before?
I would ask the Minister of Reconstruction to take us into his confidence a little and tell us where these jobs are to come from. At the present time he acts like a conjurer, pulling a million jobs out of his sleeve. And then you look, you wonder if he has another million up his sleeve, it seems so easy. I suggest that it would be more satisfactory if he took us into his confidence. Where will the jobs come from? I should like to be able to tell other people. It is not a secret and, if I knew, I would tell others about it. I pass that suggestion on to him. Again I ask, where are these jobs to come from? Is he going to develop mining? Or the St. Lawrence waterway? I expect he will not tell us that to-day.
I wish to say a word now about housing, although I have not much time. However, it seems fashionable to talk about housing to-day. I do not think it will be on the government's honour roll, but speaking seriously I ask myself this question: How have men who, any fair-minded man would admit, have been efficient in other ways-do not let me admit too much

failed so utterly in this one particular? The only answer that occurs to me is that there must have been divided counsels in the government and it has produced a state of affairs which has paralyzed industry. That seems to be what has happened, and I give that opinion for what it is worth.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have detained the house longer than perhaps I should have done but am almost at the end. I remember that Sir James Barrie, at the end of a long speech on one occasion, just as he was about to con-

elude said: "Some of you may be able to remember when I began. We are all older now." However, let me assure you that I am really just at the end.
I have been talking about material things, but none of us here thinks only about material things. We are discussing ways and means, but the word means implies there are ends, and we all know that there are ends. And that is what we are after. When I was thinking about this, I ran across by accident something that Churchill said recently. He seems to have something apt for almost every occasion. This was not in one of his well-known speeches; apparently he gave this address somewhere in London, more or less casually, on V-E day. It contains a thought that attracted me, and it may attract you:
We must begin the task of rebuilding our htarths and homes, and do our best to make this country a land in which all will have a chance, and in which all will have a duty. Happy days are what we have worked for, hut happy days are not easily worked for.
Well, we do not have to rebuild our hearths and homes in the sense that they have to rebuild them in England, but we all know that there is a great deal of rebuilding to be done in this country, and we ought to remember when we are speaking about happy days that, throughout the rest of the world, where the word "happiness" has become a kind of mockery, we are regarded as happy. When I look to the things that we have still to do, it seems to me that Churchill has the right idea when he says that all will have a chance and all will have a duty, because I would say that if we get to the stage where all have a chance then we shall have got there only because duty has been done. And what do I mean? I mean that duty will have been done notably by the people in responsible positions, notably by those who, by superior energy and opportunity, if you like, have a chance of being leaders. If that should happen, then I should hope that we might have reached that stage which that great leader of Tory democracy, the first progressive Tory, Benjamin Disraeli, had in mind when he said that the possession of property should be synonymous with the performance of duty. If that day should come, then I would say that we would in this country have a united front which would enable us to meet all difficulties with confidence and success.
I now move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre, that all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
.This house regrets:
(a) that no effective plan has been proposed to ensure full production, and employment;

United Nations Agreement
(b) that no satisfactory policy has been advanced for the elimination of extravagant governmental expenditures;
(e) that no adequate provision has been made for the immediate relief of the people in the lower income brackets from excessive taxation.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Mr. Speaker, after the very clever and witty speech we have heard this afternoon I feel that it would be wrong to introduce any other note into the debate this afternoon; therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate.	*
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement establishing the united nations and constituting the charter of the united nations and the statute of the international court of justice signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, referring last night to the San Francisco conference I said very plainly, voicing the sentiment of the people of my riding, that they wanted me to vote strongly for the passing of the resolution. I also expressed the wish that the resolution would pass unanimously in this parliament. In an able speech last night the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Beaudoin) properly said that Canada should be true to the covenant she made at that conference. I agree with that statement. I believe that Canada should undertake her commitments and implement her undertakings diligently, but not blindly. I was speaking last night in a practical way. I believe I was voicing the sentiments of the people whom I represent. There was a certain amount of glamour in the San Francisco conference, but at the same time there were certain features of the big assembly that were not apparent on the surface. They are bound, however, to come forward at some time. When we go to the future peace conference there should be no getting away from realities. Those realities will have to be faced eventually as some were faced during that conference.
Last night I mentioned briefly the attitude and the state of mind of the delegates of the United States and Great Britain. I now want to say a word about France. She was present at that conference under very curious conditions. She had not been at Yalta, and she had felt that she had been slighted. She also 47696-83
declined the honour of being one of the inviting powers. It was thought for quite a while that France might develop into a leader of the small nations, but she did not think that that role would be fitting when she took into consideration her great past history and her great traditions. Eventually through the fine work of her delegates, particularly Mr. George Bidault, she won her points. It was a natural and spontaneous desire to assume once more her role of a great power that the prestige and influence of her past warranted.
These questions are bound to come up in the next peace conference. As I said last night, there are bound to be some severe and critical discussions. However, we shall have to face these realities again as was done in past conferences. France has tried to recapture her past glory that had became increasingly elusive. Her situation was both pathetic and moving. She still had in her mind the rebuff, if we may call it that, that she received from her own allies on the Syrian question. These things were all in her mind. She unquestionably increased her influence and won the essential point of immediate admission to the councils of the great five. It will go a great way to rehabilitating France, and it has been one of the great causes of the political stabilization of France at the present moment.
I now wish to say a few words about China, that great, big, practically unknown and almost mythical country, which has such a fluctuating frontier, the far northern section of which is living cheek by jowl with the great republic to the north. It was easy to see, after reading the careful speeches of Doctor Soong and Doctor Koo, that they were to some extent favourable to the Soviets. They played craftily and cleverly between the two sides. At that time the war against Japan was not over. She needed the help of the United States, and were reasonably successful in getting it.
May I say just a word about Russia. Of all the nations represented at San Francisco she was the most enigmatic. From my point of view of all the delegates present she put far too much emphasis-I say this sincerely, as I believe in putting the facts before parliament as they were put before the conference at San Francisco-on force, strength and power, and much too little on justice, humanity and pacific relations. Too much attention was paid to security as such against justice. The general line adopted by the Soviet Union, which became the theme song of the conference, was that power and strength justifies the power of authority. The conference was in reality to be a perpetuation of the grand alliance of the united nations.
United Nations Agreement

What- I am now about to say will not be said in a critical way. Russia's attitude was very refreshing. Apparently she had not learned-perhaps it was to her advantage, and it may prove eventually to be of advantage to the world-that the niceties of what we call "old world diplomacy" were a thing of the past. Perhaps that is stressed too greatly at times. But we must envisage the situation as Russia saw it. When we speak of Russia and China we must remember that a few days prior to the peace with Japan the western powers were perhaps astonished that Russia was taking part in the war with Japan. Why? Because we had in the back of our minds the thought that Russia might go too far on account of the internal situation between Chiang Kai-shek and the northeastern provinces of China where communism was predominant. We were afraid that Stalin' and Russia would play into the hands of the Chinese communists and take this opportunity for territorial aggrandizement at the expense of China. One of the finest and most refreshing things that we have seen since the beginning of the war is this: Mr. Stalin, or the Soviet republics, practically repudiated communism in China. They gave a free hand, carte blanche, to Chiang Kai-shek so far as China was concerned. We were afraid that the fine Russian army would be occupying Manchuria and part of China, that it would be much easier for them to advance than the allies and that they would remain there permanently. They never had that in their mind. They made a statement at the time that they were not out for aggrandizement so far as Chinese territory was concerned, and to-day and yesterday we had the magnificent spectacle of the Russian army evacuating Manchuria and leaving the soil of China practically to its full integrity. I want to repeat these things. In many ways Russia has given an example to the whole world, in international diplomacy at least. Sometimes we have been worried; we have been kept uneasy. It has been impossible to understand the full import of their action. But we must recognize the tangible things. We must recognize what has really happened since the beginning of the war. The Russian people have been true to the allied governments. I must pay tribute to the Russian government for that marvellous stroke toward the peace of the world in their withdrawing from Manchuria and returning that integral part of China to the Chinese people, after safeguarding certain essential interests.
Now we have a new charter and a new organization to replace the league of nations or is it a new covenant. I should like to say just a word about the old league. It was just

as good and just as bad as the signatories to the covenant intended to make it. There has been a great deal of criticism levelled at the league of nations, but as an organization, as a unit for the welfare of the peoples of the world, it was perfect in itself. You need only read its constitution to realize that if everything implied therein had been put into effect we would not have had a war five or six years ago. However, the great powers belonging to the league were not always in agreement; they were not always ready to do their utmost to make it succeed. It is impossible for the whole to function unless it has the loyal support of all the components. There should have been no mental reservations in connection with the old league of nations, and I want to express the hope that there will be no mental reservations as far as the new covenant is concerned. Surely we have learned our lesson from the past. If the powers, great and small, who have signed this covenant are not behind it heart and soul, if they are not ready to give the best that is within them to bring about the full implementation of the covenant, it will be a failure just as the old league of nations was a failure.
What was the cause of the failure of the Geneva league? First, there was the intransigence of France. I am not going to accuse France of all the things she has been accused of. Immediately after the last war the allies who had fought with her for democracy, for freedom, to crush the huns, left France alone and within a few short years she was marked as the bad actor of the play, and this by her previous friends. She was called militaristic; she was said to be not a friend of freedom and democracy. That was why France showed some impatience and petulance in connection with the old Geneva league. The same thing applies to Japan. Her aggressiveness was one of the principal causes of the deterioration of the league of nations. When Japan defiled Manchuria and unjustly attacked China I knew it was the beginning of the end for the league of nations. The same applies to the unwillingness of Italy to obey the covenant. When the nations of the world who belonged to the league of nations allowed Italy dastardly and brutally to attack and conquer Ethiopia, we knew that within a short period the league of nations, with all its fine ideals and. attainments would be doomed- The same would apply, and I say it in all sincerity, to the lukewarmness and hesitancy of Great Britain. Each of the great nations must take its share of the responsibility for at least some of the failures of the league of nations. We must include also the

United Nations Agreement
non-participation of the United States. If all the great nations of the world who were united at San Francisco last June maintain the spirit of cooperation, justice and internationalism there displayed, I do not fear for the future of the covenant of this organization. But if they display the same spirit with which they approached the old league of nations, the new organization will meet no doubt a more premature death than the old one did.
My time has almost expired, but I should like to say a few words about some of the important features of the San Francisco conference. It is universally agreed, I believe, that the most significant provisions of the charter are: first, the security council and its powers; second, the social and economic council; third, regional organizations and their aeeptance; fourth, the trusteeship proposition; fifth, the process of amendment. In these factors are to be found all the necessary qualifications and all the necessary protection for the future of the world. So far as I am concerned . I am not worrying about my own country, because I know that every citizen of Canada from east to west and from north to south desires and hopes for peace. We have shown this not only by words but by deeds. Speaking territorially, speaking geographically, speaking practically, there was no necessity for Canada to participate in the last European war. We could have cultivated the same isolationism they practised in the country to our south. It was for the sake of peace, for the love of peace that we took up arms and did our best to see that our ideals and the principles we professed should be victorious. That, I repeat, is why our voice was so highly respected at the San Francisco conference. We went there with clean hands, with no notion or idea of aggrandizement. We have some geographical problems in Canada. It would have been easy at the San Francisco conference and it would be easy now for the Prime Minister of Canada to say to the leading men of Great Britain, "Look at the map of Canada and see that part of our country has been given to Newfoundland." We do not want to do that; we hope that matter will be rectified some day, but we are not going to make an issue of it. We could also say to our American cousins and friends, "Look at the panhandle in British Columbia. Certainly it is something which is abnormal as far as geography is concerned." We are not going to do that; we are going to abide by the treaty signed by the United States, Great Britain and Canada. In doing so we follow the true spirit which I believe animated the San Francisco conference.
I believe that all our international problems can be fairly and justly dealt with. There is no doubt in the minds of all people the deliberations and accomplishments at San Francisco aroused great hope for the future peace of the world. I am sincerely convinced that this hope will be realized and come to full fruition if all the nations of the world will continue to strive for better understanding in their dealings with each other. If individuals and nations alike carry out to the full the moral and international laws of the world and at the same time fully safeguard human rights, then I believe the high aims of the San Francisco conference will be completely fulfilled. '


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) has just concluded an eloquent address, and all will recognize the great amount of study and the unusually comprehensive world approach he has given to these problems. As for me, I never had an experience that influenced me and my thinking as much as the opportunity given me by my leader to go to San Francisco as adviser to the Progressive Conservative delegation there. It was a moving experience to be present at the assembly of the statesmen of the world. While some who were there may have returned to Canada as cynics; while some returned without hope for the future, as for me, having seen the leaders of the great nations of the earth, I returned with an abiding conviction that at that conference man took a long step forward to achieve man's desire for peace among all mankind.
I know of no better place that could have beqn chosen as the location for this conference than San Francisco, a city almost destroyed by upheaval and fire in 1906 but now, as the result of faith and vision and planning, one of the great cities of the world. My hope, and I know the hope of all hon. members of this house and people throughout the world, is that the charter, bom of the sacrifices of the dead, conceived there in faith, vision and international planning, and the realization that mankind cannot survive another war, shall function efficiently and provide the foundation for the building of a new world.
On the opening day of the conference I went into the doorway of the opera house and noticed there the bronze tablet dedicating the building as a memorial to the dead of the last war. On the plaque in front of the doorway were these words: "A living monument to hopes realized and dreams come true." those words, as I read them daily when passing
United Nations Agreement

the doorway, were to me the epitome of the hope and prayer of mankind everywhere for the success of the conference.
Sir, it made a profound impression upon me. No man will say that the charter is perfect. There are features in it which indicate compromise. But, with all the force at my command I ask the people of this country and the leaders in the public life of our land to use restraint in their speech, to refrain from incendiary words which may arouse suspicion and fear rather than encourage cooperation and mutual trust among the nations.
We have a terrible responsibility. We do not appreciate at all times the aims, ambitions and aspirations of other nations. I saw the nations working together in San Francisco. I saw there Molotov, often the enigma, but a man who indicated in every way that the desire of his nation was to assure its full contribution to peace. And since I was in the position of observer, I can say what possibly members of the delegation cannot say. As the only member outside the delegation, let me affirm that Canada's delegation did honour to Canada. It brought honour to this country and contributed much to the success of the charter as it conceived and ultimately completed.
As I listened to the magnificent contribution to the debate the other night by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), to the able and powerful addresses of the hon. tyember for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of the C.C.F., I thought once more of their outstanding contribution in the establishment of the economic and social council. I thought, too, of the contribution of the Minister of Justice and the Canadian Bar association* to the formation of the international court of contributions. They are the architects of justice. These were men who had made worthy future history. I believe, in spite of the imperfections and shortcomings of the charter, and the criticisms which may be made pi it, that these representatives will be able to say in the days of the future, "We builded better than we knew." That they were able to contribute as they did, as a Canadian delegation, is accounted for by the fact that the delegation from Canada was non-partisan and therefore representative of the point of view of all the people of Canada.
This country followed the lead in that respect to the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Australia. The problems connected with the conference were not of partisan consideration. Sir, those who sit to your right and to your left may disagree on

measures connected with material things, but these were international, spiritual, and eternal, and far transcended party considerations.
I join with those who have already done so in paying my tribute to the permanent civil service, to the men and women who devote their energies year after year-often unnamed-to the service of their country. But I think, too, that I should be permitted to pay a tribute to the representatives of Canada from the parliamentary press gallery, who contributed so much to making the people of Canada realize just what the international charter was. In order that the record and the history may be complete, I think it only fair that I should place upon Hansard the list of members from the parliamentary press gallery who represented Canada so well at San Francisco. Their names are as follows:
Frank Flaherty, Canadian Press.
Norman MacLeod. British United Press.
H. II. C. Anderson. Southam newspapers.
H. R. Armstrong, Toronto Star.
Willie Chevalier, Le Soleil.
Ken. C. Cragg, Toronto Globe and Mail.
Austin Cross, Ottawa Citizen.
A. G. Dexter, Winnipeg Free Press.
Blair Fraser, "Maclean's".
Bruce Hutchison. Sifton newspapers.
A. Inglis, The Times.
G. Langlois, La Presse.
Larry Laybourne, "Time".
Norman Smith, Ottawa Journal.
Gerald Waring, Montreal Standard.
Kenneth Wilson, Financial Post.
Radio, too, was represented by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and by the independent broadcasting companies. The press and the radio of Canada earned the highest commendation for their efficiency, their objective journalism, and their commentaries, which gave to the people of Canada the atmosphere, the personalities and the facts of importance in connection with the conference. The result was that never, either during or since the Versailles conference, have the Canadian people, whether farmers, soldiers or civilians in all walks of life, had a greater knowledge and appreciation of what is going on in world affairs. They were given a full realization of the responsibilities which Canada was assuming under the charter and have shown their willingness to undertake them.
I return once more to the opera house, and I see there on that vast stage four giant columns-impressive, dignified, painted in burnt gold, and joined by garlands of ribboned wheat-representative of the four freedoms. The garlands were symbolic of unity, and that unity was represented by the flags of the nations, arranged not in order of rank or power, but alphabetically, as were seated the representatives of the nations- equals in the first great parliament of man.

