QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Did the government give permission for a representative of the Seamen's Union to proceed overseas and to visit the fighting front?
2.	If so, what was his name?
3.	Did the government give permission to C. H. Millard to proceed overseas and to visit the fighting front?
4.	In granting these privileges, did the government impose any restrictions as to what these men would be permitted to say upon their return to Canada?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1,	2 and 3. In January, 1945, the Department of External Affairs endorsed passports for the following persons proceeding to the United Kingdom to attend the world trade union conference which opened in London on February 6:
Representing the Canadian Congress of Labour; Mr. C. H. Millard, M.P.P., national director in Canada, United Steelworkers of America; Mr. James E. McGuire, national secretary-treasurer, Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees and other Transport Workers; Mr. Pat Conroy, secretary-treasurer, Canadian Congress of Labour; Mr. Nigel Morgan, international board member, District No. 1, International Woodworkers of America; Mr. Questions

C. S. Jackson, president, District Council No. 5, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
Representing the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada: Mr. J. A. Sullivan, secretary, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Mr. J. A. Whitebone, vice president, Trades and Labour Congress of Canada.
It is understood that Mr. J. A. Sullivan is a member of the Seamen's Union.
In recognition of the great- part played by Canadian labour in the prosecution of the war through the production- of arms and munitions, not only for the Canadian forces but for the forces of our allies, arrangements were made for the trade union representatives to visit the Canadian forces in Holland and Belgium at the conclusion of the conference in London.
4. No.


PROVINCE OF QUEBEC-AGREEMENT FOR SURRENDER OF PROVINCIAL TAXATION RIGHTS
Mr. LALONDE:: 1.	Since September, 1939, have arrangements or agreements been concluded between the government of the province of Quebec and the dominion government, by which the government of the province of Quebec surrendered to the federal government the rights to the taxation of gasoline, incomes and other taxes?
2.	If so, may such arrangements or agreements he terminated at the option of either of the contracting parties?
3.	Within what time may either of the contracting parties terminate any such agreements?
4.	Since September 1, 1944, has the government of the province of Quebec notified the federal government of its intention to terminate any such agreements?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Under the terms of an agreement entered into May 27, 1942, and pursuant to an act respecting an agreement between the dominion and the province for the suspension of certain taxes in wartime, chapter 27, statutes of Quebec, 1942, the province of Quebec agreed to suspend temporarily the levying and collection of taxes upon incomes and upon corporations as defined and enumerated in the said agreement. In consideration of this temporary suspension, the dominion agreed to make an annual payment as set out in the agreement in respect of each fiscal year of the province during the term of the agreement.
The preamble to the agreement states that "the province shall not, by agreeing as hereafter provided to desist from imposing certain taxes during the term of this agreement, be deemed to have surrendered, abandoned or given over to the dominion any of the

powers, rights, privileges or authority vested in the province under the provisions of The British North America Act, 1867, or any subsequent act of the parliament of the United Kingdom, or to have otherwise impaired any of such powers, rights, privileges or authority."
The province did not suspend nor surrender to the dominion government the right to the taxation of gasoline. However, the dominion government agreed to pay, to the province during the term of the agreement the amount by which the net receipts from the gasoline tax in each fiscal year is less than the receipts from gasoline taxes collected in the twelve months ended June 30, 1941.
2	and 3. Yes, the province has the right to terminate the agreement under section 23(5) which reads as follows: "The province may terminate the agreement on the thirty-first day of March of any year, if notice of intention to do so is given in writing to the Minister of Finance thirty days before such notice."
4. No.
Note:-Copy of agreement tabled in the House of Commons on May 28,	1942,
(Sessional Paper No. 114(f)).


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION- REGINA OFFICE SPACE
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Does the unemployment insurance commission occupy any office space in the city of Regina? If so, what space, and from whom is it rented?
2.	What rents are being paid for various quarters occupied as above?
3.	Has there been any increase in such rents in the last three years? If so, by what amount or amounts, and at what date or dates?
4.	Were any such increases approved by the rentals administration of the wartime prices and trade board? If so, when?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) Premises, -whole of ground floor of Merchants Bank Building, Lessor, Bank of Montreal, annual rental, $5,400; Premises, space on second floor of Merchants Bank Building, Lessor, Bank of Montreal, annual rental, $1,800.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Rental for the whole of ground floor was increased from November 1, 1944, from $3,600 to $5,400 per annum.
4.	Yes, this increased rental was approved by the rentals administration of the wartime prices and trade board under maximum rental decision No. 81-29-6915 dated September 8, 1944.

