WAR SERVICE ELECTORS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: On Friday, March 16, an order
in council was passed relating to an amendment to the Canadian war service voting regulations of 1944. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether it is his intention to table that order in council and, at the same time, if be would elucidate what this change really involves so far as our troops overseas are concerned in the coming election.


Hon. N A McLARTY (Secretary of State):: The hon. leader of the opposition was kind enough to inform me that he was going to ask this question this afternoon, and I table herewith a copy of the order in council. In explanation I may say that the ballots prepared for war service electors are of course, blank, but each war service elector is furnished with the names of the candidates in his particular riding, together with the designation of the political party or group to which each candidate belongs.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: How is
that given to him?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The chief electoral officer has them printed following the returns from the constituencies, and in turn these are sent to the special returning officers who distribute them in accordance with the terms of the regulations, so every voter is made acquainted with the names of those running in the particular riding in which he lives. In addition, as I think hon. members will remember, special maps are being prepared indicating to the war service elector the particular riding in which he lives.


Gordon Graydon: Showing the boundaries
of the constituencies.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct. It was thought that while section 50 of the regulations provides that a ballot shall not be declared void if it clearly indicates the name of the candidate, something more might be necessary in the event of a recount, if that should be made. Remembering that the elector has before him the name "John Jones, PC," or whatever the initials may be-


Gordon Graydon: I am glad you put those initials first.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Well, the question was directed to me by the leader of the opposition; that was the reason. Inadvertently, in copying the name, the war service elector might in addition, to the name of the candidate put the appropriate initials of the political party with which the candidate was affiliated, and it was thought it would be unfair to declare a ballot invalid merely by reason of that fact. It was merely to make the position clear in that event that the order in council was passed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What instructions if any are being given to prevent identification of the ballot?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I suppose where the name of the candidate is written in that may be difficult, because handwriting varies as between one man and another. However, that is the only variation I know of from the ordinary ballot, and it was only to prevent this being used as a mark of identification that the order in council was passed.



WAR APPROPRIATION BILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I suggest to the Minister of Finance that when he brings down the resolution preceding the war appropriation bill, presumably some time next week, he might give the house details of the estimated expenditures of each department in some form similar to that in which this information has been given on previous occasions. The minister will recall that in other years the details have been laid before the house, in order that we might know what the estimated appropriations actually were for each department.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I think that would be next to impossible this year, and I have a different plan for dealing with it. We are concerned only with the expenditures for a fraction of the year, roughly about five months, and it would be just about impossible to give those details. I had proposed to deal wdth it on a different basis. When I make my speech I shall explain the reasons, and if at that time the hon. gentleman cares to renew his request we can consider it then. I thought the details would be given by the ministers of the various departments.


Gordon Graydon: I should like the minister to consider the matter in the meantime. I have not heard what his proposed plan is, and perhaps I am somewhat premature. We do not, however, wish to leave the matter without some attention.

Labour Conditions



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to answer my question of yesterday as to the Easter recess?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Not only am I in a position to answer it, but also I am in a position to ask the house if it will agree to the suggested period of adjournment. I move:
That when the house adjourn on Thursday, March 29, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 3, 1945.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the government has consistently endeavoured to keep the public fully informed about the treatment by the enemy of Canadian prisoners of war. I have made a number of statements on the subject in this house, and further information has been released to the press from time to time as received from the protecting power and from the international committee of the Red Cross at Geneva. I should like to make this further statement to-day.
In view of developments of the war in Europe, there is additional concern in the public mind as to the welfare and safety of our prisoners of war in Germany. With the successful invasion of Germany from east and west by allied armies and the bombing of German cities and communications by the allied air forces, conditions of life in Germany will continue to deteriorate. As Germany approaches closer and closer to defeat, it is inevitable that prisoners of war in Germany will feel some of the effects of the deterioration of general conditions. The provision of food supplies is bound to be uncertain, and may from time to time be inadequate.
Thanks to the supply of Red Cross food parcels, prisoners generally are reported to be in good physical condition. All reports indicate that morale is high and that the men feel more than compensated for the hardships they are undergoing by the realization that these hardships are proof that victory is in sight for allied armies.
fMr. Graydon.]
The governments of the commonwealth are kept fully informed by the Swiss government and the International Red Cross of the welfare of prisoners of war. Measures have been taken to provide for prisoners moved from the eastern front and congregated in large numbers in central Germany. Recently a special train carried food supplies from Switzerland to the area just north of Munich where some 80,000 prisoners of war from the eastern front had been congregated. Further supplies will be carried to this area by convoys of motor trucks. Negotiations are now under way for the operation of similar convoys from a port on the Baltic to distribute supplies sent via Sweden. At least one supply depot has already been set up for prisoners of war on the march.
All possible means of ensuring that supplies will continue to reach prisoners of war will be used as occasion demands.
Reliable information about the welfare of prisoners of war in Germany will be released to the public as it is received.


Mr. BENCE:: Is it the belief of the government that next of kin in this country should continue to send parcels to the addresses to which they were formerly sending them?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say, yes.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. On Tuesday last I asked him if he would table a report with respect to employment prospects in the postwar period, as a result of a survey made by his department. Has he considered the matter?


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The matter has been considered. There is no final report. As my hon. friend knows, it is a partial report. Nothing dies as quickly as figures.


Gordon Graydon: The minister should be an authority on that, after the last session.


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, that is all right. I have a vivid recollection of a statement made not long ago by the hon.\ member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: Don't remind me of that.
Housing Act-Statement


Humphrey Mitchell: He predicted last spring that there would be a hundred thousand people out of employment. As a matter of fact we had one of the tightest labour situations we have ever had in the country's history. This is a partial report; it is not complete. And may I say, from my knowledge of the matter, that it is dead before it is born, because things have changed so much.
The report dealt with firms of over 200 employees. My hon. friend must know that the largest number of people in this country are employed by firms having less than 200 employees. What I have said will give some indication of the meagreness of a partial report. It is still under way, however, and when it is completed I shall give further consideration to the request of my hon. friend.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, on the orders of the day yesterday the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked when the publications regarding housing will be ready for distribution, and also asked what was going on in regard to the government's housing policy.
All parts of the National Housing Act, except part IV which relates to home improvement and home extension loans, were proclaimed on January 18, of this year. While conditions are not altogether propitious for home building because of wartime scarcities of labour and materials, it was considered desirable that the lower interest rates and the higher percentage loans provided under the act should be made available as soon as possible for those who are able to build. Temporary limits have been placed on the value of single dwellings and apartment blocks that may be financed under the act in order to use scarce labour and materials to best advantage in supplying additional housing. In the ease of single dwellings these limits are: $6,000 for a single house with one or two bedrooms, $7,000 for a house with three bedrooms, and S8,000 for a house with four or more bedrooms.
As hon. members are aware, loans under parts I and II of the housing act are joint loans, twenty-five per cent being furnished by the government and seventy-five per cent by approved lending institutions. To date twenty-eight lending institutions-including insurance, trust and loan companies and mortgage institutions-have signed agreements with the government and 817 applications for

housing loans submitted through them have been approved by the national housing administration. An additional 256 applications have been received and are in process of being investigated. On the average about seventeen applications are being received daily.'
Part IV of the National Housing Act, relating to home improvement and home extension loans, is not being proclaimed for the time being because it is considered that the limited supplies of labour and materials which are available can be used to better advantage in the provision of additional housing than in the repair and modernization of existing houses.
I regret that the hon. member for Temiscouata has had difficulty in procuring literature about the housing act. The regulations and the act have, of course, been available for some time in both English and French and can be obtained on application, but it is recognized that explanatory material is also necessary and several booklets are now in course of preparation. I understand that the English version of the first of these booklets, which deals with loans to home owners, will be available within the next day or two, and that the French version is in type and should be printed within two weeks.
CANADIAN ARMY disturbances at drummondville and



GATINEAU MILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). In view of the responsibility of the Department of Justice for the maintenance of law and order, will the minister say what action he took in regard to the breaking of the law by a mob at Drummondville, Quebec, some weeks ago? Did he consider such action adequate to prevent a recurrence of such unlawful acts? What action has been taken in regard to the alleged beating up of three provost corps men at Gatineau Mills, Quebec, by a gang of forty or fifty men? What action has been taken against the constable at Gatineau Mills, who is alleged to have sat idly by and watched the law being broken?


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I see that question,
please?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Ask the Globe and Mail.


Gordon Graydon: That would be a lot more sensible than asking you, anyway.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You don't know anything about it.

San Francisco Conference


Thomas Vien: While I do not intend to apply too strictly the rules respecting questions asked on the orders of the day, in view of the fact that we may be here for only some days, yet where questions are not of extreme urgency-as I think this one is not-they should be placed upon the order paper. This question should certainly be placed on the order paper.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I suggest that Your Honour examine the question very carefully to see whether it does not contain statements of fact.


Thomas Vien: I notice that in paragraph 1 of the question there is a statement of fact which should not appear in a question. It reads:
In view of the responsibility of the Department of Justice for the maintenance of law and order . , .
This is a statement of fact which under our rules is not allowed to appear in a question. The question should be framed to meet the rules.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suggest that it be changed.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I should be quite willing to change it now.


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. member should change the form of his question and place it on the order paper.


Gordon Graydon: May I suggest that what Your Honour said with respect to granting some latitude is well taken. We will not have very long before the end of the session and there seems to be a disposition sometimes on the part of government to place this whole session in a strait-jacket. This is just an ordinary question that is being asked.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not an ordinary question; it is wrong.


Gordon Graydon: I cannot see any reason why it should not be answered by the Minister of Justice. More than that, I wish when a member is speaking that the rules of the house would be observed by the members of the government. Surely we ought to be able to be heard at least. It has got to the point where when anyone on the opposition side rises on any question of dispute it is difficult for him to be heard. That sort of thing should not be tolerated in a democratic assembly.


Thomas Vien: The leader of the opposition has referred to a remark I made about asking questions on the orders of the day. I think it is in the mind of every hon. member of the house that we are likely to continue for some days. Where a question is not one of
urgency then it should conform to the rules of the house and be placed on the order paper. If questions are to be permitted to be asked on the orders of the day they must be reasonable in their claims as to urgency.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Knowing that members of
the administration desire to see in advance what questions are to be asked I sent a copy of this question to the minister about midday. If we are to be denied the privilege of asking questions on the orders of the day, there will be no need to send them copies in advance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You do
not have to do it anyway.


Thomas Vien: The mere fact of sending advance notice of a question to a minister does not mean that the question may not be as much out of order as the minister replying to it. In this instance I have no doubt that the question ought to be placed on the order paper.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from March 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King to approve a resolution to send representatives to a conference of the united nations at San Francisco to prepare a charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, this house and the country have a right, I believe, to hear a definite statement of the position and the attitude which is taken by the Social Credit movement with regard to the San Francisco conference and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which are declared to be the basis of the discussions at San Francisco. May I deal first with the situation generally and then state specifically the Social Credit attitude to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and to the proposals of Bretton Woods which Dumbarton Oaks necessarily involves. Then may I set forth the Social Credit attitude to the general idea of establishing a world organization to ensure peace.
In September, 1939, parliament met in special session, the last session in the life of that parliament, to meet the peril that faced the nation because [DOT] of nazi Germany's acts of aggression which brought Great Britain into the war. On that occasion the Social Credit group in the house took an uncompromising stand against the rest of the members in the house when they urged total mobilization of Canada's resources in finance, industry and
San Francisco Conference

man-power as being essential for the total war effort that would be required to meet the grave peril we faced. At that time Canada could have given leadership in the world and it might have had a profound effect upon the subsequent trend of the war. However, the government chose to be guided by its advisers and adopted policies dictated by considerations of compromise and political expediency. Subsequent events have proved the rightness of the stand the Social Credit members took in 1939.
On this occasion parliament once again is meeting in special session, the last in the life of the present parliament, to deal with a new world situation. Once again the Social Credit members find themselves in honour and duty bound to take a stand which is likely to conflict with the government and hon. members of the other parties. Once again we find ourselves compelled to challenge the policy which this house is being asked to endorse and to warn hon. members of a new peril which faces our country, a peril far greater in some respects than we faced in 1939.
On this occasion the government is asking us to approve a policy which if made effective would, with military victory in sight, result in the loss of the fruits of that victory and of everything in defence of which Canada entered the war. The Canadian people were told that we went to war for the defence of democracy, that we were fighting for the preservation of human freedom against the threat of slavery in a totalitarian world. Since then, under the stress of war conditions, we have moved with growing rapidity toward a totalitarian state and now we are faced with the very real danger of becoming vassals of a world dictatorship to which we are required to surrender our sovereignty and with it every vestige of our constitutional democratic rights and liberties. That is the issue which is before the house, and every other issue pales into insignificance beside it.
I know some hon. members will be inclined to treat our warning with impatience, as being too fantastic to consider seriously. Hon. members will remember that they treated our proposals about conscription in the same manner. Who was right? I make a special appeal to hon. members not to be too hasty in their judgment until they have considered the facts. And the facts are very simple.
The basis of this thing we call democracy is the sovereignty of the people. Democracy, government in accordance with the will of the people, can exist only if the people have complete sovereignty to order their affairs in

accordance with their will, through their parliament, provincial legislatures and local governments.
The essential spheres of sovereignty are three: First, the country's economic institutions; second, the country's political institutions; and third, the country's armed forces which exist to protect the nation against any threat to its sovereignty. The sovereign authority of the people is effective to the extent that they exercise control over these institutions. That is to say, the more decentralized is the power of control and1 the nearer the people are to the institutions of government, the greater is the measure of democracy. Centralization of control is destructive of democracy; remote control is destructive of democracy; the weakening of sovereignty is destructive of democracy.
Strange to remark, Mr. Speaker, during the whole of the past thirty years we have witnessed in the world a wide-spread attack being made against democracy and decentralized or democratic institutions. A type of society has been spreading throughout the world which is the opposite of the democratic concept. Its basis is the centralization of power and the control of the people by a ruling group-a set of planners. We call this type of state, totalitarian, because all the power of control is centred in those operating the institutions of the state-political, economic and military. It was against the threat of having this kind of dictatorship imposed upon us that we went to war.
Now the government is asking this house to approve a policy which involves the establishment of a world organization under an executive body which would have effective control of the armed forces of all nations and could mobilize economic sanctions against any nation for the purpose of imposing its dictates. That is what the Dumbarton Oaks proposals involve which are to form the basis of the San Francisco conference. However, those proposals cannot be considered without reference to the Bretton Woods proposals, which involve a centralization of economic power on a world scale by setting up a world authority with control of the monetary policy of all nations.
It will be argued that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals specifically provide that each nation is to have its sovereignty. But what is the use of talking nonsense like that when you at once proceed to set up an organization where it is impossible for any nation to have its sovereignty?
It will be argued that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals envisage the control by each individual state of its military forces until it

San Francisco Conference
surrenders it. But there will be such mechanism set up in this whole arrangement, including Dumbarton Oaks, UNRRA, the monetary fund, the international bank and all the rest, that such pressure will be brought to bear on any nation which hesitates to surrender the control of its forces that it will be obliged to surrender those forces in order to subsist.
Thus we find that the policy that the government is asking this house to approve involves the surrender of Canada to an international authority of all effective sovereignty and the concentration of power in an alien-dominated international group over, first, our economic policy, second, through this, our political policy, and third, of the armed forces. In short the power of the proposed international authority will be absolute. Every vestige of effective democracy will be destroyed and Canada will become a vassal state under an overriding international dictatorship. The British commonwealth will be swallowed up in a federated agglomeration of servile states. The relationship of this parliament to the world authority would be that of a Canadian village council to-day to this parliament. Human freedom would be a mockery, and we would have a world totalitarian dictatorship fastened upon us until conditions became so intolerable that a universal revolt would destroy it. And, Mr. Speaker, the design of the planners of this whole set-up is that when this universal revolt occurs there will be fastened upon the people in their helplessness and uncertainty and chaotic condition another dictatorship which will be one of military power.
These words may sound extreme, but the more they are contemplated the less fantastic I think they will sound.
I cannot understand this government, which under the present Prime Minister has always professed such jealous concern for the preservation of Canadian sovereignty against any measure of control from Westminster, being so anxious to surrender every vestige of effective national sovereignty to some, as yet unspecified group, whose interests cannot by the very nature of things be identified with those of the Canadian or any other British people.
I find myself in the contemplation of this thing completely astounded, Mr. Speaker. It was hailed by the Liberals and by many other people as a great achievement when in 1926 the Balfour declaration was issued defining the British commonwealth as being composed of autonomous states, equal in status and in no way subservient or subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs. What has passed over the
world in the brief space of twenty years that makes it desirable now to destroy not only the newly acquired national status of those states but also whatsoever democratic control we enjoyed prior to the imperial conference of 1926? Anyone who finds himself at a loss for a problem to solve may dig his teeth into that one for a while.
The Social Credit movement believes that Canadians and other British peoples of the commonwealth are fighting the forces of totalitarian aggression for the preservation of their constitutional democratic rights and privileges, and for the application of those in a properly functioning post-war democratic order, free from the evils of the pre-war social system. The Social Credit movement further believes that the basis of a properly functioning democracy must be the complete national sovereignty of the people in ordering their affairs, and the greatest possible decentralization of the power of control.
One thing which has astounded me, Mr. Speaker, during the last four years is that we have never been able to find1 in our Reader's Digest or any other of the periodicals which are supposed to be progressive-products of the intelligentsia!-any evidence of a concentrated attempt to find out how to make democracy work. All we have been able to read is articles undertaking to show that democracy cannot work and that we should not try to make it work in future.
Social Crediters contend that the discovery of the machine and the highly improved technological skills of the past century have rendered it more and more possible for people to be free, and that consequently the democratic freedom of the people should be increasing rather than decreasing.
Finally, the Social Credit movement believes that the proposals for the centralization of economic control on a world scale through a world monetary authority backed by armed force of overwhelming strength and involving the centralization of political power on a world scale, which was formulated at the Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks conferences, and which is to form the basis of the forthcoming San Francisco conference, would, first, involve the surrender of every vestige of effective national sovereignty; second, destroy Canada's democratic constitution; third1, place this nation at the mercy of an alien-dominated international power; fourth, render Canadians helpless to effect a democratic reconstruction of the national economy in accordance with their wishes; and, fifth, establish an armed world dictatorship wielding absolute power.
San Francisco Conference

We are therefore utterly opposed to the establishment of any international organization which involves the surrender of an effective national sovereignty to a central authority vested with power over parliament and the legislatures of Canada and able to enforce its dictates by economic sanctions and the use of force.
But some people, I fancy, are wondering and are asking, how do you propose to have effective cooperation among the nations for the preservation of peace? Mr. Speaker, all I point to is the record of the British commonwealth and the British empire. There were those who argued in 1914 that the reason Canada participated in war by Britain's side was that she had to, and that the same was the explanation of the reason the other members of the commonwealth participated. But what shall be said of the participation of those members of the commonwealth in the present conflict since, in 1926, they had been declared equal in status to the British motherland? They cooperated freely. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has rejoiced over that and we have rejoiced with him. We cooperated freely. Why? Because we realized that there were at stake principles which to us are sacred. Are we to be told that it is impossible to get France, and Denmark, and Norway, and the South American republics, to take a similar point of view and to understand their own interests in a way similar to that in which we understood our interests, and that it is therefore impossible to get them to cooperate in time of grave peril in their own interest? To suppose such a thing, is, I submit, a reflection on the intelligence of mankind generally. So that it is not necessary to presuppose a central power with the ability to force people to do the right hing.