United Nations Agreement
My hope is that San Francisco will succeed, but it should not lose sight of the fact that one of the great freedoms for which we fought, one of the great freedoms represented in those four columns without which there cannot be an atmosphere conducive to world peace, has been diminished, if not altogether dissipated, since the conference, with the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan. That freedom is freedom from fear-freedom from fear in our own land, and everywhere else in the world. When the conference was sitting, man was living in the throes of war. The hon. member for Peel said he thought that because of that fact, statesmen of the world were able to fashion a better charter than would otherwise have been possible. I believe he is right. The statesmen who fashioned that charter were living in what to-day, is a past age; for on August 8, 1945, following four years of scientific concentration, man projected himself four hundred years in advance of his time.
To-day fear of abuse of atomic energy, rather than hope of its use for the benefit of mankind, is seizing the thoughts of mankind. Will man learn to live in the new world that his inventive genius has made possible, instead of a world in which fear of annihilation will impel all nations to take measures to guard against a sudden and unwarned release of the bomb by one nation against another? If that be the result of this new-found thing, then I believe the time has come for Canada, which has the greatest proportion of the world's supply of the mineral which has been used for the development of the atomic bomb, to complete the work of the San Francisco conference and to ask now, before it is too late, for the convening of another conference to bind the conscience of mankind against its use in war.
Let that conference consider the control of the forces of atomic energy, so that the overhanging sword of world obliteration will be removed, and a halt may be effected on the drive of nations who will otherwise, for their own defence and protection be forced to travel along the road of rearmament.
When the charter was born the statesmen dreamed not of the atomic bomb. They set ten years ahead as the period for the next, international parliament of mankind. I believe that if atomic energy remains uncontrolled internationally, and realizing that scientific knowledge cannot be maintained in isolation among any of the nations, the success of the great crusade which began at San Francisco may be endangered unless another international conference is called so that this rwjpEtion can be determined.
For there can be no peace without freedom from fear for all nations, great or small. Only yesterday the overwhelming fear that is with us was evidenced by the evidence given before the United States house of representatives by the Oak Ridge scientists, who stated that one false, move in international diplomacy to-day may be followed by an atomic bomb raid on the United States which would result in 40.000,000 residents being killed in one night. Those are things that require consideration, and I put them before the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having the power to develop, and to supply the raw material necessary for this engine of destruction, Canada should now give consideration to reconvening the nations and bringing the charter up to date, so that freedom from fear in 'this direction will be promoted among the nations of the world.
I am not going to analyse the charter. We have all read it. The United Nations Society of Canada has given it the widest publicity, and they are to be commended for the work they are doing. The charter does not write a neiw language in world brotherhood. What it does is to bring international grammar up to date and substitute. for national commitments a "must" for a "may". One great leader of Canadian thought in that direction, the late Doctor John Dafoe, said:
Any international organization to succeed must have both the power and the will to give effect t>
the principle that it will enshrine . . . this was to be the foundation stone of the league, but it was replaced by provisions of the covenant which as the sequel showed were capable of being interpreted as giving a nation power to deny the obligation without incurring the censure of its own citizens at large.
The charter is replete with checks and balances resulting from compromise. It retains the right of self-defence, and removes domestic matters from international jurisdiction. It establishes the veto in order that the great powers, upon whom the peace of the world must depend, shall not be overruled by the small nations. It sets up a court without making submission to its jurisdiction mandatory.
Some there are who are so optimistic for the charter that they deny the realism of world events. Others are so pessimistic that they deny that idealism coupled with practical cooperation can achieve peace. The charter provides the basis to end war, but it does not terminate the prerogative of any of the great powers to wage war. It prevents aggression among small nations. In theory it allows powerful nations, who alone have the power and resources to make war, to go unpunished if any of them commit acts of aggression.
It does set up a security council with power, never before placed in the hands of an inter-
United Nations Agreement

national organization, but the effective power and prestige of the council will be diminished, if not destroyed, if any one of the united nations refuses to discharge its pledged word to provide its share of the forces required for the maintenance of its authority. The united nations charter will succeed if nations everywhere accept their individual responsibility. While there are provisions for regionalism, those provisions, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Maedonnell) this afternoon, should not be permitted to be so interpreted by any nation as to dilute the absolute responsibility of any nations to participate in international expeditions to prevent or punish aggression when directed by the council to do so, even though not directly affected and even though the cause is not within their regional or hemispheric area.
I know this charter will be approved, and I hope unanimously, by parliament, but approval will be only lip service to its idealistic principles unless parliament faces the realistic problem of assuring, not only by words but by pledges, that Canada will contribute to and make available to the security council the necessary armed forces, assistance and facilities, including the rights of unhampered international air passage across Canada and the use of her airports for the maintenance of international peace and security.
This is not a charter to be entered into lightly. We are assuming tremendous obligations. Canada cannot fail to accept great responsibilities if her standing among the powers in the years to come is to be commensurate with her service to mankind during the years of the war. It is now an offence against the laws of mankind, according to the charter of the international military tribunal, for any nation to accept any responsibilities to enter into sovereign treaty rights and then fail to carry them out. One of the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the tribunal which has now been set up in Europe for the trial of war criminals is:
Crimes against peace. Namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
That is a great step. It places every nation, and the leaders of all nations, in the category of international criminals if in any way they act contrary to the principles of the treaties which they undertake.
There are other questions which were unanswered in the speech of the Minister of Justice. I realize full well that the measure
rMr. Diefenbaker.]
of Canada's contribution will depend on an agreement to be brought before parliament at a later date, but I contend that the people of Canada have the right during the course of this debate to receive a frank and full statement from the government as to the extent of the obligations that Canada under the charter, which the government will consent to on' behalf of the people of Canada, is prepared to assume. For if we pass this charter without that declaration, it seems to me it will be no more than the acceptance of the shadow of the charter without the acceptance of the substance.
The Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs might say, "We do not know the extent of Canada's contribution until the agreement is made." That may be true in part. We cannot look into the future in this regard, but what parliament has the right to know now is whether Canada's contribution is to be qualified, whether it. is to be restricted, or whether it is to be an all-out contribution, one proportionate to Canada's importance and her contribution to the last war.
The next question is: Will the agreement fixing Canada's responsibility contain a provision-I hope it will not-restricting in any way the availability of Canadian contingents for service anywhere in the world? This question should be answered now. I believe as far as Canada is concerned she should give consideration immediately to the maintenance of those great international defence works in our country which had their conception in war. The Alaska highway and the great airports stretching from Whitehorse to Southampton island must be maintained in our own interests, and in the interests of the defence of North America, so that if again war should come, which we all hope it will not, Canada, which was so often referred to at San Francisco as the potential battlefield of the future, will not be in the dangerous position of unpreparedness in which she found herself in 1939. I ask the minister, are these great defence works to be maintained? Will they be made available if required by the council as international bases? It is my settled conviction that the charter will not lessen the responsibility of each of the nations within the British commonwealth of nations and empire of maintaining its own defences, and maintaining such defences that a system of collective empire security may readily be established should danger threaten. Britain should no longer be permitted, much less required by force of circumstances and the failure of other parts of the empire to do their respective shares, to contribute more

United Nations Agreement
than her fair share of protection of the component parts of the empire. Some say the day of providing for Canada's defence and the day of providing for empire security is over. That view I do not share. I call in support of my view Field Marshal Smuts, father of those immortal words of the preamble, the man who coined the expression, "the British commonwealth of nations," who uttered these words in regard to empire defence:
Whatever emerges from the San Francisco conference, whatever world order may be established, or whatever method of achieving security is reached, we shall not make the mistake of not looking after our own defence.
That is something to be remembered and recalled to-day, that in accepting this charter the Canadian people must not be allowed to develop an apathy in regard to their national interest in defence that might result from too great reliance on the principle rather than on the activation of the charter.
I point out this, sir, that within the last three days arrangements have been mooted between the United States of America and Central and South American republics which, if ratified, will mean that all North and South American forces, with the exception of Canada, will be standardized, trained and equipped, with the United States apparently accepting the responsibility, or about to accept the responsibility, for the defence of the countries affected. I ask the minister, does this new orientation mean that the principles of the Monroe doctrine, heretofore covering all the western hemisphere, will no longer comprise Canada within its ambit?
How are Canada's contingents under the charter to be raised? It is a problem which must be faced in the interests of national harmony and unity. Is it not now the opportune time to determine by parliament the question as to how our armed forces are to be raised in the next war; should the charter fail? Should we not now decide whether it will be by the voluntary principle or by national selective service that will assure a measure of equality of service and sacrifice? For, sir, I think all in this house will agree that experience has shown that, if this matter is left to be decided during the period of war, it is fraught with dangerous consequences to our national well-being. Certainly no one can deny that Canada's experience in two wars shows that the difficulty of making that decision becomes immeasurably greater if left until after war is under way.
The conference at San Francisco moved me as I have never been moved before. It was designed to secure unity among divers nations. This session of parliament has moved me as
I was never moved in the last parliament, for I foresee great hope for the future of a Canada that can produce and send to this House of Commons young men, such as have come to this parliament, who made Canada great in war and whose words here indicate their desire to make her great in peace. I think of the hon. member (Mr. Benidickson) who moved and the hon. member (Mr. Lan-glois) who seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I think of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt). I think of hon. members who spoke yesterday: the hon. member for Cham-bly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) and the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Beaudoin). They restore my faith and hope in a united Canada. They lead me to believe, by the language they use and the intensity and sincerity they put into it, that Canada is in the process of achieving reality in national unity. They indicate that we cannot expect unity outside our country if we cannot be united within, without regard to race and creed. They have shown by their speeches and their attitude that they are doing their part toward removing the crust of intolerance which has concealed the true heart of Canada, the heartbeats of which must be pride of country and empire, and the establishment of equality of all Canadians regardless of province, race or creed.
This problem of how our forces are to be raised must be solved. It is a vexed problem. But I suggest that, out of the amalgam of different viewpoints as expressed in this house, out of the desire expressed by those hon. gentlemen yesterday in their search for means to achieve national unity, out of a realization of the needs of national unity and of our international responsibility, Canada will now undertake a solution-not when war comes, if it ever does-and God forbid-not when Canada is called upon to provide the necessary contingents under the charter and to discharge her responsibility, but now, in this parliament, when, for the first time in our history I believe, from all parts of the house comes the demand that we must solve this problem.
I had intended to deal with the international court of justice, but I have only a matter of a few minutes, and I will therefore conclude.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the international court is concerned it represents an unusual advance in world history. It represents in part a great contribution made by
United Nations Agreement

the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and members of the Canadian bar association. In San Francisco I met not only with the minister but with Chief Justice Farris, of British Columbia, who made ,a study of the subject and has given devoted service to the ideals of international justice and law. This court makes possible the establishment of the rule of law on earth, assuring to the world security for nations great or small, and substituting the principles of justice for the sanction of war. I know there are difficulties in connection with it. There is no mandatory submission on the part of the nations excepting the twenty who have agreed to its mandatory terms, and not one of the Big Five are included in this category, and they were the members of the old international court, one of them being Canada. Before the world can achieve peace, the nations of the world must accept the rule of law. History in the past has recorded many great international pacts, but never before, as I said a while ago, has international bad faith been considered a crime and its perpetrators made subject to punishment. To-day we have made an advance which will mean much in the future, and I think the charter of the i-nter-* national military tribunal might well have been	incorporated	into the	international. court of justice. It *would have afforded warning to aggressors everywhere in the world that the paths of leaders of nations who start	international	murder,	masqueradingunder the name of war, will not lead to glory but	will bring its	leaders	inexorably tothe scaffold. The	military commission set
.ip in Europe will try many enemy leaders who, while accepting the Kellogg pact and rgreeing to the outlawry of war, proceeded to prepare for aggression which was contrary to their pledged word.
I conclude. The charter sets up machinery for peace. It sets up a new basis of international law. It sets up a court. It sets up a security council. Under it is to be set up that most beneficent organization, as I hope it will prove to be, the economic and social council. These things without the support of all mankind, these things without the support of all Canadians, will not succeed. The world to-day is in this position. It takes one of two courses. One will be upward, if the common people of the world demand it to a strong and permanent peace under the machinery provided by the charter whereby justice will be assured all nations of the world, together with improved social and economic conditions everywhere. The other leads downward to suffering and horror and another war which will inevitably follow if 
suspicion, intolerance, excessive nationalism and the accentuation of racial superiority are embraced by the nations as their philosophies.
I believe that this charter can and will succeed but only by the practice of tolerance, of mutual respect and strict regard, by all nations, for international obligations and, above all, by the mutual desire to cooperate of all the nations. This charter will be a milestone in mankind's march to better things. It has its weaknesses, but with a full realization of their existence I believe that mankind can secure and maintain peace if it will but seek the attainment of that goal on the part of each of the nations within the united nations, and if each is willing to make sacrifices and show the same courage for peace that brought victory in war.
I know the cynics say that in one hundred years we have had seventy-two wars, that in three centuries we have had a world war every twenty-three years. That is history. The will to war is practised by only two species, men and ants. As stated recently in a great editorial in the Saturday Review of Literature, all entomologists agree that war is instinctive with ants, but not all anthropologists agree that war is instinctive with man. San Francisco was designed to prove that, whether instinctive or not, it must be controlled in the interests of the survival of mankind.
My mind goes back in retrospect to the opening day of the conference. I stood at the entrance of the meeting place and I saw there the great of many nations as they walked up

the Edens, the Molotovs, the Stettiniuses, the Soongs and the Bedaux, all the representatives of the other nations, and our own representatives. I saw them walk through that doorway up the steps and into history, and outside I saw a scene that I shall never forget, a silent moving-picture which will never be erased from memory. Outside that opera house a large crowd of people were held back on the street by a cordon of police and among them was a woman wearing the gold stars of sacrifice. She who had sacrificed tried to enter; but the opportunity of being in the conference, which was called to ensure the culmination of the things for which her loved ones had died, was not to be hers. She could not enter; but she made her contribution when she, in the presence ' of thousands of people, knelt .in silent prayer. That woman will have no place in history along with the great of all the nations who fashioned this charter, she the unknown mother who, in the humility of unuttered prayer, gave inarticulate expression to the prayers of the world's billions who had representation at that conference. Hers was