Questions


VETERANS' INSURANCE-INCOME TAX
Mr. WHITE:: 1.	With reference to section 3 of the Veterans' Insurance Act, 1944, are the proceeds of a policy subject to succession duty?
2.	Are the proceeds of a policy payable as a life annuity, or as an annuity for a certain number of years subject to income tax?
Mr. MacKINN'ON (Edmonton West):
1.	Yes, if the estate as a whole is above the succession duty exemptions.
2.	Proceeds of a policy payable as a life annuity are taxable. Proceeds of a policy payable as an annuity cannot be answered specifically as the terms of the contract and in particular the number of years certain have a bearing on the question.


GENERAL MCNAUGHTON
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Was General Andrew McNaughton granted pension after retirement from the Canadian army during the present war?
2.	If so, what amount annually?
3.	What was the basis for granting of this pension?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


WHEAT-PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	What amount per bushel on various grades of wheat delivered by producers of 1943 crop will be paid on participation certificates?
2.	When will these payments be made by the Canadian wheat board?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	Amount cannot be given accurately until all 1943 crop wheat sold.
2.	As soon as possible after crop disposed of.


SASKATCHEWAN TREASURY BILLS HELD BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	What is the total amount of treasury bills now held by the Department of Finance from the governments of Saskatchewan?
2.	In what years, and to w'hat amounts in each year were these bills accepted from the governments of Saskatchewan?
3.	What demands for payments of these treasury bills have been made to the Saskatchewan governments since 1930?
4.	What payments of these treasury bills have been made by Saskatchewan governments since 1930?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	896,863,996.40.
2. (a) Treasury bills representing Loans under Relief Acts:-
Fiscal Year	Total	Repayments and Credits	Net Loans1931-32 	$1,100,592 66	$10,934,341 461932-33 	2.155,781 82	7,578.555 561933-34 	1,490,825 76	5,469 240 121934-35 	1,293,797 45	10,141,014 021935-36 	45,565 39	14,245,478 431936-37 	5S2 48	6,058,879 001937-38 	-	11,604.786 48193S-39 	59,063 56	13,708,847 191939-40 	1,057,068 20	9,190,681 621940-41 	62.993 77	1,637,006 231941-42 	171,272 74	171,272 741942-43 	50,986 87	50,986 871943-44 	42,648 83	42,648 831944-45 	85,998 47	85,998 47Less write-offs in 1937-38 and 1939-40 	$97,835,101 201	$7,617,178 002	$90,217,923 20 19,056,137 42
__________ $71,161,785 78
1	Includes treasury bills to the amount of $8,547,081.77 in respect of interest accruals on certain loans up to 1939-40 of which $68,948.63 was repaid in cash and $2,537,020.96 included m the write-off. Since 1939-40 interest has been paid on only a few classes of treasury bills which are now outstanding to the total of $6,966,360.3,0.
2	P1*? total $5,910,249.58 represents credits applied against accountable advances made in respect of the dominions share of relief which in certain years was paid in advance of the submission of vouchers.
Questions

2. (b) Treasury bills in. respect of seed grain l-oan guarantees where payment was made by Dominion:-
Repayments
Fiscal Year	Total	and Credits Net Loans1939- 40	
S 2,637,398 15	-	$ 2,637,398 151940- 41	
7,136,051 09	-	7,136,051 091944-45	
16,468,852 49 S 582,331 11	15,886,521 38826,242,301 73	$ 582,331 11 $25,659,970 62
(c) Treasury bill representing loan for extension Saskatchewan Power Commission lines to
Dafoe, Sask. Fiscal	[DOT]	Repayments	NetYear	Total	and Credits	Loans1940-41 ..	$57,600	-	$57,6001941-42 ..	-	$ 3.840	3,8401942-43 ..	-	3,840	3,8401943-44 ..	-	3,840	3,8401944-45 ..	-	3,840	3,840$57,600	$15,360	$42,2403. Formal demand was made on February 6, 1945, for payment of treasury bill for $16,468,-	852.49, given by the	government of	Saskhtchewan in respect of 1938 seed grain loan guarantees.
4. Answered by No. 2.


UNRRA-ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
Mr. RAYMOND:: What nations have not sent in their contributions to the payment of administrative expenses of the UNRRA?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to
reports received from UNRRA, at the end of 1944, payment of contribution for the administrative expenses of the year by the following countries was still incomplete: Chile, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Uruguay, Australia, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia.
It is understood that several of the above countries have legislation now pending to enable payment, and that payment in respect of others has been partially complete:!.