Mr. HANSELL:: The wrong thing, sometimes.


John Horne Blackmore: Quite so. This is the Social Credit position. There are those who argue that we do not favour an international organization or understanding to preserve the peace. That is utterly false. The thing we are opposing at this time is the method to be adopted of attaining that organization, the machinery to be set up and the technique to be followed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, do you know of a better 'ole?


John Horne Blackmore: We do.


Mr. JAQUES:: We don't know of a worse one.


John Horne Blackmore: The Social Credit
movement wrill give its full support to the establishment of a world peace organization- the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) can see what he thinks of this-under which, first, each nation retains its complete sovereignty to order its affaire in accordance with the will of the people; second, undertakes to maintain adequate armed forces-if the hon. member will just listen he will hear a lot which will be good for him. No wonder the hon. member is so hard to teach, when he is talking when he ought to be listening. May I interrupt there for a moment or two to make a comment? It is said quite freely that the reason why the league of nations broke down was that the United States was not in it and Russia was not in it and this nation and that nation were not in it. The reason the league of nations failed to stop Japan from going into Manchuria and Man-chukuo was that the whole body of people who were in the league of nations collectively did not have the military force to stop Japan. Why did not they have that military force? Will somebody explain that? And what guarantee have we that under the Dumbarton Oaks arrangement the individual members would maintain a sufficiently powerful military force?
I have given two conditions under which Social Crediters will support an international organization. I proceed.
Third, each power undertakes-here is where our programme will begin to hurt somebody- to go to the aid of any other member of the association of nations who is the victim of armed aggression. Now we undertook something similar to that, if I recall aright, under the league of nations. But when Ethiopia was in danger, and it was proposed that Canada should come to its aid by oil sanctions-what was the result?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We retreated.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. Why? To keep out of war! It sounds ludicrous to-day, does it not? What was the main reason we withdrew? Because we did not have the military strength, and all the members of the empire did not have it, and the United States along with us did not have it, and France did not have it, and we knew we could not enforce our demands.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We did not have the will to do it.


John Horne Blackmore: The reason we did not have the will was that we did not have the strength. That was all.

San Francisco Conference
I have mentioned three conditions under which Social Creditors favour an international organization. Fourth, each member undertakes to prohibit its nationals from owning or controlling any property or economic undertaking in another sovereign country. The significance of that measure for avoiding war will not be appreciated without a considerable amount of study and thought; but that is one of the most important measures, and if that stipulation is not embodied in the arrangements we make, all our attempts at attaining international peace will be futile.
Fifth: Each nation undertakes not to export goods to any other nation, except in payment for imports from that nation, without the consent of that nation's government. That sounds as though it were going to touch somebody's pocket; consequently that stipulation will not be very acceptable. But the embodiment of the last two undertakings will go further towards producing a peaceful condition in this world than all the achievements of several San Francisco conferences.
Finally: Each state undertakes to receive payment in goods and services for any debt owing to its nationals. Do you need a Dumbarton Oaks, with an international police force, to enforce these regulations? All you need is good neighbourly sincere faith and honesty in approaching facts as they are in the world.
By requiring that each nation should, first: prohibit its nationals from owning property in another state; second, refrain from exporting goods into another country against its government's will, and, third, agree to accept goods and services in payment of any debt, Social Crediters provide for the removal, or at least the partial removal, of the main cause of war.
Is there any provision for any one of these stipulations in Dumbarton Oaks, or in Bretton Woods, or in any of the other conferences which have been held? Not a sign of it! The main cause of war is economic. That has been mentioned by half a dozen venturesome souls in this debate already. Fact-facing individuals who are honest and sincere acknowledge that the main cause of war is economic. Economic in what way? In the ways I have indicated.
Here is the general situation. Each nation in the world is in danger constantly of having an adverse trade balance. That is number one. Each nation in the world is in danger of falling into unpayable debt. All members of the house recognize that truth with respect to Canada. Each nation in the world faces the danger of being unable to obtain the goods it
needs on which to live; this, either because it cannot produce enough goods to pay for the goods it needs, or because it cannot get other nations to accept the goods which it can produce to trade for its needs.
There is the situation, and I submit that the very first thing that statesmen of the world must do, the first thing that members of this house must do, if they really, sincerely and honestly intend to remove the cause of war and produce in this world a state of freedom from war, is to grapple these problems head on, to put their teeth into them and to stay with them until they find the solution. And the solution is not to be found in any of the vapourings we have heard in this house up to the present time, with the exception of a little hint here and there in the speeches of this person or that person. There has not been a hint of it in the Prime Minister's speech, not a hint in the speeches of most members who have risen and with enthusiasm supported him. There was not even an indication that they understood that the problem was there.
I wish to point out to the members of the house that neither Bretton Woods nor Dumbarton Oaks recognized this fundamental difficulty nor prescribed any means of overcoming it. This fact casts suspicion upon the whole method of procedure being followed by the united nations and makes any fact-facing individual of sincerity and honesty ask himself this question: Do the experts not understand the real cause of war? Do the men who were at Dumbarton Oaks not understand the real cause of war? Why, it seems hardly possible. If they know anything at all about economics they must know that. Well then, if they understand the real cause of war and are not regarding it, then are they merely deluding the people, or, worse still, are they craftily striving to attain some selfish ulterior objectives?
Social Crediters doubt these men and suspect foul play. Social Crediters have what they believe to be overwhelming evidence to show that there is operating in the world to-day a gang of men who can be classified as international financiers. These men engineered the first great war with its cost of millions of human lives. They engineered the peace at the close of the last war and they engineered this war with a definite objective to be attained. They are responsible for the colossal loss of life and property that has been endured by the world in this conflict, and they are seeking through the peace treaty conferences to attain the objective for which they engineered the war.
San Francisco Conference

What are their aims? It has been possible to trace their aims through confidential documents, confidential statements hidden away here and there from the beginning, from some months before the last war right up to the present time. The objective they] intend' to achieve is an international dictatorship of finance so that they will be able to have themselves or their particular pets appointed to the governing positions, and will be able to wave the wands that will force nations to bow. And the methods they propose to use are debt, taxation and centralization of power. Any member who sat in this house and who has worried about the rapidly mounting debt in Canada, as everyone has, will have plenty of evidence that these men have been attaining their objective quite effectively ini this country.
To Social Crediters both Dumbarton Oaks and Brett on Woods are steps along the way to the attainment of the objective these international financiers have set themselves; and virtually every piece of mechanism included in those proposals indicates that it was designed to be part of a scaffolding for the erection of the structure which is ultimately desired. Dumbarton Oaks, through the indirect use of Bretton Woods, is definitely designed to gain control of the credit and finance of every nation. Of course it is still in its infancy; you do not see the huge claws which the tiger will later grow; you do not see the powerful teeth that by and by will become evident. But just imagine what it will grow into 1 Dumbarton Oaks is designed to cause every nation to surrender its power.
Just to test this for a moment or two let me talk to my C.C.F. friends, for whom I have *much respect because I believe they are honestly trying to find a way out of the difficulty, and let me address these words also to the Prime Minister. If suddenly the. world should become a British empire, a British commonwealth, would they favour the establishment of a Dumbarton Oaks for the British commonwealth? No, they would not. They would fear a threat to Canadian freedom. Then why not work for the British commonwealth, instead of for the destruction of the British commonwealth? I doubt that ten per cent of the members of this house would support a Dumbarton Oaks for the British empire; and the mere fact that they would not support that should warn them against the dangers of supporting a Dumbarton Oaks in which power might be placed in the hands of peoples ill informed and numerous, strange and utterly incomprehensible to us. I wonder if the members of the C.C.F. or the Prime Minister or the Liberal party would favour the establish-

ment of a Bretton Woods scheme in the British commonwealth. They would not, for one moment. They would sense a threat to Canadian liberty. Then why build up one in which China's millions, India's millions, Java's millions, the Japs and the Russians will be able to out-vote us by ten to one?
The organization envisaged by Dumbarton Oaks is somewhat similar to that which obtains in the United States; I believe that is what the Dumbarton schemers are planning. Has that organization removed poverty or insecurity in the United States? Has it enabled that country to distribute its goods among its own people and give them the good things industry in that country should enable them to enjoy? Not at all. Then what guarantee have we that Dumbarton Oaks will do for the world what a similar organization could not do for the United States? That is an important matter.	*
During the course of a speech which I took the liberty of delivering in this house on November 27 last, as appears at page 6630 of Hansard, I quoted from an article by Paul Einzig in the London Daily Express of August 10, 1944, in which he characterized the Bretton Woods proposals as a "menace." He concluded his article with these portentous words:
The return of the gold standard under a cloud of obscurity must be prevented if this generation and the next are to enjoy the hard-earned fruits of victory.
What does that mean? It means that everything the men are fighting for will be lost if this Bretton Woods project succeeds.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it will be a good thing if every member of this house does a great deal of very serious thinking about these two proposals before making up his mind as to the attitude to be taken by our delegation to San Francisco.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the establishment of a general international organization at the present time, before the war ends and the peace is signed, is a very wise move. The new world organization to prevent future wars should not be confused in any way with the peace conference. At the peace conference there may be conflicts of interest which would have far-reaching effects on the creation of the proposed international organization, and which would render its acceptance by some of the united nations difficult if not impossible. To-day there can be no doubt as to the acceptance of the principle

San Francisco Conference
of collective security by the united nations. The world sees more clearly than ever the formidable disaster that another great war would bring upon humanity. Because of aviation the world has shrunk to the point that no two places in the world are further apart than thirty-six hours' flying time. During the days of President Monroe it was said that the Atlantic ocean could not be argued away. This wras still true at the beginning of this war, but it is no longer true to-day. Even the Pacific ocean has been argued away; and if the American marines had not overwhelmed the Japanese forces, although terribly handicapped at the start; if success had been the lot of the Japs instead of the Americans, in whose hands would the western coast of Canada be to-day? During the last war planes were used mainly for purposes of reconnaissance, and I do not think they were ever seen in the sky-a hundred at a time. To-day they are counted by the tens of thousands. They can wipe out a city with a population of one hundred thousand in less than an hour. What will the situation be twenty-five years from now if armaments are allowed to be built ad libitum by individual nations? Even the imagination of Jules Verne would be short of the truth.
Before the days of aviation Canada was considered to be in a remote corner of the world. To-day we are at the crossroads of the world. Landing bases in our territory would be absolutely necessary to any aggressor nation which, as everyone knows, would not hesitate to invade our land. We have one of the richest countries in the world, especially in minerals. These riches happen to be located principally in sections of Canada which are hardly occupied to-day. We must not forget that the underlying cause of war is possession of the so-called vital spaces. The Germans, the Italians and the Japanese not only said this, but wrote it without any prudency. It can be found on fifty different pages of Mein Kampj. Fascism has disciples even among the united nations. Claude Farrere, a well known academician, who wrote over fifty books which were published by the ten thousand copies, has written something on the subject which I cannot refrain from quoting, for it proves my point:
.	.	. Japan is a country choking in its
archipelago; she cannot live on agriculture and fisheries as she did 200 years ago. In virtue of which racial exception, could it be said that she cannot seek, out of its borders, iron, coal, fuel, zinc, lead and gold, that she has not got at home and which are essential to her population which is increasing by fifteen millions every ten years. There is no doubt that a
hundred million Japanese have the right to live. So much so because they represent an intellectual and moral elite in humanity.
It can be seen, Mr. Speaker, that all men have not the same idea of what constitutes an intellectual and moral elite. But let us not make a mistake about fascism; this doctrine is going around the world and if it is not trampled down through an international organization we Canadians, on account of our richness and location, are going to be one of the main targets of aggression. Our great mineral resources of the northwest are not far from Japan.
Have we thought enough of the fact that two of the great nations, who were our allies against the central powers in the last war, and who joined in the organization of the league of nations, are or were with our enemies in this	war-Italy	and Japan? Rumania,
another of our allies which was a friendly country at the start of this war, was dragged to the axis after the fall of France. What happened before may happen again.
True it is that the league of nations, as it was, did not and could not stop the war; but true it is that this war is being won to-day by the union of nations, who, had they been all members of the league, could have stopped all acts of aggression of Japan against China, of Italy against Ethiopia and Montenegro, Germany's invasion of the Ruhr, the Anschluss and the invasion of Czechoslovakia. True it is that one-thousandth part of the money spent by the allies in the conduct of this war would have been sufficient to pay for an international army capable of enforcing any reasonable decisions arrived at by the council of the league.
I have read somewhere that Woodrow Wilson, when touring his country to get his compatriots to accept the treaty and the league, said something like this:
If the United States do not join the league and do not ratify the treaty, as sure as I am here, we shall have another world war within twenty-five years.
The substance of this quotation is correct even if the words are not exact; but let me quote verbatim what this great man said immediately before he toured the country:
I know that I am at the end of my tether, but the trip is necessary to save the treaty. I am willing to make whatever personal sacrifice is required. If the treaty should be defeated, God only knows what would happen to the world. In the presence of the great tragedy now facing the -world, no decent man can count his own personal fortunes in the reckoning. I would gladly give up my life to save the treaty.
San Francisco Conjerence

At Pueblo, Colorado, he said:
What of our pledges to the men that lie dead in Prance? We said that they went over there not to prove the prowess of America or her readiness for another war, but to see to it that there never was such a war again. It always seems to make it difficult for me to say anything, (my fellow citizens) when I think of my clients in this case. My clients are the children. My clients are the next generation. They do not know what promises and bonds I undertook when I ordered the armies of the United States to the soil of France; but I know, and I intend to redeem my pledges to the children. They shall not be sent upon a siimlar errand.
If the league had been accepted by the United States senate, covenants could have been acted upon when circumstances required; the league's prestige to-day would make her the unquestioned arbiter of world conflicts. What a tragedy that France, who accepted the guarantee of the league, would have been so terribly humiliated and that the United States, whose great president engineered the league, would have it rejected. Thirty years later the United States have to fight another global war, not only to save liberty in the world but to protect their own territory.
In 1923, at the convention of the Canadian Bar Association in Montreal, it was my privilege to hear two great statesmen:	Hon.
Charles E. Hughes, then secretary of state for the United States, who spoke on "The pathway of peace" and the Right Hon. the Earl of Birkenhead, who spoke on "international law as the great war has left it". Both speeches are reported verbatim in volume 8, 1923, proceedings of the Canadian Bar Association. Let me quote three short passages of Hon. Charles E. Hughes which express his doubt as to the possibility of outlawing of war:
Nineteen centuries of Christian faith, with its evangel of peace on earth and good will to men, with its sweet reasonableness and constant appeals through myriad activities to man's highest hopes, have erected no effective barrier to war.
And again:
We may gain something in our quest for peace if we recognize at once that war is not an abnormality.
And again:
Great powers agreeing among themselves may indeed hold small powers in check. But who will hold great powers in check when great powers disagree?
Hon. Charles Hughes may well be taken as the prototype of unbelievers in international organization, security councils and even international courts of justice. One of his main reasons seems to be that national sense of injury in democracies whipped by demagogues, would nullify the sense of justice. As an ex-

ample he quotes the Webster-Ashburton treaty which, inter alia, fixed our frontiers between the state of Maine, Quebec and New Brunswick. Daniel Webster, says Mr. Hughes, was accused of sacrificing twelve important points to the British, while Lord Palmerston asserted that Lord Ashburton had capitulated through incompetence and weakness. Mr. Hughes thinks the treaty was fair. I have no doubt he does; if the case had been decided by an international court of justice I believe the result might have been different, but I am sure one of the two parties at least would have been satisfied. Further on Mr. Hughes says:
The discussion of international agreements naturally and properly engage the attention of the public press, but that also not only gives opportunity for reasonable criticisms, but for the pseudopatriots to seize a point of vantage against the government they desire to attack.
Mr. Hughes however did not believe in what we call to-day power politics, which is nothing else but force. He states further:
The principle, each nation for itself to the full extent of its power, is the principle of war, not of peace. Let it be recognized that force is the inevitable resort of unrestrained selfishness; that peace is to be reconciled with national aims, only as an enlightened self-interest permits the reasonable restraint that is consistent with the fair opportunity of others.
Surety, Mr. Speaker, one would not have to enlarge upon those principles to find room for an international organization. It is evident that the school of thought that opposed the league of nations in the early twenties 'has been enlightened by events which accumulated between 1923 and this war. It is evident that to-day the "pros" have an enormous majority in the United States and that the isolationists, should they show their heads, will have to do so in a flanking way only.
The day after Mr. Hughes expressed his views, Lord Birkenhead spoke on "International law as the great war has left it." This noble lord, as you know, was a very eloquent orator. He has a great sense of humour. Taking Grotius, who died in 1645, as the father of international law, he had him defining it as follows:
International law can never become a real law, unless and until there is formed a concourse of nations able to agree upon that which shall be law; resolved to enforce it upon recalcitrant members; and armed by mutual agreement with material force necessary to restrain and coerce those members of the international family who disobey its decrees. Such a league of nations (I think Grotius may have said to himself) is little likely to arise in this imperfect world. But some progress is possible. The moral precepts which ought as surely to guide the actions of nations as those of individuals may be so camouflaged as law (though I hardly