United Nations Agreement
the expression, of the hope of peace not for our time but for all the time, and it came from the depths of her own sacrifice.
This charter makes for great idealisms. It is, as Anthony Eden said, mankind's last chance. World organizations will achieve nothing, however, without the dynamic support of the common people, without the prayers of people like that woman, and the support of all. Peace is an ideal which cannot be achieved passively. It requires sacrifice. it requires the subjugation of many national ambitions, the abridgment of all national sovereignties, the united determination of people everywhere to assure a greater approach to equality of opportunity everywhere in the world.
Cynics contend that programmes and plans and blueprints have been drawn in the past and have failed. They have. A glance at the pages of history proves that fact. Pacts did not succeed because justice, under law, and righteousness were not their foundation-stones. I say this in all sincerity: While the united nations charter is not perfect, if all nations live up to it with its imperfections it will succeed; for throughout the warp and woof of its pattern run the threads of national sacrifice, national brotherhood, and national charity in an international sphere, all of which are needed to achieve world peace.


Mr. ALISTAIR STEWART (Winnipeg North):: I should like to add my voice in support of the motion that we approve this charter of the united nations. I do so, realizing all the implications which there are in this document. Twenty-five years ago we had the intelligence to create and the wit to devise the league of nations, one of the greatest instruments for good in man's history, but we never had the will to use that instrument, and so the edifice which we built crumbled and collapsed in the midst of a global war.
There were implications in the league which we refused to accept, as there are implications in this charter of the united nations, and it is well that we should recognize them because they are grave, they are onerous, they are great. If we accept this charter, as I hope this house will do unanimously, we say that we are determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.
What is one of the most fundamental of all human rights? Surely it is the right to live; and yet that right is to-day being denied people in Europe. We talk about the dignity and the worth of the human person, but what dignity and what worth is there when human beings are existing all the time in constant fear 47696-84
of death? If we mean what we say we shall have regard for all these things and we shall take active steps to implement our word.
I have spoken before in the house about minorities in Canada. I now raise my voice again, this time on behalf of the oppressed minorities in Europe. I think of some Ukrainians. The Ukraine is a land which forms a part of the territory of an ally of ours, the Soviet Union, and it is over this land that perhaps the worst of the war has raged. The dark face of science ha^ been turned on it and there is little left but desolation and ruin. The people of the Ukraine fought with consummate gallantry and with great devotion against the nazi invader. They fought at times, it seemed, in vain. They were pushed back yard by yard, mile by mile, until finally at the veiy confines of their territory a stand was taken at Stalingrad, and there the armies of our ally, spear-headed by the army of the Ukraine, fought back the invader, repelled him, repulsed him, and threw him out of their land. But even while the war was raging over the Ukraine the nazis were in occupation and asking for volunteers for labour service in other parts of Europe. There were no volunteers forthcoming, and so they commandeered human labour. They took men away from their families. The nazis destroyed the weak and the helpless, the young and the old. They took the men and women away to Belgium, to France, to Italy, to Holland, to every part of Europe where they could be used to staff industry.
Many of those who were thus forcibly ejected from their homes have been taken back, or have been sent back; but there are still countless others, thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, whose only memory of their homes is one of tragedy, of seeing loved ones die in front of their eyes, and * who because of those unhappy memories have no desire to return, and for whom there is apparently no place to go. For those people who were our allies I raise my voice. To the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) I would say this: when the time comes, as come it must soon, for us to reconsider our immigration policy I hope that he will look upon immigration with a more generous eye than the department has in the past for those unfortunate people. In the meantime they live by the mercy of the Red Cross, which is doing tremendous work in Europe. They are helped to some extent, but most inadequately by UNRRA. And here again. I would ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) to request our delegate to UNRRA to make representations that UNRRA be responsible for those people so that they

United Nations Agreement

may be allowed to live and eventually find some permanent home. I say. sir, that that act is implicit in our acceptance of this charter; it is an act of human decency, an act of humanitarianism.
There is one other group about whom I should like to speak briefly, the Sudeten Germans. There were in Czechoslovakia some three to three and a half million.? of these people. For seven centuries they had lived there on the borders of Czechoslovakia and Germany. They were the very backbone of the opposition to Henlein. The Sudeten Germans fought with great courage against the onslaught of fascism. But let us remember that there were collaborationists among them; there were fascists among them; there were those who welcomed the entry of Hitler. But let us also remember this before we condemn too freely. I am bound to say that had Hitler landed in Canada, had fascism invaded this country, we, too, would have seen who the collaborators were and who were the supporters of fascism, and we would have been appalled by what we would have seen. We perhaps are not guiltless. Therefore, let us look upon the situation of the Sudetens with a. generous eye. These people fought against fascism, and now all of them are to be expelled from Czechoslovakia. Where are they expected to go? Who are these people who are to be expelled? May I quote here the words of one of His Majesty's ministers at Westminster, Mr. Noel Baker, who in 1938, before the shame of Munich, was sent over on behalf of the British Labour party to meet the Sudetens, to talk with them, and he did so. He gave them whatever encouragement he could in the face of that bitter betrayal. Later he made a broadcast in England on July 3, 1940, and this is what he had to say about those Germans and about the meetings he attended:
They were Germans, these party comrades, Germans by language and tradition and race, but Germans who were loyal to the Czech republic; Germans who hated the cruel Prussian militarism which Hitler had revived; Germans who believed in democracy and freedom; Germans who were prepared to die for freedom, Germans who day by day, and hour by hour, had to face the bestial terror which Hitler and the nazis had organized against them. I can still hear the deep fierce cheers resounding through the hall when Jaksch declared they would rather fight and die for liberty than yield.
And I remember how President Benes. in his lovely palace on . the hill at Prague, told me that these German social democrats were nothing less than heroes; that they had shown us all what resolution, what nobility of mind, the fight for human freedom could evoke.
And now, with the hysteria which seems to be possessing so many parts of Europe, the

innocent and the guilty alike are being punished. Just the other day, September 6, the prime minister of Czechoslovakia, Doctor Fierlinger, at a press conference in London recognized only two categories of Germans still remaining in the country, those whose behaviour justified their internment in concentration camps, and less noxious ones. There, Mr. Speaker, in front of our eyes is the tragedy of a people. There is a people to whose assistance I think we could come. Whatever moral assistance we can give under the terms of this charter we must give. And they do not ask for much; they merely ask that the policy of deliberate starvation be abandoned; they ask that forced labour without pay be stopped; they ask that a minimum of human rights be observed, and they ask that UNRRA feed them and clothe them and assist them until they can be settled.
There is one further group of whom I must speak. I have already in this house, and only recently my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) brought again to the attention of the House of Commons the tragic plight of the Jewish people in Europe. Even now, when fascism is beaten, they still suffer and languish in concentration camps. Even now, while I speak, innocent people are dying because nobody will stretch out a hand to rescue them. So long as we carry on in this inhuman and heartless way, so long as those days and months go by without help, then our own hands must become even more encarnadined with the blood of the innocent and the guiltless.
The Jewish people were the first to suffer under fascism. What a tragic requiem indeed for them to be the last to suffer under the allies; what an epitaph that would be and what a shame to us! Let us remember that they were never attacked, they were never persecuted as citizens of Poland, or Germany or Roiimania; they were persecuted as Jews. If they are to be persecuted as Jews, then I say they must be rescued as Jews; and what place of rescue is there to-day in this most Christian world? Is there a Christian nation which would stretch out its hand to save them? Not even this Christian country. Therefore, there is only one source of aid, and that is Palestine. We have been told that the Arabs will object, perhaps even to the length of going to war. I think we should view those objections with some suspicion, especially the quarters from which they emanate; they come from kings and princes and effendis who throughout all the years have been our active enemies as well as the active enemies of the people over whom they rule.

United Nations Agreement
They have exploited the people, the Fellaheen. The Arab workers in Palestine, the socialist workers in Palestine, have asked that the gates of Palestine be opened to give the Jewish people refuge and succour, because under the Jewish people Palestine has grown and flourished. The standard of living of all groups has been immeasurably increased. The number of Arabs has doubled, and there has been security for the Jewish people. Should these words of mine make no impression, perhaps I might quote an extract from this letter from Dachau prisoner No. 80939, Chaim Cohn:
For every country the conflict with razism was a war, a balancing of strength with alternate victories and defeats. For Jews it was only annihilation, for there can be no war with the aged, with women and with children. It was a slaughter such as Jewish history has not known for the last five hundred years. We have come out of this enormous struggle as the "winner", but so broken and so weakened that we have neither the strength nor the energy to rejoice. On all fronts Hitler has lost-on the Jewish front he remained the victor. The Jewish people mourn the destruction of the Jewish communities and the Jewish settlements in Europe. Each and every Jew mourns murdered parents, children, brothers and sisters.
. . . We hope that we. who had suffered so much, would at least have a slight recompense for all the troubles, sorrows and pain we had undergone.
This has become an empty dream; an absolute disappointment. Lonesome we wander to-day in a world which has been cursed. No one stretches out his hand to the people of Israel, no one comes to our aid. With certain excep-' tions the world looks upon us as upon a ghost which' haunts them and disturbs their peace. In a cold manner and with official statistics is the approach to our tragedy.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I say that under the terms of this charter we are in honour bound to come to the assistance of the * oppressed. In article 55 we pledge ourselves to create conditions of universal respect for the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. If we mean these words, then in God's name let us act on them; and if we do act on them, then we shall have achieved something revolutionary in our life, something sufficiently revolutionary to match the revolution of the atomic bomb. Here we have an instrument of destruction for which we are unprepared, ethically or morally. Here we have a weapon of war created, again by our own intelligence, for our own obliteration. Let me remind hon. members of the fact that weapons, once invented, are always used. It i3 wrong that this atomic bomb should be the private preserve of two or three nations. It belongs to the united nations; and whatever secret there may be left about it should be given immediately to the united nations 47696-844
for the benefit of all the people of the world, so that the united nations, bound together by this covenant, may use the bomb to deter an aggressor from violence.
I think this charter, with all its errors, perhaps with all its imperfections, holds out tremendous promise for the future. It is perhaps the highest common denominator of international cooperation we can expect at this moment. Therefore we should appreciate that and in the time we have at our disposal should do all that is within our power to remove the imperfections and make it more nearly the instrument we would desire to see. That is why I regretted so much the speech of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) yesterday. I heard it with great amazement, certainly with interest; and after I had listened to it and had read it I was astounded. Here in front of our eyes was a most remarkable and amazing example of atavism. Here wras the perennial Bourbon, who learned nothing and who seemed to forget nothing. Here w;as one talking in terms of isolationism in a world in which isolationism is impossible. Here was one. indeed, who seemed by the very things he said to insult the dead and to deride. the living, because no more is there time for isolationism in this world. He said that Canadian participation should not be ratified until the people have an opportunity to learn what the charter is all about. Does he not know that ever since this war started, the minds of our people have been occupied with two major issues, the winning of the war and the winning of the peace? The shape of the world to come, the nature of our international obligations- these things have been discussed for the last five or six years by Canadians all through this country. I do not know what sort of election campaign my hon. friend conducted, but I do know I was never permitted to speak without being asked by my constituents, about the foreign policy of Canada? By and large I heard no objection at all to the policy in support of this new organization of the united nations.
Further, the hon. member said that in the light of the charter the preamble could not possibly be sustained. What is the preamble, Mr. Speaker? It is the hope of humanity for the future; it is the aspiration toward those things which are within our own hearts. It is an ideal toward which we must struggle and strive with all our ability. That is what the preamble means. If I might give the hon. member for Peace River an analogy, it is perhaps not dissimilar to the ten commandments. The preamble is a way to live in international life; the ten commandments are a way to live in all life. Because they are broken, forgotten and violated every minute of every
United Nations Agreement

day, would he therefore in the same cursory way dismiss the ten commandments as he would dismiss the great ideals enunciated in the preamble?
Again, he seems to object because there is no mention of God in the charter. I do not know why he should bring up that fact. He speaks of whose god? Would he, because there is no mention of has God, exclude from the councils of the world the 400,000,000 human beings in China and the 350,000,000 human beings in India? Would he say, with insufferable conceit, that these are "lesser breeds without the law", and that therefore we should have nothing to do with them? I think the hon. member for Peace River has piled illogicality upon illogicality, absurdity upon absurdity, Ossa upon Pelion. There was nothing constructive that I could see in his speech; only attempts to sow seeds of dissension at a time of critical international crisis, when responsible men should speak with much greater care.
Then, as the piece de resistance, the hon. member said he would find it hard to cooperate with other nations because they were not perfect, as he would have thein perfect. This is not a world of absolutes. It is a world of relative things, and it is in that light we must look upon this charter. I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Peace River certain lessons which I hoped he would have learned from the war through which we have just passed. Let me talk simply and plainly. It is not enough to talk about preserving the peace, for peace in itself is not enough. We were at peace during the thirties, but it was an uneasy, unjust and suspicous peace, which most of us knew was but the prelude to war. I suggest that it is more important to preserve law and order and fundamental human decency than it is to maintain peace. In our own community we are ready to use force to punish an aggressor or a lawbreaker. We have peace among ourselves, but only because we have a superior force to see that we behave. This superior force is collectively employed by the citizens of the community. We surrender our individual sovereignty for the good of all. We surrender our individual sovereignty so that we, as individuals, can be so much safer. Let us learn the lesson then in the field of international affairs, and surrender our national sovereignty so that all of us can have the same safety. In the same way we must use our collective force to restrain the lawbreaker on the international scene. That is what we, as members of the C.C.F. believe. That is collective security.
And yet it presents us with the most terrible paradox of our time; to preserve the conditions of peace we must be prepared and ready

to go to war. If a potential aggressor knows beyond a doubt that he will be punished, he may conceivably be restrained. To achieve such security we must accept the responsibilities, as well as the privileges, of a peaceful world.
I should like to quote these words of Archibald MacLeish:
There has been destroyed in the minds of men and women in this country the superstition that what is done beyond three thousand miles of water is not really done at all; the ignorant superstition that violence and lies and murder on another continent are not violence and lies and murder here, the cowardly and brutal superstition that the enslavement of man in a country where the sun rises at midnight by our clock is not enslavement by the time we live by; the black and stifling superstition that what we cannot see and hear and touch can have no meaning for us.
I accept this charter, i ask the house to accept the charter, with all its imperfections and with all its implications.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Labour-Progressive party I should like to make a few remarks in support of the motion before the house. The signing of the united nations charter by the representatives of fifty nations on June 26 at San Francisco marks an historic milestone on the long and hard road to world security. The signing of the charter was made possible by the forging of unity between the capitalist democracies and the socialist Soviet Union at a time of war, and especially by the unity of the Anglo-Soviet-Ameriean coalition, which combination comprises the overwhelming preponderance of military and industrial strength in the world to-day.
The meeting of the leaders of the three great powers [DOT]at Teheran, the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks and the meeting at Yalta prepared the groundwork for the charter. There may have been differences of opinion, but by getting together and having discussions they were able to eliminate many of the obstacles standing in the way. On the basis of that understanding among the three, despite the prophecies of pessimists and cynics, it was possible to have the charter signed at San Francisco. The maintenance of that same form of unity which made the signing of the charter possible is most important today.
As President Truman said the other day, the battle for peace will be more difficult than the battles of the war. Understanding this, we appreciate the responsibilities connected with that battle for peace, and we work toward an acceptance of those responsibilities.
At the present time attacks are being made upon the unity of the Big Three. These