WAR SERVICE ELECTORS-ENTITLEMENT OF WIVES TO THE FRANCHISE
Mr HATFIELD:: 1.	Are non-resident wives who married members of the armed forces overseas and who are now in Canada or will be in Canada before the election entitled to vote?
2.	If not, is any provision being made in the election act to entitle them to the franchise?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes, provided that they have been ordinarily resident in Canada for one year immediately preceding polling day and are otherwise qualified as electors.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


KINGSTON COLD STORAGE
Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Has the government paid any subsidy to the Kingston Cold Storage during the years 1943, 1944?
2.	If so, how much w'as the subsidy?
3.	Has the government paid any money to the Kingston Cold Storage during the years 1943, 1944?
4.	If so, what was the amount of the payment, and for w'hat was the payment made?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No.
2.	Nil.
3.	Yes.
4.	1943, $280.11; 1944, $280.11. Grant for the construction of a public cold storage warehouse.


N.R.M.A. MEN ON TORONTO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	Were N.R.M.A. troops used on construction projects in the city of Toronto? If so, on what projects?
2.	What firms had these contracts?
3.	Who gave permission to use these troops?
4.	What wages per hour were paid these troops on the various projects?
5.	Were wages paid directly to the troops?
6.	From what regiments were these troops drawn?


Mr. ABBOTT:: 1.	(a) yes; (b) Hospitals of Department of Veterans Affairs (previously Department of Pensions and National Health); Soya bean elevator.
2.	Redfem Construction Company; L. C. Scott Construction Company and Pigott Construction Company.
3.	The Minister of National Defence under authority of P.C. 7429 of 1944.

Questions
4.	Sixty-two cents per hour, exclusive of board and lodging in the case of Department of Veterans Affairs Hospitals. Sixty-three cents per hour exclusive of board and lodging in the case of the soya bean elevator project.
5.	Until 1 December, 1944, wages were received by the Department of 'Labour and paid to the Department of National Defence. The amount in excess of the soldier's normal pay and allowances was credited to him by his .paymaster. After that date the moneys earned were payable to the crown, pursuant to P.C. 9148 of 1944, and the soldier received only his military pay and allowances including dependents' allowance to which he was entitled.
6.	District Depot Military District No. 2. These men were subsequently posted to No. 2 General Employment Company.


INDIAN S'-SASKATCHEWAN-MILITARY SERVICE
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: _ Were any Indians from the Indian reserves in Saskatchewan compelled to take military service under the national selective service mobilization regulations?


Mr. MITCHELL:: Under a ruling by the Department of Justice Indians are subject to military service. In consequence, Indians from the Indian Reserves in Saskatchewan have undoubtedly been called and enrolled in the Army. However, no records are kept in the mobilization offices showing racial origin. It is a fact that many of the Indians in this province have been found unfit and others have been postponed as farmers and trappers.


HECLA, MAN., DOCK
Mr. BRYCE:: 1.	What appropriation has been made for the repair of the dock at Hecla, Manitoba?
2.	What person or firms received the contract for this work?
3.	Was the contract let by tender?
4.	If not, why were tenders not called?


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: 1.	$2,025 authorized from vote 297, "Harbours and rivers, generally, Manitoba".
2.	Work done by day labour.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 2.


NORTH WEST FIELD FORCE, 1885-PENSIONS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many soldiers of the North West field force, 1885, have been given pensions or other forms of assistance under the order in council, 1944?
2.	Have applicants to conform to a "means test" before securing any such assistance, and are small allowances paid them under the Old Age Pension Act deducted from the amounts of those who receive assistance under the order in council aforesaid?
3.	How many applications have been made and how many granted?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	At March 23, 1945, war veterans' allowance has been granted to 100 veterans of the North West Field Force, 1885.
2.	The War Veterans' Allowance Act provides certain permissive income and exemptions, which are not deductible from an award; consequently, the applicant's circumstances are investigated. Section 4 (3) of the act provides that an allowance shall not be paid while old age pension is in payment.
3.	Of 172 applications, 100 have been granted.


MEAT-ASSISTANCE TO BRITAIN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action, if any, will be taken by the government to give immediate assistance to Great Britain in the meat shortage, and will any report on this be made to parliament during the present session?
2.	Has the attention of the government been called to a statement in the House of Commons, London, March 20, on the subject, by the Right Honourable Winston Churchill, and the one made on Wednesday, March 21, by the Prime Minister of Australia, to the British house, providing for a large consignment of meat to aid the situation?
3.	If so, what action will be taken in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is giving most careful consideration in all its aspects to the serious situation which has arisen as a result of the world-wide shortage of meat. The government's decision in the matter will be announced in due course.