San Francisco Conference
think lie used the word), that in time, the majority of civilized nations will tend more and more to accord to these moral precepts the actual authority of law. They will do so, I hope, because the majority in most countries will prefer to act morally rather than immorally. They will do so at any rate. I believe, because most sensible statesmen will realize that on the whole it pays to behave decently and in the manner which most moral and educated men admit to be decent.
Yes, first we have a concourse of nations able to agree upon that which shall be the law. Second, we have enforcement upon recalcitrant members whoever they may be. Third, we have a concourse of nations armed with material force necessary to coerce those who disobey its decrees. Such is the international organization going to be. It is not just likely to arise, as Grotius must have thought; it will be strong and willing.to clear the world of one of the worst scourges of humanity, a war of conquest or aggression or any war where a belligerent makes himself judex in re sua.
To those who are afraid that the united nations might abuse their power let me remind them that at present there are :two kinds of nations, aggressors and aggressees. I have no fear of decrees issued by the latter nations who have all suffered so much in order that they may live and1 let live. We all admit that there are difficulties ahead. We know that the large nations will have to pool certain of their privileges and power. We know that we shall have to act nationally with decency and with respect toward other nations. We know that we will have to help poor nations to raise their standards of living. But all of this is of the essence of charity and Christianity. We have been practising it to some extent and I think we are ready to do it again.
I would not want to take my seat without coming back to one thing said by the leader of the official opposition, the house leader of the Progressive Conservative party, with emphasis on the word "conservative".


Alfred Henry Bence: Will you read this too?


Ernest Bertrand: Yes, I will.


Alfred Henry Bence: Will you read it a little louder.


Ernest Bertrand: Yes. I quote:
In the midst of this discussion on the proposals for world security I desire to make an observation with respect to our commonwealth and empire relations as well. Nothing done by this nation at the coming conference or elsewhere must endanger our close ties with the British commonwealth and empire. These ties must be strengthened rather than relaxed in the days that lie ahead.
My hon. friend then continued with some words describing the glory and common sense of the commonwealth, with which I generally agree. I do not want to be quoted as being against the British empire, which occupies an important place in the world, but I must say that we have to think in Canadian terms when we discuss problems of such wide implications as those that are to be discussed in San Francisco. The idea that struck me when I heard the hon. member was that the reverse to his proposition should also be true, that is, that nothing done by the British empire at the coming conference or elsewhere must endanger our relations with the nations of the world with which we are at peace, and we must not be drawn into any conflict where we would not have an immediate interest.
Let us hope that nothing of the kind will happen, because our delegates, as well as those of the imperial government, are going to San Francisco in a spirit of justice for all and privilege for none.
In so far as the Liberals are concerned we are satisfied that our worthy Prime Minister, who has directed the affairs of this realm during this terrible war, is well able to take care of any situation which might arise.
Four of our Quebec colleagues who have decided to call themselves independents and whose ideas in this house are well known so fas as the war effort is concerned are taking an adverse position with regard to this resolution. If there is one group of members who should be in favour of creating an organization to settle disputes and prevent wars, it is that group. If they are against war they should be in favour of an organization to prevent it. The class of people to whom these gentlemen are appealing have only one definite article in their programme-the separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada. That is a programme which would bring immediate civil war if Quebec tried to enforce it. The disastrous war that secession brought to the United States would undoubtedly be our lot. So we have a group against all participation in this war although they would sell, and at very profitable prices, our agricultural and industrial products to England. This group is against an organization to prevent war and at the same time it is trying to lead its own province toward a war of secession.
Every possible argument is employed by these gentlem'en to arrive at their ends. Religion and all possible racial issues are invoked. Recently in the legislature of Quebec we heard a member of this group go so far as to slander his own race with false and odious assertions. They are talking about Poland and they say,
San Francisco Conference

"Why, having gone into a war to defend Poland against Hitler, do we now let Stalin take one-third of her territory?"
I am not a communist but I like to see the facts set right. We went to war not only to defend Poland but to save our own skins and the skins of twenty-four other nations. As to Poland, let us put the facts properly. Poland was revived as an independent nation in 1919. She had been partitioned almost two centuries before. Between Russia and Poland are vast plains occupied by Russians and Poles, and one hardly knows whether he is in Russia or in Poland. The Curzon line was drawn where it seemed that the Poles were in larger numbers on the west side, and the Russians or Ukrainians in larger numbers on the east side. When Russia was hopelessly weak, in the days after the revolution, the Poles pushed their frontier far to the east. This is w'hat Stalin wants to correct to-day. If it had not been for the Russian army, Poland would have fallen back into slavery as it was before 1919. The united nations want to extend the Polish frontiers to the Baltic sea, so that Poland will be nationally in a better situation than before.
A great argument is made out of the fact that the right of veto to apply penalties is given to any of the five permanent members against whom penalties would be applied. This request is assigned as coming from Marshal Stalin. I am not surprised at this request, Mr. Speaker. Stalin is surely informed of all that is written against the Soviets in a certain portion of the newspapers of his own allies. He would not be true to his own country if he did not guard against any possible aggression should these anti-soviet elements take control of governments. I recognize that this right of veto is not theoretically correct, but it is not a reason to discard the whole organization on this sole point.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the immense majority of the people in Quebec are in, favour of establishing an international organization which, while it might not at the start be perfect, could become nearly perfect as the years go by. I am one of those who do not doubt humanity.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with the concluding words uttered by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) all of us are in accord. But he made certain statements in regard to Canada's attitude with respect to the commonwealth, and, if I understood him correctly, pleaded in part for a continuation on the part of Canada of adherence to a policy of no commitments in the future, with which I do not agree, and which I shall discuss later ini the course of my remarks. As I listened to his summary of the philosophy of

international law from the time of Grotius, I felt that he too in his remarks displayed a defeatist attitude towards this proposed international organization, but for a different reason from that advanced by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who preceded him.
If I understood the hon. member for Lethbridge aright, what he objects to is that any nation should in any way subordinate its national sovereignty. Personally I see no subordination, no surrender of sovereignty, when a nation undertakes through constitutional processes to do that which will assure its political or economic security. No man ever lost his personal sovereignty by submission to the courts of the land. One of the important attributes of this new international organization will be a court of justice with power to carry into effect the dictates and the decrees that it makes. While I do not regard what we are being asked to do as an abdication or surrender of our sovereignty, I say that even if it should be that, it ought to be done for the assertion of the doctrine of national sovereignty throughout the ages has spelt recurrent wars. I hope that the present world court will be continued and that the constitution of the Permanent Court of International Justice will be continued in force with such modifications as may be desirable. As a witness in support of that stand I call the gentleman who was referred to by the Minister of Fisheries as one of the great constitutional experts of our time, the Hon. Charles Evans Hughes, who along with forty or more outstanding lawyers has advocated its continuance. Now, as to the resolution itself, I cannot conceive of anything less than unanimous support of the resolution on the part of all Canadians who believe that war ought to be outlawed and that aggression by any nation or nations anywhere in the world is aggression against this and eveiy other nation. I cannot conceive of anyone opposing this resolution who believes that the pacific settlement of disputes, regardless of the power and of the greatness of the nations involved should be made under rule of law. I believe as a concomitant that Canada and all peace-loving nations must here and now dedicate themselves to contributing their shares to prevent aggression regardless of where that aggression may take place provided that the security council so determines and after full national conformity to the provisions of the proposal.
If I understood the Minister of Fisheries today he was starting to whittle and pare down Canada's rights and her responsibilities, to go anywhere in the world to punish aggression if the security council so directs.

San Francisco Conference
I am glad to see the type of delegation that is going to San Francisco. This is no time for partisanship, though there has been some little of it displayed .in this debate.-but far less, I would point out, than in 1919 when in this House of Commons Sir Robert Borden endeavoured to abolish war by securing Canada's support of the peace treaty. During the last few days the press of this nation and of the United States has indicated that a distinguished Canadian may be chairman of the San Francisco conference, the greatest world constitutional convention that will ever have been assembled. That course, if followed, will be commended by all Canadians, irrespective of party, as a tribute to Canada and her contribution in this as in the last war.
The delegation is not as non-partisan as I believe it should be. The President of the United States chose a non-partisan delegation to Bretton Woods. He is going to do the same for the San Francisco conference. He has chosen a great Republican, Senator Van-denberg, who is a member of a constitutional body, and he has also chosen Commander Stassen, who has no official position to-day other than that there is a possibility of his being a presidential candidate in the next election. He has no other claim but service to his country.
I say to the Prime Minister without partisanship that Canada has a right to demand that not only the Prime Minister but the two national party leaders in this country shall be chosen as delegates to the San Francisco conference, so that the potential leader of this country after the war, whoever he may be, will be represented; because the conference will not only lay the foundation to control war but through its economic council will deal with social, economic and humanitarian problems, such as the levelling of artificial trade restrictions, the maintenance of decent minimum standards of wages, hours and working conditions, and in the larger economic sense, the allocation of the natural resources of the world, of markets, and the controlling and curbing of irresponsible competition anywhere in the world. Surely the importance of these matters demand that the choice be dictated by a desire to serve Canada after this war and to give each of these national leaders an opportunity to contribute -his part to the welfare of Canada and the empire and the world after the war.
I find that in the personnel of the British delegation there are four Conservatives, three Labour party men, and two Liberals, but at least four of these men, led by Mr. Eden and Mr. Attlee, are veterans of the last war. I ask the Prime Minister to do one thing: to make his choice from his own cabinet-he has there 32283-11
several distinguished men who served in the last war-or from some of the private members, distinguished and able, and include one or more of them as members of this delegation, so that Canada will be represented by men who served when service meant so much to this land. It is an open secret of whom the delegation may consist, and that open secret reveals that among those to be chosen, there will not be a member of the generation of 1914-18 or one of the veterans of the present war whose contribution means so much to this country. We must forget partisanship in this regard. When the peace conference comes let us not make the mistake we did after the last war, of choosing the delegates on the basis of their being government supporters. I hope and trust that Canadians regardless of party will demand that representation of the common men and women in this land, and of those who served in the armed forces, shall come from all parts of the house, to the end that there may be unity in these affairs regardless of party.
I wish to refer to two or three matters in connection with the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. I am not going to deal with the powers of the security council, but I wish to refer in particular to some statements which were made by the Prime Minister, because I believe that Canada as well as the commonwealth as a whole has the right to know what these vague expressions actually mean.
The Dumbarton Oaks proposals represent the aim and the purpose and the idealism of mankind to achieve international good will and peace. They require a world opinion; they, require a Canadian opinion, mobilized to assure peace. I am not a defeatist. I believe we have learned that the old days of insistence on sovereignties are past and that men are on their way to a new goal. These proposals may not take us there but they take us part of the way. The world to-day is in the position of a man -who has fallen into a deep well where the water is over his head and his only hope of escape is a ladder four or five feet in length. It will not take him out of the well, but he will use it in the effort to avoid disaster. He can see hope for the future; he can see the light; he may never achieve it, but he has hope of survival and he has used the facilities at hand. This charter and these proposals represent the result of consultation and compromise. They demand the setting up of a juridical international order. But I repeat what I said a while ago, that that international order, though set up, can never be secured by those who believe in partial measures, in Canada going part of the way; it can only be secured when we, in common with other nations

San Francisco Conference

assuming responsibilities, are prepared to go as far as the security council determines we shall go.
Dumbarton Oaks, as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) has said, really sets up a new league of nations. It has borrowed bricks from the structure of the old league and used them in the structure of the new. It has discarded many of the faulty ones; it has preserved the good. It adopts the council and gives it power; and it obligates nations that are members of that assembly to prevent and punish aggression anywhere in the world. It accepts the assembly and the world court. The Minister of Fisheries appeared to be under the impression that a nation like Canada should, by its own course and determination, set the limits of its responsibility. A similar attitude destroyed the league of nations. Nation after nation, little and big, accepted position and power, but they did not want responsibility for themselves; if force had to be exercised that was for the other nation.
I come now to this matter of Canada's responsibility. I had some doubt as I listened to the Prime Minister and as I read his speech, and I am more doubtful now, after listening to the Minister of Fisheries, just what Canada's position is with regard to this vital matter. On December 12 the New York Times advised that Canada had submitted to Great Britain and the United States an amendment to the Dumbarton Oaks plan to increase the authority of the "middle powers" like Canada and the Netherlands, without reducing the. effectiveness of the league or flouting the authority of the big powers. The Canadian amendment proposed that the non-permanent seats on the security council be allocated to those nations that had the will and the power to place a high minimum of force at the disposal of the security council. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said the other daj' that he had discussed proposals requiring amendment with the President of the United States. Is there any move on the part of Canada to ask for a permanent seat on the security board as a "middle power" based on a high minimum of force to be contributed 'by Canada? The view in the United States, in part, is that Canada asks for a position on that security council as an autonomous nation prepared to go a long way in supplying force as against aggression. It looks like trouble ahead if nations are to be reshuffled into categories of greater, middle or lesser powers.	,
Our attiude during the war has been that we have developed into one of the larger of the smaller nations and will become the leader among the smaller nations. That has been the 
declaration over and over again. Will Canada become a leader among any nations if the policy she adopts is not to allow any of her man-power to. be sent beyond the confines of the dominion without parliamentary sanction after the first agreement has been adopted by parliament? In other words, unless provision is made for each nation to enter into agreements as to the extent of the contribution that it will make to the central organization? Are we in Canada not only going to be asked to approve what is decided in San Francisco and what agreements we may enter into with the security council, but also from time to time, as difficulties arise in other .parts of the world, to be required in parliament to affirm the right of armed forces to go beyond the confines of Canada ? If so, we are building on a foundation that will destroy this security council in advance. Will not Canada's position, if I have outlined it correctly, translate all the difficulties we have had in this country during this war into the period of peace? For one cause of great friction between Canada and the United Stated has been the undoubted reaction in that country unfavourable to Canada's policy that until recently denied the compulsory use of her man-power beyond the territorial limits of the dominion. Are we going to carry that on? Let us consider the position. Should the United States, as she no doubt will, undertake as a member of the council to send her men anywhere under the direction of the security council, after approval by the senate, dare Canada, desiring to hold up her end as a middle power, or as any power, do less than the United States in that regard?
I am afraid that certain words spoken by the Prime Minister the other day-they were only a few' paragraphs-introduced political considerations into what should have been a unanimous stand by Canada designed to assure the other nations of her willingness to contribute her man-power towards the ensuring of peace without qualification, and, of course, following acceptance on the part of parliament of whatever has been determined upon. Canada can take a position of leadership among the smaller nations; but Canada can never take a position of leadership among the smaller nations or any of the nations if she follows the formula that her contribution as a member of this league of united nations shall be cribbed or confined by territorial considerations or by other considerations within the dominion itself.
The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 26 of Hansard of the present session:
There is at present a good deal of obscurity about the methods by which this part of the proposals would be developed in practice.

