1945-03-20

WAR SERVICE GRATUITIES


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the day are called, I should like to direct a question, if I may, to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs. It is this. Has the government given consideration to the claim that gratuities which would accrue to service personnel meeting death under conditions recognized as pensionable by the Canadian pension commission be paid to next of kin or the beneficiary under the deceased person's will? If so, will the government consider amending the war service gratuities legislation to give effect to the above suggestion?
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans' Affairs): With reference to the first part of the question, I may tell my hon. friend that representations have been received from all over Canada dealing with the point he raises. Secondly, I may say that the matter is now receiving the very active consideration of the government. The third part, of course, I cannot deal with at the moment.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if it is possible to bring in some legislation this session? The matter is very urgent.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: As soon as the matter has been decided by council I shall be glad to apprise my hon. friend.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Air. The retirement of Air Marshal L. S. Breadner appears to have prompted many rumours as to the underlying reasons for it. I should be glad to have the minister make a statement at this time clarifying the situation.


Hon. C. W. G. GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: The hon. member was good enough to send me notice of his question. I agree that there have been some rumours in connection with the retirement of Air Marshal Breadner, and I should like to make it clear at this time that there has been no friction whatever between Air Marshal Breadner and myself or any members of the staff. Air Marshal Breadner had reached the highest post in the Royal Canadian Air Force, that of Chief of Air Staff, and on his retirement from that post some time ago was appointed Air Officer Commander in Chief overseas. At that time a somewhat unusual arrangement was made, that he would report, not through the usual channel but to the minister direct. When I took my present portfolio I recommended and the war committee approved that the usual channel should be followed again and that the reporting should go through the Chief of Air Staff here. That was a change in the arrangements under which Air Marshal Breadner had gone overseas. He was consulted in the matter and expressed his willingness to retire, and his retirement is being proceeded with. I may say that on his retirement he is to be given a step in rank to that of Air Chief Marshal; and in case there should be another flock of rumours starting, I would say that that in no way affects his pension rights. It is given to him in recognition and appreciation of the many years of distinguished service he has given the Royal Canadian Air Force.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: But the fact remains that he did not concur in the new arrangement.


Colin William George Gibson: I did not say that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
saying it.


Colin William George Gibson: I would not say that.

Alberta-Refunding


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did he agree or did he not agree? He retired and therefore he could not have concurred in the new arrangement.


Colin William George Gibson: I did not say he did not concur in the new arrangement. I said he did not wish to remain on under the new arrangement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the same thing.	[DOT]


Colin William George Gibson: Oh, no.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the government make available to the house a copy of the Department of Labour survey dealing with post-war prospects of employment in industries with two hundred or more employees, which has been completed, and, we understand, presented to the cabinet? I think it is important that this house should have a copy of that report in order that we may understand what in the view of the government are the post-war prospects.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: I shall be glad to take into consideration the request of my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to get the report, not consideration.



REQUESTS FOR REVISION OF WARTIME WAGES CONTROL ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Has the government received representations from labour organizations for an immediate revision of P.C. 9384 and P.C. 1003? Can the minister indicate whether any action is contemplated?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer to the first question is, yes. The answer to the second question will be made known to the hon. member in due course when the government decides on its policy.



SELECTIVE SERVICE REGULATIONS-FARM WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), or more properly to the parliamentary assistant, who, I believe, tabled certain orders in council to-day having to do with changes in the national selective service regulations. The newspapers carried recently an announcement that some change has been made in the national selective service regulations designating certain man-power for farm help during the summer months. Have any arrangements been made to regulate wages to be paid by farmers for such help during those months?


Humphrey Mitchell: The answer is, no.



QUESTION AS TO DECREASE IN CANADIAN HOG PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner): The production of Canadian bacon plays a very important part in maintaining an adequate diet for the British people. What action, besides talking about it, does the government propose to take to deal with the serious decrease in hog production which is taking place this year in Canada- between forty and fifty per cent in western Canada and thirtjMwo per cent in Canada as a whole. What action does the government propose to take to encourage farmers to resume production?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: In case my hon. friend should think I was just talking about it again, I suggest that if he will bring the matter up when my estimates are before the house I shall be pleased to go into it with him.



PROVINCE OF ALBERTA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. ROSS (Calgary East):: Is the Minister of Finance aware of the plan for refunding Alberta's bonded indebtedness, announced by Premier Manning in his budget speech recently? Did the minister offer the cooperation of the dominion government in
18	COMMONS
San Francisco Conference-Procedure
refunding on a different basis in order to assure a fair and equitable plan, and if so, what were the terms of the offer?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question. The answer to his question is, yes. I had the opportunity of several discussions with Premier Manning before his plan was announced, and because I believed so strongly in the importance of a fair and equitable refunding plan, having in mind particularly the credit of Alberta and the other western provinces and, indeed, of all Canadian governments, I was prepared to recommend dominion cooperation in order to assure a fair and equitable plan. After my conferences with Mr. Manning I wrote him a letter outlining the recommendations I was prepared to make, and I now table this letter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How did they receive the minister's overtures?


James Lorimer Ilsley: They did not accept them. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to make an observation with respect to the arrangements for the debate this afternoon. There is pretty widespread disapproval among the members of our party with respect to the proposals of the government for going ahead with the debate on the resolution this afternoon. There is no objection to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) making his statement, but there is serious objection to the debate proceeding, as was indicated yesterday afternoon, aver the protests and objections which I attempted to make at that time. The feeling is, and I think there is plenty of evidence to support it, that while we are anxious to cooperate with the government, we do not think that the cooperation should be entirely a one-way-street cooperation. The government has, as the Prime Minister well knows, adjourned the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and has brought on the San Francisco conference resolution in the name of the Prime Minister. We feel, and I think the Prime Minister will readily see the justice of the position we are taking, that when he has finished with his speech this afternoon an adjournment of the debate should take place to give us an opportunity to study and see the situation as the Prime IMr. G. H. Ross.]
Minister outlines the policy of the government. I ask the Prime Minister if he would have any objection to that. I took it from his remarks yesterday that he had not very much objection to it. Would he care to comment on that, with a view to arriving at some workable arrangement?


Major James William Coldwell: May I just say that the leader of the opposition is not speaking for the entire house in this regard.


Gordon Graydon: I did not claim to.


Major James William Coldwell: I thought the hon.
member said there was a pretty widespread feeling in all quarters of the house.


Gordon Graydon: Nothing of the sort.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: We saw the cooperation yesterday.


Major James William Coldwell: I wish to say that in
view of the arrangements which I understood were made yesterday we are prepared to go ahead with the debate this afternoon, because we believe this is not a question of debating what the Prime Minister may say, but debating the very important basis of the proposals of the conference at San Francisco. We have been giving study to it for some weeks, and we are prepared to proceed with the debate. I want that clearly understood.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was no arrangement entered into, there was a ukase set by the Prime Minister saying that he would go on, and if we were not ready to go on, why, that would be just too bad for us. This is such an important matter that I think hon. members should have time to study the Prime Minister's speech. I sent over to External Affairs to-day to see if I could get some data on the Dumbarton Oaks conference, but I was referred to what was tabled in the house yesterday. I have the memorandum in my pocket. There is a lot more material that private members should have, and it is not available to us. May I protest against the paucity of the material which hon. members are being given by the Department of External Affairs. So far as I am concerned I spent three hours to-day trying to prepare a speech on this matter and I have hardly got started. That is, of course, because of my stupidity and bad luck. This is an important matter. It is not something that should be rushed into by any hon. members of the house. We should have time to study what are the government's proposals. We know what is proposed by the three great powers and probably what they say will go; but make no mistake about it, we want to know what this government pro-

San Francisco Conference-Procedure
poses to do. I am prepared to support almost in toto most of the things set out in the resolution, but I want to know what is behind them, because there is no more skilful individual on the north American continent in *disguising his thoughts than the Prime Minister and we want to know.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It is a curious example of
cooperation to be met with a protest every time one proposes an item on the agenda. That has happened more or less since the house opened.
I am as anxious as any one to cooperate with all parties in the house. I just wish they were as anxious to cooperate with me and with the government. This session has been called for two purposes. That has been made perfectly clear for weeks past. One has to do with this one international question, an all important one. It should be decided at as early a moment as possible. The other is to provide the supply that may be necessary to permit a general election at an early date and to make provision for the carrying on of the prosecution of the war and of civil government between the time of the beginning of the new -fiscal year and the time that the new parliament assembles.
We are here to get through the business as rapidly as possible. May I say that if Canada is to be represented at San Francisco to discuss there the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, it will be necessary for some of us who may be [DOT]expected to be present to spend a little time in advance in giving further study to the questions that are likely to come up in the light of comment that may be made in the interval from many sources. I see no reason why hon. members opposite should not be prepared to speak on this question at once. They have had the Dumbarton Oaks proposals before them for a long time. I tabled in this house on December 5 a copy of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals for establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. It was tabled in reply in part to some questions asked by my hon friend the leader of the Social Credit party. I tabled copies as soon as they were printed. This document was distributed immediately to all hon. members, and it has since been distributed widely throughout the country.
Before the house met the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) sent me a question which I understood he wished to ask and to which he might have an immediate reply. I shall answer it now The quastion is:
To what extent and through what channels has the wartime information board acquainted the public of Canada since Dumbarton Oaks with respect to the proposals for the establishment of an international organization for the maintenance of peace and security?
The answer is:
The wartime information board has published a pamphlet entitled "Dumbarton Oaks Proposals for the Establishment of a General International Organization", over forty thousand copies of which have been distributed to date. An issue of the booklet series "Canadian Affairs" dealing with the subject is in preparation. Charts illustrating the proposed organization are being prepared for distribution to newspapers and other publications, industrial plants and trade unions and discussion groups.
The information service to independent radio stations is providing a series of notes on the subject for use by these stations. Arrangements *are being made to provide material to other radio speakers on this subject.
Assistance has been given to the Canadian Council of Education for Citizenship in making available material regarding Dumbarton Oaks for use by educational bodies and discussion groups.
All that is being done in order that, before the delegation representing Canada proceeds to San Francisco, opinions may be freely expressed by the press by many groups and organizations throughout Canada so that the delegation will be fully informed of the views of the country. But as far as hon. members of the house are concerned, as I have said they have had the proposals before them for months. More than that some of them, at least, I am sure heard the statement I made over the radio on March 2, when I said that parliament would be particularly concerned with this one question and with the voting of necessaty supply. I stated specifically that the government would seek the approval of parliament of a resolution which would serve as an expression of its support. They would surely know that this would afford opportunity for debate and discussion of the matter and that the government would wish expression of approval at the earliest possible date. The country is interested in knowing what hon. gentlemen opposite think; not only what I think but what they think. I am prepared to make a full statement this afternoon setting out as best I can the matters that are likely to come up at San Francisco and giving as clearly as possible the point of view of the government. The country would like to know the views of the Leader of the Opposition, the views of my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. party on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, the views of my hon. friend the leader of the social credit group and the views of hon. members generally throughout the house,
20	COMMONS
San Francisco Conference-Procedure
should they differ in any particular with the views that may be presented by the government. For that reason I think it would be inadvisable to delay the debate. I agree with the leader of the C.C.F. group that it was decided yesterday that we would proceed with this resolution this afternoon, though you, Mr. Speaker, will have to express your opinion on that point; and that any hon. members who wished to speak would be given an opportunity to do so, though if there were others who were not prepared they would not be compelled to go on to-day. I am sure it was understood that if in the debate we ran short of speakers we would take up something else, but that provided we did not run out we would go on with the debate until it was concluded.
This is a resolution which is before the house. It is not a discussion in committee. It is a resolution of which hon. members must express either approval or disapproval. I do submit that the sooner this resolution can be dealt with by this house the more pleased the free nations of the world will be to learn that this parliament is united, as I trust it may be, in accepting the invitation that has been extended to this country to participate in the San Francisco conference.


Gordon Graydon: The Prime Minister has dealt with one or two matters which perhaps I should clear up. It is not a question of this party being ready or not ready in regard to making speeches. This party is anxious to know the proposals of the government in order that we may study them. We do not ask for a very long time to do so; we are not anxious for a lengthy adjournment of this debate. But it is all very well for the government to ask us to hurry with something to which we want to give some study, when this government has deliberately squeezed into three weeks that which normally should have been dealt with in three months, in a session starting in January instead of in March. Having that definitely in mind it did not seem to me there was very much wrong with the suggestion that we be given time at least to study the matter. In due course, and very quickly, the Prime Minister will learn where this party stands. There is no disposition on our part to quibble or in any way delay the proceedings; but I think Hansard will show and the public will understand that the position we take is entirely justifiable and is one which will meet the public interest generally.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on account of the great importance of this subject and the desire of hon. members to have the fullest possible information in regard to the government's point of view I have devoted considerable time to the preparation of what I have to say. I feel that, instead of attempting to speak extemporaneously, it would be helpful if I gave my remarks to the house in the form of a statement. I hope that, in the course of reading this statement, I may not be interrupted, but when the statement is concluded, if there are any questions in the minds of hon. members arising out of what I have said I shall be very glad to attempt to answer them. As, of course, I shall be speaking again at the conclusion of the debate, it is my intention to follow as closely as possible the points raised by hon. members in the course of their remarks with a view to being able to give the house, before the debate concludes, any additional information the house may wish to have. I may add that were it not for the fact that I believe hon. members on all sides of the house are likely to be in very full agreement with the purposes and principles of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and with the resolution now before the house I would perhaps not be so desirous of proceeding as rapidly as possible with this resolution. I think the matter is one on which hon. members already have more or less made up their minds. In this debate 1 trust there will be very little in the way of diversity of opinion or occasion for any kind of party controversy.
Hon. members will have felt a special interest in the following paragraph which appears in the speech from the throne, opening the present session of parliament:
The government has accepted the invitation to Canada to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25 at San Francisco to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. My ministers are of the opinion that the Canadian delegation at the San Francisco conference should be assured of the widest possible measure of support from parliament. A joint resolution of both houses will, accordingly, be submitted for your approval.
The invitation to the conference at San Francisco reads as follows:
Embassy of the United States of America,
Ottawa, Canada
No. 293	March 5, 1945.
Sir,-The government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

San Francisco Conference
and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China, invites the government of Canada to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The above named governments suggest that the conference consider as affording a basis for such a charter the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which were made public last October as a result of the Dumbarton Oaks conference and which have now been supplemented by the following provisions for section C of chapter 6. C. Voting
1.	Each member of the security council should have one vote.
2.	Decisions of the security council on procedural matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members.
3.	Decisions of the security council on all other matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under chapter 8, section A and under the second sentence of paragraph one of chapter 8, section C, a party to a dispute should abstain from voting.
Further information as to arrangements will be transmitted subsequently. In the event that the government of Canada desires in advance of the conference to present views or comments concerning the proposals, the government of the United States of America will be pleased to transmit such views and comments to the other participating governments.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
Ray Atherton.
The Right Honourable
the Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Ottawa.
The invitation was accepted in the following terms:
Office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs
Ottawa, March 5, 1945.
Sir,-The government of Canada is pleased to accept the invitation conveyed in your Note No. 293 of March 5, on behalf of the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.
The government of Canada agrees that the conference should accept as a basis for its discussions the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which were made public in October, 1944, and have now been supplemented by the addition set forth in your Note of provisions regarding voting procedure in the security council.
Note has been taken of the offer of the government of the United States of America to transmit to other participating governments such views or comments concerning the proposals as the government of Canada may desire to present in advance of the conference. I shall communicate with you again if the government of Canada decides to take advantage of this offer.
Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
W. L. Mackenzie King, Secretary of State for External Affairs.
His Excellency
The Hon. Ray Atherton,
Ambassador of the United States
of America,
United States Embassy,
Ottawa.
I do not think there is any question that this house will be prepared to endorse the acceptance by the government of the invitation to Canada to send representatives to the world security conference at San Francisco.
At yesterday's sitting, I gave notice of the resolution which appears on to-day's order paper. In accordance with the understanding reached at the time, I now move, seconded by Mr. St. Laurent:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the following resolution:
Whereas the government of Canada has been invited by the government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China, to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and
Whereas the invitation suggests that the conference consider as affording a basis for such a charter the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization which have been made public by the four governments which participated in the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, and
Whereas the government of Canada has accepted the invitation to send representatives to this conference,
Therefore be it resolved

1.	That this house endorses the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference;
2.	that this house recognizes that the establishment of an effective international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada, and, indeed, to the future well-being of mankind; and that it is in the interests of Canada that Canada should become a member of such an organization;
3.	that this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, and considers that these proposals
San Francisco Conference

constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization;
4.	that this house agrees that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security;
5.	That the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.
Next to the winning of the war, the supreme end to be achieved is the winning of the peace. Peace can only be made lasting through cooperative action on the part of peace-loving nations. The purpose of the forthcoming conference at San Francisco is the creation of a general international organization to maintain peace and security in the post-war world.
In some quarters there appear to be misconceptions as to what it is intended the San Francisco conference should accomplish. It might be well, were I at the outset to remove one prevalent misconception. The purpose of the conference has been set forth clearly in the communication of March 5 on behalf of the inviting governments which I have just read. The conference at San Francisco is not the peace conference. It will have nothing to do with the preparation of the treaties of peace. It will not discuss the terms which the united nations will impose on Germany and on Japan at some future time. It will deal only with the constitutional framework of the future society of nations. The purpose is to provide for the maintenance of peace, once peace has been secured.
It may be helpful to the house if I proceed at once to give an outline of the negotiations that have led to the calling of the San Francisco conference.
The Moscow conference which ended on November 1, 1943, was the first step by the great powers towards the development of plans for a new international security organization forecast in the Atlantic charter, and endorsed by the united nations' declaration of 1942. In the declaration issued at the conclusion of the Moscow conference the four governments which were later represented at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, declared that they recognized "the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security."
At the prime ministers' meeting in London in May, 1944, there were discussions of proposals framed by the United Kingdom govern-

ment. Since that meeting there have been, frequent interchanges of opinion between commonwealth governments.
Between late August and early October, 1944, meetings were held at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington. At these meetings discussions took place between officials representing the governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom looking to the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of peace and security. At a subsequent stage, meetings were held of officials of the United Kingdom, United States of America and China. At the end of these meetings, there was issued on October 9, 1944, what are known as the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Canada was not represented at Dumbarton Oaks, but the Canadian government received day to day reports on the progress of the discussions.
The official delegations at Dumbarton Oaks were unable to reach agreement on some points. The proposals there framed were, consequently, but the first stage in the development of a draft charter for consideration by all the united nations. The proposals were subsequently accepted and supplemented by the initiating governments at the Crimea conference at Yalta held in February of the present year. They were thereafter concurred in by China, and were then submitted to other countries for their consideration.
At Yalta the three greatest world powers achieved unified proposals for a charter of a world security organization. That of .itself is a hopeful augury for the future. Without continuing unity among the great powers there would be little hope for enduring peace.
As I have already stated, it was on the 5th of this month, that invitations were extended to Canada and other united nations to attend a conference at San Francisco. The invitations were extended by the United States of America on its behalf and that of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. The invitation suggests that the conference should consider, as affording a basis for the charter of the new organization, the proposals which have been agreed upon between these four governments.
Since the invitation was received, I have had an opportunity for personal conversations with President Roosevelt, in the course of which we discussed the main features of the proposals, and suggestions which the Canadian government believe would make for improvement in the effectiveness of the proposed organization. Early in April, there is to be a meeting of representatives of Commonwealth governments