United Nations Agreement
attacks are aimed chiefly against the Soviet Union. It is obvious that with the end of the war, the enemies having been defeated, certain forces are beginning to speak as though not nazi Germany and Japan had been our enemies, but as if our enemy had been the Soviet people. We have had some examples of this in the house. My wish would be that the representatives of the people might be more thoughtful of their responsibilities, when they speak as some have spoken in the house.
May I remind the house, particularly those hon. members of whom I have spoken, of some facts which must be kept in mind by all. I am not doing this to defend the people of the Soviet Union; indeed, they have shown that they can defend themselves. What I say is said in the interests of Canada, because I believe that the attacks being made could lead to disastrous consequences, not for the people of the Soviet Union alone but for the people of Canada.
While some speak without substantiation by way of documentation, what I shall ,say is borne out by the report I hold in my hand respecting the comments of General Marshall. In this statement he said to the people of the United States:	.
This generation of Americans can still remember the black days of 1942 when the Japanese conquered all of Malaysia, occupied Burma, and threatened India while the German armies approached the Volga and the Suez. In those hours Germany and Japan came . so close to complete domination of the world that we do not yet realize how thin the thread of allied survival had been stretched.
In good conscience this nation can take little credit for its part in staving off disaster in those critical days. It is certain that the refusal of the British and Russian peoples to accept what appeared to be inevitable defeat was the great factor in the salvage of our civilization.
And this, Mr. Speaker, includes the saving of the constituencies of the hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Low), Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka). General Marshall gives details of the various critical phases of the war. This is what 'he says:
In the autumn of 1941 after the battle of Vyazma, the Germans stood exhausted but apparently victorious before Moscow. According to Jodel the general staff of the armed forces considered that one last energetic push would be sufficient to finish the Soviets.
But these Soviet people did not let themselves be finished off. They fought back from Moscow-men, women and children-in what General Marshall describes as one of the coldest winters, and achieved what he refers to as the turning point in the war.
Then came the battle for Stalingrad; and here again I wish to quote General Marshall:
Even after the reverse before Moscow in 1941, Germany might have avoided defeat had it not been for the campaign in 1942 which culminated in the disaster at Stalingrad.
And again:
Hitler. . . personally planned and directed a campaign of which the immediate objectives w^re to deprive the Soviet Union of her vital industries and raw materials by cutting the Volga at Stalingrad and seizing the Caucasian oil fields. Beyond these concrete objectives was evidently the Napoleonic dream of a conquest of the middle east and India by a gigantic double envelopment with one pineer descending from the Caucasus through Tiflis and the other from North Africa across Egypt, Palestine and the Arabian desert. The campaign collapsed before Stalingrad with the magnificent Russian defence of that city.
There was the plan to have the Japanese and Germans meet in India, a plan that ome near to success, but that was met with the slogan of the Soviet people: There shall be no retreat from the Volga. German division after division came up, and division after division was decimated. The Russians held, and they held for every one of us.
The Soviet people made these things possible for us at terrific expense to themselves, to their country and to their loved ones. I have here the official figures of the casualties in this war. The killed, wounded and missing, exclusive of prisoners of war, are given as follows:
Soviet Russia	 21,000,000
United States	 1,070,000
Yugoslavia	:	 1,685,000
Greece	 700,000


Major James William Coldwell: So that we may have
it on the record, will the hon. member state whose figures those are?


Fred Rose: They are contained in a report from New York from Ralph Heinzen, which apeared in the Toronto Star of August 13 of this year. He says that the figures are from official statistics.
The territory which the nazis occupied in the Soviet Union had a pre-war population of
88.000.	000 people. Such cities as Stalingrad, Sevastopol, Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk, Smolensk, Kharkov and Rostov were practically demolished. But these were only part. A total of 1,710 towns and 70,000 villages and hamlets were burned and destroyed, depriving
25.000.	000 people of shelter.
The nazis demolished 31,850 industrial enterprises which had employed 4,000,000 workers. They destroyed over 40,000 miles of railway tracks and 4,100 railway stations. They destroyed 40,000 schools and scientific
United Nations Agreement

research institutions, 43,000 public libraries, and they ransacked the country of hundreds of billions of rubles worth of machinery, cattle, hogs, horses, sheep, et cetera. Millions died of starvation. Certain newspaper men have reported that more than a million starved in Leningrad alone during the siege by nazi Germany and Finland, that same little Finland over which some people are so much concerned.
While the Soviet people fought on in Europe, at the same time they forced the Japanese to keep what General Marshall termed the pride of the Japanese military power, the Kwantung army, in Manchuria, where they could not be used against United States, British and Chinese troops. In fulfilment of an understanding with the allies, when the time came the Russian army marched into Manchuria and crushed that pride of Japanese militarism.
The Soviet people were willing to collaborate to safeguard the peace before the war, but there were many reactionary forces in various countries who in hatred of the socialist system were willing to finance and help Hitler. They said to Hitler, "Go east, young man." Perhaps they did not say it in those words, but that was t-he orientation they wanted. Then we had the Munich pact. When negotiations were being carried on with the Soviet people before the war they were treated as poor relations. As Lloyd George once said, a second-rate clerk was sent to negotiate with the Soviet Union, a man who had no power to sign anything. The Soviet people realized that they could not find a way of concluding a deal that would have prevented war.
Some people wanted the Soviet Union to step in and accept responsibility but not have the right to cross her own borders at Poland. The Soviet people were not willing to do that. There are people to-day who still want to treat the Soviet Union as a poor relation. They still seem to think they can tell off the Soviet Union every time they feel like it. I remember the hon. member for Rosethem (Mr. Tucker) saying that we had to tell Molotov. I have no objection to his doing that, but how many times have people in the Soviet Union said that they had to tell Mackenzie King? Irrespective of the splendid assistance given by the Soviet people, they are still being attacked by what is called the free press, but which is really a press controlled by a few reactionary people.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Fred Rose: Mr. Speaker, suspicions are being aroused against the people of the Soviet Union that are definitely undeserved, and without foundation. For the blood that they have spilled they are being called now by some hon. members "non-Christian", despite the fact that they have fought bravely, despite the fact that all of them have fathers and mothers, as we have, and wives and children who mourn for them as we mourn for every Canadian who gave his life. But they are called non-Christian. On the basis of unfounded suspicions they are being blamed for everything, and they are being attacked, by some in a direct manner, by some in an indirect manner, because indirect attacks appear much more skilful.
We witnessed in this house last spring in the course of the debate on the San Francisco charter indirect attacks in the form of a supposed defence of the Polish people. I would say that those who attacked the Soviet Union were not interested in the welfare of the Polish people; in fact they were the same ones who did not give a hoot when Hitler was threatening the Poles, but now they have found a weapon against the Soviet Union and all of a sudden they become defenders of the Polish people. They are now very much disappointed, because the Polish issue has been settled, and settled to the satisfaction of all. So they have found a new issue, the Ukrainian issue.
This is what we found at this session: the fact that there are Ukrainian people at the present time in western Europe is used as a means of attacking the Soviet Union. Who are those Ukrainians who are now in western Europe? The other day I saw an almanac published in the city of Lwow in 1944, when the nazi force still controlled that city; it contained a picture of Ukrainian SB. forces who were part of Hitler's S.S. forces. As the Red army approached, naturally these Ukrainian SB. forces went westward; they do not w'ant to return to meet the. justice of the people; they, with others who supported Hitler, prefer to remain in the west and receive the protection of the British and United States armies. They have committed crimes against their people, and, like every other nazi supporter, they should pay for their crimes. Yet we are told the sad story in this house about the Ukrainian refugees.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a sad story, too.


Fred Rose: The many among them who have been misled are being encouraged by

United Nations Agreement
people who only yesterday supported Hitler not to return to the Ukraine, where they need men to help in the reconstruction of the country. In the same way many, many Poles are being edcouraged by reactionary profascist Poles not to return to their country, although their country needs every hand that can help in repairing the devastation which, was created by the nazis.
Too many of these pro-fascist elements have strong influence in western Europe. A very close friend of mine, a leading member of our Labour Progressive party, Lieutenant G. L. Caron, a descendant of Louis-Joseph Papineau, who won the Polish Cross of Valour, told me that when he was given the decoration by General Haller of the Polish army, the general delivered a speech in the presence of Canadian officers in which he said, "There is one enemy, the Soviet Union." The country that liberated Poland! Too many Poles and Ukrainians are obsessed with anti-Sovietism, and they are the ones who have the say in western Europe. It is our duty in Canada not to encourage them to leave Europe but to encourage them to go back to their countries and help reconstruct them.
There are also hon. members wTlio are very much concerned about the Balts, who, they say, should not return to their countries, that is to the Soviet Union. In a dispatch in the New York Times of October 14, a newspaper man quotes a United States officer as saying, "Something is out of joint when we denazify Germany but leave these Baltic nazis alone. They have organized their own gestapo, discouraging those wdio really want to go home." I say that if there are Baltic nazis they should pay for the betrayal of their peoples, and we have no reason to defend them.	,
Then again in connection with anti-Sovietism we have the Balkan situation. This is generally raised as a means of slapping down the Soviet Union. But before I proceed to discuss the Balkans I should like to remind hon. members that the people of Europe did^ not fight for the return of the status quo, the return to power of those open collaborators and others who did nothing in the period of nazi occupation. The people fought for a different sort of regime. We have heard a lot about the fact that the Balkan countries do not have democratic regimes. Well, if people are very much concerned about democratic regimes, seemingly they have their eyes only where the Soviet Union is involved. I should like to remind them about the 350 millions of Indian people. How about the seventy million of Indonesia who to-day are being told that they must return to the old
regime of Dutch domination? What about the tens of thousands of people in Greece who are being held in concentration camps, the people who fought against the nazis, while those who were on the side of the nazis are in power? I have heard hon. members quoting from the Atlantic charter and I would remind them of the following paragraph in that document:
They-
That is, the President of the United States and Prime Minister Churchill.
-respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.
That, Mr. Speaker, must include all people, no matter what their colour or their race may be. We can not have one yardstick for Europe and another for hundreds of millions of people living in Asia.
Coming back to the Balkans, I do not believe that the imperialist forces who controlled industry, and who have had a whole lot to say about it, are interested in democracy in that part of the world; rather, I would say they are much more interested in their investments in those countries. In order to prove this point I will quote from the well informed liberal financial weekly, The Economist, of September 1, 1945:
Within Yugoslavia itself, observers report a genuine increase in the sense of Yugoslav unity and brotherhood, in itself a remarkable achievement after the pogroms and massacres of the war years. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, divided for fifty years, have been having almost a love feast in the last months, and it seems likely that a much closer union between the two states will be the outcome of the change of regime. Roumania and Hungary are also enjoying better relations than before. . . .
What can be said on the balance of the new regimes? They replaced not democratic governments but illiberal, corrupt poliet states. The bias to the left is not simply enforced from above. It springs from a profound change in eastern Europe. Of the political groups which in southeast Europe were closely connected with the west, the business people collaborated with Hitler and the old party leaders-the Matcheks, the Manius, the Bratianus-played no active part in the resistance. . . . The fact that in Greece alone the old guard is still in power helps to confirm the disillusion with western policy. ... Of the tw'o alternatives, left wing coalition as in Yugoslavia. Roumania. Hungary and Bulgaria, and the right wing and terrorist administration in Greece, the present regimes hold out more hope for the Balkan peoples.
I would say that in these countries democracy is much more than an abstract phrase, because for the first time the people there are getting land and therefore they will enjoy not simply the freedom to starve but the freedeom to live like human beings. If
United Nations Agreement

that is not democracy, perhaps I do not understand what is meant when certain people talk about democracy.
Certain reactionary forces in the United States and Britain are encouraging those minorities in the Balkans who in their own countries were either collaborators of the nazis or did nothing when it came to a question of resistance. They are being encouraged to try to destroy the governments that are' in power to-day.
There are coalitions in some parts of this country-in British Columbia and a coalition government in Manitoba. But the peoples of the Balkans cannot have coalition, governments made up of progressive forces! I say that what is good for us must also be recognized as being good for them because, as I have said, we cannot have two distinct yardsticks.
It is not, however, merely a question of opposing those governments with words. Those people are being opposed with deeds, and shameful deeds. On Wednesday, October 17, two days ago, Mr. Sulzberger, writing in the New York Times from London with regard to the Balkan situation, said:
The American ambassador, Richard C. Patterson, has Washington's full approval to make a battle for democracy as America knows it, and not only is he withholding all economic aid from Tito and insisting on the implementation of the four freedoms, but he is employing the potential threat of withdrawal of recognition.
I would call this a shameful act, because it means they are saying to the people of Yugoslavia, "Either you change your government or you shall starve; we will give you no economic aid." That is what it means, and we in Canada have a committee supposedly known as the committee of the friends of Yugoslavia, which is withholding aid because it does not like these people's regime. That is disgraceful because it is inhuman. It it simply starving an ally into submission, because I have given the figures:
1,600,000	Yugoslavs have given their lives in this war, but they are to be starved into submission because we do not like their form of government. And now, according to Mr. Sulzberger in the New York Times, they are being threatened by the United States and Britain with withdrawal of recognition. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why the threat of withdrawal of recognition from Yugoslavia, an ally? Do we threaten Franco's Spain which has helped nazi Germany and given them supplies? They sent their Blue division to fight against the Soviet Union but we do not threaten them. We say that we cannot inter-
fere in the internal affairs of a state. But when if comes to an ally, just because they want a different sort of government, we threaten them with withdrawal of recognition.
In the whole of this attitude I, and many others, see what I would call a bit of atomic diplomacy. This atomic diplomacy means: 'I have an atomic bomb in my hand and you either take what I offer, or else. This is dangerous diplomacy because, once you start playing around with secret weapons, you will soon find that somebody else has secret weapons too. Hitler at one time thought he had special secret weapons but there were others who had secret weapons. I repeat, this is very dangerous diplomacy and it can lead to catastrophe. We must have a realistic kind of diplomacy and not an atomic kind of diplomacy. It is all right for the United States to say: "We will take an island seven thousand miles away from the shores of the United States; we will make that a defence outpost for the United States." But it is wrong for the Soviet Union to say: "We want friendly powers on our borders." It is all right for the United States to say: "We want internationalization of the Danube, Dardanelles and the Kiel canal;" but it would be definitely wrong to say: "Internationalize the Panama canal, the gulf of St. Lawrence and perhaps the St. Lawrence river." It is all right for the United States to say: "We give instructions to MacArthur that he is the man who has full power in Japan and nobody can say anything." But it is wrong for the Soviet Union to say in Europe: "We shall have a bit more to say about what is on our borders." No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot have that sort of policy. That will not help to reinforce the San Francisco charter.
Recently we had a conference in London. There were many, many stories that came out of the London conference; but I would say that the real story did not come out of London. We heard about petty squabbles and petty arguments; but I would say that the basic disagreements there flowed from the atomic diplomacy, from the belief on the part of certain politicians that now that we have the atomic bomb we can change the Potsdam decisions. At Potsdam there was an agreement about the de-industrialization of Germany. I have here the text of the decisions reached at Potsdam. It states that the industries used for war in Germany will be taken out of Germany; that these industries will be used for reparation purposes. But there are some who have different ideas about