San Francisco Conference
And' also:
Under the present proposals, members of the organization would hot 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 meifiber was ready to give of its own volition.
That was a general statement. That is applicable to all the nations. Each nation by its constitutional processes will be asked1 to determine the limit of its contribution. He went a little further, and that is where his words become obscure. He said:
The agreements might include provisions governing the circumstances in which any forces could be called upon to serve abroad.
Does that mean it is intended that they shall include any provision whereby we as a signatory and as a member of the united nations shall go before the. united nations and say, "As far as Canada is concerned we shall delimit the extent to which our forces can be used"? The Prime Minister also said:
There is nothing anywhere in the proposals at Dumbarton Oaks that indicates that any member should designate the degree to which its forces would be used by the security council. It gives them the right to determine the number and the nature of each country's contribution but not the degree.
Are we going to incorporate a further provision whereby we in Canada shall determine not only the number of men we will supply and the nature of other support we may give, but in addition stipulate that the men we mobilize for an international force shall not be used beyond the confines of Canada? The Prime Minister finally used these words:
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.
With that statement I am not in disagreement in so far as it requires that this agreement, like any other of the kind, undeT the proposals, must bei presented to parliament. But what is serious about that statement is that, either unintentionally or designedly, page 26 of Hansard, on which the Prime Min- ' ister's remarks are reported, makes for controversy in this country at a time when there should be a united front. Surely one of the outstanding lessons we learned in the failure of the league of nations was that when the member nations of the league had the right to determine the degree of their obligation the 32283-Hi
league ended as an instrument to prevent war. With the end of war and the gradual return to peace-time conditions nations tend to lose interest in affairs beyond their own confines. I ask the Prime Minister this. While I naturally agree in every particular with the resolution before the house, did he, by those words, intend in any way to offer a sop to isolationism or the Mttle Canadianism of a minority in this country, in order to ensure support for the resolution? If he is not clear and unequivocal in the answer he makes in this regard, that statement has opened the way to the rebirth of isolationism- in Canada after this war, another step along the road that we followed too often and too long between 1910 and 1930. It is an actual repetition of what took place in Canada in 1910. On September 2 of that year Sir Robert Borden introduced a resolution which read as follows:
Resolved, that it is expedient that parliament do approve of the treaty of peace between the allied and associated powers and Germany (and the protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before parliament, and which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by the plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this house do approve of the same.
The ideas contained in those debates of 1919 have been repeated over and over again by the various speakers who have contributed to this debate. Sir Robert Borden voiced the same thoughts and same hopes; he pointed out the same difficulties that beset the way toward peace that we hear to-day. He spoke of the "extraordinary extent to which applied science and the control of mankind over the mighty forces of nature were, brought into play for the purposes of destruction." He spoke of it as a war not of armies but of nations, and then lie used these words:
... if, out of its limitless sacrifice, mankind may not gain redemption from such unendurable horrors in the future, where can we see one ray of hope to lighten the pathway that lies before the nations?
He had the same hopes, the same aspirations and the same dreams that we have to-day; and what happened? An amendment was introduced to that resolution, predicated upon the fact that in the House of Commons there were some who believed that section 10 of the peace treaty went too far for Canada; that if section 10 were carried into effect it would mean that we would be engaged in wars in various parts of the world in order to prevent aggression. Section 10 reads as follows:
The members of the league undertake to respect and observe as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all the members of.
San Francisco Conference

the league. In ease of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggress-sion, the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
Then the same old isolationism of a minority stepped in. An amendment was moved by Mr. Fielding, as follows:
That in giving such approval this house in no way assents to any impairment of the existing autonomous authority of the dominion, but declares that the question of what part, if any, the forces of Canada shall take in any war, actual or threatened, is one to be determined at all times as occasion may require by the people of Canada through their representatives in parliament.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the statement of the Prime Minister the other day is but a continuation of that amendment of 1919; and if we take such a course it will be a retrograde step for Canada and the rest of the united nations. I may add that the amendment was defeated, 102 to 70.
If those words do not carry the interpretation I have placed upon them it is because of the vague way in which they were used; for if they are capable, as I submit they are, of the interpretation I give, instead of doing her part to underwrite world security absolutely and unequivocally, Canada will underwrite it conditionally and partially. It will place Canada in the position of being not a great power but one having little greater responsibility for the preservation of world peace than the smallest member of the family of united nations. The warning of 1919 comes back in 1945. The league of nations failed because it never had the power or strength of a real league. It failed because it lacked the united responsibility of all member nations to keep the peace; because it reserved to any and,all of them the right to decide if and when and where they w'ould cooperate to assure peace. I hope the words of the Prime Minister do not mean that Canada now intends to whittle down her responsibilities toward the nations of the world and toward the preservation of world peace, in advance of the conference. If we take away from our responsibility to contribute our part everywhere in the world we add to the probability that eventual impotence will come to the security council, for other nations may well follow our lead in this regard.
Some reference was made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) to Canada's relationship to the British commonwealth, and he referred to the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon). I personally give the strongest possible support to this new organization which is to be set up, in so far as it is covered by the proposals 'that were

enunciated at Dumbarton Oaks; but not in so far as any interpretation that may be placed thereon. I emphasize the necessity of a full realization of the collective security which has been ours by reason of our membership in the commonwealth and empire. Nor can we ever forget that between 1931 and 1939 we relied upon collective security outside of the league of nations and within the empire. In spite of the setting up of an international organization, such as will be set up, I believe that we must maintain collective security within the commonwealth aS' well. It has been worth while in the past; it is worth while perpetuating. And until we, in the commonwealth, under a common allegiance, obtain a solidarity that was not ours in the matter of collective security in the days before the war, we cannot expect a broader cooperation from without.
Only to-day I see a press report of a speech delivered yesterday by Field Marshal Smuts in the union assembly of South Africa, in which he uttered identical views. He said, without in any way detracting from this great international organization:
Whatever emerges from the San Francisco conference, whatever world order may be established or whatever method of achieving security is reached, we shall not make the mistake of not looking after our own defence.
That is one thing I believe we must do, within this commonwealth. We must also lay the foundation for greater security within our commonwealth for, as I see the situation, without a strong commonwealth Canada will not be strong politically or economically.
Some say that sentiment is not held generally by the people of Canada. In spite of those who say that those of us who believe in that principle represent the by-gone days, the fact is that when in November, 1943, a Gallup poll asked a question as to whether or not the people of Canada would support an empire council such as then advocated by Mr. Curtin, in all Canada fifty-four per cent of those interviewed were in favour and only twenty-six per cent opposed. In every province there was a majority of at least nine per cent in favour of closer cooperation with the commonwealth.
Then again on March 25, 1944, another poll was taken, in which this question was asked:
Should Canada decide her own foreign policy, or should there be a united empire policy? I shall not enter into an argument in that regard to-day, but I might point out that fifty-five per cent of the people interviewed were in favour of that policy, and only thirty-nine per cent opposed it. This would indicate that in Canada to-day, without in any way subordinating our interests as a nation, our

San Francisco Conference
people realize that close relationships are necessary within the commonwealth, and that only by those close relationships can we retain, our civilization.
With much of that which has been said in the debate, all are in agreement. These proposals may need amendment; they will require changes, based upon experience, trial and error. We are leading the way toward a day when, I believe war will have been abolished- an ideal which, as the Minister of Fisheries said a short time ago, has been the aim of mankind from Grotius to our time.
In building this new world the war has done much by way of acting as a solvent of suspicions among nations. Russia, without which we can never have world peace, has emerged from her isolationism following the last war-sometimes voluntarily assumed by her and at other times under conditions imposed by the other united nations. Vague slogans will not bring peace unless they are enforced. This debate has revealed what all of us would have expected', namely unity among our people in a common sacrifice, unity based upon a realization that our destiny can be achieved only in a world of peace.
Canada has a large place to fill in the postwar period. She has the facilities and the strategic position. Without Canada's strategic position there can be no world1 peace, nor can there be without her facilities. Geography has called Canada to her destiny. We enjoy the shortest route around the world, both to the east and to the west. One great contribution we can make to the nations of the world in the building of this new world, one free from war, is to make available to the united nations the strategic airports given to us by nature. In that way we can do our part toward rendering available posts from which great international forces will be able to move in order to prevent aggression, not only within the confines of Canada but everywhere in the world where duty calls and parliament allows.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthem):: Mr. Speaker, my first words this afternoon I should like to be those of thankfulness that we have our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with us, alive and well, able to introduce this resolution asking that we send a delegation to the conference at San Francisco, and able to go there in health and strength to head the delegation from this dominion.
The suggestion made from time to time, and referred to by the last speaker, that the Prime Minister might be made chairman of that conference, is an indication of the high position he holds in the esteem of all the
outstanding statesmen of the world. As the last speaker was on his feet, and throwing doubts around the Prime Minister's willingness and ability to make the greatest possible contribution as Canada's leader and the leader of the Canadian delegation, in connection with the setting up of an organization to establish enduring peace, I was thinking that when the nations of the world quite obviously regard him as one of the most outstanding world statesmen, and when they are ready to trust him in the highest position the conference would have to offer, it is strange to find that in this parliament there should be those who would throw doubt upon him.
May I, at the outset before going further, say in all sincerity that in what I am going to say to-day I speak entirely for myself. It may be that what I say in respect of some matters will not meet the views of other members of my party.
When introducing the resolution I felt the Prime Minister was honest with the country and the world. That was one of the things I appreciated most in his speech. There was no suggestion that something was being done when in fact it was not being done. There was no suggestion that things were going to be accomplished that obviously are not going to be accomplished. It was a straightforward statement of the position in which we find ourselves in the world to-day. It was a clear-cut statement which it seems to me should be appreciated by the people of Canada. Certainly a perusal of the responsible press of this country would indicate that that straightforward statement, that clear-cut statement without pretence, is appreciated by the people of Canada.
I do not intend to follow the last speaker altogether, but one of the things in his speech that struck me was that he suggested that the attitude in the United States was unfavourable to Canada, that in his belief a poor opinion was held in the United States of Canada's contribution to the winning of this war.


John George Diefenbaker: I never made any such statement.


Walter Adam Tucker: There was the suggestion that there was an unfavourable attitude toward Canada. I took down his exact words. If there is not an attitude in favour of Canada to-day it is due to one thing more than any other; that is, the unfortunate statements of his own leader which have been reproduced all over the United States.
I cannot speak for the present state of public opinion in the United States, but I had the privilege of attending the Bretton Woods con-
San Francisco Conference

ference. At that time I took advantage of the opportunity to talk to practically all the members of the United States delegation and oher people from the United States with whom I came in contact. I can say that at that time there was no country held in higher regard by the people of the United States and the delegates there, no country whose war effort and contribution was held in higher respect than that of their Canadian neighbours. As I say, if there has been any damage done, as now confirmed by the leader of the opposition, it has been due to the unfortunate statements of his own leader.


Gordon Graydon: The reinforcement crisis.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest that there has been no reason for that attitude. As a member of the Canadian army during the last war and as a member of the Canadian army during this war I resent the implications that have been thrown upon the good name of the soldiers of Canada when it was said that there was wholesale mutiny and insubordination. I think the time will come when the leader of that party will bitterly regret those statements as I am sure many of his followers throughout the country bitterly regret them to-day.
The suggestion has been thrown out by the last speaker that Canada has no right to aspire to a permanent seat on the security council, and then in the next breath we hear the suggestion that perhaps we should not act as "Little Canadians". If the nations of the world think that Canada by her great contribution to the saving of liberty of mankind, by the great contribution made by her gallant sons in this war, has earned a permanent seat on the security council, it does not lie in the mouth of any hon. member here to suggest that she is not entitled to it.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege. That statement wTas never made or implied by me.


Walter Adam Tucker: I can only give my understanding of the hon. member's words. Apparently he did not mean what I understood him to say, and I am glad to hear that he did not.
I find it strange that there should be any opposition whatever to this resolution in regard to the sending of a delegation to attend this conference which is to try to set up an organization to guarantee enduring peace. The Canadian delegation are to endeavour to do all they can to help to set up the best possible organization and then, having done the best they can, they are to come to parliament and ask for the ratification of what has been done.
fMr. Tucker.]
As I say, it is hard for me to understand why there should be any opposition to that resolution.
I read the speech of Prime Minister Churchill to the British House of Commons and I lisened to what President Roosevelt said to congress, both reporting on the Yalta conference. The thought which was left in my mind was not that they had evolved a perfect system to guarantee world peace, not that they evolved a system; that would be fair to all nations of the world, but 1hat they had done the best possible under the circumstances which are well known to all members here. There is nothing to be gained by finding fault with people who have done the best they can; there is nothing to be gained by pretending that more was done than actually was done, and this afternoon I should like to indicate in my own humble way what I think was accomplished there and what I think the attitude of our delegation should be.
It is quite clear that the proposed peace organization will have the strength and machinery to see to it that Germany and Japan do not again menace the peace of the world. That is something worth a great deal. The second thing that the world peace organization will undoubtedly be able to do is to make sure that none of the smaller nations will be able to start a war which might endanger the peace of the world. That also is something worth while. The third thing they will accomplish is to set up a means for international cooperation among the different nations of the world whereby they wdll promote their economic well-being. That is a wonderful thing too. I shall deal with it shortly later on.
But it is not so designed as to be able entirely to prevent the outbreak of another world war. Its machinery is not so designed as to operate to prevent one of the five great nations having permanent seats on the security council from engaging in acts of aggression if it should see fit to do so. By its veto power any such nation with a permanent seat in the security council can prevent any effective action from being taken against itself by the other nations of the world in the way of preventing aggression by that particular nation.
That, of course, is unfortunate. There have been attempts in the past at victorious alliances, the joining together of victorious nations to guarantee world peace. One of the first in comparatively recent times was the Holy Alliance, following the Napoleonic wars. However, the time came when the powers that had won the war fell apart and there were further wars. So it seems to me that in regard to this particular organization we should always

San Francisco Conference
bear in mind that it does not cover that possibility of the victors falling apart. In all our plans for the future we should bear in mind that it was the confidence of the people of the peace-loving nations of the world following the last war that we had definitely outlawed war for all time that led them so to weaken themselves that the aggressor nations felt they could start a war with success. That lesson of the last war should not be forgotten by the peace-loving nations in regard to this organization.
As I mentioned, I should like to enumerate a few of the things that this organization, particularly under the direction of the economic and social council, can do to promote the economic well-being of the peoples of the world. I shall enumerate these item by item. First is the promotion of international trade, the getting together of nations to eliminate barriers to international trade. Canada has a greater interest in this than probably any other nation. Thirty per cent of our income is derived from exports to other nations. If we are to have full employment and the high standard of living which we hope to have for our people after this war we must see to it that we develop international trade in every possible wav. One way in>
which it can be developed is by international cooperation.
Another way in which the peoples of the world have at times been exploited has been by the setting up and developing of international cartels which are beyond the reach of any in dividual nation. Surely that is a field where international cooperation can be used for the good of the ordinary people of the world.
Then there is the question of the devastated countries of the world and the backward countries of the world. Bretton Woods, in setting up the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, sought to put the credit of the world behind the rebuilding of devastated areas and to raise the standard of living in the backward countries of the world. This was not only a humanitarian step but one which will benefit the world generally, including Canada, in raising their standard of living and opening up and developing other countries as effective markets for our goods.
Then there is the question of the establishment of some sort of system to settle temporary balances in international trade to take the place of the old gold standard, which more or less went out of existence at the end of the last war. I heard the honi. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) speak about that. I do not have time to-day to answer his arguments, but I would say to him that Lord Keynes, in speaking in the House of Lords before going
to the Bretton Woods conference, definitely undertook that so far as Britain was concerned anything they agreed to would not mean that Great Britain would be tied down to the gold standard again. If there was one thing on which assurance was sought and assurance was given it was that very thing, and that was the thing about which the British delegation at that conference, it seemed to me, were more concerned than any other. I am satisfied that if Lord Keynes, one of the most outstanding economists in the world to-day, is satisfied, as he has so stated, that Bretton Woods does not mean the tying down of the nations of the world to-day to the gold standard, that should be satisfactory and sufficient to the average person. So far as I am concerned, with my own limited knowledge and ability, what study I have given it indicates to me definitely that we are not tied down to the gold standard. Incidentally delegates from Australia and New Zealand were equally concerned that the gold standard should not be reimposed on the nations of the world, and they also were satisfied with the decisions of Bretton Woods in that regard.
Another way in which this organization can contribute to the well-being of mankind is in the regulation of prices of basic commodities. One of the things that have thrown the nations out of balance in times past has been that the primary producing nations from time to time have overproduced and have found that the values of their primary products have dropped as a consequence, and the result has been that unemployment has been created particularly in the more highly industrialized nations. If the nations of the world can and will get together and agree on basic price levels for basic commodities such as wheat, beef, pulp, nickel and other such primary products, the well-being of not only the primary producing nations but of the nations of the whole world will be greatly promoted. That can be done only by international action.
In regard to raising labour standards it is well known to any person who studies the question that no one nation alone can go far beyond other nations with which it is in competition in raising labour standards for fear that it would be at a disadvantage in competing for the markets of the world. Obviously this is a case for cooperation between all nations to raise labour standards generally throughout the world by cooperative action so that everybody would benefit and nobody suffer.
Much can also be done in regard to the control of disease, the control of the white slave traffic, the control of the traffic in nar-
San Francisco Conference

cotics. The more closely the nations of the world can be brought together to work for their mutual advantage, the better hope there is for the future well-being of mankind. The Prime Minister I think rightly emphasized the importance of this economic aspect of the new world organization when he said:
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.
There is another matter with which I wish to deal shortly this afternoon, and again this is a matter on which I speak only for myself and do not presume to speak for anybody else. It has been made quite plain that the great powers intend to keep control of the world security council in their own hands, with each one reserving the right of veto over any decision of that council which means the application of effective sanctions against an aggressor. It might very well be that in the future in a case where it is desired to oppose the designs of an aggressor, Canada, for example, would have no representation on that security council; and to suggest that the Canadian people or any other people can be persuaded to place their young men at the disposal of an organization on which they have no representation whatever to be sent any place in the world where the security council wants them to fight is taking an unrealistic attitude. It is all very well to speak in generalities, as the last speaker did, but you have to take into account how people react to these things. The Canadian people are not willing to have the parliament at Westminster make a decision that Canada shall enter into a war to defend the interests of the British Commonwealth anywhere in the world. We strictly reserve to ourselves the right to say that we ourselves shall decide whether we shall engage in any war. Then surely if we have no say in the decision of the security council we are not going to have our armed forces sent abroad to fight at the behest of people whom we have no control and who do not represent us in any way whatsoever. That is only common sense, and it seems to me that it is time it should be said in this house.