RADIO BROADCASTING
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action has or will be taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to have appropriate broadcasting programmes for Good Friday, March 30, of a religious and Christian character?
2.	Were any arrangements made on this day in other years since the war started, and what were they, if any?
3.	Does the corporation regulate all programmes on that day?
4.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regulate all private station programmes and require them to conform to regulations as to programmes on that day?
Mr. LaFLECHE:
1.	The CBC is arranging special programmes on its networks for Good Friday. Advertising agencies have been advised, as in the past, to refrain from inappropriate religious references either by spoken word or music.
2.	There have always been special arrangements made for music, religious, and dramatic programmes on Good Friday, such as: Holy

Questions

Week Meditations, John Masefield's Good Friday, Brahm's Requiem, Bach Cantata- "King of Heaven be Thou Welcome", Haydn's "La Passion", orchestra and choir, and Dorothy Sayer's "Man Bom to be King", etc.
3.	No.
4.	CBC regulations must be observed by private stations on any day. There are no special regulations governing broadcasting on this day.


VETERANS' LAND ACT-TRACTORS AND FARM MACHINERY
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	Have any arrangements under the Veterans' Land Act been made to date with machine companies in Canada for the purchase of tractors and farm machinery?
2.	If so, with what company and for what number of machines?
3.	When are these tractors or other machinery to be delivered?
4.	Are any of these machines now on hand at company warehouses frozen or held for future delivery?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Allis-Chalmers Rumely Ltd., Toronto, Ont., Beatty Brothers Limited, Fergus, Ont., A. Belanger Limited, Montmagny, P.Q., J. I. Case Company, Toronto, Ont., Cockshutt Plow Co. Ltd., Brantford, Ont., John Deere Plow Company, Welland, Ont., De Laval Company Limited, Peterborough, Ont., Desjardins Limited, St. Andre de Kamouraska, P.Q., Fleury-Bissell, Ltd., Elora, Ont., Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd., Windsor, Ont., Canadian Co-Operative Implements Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., International Harvester Co. of Canada Ltd., Hamilton, Ont., Jutras Company Ltd., Victoriaville, P.Q., Massey-Harris Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont., Minneapolis-Moline Farm Implements Co., Regina, Sask., Matthew Moody & Sons Company, Terrebonne, P.Q., Oliver Farm Equipment Company, Regina, Sask., Otaco Limited, Orilla, Ont., Renfrew Machinery Co. Ltd., Renfrew, Ont., Riverside Sales Company, Calgary, Alta., George White & Sons Co. Ltd., London, Ont.
(b) Minimum requirements for approximately 3,000 full time farming units.
3.	During 1945.
4.	Yes.


INTERNATIONAL BUREAU FOR RESEARCH INTO CAUSES OF WAR
Mr. WINKLER:: Has the government proposed or been invited to participate in an international bureau for research into the causes of war?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No such
invitation has been received. It may be noted, however, that the following paragraphs of the proposals for a general international organization deal with studies to be undertaken and efforts to be made to determine and remove threats to peace:	chapter I,
paragraph 1; chapter V B, paragraph 1; chapter VI B, paragraph 5; chapter VIII A, paragraph 1; and chapter IX A, paragraph 1.


ASSISTANCE TO APPLE GROWERS
Mr. HATFIELD:: What assistance was given to the apple growers of Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick, during the years 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, in the way of subsidies or bonus?


Mr. GARDINER:: British
Crop Nova Scotia Columbia Ontario
1941	..$1,538,864	88	$311,434	37	$3,819	101942	..	2,003,526	61	261,414	06	none1943	..	1,785,445	00	56,002	50	none1944	todate	.	1,258,185	00	28,042	80	none
To Quebec and New Brunswick-nil.


BEEF, PORK AND MUTTON
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	How many pounds of slaughtered beef is there now in Canada?
2.	How many pounds of slaughtered pork is there now in Canada?
3.	How many pounds of slaughtered mutton or lamb is there now in Canada?


Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: 1.	On 1st March, 1945 there were 30,079,373 pounds.
2.	On 1st March, 1945 there were 48,484,024
pounds.
3.	On 1st March, 1945 there were 4,333,515 pounds.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	What is the total value of contracts awarded to the Pigott Construction Company during the war?
2.	What is the value of contracts awarded (if any) while Mr. Pigott was president of Wartime Housing Ltd.?

Questions as Orders for Returns


RETIREMENT OF GENERAL PEARKES
Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	Has the Minister of National Defence any information to cause him to believe that General Pearkes and his officers in the Pacific command did not carry out the minister's instructions to put forth their best efforts to induce draftees to go active?
2.	If so, what is such information and the grounds for such belief?
3.	Is there any information on the files of the Department of National Defence which establishes that General Pearkes did not, with fidelity, discharge his duties in securing the enlistment for general service of home defence personnel under his command?
4.	If so, what particulars are therein given?
5.	Was any information to such effect supplied by the Minister of National Defence to the Minister of Agriculture?
6.	If so, what was the information?