San Francisco Conference
in London to discuss the proposals. I shall not be able to be present myself at this meeting. Our government will be represented by the Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Hume Wrong, in cooperation with the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, the Canadian High Commissioner in London. I believe that the discussions in London will serve a useful purpose as an exchange of information, and as a clarification of views among the different nations of the commonwealth, all of which alike are deeply interested in the success of the conference. This meeting will be a continuation of the exchanges of information and ideas which have been taking place between Canada and the other countries of the commonwealth and some of the united nations.
I might here mention that there was some discussion of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals at the recent inter-American conference on the problems of war and peace at Mexico City. Canada was not represented at that conference, and received no invitation to attend. The conference adopted a gracious resolution which rendered a tribute of admiration to Canada for our country's great war effort, and expressed a desire for closer Canadian collaboration with the pan-American system. To this resolution I have made an appreciative reply.
I have here a copy of the letter from the foreign secretary of Mexico transmitting this resolution to the government of Canada. I have also a copy of the reply I have since made, and at the conclusion of my observations I would ask permission to table these documents. Perhaps the letters might be included as a part of this statement.
Telegram
Castle of Cliapultepec, D.F.
March 9, 1945.
(Translation)
The Right Honourable
William Lyon Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
1 have the honour to communicate to Your Excellency the following resolution adopted with enthusiasm by the respective delegates:
"The Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace considering that Canada has contributed and is contributing essentially to the defence of the American Continent, realizing a war effort whose magnitude includes all the resources of the country; that because of its geographic position Canada belongs to the American Hemisphere and within that occupies a prominent position for the high development of its culture, industry and democratic institutions, and that it maintains diplomatic and consular relations with the other American states, as also commercial and financial relations, the Inter-American Conference resolves:
"To render its tribute of admiration and gratitude to Canada for its great war effort in defence of the American Continent.
"To express its desire that Canada's collaboration with the Pan-American system may daily become closer and closer."
I have real pleasure in communicating the foregoing resolution to Your Excellency and avail myself of this opportunity to renew the expression of my most distinguished consideration.
Ezequiel Padilla,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
Telegram
To: Ezequiel Padilla, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mexico City,
Mexico.
From: W. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister of Canada.
En Clair
Ottawa, Canada, March 16, 1945.
On behalf of the people and government of Canada, I extend our sincere thanks for the generous tribute to Canada's war effort contained in the resolution which you transmitted on behalf of the Chapultepec Conference. We are proud to share in the defence of freedom on this continent, as in Europe and Asia. We are convinced that the increasing solidarity of the peace-loving peoples of this hemisphere, will contribute materially in the post-war period to both regional and world security. We greatly welcome the increased collaboration in all matters of mutual interest and concern with our neighbours of the Americas.
W. L. Mackenzie King.
While the San Francisco conference will concern itself with international cooperation in matters other than the assurance of security, its main purpose will be to erect a firm and enduring structure for the maintenance of world peace. The proposals formulated at Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta are not in final treaty form. They are a general basis for discussion of the charter for the proposed international organization. It is the purpose of the conference to develop from the proposals a complete instrument for signature by the united nations. For the success of any final plan of world security, it is essential that it should command the cordial assent of the great powers, as well as the support of a large number of intermediate and small countries. The great defect of the league of nations was not that it had an imperfect constitution, but that, at no time, did it include more than half the great powers. The great powers will no doubt support the inclusion in the completed charter of the substance of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. For that and other reasons, the resolution now before the house recognizes that the proposals which have been made public constitute a satisfactory general basis for discussion of the proposed international organization.
San Francisco Conference

The resolution asks this house to approve the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments.
The purposes of the organization as set forth in the proposals of the four governments are:
1.	To maintain international peace and security; and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means adjustment or settlement of international disputes which may lead to a breach of the peace;
2.	To develop friendly relations among nations and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3.	To achieve international cooperation in the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems: and
4.	To afford a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the achievement of these common ends.
These are purposes for a general international organization of which this house will surely cordially approve.
In pursuit of these purposes the proposals recommend that the organization and its members should act in accordance with the following principles:
1.	The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states.
2.	All members of the organization undertake, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership in the organization, to fulfil the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the charter.
3.	All members of the organization shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.
4. All members of the organization shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization.
5.	All members of the organization shall give every assistance to the organization in any action undertaken by it in accordance with the provisions of the charter.
6. All members of the organization shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which preventive or enforcement action is being undertaken by the organization. The organization should ensure that states

not members of the organization act in accordance with these principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
These principles upon which the general international organization will be expected to act will also, I am sure, be cordially approved by all hon. members of this house.
According to the proposals, membership of the organization should be open to all peace-loving states. It is proposed that the organization should have as its principal organs:	A
general assembly; a security council; an international court of justice; and a secretariat. It is also proposed that the organization should have such subsidiary agencies as may be found necessary.
One of the first questions which anyone looking at the proposals for the new world security organization will ask is: How do these proposals differ from the covenant of the league of nations and in -what respects do they improve upon it? The failure of the league to secure world peace was a world tragedy. It must not, however, be thought that the idealism and effort which went into the league have been wasted. That would be a shallow judgment. The ideal of the new international organization remains the same-the organization of enduring peace. There are, however, important lessons to be learned from the league's failure to attain that end. The knowledge gained should be applied to building on more solid foundations.
The structure of the proposed organization bears a general resemblance to that of the league of nations. But there are important differences in the authority of the various organs proposed.
The general assembly, like the league assembly, would be composed of representatives of all members, with one vote for each delegation. The assembly would discuss and make recommendations on any matter of international importance with the single exception of international disputes which may be under consideration by the security council. These disputes the assembly might discuss, but in order to avoid conflict of jurisdiction, it could not make recommendations for their settlement. The assembly would also elect the non-permanent members of the security council, the members of the economic and social council, the secretary-general of the organization, and, probably, the judges of the international court. It would control budgets and apportion expenses. It would have wide powers of initiation and supervision in the economic, social and humanitarian fields. Its important decisions would be

San Francisco Conference
reached by a two-thirds majority, thus abrogating the league rule of unanimity for important decisions of the assembly.
The Security Council. It is when we come to consider the security council that we encounter an important difference between the proposed organization and the league of nations. Unlike the league, in which both the assembly and the council concurrently had many similar general powers, the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security would, in the proposed organization, be assigned to the security council. A further point of difference is that, whereas the league council dealt with many matters other than those directly related to security, the new council's functions would be confined to the consideration of international disputes, and of situations which might lead to friction and give rise to international disputes. The council would deal with disputes, present or prospective, likely to endanger the peace. The assembly's main concern would be to promote general progress through concerted international action to foster the general welfare.
The security council therefore would be vested with primary authority for guarding the peace of the world. It would consist of five permanent members (the United States, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, France and China), and six other States elected for two years by the assembly and not immediately eligible for reelection. Each member would have one vote and seven votes out of the eleven would be required for decisions.
Under the formula proposed at Yalta, decisions on questions other than procedural matters would be taken by a majority of seven votes, including in the majority, the votes of the five permanent members. To this rule there would be one important exception. If a permanent member were involved in a dispute before the council, that member would abstain from voting when the procedure for the peaceful settlement of the dispute was being followed. If it came to a decision that a given situation was a threat to the peace, or to a decision requiring the imposition of penalties, the right to vote would be restored to the permanent member in question. Thus a permanent member could not block the consideration of a complaint against it by another state, nor an effort to solve the problem by pacific means. If, however, pacific means were to fail, the permanent member could by its vote block a decision to take punitive action against itself.
A new agency is now proposed which had no exact counterpart in the league. This is the economic and social council. It would
consist of eighteen members elected for three years by the assembly. There would be no permanent members and no provision preventing reelection. The economic and social council would be charged with the general supervision of international economic, social and humanitarian activities, in the light of the policies laid down by the assembly. Expert commissions and staffs would be attached to the economic and social council.
The proposals recognize that there should be a court of justice as the chief international judicial organ. The question as to whether the present statute of the permanent court of international justice should be revised or a new statute prepared is left open. It is to be hoped that as time goes on, and as a more stable world emerges, international differences will more and more be amicably settled by judicial methods. Only in this way can a body of precedent be developed, and broadened, until all the differences between nations come to be settled as a regular practice in accordance with principles of law and equity, and with respect for contractual obligations. Here I might mention that the Canadian Bar Association is performing a most useful task by making a series of valuable studies on the subject of international jurisprudence.
The machinery for dealing with disputes between nations which is outlined1 in chapter VIII of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals deserves close study. The procedure falls into tw7o stages. The first is concerned with the peaceful settlement of disputes. The security council on its own motion or at the request of any state would have the power to investigate any dispute or situation likely7 to give rise to international friction. Members of the organization would be bound to seek peaceful solutions by the normal methods of negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement. If the parties to the dispute themselves should fail to reach agreement by any of these means, the security council could recommend appropriate procedures, such as reference to the international court; or seeking the court's advice on the legal aspect of the questions at issue. Matters within the domestic jurisdiction of states would be expressly excluded.
If peaceful measures should fail, the second stage of the procedure would come into effect. The security council could then declare that the failure to arrive at a solution, to a dispute constituted a threat to the peace, and it could proceed to further measures. These measures might- include, in the first instance, diplomatic and economic sanctions such as
San Francisco Conjerence

the severance of diplomatic relations, the interruption of communications, an embargo upon trade, and other forms of pressure short of the use of armed force. The security council could call upon all members of the organization to join in the application of such measures.
If sanctions of this nature were still ineffective, the security council could in the last resort require forcible action against the disturber of the peace. In such action, the council would be aided by a military staff committee which would be in charge of plans for the application of armed* force. The military staff committee would: also have to d*o with long-term problems concerning the regulation of armaments. Here is another fundamental difference between the proposed organization and the league of nations. The new security organization would be founded on a clear recognition of the fact that world security is based upon the maintenance of a large superiority of power on the side of peace. It is also recognized that machinery would have to be devised to make it possible to apply such power instantly and effectively, should another aggressor arise to disturb international peace.
It will, I am sure, be agreed that peace-loving nations cannot afford to risk a return to conditions which allowed* one nation after another to be struck down by an aggressor before concerted action could be organized and taken. Nations have surely teamed that they cannot secure their liberties except on an agreed basis of mutual aid. The proposed arrangements with their emphasis on the exploration of peaceful means of settlement, and with organized force in the background to deal with recalcitrants, ought to prevent international disputes from reaching the point of danger. The main function of the police is not to catch criminals, but to make it obvious that crime does not pay. The police do not interfere in the settling of disputes by discussion or litigation, but the police are available if the disputes threaten to lead to the breaking of head's.
The question arises: How would the security council be able to call out forces when the danger point had been reached? Under the present proposals, members of the organization would not be required to place forces under the control of the security council except in accordance with special agreements separately entered into, setting forth the number and types of the forces, and the facilities and assistance which they are prepared to provide. The agreements would limit the military aid, pledged by members, to what each member

was ready to give of its own volition. The agreements might include provisions governing the circumstances in which any forces could be called upon to serve abroad. These agreements would need separate approval in accordance with the constitutional processes of each country. In Canada that would mean approval by parliament before such agreements were ratified.
There is at present a good deal of obscurity about the methods by which this part of the proposals would be developed in practice. One point, however, is clear. As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council. If any such commitment were sought, it would be embodied in a later agreement, freely negotiated by the government of Canada, and coming into effect only after it had been approved by parliament.
Provision is also made in the proposals for the use of regional agencies to handle local disputes under the general direction of the security council. The relationship of such regional agencies to the security council is likely to prove one of the important questions which will come up for consideration at San Francisco.
The maintenance of security is only one aspect of the creation of a world society in which peace can take root and flourish. It is not merely the security of nations that is indivisible; prosperity also is indivisible. Few would wish to return to the years before the war when many nations sought economic security in economic isolation. What happened was that the economic security of all nations was destroyed. Now is surely the time for the whole world to realize that just as no nation can ensure its own safety of itself, so no nation or group of nations can ensure its own prosperity in isolation.
In the social, economic and humanitarian activities contemplated under these proposals, which would extend over the whole international field, Canada would be certain to take both a prominent and a useful part. It would be a mistake to think of the world organization as exclusively preoccupied with the prevention of war. Indeed, if the defeat of our enemies brings about a securer world, we may hope that considerations of security will gradually recede into the background, and that progress in the arts of civilization by international cooperation on many fronts will be the first topic and central concern of foreign policy. We should come to think and act, less and less, in terms of force, and, more

San Francisco Conference
and more, in terms of forces-the forces that create or destroy international amity and goodwill.
Economic and social collaboration was always a useful and active part of the work of the league of nations. It is now proposed to expand into new fields and establish further special bodies to deal with particular problems. In almost all these aspects of economic and social activity, Canada will have a deep interest. As a great trading nation with a progressive and expanding economy, we are, from the point of view of markets and supplies, concerned with conditions all over the world. The assembly and the economic and social council will be central agencies of initiation and cooperation in this field. It will be clearly in the interests of Canada to participate fully in the work of these special bodies. Moreover, the humanitarian tradition which has played so worthy a part in our national life should give us a special interest in worldwide social betterment which the assembly and the economic and social council will seek to foster.
It is one of the proposed functions of the assembly "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". This is an aspect of the world organization which should never be forgotten. If this great war, and the last, have taught us anything, it is the truth that "we are members one of another, and that the freedom both of men and of nations is one and indivisible".
The new organization and its affiliated agencies should be able in time to sponsor long-term arrangements for human welfare.
Just here, I should like to say a word or two on one problem of human welfare with which the united nations are immediately faced. The retreating enemy has left behind him, in western and eastern Europe, starvation, disease, and an alarming shortage of the elementary necessities of life. This situation represents a critical danger to the recovery of liberated Europe. The reports reaching the government portray appalling conditions. Even for those who greeted with joy the expulsion of the Germans from their homelands during these last few months, from the point of view of food, fuel, clothing and shelter, this sixth year of war is the bleakest year of all. The privations of those still under German domination are even more terrible.
The united nations have pooled their efforts to build up their great armed forces. For some time to come, it will be in Canada's interest, no less than in the general interest, for all to continue to pool their efforts to make available food and materials for relief and rehabilitation.
Some activities of the proposed world organization in the field of human welfare are likely to be conducted directly under the supervision of the economic and social council. These may include the collection of statistical and other economic information, international health problems, and the control of traffic in narcotics. Such services would be for the most part a continuation of very useful activities previously directed from Geneva. Expert commissions are contemplated to study these and related matters, from the point of view of general welfare and utility, with the experience and wisdom of the world's best technicians at their service.
Apart from activities under the direct supervision of the world organization a number of large functional inter-governmental bodies have already been established and others are being considered. The proposals to be discussed at San Francisco should1 be considered in relation to these other very important agencies. These inter-governmental bodies would be related to the world organization by agreements reached between them and the economic and social council. Among those agencies is the international labour organization which has already existed for twenty-five years, and is a solid reality. In the very important fields of agricultural production and of nutrition, a constitution has been drawn up by an interim commission for a united nations organization of food and agriculture. The interim commission, of which Mr. L. B. Pearson is chairman, was appointed at the Hot Springs conference of 1943. Proposals were developed at the Bretton Woods conference for an international monetary fund and an international development bank. The setting up of an international agency to deal with problems of civil aviation is also well under way. Proposals for further specialized agencies are under discussion, all of much interest to Canada. These include the establishment of an international agency to deal with questions of commercial policy, designed to assist in removing, by agreement, impediments to trade, and in promoting uniform customs practices, lower tariffs, the removal of exchange controls and similar matters Proposals for the international regulation of cartels and for the adoption of measures to regulate the prices of certain raw materials are also under consideration. This is not an exhaustive enumeration.
If all proceeds as it is hoped it will, it may be found that, within a few years, there will be six or eight large international bodies performing functions which are beyond the capacity of any one nation or small group of nations. Such international agencies would
San Francisco Conference

not be regimenting or controlling individual nations, but, by agreement, would be framing courses of action designed to serve the general interest. It would be one of the functions of the general assembly and of the economic and social council to coordinate the activities of these bodies, to prevent overlapping of activities, and to fill in gaps where joint action proves to be desirable.
I have now completed a summary outline of the proposals to come before the San Francisco conference. Let me mention some of the difficulties and objections which are certain to present themselves in any consideration of the proposals.
In considering the proposals as a whole it is important to have constantly in mind that the international organization should be so constituted that it will function as effectively as possible. It is no less important for us, that in whatever is agreed to, the interests of Canada should be safeguarded. It is also most desirable that the organization, as finally established, should command the assent of the people of Canada so that, over the years, its underlying principles will secure steady public support. It may be that no fundamental changes will be needed to safeguard our interests. But that is not to say that the proposals could not and should not be improved.
Let me first refer to the position which would be accorded to the great powers. I have already mentioned that the participation of the great powers in the enforcement of peace is imperative, and that the main task of maintaining peace must rest with them. The five permanent members of the security council would be given the special voting rights I have described. If responsibility is to be fairly matched with power, it is essential that the great powers should have permanent membership in the security council. Incidentally, permanent membership was given to the great powers in the council of the league of nations.
Objections are certain to be raised to the special voting rights proposed for the great powers. There can be no question that they are open to theoretical objection. To what degree they are open to practical objection depends upon how far objection can be taken to a recognition of the fact of "power" in this imperfect world. It would not be realistic to expect to establish immediately an international system strong enough to coerce any great military power bent on attaining its aims by force. In the proposed new organization, all its members, great and small, would be bound to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any

manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization." If this solemn promise were broken by a great power the world would be faced once more with a situation like that presented by German aggression in 1914, and again in 1939. Such a situation could not be met in any international body merely by an arrangement of voting, however theoretically perfect. It is not a question so much of what is perfect as of what is possible. No charter can give the world security if, among the powerful, there be not the will for security.
Furthermore it should not be assumed that the possession by the permanent members of the security council of an individual veto on the application of penalties would make the security organization impotent in the event of a breach of the principles of the charter by . one of the great powers. Penalties are the last resort. Before they were applied, there would have to be full discussion of the merits of the dispute. If, by its voting procedure, the council were blocked in proposing a solution, the general assembly could make its own recommendations by a two-thirds majority of its members. The great power concerned would know where, in the eyes of the world, ' justice lay, and the risks such a power would incur in violating the charter.
To expect perfection in any plan would be utopian. Both Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt have stated that while the proposals are not perfect, they are in substance the best upon which, up to the present, it has been found possible to secure agreement. President Roosevelt has said he expects that, over the years, the charter will be amended from time to time in the light of experience.
The decision with regard to voting taken at Yalta represents an achievement of substantial unity by the three greatest powers. It would be unrealistic and unwise to reject the decision outright. Here, if anywhere, there is reason to keep an open mind, and to reserve judgment as to our position until all points of view have been explored at the conference.
In general, exception can hardly be taken to the extension, within the organization, of some special prerogatives to the great powers, on whom the major responsibility for keeping the peace must rest. That is a correct application of the functional idea to international organization, which is that- the position accorded to a state should correspond with the functions which it is able and ready to discharge. In marshalling force against aggression, the position of those able to contribute the greatest force must be respected.