Mr. BROOKS:: It has been said a dozen
times.
IMr. Tucker.]	I


Walter Adam Tucker: It cannot be said too often. It is only by facing that fact, and not by blinding ourselves and refusing to look at it, that we can say what the solution must be.
There is a solution which has occurred to me. Perhaps it is not new but I have not seen the suggestion made elsewhere. If it is necessary to leave these powers in the hands of the security council for quick action against an aggressor, then it should be provided that before any nation not represented on the security council is to be expected to send its armed forces to fight in a cause which the security council has espoused, there should be a two-thirds vote of the general assembly in which every nation of the world is represented. That would not prevent the security council from acting quickly in putting great forces in opposition to an aggressor, but it would mean that other nations not represented on the council would feel that they would not be expected to be bound by the council's decision unless they so wished, until they had the chance of debating the question in the general assembly and the general assembly decided that was a proper matter for the forces of the whole world to be mobilized behind the security council. I submit that if some such step as that is made there will be some hope of getting not only the secondary powers but all the powers of the world mobilized against any possible aggressor. That mobilization will not be possible if you put the entire power in the hands of a small group of great powers and expect others to trust blindly to their decision, without giving them any chance to be consulted or to have any say in the matter. If we try to put that sort of solution into effect, it will fail again, as it failed before. No peoples are going to put their young men at the disposal of an organization outside their own country over whom they have no control and on which they are not even represented, and I submit that that fact must be faced before we can hope to mobilize all world forces against aggression instead of depending on the great powers and others who happen, to be represented on the security council.
It has been suggested by a member of the official opposition that, in calling attention to this defect and suggesting some solution, I am not so wholehearted as he is in the cause of world peace. I cannot understand that attitude. I take it for granted that all hon. members, after what we have seen of the loss of relatives, loved ones and friends in the last war and the present one who have given their lives because it has not yet been possible to outlaw war, are honestly and conscientiously trying to find a solution

San Francisco Conference
which will banish for all time that great enemy of mankind. That is why I so heartily approve the Prime Minister's statement, as reported in Hansard, at page 29:
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.
And also this:
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.
My suggestion is that no nation not a member of the security council who signed this agreement putting its armed forces at the disposal of the world security organization should be bound to put this undertaking into effect unless a majority vote of two-thirds of the nations of the world represented in the general assembly should have been passed. Surely that is the place where all the nations, secondary and those which are smaller than secondary, should have a right to go and say whether they think an aggression is actually being perpetrated and whether they feel it should be opposed; and if it is clearly an aggression, and if the security council has already decided it is an aggression and the forces of the great powers are to be put against that aggression, no doubt there will be two-thirds of the nations of the world to support their action. In that way all the nations will feel that, before their efforts are set in motion, they will have the right to go into the parliament of man to decide whether they should go into action or whether they should not.
As I have said, a great deal can be done by this world organization if proposed changes are not approved at all. The alternative, no organization at all, is so terrible that I cannot understand anyone, even if the chances were much less than they are that the organization will be able to eliminate war, not being willing to take that chance. What is the alternative suggested by those who oppose this proceeding? That is the question they should ask themselves. No matter how much we desire our views to be approved, no matter whether the Canadian delegation succeeds or not in securing some of the improvements which, in the mind of the Prime Minister, are desirable for this organization, we should adhere to it and give it all the support the Canadian people feel they should give it in the light of the final form of the organization.
The delegation from Canada will be in a very important position. It was openly recognized at Bretton Woods that Canada seeks nothing from any other nation but friendship and co-operation, that she has no designs on anybody. By her special position in the British Commonwealth she is a comrade of that great galaxy of nations: by her special friendship and position in regard to the United States she is regarded almost as a sister nation of the United States; and by virtue of our close proximity to the Soviets there was an apparent feeling of friendship on their part toward Canada. It seemed to me that whenever the Canadian delegation spoke or took any attitude it was listened to with friendship and good will beyond that accorded to almost any other nation. I am satisfied that on account of the great and decisive part the Canadian people have taken in this war, because Canada was the first country on the American continent to see the danger to the freedom of mankind, and perhaps because we stood by Britain's side in the dark days of 1940 made all the difference between victory and defeat, Canada is esteemed and admired as she has never been before. We shall have at the conference as the leader of our delegation in the person of our Prime Minister a man who is recognized as one of the world's outstanding statesmen, a man who is known for his humanitarian instincts, a man who is known to have been a lifetime worker for the common man not only in his own country but throughout the world; so that much will be expected, and I am sure much will be realized, from the work of our delegation at this great conference in San Francisco.
In conclusion, it is my humble judgment that mo matter what tributes we pay to those who suffer in our defence, no' matter how much we think of the sufferings of mankind in the last war and the present one-and I do not suppose we can begin to realize the sorrow and suffering which has been inflicted in particular upon civilians subject to the horrors of war-the greatest monument we can erect to the gallantry of the men who fought and died for freedom in the last war and the present one, will be the creation of an organization which will go as far as we can possibly go to-day in guaranteeing enduring peace.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some diffidence that I rise to take part in this debate. I con-

San Francisco Conference

sider it perhaps the most important debate that has taken place in this house since the inauguration of this parliament. For the past five years we have been engaged in fighting a world conflict. Thousands of the men and women of Canada are taking part in that conflict. We are supposed to be fighting for the preservation of liberty and the maintenance of law and order throughout the world and we find ourselves at the present time in a position where, at least on one front, the war is reaching its end.
The debate we are carrying on now, in which we have been engaged since the opening of this session, is intended to lay the groundwork for the machinery that will guide the destinies of the world in the future and achieve the objectives for which we are fighting. It is a problem that is complex. It requires a good deal of study on the part of people who are honestly interested in establishing the objectives for which we are fighting.
The matter as presented to the house is, however, very simple. A resolution is being debated in this house authorizing parliament to send a delegation to San Francisco. The job of that delegation is to bring out of the conference there a charter that will set the basic principles of the machinery that we are endeavouring to put in motion. There is nothing very complicated about that, and I do not think anyone disagrees with the resolution as presented to the house. The conference, at San Francisco, however, is merely one of the decisions arising out of conferences that have previously been held-Teheran, Yalta and others which we have heard talked about but of which we know very little. The forthcoming conference is the culmination of those that have already been held.
While this debate may seem, particularly to some people outside the house, unnecessary and long drawn out, personally I think it is one of the most important discussions that we have had since I have been in the house, particularly on the questions that we have been considering in the last few days. Going through the country as members of the house do in the recess, you will find that a large percentage of the people of Canada know very little about the subject matter we have been discussing for the past week. They know very little about the mechanics of the organization that we are trying to set up, notwithstanding the fact that that organization is designed to map the destinies of the world for many years to come and to decide whether we shall have conflict in the future or whether we shall live in a peaceful world and establish the social 
objectives for which hundreds of thousands have been dying on the battlefields of Europe and elsewhere in the past five years.
The discussion itself has been fruitful to members of the house. I know that members of this group for many months now, in our conventions, provincial and national, in our council meetings, have been discussing the implications of the subject which we are dealing with at the present time, and since coming to the house and listening to the discussion I find that there have been many things that have been clarified in my mind, so that I am able to speak with perhaps a little more conviction on the matter now than I would have been able to do two weeks ago.
The delegation that we are sending to San Francisco will in my opinion benefit by this discussion because the members of that delegation are not going to express their own opinions. They are going to express the opinions of the Dominion of Canada on the questions that will be discussed, and with respect to the machinery that will be set up, at the San Francisco conference.
At this point I would join with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) in the view they expressed that they would like to have seen direct representatives of labour attend the conference. I think that the heads or appointees of the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada should have representation at San Francisco. It would be good for them, and I believe that the parliamentary representatives going there would benefit considerably from the help which they might get from those who have guided the affairs of the labour movement in the last five years -and it was no small job. In my opinion the heads of the twro congresses I have mentioned were the generals on the home front during the period of the war. They had a very difficult job at times in selling the orders in council and the like to their members in order to keep the wheels of production moving. I believe that every- effort should be made, as was suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), to include the international labour office, its personnel and experience, somewhere in the machinery being set up, because they have been accustomed to handling these problems. I know it will be discussed there, or taken up, and I am just adding my voice to those of the two hon. members who have already made the suggestion.

San Francisco Conjerence
I have listened with a great deal of respect to the hon. members who have already discussed this matter. This afternoon the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) gave utterance to a lot of fears with respect to the machinery now being set up. I think there is some justification for his fears. He asked a question of the hon. members of this group, namely, whether we would be in favour of setting up a Dumbarton Oaks within the British commonwealth of nations. I think that question is irrelevant, for the simple reason that there is no prospect of war between the member nations of the British commonwealth of nations. The organization that we are now endeavouring to set up is designed to function among the nations of the world. Its function is to preserve peace. There is a lot of danger of war in the future unless some international machinery is set up to prevent it. The question as to whether we would favour that kind of set-up in the British commonwealth is not germane to the discussion, because there is no possibility of war within the commonwealth with interests on the outside.
In my opinion the proposed set-up is a very simple one. We propose to lay down a world court. We are endeavouring to bring into the international field the rule of law. I cannot see how anyone can disagree with it. My very simple analysis would do this: to those who fear the loss of some of our rights and privileges as a nation I say that when we establish a community the individual in that community is subservient to the law. He must obey the legal laws of society within the country and' he surrenders a lot of the things that he considers rights in that community. The same thing applies to the machinery now being set up. We are endeavouring to bring the rule of law within the international sphere. Any nation that becomes a member of the world court, the security council and the like, has to surrender its rights to handle its own affairs regardless of how they affect other nations of the world. In my opinion we are trying to do a simple thing, and the more you read this little guide that was given to us, "Proposals for the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security," the more simple it becomes. There is nothing very complicated about it. However, I should like to emphasize one point, namely, if we set up this international machinery-and I think we all agree that it should be set up-I know that so far as the members of this group are concerned' we are a hundred per cent behind the proposals. There is no equivocation or qualification or quibbling; the delegation 32283-12i
should go to that conference prepared to see that some enforcement machinery is placed behind it.
When I listened to the Prime Minister's speech I interpreted it exactly as did the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). The Prime Minister said that before this nation would be obliged to send troops overseas or abroad or make troops available to the security council and their military staffs for the purpose of enforcing this international machinery should aggression or disputes arise, it would be the prerogative of Canada, in the event of the security council calling on us to accept our proportionate share of responsibility in the military field to enforce whatever action was necessary to maintain world1 peace we could discuss the matter all over again in the house and decide whether we were going to make that contribution or not. I shall not read the Prime Minister's speech because the hon. member for Lake Centre has already done that. Personally I believe such a course is absolutely wrong. If we are going into this security council we should be prepared to make our full contribution in the military field as well as in the other fields. However, since reading and checking over this evening the proposals as contained in the document tabled by the Prime Minister, which I quoted a moment ago, I find that if one reads the Prime Minister's speech along with this document one will find that the basic proposals to be discussed at San Francisco contain very much the wording that the Prime Minister used in his speech. I am referring to section B, "Determination of threats to the peace or acts of aggression and action with respect thereto." Section 5 of that particular paragraph reads as follows:
In order that all members of the organization should contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, they should undertake to make available to the security council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements concluded among themselves, armed forces, facilities and assistance necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. Such agreement or agreements should govern the number and types of forces and the nature of the facilities and assistance to ibe provided. The special agreement or agreements should be negotiated as soon as possible and should be in each case subject to approval by the security council and to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their constitutional processes.
There are several sections of these proposals which are on exactly the same theme. If we are sincere and honest in trying to make this machinery work that is one of the things that will have to be discussed thoroughly. If we go into this organization and if we intend to enforce international rules of law with respect
San Francisco Conference

to the maintenance of peace in the future, then every country will have to make its commitments as to a standing army, navy and air force, have them trained and ready to move, and there should be no quibbling if and when they must move after a decision by the security council, because they have authority under the machinery to see that aggression is stamped1 out. I do not think there should be any quibbling on that point. If after enacting laws ini this country we left the police force out of the picture entirely and waited until some act of lawlessness was committed before a police force was organized it would take a long time to catch the criminal. I agree with the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) on the point that that has to be strengthened. I think it is the main reason why the league of nations failed after the last war, namely, that they had the right to discuss and the right to condemn and the right to do a lot of other things, but they had no enforcement machinery. To my mind this is one thing of which we should make absolutely certain at this time.
Then, in addition to strengthening the machinery in that way, I think other factors which go toward making war should be given special attention. Last night the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) made an excellent speech, and emphasized the necessity of organizing and distributing the food production of the world. I have no need to elaborate upon what he said, because he did it much better than I could have done. Then the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) stressed the question of education. To my mind that is one of the basic principles that must be handled in the future, if we are ever going to get away from war. As the hon. member for York South pointed out, while we were talking peace and while the league of nations was struggling to function, the schools of the totalitarian nations were drilling war into the minds of the younger generation, with the result that we embarked upon the debacle we have at the present time.
Unless some international machinery is set up, and unless decent principles are inculcated into the minds of the younger generation, we will never get away from wars. That is one of the basic things that should be handled, and when the discussions are held at San Francisco some machinery should be provided to meet that necessity.
The group to which I belong approaches this problem perhaps somewhat differently from some other hon. members belonging to other groups. As we see it, a definite

principle is involved. We agree with that principle, namely, the one of establishing a rule of law in international affairs. What we will have to avoid, however, is analysing this matter on the basis of leadership. On two or three occasions in the house I have heard it stated that unless the three big powers hang together there is no possibility of peace in the future, and that unless the present leaders-Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill- have unanimous agreement on all matters the world will have conflict in the future. I believe that the people of this world must be convinced of the wisdom of the organization being set up, and that they must not depend on leadership.
The span of man's life is very short. While we may be getting excellent leadership at the present time from the men I have mentioned, ten or fifteen years from now those men may not be there. Some new individuals will take over- the organization, men with entirely different ideas and they may make other uses of it. And unless we can school the peoples of the world concerning the principles for which the organization is supposed to stand, then my fear is that it may become the plaything of individuals, it will not do the job it was intended to do.
Every opportunity must be taken in every country of the world fully to publicize and have understood the principles for which this organization is being set up. And then, regardless of who may take the reins of power in any of the nations, large or small, with an informed populace the leaders cannot use the machinery for their own purposes. That is something we should have clearly in our minds.
This group is supporting the organization because of the principles for which it stands. We are not now accepting, nor have we accepted, nor will we at any other time accept the principle of fuehrership within this country. I do not think the people of Canada as a whole are supporting Dumbarton Oaks, Bretton Woods or any other machinery that may be set up because of the leadership which may be advocating those principles. The people of Canada are giving their support to the principles upon -which the organization is being built. I suggest we should publicize at every opportunity exactly what the machinery of the organization stands for.
The closed mind, prejudices of any kind) or hatred for other sections are things which can wreck any machinery which in future may be set up. If that kind of attitude is allowed to creep into any international machinery erected