GENELCO LIMITED
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	How much capital investment by the government does the building, machinery and equipment of Genelco Ltd., represent?
2.	Is Genelco Ltd. working on government contracts?
3.	If so, what length of time will it take to complete these contracts?
4.	Will the present working staff be required until the completion of these contracts?
5.	Has Genelco Ltd. laid off any staff this year?
6.	If so, how many have been laid off?
7.	Has any machinery or equipment been removed from Genelco Ltd.? If so, what machinery or equipment? _
8.	Will the government dispose of the building, equipment and machinery of Genelco Ltd.?
9.	If so, what purchase price is the government asking?


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-HEAVY TRUCKS
Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: 1.	Has the War Assets Corporation sold any heavy trucks?
2.	If so, to whom were they sold?
3.	How many trucks were sold?
4.	Have any four wheel drive trucks been sold?
5.	If so, to whom and how many were sold?



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-COLLECTIONS OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST

Mr. FAIR:: During each of the fiscal years 1930-31 to 1943-44 inclusive, what amount of (a) principal; (b) interest, was collected from soldier settlers under the soldier settlement board (civilian settlers excluded) ?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I should like this to stand as an order for return. It can be sufficiently answered in its present form.
32283-13J



HOUSING-TORONTO

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What steps are or will be taken by the
government to remedy the housing situation in the city of Toronto?	_
2.	What has been done since the last session of parliament, August last?
3.	How many houses have been built there under the National Housing Act programme, 1944, and how many applications were received and dealt with so far?



LEGAL SERVICES-J. H. POWER, K.C.

Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What legal services have been performed for the government by J. H. Power, K.C., New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, in each year since January 1, 1940, to date; what payments have been made and what accounts have been rendered and remain unpaid for services and expenses for the Department of Justice, wartime prices and trade board, the Departments of National Defence and the Department of Munitions and Supply?



CANADIAN ARMY-DISTURBANCES AT DRUMMOND-VILLE AND GATINEAU MILLS, QUE.

Mr. BRUCE:: 1.	What action, if any, has the government taken with respect to the riots at Drummond-ville, Quebec, some weeks ago, when members of the provost corps and the R.CM.P. were assaulted?
2.	If such action has been taken, does the Minister of Justice think it will be adequate to prevent a recurrence of such unlawful acts?
3.	What action has been taken in regard to the alleged "beating up" of 3 provost corps men at Gatineau Mills, Quebec, by a gang of 40 or 50 men?
4.	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 ?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. DORION:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents addressed to the government during the six months' period to August, 1944, regarding the appointment of Mr. Boulianne as postmaster at St. Paul du Nord, Saguenay county.



RIVIERE COLOMBIER, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Frédéric Dorion: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents addressed to the government during the twelve months' period to September 15, 1944, regarding the post office at Riviere Columbier, county of Saguenay.



STUART BOWMAN RALSTON

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence concerning the appointment of Mr. Stuart Bowman Ralston to do some work at the Patent and Copyright Office and of his reports to the head of the department concerned.
Beet Sugar



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT AND VETERANS' LAND ACT- GRANTING OF CLEAR TITLES

Robert Fair: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, briefs or other communications received by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of Mines and Resources, the director of soldier settlement and the Veterans' Land Act or any other department of government in connection with the request of the Soldier Settlers Association of Canada that veterans of great war I, holding contracts with the soldier settlement board at March 31, 1944, be granted clear titles without making further payments after that date.



SEED GRAIN LOANS TO SASKATCHEWAN, 1938

Mr. WRIGHT:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other communications, from 1938 to date, exchanged between the dominion government and the government of the province of Saskatchewan relating to the 1938 seed grain loans.



SEED GRAIN FURNISHED TO SASKATCHEWAN


Mr. PERLEY:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged, from and after September, 1937, to the present date, between the federal government or any minister or department thereof and the provincial government of Saskatchewan or any minister or department thereof, with respect to seed grain furnished to the farmers of Saskatchewan in the spring of 1938.



BEET SUGAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will he at an early day, tomorrow if possible, give the house a statement on the beet sugar production situation in Canada, answering each of the following questions:	(1) Did a delegation from the
National Sugar Beet Producers Association of Canada tender a submission to S. R. Noble, J. L. Ilsley and J. G. Gardiner on or about February 7th, 1945, in Montreal, in an effort to obtain assistance for beet producers of Canada? (2) What kind and degree of assistance did they ask for? (3) Was their request granted?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: On a point of order, these questions are clearly not such as should be asked on the orders of the day. I submit that the hon. member is not in order in reading a long list of questions in this way.