San Francisco Conjerence
If this be granted, it would seem that a further application of this principle would be both logical and appropriate.
The contribution of states, other than the great powers, to the success of the organization will vary widely. It would be in the general interest to develop the idea, and to accept as a guiding principle that power and responsibility should, as far as possible, be made to coincide. If this could be done, the result would be to narrow the gap between the great powers and other nations, while maintaining the principle of the sovereign equality of all member states. It would mean that the smallest and least powerful members would not nominally be given the same responsibilities as, let us say, Australia or the Netherlands or Brazil. It is the view of the government that the constitutional position within the organization of important secondary countries should be clarified, and that the delegation from Canada should exert the utmost effort to secure due recognition of their relative standing among the nations of the world.
As the proposals stand, all states, other than the five great powers would have the same constitutional position in the organization. No regard would be paid to their international significance, or to their record in resisting aggression, or to their potential contribution to the maintenance of peace. It is surely desirable that among the states which are to be elected members of the security council there should be several countries which can make a valuable contribution to the maintenance of security. At the same time, there should, of course, be representation in the council of different parts of the world. Without doubt much consideration will be given at San Francisco to the character of the elected representation on the security council. Some method of selection which would have due regard for the power and responsibilities of secondary states would make the council a more powerful and efficient body.
The proposal that all members should bind themselves to carry out diplomatic, economic and military sanctions at the request of the security council raises another difficult question for Canada and other secondary states. As I have already mentioned, military action would be limited to whatever was undertaken by each state in a special military agreement. It would seem to be desirable to develop some procedure whereby states not represented on the security council would not be called upon to undertake serious enforcement action without the opportunity of participating in the
council's proceedings, or without agreeing separately to join in executing the decisions of the council.
To be effective, nearly all decisions of the council imposing sanctions would require the assistance of one or more states not represented on the council. The cooperation of states bordering on the offending state, or of states in which operational facilities might be essential, would be particularly needed. In practice, if the enforcement of sanctions required active aid from a country not represented on the council, its consent would probably be sought. The probable practice might well be made the formal rule.
A further question arises in connection with such transitional arrangements as may be necessary for the enforcement of the surrender and peace terms against Japan and Germany in the years following their defeat. Special arrangements will clearly be required so long as those countries are under full military occupation. It will be necessary to have a definition of the relations between the security council and any inter-allied authority which may be set up to supervise any longterm measures of control of the enemy countries.
In view of the difficulty of planning a world security organization, especially while the world itself is still at war, it might be desirable to include in the charter some provision for its general review after a term of years.
The government's views on the composition and powers of the security council and on other aspects of the proposed organization have already been communicated to the greater powers. It is not at present the intention of the government to propose particular provisions or amendments in advance of the discussions at the conference.
In considering this great plan for organizing peace, it is all-important that we think broadly and take a long view. The benefits which Canada may hope to gain from full participation in the organization are immense. They should not be weighed merely in terms of prestige. No country has a greater interest than ours in the prevention of another general war. That is the overriding consideration.
It was on the battlefields of an earlier war that our country reached the full stature of nationhood On all the seas, in the skies over land and sea and in some of the bitterest land battles of the present world-encircling conflict, our fighting men have held high the name of Canada. Our contributions to the fashioning of victory have been far greater than could
San Francisco Conference

have been imagined six years ago. Our part in the shaping of peace may be no less urgent and no less effective.
The organization of world security is a cooperative undertaking. The present effort will be, perhaps, the greatest of its kind in history. To achieve success there will have to be a willingness to give and take. The results should not be regarded piecemeal. They should be assessed as a whole. Concentration on security and on the need to organize force to meet the threat of war will not be enough. Once confidence has been established, international action and organization in many fields will be required to make peace enduring. The strong bonds of comradeship and cooperation which have been developed under the stress of war, should be made ever stronger in the organization of peace.
Were another great war to break out in twenty or thirty yiears, or at any time in the future, it is certain that Canada would not escape its fury. The development of new weapons, the development in particular of the flying-bomb and the rocket projectile, are making it impossible for any country to claim immunity from sudden aggression. So long as might is made a substitute for right by any nation there can be no security for this, or the next or any succeeding generation of Canadians.
Even should the charter as finally drafted not be all that we could wish, its acceptance might nevertheless be preferable to its rejection. At all events, the interests of Canada are fully protected by the wording of the resolution. Hon. members will have noted that the resolution provides that the charter should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.
In proposing this course, the government is following the procedure customary with respect to treaties. No treaty obligation could be more solemn than that which the united nations will assume under the charter. The course which the government is proposing would, moreover, ensure to a parliament newly elected by the people, the final word with respect to the adoption of the charter.
It is important to Canada that her representatives at the world security conference should be assured of the widest possible measure of support from parliament and from the people. It is important that our representatives should speak with a clear, strong and united voice. There is every reason to believe that the vast majority of Canadians of all parties desire to have Canada participate in measures to safeguard the peace which we hope to see established at the close of this terrible war. For this, as well as other reasons,

it is desirable that Canada's delegation to the San Francisco conference should be broadly representative. As I have already announced, it is the government's intention to select representatives from both houses of parliament, and from both sides of each house. The government itself will, of course, assume its constitutional responsibility both for the selection of the delegation and for any decisions which are agreed to at San Francisco. It is desirable that the house should make its decision upon the resolution now before it, before the membership of the delegation is announced. Once the resolution is adopted, I would hope very shortly thereafter to be able to make an announcement. By associating with the delegation members of political parties other than its own, the government is seeking to lift and to keep the effort to achieve enduring peace above the arena of party strife.
In the resolution, the house is asked to agree that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter. I think I may assure hon. members that Canada's representatives will certainly be guided by the determination to do everything that is humanly possible to make the most effective provision for the maintenance of international peace and security.
At the approaching San Francisco conference, the united nations will be laying the foundation of a new world order. I know that the people of Canada, regardless of party or other affiliations, welcome the opportunity thus afforded our country to make its contribution to this vast undertaking. I am equally sure that this parliament will approach the question of world security and reach its conclusions with a full sense of its responsibility to our own and to future generations of Canadians and, indeed, to all the peoples of the-world.
In any charter to establish a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, the spirit in which the approach is made, and in which effect is given to its provisions will be vastly more important than the letter. As long ago as March 24, 1941, I spoke, in Toronto, of a new world order to take the place of the old order when the war was at an end. On that occasion I said:
If that new world order is not already on its way before the war is over, we may look for it in vain. A new world order cannot be worked out at some given moment and reduced to writing at a conference table. It is not a matter of parchments and of seals. That was a part of the mistaken belief at the end of the last war.

San Francisco Conference
A new world order will be boro, not made. It will be something that lives and breathes, something much closer to the soul of man than a mere mechanical or legalistic device. A new world order needs to be worked out and have its place in the minds and the hearts of men. It should express itself in brotherhood and goodwill. It will be the application, in all human relations, of the principle of service and of mutual aid.
These words, I believe, express the spirit underlying the Atlantic charter and the united nations declaration of 1942. This spirit has found concrete expression in lend-lease, in mutual aid and in the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration. The same spirit will, I believe, guide the united nations in their deliberations at San Francisco. It is important that the machinery of the new world organization should be realistically devised and wisely planned. But no constitutional machinery, however ingenious, will be effective unless the nations of the world profit by the lessons they have learned in these five and a half years of war. The supreme lesson is that humanity should no longer be made to serve selfish national ends, whether those ends be world domination or merely isolated self-defence. Nations everywhere must unite to save and serve humanity.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what some hon. members may think, I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the debate. I confess, as I did once previously this afternoon, my inability to proceed at this time. I think I might be pardoned, however, for saying to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he has made a very notable speech with which in great measure I find' myself in agreement. There are a few outstanding points as to which perhaps we might be permitted to have some difference of opinion, and I shall advert to those on a later occasion if I find myself capable of participating in this debate, as I hope I may.
I rise primarily for the purpose of taking advantage of the kindly offer made by the Prime Minister, to permit of certain! questions being asked at the conclusion of his address. I have given a good deal of thought to the setting up of this world organization, a new and enlarged league of nations, but I am puzzled over one factor as perhaps the Prime Minister is also puzzled. It occurs to me, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that he might take time to consider it, that the preservation of peace for to-morrow and for the future- and the Prime Minister was quite right when in his opening remarks he differentiated between peace-making and peace-keeping-depends not upon this new league of nations but upon the attitude oft the three great powers, Great Britain, the United States and Russia, toward whatever agreement is reached among them outside the framework of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement. That is the part of the proposal that has been borne in upon me, and I would ask the Prime Minister-not now, because it is a big topic-to give consideration to that aspect of the whole position. We all desire peace; but does not the preservation of peace in the future depend upon the attitude of these three great powers? That is a vital question and a vital problem; and their attitude in that regard is not circumscribed or confined by the Dumbarton Oaks agreement.
That is the main question to which I should like the Prime Minister to give consideration, not now, as I have said, but at a later time. Then I should like to know if the government has forwarded any communications to the im-viting powers or to the United States of America as is contemplated) by the concluding paragraph of the Prime Minister's letter as Secretary of State for External Affairs to the United States ambassador, in which he states:
Note has been taken of the offer of the government of the United States of America to transmit to other participating governments such views or comments concerning the proposals as the government of Canada may desire to present in advance of the conference. I shall communicate with you again if the government of Canada decides to take advantage of this offer.
From something the Prime Minister stated this afternoon, though I am not quite clear about it, I gathered that representations had been madle. I wonder if that is true and, if so, what they are.
Then there are a few subsidiary questions to which I desire to give attention. What instructions will be given to Canada's representatives at the London conference? Have those instructions been framed, and if they have not been framed will they be presented to parliament? I am assuming, of course, that the London conference will meet before parliament is dissolved.
Then, I should like to know why Canada was not represented at Dumbarton Oaks. Is it because we were not invited? Having regard to our contribution I regret exceedingly that Canada was not invited to Dumbarton Oaks. However, the first question is the one which troubles me, if we are going to have peace in the world. Does it not depend upon the attitude of the three great powers, outside the framework of the Dumbarton Oaks agreements? When I ask these questions I
San Francisco Conference

wish to impress upon the Prime Minister that I do not ask them in any hostile attitude at all. I am all for peace, and I want to see Canada participate in the San Francisco conference. But I want also to be informed; and the only way I can get information is by cross-examination of the Prime Minister on matters of vital importance.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to continue the debate if there are other hon. members who first of all wish to ask the Prime Minister questions. I am not rising to ask questions, but rather to discuss the Dumbarton Oaks proposal. I shall be very glad now, if there are any other hon. members who wish to ask questions, to give way to them. But I do suggest, when I am on my feet, that in courtesy to those of us who are prepared to speak we should not now hear a series of short speeches, but rather we should hear questions on points raised in the Prime Minister's statement. Otherwise I am prepared to go ahead.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to ask a question. The Prime Minister stated that he desired the unanimous-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Of course the house will understand that we are not in committee. Any questions asked of the Prime Minister may be replied to when the Prime Minister closes the debate on the resolution. Any hon. member, in asking questions, under the rules, is really forgoing his right to make a speech later.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister definitely asked that questions might remain until after the conclusion of his speech. Surely we are not to be barred from participation in the debate. I am sure the Prime Minister would be the first to take the opposite view.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) is perfectly correct in saying that there was some understanding. But the rules are that those who participate in a debate, either in the form of questioning or by making a speech, have exercised their right to speak. And it is for this reason that I am suggesting to the hon. member for York-Sunbury, and to any other hon. member, that he may be deprived of that right.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: Not if he asks a question, surely.


Thomas Vien: Not in the form followed in the committee of the whole; that is wholly contrary to our rules. While the Prime Minister has stated he will be glad to answer ques-
I Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
tions, yet I myself have the feeling that if the Prime Minister is now cross-examined on his speech, the hon. member asking the questions would be deprived of his right to speak. I must have that understanding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I make clear what I had in mind? I wished to have it understood that if in the course of my remarks there was anything that was not clear, and about which hon. members would wish to ask questions, I would answer them, and would seek to answer them immediately at the conclusion of my speech. On the other hand I did make it clear that what I intended to do was to seek to follow closely the remarks of the different speakers, as they addressed the house, and to note from their speeches, questions concerning which they would wish to have further information or enlightenment. I pointed out that I would seek to deal with all those questions when I replied, at the conclusion of the debate. That, Mr. Speaker, is the order that I should like to have followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is very limited.


Gordon Graydon: If I might not be deprived of my right later on to speak, may I say at this time that my understanding with respect to the Prime Minister's suggestion to-day was very clear. He was good enough to suggest that he would answer certain questions that might arise, by way of clarification of what he might say to-day. Unless that is carried out, and unless we are to have latitude in the matter, then it does seem to me that our rights will be seriously curtailed. There are a number of questions with which the Prime Minister did not deal, or which he did not amplify. All this brings us back to the position we were in before. There are certain points which have arisen in the Prime Minister's speech to which study must be given. It is the government's policy, and I suggest we should have some clarification. The Prime Minister ought to make it very clear that by asking questions we are not depriving ourselves of the right to participate in the debate at a later time.


Thomas Vien: The Prime Minister
answered that question. Yet, with all due deference to the Prime Minister, he cannot make the rules of debate. My understanding was that the Prime Minister would make his statement, and that those who followed in their speeches might ask him questions.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that is not it at all.


Frederick Clayton Casselman: By unanimous consent anything may be done.

San Francisco Conference


Thomas Vien: My understanding was that the Prime Minister was making his statement, and that any hon. member in making his speech at a later time might ask questions of the Prime Minister, to which he would reply in closing the debate on the resolution. From the Prime Minister's remarks to-day I gather that that is in accord with my understanding. I must point out to the house however that the Prime Minister, the leader of the house, cannot make the rules of debate. For that reason I wish to have the matter clarified now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I said yesterday is clear, as it appears in Hansard. This is what I said:
My hon. friend asked me about questions. In speaking on the motion I should like to speak without interruption, and to be allowed to complete what I have to say. Then I would suggest that if there are any points I have not covered, points upon which hon. members might seek enlightenment or further information, and upon which they would wish me to elucidate they might mention them when they speak, giving me an opportunity to deal with such matters in my reply -at the close of the debate. If my replies are not satisfactory I shall try to find some means of gaining assistance and making such further detailed replies as may be requested.
I was making it clear there that, in discussing a great subject such as this, I could hardly be expected to answer instantaneously all questions that might be asked. For any difficult technical questions I might wish to consult or have with me officials of the department, before making reply. But I have not proposed at any time that we should change the rules of debate or change the rules of the house in connection with the presentation of a resolution. My proposal to-day was that, instead of being interrupted, I might be permitted to proceed. Then, if hon. members would be kind enough not to interrupt, if there was something I had not made perfectly clear I would then be prepared later on, when I finished speaking, to endeavour to answer questions. If at that time I did not give immediate answer I would make answer respecting it at the appropriate moment.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that we may ask questions, without getting into difficulty so far as the house is concerned, by obtaining unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Gordon Graydon: Well, I am going to ask for unanimous consent; and if I am refused unanimous consent to ask the Prime Minister 32283-3
certain questions with respect to this matter, , then the house can take the responsibility. I do not think the Prime Minister would be the one who would refuse me.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I am suggesting that so far as possible we should follow the rules of the house. If questions are going to be asked, then they should be questions and should not be ten-minute speeches, as we heard a few moments ago. I say that because those of us who wash to participate in the debate, while we are not being deprived of the opportunity to speak, find that we must wait while a number of short speeches are being made. So far as that is concerned, I should like to make a dozen speeches on this matter.
I have no objection to questions. But as a member who is prepared to speak I suggest the rules of the house should be observed as closely as possible, having due regard to the invitation extended by the Prime Minister.


Mr. BOUCHER:: There should 'be no objection to waiting until the question is asked.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not making any
objection to questions, I am objecting to privileged speeches being made.


Thomas Vien: The Prime Minister stated that if desired by any hon. member questions might be asked during his speech and he would deal with them when he replied in closing the debate. To reduce this debate to the standing of a committee of the whole when considering a resolution of this importance would be contrary to the rules of the house. I take it that when the member who speaks asks a question, it will be answered later by the Prime Minister.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, I
have tried to be fairly calm this session with respect to the whole situation. I want to be fair, but this is the last straw. I dio not want to cast any reflection upon the Speaker, -but it does seem to me that if this is going to go any farther our rights will be gradually diminished to the point where we will no longer be a parliament. I cannot make this too strong. The Prime Minister read a statement which he made yesterday, but that statement is not made by the Prime Minister to-day. He gave us the right of asking certain questions by way of clarification.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on and ask them.