United Nations Agreement
the matter, some who believe tha-t they do not want to take the industries away from Germany.
A United States commission recently investigated that situation in Europe. That commission was headed by Professor Calvin Hoover. It proposed that no machinery be taken away from western Europe; that Germany should have the right to produce ten million tons of steel a year, more than they produced in 1939. * Plainly and simply this means that there are still too many people who believe that Germany should be built up as an anti-Soviet power. It was exactly that kind of idea which led to the war that has just been finished; and it is that kind of idea which may give us world war No. 3.
Who was on that commission? There was William Draper whoj at the present time, happens to be Brigadier William H. Draper of Dillon, Reed and Company, one of the big financial institutions of New York. He does not want to de-industrialize Germany; he does not want to take away the machinery from Germany. There was one L. Wysor, one of the people in the ownership of the, Republic Steel Corporation of the United States. These people are laying down a line that is dangerous to the peace of Europe. The people of the Soviet Union and their representatives say, "At Potsdam we made a certain agreement, and you have to live up to.it." I-do not have to base my remarks merely on this statement;
1 have here the charge made b^ Senator Kilgore of the United States. He is the head of the military subcommittee investigating German industry. He says that unless something drastic is done in Germany, she will be able to produce more war material than they produced in 1939.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Fred Rose: I will conclude in a few
minutes.


James Horace King: With the consent of the house.


Fred Rose: Mr. Speaker, these are the
decisive issues. Agreements have been made by the Big Three. Those agreements must be lived up to. If those agreements are lived up to, it will be possible for them to get together again and to come to a positive decision regarding future policy. All is not lost. There were difficulties in the past. It will be remembered that there was the Polish issue; there was the question of the San Francisco conference, and many other issues. They reached agreements because we cannot afford war. War
would not merely be the problem of trying to save civilization; it will be the utter destruction of civilization. There has to be agreement.
Canada cannot afford to play the role of organizing the middle bloc, the bloc of supposed middle and small powers. The best role that Canada could play would be to see that these three stick together. If these three stick .together we shall have peace.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) went overseas; he spoke to President Truman; he saw Prime Minister Attlee. I should say the best thing that could happen would be for the Prime Minister to proceed to Moscow to see Generalissimo Stalin in order to' help to play a role in cementing the unity' of the big three. That would be the finest role for Canada to play, and I do hope that the Prime Minister will find it possible to make that visit.
' Mr. SPEAKER:	Order. I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. gentleman again, but I gave him a few minutes to close his speech. Mr. ROSE: I will close it in one minute.


James Horace King: Unless he has the unanimous consent of the house he will be obliged to resume his seat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Finish it up.


Fred Rose: Before leaving for overseas the Prime Minister said that the world to-day had changed; that it is not any more what it was before. That was a very important statement. It means that we, as a young and vigorous nation must recognize those changes. We as an independent sovereign state, a neighbour of the United States and of the Soviet Union, as a member of the commonwealth of nations, can play a unifying role. Recognizing the changes that have taken place in Europe, we should play a role of cementing that unity and help those new nations that have come to the fore, and help the general progressive development of the world. Only in that manner will Canada be playing a progressive and decisive role at the present stage in the world's history.


Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the entire house has listened with a great deal of interest and satisfaction to the reports from the various delegates to the San Francisco conference, and the discussion on its merits from all parts of the house has done credit to this body.
The ramifications of the provisions of the charter have ben so ably dealt with that there is very little left to say. I shall deal only with those aspects which have not as yet been mentioned.
United ft'ations Agreement

The first paragraph of the charter states:
We, the peoples of the united nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom ....
This is a worthy objective, nobly conceived. Our task is twofold: first, to see that in Canada the terms as laid down by the charter shall apply and, second, that in the international field nothing is left undone to promote the conditions that will make possible realization of these aims. What are these equal rights of men and women? How shall we approach the objective to "promote social progress and standards of life in larger freedoms''?
The biggest question mark to-day on the Canadian horizon is jobs; jobs, and how much does the job pay? We must begin right there *with the interpretation of the San Francisco charter and with the words "equal rights of men and women." The right to work at decent pay is a fundamental right without which there can be little freedom. Certainly for the able-bodied adult, freedom from want and freedom from fear hinge on this simple need.
Can Canada really afford this simple freedom for women, or shall women be asked to retire from the field of gainful employment and paid labour? I submit to the house, Mr. Speaker, that no one has ever objected to *women working. The only thing they have ever objected to is paying women for working. Many women will have homes that will absorb their time, and sufficient income that they will not want to seek employment outside their homes. Most women are happiest when these two conditions are comfortably met. But as I look over the "Canada Year Book" for 194344 I find that in many industries women played a very important part in production. In the processing of sausages and meat, butter and cheese, animal oils and fats, fish curing and packing, and related industries using fur, hides and leather from animals, slightly over a quarter of the jobs were held by women. Some 13,047 persons were employed, of whom 3,520 were women. In the textile trades and industries almost one-half the workers were women. They handled cotton, wool, flax, silk and synthetics. They made bags, tents, sails, 
rope, clothing, hosiery, gloves, hats, caps, thread and so on. Of the 11,721 persons employed, 5,843 were women. In the processing of wood and in the making of paper products, bags, boxes, printing, bookbinding, beekeepers' and poultrymen's supplies, boat-building, the planing of sashes and doors and flooring, coffins and caskets, carriages and sleighs-all these things were listed, and women were not excluded from one of these industries. Of the 20,543 jobs, 6,921 or more than one-third were held by women.
It will be said that this was a period of abnormally high employment, and now that the war is over most of the women can go back to their homes and take their bread and cake from their husbands, their fathers, their brothers, or, if the worst comes to the worst they can go on relief and be sweet and thankful for it. I wish to point out that while it was a period of abnormal activity it was also a period of abnormally high marriage rates. Thousands of young women left the labour market to marry and become mothers. The birthrate, too, was abnormally high. The last available figure is for 1942, when it reached an all-time high at 272,313, an increase of 17,000 over the previous year. Naturally these young wives and mothers will, in the main, be only too happy to stay at home and enjoy the privacy and comfort of a happy home, and their reward will be the hapiness that comes from seeing the growth and development of sturdy, well-fed youngsters, provided that their husbands have jobs which will support them. The family allowance is crutch under family income, to supplement it. It can never begin to meet the needs of a robust, growing family that seems to be always hungry and always in need of a new pair of shoes.
Women who seek employment for pay do so for several reasons. First, there are the unmarried women who desire to be self-supporting. Many have dependents; parents unable to earn but not yet pensionable; parents unemployable but under seventy, or other relatives unable to take care of themselves, or perhaps brothers or sisters who are taking advanced training in educational fields. Second, there are the married women, mothers and wives, who must earn to supplement the family income. This needs very little explanation. Many wives have always worked to avoid hiring help in the family store or post office. For the same reason wives take jobs in other people's stores, post offices, factories and offices, to add to the family income. Many homes now owned by families

United Nations Agreement
never could have been paid for had it not been for the mother's earnings which helped to supplement the father's income.
Then there is the next group of women, whose talents and training do not lie in the domestic field. I should hate to see a law or custom that would impose upon all males the same sort of employment. I should think it would produce many misfits if we expected every man to make his contribution to the community as a plumber, a janitor or even as a lawyer. By the same token it is unfair to expect that every woman will love housework or be skilled in its many branches. To be a good mother does not require that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth do the royal laundry. Other people are paid to wash Her Majesty's dishes. In fact I have never seen it suggested that the royal family was anything but a model of contentment. It is a medieval hangover to suppose that every successful wife and mother must personally perform the duties of the household; in fact it was never required of women who had the means to pay others to discharge these duties. If the training and ability of the individual woman, be she spinster or wife, fit her to accept gainful employment in the professions, in business or in industry, it should be her right to accept such employment. In fact any attempt to deny her this right is a violation of our solemn pact endorsed by the Canadian delegation and by us in the San Francisco charter.
The next argument against women being gainfully employed may be that women depress wages. The simple remedy for this objection is to pay a certain wage for a job regardless of whether the applicant is male or female. When you buy a bus ticket, a railway ticket, a meal or a book the vendor does not ask you whether the purchaser is male or female, nor does the price go down if the purchaser is a woman. For their own protection men must insist that equal pay be given for equal work.
Finally, there is an urgent social and moral problem involved in the right of women to economic independence. Our Doctor Bates of the health league of Canada has cornered every member of this house, either in groups or individually, to gain support for his attack on disease. He is especially concerned, and rightly so, with preventive work. I need only remind hon. members of his V.D. clinic, where many thousands of cases are receiving treatment with penicillin. It was, I am sure, a revelation to all of us to hear Doctor Bates relate his conversation with the young Russian doctors who visited his clinic. Their statement, that at the outbreak of war they did not
have enough V.D. cases in Russia to demonstrate its ravages to the medical students, came as a blow to us, and in comparison with our record fills us with shame and envy.
Equally significant was the statement that this was the result of placing women on a plane of economic independence. If we are ever to approach the position where we can say with pride, as a nation, that we have eliminated forever the scourge of venereal disease and prostitution, then we must hold as sacred the right of every person, man and woman, to maintain self-respect, and natural pride in honourable work, paid for at a level that will provide happiness, security and cultural advancement.
In closing my plea for taking seriously our solemn declarations at this milestone in the world's history, I wish to state that the urgency of our task is matched only by its magnitude. It is our only hope. It is our next step. Our task would be simpler of achievement if every nation shared our inherited religious practices, the inherited colour pigment of our skins. But the time to act is now. We cannot wait to make the world all Christian, or all democratic. We must take this contemporary world, and under the urgency of our need for peace we must learn to live together, or cease to live at all. This is an attempt to find a method, and incomplete as it must be at this stage, it merits the support of Buddhist, Hindoo and Christian alike.
I am very happy to 'be able to support the provisions of the San Francisco charter, to be applied throughout the world, and especially am I concerned that they apply here in Canada; that there be written into Canadian statutes "the equal rights of men and women."


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself entirely with the opinions and views expressed yesterday by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I think I can say that those remarks will be endorsed by true social crediters the world over, and I believe that they will be endorsed by a great many more people in Canada than some hon. members appear to think.
We may sometimes overestimate the information of the people, but I think we are very apt to underestimate their intelligence. Speaking in the house last March in the debate on the motion to send a delegation to San Francisco, I said this:
The defeat of German arms is certain, but the plots of international finance and communism, their plans for world control by the surrender of national sovereignty to world government and police force, has become a greater threat to our liberties as Christians and democrats than the disaster at Dunkirk.
United, Nations Agreement

That statement caused quite a lot of criticism, but I have heard nothing since to cause me to alter my opinion expressed then. In fact those ideas have been strengthened by what has happened since. Everybody knows, of course, the world's misery, but few people seem to know the fundamental causes of it.
Unless one understands the plans and aims of Marxism and the aims and plans of international finance, one cannot understand their intimate connection. Unless one understands this intimate relationship, one is led to believe that the world's troubles and miseries are accidental. Unless these things are understood, one cannot understand further that socialism and communism are only means to an end. Finally, unless and until these facts are realized no one is qualified to discuss them with intelligence either here or elsewhere.
During the federal election campaign I was attacked for not having voted for the motion for San Francisco last spring. They went farther, and because I am opposed to socialism and criticized socialism I was accused of being anti-Christian. Certain church leaders were quoted as being great socialists, and it was suggested that therefore socialism is Christianity, and that if you oppose socialism you are anti-Christian.
The hierarchy of the church who are socialists and communists are not such because they are church leaders. They have become church leaders because they are Marxists, and they are busy spreading the doctrine of Karl Marx instead of Christian ideals according to the gospel. True it is that a large part of our church leadership has abandoned Christian principles for the dogmas of the Scribes and Pharisees. A leading socialist, a man who no doubt is taken to be their leader, and whose advice is followed by some members in the house, is Professor Laski. He is one of the most influential socialists in the world to-day. Just before the war he wrote a book entitled "Faith, Reason and Civilization", in which he said:
Christianity has failed. The world is looking to Russia for its ideals and moral standards. The principal figure of the New Testament showed little or no concern for the work-a-day world.
What Professor Laski meant, of course, was that the world should take the Talmud for its guide, instead of the New Testament. Many church leaders, having lost their own faith and vision as Christians agree with Laski. But if these political theologians, these theological politicians, must preach Marxism, I suggest that they step down from the pulpit and get on a soap box.
A word with regard to the Atlantic charter for which, as remarked yesterday by the hon.

member for Peace River (Mr. Low), hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of men have laid down their lives in the faith that they were fighting for its realization. Let me read two sections of the charter:
1.	To seek no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned.
2.	To see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
Where is the Atlantic charter to-day? I suggest that it is at the bottom of the Black sea. To-day right exists only for those who are equal in power. While the strong do what they like, the weak suffer what they must. Let me quote a celebrated man in Great Britain who wrote a book called "The New Despotism", in which he said:
A mass of evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent and well contrived system intended to produce and in practice producing a despotic power which at one and the same time places government departments above the sovereignty of parliament, and beyond the jurisdiction of courts.
Hon. members who are lawyers will recognize those words of the late Lord Hewart, a former lord chief justice of England.
Europe is faced with starvation to-day; after Europe has survived six years of war, why should there be starvation when we have had six months of peace? Therd was no real wholesale starvation during the war, but I read the other day where starvation threatens perhaps fifteen to twenty millions of Europeans this winter. They talk of planned economy, but what we are getting is planned chaos. When I say "planned", I mean planned and it is planned for a purpose. Let me quote an article entitled "The Tragedy of Austria", which appeared in a socialist paper published in the United States. It reads:
In Vienna there are no factories, no banks, no food. Money is of little use, because there is so little to buy. During the first six weeks of the occupation there were no rations. . . . But actually the food is Austrian food requisitioned by the Reds and sold back to the Austrians.
And again:
The Russians regarded everything as war booty. In Vienna, in fact, there is an active and efficient Russian booty commission. The Red army brought in great empty trunks and chests. Now they are cbllecting their pay. Everything is carried off. In Steyr, in St. Polten, in Vienna not a single machine can be found. In all Vienna only twelve trucks were left to serve all the city's needs-including the hospitals and public kitchens. All sorts of tools -hammers, saws, telephones, turbines-everything was dismounted, packed and carried off.