John Horne Blackmore: I am merely giving notice of motion. The minister can have a day to answer, but I submit my questions are in order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Perhaps the hon. member will place them on the order paper.



RATIONING-SUPPLIES TO GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Hugh Castleden: In view of the drastic restrictions in meat exports from the United States to Great Britain which are proposed for 1945, why has the government not applied meat rationing in Canada in order to make greater supplies available for export to Great Britain?


Thomas Vien: The hon. member will place that question on the order paper.



PRISONERS OF WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to make concerning the sending of parcels by next of kin to prisoners of war in Germany.
Following my statement on Friday respecting conditions among Canadian prisoners of war in Germany, the hon. member for Saskatoon City (Mr. Bence) asked whether next of kin in this country should continue to send parcels to prisoners in Germany, and I replied in the affirmative. Further information received by the Department of External Affairs makes it appear that, because of conditions in Germany resulting from the allied offensive, it may be impossible to deliver parcels individually addressed to prisoners of war. It will be remembered that the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Lafleche) advised next of kin on February 15 that until further notice parcels should not be sent to prisoners of war in certain camps which were being moved by the German authorities. It is expected that the minister will make a further statement in the next few days regarding the sending of next-of-kin parcels to all prisoners of war in German hands.
The important thing for the present is to see that Red Cross food parcels continue . to get through to our men.

Armed Forces
I am making this addition to my reply of last Friday in order to ensure that next of kin in Canada will not, until further advised, send in parcels which it will be impossible to have delivered.



THE WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to make a brief statement in regard to the military situation in Europe. The crossing of the Rhine has long been looked upon as indicating the final state of the assault on Germany. Since the United States first army established a bridgehead at Remagen nearly three weeks ago, the stage has been set for a major assault as a result of which five allied armies are now fighting east of the Rhine.
I am indeed glad to be able to tell the house that the united assault against the Rhine barrier has been successful, and that satisfactory progress is being achieved at all points.
The people of Canada will have learned with pride that the Canadian third division, as part of the British second army under General Dempsey's command, has taken an important part in this great offensive.
According to latest reports, a crossing over the Ijssel river has already been secured. The Ijssel river is east and north of the Rhine. Immediately to the south of the British second army, the United States ninth army is fighting its way into the heavily industrialized area of the Ruhr.
In all parts of Germany the demoralization of the industrial front is becoming more and more apparent. The Remagen bridgehead is steadily being expanded. Still farther to the south, General Patton's brilliant thrust opposite Oppenheim has captured Darmstadt and has pushed on to the river Main. Enemy resistance west of the Rhine has practically collapsed. The striking successes of the armies of the united nations east of the Rhine give strong reason to hope that the disintegration of the German army may not long be delayed.



CANADIAN FORCES IN ITALY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I
should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence since there is no minister in the house. When may we expect some announcement from the department with respect to the Canadian forces in Italy? I have had numerous inquiries about this matter. There is considerable anxiety in my province with
respect to the personnel of the Carleton-York regiment which has had such a great record in Italy. The next of kin are anxiously waiting news of their position.


Mr. D. C. ABBOTT (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: _ An announcement will be made as soon as it is possible to do so. I am not quite sure just what my hon. friend refers to.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not
ready yet?



VETERANS' AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. H. KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs. I received in the mail this morning a sealed envelope addressed to me at Winnipeg from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and bearing the frank of the deputy minister. It contained certain press releases from the department which are of significance and value, but also enclosed was a printed leaflet which is a piece of commercial advertising for one of the chartered banks of this country. I should like to ask the minister whether the facilities of the department and its franking privileges are thus being made available to the chartered banks for advertising purposes.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans' Affairs): In the first place, my hon. friend did not do me the courtesy of bringing this to my personal attention before asking the question in the house. In the second place, what he has revealed is absolute news to me. I did not know any such publications were being distributed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister look into it?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly will.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):	Mr. Speaker, I have a brief
inquiry to make of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Over the week-end a great number of persons, particularly returned soldiers with service of five years or more, told me that they were anxiously awaiting a statement as to when
The Late Earl Lloyd George
[Stage Direction]
these men might be able to return to civilian occupations. There is a great demand for the skilled services of some of these men, and I feel that a statement should be made in a day or two in order to let them know what is ahead of them after they have been kicking around for five months or so. They have been told that they do not have to go back overseas.
Douglas Charles Abbott: I presume my hon. friend is referring to service personnel which has been returned for rotational duty in Canada. I shall deal with that when I make my statement on the estimates. Broadly speaking, the position is that a good many of these service personnel will not be returned overseas but are to be kept on for instructional purposes and for operational duties in Canada. My hon. friend will realize that even though from the looks of things the war in Europe may be over before very long, we cannot afford to relax our efforts so far as the training of reinforcements is concerned. I take it that he would be the last who would want to suggest that. These men are being employed in that particular type of operational duty. I doubt that I could make a statement in the course of the next few days, as my hon. friend suggests.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN -FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) * Mr. Speaker, would the genial parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence be kind enough to inform the house when the return will be brought down concerning brass hats who have never been in a theatre of war? The order was passed last session.
Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend's memory is at fault, which is unusual. I have made inquiries and the matter to which he refers was a question put in the course of debate during the special session last fall, and the minister stated that he would endeavour to obtain the information. It was not a question which was put on the order paper.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had intended to speak to my hon. friend about it. Of course if it was not passed as an order for a return, it died with prorogation