Gordon Graydon: I think this government, which is now a minority administration, had better be careful how it deals with the majority. Will the Prime Minister not clarify this

San Francisco Conference

matter? Will he permit us to ask some questions we want to ask and which he said yesterday we might ask? If that is not done, and I do not think the Prime Minister will take any difftrent step, the result will be nothing less than steamroller methods.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What question does my hon. friend wish to ask?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
settle the general principle,


Gordon Graydon: I am. not asking the question until the Speaker permits me to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition there are always certain courtesies accorded. If my hon. friend has a question he wishes to ask me I shall be very glad if he will ask it.


Gordon Graydon: Do I understand that if
I ask a question I shall not .be deprived of my right to take part in the debate?


Thomas Vien: As I interpret the rules of the house I would have to rule that the leader of the opposition would be taking part in the debate by asking a question, and would have exhausted his right to speak.


Gordon Graydon: If that is the case, all I can do is to protest and object. I think the country generally will not approve the manner in which we are being treated. I think everybody expected that there would be some kind of cooperation in connection with this resolution. We are objecting to the procedure to-day and we objected to it yesterday. Is the government reducing parliament to something that will be definitely under its thumb?


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: It is deliberately
sabotaging parliament.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I believe we are losing sight of something that might help us to get clear on this matter. During the course of an ordinary debate it is sometimes customary for the hon. member who has the floor to give way to questions. The Prime Minister asked that he be not questioned during the course of his speech so that he would not have to give way. That implied that questions might be asked after he had finished, and I think he agreed with that. But the objection that has been taken is to hon. members making speeches while they are asking questions. I do not believe that an hon. member should lose his right to speak merely because he asks a question, but if he goes beyond asking a question, then he should lose his right to take

part in the debate that will follow. I think, Your Honour, that that is a matter that you can very well deal with. Do not let us get out of hand'.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister a question by way of clarification?


Thomas Vien: Is the hon. member proposing to ask a question with respect to what the Prime Minister said in his statement? I have already stated what the position is. Unanimous consent has not been given, but even with unanimous consent I am in grave doubt as to whether the rules of the house should be set aside, even at the request of the Prime Minister.


Gordon Graydon: If that is the case, the situation is completely hopeless.


Mr. POULIOT:: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) is much better when he acts as a ram than is the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) when he plays the lamb.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, if this matter is settled, I wish to say something. The business of this house is to be mainly a discussion of the estimates, the provision of money for the government, and the San Francisco conference which it is hoped will lay the foundation, as the Prime Minister said, of an organization which will guarantee something in the way of enduring peace.
May I say that I agree with those who feel that this house should have been called weeks ago so that we might have given adequate consideration to the problems that are going to arise. To try to crowd these into two or three weeks is an almost impossible thing to do. I feel that adequate time will not have been given for a discussion of the problems of war.
It was August that we last had the opportunity of discussing the ordinary business of the country, and to-day we are in March. Within two or three weeks parliament will be dissolved, and until some time late in the summer or in the autumn there will be no parliament in which hon. members may express the views of their constituents.
We are discussing now the San Francisco conference. We understand perfectly well that the united nations conference is in no sense, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, a peace conference. As the resolution moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which appears on the order paper, clearly implies, it is a conference to consider means of preventing future war.

San Francisco Conference
The resolution before the house endorses the acceptance of the invitation to go to San Francisco. It recognizes the vital importance of an effective organization for peace, and it declares that Canada should become a member of that organization. It declares that the proposals constitute a satisfactory basis for discussion but it recommends, and I think that this is important, that Canada's delegation should try to improve it; and it safeguards the right of parliament to final decision on any agreement or agreements that may be reached. Therefore the resolution should receive the unanimous support of both houses of parliament.
The world should have profited from the experiences gained between the two wars. At the conclusion of the first great war many people believed that a system for the maintenance of peace was in the making. I know that I welcomed the establishment of the league of nations, and for a good many years I pinned my faith to it. In my support of league principles I have never wavered because I believe that they are principles that are eternally sound. But as the years rolled by I realized that it -was not the league that failed or the principles that underlay it; it was the leaders of the nations who had promoted its foundation who failed the principles upon which the league had been founded.
We watched with ever-growing alarm the building up of Mussolini and Hitler as barriers against peoples' movements not only in their own countries but throughout the world. The dictators destroyed their countries' effective labour organizations; they destroyed the great cooperative movements which had been so laboriously established, and gave their people work by preparing for war-a war which at almost any time and at any stage between 1931 and 1938 could have been prevented by united action on the part of all the peace-loving nations.
But of course all this is historic; all this is in the past; and the usefulness to-day in recalling it is merely in the lesson it has for us toward the close of a still more devastating war, and of course the opportunity again presented to the world to do what we failed to do in the period of what we might call a prolonged armistice between 1918 and 1939.
I believe there is an almost unanimous desire on the part of the Canadian people that parliament should give the strictest attention this session to this business and the other business before the hcfuse, the business for which the session is called. We must be positive that our efforts, for example, to bring the war to a successful conclusion do not lag in any particular. We must provide the funds 32283-3J
to carry on our civil government, to improve our social services, to provide for the rehabilitation of the men and women who are returning now and to make sure that those who are coming back will be replaced and that our fighting men will be adequately reinforced by trained and efficient personnel. I do not believe that the country expects us to indulge at this time in recrimination or petty bickering, but rather to act in a manner that will show our allies that this is indeed a united nation to the extent of our determination to win the war and to lay the foundations for the prevention of another great conflict in the future. If we fail as a parliament to act in the manner in which we are expected to act, parliament will lose to a greater degree than ever before the confidence of the masses of the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon announced that parliament will be represented on a non-partisan basis. The choice of the delegation is, in the view of the government, a responsibility of the government in power. I therefore do not intend to discuss that part of the proposal made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, but I wish to state my opinion that in the circumstances in which this parliament finds itself, no representation of Canada on a purely partisan basis could be adequate or satisfactory. The British people will be represented by members of all parties who, owing to the threat of invasion and defeat in 1940, joined together in a coalition. The threat of both invasion and disaster which they faced was one which this country, very fortunately, was spared. The United States and Australia, having party governments, will none the less be represented by non-partisan delegations appointed on the responsibility of their respective governments. In following a similar course Canada is doing something, which, I think, will be approved by the Canadian people generally.
The task which lies before this conference will be both great and historic. It will be meeting, at a time when the victorious allies from the east and from the west will be about to meet somewhere on the plains of Germany- at least that is what we hope. But victory alone will not bring the kind of world in which peace and security may reign supreme. Even the basis of collective action to assure the peaceful settlements of disputes or resistance to a threat of aggression will not be sufficient. As long as racial hatreds fomented in many countries for political advantage, are permitted to divide mankind, so long will the threat of death and destruction be ever present in our midst. We must not forget that at San Francisco the nations will be
San Francisco Conference

judged not by what they say but by what they do. Assembled there will be men and women of every race, every creed and every colour. In such a conference all distinctions of that type will be sunk; and if we are to maintain the peace of the world in years to come, the sinking of all such distinctions in that conference must be followed by the sinking of racial discrimination in all countries which may be described as the peace-loving nations of the world.
The problem, then, before the conference will be to lay the foundations on which the creative forces of mankind may build human betterment in a world of peace and security. We must not allow the nations to drift apart as they did following the Versailles conference of 1919 when the league of nations was formed. This time we dare not drift, lest we drift again on the rocks of war, a war which will be more terrible than any war the world has ever known. Some who sit in this house and among all parties have seen the devastation of the blitz. We have seen or heard the flying bomb. We have heard the heavy explosions caused by the still more terrible rocket projectile. We know, and we must convey to our people that knowledge, that these new instruments are only in their infancy, and that unless we lay foundations for an enduring peace these terrible engines of war may devastate not only cities but whole nations of the earth, including even our own country. Canada, which seems so remote from the possibility of	attack-protected, as we
thought she was, by great oceans on three sides and a friendly and powerful neighbour to our south-can no longer be regarded as immune from attack. But the security which we seek cannot be assured only by the setting up of an organization empowered to adjudicate justice and enforce international law. More, much more than that is required. People everywhere are still obsessed by the twin fears of war and unemployment, these fears which have bred the dictators, these fears which promoted the power of Mussolini and of Hitler. The San Francisco conference will deal to some extent, as the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon, with the economic proposals laid down in a part of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement. These-and I am glad he noted it-are distinct from the monetary proposals of Bretton Woods, which must be carefully reviewed later by this parliament before we give our approval to those monetary and financial proposals. At the moment the Bretton Woods proposals do not enter into the consideration of the conference at San Francisco, and therefore 
I am not going to discuss that matter. But no system of security can be successful if it ignores either of the twin fears to which I have referred.
Primarily, of course, San Francisco will turn its attention to the problem of outlawing war. That will be indeed the primary purpose of the conference. But we must not forget the twin fears which are involved in a consideration of the relationships between the nations. We should not forget the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, which will and must form the basis of the discussion at San Francisco, gives some attention, although not as much as I would have liked to see, to the economic problems of the world. The fact that these economic problems will be discussed by the economic council which, under the agreement, is directly under the control of the general assembly of nations, will give that assembly a considerable measure of general control over the economic problems of the world. In other words, there will be opportunities for the discussion of the international planning of trade relationships and commerce.
This is a proposal that Canada should welcome, because we are deeply concerned not only with the prevention of war in the realm of military affairs but with trading relationships in the post-war world. We shall be living in a false paradise if we think that, after a comparatively brief period of reconstruction and rehabilitation, the world can return to tariffs, quotas, and exchange manipulation and remain either prosperous or at peace. Canada, I believe, has in- 1944 become the second among the united nations in the volume of her exports. At the moment this does not cause us any concern; but when the war is over and the period of rehabilitation has ended, the maintenance of our exports will depend upon-what? Upon our willingness to import goods in payment for most of the commodities we export.
Indeed, in the kind of world that one foresees, it is only on such a basis that we can maintain and improve our standards of living. Let us not forget that in this conference Great Britain has to adopt a different position, because of her economic standing, from that which perhaps she could afford to adopt before this war began. The old idea that a nation prospers according to the volume it exports, without regard to the volume of imports, is surely fallacious. Our standards of life, as in other countries of the world, will depend upon the amount of goods and services our people can enjoy.

San Francisco Conjerence
Obviously we cannot use all the foodstuffs and raw materials, among other things, which this country produces in abundance; but if we import the goods we desire, to complement the volume of primary and secondary goods we can produce, through a proper system of distribution our people can enjoy that standard of living to which modem science entitles us. And what is true of Canada is true of every other country in the world. Standards of living in the backward countries, some of which will be represented at this conference, must be raised as rapidly as possible so that ultimately all nations may enjoy the economic, social and cultural amenities which modern machinery and modern science make possible.
To this task, then, much attention will have to be' given at San Francisco. For the peaceful settlement of disputes, in my opinion, machinery must be more easily provided and with much greater speed. It is with great satisfaction that we learned of the determination of the three great powers to work together in harmony after the war. The Prime Minister emphasized that this afternoon, and I am very glad he did so. Moreover, recent pronouncements regarding the holding of free elections in the liberated countries, if carried into full effect, will, we hope, provide a basis for the restoration of democratic procedures in the countries where these institutions have been either destroyed or suspended.
What will the San Francisco conference be expected to do? I think first of all it will be expected to make a clear statement on certain great principles. First of these, in my opinion, is this, that any international organization to be successful must be based on the conscious surrender to the jurisdiction of international organization of certain matters which must be clearly set forth and agreed to. That is the proviso: certain matters which must be clearly set forth and agreed to. And agreed to, not only by the delegations meeting in conference but by the elected representatives of the peoples of the nations where their parliaments exist.
That means, of course, that whatever is proposed and accepted by the Canadian delegation at San Francisco must of necessity-and this is involved in the resolution before us- receive the approval of this parliament, or rather of the successor of this parliament, before it binds this country. The Prime Minister's resolution makes that position abundantly clear, as it should be made clear. For that is the democratic procedure which many of us have always demanded in our own country. Democratic procedure must be the basis of any organization that is established at San Francisco.
All nations, great and small, should be expected, if not immediately-as the Prime Minister indicated, the delegates there may be faced with certain practical difficulties-at least ultimately to accept decisions arrived at by democratic vote of the representatives of the peace-loving peoples. Such democracy within the world organization does not necessarily mean that all members, while they are equal in sovereignty, are equal in power; but it does mean that all nations participating in such organization should be equal before the law of nations.
Some means of course will have to be provided. and for that the Prime Minister was arguing this afternoon on behalf of Canada, so that the influence of national delegations within the international organization may vary, as they vary in world-wide influence and power. Such variations would give a solid foundation for the acceptance of decisions reached by the representatives of peace-abiding people.
To my mind it is not impossible to find a formula which will give consideration to the influence of a nation in the councils of a peace organization so as to reflect the power and influence of that nation in the world. Someone has suggested that some system of proportional power through representation might be worked out. But if the nations give their minds to the solution of that problem I think that solution can be found. And, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, while this nation and others-secondary nations and smaller nations-may have to accept something short for the time being of what we desire, we should work towards a more just solution of the problem of the influence of the various nations within the international organization.	.
There is another fact that we have to face, and we should face it, that in the fields agreed upon-and again my qualification, only in the fields agreed upon-national sovereignty in the sense that every nation can do in every particular as it pleases according to its own will and its own power will be, indeed must be, limited. After all, that is not a loss of real sovereignty n.o more than obedience to democratic law is a loss of the individual's own sovereignty in the community. It is, of course, as among individuals, an insurance against international anarchy and chaos. It may indeed be considered in the international field as an extension of sovereignty; for each nation would have a democratic voice in the settlement of conditions and affairs beyond its own borders, which would in turn affect the con-
San Francisco Conference

ditions and affairs within its own borders. The result will be that, as with individuals or with nations, there would be an extension of actual freedom, not a restriction of it, as is so often contended. Without membership in such an organization the nation would have no voice, I repeat, in matters outside its own boundaries. Therefore if by agreement certain matters affecting the whole world of nations are placed under control of an international organization of which the nation itself, of course, is a part, then this nation is indeed in reality not limited to conditions within its own borders but is extended to conditions beyond its own borders which may have a serious effect upon conditions within its own jurisdiction.
In the proposals which are embodied in the Dumbarton Oaks agreement there are proposals, as the Prime Minister indicated in at least one instance this afternoon, some of which already to some extent have been modified or clarified. At Yalta an agreement was reached among the three great powers that there would be no absolute veto by any one of the three great powers on the discussion of matters affecting itself. This was indeed a welcome modification, but I find myself in agreement with what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that it should be extended beyond this point. Everyone, I believe, agrees it is essential that the security council should have the power to act and to act swiftly; but the assembly representing the nations should have the right at all times to discuss any matter without limitation.
Canada as a member of the assembly but not of the security council should carefully review the present proposal to prevent discussion on matters being dealt with by the council of the great powers. I emphasize the words "present proposal." That indeed needs some clarification As it now stands, and as I understand it. any matter which the security council may take under consideration cannot be dealt with by the general assembly unless it is specifically referred to it by the council. I think it is important that Canada should insist that the discussion affecting peace and war and all world interests should take place in assembly' in public session, so that the people may be propeily informed through the medium of the press and radio. This would prevent secret or backstage diplomacy which did so much to make the league of nations ineffective.
It seems to me that in the final analysis the great instrument for the prevention of war is an understanding by the general public of all the matters involved, so that public opinion may be marshalled on the side of peace and

against aggression. Hence the need for the fullest publicity of discussion. Of course we know that outside of the assembly discussion, discussion of the military situation and some matters in connection with a suggested action of the security council might not be possible or desirable, but in the main, discussion should be open to the press and to the public.
Under the Dumbarton Oaks agreement all the member nations must accept the decisions of the council and carry them out. It seems to me proper that the armed contribution, for instance, of any particular nation should be discussed and settled to the greatest extent possible, not perhaps altogether as set out in the Dumbarton Oaks agreement but through a discussion in the assembly, and certainly, as the agreement itself sets out, before any' emergency arises. What I suggest is not precisely the provisions of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, although taking several of the clauses together, it might be implied.
We believe that in spite of the criticisms, some of which I have just made, the Dumbarton Oaks agreement provides a good basis for at least the discussion at San Francisco of concerted action amongst the nations to outlaw war. Then, believing this-of course, if we all believe it in this house-we should endeavour to be constructive in our suggestions for improvements in the basis of discussion already provided so that we may strengthen the present solidarity of the united nations. And who is there among us who does not realize to the full that the entire future of mankind depends upon the maintenance of the solidarity of the united nations, and particularly the solidarity of the three great powers? Canada is in a position, for several reasons, some of which I have indicated-geographical reasons, and so on-to assist in the perfecting of this solidarity and unity. She is in an excellent position, I say, to assist in doing just that. Why? Because Canada is recognized as a leader- I almost said the leader-among the secondary nations.
In economic sanctions against an aggressor or in the actual dispatch of armed assistance Canada is a factor of importance. Canada and the peace-loving nations of her stature, as the Prime Minister suggested this afternoon, and we support him whole-heartedly in it, should be given greater authority on the proposed security council. Under the present proposals Canada might be directed to sever trading relations with or supply armed forces to fight some future aggressor without having had the opportunity of participating in the discussions leading up to the decision reached. Lesser states with little trade, unable to give much armed help, have as great an influence