San Francisco Conference
for the purpose of safeguarding the peace of the world, then that machinery is headed in a short time for shoal waters.
I am sorry the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) are not in their places at the moment. I was amazed last night to hear the hon. member for North Battleford, without any provocation whatsoever, launch an attack against the leader of this group, and against the C.C.F. in general. She did so on the assumption that during the debate he had said something that would lead her to believe that he was not wholeheartedly behind the proposals of Dumbarton Oaks. She1 made a rather pathetic spectacle of herself in what she attempted to do. She waved a copy of Hansard in her hand for a long time, saying, "He said something; it is not here; I cannot find it; I cannot put my finger upon it, but it is something I feel; it is an inference." That kind of stuff in my opinion does not make for unity.
This debate to a great extent has been carried on along non-partisan lines. In her approach to this problem of sending a delegation, the launching of an attack of that kind, by that particular person, was anything but called for. When I think back only a few short years ago, to the time of the outbreak of this war, I recall that the very same people were calling the C.C.F. a group of war-mongers, and were stating that we were backing an imperialist war. In fact, it was not until June, 1941, that they came to the conclusion that the war might be all right. They went to bed on the night of June 21 fully convinced that this was a phoney war, an imperialist war. They were not for it. When they awoke on the morning of June 22 they were for it-but they did not know it until they read the newspaper. The war was all right then; it was a good war.
While the hon. member for North Battleford could not read into the record anything that the leader of the C.C.F. group had said, I am going to read into the record something that she said in relation to one of the statements she made last night. This is what the hon. member for North Battleford had to say last night, as it is reported at page 142 of Hansard:
I wish to say openly in front of the whole house that any person to-day who is spreading even doubts and little fears about the possibility of our achieving democratic rights and so forth in this new peace and security organization which is being set up comes into the same category as those who spread defeatism in time of war.
Well, let- us see what the hon. member for North Battleford had to say in the debate on the war appropriation bill on March 24, 1941. I quote from page 1812 of Hansard where she quotes Abraham Lincoln as follows:
I have two great enemies, the southern army to the south of me and the financial institutions in the rear, and of the two the one in the rear is my greatest foe.
A little further down the hon. member said:
I think we can bring the words of Lincoln up to date by saying, "We have two great enemies. Hitler to the front of us and the financial institutions in the rear, and of the two the one in the rear is our greatest foe". That is, from the point of view of the common people, the financial institutions are at the present time our greatest foe.
That was said during the process of fighting this war. Was that spreading defeatism during the process of fighting the war? If the hon. member was speaking at that time for the common people she certainly is not speaking for the common people at this time because the institutions which she condemned as being the greatest enemy, greater than Hitler, the financial institutions of this country, are the same institutions. They have not changed any of their philosophy or any of their functions; they have a greater concentration of power to-day and offer a greater menace in the future than they had or did at that time.
The opinions of people of that calibre are not worth very much. Those who can handspring from one thing to another quickly over night without any regard for the principles involved in my opinion will have to be watched in the future.
As I said before, the members of this group have a Canadian policy. When the hon.member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke he expressed the sentiments of the entire movement in Canada. We have debated this matter in our conventions, provincial and national, and in our council meetings. What he put. on the record expressed the opinion of the entire movement across Canada. I want to make it quite clear that the hon. member for North Battleford and the hon. member for Cartier are not expressing the sentiments of the Canadian people and they are not advo-ating a programme that is drafted on the basis of the needs of the Canadian people. The C.C.F. programme, be it right or wrong, represents the sentiment of the people of this country and is based on the needs of the country. The same member took part in the debate that occurred on May 12, 1941, at which time she was asked a question by the hon.
San Francisco Conference

member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I quote from page 2731 of Hansard of that year as follows:
Mr. Martin:	Does the hon. member think
they would get a better break under Hitler?
Mrs. Nielsen:	I do not know whether they
would or not.
Never since the outbreak of this war have the membership of this group been in doubt as to where their interests lie. Had the attitude of the Canadian people at that time been that this was a phoney war, that this was not a war for the preservation of liberties and freedom; had we sat back and waited until 1941; had the United States done that and had Britain been left alone, we possibly would not have been discussing at this moment the sending of a delegation to San Francisco for the purpose of setting up an organization aimed at peace and security in the future. We might have had no parliament; we might have been under the domination of a nazi controlled world. I want to make that quite clear.
I want to make it clear also that as far as we are concerned there is no quibbling or -qualification in our support of this resolution to send this delegation to San Francisco. Any *criticism we may make is made in an effort to strengthen the organization and make sure that the goals for which we are sending this delegation to San Francisco are achieved. We 'hope that when the charter is written and ''brought back to this country Canada will be ^prepared to accept her full responsibility in the economic field, in the cultural field and in "the field of international relations. We are going to guarantee peace in the future. If an international police force is set up-and it must be set up-Canada must be ready to mobilize at any time in order to send to any part of the world her proportionate share of that police force for the purpose of maintaining law and order and to protect other nations, whether large or small. I am going to close on that note and repeat that as far as this group is concerned, we support this resolution without any qualification.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) but I am compelled to make one allusion to what he said. I appreciate to some extent his changed philosophy in regard to the war effort as compared with what it was at the outbreak of the war. I was rather shocked to hear him say to-night that he would be prepared to have Canada send a force from this country to any part of the world regardless of the voice of parliament. I think that is contradictory to
IMr. Gillis.]
the philosophy held by that particular group several years ago. That is possibly the result of growing pains and we may have to be generous toward their philosophies. They are not alone in this change. I intend to take this opportunity to direct attention to the changes that have occurred in the philosophies of other groups.
In the meantime I should like to draw the attention of the house to the spirit of reasonable compromise and the broadminded policies that were achieved by the three great leaders at the Yalta conference. These were significant of the unity of purpose and action that must guide us at San Francisco. This is to be a peace-keeping conference, not a peacemaking conference.
I think we would be within our rights to clothe the representatives of this country with authority to correct any injustices, errors and mistakes they may see in the peace-making conference. They should be able to do that for the benefit of society. It would be too much to expect that a conference of human beings would be able to organize a security organization that was perfect. We must make progress by trial and error and we must be reasonably generous toward those who have this grave responsibility. We must give them our support and, if there are some things we do not like about what has been done, we must be tolerant and show our delegation when thej' come back that we believe they did the best they could.
As I listened to this debate I could not help but think of the many different viewpoints and ideas that have been expressed in this House of Commons. We have seen how it is almost impossible to bring together the ideas of men who represent different races and religions, who read different literature and -who have different opinions and ideals, and I do not think we should expect this conference to be able to do better than we have been able to do in this House of Commons.
There is one thing we must keep in mind, they will have to face realities. They cannot deal too much with theories. Their ideas will have to be forged on the anvil of practical experience.
I feel that we in Canada are very fortunate in having as our Prime Minister fMr. Mackenzie King) a man who has led a great national party in this country for a period of twenty-five years and one who has been Prime Minister of this dominion for almost the same length of time. It is doubtful whether any other man at the San Francisco conference can. equal his experience, and there is no doubt that because of that long experience and his

San Francisco Conference
great ability he will be able to make a splendid contribution to the work of the conference. Furthermore the Prime Minister will go there as the head of a country comprising two great races, and the fact that he has been able to keep the country united while it has been making such a magnificent contribution to this war will put the Prime Minister in a very strong position at the conference.
We on this north American continent, where two nations live side by side, separated 'by no Siegfried line or Maginot line, with no forts or guns constantly pointed at each other, are able to give a most gracious example to the conference of how peace-loving peoples can get along well together when they try to do so and contribute to human welfare and well-being.
Just before the war we had a declaration from the President of the United States that he would not see the United States stand idly by should Canada be attacked, and later we had the Ogdensburg agreement, the agreement for the mutual exchange of goods, and the good neighbour policy. All these things are bound to have an influence, so that I think we can safely say that, despite the training in diplomacy of the statesmen of the older countries of the world who will be represented at the conference, this new American continent has set an example to the world that might-well be followed 'by the other nations.
I was very much pleased with the remarks that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) made in this debate when he said that world peace and world trade are inseparable. He belongs to a group that probably is suffering from growing pains and has experienced a change of philosophy because I have seen him stand in this house from time to time and defend the policy of protection. It is very encouraging to see that he has now seen the error of his ways and has made such a splendid statement-.
But as some member has said in this debate -I am not prepared to say who it was-our problems are not going t-o be solved by the volume of words uttered but by the quality of our thinking-by actions and not by words. I well remember that in my youth I had the responsibility of running a farm. It was about that time that Sir Wilfrid Laurier sent my predecessor from Brant, the Hon. -William Paterson, and the Hon. Mr. Fielding to Washington to negotiate a reciprocity pact between Canada and the United States. That was in 1911, and from the Conservative party of that day we had abuse of any man who would advocate trading with the United States. A man's loyalty was questioned by that party if he wanted to sell a bushel of wheat or a
cow or a pig across the border. The slogan of the Conservative party at that time was, "No truck or trade with the Yankees." But to-day we see a change of heart in that group. What was their attitude in 1931 when our great ally, Russia, was at that time struggling for a place in the sun? Russia had gone through a revolution and was endeavouring to 'build up trade; yet in the speech from the throne in 1931, when the Bennett administration was in power, I find this sentence:
Pursuant to the fixed policy of my government to combat all influences which are inimical to the social and economic welfare of this dominion, an order in council has been passed prohibiting the importation of certain commodities into Canada from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
I believe that if our friends over there in that group had some of these things to do over again they would not repeat some -of their mistakes, and certainly they- -would be reluctant t-o have such a statement as that upon our records Let me show you the path they have travelled in the past so that we may judge if they are fitted to blaze a trail for the future.
In 1932 an empire economic conference was held in this city, where the Ottaw-a agreements were negotiated. Our party was condemned by many of the newspapers because they did not give the conference their wholehearted support. While our party supported the Ottawa agreements they wanted to trade not only with the mother country and the British commonwealth of nations but with other countries of the world, with other races and other nations. I am sure it is very gratifying to us who have been constant supporters of Liberal principles and policies to realize that we have always been led along channels where we have not had to stop periodically and turn around and apologize for our mistakes. I know of nothing that has contributed more to unrest in the world or was more responsible for bringing about war than those restrictive trade policies which have deprived society of the good things of this world. The Lord has blessed this and preceding generations by revealing many things in the way of science by means -of which we have been able to add to our blessings. We have, for instance, the means of transportation to-day so that if there is an abundance of food produced in one part of the world and a famine existing in some other part, that country does not need to go hungry because the food distribution problem has been solved. But trade restrictive policies tend to deprive people of the good things that this earth will produce.
San Francisco Conference

I do not think Canada is asking any more than she should when she demands recognition by way of a permanent place on the council. At the same time I frankly admit that if this is not expedient, I would agree that some other arrangement be made whereby Canada could express her views at the council. But when one realizes that this country of ours, under the leadership of the man whom we shall send to represent Canada at the conference, is the second largest trading nation in the world, that in a few years we have built a navy third in size among the united nations, that in industrial production we stand fourth, that our contribution to the war effort, as Madame Chiang Kai-shek said in this house, is the largest per capita of any of the united nations, surely we are not asking too much when we claim a permanent seat on the council, and I believe the Prime Minister is quite within his rights to ask for a position commensurate with the contribution we are prepared to make.
If there is one thing I enjoy more than any other it is to boast about the accomplishments of our people. I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house, but I happened to get in the mail to-day bulletin 43 of "Canada at War", and I recommend it to hon. members and anyone else for perusal. It seems to me that anyone who can read this book and not be proud of being a Canadian is absolutely hopeless. From our 733,000 occupied farms we have produced grain crops to the value of $730 millions. Our live stock production, in spite of the reduction of man-power on the farms, has amounted to $500 millions. The gross value of our agricultural production is $2,250 millions. We exported to the United Kingdom 665 million pounds of bacon and 80 million dozen eggs. Canada also leads in world production of nickel, asbestos, flax and radium; is second in the production of gold, aluminum and mercury; third in the production of copper, zinc, lead, silver and arsenic; fourth in the production of magnesium. Surely the power we possess is enough to warrant recognition) as leader among the smaller nations of the world. We have to-day available in Canada the equivalent of over 10 million horse-power developed for electrical purposes which, when it is distributed, will probably give Canada the highest living standards of any nation on earth. Since the outbreak of the war our aircraft industry has produced 15,000 planes; our output of ammunition has run into millions of rounds; and in spite of the fact that Canada has enlisted a million men to fight the cause of liberty, only thirty per cent of Canada's production is necessary to equip our army, which is considered to be the best equipped in the field. We have been able to
	'	5'fIIS
spare seventy per cent of our industrial production to help our friends and allies. I would also draw attention to the fact that Canada has 56,000 miles of railroads, and 560,000 miles of highways-indications of the virility and ambition of the Canadian people. Yet there are people who, when you speak of the exploits of our people, seem to be infuriated; all they can do is to bring up some sordid political argument. At a time like this there is the greatest opportunity of making mistakes, but the fact that we have accomplished so much with so few mistakes is, I think, a tribute to the administration which has had the responsibility of organizing the industrial production of the man-power of this country. It may be said that you never see clubs under a sour apple tree.	_
While I am not in a position to dissect the intricacies of the voting power of the security council and Canada's relation thereto, I still believe that we have merited a place of importance, and how it is to be attained I am willing to leave to my leader who will head our delegation.
One matter to which I wish to direct attention is a remark made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) that the various parties should have the right to select their own delegates. It does not seem to me that that would be good business. Some might do it with wisdom; others probably would not make so good a choice. The Prime Minister must take the responsibility of the selection; and if I were in his place, after listening to some of the speeches, if I had been undecided as to who should accompany me to that conference, at least I would be able to draw a blue pencil through the names of some whom, from the attitudes they have taken, it would not be desirable to take. If there is one thing in which our Prime Minister has been successful, and by which he has been able to do so much for the people of Canada, it is his ability to select men for their virtues, for their merit and ability. I have no reason to believe other than that he will do the same again. But the leader of the opposition demanded the right of selection, and I should like to draw attention to what might happen if all parties had demanded the same thing. We have a communist party in this country, and if it had been left to them to make their selection it is likely that they would choose Tim Buck, as leader of their party. Well, in many respects Mr. Buck is more entitled to represent Canada than others who have been suggested, for at least he has tried to get into the House of Commons.


Gordon Graydon: And he is one of your allies in Ontario.
MARCH 23, 1&15
San Francisco Conference


George Ernest Wood: At least he is a courageous one.


Gordon Graydon: You can't go back on Harry Nixon, you know.


George Ernest Wood: I say at least he has had the courage to attempt to get into parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: And you have had the courage to take in the communists.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: You must be afraid of our leader, or you would not talk against him.


Gordon Graydon: You are in a tight comer.


George Ernest Wood: I could not hear exactly what the hon. member back there said, but let us analyse the position of this one-time great national party.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Analyse Tim Buck, your ally.


George Ernest Wood: I have been in this house for nine years and in that time I have had an excellent leader of whom I am quite proud, and I have looked across at the opposition and in nine years have seen them with six different leaders in the Conservative party. .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have three now.


George Ernest Wood: They have had six leaders in nine years.


Gordon Graydon: There is a usurper in the Prime Minister's seat now.


George Ernest Wood: That would average a year and a half to each of those leaders, and if one of the leaders of that party had a seat on this non-permanent council, having a term of two years, then the average leader of the opposition of the Conservative Progressive party would not last long enough to fill out his two-year term on the security council.


Gordon Graydon: We did not change as quickly as you did in Ontario.


George Ernest Wood: They have changed their name three times.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did they ever have one?


George Ernest Wood: And they have also changed their policy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did they ever have one?


George Ernest Wood: And now the only argument they have to offer to the people is that Canada's magnificent effort does not mean a thing, that we must have compulsion, that we must send the bloom of our youth to die for their
country though they are not a bit concerned about those who live for their country. I say that because I happen to have in my hand a banner that was placed over the picture of my opponent in the 1940 election indicating that their policy then was very much different from what it is to-day. They said: "There will be no conscription. Vote National Government.
R. J. Manion."


Gordon Graydon: You had' the same then and you have changed.


George Ernest Wood: I have not changed, if you want to know, because as far as I was concerned it was not mentioned in my campaign.
I have had sufficient experience in public life, having been in some form of public life since the age of twenty-three, to have come to the conclusion that it is better to be cautious and not to prophesy too far into the future. It is wise to take a step at a time and do those things which circumstances and necessity justify at the moment and not to stick your neck out making too many rash promises. If I ever have the good fortune to be reelected to this house it will not be because I out-promise the Progressive Conservatives and the C.C.F. I am prepared to reason things out with reasonable people and trust to their reason, and I hope, if I come back, that I shall be able to offer something better than rash promises, so that it will not be said that I betrayed the people's confidence at any time.
That is my philosophy in public life and it has always been my philosophy. I believe that the principle of good business is the best politics and I intend to follow that in the future as I have done in the past. I commend that motto to this new so-called Progressive Conservative party, and I suggest that instead of changing their name and leader it would be wise for them to change their policy somewhat not only in regard to conscription and protection but in regard to the many other approaches to a proper philosophy. I believe that would be better for them and it would be for the benefit of the country as a whole.
So far as compulsory service is concerned, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to-day said that if Canada is to be a force behind the security council it is necessary that she should have compulsion for the purpose. Well, if you are going to wreck the security council the finest way of doing so is for the council to endeavour to meddle with the domestic affairs of its members. Would the hon. member for Lake Centre say that Australia should have conscription before she should be on the security council? Would1 he say that General Smuts of South Africa should institute compulsory service before being able
San Francisco Conference

to make a contribution to society? Would he say to Mr. Churchill, "You have a little place in Northern Ireland, Ulster, where you should have conscription." Would he debar the United Kingdom because there is no conscription there? It is ridiculous.
If the security council tries to interfere with the domestic relations of its members the result will be most unfortunate, and I think that is where the argument of the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) also breaks down. If they interfere with the domestic policies of the nations we are heading for disaster and the responsibility would have to be borne by those who advocate such interference. If I can make any contribution to the welfare of the security council I shall be delighted.
I appreciated very much the remarks of our spiritual adviser, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) the other day. It is true it was not a gilded speech, but it contained something that was worth while, because there are the finer and better things of life and they should be recognized. Society stands on a tripod, a strong triangle. It is built upon body, soul and mind. Material things contribute to the satisfaction of the body, the spiritual to the soul, and education to the mind. If this council does not give recognition to all these things, then in my opinion it will fail.
Two thousand years ago there was a Man who had a philosophy of life that probably made the greatest contribution to the happiness of humanity, greater than has ever been made by any one else. I speak of the philosophy of the Christian faith, the religion of Jesus Christ. We have had other philosophies, the Marxian philosophy for instance, and if you analyse it you will find that it is purely materialistic, for it contributes only to material things. Similarly if you analyse socialism you will find that it is nothing but the material. Marx found that religion was an obstacle to the working out of his ideals. He preached the necessity of supplying the physical needs of humanity but he had no recognition for the spiritual. I feel, therefore, that if we are to have a better world in which to live in the future we must have regard to spiritual values, for that is the power that will keep the machinery of life going.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) made a good suggestion in regard to education, but again I cannot see how the security council can interfere with the domestic relations of its members. I suggest that it would be wise for the council to keep records in the form of a Hansard which might be available to those who might wish to increase their

knowledge of international affairs and familiarize themselves with the problems of others as well as their own, for I have come to the conclusion that if greater demands continue to be made on governments it will be necessary to establish in different educational centres a system of statecraft for the education of men and women in the duties of the state. Because of the complexities of government, availability of records of an international institution such as I have described would be a great source of knowledge.
In closing may I be personal. The reason why I advance this particular theme is that when I was born it was supposed to be the horse and buggy days. Yes, the rag carpet adorned the living room floor and we had three square meals a day, but thanks were given to the Almighty for that. The day's work was always preceded by the reading of a passage of scripture from the Divine Word, and it was followed by a supplication to the Almighty for direction throughout the day. One thing has always impressed me, namely, that that supplication was always prefaced-and I commend this philosophy to our friends of the C.C.F.-by giving thanks for what we already had. We were not always asking for more. Because of that background, Mr. Speaker, I was prompted to suggest the contribution that might be made to humanity in this world conference. I do not believe there is any other place where it can be expressed quite as well. I only hope and trust that we shall have something that will give us greater results than did the league of nations. I am one of those who have always tried to defend the league of nations. While the league of nations failed, the league of nations was not a failure because it did contribute. It showed there vas an honest effort by a certain element of society to find some solution and to see that young men and women would not be plunged into a blood bath periodically. We have to make it a success this time.
I have always had a great respect for the man who sponsored the league of nations, President W ilson. He was one of those men who died before he had an opportunity to see the results of his work. He happened to be one of those because there are too many people in the Tnited States who live in Missouri. They had to be shown. Circumstances and events have^ shown that they made an error when they rejected the president. I can remember reading a newspaper report of a great mob going to his house. At that time his health was impaired. He stood on the verandah and said: "Some day you will realize that I was right." I believe that to-day Presi-