United Nations Agreement
To this must be added the so-called personal requisitions; watches, ornaments, clothes. Houses were completely stripped of furnishings. Even the dwellings of the poor were denuded. The Russians did not care whether they robbed capitalists or workers.
Mention has been made of the recent conference in London and in this regard I should like to quote from the Congressional Record of October 1. One of the members of congress gave a quotation from "The Changing World," by Constantine Brown, who is considered to be one of the best informed men in Washington on foreign affairs. He said:
Secretary of State Byrnes is returning from London, a disappointed man. He and his colleagues discovered there is a great difference between discussing lofty ideals, such as those expressed at San Francisco, and the stark realities of "territorial adjustments", when the power complex of the victorious nations emerges as strong as it has existed for thousands of years.
The American government has sought to end the old philosophy of balance of power and has attempted-at the price of giving up many of its ideals about international justice-to put into effect the thesis of "one world". Previously our policy framers had reluctantly thrown overboard such nations as Poland and Finland. But there was a firm belief among them that these were only temporary situations and eventually, after peace and political sanity were reestablished in the world, the nations would all regain their freedom.
The same thought governed the American policy framers in regard to other states in the Balkans, where the Russian "liberation" hand laid heavily on the "liberated" peoples.
Mr. Byrnes was convinced that when the representatives of the big five nations, which had suffered so much devastation from the war, sat around the green table, they would make concessions-not necessarily to each other-but to a peace-hungry world. They all had pledged themselves to work in full harmony and cooperation at San Francisco. The American senate, known in the past for its fear of international entanglements, had almost unanimously voted America's full participation on international affairs. Yet Mr. Byrnes is now reported to be a sadly disappointed man.
Not only was he met with a challenging attitude on the part of Foreign Commissar Molotov on all matters which were discussed in London, but he was told plainly that Russia does not intend to yield on any matter in which her interests are involved. Her "interests" meant plainly the complete domination of all the areas in Europe where her forces have been stationed as a temporary war measure with the consent of the other allies, and the expansion of her influence to far areas such as the Red sea and the eastern Mediterranean.
Mr. Byrnes would have been happy to make concessions to the Russians' point of view if he thought he could obtain some sort of a quid quo pro from Commissar Molotov. But the further the discussions went the more apparent it became that Russia was more interested in territorial matters than in the lofty ideals contained in the U.N.O. charter.
The charter which is under discussion.
The charter, it became obvious to the American Secretary of State, was to have as a principal function in the future the guaranty of the territorial grabs.
I might quote very briefly from an old country Liberal weekly paper called Truth, one of the oldest and most respectable political papers published in Great Britain. When I was a young man I used to read it when it was edited by the late Henry Labouchere, and no greater Liberal, I suppose, lived than he, certainly in our lifetime. Let me quote from an article in this paper. I shall be as brief as I can, but I think it is of importance. Somebody, probably some member of the house, was kind enough to send me a copy for my perusal, and I think it is so good that I am going to put part of it on Hansard. This extract has been checked from the original. I should like to thank my unknown friend for his kindness.
Nothing but harm can come from ignoring the fact that it is the desire of certain American financial interests to break down this sense of community between the members of the British commonwealth.. So long as identity of interest continues to serve as a basis of common action there will always be a drive to maintain imperial preference and a sterling area, which together challenge the economic omnipotence of New York just as surely as the presence in the world of a vast empire challenges the political omnipotence of Washington. It is to remove these stumbling blocks to increased world power that American realists pick devices such as that evolved at Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks. There would not be a great deal of danger in the situation if the facts were faced and if the empire countries remain united. Unfortunately however empire unity cannot be taken for granted. It has been undermined for years, chiefly by fifth columnists both here and in the dominions, magnificently as it displayed itself during the war.
As I have said many times in this bouse, the empire has been undermined by the agents of Shylock and Marx. If anybody asks me what I mean by that, I mean international finance and international communism.


Mr. POULIOT:: The hon. member is right, but I should like to know who they are.


Norman Jaques: I have put that on record
before now. Some of the names are on Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: But you said that only
in the abstract.


Norman Jaques: The article continues:
Who are these fifth columnists who still keep h. step to betray Britain? For the most part they are idealists, sweet innocents convinced that Britain has only to merge her sovereignty and empire in some form of international hugger-mugger to institute the reign of law and perpetual peace on earth. One could smile at
United Nations Agreement

their ingenuousness were it not that they influence men of the power and standing of Lord Astor and Sir Walter Layton, both of whom were connected with the notorious British commonwealth relations conference held under the auspices of Chatham House in February of this year.
We were then in the midst of war, which did not prevent passages in British ships being reserved for mysterious gentlemen from the dominions who had apparently been brought to this country to discuss the desirability of the empire's dissolution. The press was not admitted, but it is known that the talks ranged from internationalizing her colonial service to making the dominions' office part of the foreign office. An eeoonmic policy for the empire was spurned in favour of one "transcending national frontiers." So with defence. Every kind of separatism was urged,-all under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs.
"Royal!"
"Truth' published an attack on the conference in April, but further light has since been issued on its subversive tendency by Mr. Lionel Curtis in a "Comment" addressed to the Royal Empire Society. Mr. Curtis describes how he endeavoured to secure agreement on the need for a unified empire strategy, only to bo told that the question had become "obsolete". The chairman of the conference (name not disclosed) desired the word "institutions" in relation to the empire to be soft-pedalled, but "attached the greatest importance to the joint defence board of Canada and the U.S.A. becoming a permanent 'institution'." A Canadian delegate observed that the "U.S.A. might not approve of Canada allowing the training of commonwealth forces on Canadian soil"-in which statement Mr; Curtis declared that he "recognized the policies of the Liberal party machine in Canada and the C.C.F. party machine." Mr. George Ferguson, editor of the Winnipeg Free Press asserted that Canadians were furious when people in Great Britain thanked them for coming to save this island from conquest by Germany, since they had been serving their own interest alone. . . .
Still uglier, however, is the total picture of the conference which Air. Curtis gives. After describing how the promoters and founders of tne league of nations had hoped and expected that the British commonwealth would be liquidated" into the league and how. when this vision faded, the commonwealth, still not dis-mlegrated. was able to stand alone to save civilization. Air. Curtis rounded on the delegates wutli these words, "In face of these facts you are now asking for the liquidation of the British commonwealth into Dumbarton Oaks.
. . . Once more you are luring public opinion down the primrose path which leads to another butchery, a third holocaust. It is my fate in my old age to attack my7 oldest and best friends." He names some of them-Lord Cecil, Lord Samuel, George Ferguson, Edgar Tarr.
Also of Winnipeg.
. should be remembered that the man utter-^his denounciation is not a nationalist, as "Truth" readers understand that word: on the contrary his book. "World War: Its Cause and Cure" was criticized in these columns because of its starry-eyed internationalism. His courageous exposure of the conference is, on that very ground, not less but more significant.

We have heard quite a lot about "collective security." To my mind it is a very curious and suggestive thing that those who talk the most about collective security are the very ones who would destroy the only effective collective security which there was in the world in 1939. The British empire then, by standing together, saved the world from destruction by the forces of totalitarianism, and it is those people who are so anxious to save the world from another war who are trying so hard to destroy that very collective security. That is why I take the stand I do.
I do not understand the sense of this idea of global security. If you want to protect a forest from a holocaust of fire, do you not, if you can afford it, and if you have the time, divide that forest into sections, so that if there is a fire you can isolate it and prevent it from spreading? But what is this global security? What do these global ideas mean? Suppose Bulgaria in a few years' time, or some other Balkan state, starts a war against Greece or one of its neighbours. Instead of the war being isolated, it would be made global and the whole world would be engaged in it one part against the other, so that there would be an international holocaust. Sometimes I think that is the purpose.
I heard some very strong ideas expressed before the six o'clock recess by an hon. member to my right in criticism of this group. Apparently everything is lovely in the garden of Europe, but I will say this. Instead of the Atlantic charter and the freedom promised to those people who were the victims of Hitler, what have we -to-day? From the Elbe to the Adriatic there are perhaps 120,000,000 people who have become enslaved by Stalin, and so far I have not heard one word in this house in defence of them. There is altogether too much smugness about this business. Yes, we are to have peace, but at whose price? Who is paying the price?
I could quote what Winston Churchill said as reported in the British Hansard. He said: "What is the condition of millions of people in Europe to-night? Not fear of invasion by a foreign foe, but fear of the Red policeman." Then he goes on to say, "Here is a family sitting around the fire talking and presently there is a knock on the door and the father or a brother is called out and the chances are he will never return, nor will the family know what his destiny is. And, "Mr. Churchill adds, "they know better than to ask".
If things are as they have been represented to the people of Canada and if all the atrocities have been committed by Germany. I

United Nations Agreement
would like to ask hon. members the meaning of this cutting I took out of the Citizen a few days ago:
Eisenhower bans use of force on Russian nationals. Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany, October 4 (Associated Press)-General Eisenhower, in an order amounting to a temporary abrogation of one phase of the Yalta agreement, has instructed that American troops discontinue forcing Russian nationals to return home unless the United States government rules otherwise.
Existence . of the order, affecting 26,400 Russians still in the American zone of Germany, was disclosed to-day by commanders of dis-plaeed-persons camps.
Questioned on reports that troops had fired over the heads or near the feet of some Russians to compel them to board Soviet-bound trains, one officer said:
"Possibly for a time some of them were being pushed on to trains without your asking many questions, but that's all stopped now."
Why should people require to be shot at in order to force them 'to go home? I know one thing. You would not need to fire a shot at anyone in Europe to force him to come to Canada. And why? Because we .enjoy British justice and British freedom. That is the answer.
I wanted to put myself on record because for many months past this thing has been worrying me; it has been on my mind and my conscience, and that is the awful fate of I do not know how many people, possibly more people than there are in North America, in what was once the most civilized part of the world. Where are those people to-day? They have lost everything. They have lost their homes; their families are split up, and finally they have lost their freedom. They have paid the price so that we might have peace. But I do not believe that* permanent peace can be built on such injustice and slavery. I believe the words of the New Testament: You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. There can be no lasting peace unless it is built on freedom and justice.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, at this time when we are called upon to support the agreement establishing the united nations charter, which aims at ensuring world peace, we have but to observe what is happening in the various countries to realize the necessity of a general international organization which may avert threats against peace and ensure international security.
Following the first great war, which ended in 1918. we have had the league of nations which afforded hope for security to peace-loving nations; unfortunately, it was powerless to prevent conflicts.
I do not intend to deal on the causes of that failure. However, I shall make bold to say that if the great powers of which it was composed had not too often been prompted by the desire to advance their selfish interests, the results would have been different.
How will this one fare? Time will tell. In its present form, does it afford any positive guarantee of success? I am doubtful about that. Is it worth while that we should give it a trial, by way of experimentation, it being understood that we may withdraw from it later if it does not fulfil our expectations? That is another question which deserves consideration.
Does the new organization offer a positive guarantee of success?
Let us consider the charter from the standpoint of facts. The object was to establish a united nations organization including every peace-loving state, as evidenced in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Well, oddly enough, such peace loving nations as Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden and others who had remained neutral, have been ignored! And there is more: we insisted, which is hard to believe when a peace organization is being founded, that certain peaceful countries, still neutral, such as Turkey, Peru and others, declare war on our enemies to earn the right to participate in the drafting of this charter.
The charter starts with a preamble proclaiming the equality of all nations, great or small, and section 2 states as a principle that the organization is based on the sovereign equality of all member nations.
However, the principles of the charter are to be implemented through a security council of eleven members, of which five are permanent members: the United States, the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R., France and China, enjoying the right to veto decisions on all important matters. This incited the Minister of Justice to say, the other day, that: "It does constitute a serious exception to the principle of equal sovereignty of states regardless of their size."
Indeed, it is a direct breach of the principle on which the charter is based.
Section 25 of the charter states:
The members of the united nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the security council in accordance with the present charter.
However, section 27, granting the right to veto decisions to the five great powers, exempts them from this obligation and places them above the law so that the small and middle nations will be bound by the charter, but not the five great powers.
The five great powers insist that they judge the others, that they enforce penalties, but they refuse to be judged or subjected to
United Nations Agreement

penalties. That is what they call equality.
What has become of the principles of sovereignty and equality that should have been at the foundation of this international organization?
Are they merely a false front to hide the domineering tendencies of certain powerful nations over their small neighbours?
To forestall our misgivings, we are told that the great powers have given assurances that they will seldom use their right' to veto a decision, that they will take into account the interests of small states and besides, that we must recognize the sincerity of the signers of the charter. What a guarantee!
If we draw a list of the official statements of politicians which have been put to the lie by their acts in the last few years, of the broken agreements, of the times some of the great powers to whom these exceptional rights are granted have disowned their own signatures, there is little comfort for those who may feel some anxiety.
The best means to ensure that a power will not be exercised is not to grant it; we have had a proof of this in our own country. The power to conscript men for overseas service was not to be resorted to, but it has been.
Facts, we will find, are more eloquent than words.
On September 17, 1939, Russia made a sneak attack on Poland, who was fighting Germany to protect her own territory and independence. This was done in spite of a treaty of non-aggression.
Some of the great powers, who had, by treaties, guaranteed the territorial integrity of that country, took no action whatever against Russia.
Therefore, what guarantee do the signatures affixed to a treaty afford us?
From then on, Russia, violating a treaty at every step, attacked in succession all the nations that surrounded her. Finland met her fate November 30, 1939; the three Baltic States were next on the list and had their turn on June 15 and 16, 1940; then Bessarabia, a part of Rumania, was seized on June 28. All these dates recall Russia's disregard of various treaties; we find, therefore, that until June 22, 1941, when Russia herself became the victim of aggression on the part of Germany, that Stalin's treatment of his neighbours was similar to Hitler's. And the game still goes on.
On July 30, 1941, Russia negotiated a new treaty with Poland, assuring her that her territorial boundaries would be restored. That ' treaty, like the others, has since gone by the board. I will come back to it later.