San Francisco Conjerence
as the strong secondary states; that in my opinion is something that the Canadian delegation should endeavour to rectify. For two good reasons these secondary states should be better represented on the security council. In the first place the security council must have immediate and adequate force at its disposal, and it will lack such decisive force unless nations are represented in accordance with the contribution they will be called upon to make for world peace.
Secondly, it is important that the secondary nations which will be called upon for vital assistance against an aggressor should be able to vote somewhere on the decision reached. That is a fundamental of responsible government, and the Canadian government, or that of any other democratic state, incidentally, has an obligation in this regard to its own electorate. It might be difficult to march to fight or to sever economic relations on the direction of a council in which in so many respects we had been denied an adequate voice. I should like to say that our party stands squarely for collective security with-and I use these words advisedly-all that this term implies. We believe it is the duty of Canada to endeavour to secure the acceptance of proposals for the improvement of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement and to look beyond it to the ultimate establishment of a real, effective, world-wide democratic organization for the maintenance of peace.
This afternoon the Prime Minister mentioned some of the great organizations that had been built up side by side with the league of nations, which he called functional organizations. He said that no less important in the immediate future than the consideration of steps to prevent actual military warfare is the provision of food and assistance for the devastated areas, and that the nations associating together who are in a position to do so ought to see in what manner they can lend the greatest possible aid to repair the devastation of war. We know that the league of nations failed in some respects, but in others the work of the league of nations must be carried on -within the framework of the new international organization. Its contribution in the control of the nefarious trade in narcotics and of white slavery did a tremendous amount to assist those throughout the world who could not assist themselves. The International Labour Organization, possibly the one great organization that came out of the league of nations and remains with us, ought to be extended in influence and the agreements made within it should be accepted to a much greater extent than Canada and other nations have
been prepared to accept them in the past. Then there is the matter of nutrition. We read before the war that two-thirds of the people of the world were undernourished.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that in a world where two-thirds of the people are underfed, no matter how firmly we may establish some system of collective security in the military field there is no organization which can permanently secure the peace of the world under those conditions. There is the matter of civil aviation in which Canada is vitally interested, because we stand at the crossroads of the world, with a great neighbour to the south and another great neighbour to the north who will desire to use routes across our country. All these factors come within the range of the economic considerations that are involved side by side with the military considerations. The Prime Minister mentioned the regulation of cartels and the monetary and stabilization proposals which will be discussed under another agreement.
So I think our view can be summed up pretty well in a resolution passed at our national convention in Montreal last December, w'hich said in part:
Future wars cannot be avoided without the establishment of government on the international level, democratically representative of all the peoples, great and small, and endowed with the paramount powers necessary to maintain the peace and to provide economic justice and equality of opportunity among the peoples of the world.
The post-war arrangements probably will fall far short of this; but, while accepting the best that can be obtained at the moment, we shall continue to look forward to the time when in the w'ords of the late Wendell Willkie this will be indeed one world. When I speak of government at the international level, Mr. Speaker, of course I do not mean any body whatsoever which can make decisions binding upon its members except in relation to those matters delegated to it by the member peoples. Nor does it mean, of course, that we anticipate the immediate formation of a world-wide federation. Within the international organization it might be advisable-and the Dumbarton Oaks agreement provides for it-to have regional associations with responsibility for matters which affect a region more particularly. But let me say at once that undoubtedly it is true that anything which affects a region now affects in a greater or less degree the whole world. However, the point is that the ultimate aim of progressive peoples everywhere must be the unity of mankind under a code of law as applicable to behaviour among peoples as it is among individuals.
San Francisco Conference

It is true that we have an international court of justice now. The Dumbarton Oaks agreement indicates that this court either may be continued or a new court of justice set up to take its place. I believe we should look at the record of the present international court of justice and realize as Canadians that under the present court a good many agreements, decisions and even treaties have been made or interpreted. It seems to me the Canadian delegation should endeavour to maintain the present international court of justice, for to wipe it out and establish a new one may involve the setting aside of agreements, treaties and so on which are related to the present court. I am not an international lawyer, and that may be a wrong interpretation, but I think consideration should be given to that aspect of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which provide for either the continuation of the present court or the establishment of a new one.
As I say, the point is that progressive peoples everywhere ought to endeavour to secure a code of law for mankind that will be as applicable to behaviour among nations as it is to behaviour among individuals in our communities. So believing all this, I can say that we regard the steps that have been taken at Cairo, at Moscow, at Teheran, at Dumbarton Oaks and at Yalta towards mutual understanding as steps in the right direction. Thus Canada should be prepared to play its appropriate part in an international organization or any international organizations that may be set up as a result of the San Francisco conference and similar conferences in future, to the establishment of which this parliament subsequently agrees. In short, then, we believe that a workable arrangement for the maintenance of peace and to lay the foundations of world-wide social and economic justice can be achieved at San Francisco. In our opinion it will be the duty of the Canadian delegation to obtain the best arrangement possible. Let me repeat that. It will be the duty of the Canadian delegation to obtain the best arrangement possible and then for our parliament and our people to support it even if it does not go all the way we should go, or does not do all that we would desire. I venture to say that the San Francisco conference will in no instance meet the desires of every or any of the delegates attending it. Canada ought to be prepared to press for improvements in the Dumbarton Oaks Agreement, and, having done that, to join with the other peace-loving nations of the earth in establishing the most effective peace system obtainable at this time, in the hope that as the years roll by we may be able to secure a
[Mr. Coldwell.J
better and a more effective plan to provide economic and social security, freedom from fear, from want and from war, for all mankind.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss a matter which concerns the peace of the world, and the opening of a new chapter in that world, I d'o so conscious of some of the impressionable experiences I have had within less than a month when it was my privilege to visit the United Kingdom, and also to see our troops in Holland, Belgium and France.
One point I would emphasize to-day is this: Not only the character of Canada as a nation among the nations of the world, but the tremendous debt we owe our young men from all parts of the country, young men who have given their lives, who are giving their lives and who are prepared to give their lives for decency and civilization, demand that we in this and other parliaments, take two steps. The first is that in the prosecution of the war, now nearing the first phase of its end, steps shall be taken to bring to their proper retribution those individuals and groups who have brought upon the world the fantastic experience through which we have gone during the last five and a half years. The second step is that there shall be created in the individual countries social and economic security, and all that that implies. But this is not possible unless the kind of thing we are discussing to-day-the means by which we shall minimize the causes of war and the means by which we shall provide international order-is made effective. Unless these things are done wre cannot provide this security. And so, as I think of the young men who within the last month I saw plugging through the mud of Holland and the mud of France, I say that unless we can satisfactorily arrive at some understanding between the great powers, and between the middle and smaller nations, we shall not have repaid that tremendous debt- that unbelievable debt, one which I never would have believed without the experience I have had during the past two months-to the men in our armed forces who have conducted the prosecution of the war.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as head of the government of Canada in 1943, was among the first of the heads of governments in the united nations to welcome the formation of a General International Organization. This is the first parliament in the free world to discuss, in the solemn form we are doing to-day, the proposals made at Dumbarton Oaks.

San Francisco Conference
It would seem that the approach of the government in this matter is toward a policy which would include the most cooperative of relations between Canada and the nations of the world. It is one which does not disturb existing affiliations in the Commonwealth, or with our great neighbor, but one which seems to extend these relations into yet broader fields. One need spend little time in impressing on the country and on ourselves the need for order among the nations, the need of some organization by which we shall perhaps not stop war but through which we shall certainly guarantee the peace more effectively than we have done in the past two decades. As the Prime Minister said, we made a valiant effort, but we failed in that effort. We failed, as he suggested, not only because the league lacked universality, but because we failed to recognize that you cannot have responsibility without power. There is no point in having a perfect paper organization which, when it comes to securing the peace and enforcing peace, simply will not work unless there are certain necessary conditions present.
It seems to me, then, that five principles should underlie the world' security organization contemplated at Dumbarton Oaks, and which will be discussed at San Francisco. These are:
1.	The world security organization must be fully equipped with necessary military force to meet its objective.
2.	To bring this about there must be the closest political and military cooperation between the British Commonwealth, the United States, the Soviet Union, China and the other free nations of the world.
3.	The responsibility in any future world organization should be constructed on and around the four great powers mentioned, and the other peace-loving states should play their part in the structure in a manner proportionate to their ability to contribute.
4.	The world security organization should be flexible enough to permit growth by practice and experience. It should not be straitjacketed either by rigid code or rule.
5.	All nations-great, middle, and small- included in the world security organization, should aim at economic and political collaboration.
These are the underlying principles which I suggest should be in the minds of the delegation from Canada when it goes to San Francisco. Certainly this is one of the most vital questions this parliament has had to face. The proposal at Dumbarton Oaks was that there 32283-4
would be a world security council, an assembly, and an economic and social council, under which will be organizations to deal with functional matters. We must not overlook the fact that the essential characteristics of the structure of the league of nations are being maintained. What is being done is to place emphasis on the successful operation of the means by which force shall be employed to maintain peace. This is done by incorporating the principle of the concert of nations, the principle of a strong power bloc, if you will, within thet framework of the world security council.
At first I found it difficult to reconcile the acceptance of this proposal with the convictions I have expressed in this house for many years. But while one must bear in mind what ought to be done, the fact is that in this very difficult world one must consider what can be done. The league failed because Russia earlier, and the United States throughout the league's existence, were not members. The peace of the world can not be maintained unless the great powers, those which have the greatest armed and economic force, are prepared to use these weapons. The mechanism proposed in the motion is designed to call upon these nations to use force on occasions of serious and unwarranted aggression.
A country like Canada, one of the leading middle nations, a country that has contributed billions of dollars by way of mutual aid, a country that has enlisted less than a million men, a country that has made a contribution which has won the tributes of the world, cannot in its own interests avoid careful scrutiny of the present provisions in the security council. One recognizes the position of the great powers, but if one is prepared to make a distinction between the great powers and the middle powers, should a distinction not be made between some of the middle powers and some of the lesser powers?
I recognize the difficulty of grading the potential contributing power of the middle and smaller nations, but having in mind that if aggression should occur again the middle nations will be called upon to contribute sanctions, it should not be forgotten that this means the employment of their resources, both economic and human. Therefore we cannot dismiss this question as one of mere academic interest.
It may be, and I offer this only as a suggestion, that upon the application of the principle of functional representation, a principle of which the Prime Minister is the author, a principle that has been recognized in all the functional bodies established since the war,

San Francisco Conference

some means may be provided by which a country like Canada or a country like Belgium may be afforded the opportunity of having its interests protected.
This method of functional representation can be exemplified by citing the instance of Norway. Norway could hardly expect to hold on the security council the same position, in terms of the employment of military and economic force, as a country like Canada. But Norway would certainly want to have an important place in any body that dealt with shipping. I think this is a good example of the application of functional representation on the security council which might be applied to the middle powers.
There is another suggestion that might be made. Some arrangements might be made for temporary membership in a given instance covering matters which would involve the ultimate use by a country like Canada of its resources, both economic and human.
Then a point that I think we must keep in mind is this: We m-ust recognize the fact that we have to reconcile membership in this international organization with the means by which it is to be made effective. The position of the assembly being merely that of a place to exchange views, being merely a decorative body, would I think be psychologically disturbing, not only to the smaller and the middle nations but to the people of the world.
While one would not suggest weakening the power of the security council as a security agency in terms of punitive and restraining action, in terms of sanctions, it surely should be possible to extend the scope of the assembly, as has just been suggested by the previous speaker.
The proposal is now made that in the case of the council, where it is recognized that there will sometimes be the necessity of quick or almost automatic action, members of the united nations or of the world security organization, who are not members of the council, either in a permanent or in a non-permanent capacity, should be given an opportunity to express by a two-thirds vote approval or disapproval of the action taken by the security council. In the event of a two-thirds vote being recorded the matter would become binding on all members of the assembly.
We must recognize the inevitable. We are living in a disturbed world, a world of unbelievably difficult problems. It is not a world as easy as the world that faced Wilson and Smuts in 1918 and 1919. The fact is, as President Roosevelt said in his message to congress in January of this year:

We can deny that power is a factor . . . but in a democratic world, as in a democratic nation, power must be linked with responsibility and obliged to defend and justify itself within the framework of the general good.
I recognize the weakness of the league of nations. I recognize the anaemic character of responsibility without power, 'but I must say that powder without responsibility is just as mischievous. What we have to do is to try to reconcile these two facts in our efforts to set up an organization that not only will work but that will prove acceptable to those powers without whom it cannot work.
The fact is that if we are going to justify the tremendous sacrifices made by our fighting men we have to take steps this time to see that Germany and Japan are never allowed again to raise their heads in aggression. If that is to be done, the only way it can be done is by recognizing where power lies. That power for the moment lies in three great nations, or possibly in another nation, which I include for certain fairly obvious reasons.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before the adjournment I concluded by saying that one had to recognize that if the world security organization now under discussion was to be operative, we must realize also that power without responsibility, which characterized the failure of the league, would also characterize the failure of this organization; that what we had to have was not only responsibility but the puwer to enforce decisions arising out of that responsibility. Senator Ball of the United States, who has given this matter a good deal of thought, and has been outspoken in his views, supporting however the general thesis, has given expression to what I think we all really have in our minds. We are faced with the inevitable obligation of making sure that the sixty nations of the world which it is hoped will ultimately come into this world security organization, will not be thwarted, but will have an opportunity of playing their full part in the developing character of the organization. While we recognize that the great powers on the security council must have powers without which the full force of their military and economic strength could not be enlisted, we shall all want to make sure that that does not mean an unwarranted use of power or an arbitrary use of power, because that would be contrary to the fundamental political beliefs

San Francisco Conference
which all parties in this house share and one of the things for which the present war is being fought. Canada, as a middle power, must be assured that it can bring its case before the world assembly or world council. We must be assured that settlement by the greater powers will not be made arbitrarily at our expense. If the situation were otherwise we would find that the pattern which we have in mind would differ only in degree from the kind of regime which the axis have sought to impose in Europe.
Mention was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) of the several functional organizations. He referred to the health organization, to the economic organization, to the international labour office-about which I will want to have something to say- and to the world court. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has suggested that we should not change the present set-up of the world court. The world court still continues to function even though it is not an active body at the moment. The statute is still operative; the treaties under which it came into being are still in existence. But I would point out to the hon. member that a very strong case can be made out-and I trust the Canadian government will take this view-for proceeding to establish a new court, preserving by way of continuity many of the features of the present court, but under a new statute which would incorporate the best features of the present statute and avoid its obsolete provisions. It must not be forgotten, having in mind that the fact all the countries of the world will not be at the conference in San Francisco, that we would outlaw participation in the world court by many nations if we were to proceed on the basis of the present statute. What I suggest is that a new statute should come into being, and new treaties should be executed to preserve decisions and actions already taken on the basis of the old treaties. We might link the new statute with the old statute, preserving as I say the features in the old statute which commend themselves to our judgment.
It must be remembered that the league of nations will come to an end once the treaty resulting from San Francisco is concluded. That means that judges of the present court will cease to be. It means also that when that happens there will be no financial support for the operations of the old court. Consequently, to proceed on the basis which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar suggested, would, I think, in the light of the circumstances I have pointed out, render wholly inoperative the functioning of that court. The existing jurisdiction of the court over a large number 32283- 4J
of treaties, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned, will cease once the league of nations as a body ceases to exist under the old treaties of peace. Consequently, if we are to have the advantages of several existing treaties, we must make sure that steps are taken to preserve their existence. That can be done only by treating the matter as though it had never arisen, creating a new body, and preserving desirable old features.
, Questions will arise as to what kind of disputes are to go before the court. Are they to be merely justiciable disputes? Are they to be disputes which involve political matters as well as legal questions? It will be remembered that under the advisory opinion power of the old court it could deal not only with legal matters but in some cases with matters involving high political policy.
There is one matter which I think I am striking new ground in covering, and that is the relationship of the international labour office to the new general international organization. I am grateful to the government, grateful to my own minister in proposing to the government that I should represent this country and this government at the recent meeting of the governing body of the international labour organization in London. That was an opportunity for me and an experience for which, as I say, I am extremely grateful. The house may recall that I was a member of the government delegation at the plenary conference of the international labour organization in Philadelphia. I was honoured-if I may say so, or perhaps Canada was honoured, in my election as chairman of the continuing committee of the international labour organization to study the relationships between that body and the world security organization. I have on this account special competence in this one particular, if in no other, to say something which I know is in the minds of the workers and of the employers and of the governments of the world who were represented at the conference in London. The international labour office is in one sense a functional organization, functional in the sense that the agricultural and economic organizations are, but I think it is more than that. I believe that the international labour organization, the only organization of its kind on an international level, representing not only governments but workers and employers, should have a special place in relation to the general organization which is to be set up. The international labour organization is not spectacular; it is not one which readily wins acclaim in the headlines of the newspapers.
San Francisco Conference

But I doubt if any international organization in the world has the record of achievement that this body has.
When one remembers that in 1919 there were but ten million workers in the world who in some way or another came under the benefits of social security legislation; when one realizes that to-day over three hundred million people in the world have the advantage of social security legislation in one form or another, on the models laid down and suggested by the international labour office, one recognizes the tremendous achievement of the organization. I say with knowledge, because I did associate with the workers of the world recently in London and I know what their convictions are in this matter, that they will look very suspiciously, they will look very carefully at any attempt to delimit the scope and the status of the international labour organization. They will be greatly concerned over any attempt to curb its power or interfere with its tripartite basis.
Consequently, I am happy to be able to say to-day that, on the instructions of this government, I joined with the Minister of Labour in Britain, the Right Hon. Ernest Bevin, in saying before that body that this government was determined to give the international labour office, in relation to the organization contemplated at Dumbarton Oaks, the highest place possible. I suggest- I do not do so dogmatically but respectfully- that when the delegation comes to consider this matter it should consider carefully the wisdom of having the international labour office's future predicated upon a relationship to a body on which the workers and employers of the world are not represented. The proposal as outlined to-day is that by agreement the future relationship of the international labour office and the world security organization should be determined with the social and economic council. That is a body wholly made up of governments on which the workers of the world will have no representative at all, and I should think that this would be a serious violation of the tripartite principle of the international labour office. The international labour office should be given access, not to the social and economic council, but to the assembly of the world security organization. For ultimately, of course, the international labour office must be subservient to the world security organization; but let it be subservient to a body that represents the ultimate power of governments and not to

a body that has merely delegated power and one on which the workers and employers have no representative.
My final suggestion about the international labour office is this. At Philadelphia, governments, workers and employers agreed that there should be appointed a negotiating delegation to meet with the governments at Dumbarton Oaks, and as that did not materialize, the governments at San Francisco should determine by agreement with the negotiating delegation the future character of the international labour organization and its relation to the general world organization. I am happier than I can say, in the light of the London discussions, that the government, which I represented, instructed me to take the position that the international labour organization, with its great achievements, its great record, with its representation of workers and employers as well as of governments, should be allowed to continue in the great achievements which throughout its history since the end of the last war it has effected.
As I said at the outset, at first I did, in the light of convictions which I carried for a long time, in common with many other members of this house, including the head of the government, take a doubtful view about the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Here, at first I was inclined to think, is a makeshift arrangement, a resort to a concert of power arrangement by which throughout history wars have been encouraged if not provoked. But one has to recognize the realities of the moment, and there is no chance of preserving peace if the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union cannot act in unison in the days of peace as they have done in the days of war. That is clear, and in answer to Mr. Welles, the former Under-Secretary of State in the United States, I do not think that we are betraying the principles underlying the covenant. I do not think that we are betraying the Wilsonian principles of the rule of law and the settlement of disputes by pacific means through the agency of law and conference. What we have done is to say, "Here is the best we can do at the moment." And, as the President of the United States said, by experiment, given time, we shall improve the organization until ultimately perhaps, if for no other reason than the very nature of our contracting world, the kind of ideal organization many of us want will come about.
I conclude where I began. I cannot say what a tremendous impression it left upon me to come face to face for the first time in an easy way with men from this country and from