San Francisco Conference
dent Wilson is living in the minds" and hearts of many people throughout this world. The fact that he had the courage of his convictions has impressed them immensely. He was the man who sponsored the league of nations only to come back home and see, unfortunately because of political treachery, his plans defeated in the senate. The result was that the nation which was responsible for the idea of the league, probably more so than anyone else in the world, was responsible for it not being a success, bet that be as it may. They are a democratic country; they are a peace-loving country; they like liberty. They did not want to become embroiled in Europe. But we cannot allow that to happen again. The errors and mistakes made at that time brought us to disaster and we do not want to see it happen again.


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) who has just taken his seat, in explaining the failure of the late President Wilson in the peace conference of the last great war, omitted to mention the greatest cause of that failure, which was that he had not taken to the peace conference a sufficiently representative number of the other lines of political thought or the opposition in the United States. Not having done so, he did not properly portray in a unified way the spirit of his country, and because of that he did not get the cooperation from his countrymen when he returned. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will keep that in mind when he picks the delegation to accompany him to San Francisco on this occasion.
So far as the part the hon. members of this house and the people of Canada are going to play in this conference at San Francisco is concerned, I think it has been apparent that every hon. member and every true Canadian is heartily in accord with the aims and objects of the conference. I also believe that to a very great extent they are in accord with the major portion of the proposals set out. We have been honoured with an invitation to this conference. We have not had the background of having had representation at the Dumbarton Oaks or Bretton Woods conferences, but we should be very sincere in any comments we make in this house. We should first consider the fundamental questions that arise in setting up any organization that will maintain the peace and prosperity of the world in post-war days.
In my humble opinion there are three outstanding problems that we in this parliament should solve before our representatives go to this conference. I believe that the first thing we should decide is whether or not we are
prepared to make commitments to obtain international peace in advance of any international discord by acquiring and coordinating in advance the necessary policing and striking forces to beat down and overcome aggression. I think we should consider very carefully the necessity of our cooperating by friendly and good neighbourly policies in economic, social and humanitarian problems, which are the fundamental causes of war or peace and prosperity. I think we should decide what particular place our own country shall play in this post-war organization.
Whatever international organization is set up must have a definite policy to keep the economic, social and humanitarian problems of all the nations of the world in such a state of liberty, equality and balance as will not cause discord. To do that I think the second main proposition is the inevitable result. The organization must be able not only to police the nations that may show inclinations to stray, but they must have power behind them in the form of armed strength, an army, navy and air force at all times so that they can enforce their will and beat down the aggressor should he raise his foul head. I do not believe it is sufficient to stand by and feel that any number of nations or accumulation of nations, because a high ideal is set for them, will live up to that ideal. So long as human beings live in this world errors will be made; different viewpoints will arise. It is only by curbing and controlling these factors that a recurrence of war can be avoided.
I believe we in Canada, like the peoples in many other nations of the world, felt before the war that we could sit back in our own country, mind our own business in our own way, and wait until trouble came right to our door. Bad mistakes were made along those lines prior to the war. The result is that, much as we of the democratic nations resent the necessity for having international armies or, if you like, power blocs, we must face the fact that an order is good only if it can be enforced. A law that cannot be enforced is seldom obeyed, and if it is not enforceable to a high per cent of its possible efficiency it should never be a law at all.
Any international organization composed of any group of nations must have within it the power to enforce equitable and just decisions that it may make. In my view it should not have only that power to requisition from the world at large, by individual or collateral agreement, after an occasion has developed, such strength as it might feel required to use.
In this respect the Canadian parliament has to-day a fundamental question, one of pure
San Francisco Conference

principle, to decide. According to the suggestions from Dumbarton Oaks we are not supposed to have a permanent seat on the security council, such seats being left to Russia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, China, the United States and, later, France. I draw the attention of the house first to the fact that one of the seats is to be held by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not representative of the British commonwealth of nations or the British empire.
The result is that on this security council, consisting of five great nations, a great deal of power is concentrated. The other nations of the world must place implicit confidence in the wisdom, fairness and equity of those five powers. Canada, which contributed so much in the last war, when she won her nationhood, and has done such a splendid job in this war, where she has established her nationhood, and which for the past twenty-five years has taken pride in the justification she has for calling herself a nation, must remain with the other nations.
According to that set-up our position in the international organization is to be exactly like that of any other small nation. Our opportunity of holding even a non-permanent seat shall be equal to that of the smallest of the other small nations, with the result that according to those proposals we must take a place similar and equal to that of about 150 or 200 other nations.
In his speech when opening the debate the Prime Minister suggested an intermediate class in which Canada would be placed. In his speech he suggested-and in this I believe he was right-that Canada merited a better position than other small nations. At one time he said we should be a leader of the small nations, but for some reason or another at a later time he developed that thought to where we are to be one among an intermediate set of nations.
The point I would establish- to-night is that as a nation within the British commonwealth, Canada has risen to the top, and that she will emerge from this war as the greatest of the nations within the commonwealth, with the exception of course of the United Kingdom itself. In the last twenty or twenty-five years we have not heard any objection within- Canada respecting one nation within the commonwealth infringing upon our liberties. When it came to Dunkirk the British commonwealth of nations, the empire faced the task with a solid- moral front. Within the w-hole of the commonwealth was the unanimous desire that the British isles, standing as they do as the spearhead- of the British commonwealth and empire, should sur-
vive the present war. The will was there. But how close we came to losing the solidarity of the empire and the commonwealth of nations by virtue of not having the material to accompany the spirit.
Had Dunkirk not been- the God-given blessing, and the miracle it turned out to be, I think the whole organization of the British commonwealth of nations would have fallen apart, or very nearly so. I hate to think what other nations would have then felt in respect of their chance of surviving a German invasion. What chance would civilization, as we in Canada understand it, have had to survive the onrush of the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese hordes?
I give this to the house as an illustration to show that in any organization that may be set up to handle any matter for the public weal or welfare there must be both a spirit to cooperate and the material with which to cooperate-not just the right at a future date to secure that material.
I do not know just where we in- Canada, or where in fact the British commonwealth fits into the picture in the minds of those who drafted the Dumbarton Oaks -proposals. I am very anxious to know where it is going to fit into this world organization to maintain and establish peace. I see no part for that organization which through the years has been- built up, which has withstood the trials and tempest? of time I see no place where it will fit into this world conference. Nor do I see where the pan-American union fits in.
I think it is only human- nature to associate in small groups before cooperating in large groups. To my mind that which works to the advantage of the individual works also to that of the nation. We should look with great care upon tht future. Further, we should judge with care those things in the past which have survived and withstood the test of time. I believe there are none within this dominion to-day who, with any justification, can complain about the liberties they have lost or the liberties they have not obtained by virtue of their adherence to that cooperative enterprise of freedom-loving nations known as the British commonwealth.
When we set up a world organization to maintain peace we must have intermediate organizations to deal with economic, social, humanitarian and militaristic problems of the world. When we realize Canada's proposed position as one of the small nations, in the light of our pride in the resources, munitions, supplies and men we have contributed to this war, we feel that she is entitled, not only to

San Francisco Conference
more benefits but to many more obligations in connection with this new organization to establish and maintain peace.
In order to partake in any cooperative undertaking one must look forward to the benefits being commensurate with the obligations. I think the folly of pre-war thinking over the democratic world was a desire for benefits and an abhorrence or abstinence from any commitments as to obligations. I do not think we can expect any recompense by way of benefits that does not carry with it obligations.
Let us think of our position in this world organization. Any one nation, hundreds of them as it may be, may be elected to the nonpermanent seats on the security council for two years, and then not be reelected immediately thereafter. This dominion of ours, of which we are so proud, may not be able to get a seat on the security council, which is made up of eleven members, for many years, or once having got a seat and occupying it for one term, will be left out of it for many years to come. These non-permanent seats must be passed around.
I think Canada is capable of a greater contribution to world peace and in international affairs than has been set out. As the hon. member for Brant has just said, we have relied, we can rely and we will rely on our very good neighbour to the south. With all of that I agree, but I say we can rely, we have relied and we should still rely upon our good neighbours within the commonwealth. We want to make sure that the collateral organizations in which Canada may take part do not break down the things that have been good in the past. We need more, not less, participation in British commonwealth affairs.
According to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals Canada shall be apart altogether from the representation of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland on the security council, Canada shall be apart from the representation of France, of China, of the United States and of Russia. She is to be totally out of the picture. I should like to know, and I think the Prime Minister might very well explain this to us, what moves have been made to bring the British commonwealth of nations into the security council and what objections have been raised to that move and by whom. I believe that a world organization should keep the commonwealth of nations in line with the greatest nations of the world through the cooperative policy that does prevail within the British commonwealth and within the empire. This would be to the betterment of the world organization and very much to the betterment of Canada herself.
We have emerged from this war with a reputation as a fighting and producing force, and our obligation is to carry forward as a moralizing and stabilizing force on the comity of nations, the council of man, if you like to call it that. For twenty-five years we have sat down, having cut our national teeth in' the last war, and have not partaken of the national obligations or the international spirit that befits the progress we have made. If there has been one thing more than any other that has caused difficulty within Canada during the present war it has been the lack of an international outlook. That lack of an international outlook is entirely and directly the result of a lack of international outlook on the part of our government. We are not going to expand that international outlook by sitting quietly to one side.
The second question is an economic one. Many collateral organizations will be found to deal with these matters. These may not be as important as the military questions, but there is one thing that puzzles me more than anything else. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement which was discussed by each of the two speakers who preceded me to-night. I am sure that this is worrying every member in this house. What contribution by way of commitment is Canada going to make at the San Francisco conference as an offer or gesture of her willingness to accept obligations in the way of providing armed strength, if you like, to stop future wars?
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, no policing can be done if you must first raise your police force, train them and get them to the place where the crime has been committed. The criminal will have escaped long before. An international army will have to be maintained. An international air force will have to be kept immediately available to the international organization. Munitions will be needed for many years to come. I do not think we are going to emerge from this war with such complete disillusionment that we will believe that war will never happen again, or that every one will be so fed up with war that they will never fight again.
Even in peace time we shall have to have a police force to police the nations of the world, to control economic, social and humanitarian conditions. Then there must be a force to back up the policeman on his beat. That being the case, Canada with her national status must look carefully at how that international police force is going to be organized and set up. I think it is just as important for us to see that we have representation on that force as it is for us to see that other nations have not too strong a representation.
San Francisco Conference

I do not think that world confidence can be established if the Prime Minister of Canada goes to the San Francisco conference and says: We are willing to bind ourselves to contribute to an international police force only on these conditions: (1) If we can say whom we shall send; (2) if we can say when we shall send them; and (3) when we have decided to send them and whom to send, if we can say where we shall send-them-long after they have been requisitioned. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that such a policy would be not only a failure but such evidence of lack of good faith on the part of Canada that we should never suggest it. I do not think it would do credit to us as a nation if we went to the conference and said: We trust you people but we will not trust you when the occasion arises for our assistance. That we shall decide for ourselves on an "if, as and when" basis; for that is really what it amounts to, and I think we should d'well upon that aspect much more than has been done so far. Surely we have been taught the folly of isolationism by this time.
I well remember sitting in the gallery of this house one evening in March, 1939, before I was elected to this chamber, and I heard the Prime Minister of the day, as well as the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party at that time and many other members voicing this sentiment-not exactly in these words but to this effect: Any nation, Great Britain, or the British commonwealth of nations can go to war and yet Canada can remain neutral. When the election of 1940 was fought, the general cry of all parties was that conscription would not be resorted to. That was a concrete illustration of our lack of appreciation of international involvements that existed that day. Surely now we have learned our lesson, and I hope that when our delegates go to San Francisco they will act in a way that will show that Canada realizes that it must accept international obligations and accept them now, and that Canada has reached a stage in her development where she can take her just and rightful place of responsibility with the other nations. But she is not taking her rightful place in my opinion if she says to the conference: We will let the rest of you contribute to this international army. All you other countries can commit yourselves in advance, but we wish to make a separate and distinct agreement with the security council irrespective of what the other nations may commit themselves to. We must realize that if we enter into a peace organization we must do so in a spirit of confidence and good faith and be prepared even to give a lead and tell 
the other countries what we are prepared to do to make peace secure and urge other countries to do likewise.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, after exerting a gigantic effort to attain victory, the united nations are bringing up the subject of peace. There are unmistakable signs of peace in the near future. It is very gratifying and we should thank the Divine Providence for having spared Canada the horrors of wars, and the unspeakable havoc wrought by battles and bombings. Our people have gone through hours of anguish which cannot be compared to the tortures endured by our brave soldiers who have made the supreme sacrifice or by the civilian populations decimated by bullets, shells and starvation. Praise be to God!
The united nations are bringing up the subject of peace and they are preparing to meet in San Francisco in order to discuss the plans for the erection of this house of peace which it is desired to build on more solid and less vulnerable foundations than the league of nations which in Woodrow Wilson's fondest dreams was to guarantee world security after the slaughter of 1917. Alas, the league of nations did not come up to the expectations of its sponsors; it collapsed because it had been built on the moving sands of unconcealed human ambition and on the lack of sanctions which were so necessary.
Twenty-seven years later, mankind starts all over again to build another league of nations on the experience gained during two wars, firmly resolved to benefit from the tragic lessons of the past.
_ The leader of the present government, the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has asked the Canadian parliament for authority to head the delegation which will attend this united nations conference in order to make the voice of Canada heard and to present our just and legitimate claims. Canada's war effort has been magnificent; she has contributed the lives of her sons and her money, and she has placed at the disposal of the allied nations her industrial productive capacity.
Canada's war effort may be compared with that of any of the other allied nations and it entitles us to the fruit of victory. It equally gives us the right to take part in the peace conferences and this is the prerogative that the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada wishes to exercise with the consent of the Canadian parliament. We had good reasons to expect that the resolution before the house would meet with the unanimous approval of the hon. members. Could any one of us rightly oppose any serious attempt to form a