I have given a list of treaties disregarded, particularly by Russia, one of the five great powers to sign the San Francisco charter.
Now what are we to think of the solemn declarations signed by various leaders assuring the smaller nations who fought with the allies, that their freedom and security will be maintained?
I shall merely refer to the Atlantic charter dated August 14,	1941, signed by Messrs.
Roosevelt and Churchill. Section 2 reads as follows:
They (Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill) desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.	*
And section 3:	.
They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
By a pact signed in Washington on January 1, 1942, Russia endorsed those statements by adhering to the Atlantic charter.
Those were fine statements, but what a difference between statements and acts.
Well, what is at present the fate of Poland?
After having lost half her territory to Russia, she remains under the political and economic control of the Soviet Union. A reign of terror , and enslavement exists in that country.
This is a sad fate for a nation which has sacrificed millions of lives for the defence of her territory, of her liberty and of her independence; which has fought on unceasingly for six years on all the battlegrounds, in France, in England, in Africa, in Italy, and who now finds herself forsaken by those who had formally pledged themselves to defend her territory and to restore her political status.
What is the fate of Russia's other neighbours? They are under the political and economic control of Soviet Russia. Finlana, the Baltic States, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia are under her sway. And owing to the distress which is now rampant in most of those countries, they offer a fertile field for the advocates of communism.
And her ambitions go still further. She has her eyes on the Dardanelles, on the oil wells of Iran and Irak, etc. Where will she stop?
I do not wish to go on with this gloomy picture. I wanted to give facts to show that we must be watchful about statements made by some countries and refuse to accept at their face value doubtful promises.

United Nations Agreement
Therefore, I place my faith in the future not so much in the declarations or pledges of nations as in the necessity of preventing wars which have proved disastrous even for the victors.
At any rate, the fact remains that to-day in spite of the solemn declaration of principles which included in the charter, Russia, for one, holds in the Security Council a power which might frustrate the aims we wish to achieve. Is that sufficient ground to justify Canada's refusal to join this new League of Nations? Such is the practical question that arises at this time.
In view of the confusion into which the world has been thrown by war, is it not advisable that we should attempt to establish an organization for the prevention of further wars, in the belief that the experience of this one will have taught some nations that war does not benefit even those who win them; and that another war waged with the new weapons reecntly discovered would be fatal. I think so. And in spite of the defects of the United Nations charter, and on account of what is good in it, I think it is preferable to accept it as a lesser evil in the hope that we may improve it, or withdraw from it if we do not succeed.
.The San Francisco conference has already made some changes in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, thanks to the attendance of a number of small and middle states. This should encourage us to continue the fight for other amendments, especially the elimination of the veto power.
In order to avoid all misunderstanding, we must also define the word aggression; we ought to make the institution more democratic and include as soon as possible the neutral countries that have been ignored.
I wish to outline briefly the reasons which prompted my attitude.
I opposed Canada's participation to the present war. I then objected to our exaggerated war effort. I stood against conscription for overseas service, and I am now more than ever opposed to war. That is why I view with sympathetic consideration any proposal seeking to prevent war.
The United Nations charter contains many censurable clauses which I have pointed out and which will need improvement, but, on the other hand, it includes many important provisions, such as the formation of a social and economic council to promote international cooperation, and the setting up of an international court of justice which will greatly help to eradicate the causes or threats of
war. Add to this the statement of principles which form the basis of the organization and which I heartily endorse.
Economic and social cooperation on an international scale will do more to prevent war than any other institution.
May I be allowed to recall the words I used in this house on March 27 last:
Border disputes are of little moment in comparison with the disorder in production and trade which reduces certain countries to famine.
The publications of the universal assembly for peace, a body established by the league of nations with a view to deal with international situations which are apt to provoke war, contain a detailed analysis of the three principal economic causes of war: the problem of raw materials, that of labour and that of trade outlets.
In one of these works it is stated that:
"No more than individuals, can the proletarian countries resign themselves forever to remain such in neighbourhood of richly endowed and satisfied nations. Until such time as the world takes the necessary steps with a view to systematically and logically solving these problems in a spirit of international fellowship, there shall exist this struggle for economic life, too often the prelude of military war."
Walter Lippmann, the famous American publicist, openly sympathetic to the so-called democratic nations, has written:
"The great crime of post-war politics in Europe, was that the victorious powers took advantage of their supremacy to monopolize the resources of the world."
This economic and social council is a body of the highest importance.
What would happen if we refused to become a member of this new league of nations?
It would carry on without us, but it is in our interest to belong to it because decisions detrimental to us would surely be taken without our having had the opportunity of expressing our views.
It would be another matter were we not free to withdraw whenever we decide to do so. This we can do at any time, as stated in the charter.
Section 43 provides for the use of armed forces to maintain peace. It stipulates that if a member nation is called to contribute armed forces, it will be in accordance with an agreement between the said member and the security council and it will be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
By this I understand, and I request the lion. Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) to correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of this section, that any agreement which Canada may sign for the purpose of sending armed forces would have to be ratified by parliament.	_
United Nations Agreement

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Such is my understanding of this section, Mr. Speaker.


Maxime Raymond: Thank you. With the
reservations I have already mentioned, provided, the charter may be amended for the better; and provided Canada may end its membership in this organization if it does not correspond to its ideals; provided also that no agreement for the sending of armed forces may be entered into without Parliament's ratification, I would not dare to oppose the formation of such an organization designed to maintain international peace and security even were its chances of success very small. Be it ever so little, it is better than nothing.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Text): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) on his speech. He delivered it with serenity; what he said was to the point, and I appreciate it. I congratulate also all the other hon. members who have taken part in this debate. They are fed up with war and hope to have everlasting peace based upon justice and charity.
That is easy to say but hard to bring about. What has struck me from the beginning of this united nations organization is the complete lack of imagination. Everyone complains of the futility of what was done after the last war to prevent the recurrence of war; yet the same path has been followed. The new organization will not be called a league of nations, but it will be the same thing. We are to have an international court of justice, and exactly the same system which we hope will prevent war. Let us see now why we had war again. It was not so much because of the inefficiency of the league of nations or the incapacity of the court of justice established at the Hague. It was precisely due to the greed of a few people that Hitler became what he was. It was due to the nations who subscribed to the radical socialist party of France, which ' held the hand of France when that country was about to expel Hitler from the Ruhr.
We have responsibilities. There is an American who was mixed up in some financial deals to make Hitler what he was. There were Englishmen who were interested in German industry. They financed it and made him what he was. They financed Austria, Italy and all those countries, and they said, "We propose that we must have international good understanding, international good will and cooperation." They did not realize that the mushrooms they were growing were venemous.
We have suffered from that. Hitler has probably been killed; Mussolini is surely dead-we got rid of them. Hirohito is beginning to

have manners and is calling upon MacArthur. This is supposed to be great progress.
But what about those who are really responsible for the war? What about the Munich men? There are two on this continent. There is little "Jockey" MacDonald, High Commissioner for Great Britain in Ottawa. He is a Munich man, and the son of a man who did not increase the military strength of England while he was Prime Minister of that country. Then we have another Munich man, who is the representative of the United Kingdom in the United States-Lord Halifax. So that we have two Munich men representing the United Kingdom in North America. Nobody complains about it; they are taken for granted- "Mr. MacDonald, how do you do?" "Lord-Halifax, ho, ho." It is not "Lord Haw-Haw"; it is "Lord Ho. ho." And they are taken for granted. Those who are responsible for Munich are here to represent Great Britain, which has been bled white.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker. I rise to a point of order. There is a definite rule in the house that high persons should not be referred to in the debates.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the matter? The rules of the house are clear. I have great respect for the royal family, and I have given evidence of my admiration for it. I have great respect for my colleagues in the house and in the senate. I have great respect for the governor-general and his family. But, according to the rules of the house, it ends there. If we are to have freedom of speech- and I do not know whether or not Canada is a democratic country-why can I not express my feelings about Munich? I want the support of the house on that. I defend the freedom of hon. members who wish to express their views here, whether I agree with them or not. I hope that in turn I shall have the support of hon. members when I express my views, and I am not alone when I think in that way.
I will not infringe the rules when I speak-in the house. But I want to enjoy freedom, if Canada is really a democratic country. If I hold these views, it is not because I know those gentlemen. I do not know them and I am not interested in them. But I have enough respect for England to hope that England will be respected by other than Munich men in Canada and the United States. That is all I have to say about, that.
I now come to the real business. What has been done by the united nations? Perhaps we might call them the disunited nations, after what we have heard over the radio, and after what, we have read in the press as to

United Nations Agreement
what has been happening in London and elsewhere. The peace treaty is not yet signed. When will it be signed? How will it be signed? How will the nations come to an agreement? When we think of the future by considering the present we have every reason to fear in the near future a recurrence of the past-not in twenty years, but perhaps in a very short time.
I believe Canada has a great role to play because she is now a nation known favourably throughput the world. We owe that to the three branches of our armed services, to our boys who did so splendidly over there, and to the Canadian people at home who did so well. The effort was not only that of the armed forces; it was that of every Canadian citizen, every man, every woman and every child who was old enough to be useful and to contribute to the war effort. That was the effort of Canada. I would be most unfair to my country if I mentioned only those who were in the armed forces. I express my admiration fpr all my fellow citizens who did so much during the war, and who also have been bled white, if we consider the taxes imposed upon them, to pay for the cost of the war.
What is the contribution of Canada to this preparation for permanent peace? It has been that of a delegation to San Francisco to meet the representatives of other nations of the world, and to discuss with them the procedure required to help in establishing peace. It is not a procedure to make peace, but rather a procedure to help in establishing peace permanently, after the peace treaty is signed.
I see in the chamber this evening my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), for whom I have great admiration, my hon. friend the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who is a personal friend of mine, and the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell), who is a most likable person. They were delegates at San Francisco, and they know that what I have said properly describes what happened there.
Since they went to San Francisco much water has passed under the mill wheel. Conditions are not as good now as they were at that time, although the pact was adopted in June. There may be some reasons for that. We shall hear it said that the country has suffered because of the war, and that is true. But that is not any reason for handicapping the future of the world for purposes of political propaganda. I give credit to the Minister of Justice, who sponsors the resolution, to the former house leader of the Progressive Conservative party and to the leader of the C.C.F. group,
because they have not talked politics in the matter. I congratulate them upon that. Then the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) has done very well, too, in his own way -and of course they have different ways. However, the spirit was good, and they wanted something good to come out of it.
But the prospect is bad. It is not their fault. As we say, it may be the fault of circumstances; but the fact remains that it is bad. How could the world situation be improved? In the first place we must look at each other and ask whether conditions in this country are as good as we would wish them to be in the whole world after the peace treaty is signed. I wonder if those hon. members who are honest with themselves, who will listen to the voice of their own conscience, will say that Canadians are united now that the war is over? There is no unity, and for a very good reason. There is a handful of men who always try to set certain groups of people against other groups, and that is why we have trouble in this country. If the Canadian people were well informed by the press, especially the English press, there would be no animosity and we would have unity. But at the present time we have not unity. If hon. members are surprised, they need only consider the stupid strikes now occurring at Windsor and elsewhere. These strikes are occurring not only in this country, but in the United States.
The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) and others complain of the situation in Europe. That is nothing new because we read of it in the press and the periodicals. Conditions are bad all over the world. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), a very able man, is in England, where he will meet representatives of the various countries, or at least that is what is said by the press. I know it is the wish of his political opponents and everyone else in this house that his mission be successful in Europe, or perhaps in Africa or in any other country. For a man of his age it is a fine thing to go over there to try to do something to improve conditions that are so bad right now.
Is it not possible for Canada to set an example to the other nations of the world? The name of Canada is good everywhere. Canada should be cited as often as Switzerland, that country in which minorities are respected. I am not referring to the country of the league of nations; I am referring to the country where the Red Cross was founded. It is the smallest country in Europe; it is encircled by mountains, but Switzerland is
United Nations Agreement

the most democratic country in the world. We should try to follow the example of those people and make ourselves an example to the whole world. Then, when we meet Representatives of other nations, we wouldi be in position to say, "You see what has been accomplished in Canada; we are all citizens; we live like brothers and try to help each other." That is my ambition, and I am sure it is the earnest wish of all members of this house and of all Canadian citizens.
Another matter that should be mentioned is international finance. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) made an abstract denunciation of international finance. It would be easy to put labels on the bottles and show who are the agents of international finance in the different countries of the world. They are the men who took possession of the natural resources of the different countries to exploit them for the benefit of the few. An international ring operates the world over. Books have been written on the subject and it is superfluous to mention more than the German I.G. Farben. We have in this country representatives, agents who are well known. I will not name them to-night, but I may do so in the budget debate. I intend to make myself clear on that. The duty of representatives of this country and the duty of representatives of all countries at the meetings of the united nations is to check the representatives of international finance, to unmask and denounce them, not in an abstract way but by name. We should say to them, "It is your doing that was responsible for this war which has caused devastation over the whole world. I am greatly surprised that none of these men is on the list of war criminals.
There is an axiom of law which is known to everybody and which is based on experience, on wisdom and on sagacity: find out whom the crime benefits. I do not expect that the Canadian representatives of the meetings of the united nations will take a course at Scotland Yard, but it seems elementary that all those who have been guilty of sacrificing the interests of the community for their own persohal gain should be marked with a red-hot iron as being undesirable citizens in all countries. One of the first things the United States army did in Germany was to take possession of the I.G. Farben plants. That was a fine move which was advertised the world over. But there are other people who have possession of some of these famous patents, and they will try to get something out of them for their own clique and at the expense and prejudice of the community at large. They are so greedy, so ambitious that

they are ready to risk the future of the world for their own advancement and their own fortune.
A third thing I wish to mention is the low standard of diplomacy in these times. We no longer live in the days of Talleyrand and Mettemich. They were diplomats of experience, men of culture. Now we have "big stick" diplomats. I read in the last issue of Life that at a reception given in London, a man whom Canadian delegates will surely meet at some assembly of the united nations, was guarded by men whose hands held revolvers in their pockets. This was at a social reception; his life was in danger; and why? Because the London conference of three powers was an utter failure, and the man who was responsible for the failure was afraid that his life was in danger and wanted to be protected with revolvers at a social reception. Pretty bad! It cannot go on like that. I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), and even the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Low) if he chooses to go as a representative of Canada, will not have to be defended by gunmen. But why has that happened, that incident which is known the world over? There are two things which are wrong in our modern democracy: to be precise, diplomacy with a big stick, and incompetence. There are families who have been deciding the fate of nations for a long period of time, the top-hatters, the men who have fine clothes, who have a special accent when they talk of international matters, who have a special education, the varnish of Oxford or the. polish of Cambridge. They are there, and they are always well dressed, even in our hard times. They speak about generalities, and when they need you they are very friendly to you, but as soon as they are through with you they do not remember exactly who you are-"Excuse me"!
From the bottom of my heart I believe that, with the exception of Switzerland and Sweden, Europe is divided into two parts, the part which is decadent and the part which is barbarous. That is all Europe; and civilization will come no longer from the east; it is going to Europe from the west, from America. America is going to return the compliment and to civilize Europe and tell them to keep quiet in the future and not trouble the peace of the world. For a time trouble invariably started in the Balkan countries; afterwards it began in central Europe; and from what part of Europe will it start again if the representatives of all nations are not firm enough to put a stop to it? If Molotov acts with a stick I want the mild-mannered Minister of Jus-

United Nations Agreement
tice to have a bigger stick in his hand; I want the hon. member for Peel to have a revolver, and the leader of the C.C.F. to have a tommy-gun, to meet him and to show that they are not afraid of anybody and that Canada is a great country.
Something else baffles me is the classification of the nations which were represented at San Francisco; great nations, small nations. The great nations were few; the taller nations, the size of Halifax, were very few, but the small nations were numerous. But Canada had done a lot during the war; therefore the hon. gentleman who is the leader of the government in the senate said that Canada would lead the small nations at San Francisco-a dwarf would lead other dwarfs. I resented this very deeply. That is not the way to talk of a country which is one of the greatest countries of the world, not only in size but mainly by the character, dignity and patriotism of its people. I was humiliated when I heard that Canada was classified as a small country by those whom we have kept alive and whom Canada defended during the last war. It was most ungrateful. Afterwards there was an improvement; Canada was entered in the intermediary degree between small and great; what was it?