San Francisco Conference
other countries who, in the mud of Holland, the dirt of France, the debris of Belgium, and in that fortress island that has withstood the onslaught of our enemy for six years-I could not face all that, I say, without feeling that we are dealing to-night, not with an academic question but with the most important subject that faces the world to-day-full employment, social security, and all those things that we hope to bring about but which cannot be achieved if peace cannot be maintained in the vorld. That, surely, is basic.
I think of the men in our armies whom I met in canteens and in their training camps not far from the battlegrounds, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with the utmost sincerity, that they have altered my perspective. I said to myself, "There is Canada. These men have given us something that we should emulate. Our petty squabbles should be put into the categories where they belong and, like these men, we at home should present a common front of unity and a common purpose." All our sectional differences, our differences between race and race, between religion and religion, between economic interests in the country are unreal in the face of what these men are doing. I went to see the last resting place of some of my friends of another day, two miles from Dieppe lying under the green grass of France and for eternity. Though dead, they are living symbols of what a country can do. I could give their names. They were men from my own city, men of Anglo Saxon origin, French Canadians, and new Canadians, Scottish and Irish. That is Canada; and in the discussion of problems in this house, particularly in this matter, I think we have to realize that anyone who raises the cry of intolerance is not true to the impressive sermon that lies in that little cemetery of France.
If we are to be true to these men, we have to give all our energy and our thinking to the task of making sure that if we caiinot arrest war forever we can at any rate minimize its horrible occasions and results.
General Smuts, who had much to do with the creation of the covenant of the league of nations, hoped for a brave new world. He gave expression to a sentiment that did not materialize. I should like to think that in the motion before the house, in the constructive support it has received thus far, and which I know it will continue to receive, we shall, along with the other nations of the world, taking account both of realities and of our ideal, build the strongest possible system by which we can maintain peace in the international field. If we thus bend ourselves to that task, then General Smuts could on this occasion say:
There is no doubt that mankind is once more on the move; the tents have been struck, and the great caravan of humanity is once more on the march.
Mrs. CORA T. CASSELMAN (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, these proposals drawn up at Dumbarton Oaks have been before the nations of the world in this form, since last October; but the theory and principle behind them have been under discussion for a quarter of a century. Indeed, we might go back into history for three hundred years for very much earlier discussion of attempts to find a means to prevent war and to settle international difficulties by peaceable means. Many of us have made this topic one of our chief concerns in small groups and in large which I have been privileged to attend. The empire parliamentary association meeting in Ottawa two years ago considered this question indirectly. It invited congressmen from the United States, representatives of the senate and the house of representatives to come here and put their views before us. The annual conference of the institute on international affairs, the league of nations society, the great churches across Canada, have dealt extensively with this subject and have gone on record for the need of strengthening the ties of friendship and cooperation among the nations, of organizing a world community on the basis of freedom and lasting peace. Especially during these twenty years of armistice, men and women have studied the cause and cure of war. Practically every nationally organized association of women has had a committee to study international relations. Almost every local group of women has had a study group to read material, to present and discuss their views along this line. It is no new topic for us. We have had material from such sources as the league of nations society, from the commission, to study the cause and cure of war, from the Carnegie endowment for international peace, from the Canadian institute of international affairs. There I mention only a few of the sources of material that dealt with the question of organizing a world community, and of dealing with other means of settling international disputes. I have been closely associated with the study groups, and I bear testimony to the earnestness with which women have followed developments. Because of that background of preparation, because of the attempts concerned with the successes and the failures of the league of nations, we are ready to examine these present proposals.
We have waited anxiously for war news for years; and just as anxiously for news of international conferences that will hold out the hope that the fruits of victory would not turn
San Francisco Conference

into ashes. We hold to the hope that the years and the lives that our men have spent in fighting this war will have a reward at the end of the war. Reports of the Atlantic charter, of the UNRRA conference, of Moscow, of Teheran, of Crimea were significant-doubly so when related to the profound desire of the millions that out of this victory might come a peace that would last.
I do not speak officially for women; I cannot do that. But I do know that women throughout this land will feel that a world security organization is an answer in some measure to their longing to have done with war. Victory , in itself is wonderful. Even if we accomplish no more than preserving for ourselves our right and our freedom to work out our own destiny within our own borders, the war would not have been fought in vain. But with what confidence can we face the future if we have little hope that reform will endure, that progress will continue with the threat of another war hanging constantly over us? No, we want something more than a military victory. We want some guarantee that a real and a new attempt will be made to build and preserve human freedom, social justice, economic progress and political security. So it was with hope and fear that we concentrated our vision on proposals made at Dumbarton Oaks.
The wartime information board is to be congratulated on printing and distributing last fall the pamphlet dealing with their proposals to all who were interested. It is a good sign of the times. The covenant of the league was not available to the public beforehand. The proposed charter was in our hands some months before this conference was called at San Francisco. The Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Stettinius, wrote an article which appeared in February's issue of the Reader's Digest. It was several pages long and set forth the proposals of Dumbarton Oaks. I hope that not all hon. members of this house have missed reading that article. He is to be congratulated on putting before the public in a popular way some of the proposals that will come before the conference that is to meet in San Francisco.
These proposals are not in their final and completed form. Indeed there have already been modifications of them. At the Crimea conference, for instance, the great powers answered one objection, that they were keeping too much power in their own hands, by a slight change in the method of voting in their proposed security council. After all, the success of our democratic processes is based on a system of checks and balances. If they have altered it in one way there may also be other 
instances in which after discussion, after negotiation, they may limit their power to some extent. But with responsibility there must be power. If the great powers have the responsibility for underwriting the peace of the world they must see to it also that it is maintained on a just basis, that the cultural integrity of the people is supported, that interference in domestic affairs is limited to the minimum consonant with the rights of the majority.
Great powers may be bound only with their own consent. We might as well face that. There is nothing that I can see but naked force, or conscience, to bind the great powers of the world-force, war, facing perhaps a combination of powers, or conscience or reason or willingness to be bound. We, the peoples of the world, are fortunate that the most powerful nations, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China, have expressed their willingness to assume obligations such as those set down in the purposes and the principles of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. They say they want to develop friendly relations among nations, to take broader measures to strengthen universal peace.
After the meeting in the Crimea, this statement was issued by the three leaders, Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Churchill and Mr. Stalin:
Our meeting here in the Crimea has reaffirmed our common determination to maintain and strengthen in the peace to come that unity of purpose and of action, which has made victory possible and certain for the united nations in this war. We believe that this is a sacred obligation which our governments owe to our peoples, and to all the peoples of the world.
There is our hope that conscience will bind the great powers and the small in the fulfilment of the longing of the world to have done with war. We have said that one of the chief reasons for the inability of the league of nations to prevent war was that the United States was not a member. Here then is the promise of participation by the United States and the other great powers. We feared their isolation more than we fear their participation in world affairs. We hope for much from the methods of consultation and discussion.
These proposals are not the perfect solution for which theorists and idealists look. Neither was the magna charta, the bill of rights or the habeas corpus act. But these were living charters, and so must this be. If we have the spirit of cooperation and the desire to understand each other's viewpoint the organization will grow into a living thing, a vital wall against the agony of war, the misery of frustrated hopes and the anguish of injustice. We must understand that the relinquishment of

San Francisco Conference
national power goes hand in hand with the establishment of international power, that they must proceed at one and the same time, and that perhaps the growth may be slow. But do not let us stand in the way of these steps along the road to cooperation, because the instrument is not one hundred per cent perfect.
Speaking in this house in 1943 I quoted these words, which are just as true now as they were then:
To-day the problem of durable peace is being discussed from so many angles that the public is in danger of confusion. If, before we can have peace, the income of every person must be guaranteed, if every vestige of racial or social discrimination must be obliterated, if every man must adhere to rules which mortals have never learned completely to live by, then peace is indeed a complicated business, and not to be achieved short of a perfect world.
Wonders have been accomplished sometimes with instruments that have not been perfect, and this goes a long way toward answering questions which have puzzled the world for years.
Should Canada take part in the formation of a new security league I say we desire to do so, and we must. It is the supreme interest of the nation. Only by widespread co-operation can the nations set up a durable association. It will never be done by sitting back and letting others go ahead. It will never be done by speaking publicly or even officially of the peace we want. It will be done only by getting in there, talking and discussing and doing our part. Canada must play its part in the formation of an organization for the maintenance of peace, just as it is doing its part in the holocaust of war. We must, I say. Mechanical inventions have made this world small. No great city is more than sixty air hours from any other great city. Science has developed fearful weapons, and will continue to improve them. Canada is at the cross-roads among the great nations of the world. Our geographical position has been a factor in saving us from the horrors of invasion, and we have had a good neighbour. We are thankful for that, and thankful for the commonwealth of which we are a part. But even so there have been submarines in our waters. Even so during the last few years there was a threat of invasion. In another few years our geographical position may make us the battleground, the Belgium between great powers, unless those powers, through some organization such as is now suggested, decide that the things upon which they are in agreement are more important than those which divide them.
What other alternatives have we? Maintain neutrality and mind our own business? Norway did that; Holland wanted to live and let
live, and what happened? Ireland was saved by her geographical position, by the British navy and by the conscience of the united nations. You may say we should make no military preparations; that we should not arm. As late as 1936 the view was asserted in this very house that we should rely for protection upon our weakness and our position as a good neighbour of the world. Did Denmark's helplessness save that country from occupation? You may say we should make treaties of nonaggression with other countries. Poland did that. Should we build an immense army? Russia did that, at the expense of almost every material comfort for her civilians. No, there seems no other hope for the world, and for Canada as part of the world, but getting together now, while the will to cooperate is strong, to set up international organizations of the free with the free, the equal with the equal, with as much justice as is capable of achievement.
Speaking in this house two years ago I gave my reasons for believing that a new attempt to build an international association would succeed, and those reasons are still valid. The league of nations did not keep peace; it had1 weaknesses which may be avoided now. Men learn from their mistakes as well as their successes. We are learning a second drastic lesson. Again the world is being hammered into a realization of the need of one country for the other in preserving and maintaining peace. The league of nations accomplished a tremendous amount of good work in many fields, exploratory work that provides a solid foundation for renewed effort. How far did the first airship fly? Did they give up that experiment? Supposing this should fail, for any reasons you may like to mention. Should the experiment be given up? No. If the league did nothing else but stir up thought, it justified its life. For centuries the world has known how to unite to make war. It has never known how to unite to make peace. There must be an alternative way to settle disputes if war is not to continue; so the proposed charter provides for arbitration, for conciliation, for reference to a court of international justice, all methods which depend on the desire of the disputants to avoid war, and on the good will of those who ask for arbitration.
But the charter goes farther than that. It makes it the responsibility of the security council, the representatives of the big five and six other members elected from the other nations, to see that the matter is settled without resort to arms; and back of the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means is the
San Francisco Conference

power which may be wielded by the security council to take combined international enforcement action, which is a terrible and grave responsibility. In May of 1939 the league council authorized a committee to study fundamental questions of economic and social welfare, questions that are part of the causes of war. That committee met under the chairmanship of Right Hon. R. M. Bruce, high commissioner for Australia in London. In December of that year it made a report of far-reaching significance. This suggested international commission for economic and social cooperation may be an outgrowth of the work of that former committee, since it has as its purpose the promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedom. It would have much to do with removing the causes of war. This proposed commission is to consist of eighteen members elected by the general assembly. There is no domination by the great powers there, for the decision is to be by a simple majority of those present and voting.
There are many ways in which these suggestions show more promise than did the covenant of the league. Some of them extend former duties. There is the power of investigation, as outlined in chapter 8, section 1, as a means of forestalling war. It will be noticed also that the following clause states that any country would have that right. Any state, whether or not a member of the organization may bring any such dispute or situation to the attention of the general assembly or to the security council. The enforcement action provided under section B of chapter VIII goes a step beyond that of the former league, placing responsibility upon the great powers and the security council. There will be close scrutiny of these proposals, with the middle powers, of which Canada is one, no doubt making suggestions. I am glad to see that paragraph 3 of chapter X gives the secretary-general the right to bring to the attention of the security council any matter which in his opinion may threaten international peace and security.
I have not sufficient time to discuss many of these details. But, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us this afternoon, they will require careful study, in order that our position will be sound, and that the delegation may have in its hands the conclusions of experts and of those well versed in international affairs.
To my mind the five paragraphs in the Prime Minister's resolution merit widespread support. Canada should go to the conference after the best preparation that can be made, and after the most expert and careful scrutiny of the proposals; and we should go having in

mind what we want not only for ourselves but for the other nations of the world. Canada should go with the purpose of cooperating, and of making this basis for discussion a vital document for the strengthening of world ties.
I think the house will give unanimous consent and support to the resolution, because this is a matter which touches all of us individually and nationally. The United States has made a united stand, through both its great parties. For instance Senator Austin of the Republican party, speaking on Lincoln's birthday last month, had this to say:
Every opportunity should he employed to strengthen the faith of our chief executive that he has the moral power of this nation to support his position and give effect to his advocacy of the organization for security and peace. We advocate as a party the development of international law, including a bill of rights for men in their international relations and the establishment ana use of international tribunals of justice for their administration.
Let us uphold a non-partisan stand, and unite for the establishment of an enduring peace. Let us be confident that from these small beginnings will grow a great undertaking. Hon. members will recall the words of Arthur Clough quoted by Mr. Churchill in a broadcast he made some years ago:
For -while the tired waves vainly breaking Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making Comes silent flooding in the main.
Very small beginnings-and these are not small beginnings-grow to things that at last may give us security and peace.


Mr. R. T. GRAHAM (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to record my whole-hearted and unqualified approval of the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Not only do I approve the principle contained therein, but my approval extends particularly to its wording. On this particular occasion the wording of the resolution is important because, in general terms, it indicates the instructions from the government and parliament of Canada to the delegation which will go to San Francisco to speak for the country.
You, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members, will have noted that while in general terms the resolution approves the Dumbarton Oaks agreement as a basis for discussion, its terms are sufficiently flexible to permit of improvement, and to permit of the Canadian delegation doing all within its power to improve if possible the agreement reached at Dumbarton Oaks. Then, finally, in recognition of the fact that Canada is a democracy, and that no agreement reached at San Francisco could in the long run be efficacious or useful unless it had

San Francisco Conference
behind it public opinion in Canada, the resolution provides that before the charter adopted at San Francisco can be binding upon or accepted by Canada, the Canadian parliament will have an opportunity to discuss the complete proposal, and to pass judgment thereon. So, as I say, I am particularly pleased with the way in which the resolution appears before the house, in respect of both its subject matter and its wording.
There are some issues which in their very nature transcend party lines, or which do not develop that cleavage of opinion which generally divides the different parties and groups in the house. Surely if there ever was an issue before the House of Commons worthy of the united support of all hon. members it is the one now before us. The history of Canada in the present generation must make clear to all of us the fact that there is one issue on which we should stand united, namely that of preventing if possible a recurrence of war and the sacrifice and suffering that follows in its wake. Canada cannot stand aside from seeking a solution to this age-old problem.
As hon. members know, this country is as peace-loving as could be imagined. In my lifetime I have not known of any responsible leader of any political party in Canada, or any other person prominent in our public life, showing any desire to embroil Canada needlessly in a war. So I say the people of Canada are whole-heartedly behind anything that may bring hope of permanent peace and security to a world in which Canada forms a small but very important part.
I join in the hope already expressed in this debate that we will find that degree of unity in the House of Commons, in the editorial pages of our press, over the radio and in the hearts and minds of our people which may in its turn enable the delegation from Canada to promote unity among the nations of the world in the setting up of this organization, which holds out such high hopes to the whole of the human race.
In this connection I think it proper to call to the attention of hon. members an expression used in May of last year by the Prime Minister upon his return from the conference of prime ministers in London. On that occasion the house paid him a well-deserved tribute of friendship, and in replying he said that if the speech he made in London had any value it was because he recognized that the things that unite us are so much greater than the things that divide us. That is what prompted him to make the appeal, not only to the members of the British commonwealth but to the nations of the world, for support of those
principles that will lead us to a better world, a world in which there would be some hope of permanent peace.
I am not sure that all of us recognize the immensity of the task we have embarked upon. There are those who, with some justification, do not believe that there is any hope of setting up an organization that will be able to outlaw war. If one were a pessimist he would have to agree that the history of mankind, particularly the history of our own day and age, would justify that attitude. I do not class the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) as being one of these, yet he gave to-day an indication of a line of thought that is understandable when he suggested that the position of the world depends, not upon the contribution that Canada and the smaller countries can make, but upon the good will and the purposes of the three great powers, the United States, Russia and Great Britain. We must however rise above these fears and set ourselves to the task, no matter how great the difficulties.
From our viewpoint, if perhaps not from the viewpoint of others, one of the cornerstones of any such organization must be a sufficient degree of unity, a great degree if you will, between the two great English speaking democracies, our mother country, Great Britain, and our neighbour to the south, the United States. Canada has done and can do much to cement their friendship and cooperation. These countries are joined together by a common language, a common political philosophy, by aims and objectives which are the same because of their history; and yet if one considers the aftermath of earlier wars he finds that even those two great democracies, if they so desired, could find issues upon which to divide or which would create sufficient dissension to make it impossible for them to cooperate in a world security organization. To illustrate, I need only direct your attention to the position in the Pacific and the trade rivalries that of necessity exist between those two great countries. If it is difficult for those countries, and our country, to find a unity of purpose sufficient to bind them together as united nations, when one thinks of other nations not so bound together by ties of language and of common philosophies it is easy to be overwhelmed by the difficulties of the task that lies ahead. Again I say we must look upon these difficulties as but a challenge to overcome them.
The third great power of to-day, Russia, is just as important in the final outcome of the setting up of this organization. Unity between Great Britain, the United States and Russia
San Francisco Conference