San Francisco Conference
peace organization? Could any hon. member not wish from the bottom of his soul the cessation of this mass slaughter and not welcome on the blood-soaked battlefields of the universe the appearance of the dove of peace? Could any one reject any honest suggestion of seeking in the recesses of the human brain the ray of light that might guide our suffering humanity to a better future? And finally, could any one, knowing where his duties and obligations lay, refuse his support to the present attempt of the united nations toward the restoration of the world.
Alas, a few independent members of this house have rendered such a unanimity impossible. Those very people who so vehemently denounce war, are now opposed to the establishment of a peace organization. After their diatribes against our participation in the conflict, they now stand strong on grounds of political interest in the path of the plenipotentiaries and wish to deprive their country of the right to attend discussions on the means to put an end to war. Mr. Speaker, could you think of a more illogical stand, or a more surprising attitude? It had never yet occurred to me that some people could place politics on a higher plane than the paramount interests of the human race and the Canadian nation. We have an example of this kind in this house. Our hon. colleagues will bear the tremendous responsibility of their acts before their fellow-citizens and their own children.
Four reasons have been given for opposing the resolution submitted to the house:
First the ending of the life af parliament on April 17 next; second, the failure of the past endeavours of the league of nations; third, the growing prestige of communist Russia; and, fourth, Canada's neutrality.
None of these reasons seem to justify the surprising attitude of the independent nationalist members.
These gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, are surely not experts in constitutional or parliamentary procedure They have not taken into account the fundamental difference between the government and parliament.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that the life of the House of Commons will expire on April 17, but it is equally true that, in accordance with the constitutional law and precedents set through many years, the government will live on. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the Canadian constitution, sections 50 and 12, where we find the essential and fundamental definitions of what constitutes a parliament and a government as well as a guidance to judge the present situation.
The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), the hon. member for Laval-Two-Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) and the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) have said that our delegates at San Francisco will have no authority to act, as parliament will be extinct, having come to its natural end on April 17. Incidentally the hon. members forget that the delegates to the peace conference will not necessarily be members of the House of Commons for, if I am well-informed, it is possible that some American delegates will he chosen outside of Congress and the House of Representatives.
The present government, as I was saying, will live on after April 17, 1945, and it will have all the necessary authority to act on behalf of the Canadian people. I shall cite as an authority a jurist whose ability no one can question, Mr. Todd.
(Text):	I take this quotation from Todd's
"Parliamentary Government in England", volume II, page 513:
For, notwithstanding their resignations, the outgoing ministers are bound to conduct the ordinary business of parliament and of the country so long as they retain the seals of office. They continue, moreover, in full possession of their official authority and functions, and must meet and incur the full responsibility of all public transactions until their successors have kissed bonds upon their acceptance of office.
(Translation) This opinion was quoted by the Hon. Charles Tupper who, in 1896, entered into a controversy with Lord Aberdeen, the then governor general, who had refused to approve certain appointments.
Our nationalists need not take offence, Mr. Speaker, and invoke the lack of authority of our delegation to the next peace conference, in the face of these examples taken from history. Referring once again to our parliamentary history and going back to the year 1873, I can find many examples that will prove to these constitutional law experts of the independent nationalists party, that the government, the cabinet, have the right to make appointments even in these particular circumstances. Thus, on October 17, 1878, before Sir John Macdonald came into power, the government made 183 appointments, among which were a judge of the supreme court, a judge of the superior court of the province of Quebec and a county judge for Kent county, Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Bell. Then, in 1S96, before the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier took office, the government of the day did not hesitate to make 88 appointments.
Mr. Speaker, those facts indicate without the shadow of a doubt that after April 17, 1945, our government will still be in full possession
San Francisco Conference

of its juridical powers and will be invested with the necessary authority to represent the Canadian people at the San Francisco conference, and I believe they will be happy to be represented at that conference by the delegates of the present government rather than by the phantom leader of the Tory party or by the leader of the socialist party. It is also claimed that our delegates will have no authority to commit Canada for the future. Such an argument has no weight, as evidenced by the wording of the resolution. Paragraph 5 of the resolution is self-explanatory:
That the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.
The wisdom of that paragraph of the resolution should dispel the fears of our honourable opponents.
Therefore, our delegates will not have the power to bind Canada in any way, because the House of Commons and the representatives of the Canadian people will be called upon to approve or reject the new charter. Could any one ask for a greater or safer guarantee that the democratic interests of the Canadian people will be upheld?
The second reason mentioned by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay for opposing the sending of delegates is the failure of former conferences of that kind. I do not know whether the hon. member has had oracular revelations or has resorted to astrology. I really wonder how he can claim and predict that the San Francisco conference will be a failure. Such an inference is not logical. The fact that the Versailles treaty did not give to the world the peace it desired, or that former treaties have been violated is no reason why we should now refuse to participate in another peace effort. Do those hon. members wish to see a continuation of the dreadful war and its frightful slaughter?
If we were to adopt the views of those armchair logicians we might as well say that, since the Versailles treaty was not respected, it would be useless to sign a peace treaty with Germany after the cessation of hostilities. We might as well say that, inasmuch as war was declared, every thought of reconciliation should be banished.
Such conclusions are distasteful to me, Mr. Speaker. I claim that failure is the best test for reconciliation and forgiveness. Past experience must be the most' abundant source of endless hopes of redress. A fallen man is never done for, provided he keeps the irresistible will to win. What a poor and disheartening example our pessimistic politico-independents are giving to their country and their fellow-citizens and also to the united nations!

The fact that, the Versailles treaty was a failure, that the League of Nations was a complete disappointment, does not mean that we should give up every hope of putting fruitful energies once again to work for the preparation of a better and triumphant world. If the men of 1919, through their greed, failed to prepare the peace at Versailles, let us not deny to the builders of 1945 our loyal cooperation in the organization of a new peace based on the tragical lessons of the last five years. To refuse such cooperation would, in my opinion, mean a betrayal of mankind's interests.
Let those who advocate such a policy assume the responsibility for their action before the young Canadians who made the supreme sacrifice, before those who have suffered and who hope that their martyrdom will inspire to those who have not yet wept other humanitarian motives than paltry political advantages.
The growing prestige of communist Russia is the third reason put forward by those objectors. I agree that communism is to be feared, that it must be checked. But I cannot agree that Canada should1 be refused permission to send delegates to the San Francisco conference where the means to prevent the spread of subversive doctrines and to eradicate the germs of war will be discussed.
The San Francisco conference which will be attended by all the united nations, including Russia, will afford an opportunity to make plans to prevent the spread of totalitarian communist or fascist doctrines. In a speech in the British House of Commons, Mr. Churchill stated that Russia was undergoing a spiritual transition and evolution. Communism is not dead-and I do not wish to defend it-but let us remember that Russia, regardless of the nature and form of her political tenets, has paid an enormous price for having turned to the totalitarian doctrines advocated by Karl Marx. And the democracies find themselves in the paradoxical situation of having had as an ally in their struggle against nazism the forces of communist Russia. Evidently, the San Francisco conference will not do away with war or the perverse instincts of man. If it only were successful in ensuring peace for a century, I would consider it to have rendered a great service to humanity.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion)-I am sorry that he is not in the house to-night-expressed the hope that the Pope might be present at the conference. I am of a mind with him, although I know that our hope will remain a delusion. But I fail to follow my hon. friend in his argument: he opposes the holding of the conference, but

San Francisco Conference
he proposes that the Pope be invited to attend it. Does he wish the Holy Father to attend a meeting which, in the opinion of the hon. member for Rimouski is bound to be a failure? Indeed, our independent friends are very ill-advised in opposing the San Francisco conference. In their devotion to the Holy See, they seem to forget that His Holiness the Pope himself has expressed the hope that such a conference might be held.
Here is what His Holiness Pope Pius XII said on the Vatican radio on the occasion of the Christmas festivities:
It is indispensable that, in the world organization, some machinery for maintaining peace be established, invested with supreme authority granted by general consent and having among its principal duties that of stopping at its source all menace of aggression. Certain nations and governments who are charged with being responsible for the war will have to bear the hardships of the security measures, but they should have the assurance that by loyally and efficiently cooperating in reconstruction they will again be admitted to the councils of the great commonwealth of all nations. Nations should realize that the only path leading them away from chaos is solidarity.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we must choose between, the theologians of the group of independent members, led by the pontiff for Charlevoix-Saguenay and the supreme authority of the Vatican! Indeed, the choice would be a difficult one to make, were I not well informed on the high science and intuitive knowledge of my hon. friend for Rimouski in the field of sociology and social doctrines of the church. However, I feel more secure in the company of Pius XII than at the side of the hon. member for Rimouski who, thanks to his gracious and catty litheness has, in the course of a few months, succeeded in changing his allegiance many times, without breaking his neck.
Now for the last argument: Canada should never have been drawn into the war. This is harping on an old complaint. Bothered by their conscience, they base their present views on questions which have been settled by parliament and the whole country as well. To take part in the peace conference would be, in a way, a tacit acceptance of the principle of Canada's participation in foreign wars.
Our independent members are very wise, extremely wise, in fact. They claim to be the political heirs of Mr. Henri Bourassa. I will have the pleasure of proving that they are independent in name only. To-night I shall be content with proving to them that their political leader whom they threaten to repudiate, while following him at a distance, has never advocated the isolationist doctrine which they themselves propound. Indeed, we find the following on page 253 of a book published
in 1915 by Mr. Bourassa himself, a study which is entitled: "What do we owe to England?"
Was Canada obliged to take part in the European war? As a British dominion, she had no such obligation. To fulfil a duty, a moral or legal obligation resulting from her colonial status, no. If Canada had considered the situation from this sole angle-
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this has to do with the world war of 1914-1918.
-she would have had the right even the duty to refrain from taking any active part in the war.
But, as a nation, as a human community, could Canada remain aloof from the European conflict? I do not think so. Bound to England and to France by numerous ethnical, social, intellectual and economic ties, Canada is vitally interested in the preservation of England and France, in the maintenance of their prestige, of theii power, of their world influence.
A year earlier, Mr. Bourassa wrote the following in his newspaper Le Devoir, of September 2, 1914:
This is no time for polemic discussions, for bitter recriminations, for bone-picking and even less for party intrigues.
And on September 8 of the same year he added:
Canada, as an Anglo-French nation that a thousand social, intellectual, economic and ethnical ties bind to England and to France, has a vital interest in the survival of France and England, of their prestige, their power and their world influence. It is therefore a national duty for Canada to contribute, to the best of her ability and through means that are hers alone, to the triumph and particularly to the endurance of the concerted efforts of France and England.
And on September 18, 1914, Mr. Bourassa wrote again in his newspaper:
I have not written and I shall not write a single line, a single word to condemn the sending of troops to Europe.
There are circumstances, and this seems to be one of them, when logic and even the most legitimate fears must give way to the exigencies of the hour.
We see then that, according to the nationalist doctrine of Mr. Bourassa, the intervention of Canada in a world war should not proceed from colonial ties, from a moral obligation arising from a state of subjection, but from a free will, from a complete liberty to act and to decide as do all countries that are the real masters of their destiny. I shall never favour colonial intervention but shall favour any intervention resulting from the obligations and duties inherent to sovereignty.
Have my hon. friends opposite forgotten that the Catholic bishops of Canada have stated that the present conflict is a just war?
San Francisco Conference

Mr. Speaker, in the face of this irrefutable testimony, I wonder why they deny their country the right to partake in the peace conference, as an autonomous nation in order to expose our just claims. I ask them once again: Would they want the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, the leader of the Socialist party or the leader of the Bloc Populaire to represent Canada at the peace conference?
(Text) In conclusion, I may say it is unfortunate that the dissenting voices heard in this house should come partly from the province of Quebec. I would rather believe that these expressions of opinion are the result of a mediate political interest, rather than of a sincere desire that Canada should not participate in movements of world reestablishment. This negative attitude of certain members must not be taken by our compatriots of the other provinces as expressing the opinion of the greater number of the old French province of the dominion. I am convinced that the sound and wholesome opinion of my province will repudiate the efforts of these isolationists who wish that Quebec should become a sort of reserve, shut out from all the great constitutional and economic evolutions of our time.
Under the fallacious pretext that they wish to save the race, these gentlemen of the Quebec nationalistic school are leading our ethnic group toward the worst national decadence. After all, we are at least just as patriotic as they are. We contest their right of pretending that they have the monopoly on the generous initiatives of national salvation. But we realize that the future of our people within the Canadian confederation is on a par with the same comprehension of our duties and obligations as a constituent part of a great nation. Our shortsighted nationalists are a component part of the same noisy group that, all over Canada, in cooperation with the minority clique of imperialistic jingoes are threatening the future of Canada itself, and collective progress. Both these groups of extremists who feed at the same sources of integral Toryism are, in my opinion, the obstacles to a broad mutual understanding.
It is high time that our nationalistic independents should realize the true situation of our race in Canada. It is high time that they should turn their faces toward the people to tell them something else besides calling them the "eternally persecuted." It is high time for our compatriots to admit the providential fact of our situation on this land of America. We are surrounded by more than 150 million Anglo-Saxons with whom Providence has decreed that we should live, willy-nilly. It will be of no use to moderate independents,
fMr. Lalonde.]
such as the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) or to extremists of the Chaloult type, to preach a provoking resistance. It will be of no use to revolu-tionsts of the Shields clan to threaten us with their thunderbolts. Harmony will be the offspring of an acceptable compromise, both to the honour of the parties in the case and for their future within confederation. I am not pretending to be the protagonist of a unilateral theory of bonne entente; I deplore the attitude of a certain group of my compatriots who are bent on giving us the reputation, in the eyes of the world, of being retrogressive people, incapable of accepting its obligations toward humanity and toward Canada.
We are part of confederation so that we may deserve and enjoy the respect of others; we shall remain therein if our just and legitimate demands are recognized. We are not the sort of people who give up easily. We are neither cowards nor traitors. Canadian history is too eloquent on this point for me to have to demonstrate more at length. But that some should wish-either through political opportunism, or with the intention of exercising political revenge-that Canada should remain out of the great peace conferences, I object with all my strength.
Having grown and been purified through sacrifice, our dear country is entitled to be represented at the peace table, and she will be so represented by delegates who will be conscious of her duties and obligations. Headed by the great builder of Canadian autonomy, the right hon. the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I am convinced that the voice of Canada will be heard and will ring with authority. I will therefore vote in favour of the resolution proposed in this house.


Mr. RENE JUTRAS (Provencher):: I do
not propose to review or suggest any of the technicalities or make any suggestions as to the machinery to be set up to achieve the great task that the united nations will be called upon to achieve once the bell of victory has rung throughout the world. I respectfully leave that task to those who have made a closer study of it and who have enriched their studies by experience. I shall therefore limit myself to the general principles underlying the whole. To the resolution before the house I give my full support; but when one goes back to the league of nations, which was then the new world organization to prevent war, much of the optimism of the San Francisco conference loses its gloss. Not that I am one of those people who believe that a new world organization to orevent wars is an impractical idealism above

San Francisco Conference
the virtues of mankind, but on the contrary I sincerely believe that it is well within the possibility of even this world of ours. But it will not be achieved in a few weeks at San Francisco, and many a lesson has yet to be learned.
The failure of the last world organization, known as the league of nations, to prevent war was in no small measure due to the attitude, or shall I say the frame of mind, of the delegation, and for this reason I hope to be permitted to say to the San Francisco conference that they will have to measure up to a very high standard. It is a great task for great men only. Nothing short of that will suffice. I feel therefore that it is the prayer of the nation that those who are designated will rise to the occasion and that their country will be proud to welcome them on their return.
Of course the attitude of the delegates is inevitably influenced and, more often than not, completely conditioned by the attitude of the people at home, the people they are delegated to represent. With that in mind I wish to impart a few observations I have made during my association with men and women in uniform in this country and abroad. It is with complete sincerity that I say that I enjoyed the life in the service, even sharing the bullpen in Toronto with 1,200 others was not without its brighter side. As an airman then I was not without learning a lot, which I shall never forget-


Mr. MacNICOL:: To what does the hon.
member refer when he says that he shared the bull-pen in Toronto?


René Jutras: The bull-pen is one of the larger rooms at the exhibition grounds in Toronto, used at the time as a manning depot. I did not mean any reflection upon the city of Toronto, at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understand the government had fitted up the exhibition buildings.


René Jutras: I am sorry if I left the wrong impression with my hon. friend. The bull-pen as we called it, or the "blue room" or "the sheep pen" or "the hog pen," as they were known in the services, was adequately equipped for the men. But still they were very large rooms and. consequently-well, I will just leave it to your imagination.


John Ritchie MacNicol: No reflection on Toronto?


René Jutras: No, no reflection on Toronto at all. Later, as an instructor, I was to learn of their problems, the multiplicity and diversity of problems that can arise when a large
body of men are thrown into a new world and are asked, without further ado, to make it their world.
I cannot but think of them when I think of *this new world that we are about to enter. Then, still later, sharing with them the burdens of battle, I learned of the great difficulties they wyere up against, the high degree of heroism that was unquestionably asked of them; and I witnessed the unconditional surrender of their self to the cause of humanity and their country-and, mind you, they do not begrudge that- surrender. I have not the temerity to speak for them. Their deeds speak highly for them, and they shall soon be heard for themselves.
My impressions are entirely my own, and I offer them as such. Men whose regiment has just been ordered to rush a hill to relieve the previous regiment, which has been wiped out, and who sit on their muddy heels gazing at their watches, have very little to say. The men who sit before the map of Germany, with the big red pins showing the "target for tonight", who listen to the cold and blunt facts respecting the dangers of the mission, and who know the demand that is placed upon their skill, their learning and their endurance; and the men out on the ocean who have just received warning of a lurking U-boat, and who stare into the chilly darkness of the night, straining every sense to be the first to strike- those men say very little.
But these tense moments duly come to pass; and then many a thought, enters those minds. And they are not thoughts about political parties jockeying for favourable position, or of diplomatic intrigue or of international organizations, but rather why this is all so necessary, and where it is all leading.
Let no one forget that they will request a severe accounting, should these sacrifices be made in vain. It would be well for all delegates not to leave without a realistic picture of this evolution. Canadian youth, as I see it, is largely non-conformist. Canadians like to live as they please. They do not like regimentation, and they dislike bureaucracy. Personal freedom is what they appreciate most. The army, as a peace-time career, does not interest the majority of them. The stigma of depression has left an impression on the character and outlook of a large number and finds expression in a cynical and often pessimistic outlook.
How can one not compare the world of plenty in the services w'ith that of a penurious past? They are not, you can rest assured, without appreciating the concern of their coun-
San Francisco Conference