Major James William Coldwell: A middle power.


Jean-François Pouliot: "Middle power"; that was it. Canada went up to the belt or the navel of the great powers, but no higher than that, and because they were sitting at the same table' the Canadian delegates thought they were on a status of equality with the great powers.
What happened after that? There were other meetings. Canada was on the security committee, and everybody was delighted; it was a great honour for Canada to be on the security committee. What an honour for Canada to be there, because there were but few nations, only five, and by the way two of the five were not admitted to the meeting in London; they were brushed aside. But Canada was admitted with the five, and that was a great honour for Canada. Afterwards there was Potsdam. Canada was not invited to Potsdam. Canada, called a middle power, was still considered a dwarf power by the great powers which did not invite her. But President Truman went there with Mr. Byrnes, and he met dear uncle Joe Stalin and Mr. Bevin-dear Mr. Bevin. They were together and decided the fate of the world, and afterwards they had to come back to London to sign the last papers. But somebody switched the papers and they remained unsigned. A fine prospect! That is how far the peace
of the world was assured at Potsdam. We had pictures of President Truman playing the piano at Potsdam, playing a sonata by Mozart to charm the other delegates, to charm Stalin. The president knows the effect of music on certain beings, and he tried to use "piano forte" to smoth over the difficulties there, but without success; it was just as bad as if the keys had been false. The tune was wrong, or the piano had not been tuned. Incredible, is it not?
Now let us see what will happen in the future. I will follow the example of the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie and the others who have spoken: I am ready to try this but I have no faith in it, unless Canada teaches the other countries of the world to have guts, to have pride, the pride which countries had in the past and have no more. It is not the individuals who are cowards; it is the countries themselves. Why are they cowards? Perhaps because they have suffered too much, which is a good excuse. The nations of the world have lost all dignity, and it is enough to read the history of the world, not even the chapters written in fine type but the headlines of those chapters, and even modern history, to realize that the world has fallen very low and has lost all dignity in dealing with nations. What have we? We have the formalities of protocol; we have parchments, gold pens and ribbons and seals. How long does it last? It does not last long and we may expect the complete annihilation of the world within a very short time. That is my fear, and when I speak of the annihilation of the world I do not speak of the destruction of rich and imposing buildings and the fortune and wealth of man.
You remember, sir, the words of the poet, "Mortalia Facta Peribunt"; "Mortal facts will finish". The world is to disappear. We hear no more of Babylon and of the powerful empires of the past except by reading books, and very few read them. History is a perpetual recommencement. The earth is turning all the time. This world is bound to disappear sooner or later. God will decide when it will happen. But what is felt most deeply is the loss of those brave men, those young men who were so gifted. They died, millions of them, in all countries of the world, and as a famous clergyman said to me, "If those young men who died in the first war had not been killed in such large numbers, I am positive that we would have had among them qualified leaders of all the countries of the world, who could have met together in a friendly way and settled among themselves all the difficulties that caused this war."
United Nations Agreement

It is something that terrifies me when I think of those men, well-educated ambitious patriots, those young men who were endowed with all gifts who were being killed like murderers and criminals, and others whose brains were being destroyed for this life. We had it in the first world war, and we had also the peace tower here at the end of the last war and the peace memorial on the plaza in Ottawa which was inaugurated just on the eve of the second war.
We still think of peace, and there are many things to do. I have indicated some of them for the future of the world. For the emancipation of England-and I say that because I have the greatest admiration for the British people-it would be important to abolish the House of Lords or to make it democratic, or to suggest to England to have the Lords elected, if they can be, as members of parliament and to have one house in England instead of two. Somebody may ask me, why do you say that? I say that because I wish to be helpful to England, and I say it in return for the suggestions, so many suggestions, that are made to Canadians by Englishmen. Mr. Churchill came into this house, Mr. Churchill who towers high above all other public men in Britain; he came here after we had voted very large sums of money for the assistance of Great Britain, and he did not thank us for that. I complained about it. I wanted Canada to be thanked by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, here in this chamber, for the money voted to Great Britain in this chamber. I said so, and not long afterwards, speaking in Washington, Mr- Churchill mentioned the massive war effort of Canada and spoke very highly of the assistance given to Great Britain by Canada. I was rewarded and I said in the house-I do not know if my colleagues remember it-that I was very proud that Mr. Churchill was reading in Hansard the speeches by Jean-Francois Pouliot.
If we want our Canada to play her part in negotiations with all other countries of the world, our representatives must have no inferiority complex in comparison with the representatives of the other great nations, because no nation in the world is as great as Canada. That is my deep belief.
I will tell you another thing Mr. Speaker. When Mr. Eden came he spoke from the place where the Clerk sits and I had the third seat to the right of the Speaker. Mr. Eden made a very fine speech and I went and shook hands with him. I thought that if there is equality among the nations in the British commonwealth a member of the House of Commons

here is equal to a member of the British House of Commons, and if I thought Mr. Eden had spoken well it was my right to shake hands with him. So I said, "Mr. Eden, I congratulate you on your speech." I gave him a copy of the orders of the day in which there was mention of a gift to Great Britain, so that he knew that in both languages, and I congratulated him just as nicely as I can when I do my best. Afterwards a reporter of a local newspaper complained very bitterly about that. He said it was a complete lack of manners for a member of the Canadian House of Commons to go and shake hands with a member of the British House of Commons without being introduced to him and moreover, that my broad shoulders were hiding Mr. Eden from the Speaker's view and that Mr. Speaker could not see Mr. Eden while I was shaking hands with him. That was written in an Ottawa paper. It shows how silly the imperialists are. I just mention that fact. What can we do with these people so long as they consider that Great Britain is their country and that Canada is only an annex of Great Britain?
Our representatives, to be worthy of their important functions, should consider Canada in the first place, as Bennett said, and never did. They should consider Canada in the first place and then every other country in the world after; otherwise they will be unworthy representatives of Canada. They will have to teach Europe a lesson that is very hard to teach. They will have to teach them to be brothers, to act in justice and charity among themselves. When I say that, my words do not apply to the peoples or to the nations themselves; they apply to the governments of the European countries.
What happened to the government of Germany was .very bad, undoubtedly so. Italy was not any better; Spain is under discussion; France was very bad. Some shameful things happened in France, and Daladier who, apparently is not much better than Laval, was greeted with tomatoes and rotten eggs during his election campaign yesterday or the day before. These people with whom our representatives will have to deal are, most of them, unworthy of the great nations they represent. How is it? I do not know, but it is a fact. If any leader of any party, any prime minister of Canada, were greeted with rotten eggs and tomatoes, et cetera, well, some people would say he is not the most popular man; he has not won a popularity contest in his country. Therefore, sir, there is a lot to do and I hope that it will be done in due course. Now that hostilities have ceased, I hope we shall not be told that we have won

United Nations Agreement
a victory, because we shall have won a victory only when we shall have won peace and when the world is settled and is brought back to the principles of charity, of justice, which has been advocated for such a long time and which has not been brought back; otherwise we shall have in the very near future-I hope it will not happen, but it is bound to happen -a war which will bring about the complete annihilation of mankind. I hope that time will never arrive.


James Horace King: If there is no other hon. member who wishes to speak, the Minister of Justice, who is the mover of this motion, will close the debate.
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice):	Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate
I wish to take only a moment to express my great gratification to hon. members both for the high plane of humanitarian idealism, and also for the stern realism which has been manifested in most of the addresses that have been made on this resolution. Of course, divergent views as to ways and means have been expressed, but I think we will all agree that there has been no divergence on the fundamental desirability and even on the practicability of an international organization based on justice and fair dealing. Some are more optimistic than others. High idealism is bountifully expressed1 in the charter; but when we come to stern realities, everyone agrees that there are things in the charter which we deplore and which we hope will not remain there for all time. But if the nations are sincere-and I believe their peoples are sincere-if those who represent them will listen to what are the real feelings of the populations they represent, and for whom they claim to speak, the solemn undertakings of this charter should make for better understanding and better living conditions for mankind.
There are solemn obligations undertaken by all those who signed this charter. Of course it is true that there is the right of withdrawal as an incident of sovereignty; but those who signed the charter should, I think, realize that if they withdraw they must be prepared to say either that they have no longer faith in the remaining members of the organization or that they are so selfish as not to be prepared themselves to take their share in maintaining better conditions for all. To self-respecting nations that should be a pretty stern check on the exercise of the sovereign right of withdrawal.
The suggestion has been made that the great powers, or those called such in the enumeration of the charter, are not them-

selves assuming the obligations of the charter.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a correct view. Every signatory of the charter assumes the obligations thereof and makes a solemn pledge to refrain from the use or from the threat of the big stick, or the bigger stick, or the revolver, or the tommy-gun for any other purpose than the purposes of the organization itself; and the bigger the nation, it seems to me, the more solemn and the more impressive should be the undertaking given to the rest of the world.
There is such a thing as noblesse oblige; may it never be forgotten, not by the nations, not by the peoples-I am sure they will not forget-but by those who will purport to speak and to act for the nations.
In spite of the diverging views that have been expressed it is still my sincere hope that this house will unanimously approve the signature of the charter by the representatives of Canada.	.
Regret has been expressed that invitations were not sent to neutral countries. It would be a glorious thing if neutrality were compatible with the obligations that have to be assumed in the hope to maintain peace; but it is one of the unfortunate circumstances of human nature in these times that, to create anything on which hope can be based that peace will prevail, we have to provide an organization with teeth in it, and the teeth have to be provided by an undertaking to be made by each signatory that he will contribute forces prepared to fight, if needs be, to the extent determined under agreement entered into between him and the sceurity council. Unfortunately that is not compatible with neutrality. A country cannot be a full member of this organization wihout being prepared to call upon its human and material resources to contribute 1tp the common pool from which force may have to be drawn to compel those who otherwise would not do so to abstain from bringing about the horrors our generation has twice seen. It is to be regretted; nevertheless it is an essential requirement.
The question has been submitted as to what would be Canada's share in that force that might have to be called upon to maintain the purposes of the organization. Whatever may be Canada's share stated in the agreement between its representatives and the security council, ultimately it will have to come back to this house and the other house for ratification. Those who will represent Canada in making that agreement will have to
United Nations Agreement

submit the sufficiency or insufficiency of their appraisal to the judgment of their fellows in this house.


Mr. GRAYDON:: If I may ask my hon. friend a question on that point, is it anticipated that the military agreements will be ready in sufficient time to be dealt with at the next session of this parliament?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I will reply to the hon. member quite frankly. I think it would be very desirable but I am afraid it will not be possible. Perhaps I should not use the phrase " I am afraid." I do not think it will be possible to have the organization in shape to make those arrangements before spring. I will not say that would not still be within the time the next session of this house may run, but 1 really would not expect that these arrangements would be ready to be dealt with even at the next session of this house.
Just one further point, in view of the fact that I am submitting this resolution for the . Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think I should state one more element which may help to appraise the feeling of the government as to what would be proper policy in this regard. It is our feeling that the majority, the very large majority if not the whole of the Canadian people wish Canada to be a part of this international organization and to do whatever may be required in order to be a full partner in it, believing that whatever may be required is a price that Canada is prepared to pay to make this organization effective, if it can be made effective. It is already some achievement to have the signatures of fifty nations; it is, I think, a very hopeful prospect for humanity, and I invite all members of the house to join with those who represented the Canadian nation at San Francisco in saying that Canada is quite prepared to take whatever risk may be involved in joining this organization, because the other risk, that of not having an international organization, is something of such consequence that one dare hardly envisage it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the decision reached
by the united nations be submitted to parliament before final approval?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not sure that I understand the hon. member's question. The agreement to be entered into between Canada and the security council as to the kind and quota of the forces to be provided will be submitted to parliament for approval before Canada will become bound by it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you; that is what
I wanted to know.
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent) agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE moved the adjournment of the house.
He said: The business for Monday will be, in the main, the appropriation estimates, but before we enter upon them there are two resolutions the house will be asked to refer to committees. One is on page 3 of to-day's order paper in the name of the Minister of Labour, and this it is intended to refer to the newly-formed committee on external affairs. Hon. members will find the other on page 23, in the name of the Minister of Reconstruction; it will be referred to the committee on railways and shipping. It is very important that these resolutions be referred to these committees, and I would hope that the house might do so without much debate, in order to get ahead with the estimates of the defence departments, which will be in this order: navy, army and air force. I would also ask the house, probably late in the evening, to permit me to get two other departments in the ordinary civilian etimates into supply, for Tuesday.
Gordon Graydon: Might I ask the minister to clarify one point. He spoke of referring one of the government resolutions, the one standing in the name of the Minister of Labour, to the committee on external affairs.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: Is that the long resolution appearing on the order paper?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, it is.


Gordon Graydon: Is that not a matter for the industrial relations committee rather than the committee on external affairs? I am only asking the question for clarification.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend's point is very well taken. That question was very carefully considered, but the resolution itself deals largely with external relations and it was decided that it would be very fine resolution for this new committee to commence to work upon. I think the house will find the committee is well qualified to give the resolution every consideration.


Gordon Graydon: I think it is the best committee of all.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at'10.40 p.m.
*

Canadian Citizenshiv
Monday, October 22, 1945.