is of course one of the true keystones of any organization that may be set up. Russia has emerged from a great revolution which occurred some twenty-five or more years ago. She has been engaged in the tremendous task of consolidating her position as a world power and of developing the economic life of a great self-sustaining empire. We know that if the united nations organization is to be fruitful in its results it must be established on an appreciation of the things that unite these three great powers, the United States, Great Britain and Russia and not upon the things that might possibly divide them.
Let me read a statement made by Sir Norman Angell which I think illustrates what I have in mind. Referring to the place of Russia and our relationship to Russia, he says:
The issue this time will not depend so much on guarantees to France as to Russia. For obvious geographical and military reasons, Russia will have the last word concerning future treatment of Germany. Again the same point arises: the outcome will depend, not so much upon whether we can trust Russia, as upon whether Russia can be brought to trust us, to trust that we of the "capitalist west" will not combine against her "in defence of capitalism," and that we will, if she is attacked, come to her aid just as twice within a quarter of a century we went to the aid of France.
We should be realistic in our approach to the task that lies ahead. We must approach this problem so that we shall be able to count on that degree of cooperation between all the powers that will be necessary to make a success of any organization we may hope to set up in San Francisco.
I need not recall the other difficulties, such as the Polish question, and the place that France will understandably seek to gain in this world. One could go over the continents of this earth and in each he will find problems that require the utmost degree of tolerance, the utmost of understanding, the utmost of friendly help if solutions are to be found for the problems that exist, and if the causes of war are to be removed so that this new organization may have some possibility of success.
The history of Canada is to no little degree a lesson in the wisdom of -tolerance and understanding. I hope the Canadian representatives at San Francisco will have in mind some of the lessons that we have gained throughout our history. I recall the brief session of this house last November. The issue then before the house was one that excited, not only a great deal of controversy -but considerable heat in some portions of the house. After everything that could be said seemed to have been said, the debate still continued. I remember a friend of mine coming to sit beside me. He

asked me if I did not think it was an imposition that the members had to listen to the hon. member who was then speaking, and who insisted on making his contribution to that particular debate. While I would have liked the house to get through its business and permit us to go home, I said to him: "Instead of complaining we Canadians should be thankful indeed that we have in this House of Commons an institution that permits us to settle our disputes, and any crisis which may arise in the nation's history, in the manner in which we met that particular crisis, if you care to call it that. How blessed are we that, instead of bullets and armed revolutions and unexpected clashes of armed forces, we have found in our democratic institutions a safety valve of expression which permits our people through their elected representatives to speak their minds, to claim the opportunity to present the viewpoints of their constituents in this House of Commons, and after what is on some occasions a lengthy debate, to accept as a nation the verdict of the majority." So as I say, in Canada's history surely we have learned some lessons which those whose duty it will be to represent Canada not only in the San Francisco conference but in the subsequent organization, may bring to that organization -and help to build up and strengthen it in the work it proposes to do.
Still more so is this true of the British commonwealth of nations. I -recall the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the speech which he made in London last year, when, addressing both houses and referring to Britain and the commonwealth, he used these words:
So long as Britain continues to maintain the spirit of freedom, and to defend the freedom of other nations, she need never doubt her preeminence throughout the world. So long as we all share that spirit we need never fear for the strength or unity of the commonwealth. The voluntary decisions by Britain, by Canada, by Australia, by New Zealand, and by South Africa are a supreme evidence of the unifying force of freedom.
The British commonwealth of nations is of course the earliest league of nations, if you care to call it such, of which the world has record, and in its over-all results, I think all of us must agree, its success has made, time and time and time again, a great contribution to the freedom of all nations, not only those that are partners in the commonwealth. When I think of the British commonwealth I always have in mind some of the examples which are afforded by the history of this group. One is the history of Ireland, particularly southern Ireland; the other is the history of the Union of South Africa. I believe that it is a great

San Francisco Conference
tribute to the reality of the freedom permitted by the British commonwealth that the Irish Free State has exercised its right as an autonomous state to stay out of this war. I disagree with its decision but I recognize the historical value of its right to make that decision. On the other hand the Union of South Africa is fighting by the side of Canada and other component parts of this great commonwealth in the war in which we are now engaged. In considering these contrasted situations, one must first trace the history of the relationship between Great Britain and Ireland, the long period of disunity, occasionally of repression, of frequent application of the special crimes act, and of attempts to enforce upon Ireland certain decisions of the central power; and note the results of that policy. Think on the other hand of the result of Britain's wisdom, immediately upon the conclusion of the South African war, in giving to the Boers complete freedom to govern themselves within the framework of the British commonwealth. When I see the dividends which that policy of tolerance and generosity has paid in the results which have flowed from it, I say that the commonwealth of nations has set an example to the united nations which they may well respect and follow, and from which they can draw useful lessons.
In reflecting upon Canada's war effort, the magnitude and amazing success of which in its contribution to the common cause is generally recognized, I am struck by the advantages we have reaped by profiting by the mistakes wdiich were made in the last war and in the period which followed that war. In the setting up of an organization to preserve international peace and security, I believe we would be wise, as most of the speakers have indicated, to study the experiences of the past, and observe why the efforts which were made after the last war were not as successful as it was hoped they would be. Some of those errors are quite apparent. One was that the task was not undertaken until the completion of the war. Over sixty nations gathered at Versailles without the unifying influence of a common war effort and attempted to find by discussion there a basis of peace and of the establishment of a league of nations. Looking back, one is not in the least surprised that in the atmosphere of selfishness, hatred and bitterness engendered by the war, the human beings who led the conference at that time found it impossible to establish a successful institution. I am delighted that in our day we have shown wisdom in not waiting until the end of the war to sow seeds which in time may grow into a strong
and vigorous organization to preserve the peace of the world. I think too that we have gained greatly from the conversations which have taken place between the heads of states and from the various conferences which have led up to the one which is to take place in San Francisco.
Another mistake which was made in 1919 was in tying the league of nations covenant to the peace treaties, which were signed as it were under duress by enemy nations. One of the wisest things that those who took part in the Dumbarton Oaks conference did was to separate completely from the work of the united nations organization the task of dictating or enforcing peace terms between the belligerents in this war. It will give that organization the opportunity to stay apart from the inevitable dissatisfaction w'hich will result from those peace treaties, signed1 under duress, as necessity dictates, with all the implications of continued occupation and control which they must contain. So I am greatly encouraged, as I say, that in these conferences, seeking to eliminate a good many of the things which might divide the larger conference, we have already taken many steps towards ensuring the success of the San Francisco conference. You will recall that as early as May, 1943, at Hot Springs in Virginia, a conference was called to consider and make recommendations with regard to food and agriculture. Then at Atlantic City a little later there was another conference to deal with relief and rehabilitation; then at Bretton Woods a conference to deal with monetary and financial matters, and finally the conference held at Dumbarton Oaks to consider the setting up of the framework of an organization to preserve international peace and security. It is true that the organizations dealing with these specific matters are functional in their character, as has been said; but it is hoped, as indicated by the suggestions for a charter contained in the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, that finally the assembly of the united nations will undertake the task of correlating the activities of these different economic and socially-minded groups.
I think, too, that the great powers who took part in the Dumbarton Oaks conference, in the long run, did the cause which they seek to serve a great service by not being too specific in the setting up of the proposed organization. I was pleased this afternoon to hear the Prime Minister suggest that it might be wise to provide in the charter for a future meeting, say in five or ten years' time, in which, in the light of the atmosphere of that day, such changes could be made in the organization as were found to be necessary.
San Francisco Conference

Let us be certain of this, that at the conclusion of a war that has so devastated the world as the present one has done, the people of the world, even the statesmen of the world, since they are human, are hardly in a frame of mind conducive to the founding of an organization that hopes to perform the great service to mankind that this united nations organization, it is hoped, will render. So that we must of necessity cast our min'ds some years ahead; and, thinking in terms of that future, I believe it would be wise to give to the San Francisco conference the right to include in the charter some provision whereby the united nations will recognize the necessity of perhaps periodically reviewing the set-up and making such changes as will render it more workable and better able to fit into the framework of the worlds needs.
One of the arguments raised against the proposed plan, and it is a most natural one, is the fear that the three or four or five great powers may constitute a threat to the freedom and liberty of the smaller nations. However, like other speakers who have preceded me, I do not believe that the success or failure of the new organization will depend on the authority that is given to the members of the security council. I think we must recognize that power rests somewhere in this world, and at the moment, being realistic, we must know that the combination of the power of the United States, Russia, and Great Britain constitutes that military strength either to enforce peace or to cause another war. It is the use and direction of that power that we are concerned with, and when we must impose upon the countries possessing that military strength and power a responsibility, it seems to me to follow that we must of necessity recognize the responsibility they assume; and certainly in the earlier days of this organization we must give them the safeguards that will permit them to work without too much fear of accepting that responsibility.
I am certain that this united nations organization will not fail because we have given the great powers, too much authority. It will fail if, in the development of that organization, we do not win, along with the responsibilities that should go with it, the good will and understanding of all those great powers. The alternative of course-you and I know it-is that if we do not succeed in that purpose the great power that might disagree with the attitude of the united nations could walk out; and then of course we would have a repetition of the history of the past, and that power will inevitably attempt to gather about it-Germany perhaps, Japan perhaps, or some other nation-the countries that are discontented

with their lot in life. And then we shall find in truth two great groups of powers again facing one another with opposite purposes and different objectives.
That is the situation that inevitably leads to the outbreak of war. It seems to me therefore that Canada need not fear the authority that is given to the powers who must accept the chief share of the responsibility of preserving peace, because when we persuade them to join with the smaller powers in forming the united organization, if we succeed in convincing them that it is to the interest of each to continue to be a member of that united nations organization and make the contribution which each can, then I think there will be hope that the new organization will succeed where in that regard at least the league of nations failed.
Personally I believe that there was never in the world's history such an opportunity for gaining that measure of cooperation between the great powers as exists to-day. When we view the attitude of the people of the United States after the last war and view the attitude of the people and of the government of that great nation to-day; when we see Russia, great as it is in military strength, committed to the task of developing its own country's resources, I am convinced that the three powers, Great Britain, the United States, and Russia, have a common objective, namely, in their own interests to preserve peace. Relying upon that, I am not at all concerned at giving them a certain measure of authority in dictating the important decisions of the security council. I would ask the members of the house to consider this. We cannot hope to impose upon another country our political philosophy. We must take those countries as they are and seek to find a common purpose in pursuit of a common objective and somehow make them work to that objective and with that purpose in view.
President Wilson's remark that we fought in the first war to make the world safe for democracy is, I am afraid, not a correct statement of the position that we are in to-day. I think it would be more correctly put if we said that we are fighting to preserve for ourselves and others who believe in democracy, and who are capable of being governed by such a philosophy, the right to be so governed. But, I think every nation must accept within the framework of the united nations organization the principle that every country has the right to govern itself as it thinks best in its own interest.

San Francisco Conference
I noticed that the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spent some time dealing with the very important subject of trade policy. With his statements, of course, I am in full agreement; but I would suggest that it is not likely that even that particular subject will be a matter for discussion at San Francisco; that it, like the other matters coming under the economic and social council of the proposed organization, will have to await the agreements between the nations and the submission of these to this parliament in due course. I think that this House of Commons and our delegates should confine themselves to the primary and paramount objective of setting up an organization that will hold out the hope to this world of the maintenance of international peace and security. I believe that if we keep that one objective in mind, bend all our unity, devote all our efforts to doing what we can to further that objective, we shall be doing what our Canadian people would have us do at San Francisco.
Sometimes it has been said that Great Britain in its hour of need always finds a great leader. Without introducing any party note into this discussion, but speaking more as a Canadian than as a member of the Liberal party, I say that Canada is indeed fortunate in sending a delegation to San Francisco which will be headed by a man of the character, experience and capacity of the present Prime Minister. I do not believe that any leader of any opposition group in this house would care to disagree with me in that. If ever a nation and if ever we as individual members of this House of Commons had an opportunity to contribute something of a worthwhile nature to the cause of world peace then surely that moment is now. In sending a delegation to San Francisco, headed by a man whose friendship with the United States and with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations is such that it will give him a position of great influence, we are doing something that I think will pay large dividends not only to Canada but to the cause of peace. I am extremely grateful that Providence has placed us in that position and given us that leadership.


Mr. GASPARD FAUTEUX (St. Mary) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as has already been announced, in a few weeks there will be held in San Francisco a conference where representatives of great powers, who have brought about the victory which we hope will soon come, will become the architects whose task it will be to prepare plans and specifications and who will have to give us to-morrow that better world which has been promised for
quite a long time. Only a few years ago, when the Germans overran Europe and conquered France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and the Baltic States, the leaders of those great nations succeeded in marshalling the military strength and in organizing the production of their countries in a way that enabled us to withstand the onslaught of a seemingly invulnerable enemy and reconquer the countries we had lost. Those same leaders will soon meet in San Francisco in order to work out, as I said a moment ago, plans and specifications that will ensure us, as we hope, a better world to live in after the war.
It is obvious that the citizens of European countries, which have been overrun twice within a period of twenty years, that those families who have lost fathers or mothers, sons or daughters, not to mention their worldly possessions, their farms, trades and industries, will turn their thoughts and cast their eyes in the direction of San Francisco in the hope that from that conference will emerge a formula of peace and future happiness.
The conference will hear various proposals in connection with the establishment of an international organization having the following aims:
(1)	To maintain international peace and security; and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and the suppression ef acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means adjustment or settlement of international disputes which may lead to a breach of the peace;
(2)	To develop friendly relations among nations and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
(3)	To achieve international cooperation in the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems; and
(4)	To afford a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the achievement of these common ends.
I repeat the third paragraph:
To achieve international cooperation in the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems.
Mr. Chairman, at the outbreak of war, one thing has been a surprise to many and has provoked a number of questions. How is it, it was often asked, that our government or so many countries can find so much money for war purposes when, immediately before, there were no funds available to provide jobs. Overnight, war having been declared, countless billions were readily on hand for waging war. The answer was as follows: When a country is at war, people are easily incited to make sacrifices, to assume heavy tax burdens for defence and military activities. Would not
San Francisco Conference

our people or the peoples who have suffered this infernal war for five years, be willing to make the same sacrifices to maintain peace? Among the plans and specifications which the united nations conference to be held at San Francisco will consider, many will concern the best ways to ensure world peace, to prevent war among nations. Numerous measures will be investigated to establish an organization entrusted with the task of ensuring security and applying penalties on any nation guilty of aggression. Care will also be taken, unless I delude myself on the nature of the work to be undertaken in San Francisco, to organize the economical life of the various countries so that they will be satisfied without having to covet the property of their neighbours. Such a result, I believe, is feasible. The united nations, it seems to me, could ensure through their organization a sound economy for all the nations.
Everyone will admit, I think, that Canada has done wonders in controlling her economy since the beginning of the war. It is true that numerous restrictions and controls have been imposed, and that the heavy taxes which our people have had to pay have entailed sacrifices on their part.
But, on the other hand, if it has been found possible to develop our production to the point where our soldiers have been supplied with everything they needed to wage war, never before have we been so prosperous and have we seen so much money being spent.. If it is possible to so adjust the economy of a country in war time in order to attain full production, to provide employment for all our workers, to allow our farmers to achieve maximum production, then the same thing could be done in peace time if the same men who go to San Francisco, and who have so well succeeded in organizing the economy of their own country, endeavour to organize the economy of the world at large.
Indeed, not only have the countries which have united to wage war been asked to produce to the limit of their capacity, but international pools have been organized in order to provide each of the united nations with the raw materials and other supplies needed to prosecute the war.
As it had been realized that some of the united nations were short of certain products while others had surpluses, offices were set up in Washington, which are called "combined boards." in order to supply each country with the necessary foodstuffs. Those countries which had an over supply could not dispose of them without authority from the Com-

bined Food Board, at Washington, on which there were representatives of the united nations, and from Canada.
There is also an office for the control of machinery and tools and all that is needed in industry to help those countries where shortages or oversupplies exist.
Why could not such controls continue after the war in order to provide work and food and ensure the comfort of the population of the various countries? You will recall that a few years ago-and it is unthinkable that such a situation could be allowed to prevail in a civilized world-wheat growers of Western Canada did not know what to do with their grain while, on the other hand, in other countries, such as China for instance, thousands and millions of people were starving to death. Likewise, a few years ago the United States government paid bonuses to farmers to kill their hogs in order to prevent over-production while in other countries starvation was rampant.
Often enough people are asking themselves, and rightly so, especially in urban centres, in cities like the one in which I live-Montreal- what will become to-morrow of the numerous war plants where thousands and thousands of people are employed. When victory has been achieved, when we no longer need to produce tanks, aircraft, war materials, to what use will the plants be put, what will become of these workers?
The answer that comes to the mind of many is that farm implements, automobiles, radios, electric refrigerators or other appliances now indispensable in households and which at present are scarce, can be manufactured. However, a question one might also ask is: What shall we do with such goods at the end of two or three years when the people's needs have been met, if there is no export market?
A peace organization whose object would be to ensure international cooperation in the solution of international humanitarian problems in economic and social fields, or in other spheres could take action with a view to raising the standard of living of millions of people in China and in India, so that they might become purchasers for all commodities we could produce and which are to be found everywhere, even in our most humble homes, and which would be quite useful to them. To my mind, the San Francisco organization, in raising the living standard of those people, in endeavouring to improve economic and social conditions in all those countries, would accomplish efficient work for preserving world peace.
When people are unemployed, when they can find no work, and cannot earn a living, they are prone to listen to demagogues who

San Francisco Conference
expound their theories to them.. That is how Hitler took power in Germany, as Mussolini had done in Italy. In order to give their people bread and employment they had to convert their peacetime industries into war plants. After producing everything required for waging an armed conflict, they declared war, they -waged war, and they set afire not only Europe but also Asia. If I emphasize that point, it is because my constituents are still wondering, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, how it is that before war was declared there was no money for putting them to work while to-day they are required to work night and day.
My object in making these few remarks is also to plead on behalf of the people whom I represent and to whom I have stated time and again, with the leaders of Canada, of the United States and of Great Britain: If you are requested to make sacrifices for victory, if you are asked to tighten your belt so that more money may be put into the country's treasury to help win the war, if you are asked to give your sons and your daughters so that democracy and Christendom may be saved, it is because we believe that we shall destroy the nazi and fascist dictatorships and ensure a better world for you after the war.
A better world, Mr. Speaker, is not simply a world made better through the elimination of the nazis, of the fascists and of the Japanese. A better world does not simply mean victory, it means peace in victory. Peace in victory, peace in the home, peace in the country, Mr. Speaker, is brought about by employment. Such a peace is ensured in the home when heads of families can secure employment, when on their return home at night they can provide for the needs of their family. To our Canadian heads of families, our workers and farmers, it means as much work and prodtiction in peacetime as there has been during the war. We shall have peace only in so far as the leaders of Canada and the leaders of the world organize a sound economy in the various countries. I mean that people might not in peacetime destroy one another for the sake of profits, or endeavour to satisfy their ambitions by raising tariff walls to ruin their neighbours. We shall have peace in our Canadian homes and our boys shall return from Europe, in a truly better world, after having served four or five years overseas, if the leaders of the united nations can set up for after the war the world they have promised, and if they can transform a war economy into a peace economy based on the same principles and the same needs.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to hear that Canada will send representatives to the San Francisco conference. Our country has played a great part in this world war; it has become known throughout the world and it has aroused universal admiration. I am sure that Canada who has shown herself to be a strong and1 great nation in order to win the war will show herself to be equally strong and great in order to win the peace and to ensure to the Canadian people peace in victory, thus fulfilling the promise of Canadian ideals and of a truly better future for the Canadian people.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution portends one of the greatest events to take place in the civilized world of this time. It is therefore astonishing that the official opposition, which has been going across Canada from one end to the other telling the people that they are prepared to take over the government of the country, even during war or immediately thereafter, and to look after the affairs of the country, has not offered one man to say a word to-day in this debate. Perhaps they have not enough leaders. They have one outside the house and one inside-[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: Two inside.


John Gordon Ross: Yes, perhaps two inside the house. Maybe it is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth. At any rate they do not seem prepared for anything at the present time, and had to turn over to the leader of the C.C.F. party the privilege of answering in the debate.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: That is a lot of bunk.


John Gordon Ross: Your party is; yes, I believe you are right.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I had reference to what you are talking about.


John Gordon Ross: When you are prepared to get up and make a speech, get up and make it. Don't sit there and interrupt.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Prime Minister made one statement yesterday and a different one to-day.


John Gordon Ross: The San Francisco conference is of great importance to Canada, as it is to all other countries. After the last war many men of good will endeavoured to set up an organization to outlaw war. As we all know, they did not altogether succeed. They partly succeeded. Although the last war was called a great world war, few countries were really harmed to any great extent
San Francisco Conference

because the fighting was in a fairly small area. One of the great nations which made an important contribution in that war and whose leader endeavoured to set up that organization let him down when he came back and would not take the place it should have taken in that organization. After the last war the great nations were not as sincere as they are to-day. I remember I had the privilege of going to Europe shortly after the last war and attending the disarmament conference held in Geneva in 1932, although not as an official delegate. Some sixty nations were represented. I spent some ten days listening to the deliberations and I was struck with the similarity of the people who were there. I could see little difference between any of the nationalities on the floor of that great conference hall. There was some little difficulty at the start of the conference when the delegates of Japan pulled out. Trouble started between Japan and China, but when the conference got under way it looked as though some real progress would be made. Things seemed to be going quite well, but finally one gentleman rose and made a fiery speech, and the conference was ended.
That conference was held in Europe in the midst of prejudices and suspicions where wars had been carried on for generation after generation, where every nation seemed to have something against some other nation. This coming conference is to be held in a new world where people are more friendly, where I think they are more advanced in their ideas. The world has had a terrible lesson in this war. Practically every country that has taken part has been devastated except our own and the United States of America.
The great powers to-day are different from the great powers of the last war. They are sincere in what they intend to do from now on. I think the world has learned the lesson it needed in order to set up an organization to outlaw war for all time. Russia is a new nation without the prejudices of the old nations of Europe. The United States is a new nation, and Great Britain has always had advanced opinions if she could only get others to do what she wished to do. Last but not least, the contribution of this new country of Canada to the conference in San Francisco will be great.
' Then there are the pan-American countries which are looking to Canada for partial leadership and to hear expounded some erf the ideas in which they believe. Canada has made a remarkable contribution in this war, a contribution recognized by everyone, especially outside Canada. She is at present the third

trading nation in the world. She has, I believe, the fourth air force in the world, and when the war is over she will have the third navy in the world. She is second in mutual aid and assistance, and she is the only country outside of the United States of America that has paid her whole way in this war and has helped her allies to get along with their own part of the war as well. For her population she has been able to supply more food, munitions, supplies, ships and the wherewithal to fight the war than any other country. Therefore she should have a prominent place in the conference at San Francisco and in the peace conference that will come later.
This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to trade as one of the subjects that will have to be discussed in the conference. He was followed by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell), who also spoke of trade as being an important issue. I was glad to hear that, because there 'have been times when my friends of that party have not taken the same view as I have in regard to trade. We all know that trade can be carried on properly only in a peaceful world. There can be no peace in the world if trade is to be directed by the nations to their own advantage by restrictions imposed at the expense of other countries. It is generally agreed now throughout the world that harmony and progress can be achieved only if trade barriers, quotas and exchange restrictions are eliminated in order that the commerce of the world may flow freely from one part to another. It is a great consolation to me as a humble individual to hear so many people speaking along this line and to know that they have finally come to see the light in regard to world trade. I have seldom made a speech in this House of Commons without advocating free trade for Canada and for the world.
History has taught us that the preparations for war start with a policy of self-sufficiency. Every time a country wants to prepare for war it starts to make itself self-sufficient in order not to have to import while the war is on. If this conference is able to steer the world to a place where nations will not be allowed to put trade barriers against each other, then it will be doing a great deal to keep us out of future wars.
On the way home from attending the disarmament conference I visited Milan. Being a foreigner and having to take a train I thought it would be best to get to the train a little ahead of time. I bought a copy of the London Daily Mail which was printed on the continent and got into a compartment designed to hold

San Francisco Conference
eight people. I started to read my newspaper. Shortly before the train pulled out, seven men came into the compartment. The train started, and these men began talking in Italian, so I could not understand anything they said. Finally I noticed particularly one man across from me. He spoke to the man next to me and they exchanged places; and this gentleman said to me in very good English, "You are an American?" I said, "No, I am a Canadian." "What part of Canada do you come from?" I said, "Saskatchewan." He said, "Out where the wheat grows?" I said, "Yes." "Well", he said, "that is a peculiar coincidence. These seven men who are with me here in the car are all wheat merchants from Genoa. We have been in Milan for a conference." Then he said to me, "Don't you think we are all a little crazy?" I said, "I don't know, maybe we are; but why do you say so?" "Well," he said, "you come from a wheat country and I understand 3'ou grow wheat?" I said, "Yes." He said, "We are all wheat merchants here. We used to import from your country twenty-five million bushels of wheat through the port of Genoa. To-day we import nothing. We are unable to buy your wheat and you are unable to sell your wheat. We over here feel that you are the same as Americans." And he said, "The United States placed tariffs against our country on many of the things we used to sell them, and therefore our country placed tariffs against the thipgs which you used to sell us. Now you find yourself unable to sell any of your grain and we cannot buy any of it, and you know what our bread is like in Italy now." There is an example of the consequences of one country placing a tariff against another.
I travelled from there to England, a eountry which for eighty-five years had had free trade and had become under free trade the greatest trading nation in the world. Largely the cause of its prosperity was free trade. Great Britain exported the greatest amount of products per head of population of any country in the world. Yet she produced very few raw materials; she had to import them from all over the world, process them and then export them. She was selling to the protected countries of the world. The wage scale in England was higher than in any of the neighbouring European countries, while she had free trade and they had protection. Her social services were much greater than those of any other country in that part of the world, while she maintained much more of her own market than did any protected country in Europe at that time. She was the great carrier of the trade of other countries, receiving tremendous returns from the carrying trade of her ships, from the insurance she
placed upon cargoes, and from the financing of her trade with other countries. At that time an election had been held in England, and the Conservative party had come into power and were bringing in a tariff for the first time in eighty-five years. Their story was that England had more men unemployed than previously, that business was not as good as it had been, and they blamed these conditions on her free trade policy. But that was not the reason; for the protected countries had suffered far more from trade depression than England had, and the fact that they had ceased to trade with one another deprived England of many millions of pounds because she could not carry their imports and exports; she could not finance cargoes or get insurance on their trade.
I had the great privilege while in England of going to the House of Lords and hearing the late Viscount Snowden speak on the tariff bill. The report of his speech is in the parliamentary debates of the House of Lords, September 8, 1931 to March 24, 1932, which will be found in the library, and I would commend to every hon. member a reading of it. It is too bad that hon. members could not have heard him. He was a little man, and crippled; when he rose to speak he had to walk with the aid of two canes to the clerk's desk in the centre of the chamber and put both hands on it. He made one of the finest speeches I have ever heard. It was not interrupted by anyone. I happened to remark to a British member of parliament who was standing alongside of me at the bar of the house that I did not notice anybody interrupting Viscount Snowden. He said to me, "A man does not generally stir up a beehive"; and I guess that was the explanation. He was a great speaker; he had all his facts and figures-and they are in the report.-which absolutely prove the case for free trade so far as Great Britain is concerned. .
Canada is vitally interested in trade, and it will be more interested after this war than ever before in her history. During the war we have developed our agricultural production over fifty per cent; we have also, developed our lumbering, our mining, our fishing and our manufacturing to the point where we must have outside markets or we cannot carry on. As a matter of fact we shall be very much interested in every conference which takes place in order that during the short period after the war, when rehabilitation is taking place in other countries, we can make arrangements, if necessary giving credits, for the promotion of our trade so that this great production may be maintained and the resultant wages amongst our people kept
5S
San Francisco Conference

flowing. In this matter we cannot be represented by other parts of the British commonwealth of nations because when this war is over we shall not see eye to eye with them in trade matters. Take for instance Australia, one of the countries which the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and I had an opportunity of visiting last summer. I am afraid that Australia will be putting up tariffs instead of taking them off when this war is over. There are in every country special interests that always want tariffs and try to find good excuses for having them imposed. While I was over there I heard certain industrialists say: "We were not prepared for war with Japan, and we had to build up certain industries so as to be able to fight this war; therefore, in order to be in a position to fight another war if it ever comes, we are going to have to build, by protection, industry in this country." That is a story that has been heard in many countries for many years. In Canada we have found during this war that in order to produce for war it was better for us to lower our tariffs than to raise them. We have found that it was better for us to allow products of one kind or another to flow freely across the boundary between the United States and Canada, because thereby both countries were able to produce more, and more economically, than they could have done without that free flow of goods.
Canada is to send a delegation to San Francisco. As the member for Swift Current (Mr. Graham) said a few moments ago, we are extremely fortunate in this country in having the Prime Minister we have to head that delegation. For many years, long before the President of the United States assumed that office, the Prime Minister was a personal friend of that man, and that personal friendship has allowed Canada and the United States, the Prime Minister and the President, to sit down together time after time during this war, and indeed before it, and work out things to the great advantage of both countries.
We must send to that conference in San Francisco men from all parties, if you will, but men of good will all of them, men prepared to go there and sit down with the representatives of other nations and discuss matters for the benefit of all nations and not just for our own little needs as we see them ourselves.
We have become a great nation during this war. We have become the leader of the secondary nations and we must be ready and willing to take our place in that conference. When that time comes the Prime Minister will select the men to go with him on that delegation, and the contribution that will be
\Mr. -T. G. Ross.]
made by him and by the delegation from Canada will have an effect on the world for many -years to come.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, this house is not authorized to send representatives to the San Francisco conference, for the following reasons: In that place and time, even the Prime Minister himself (Mr. King) would not be speaking on behalf of Canada. If he does, all he says and accomplishes will be null and void. After April 17, his term as member of this house will have expired. The same thing applies to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) and every one of the hon. members of this house, including myself; our terms of office will have run out. So as to be truly representative, one needs a mandate. Neither the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition nor any member of the present parliament will be authorized to represent Canada at San Francisco, on April 25. They will represent nobody, absolutely no one. I know of certain drafters of charters who, although authorized to do so, found out after two years of study, that they had accomplished nothing. What could we expect of such a delegation to San Francisco? Neither a charter nor any valid agreements. Such a delegation will have no authority whatever to bind Canada at the conference. Let us not take any undertakings that the next parliament will never ratify. Only a new house comprising representatives of the people could discharge the right to send delegates to the conference from its newly elected members. For my part, I refuse to vote a single cent of the public funds to defray the expenses of this delegation whose powers will be nil and whose decisions will be void, because they will be exercised or taken by persons not responsible to the Canadian people.
To allow the Prime Minister and members of this parliament to represent our country at this conference would constitute the worst form of cynicism. Safeguard of democracy and of the government of the people by the people; protector of freedom, of justice and of right; defender of Christianity and minorities; battling side by side with Soviet Russia, will Canada dare delegate to San Francisco a Prime Minister ruling without a mandate over a country with no parliament? If that should happen, nothing is impossible. Once again our constitution is trampled under foot by the very man and the very government who so many times were returned to power by arguments in defence of this constitution. Liberty, justice, right and minorities have been violated and disregarded by an administration

San Francisco Conference
that declared war and imposed conscription without authority to do so, by a nation which, without a flag of its own, is struggling against the worst economic chaos, by reason of the fault of those very people wlm are asking us to allow them to go to San Francisco in order that they may approve the principle of Canadian intervention in any part of the war-torn wmrld. No, we are already so poor that we should remain at home from now on, so that we might prepare for the return of our sons and daughters whom we may soon expect. Everything commands the Prime Minister to ask His Excellency the Governor General to dissolve parliament at once. The people of Canada have lost confidence in him long ago. I need no other proof of this but the repeated defeats of his candidates during the last two years and the recent defeat of the Minister of National Defence, Mr. McNaughton. It was a disaster and the interested parties are not ignorant of the causes of this defeat.
Contempt for the truth, engagements broken and national disunion, those are the results of the unspeakable attitude of a government elected five years ago on a definite programme. Because he has given in step by step, since the mobilization act, to the Imperialists and disowned the true Canadians, the Prime Minister will have lost everything by sacrificing the friends of Canada to those who are not true Canadians. We should profit by the experience of the past. Our membership in the last league of nations has brought on us only travelling and living expenses for a useless personnel in- Geneva. The voice of Canada was not heard at the conferences of Casablanca and Crimea, nor at the other conferences. The San Francisco conference will of necessity refer to the previous discussions where we were not represented. Why should Canada be represented at that meeting where the discussions will be on questions dealt with in previous conferences where Canada was ignored? To prepare a charter, as it is said in the speech from the throne? We know what those charters are worth. For two years I listened to the most eulogious speeches in praise of the Atlantic Charter, and then we were told by the President of the United States himself that it had never existed. How all that looks like the fallacious bait of the great principles that precipitated Canada into this war. The noble and lofty aim of the Allies was then to defend Poland against the German hordes and the Russian legions. And, by some cruel reversal of events, Poland is sacrificed, divided and dismembered with the complaisance of the same people who had declared war to safeguard her integrity and her
rights. It is all very well to set up an international organization to maintain world peace and security, but only through having regard to the rights of all martyred peoples to life, justice and liberty can such an organization build something lasting.
Social injustice has been one of the ultimate causes of armed conflicts. Ever since the mobilization act was passed, economic dictatorship has been supreme in Canadian developments and politics. We are ruled by commissions which have substituted themselves to genuine government. The financial magnates, many of whom control the whole national economy, are forcing their selfish views and their will upon the Canadian people. Small businesses have a growing tendency to be overwhelmed bj' the weight of monopolies. Unbridled capitalism is what is to be most dreaded. Under cover of economic liberalism and democracy, the reign of dictatorship has been established in Canada. The unlimited powers bestowed on the government and its commissions by the mobilization act have become a source of untold abuses. As long as social injustice and hatred prevail in the world, international peace and security cannot exist. All those who have some understanding of humanity and of civilization are sincerely seeking peace in the universe.
The concluding paragraph of the preamble of the resolution before the house reads as follows:
Whereas the government of Canada has accepted the invitation to send representatives to this conference.
And the first paragraph of the resolution reads thus:
That this house endorses the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference.
That is a strange way to proceed. In their customary manner, the government accept the invitations take the engagements then ask parliament to approve everything.
Parliament was not consulted prior to the acceptance of this invitation by the government. The Prime Minister could have called the members together a few days earlier for the purpose of submitting this invitation to them. But no, the government, following their habitual course, decided to accept the invitation of their own accord. They now ask the house to approve the engagement they have taken without consulting the members. Too long has parliament been ignored. Each member represents in this house thousands of electors. We do not wish merely to be the laughing-stock of the invidious bureaucracy
San Francisco Conference

ruling over Canada these last five years. The cup is filled to the brim. I have unceasingly protested against this curtailment of the members' privileges since the declaration of war and the adoption of the mobilization act.
What has 'become of the supremacy of parliament so dear to the Prime Minister? What has happened these last few years to the privileges of the house? All that has been ignored, dilapidated even. The day is not far away when that dictatorship will be crushed under the weight of public opinion. The Canadian voters are only waiting for the chance to speak freely on general election day.
I call the attention of the house to the fourth paragraph of "the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security." I shall read that paragraph which I find at page 12 of the pamphlet embodying these proposals:
Should the Security Council consider such measures to be inadequate, it should be empowered to take such action by air, naval or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade and other operations by air, sea or land forces of members of the organization.
We realize at once the importance and the seriousness of the engagements which the delegation to San Francisco might enter into on behalf of Canada. Our air, naval and land forces would be requisitioned at any time by the future league of nations to serve anywhere in the world. And we would empower the delegates to that conference to take such actions heavy with consequences or even to discuss their advisability? I say that this should not be done before a public expression of opinion. Parliament can not and should not appoint a delegation entrusted with such powers. I refuse to believe that Canada, once the war is over, should mobilize her resources for the protection of world security. I object to the sending of a delegation of members no longer in office to that conference; it would be contrary to our constitution, to custom, and to law. With many others, I wonder if it would not be more appropriate and reasonable to restore order in our owm country, to stabilize our finances, and to prepare our youth for careers worthy of their sacrifice. In short, let us put an end to our international commitments. Let us undertake the rebuilding of our economic structure which is crumbling. Let us think first of our own, of the sons and daughter^ of Canada who will be returning to this country. They shall have the right to work and to positions worthy of their sacrifices. Up to now, the government has found twenty

billions for war purposes. We shall need as much, and maybe more for works of peace. Peace and national security for Canada should be our greatest worries. To that noble task we should devote all our energy and our resources. Let us use them for our own people and for our country. I know that my call will not be heard. At least I shall have fulfilled my duty to my country and to my people. Those who. without a mandate from the Canadian people, will go to that conference and subscribe to new commitments shall assume before history the dangerous consequences of their acts.
On motion of Mr. Stirling the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Wednesday, March 21, 1945