Jean-François Pouliot: It was passed as an order for a return I want my hon. friend to shake up the brass hats.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My information is that
there was no order passed, but I will check again.



THE LATE EARL LLOYD GEORGE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I
may be permitted to make an announcement which I know the house will be sorry to receive but which is not altogether unexpected. Through the courtesy of the Canadian Press I have just received word that Earl Lloyd George has passed away. I should like immediately on behalf of this House of Commons and cn behalf of the parliament of Canada to express the feelings of deep regret which we all share at the passing of one of the foremost leaders of free men in any part of the world. Perhaps the word "regret" is not a wholly suitable one Rather we should rejoice that one who was so active in public affairs over so many years was spared to the great age to which the late Earl Lloyd George attained and that he had lived to see the regard and respect which comes to one who plays a great part in the affairs of the world.
This parliament will wish to have it known that in expressing its sense of loss in the passing of one who had so much to do with the shaping and moulding of the empire and of the commonwealth, it is sharing a feeling that will be entertained by all the nations of the commonwealth. The late Earl Lloyd George's passing will be deeply felt in the United Kingdom, but the sense of loss will also be shared by all the free nations of the world.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Prime Minister telling of the greatness of the deceased Earl Lloyd George I could not help but think of the time when I witnessed the most spontaneous reception, outside of the visit of Their Majesties, that was ever given in this country to a public man from beyond our borders. It was the occasion of the visit to the part of Canada in which I was then living of Great Britain's war-time prime minister of the first war. I do not think I ever saw such a sense of oneness as I did in the tremendous gathering which then welcomed that distinguished statesman.
I wish to associate this party with what has just been said so eloquently by the Prime Minister with respect to the passing of Earl Lloyd George. He has left a fine reputation in both war and peace. He is a magnificent example of what democracy can do in raising

San Francisco Conference
to the top those who are capable of assuming positions of responsibility in times of crises.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: We should like to associate ourselves with the other two speakers. For myself I have a long recollection of Lloyd George. I remember hearing of him. first as a rather fiery young Welshman whose ideas were not acceptable to a large percentage of those who wanted to maintain the status quo in Great Britain. I remember also seeing him hanged in effigy during the Boer war. But through the years his ideas have gained ground and his policies have been accepted more and more.
I think we all can join in expressing our appreciation of the life of a truly great man, one moreover who demonstated to the world anew that Great Britain, with all her ancient symbols and all her ancient ways, nevertheless offers unique opportunities for young men of humble birth to rise to the highest position in the nation.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can add very much to what has already been said, except that we in this group wish to associate ourselves with the feeling that has been expressed that the British peoples have indeed suffered the loss of a great little man. I have taken some interest in David Lloyd George, to whom my father, an Englishman and a Liberal, often used to refer in glowing terms. It is perhaps particularly for that reason that I have watched him rise to become an outstanding figure ini the political and diplomatic life of Great Britain. He stood for those great ideals for which the British commonwealth of nations now stands, and when the Prime Minister made the announcement to-day, coming as it did, I wondered if it might not be significant. We associate ourselves with others who have spoken in expressing our sympathy in the loss of this man.



SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from1 March 23, 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.
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I am conscious of the fact,
as I am sure were all members who have preceded me, that this is one of the historic debates of parliament. Ordinarily we deal with matters cf local concern, but here we are dealing with a matter that goes far beyond the confines of our country, a matter that is of vital importance to the whole future of this dominion. It is important therefore that we should understand clearly what the business is that will be the main concern of the San Francisco conference.
It is not a conference called to consider how measures of social security may be furthered in the various countries of the world. It is not a conference called to discuss economic questions, what the scale of tariffs should be or where trade should be developed. It is not a conference called to help backward countries. Nor has it anything to do with the terms of peace. The San Francisco conference is a conference in which the united nations will sit down together to try to work out the means whereby peace and security may be the lot of the world in the future, and how war, with all its barbarities, with its unbridled horrors, with all the loss and destruction it brings in the physical and moral and spiritual spheres, may lie outlawed forever in this world. That is a lofty ideal, and if we are to comprehend it fully I think we must look at it against the background of the present war.
The progress made by science and invention has illustrated during this war of the last five years, better than anything else could have done, the terrible power of destruction that can come from the inventive genius of man. We see cities destroyed almost overnight; we see tens of millions of people made homeless; we see the pitiless desolation that has overwhelmed a great part of the earth. Not only have we this evidence before our eyes but we realize also the terrible impact which the war and its horrors have made upon the spiritual and moral values of mankind.
I recall hearing, Mr. Speaker, when I was only eight or ten years old, of the Armenian atrocities perpetrated some sixty years ago by the dictator who then ruled Turkey. I recall the thunderings of Mr. Gladstone, then England's grand old man, who roused the moral conscience of the world against the "unspeakable Turk", so that there was not a hamlet or village in Canada that was not conscious of the terrible things that were being done to those poor human souls in far away Armenia. We have travelled a long way since then. To-day the Armenian atrocities pale into insignificance alongside the horrors of the present war-horrors the most bestial the
San Francisco Conference

human mind can conceive. I may be wrong- I hope I am-but somehow it seems to me that our moral sense has become a bit blunted. We grow so much accustomed to these barbarities that we hear or read about every day that they seem to have a soporific effect upon the conscience of mankind. It has always seemed to me that the most dreadful thing that comes from war is not the destruction of physical property, not even the loss of life, terrible as that often is, but the destruction of the moral and spiritual qualities in man; for when those moral and spiritual qualities are weakened or destroyed, the foundations collapse upon which all progress has been made in the centuries that have gone.
It is against such a background, war and its horrors and barbarities, the preservation of our liberty, the right to worship as we please, freedom to live our own lives, that the conference at San Francisco takes place.
Reference has been made in the debate to the failure of the league of nations. The league of nations was a great deal, but it is now well known that inadequate preparation had been made for the drafting of a charter for so important a body as the league of nations was. In the end the league failed, it seems to me, for two or three reasons. The first was the absence of the United States from the council table. That was an irreparable blow to the league idea. The second was that the league lacked teeth; that is, it became in practice pretty much a debating society. In the third place, and this to my mind is probably the chief reason, there was not the willingness throughout the nations to surrender a little of their sovereignty, or a willingness on the part of the peoples generally to recognize that if this new instrument was to be made to work, it had to be -clothed with the necessary authority and power to enforce law against the law breaker.
The league failed, it had some successes to its credit in the early years, but as time passed the gangster rulers rose in power, and the league declined in influence and1 in its ability to do anything to ward off danger. So we had the invasion of Manchuria by Japan in the autumn of 1932. By that act Japan openly violated the covenant which it had signed in the league of nations of which it was a member, flouted it and threw it to the winds of heaven. The effort was made by the league-and I have talked to some of those who were present on that occasion-to try to bring Japan to reason, but one could as well have reasoned with a mad dog. The gangsters in Japan were on the march and their hand would not be stayed. In 1934, as everyone

knows, the treaty of Versailles was violated by Germany-another direct blow to the league- and then in 1935 came the invasion of Ethiopia by Italy. Ethiopia's entrance to the league of nations had been sponsored by Italy; but this defenceless country was overrun and conquered by its powerful neighbour. Why proceed with the sorry tale? The overrunning of Austria by Hitler, then Czechoslovakia, then Poland, and the outbreak of this war which has covered almost the whole world. It is a melancholy story, and if this new league is to succeed, that story must not be repeated. I recall a speech by Mr. Churchill some eight or nine years ago in which he showed with great clarity and vision the course on which the world was descending step by step into the abyss of chaos and destruction. How true a prophet he was is clear to-day for everyone to see. So, if we are to consider the proceedings at San Francisco in the right light we must see them against the background of the unutterable misery that war has brought to the world, and to humanity everywhere.
Before I discuss the Dumbarton Oaks proposals-and I have a few comments to make on those-I want to refer to two matters which were brought up in debate. The first was by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). Let me say at once that I thought [DOT]my hon. friend made an excellent speech the other afternoon-[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: A wonderful speech.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With the greater part of it I wholly agree. I want no misunderstanding on that point. But the hon. -member referred to the debate which took place in this chamber in the autumn of 1919 for the ratification of the peace treaty of Versailles, and I thought he endeavoured a bit unfairly, perhaps quite unintentionally, to score a point against the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He quoted the amendment moved by the late Mr. Fielding to the resolution to ratify the treaty. The main discussion which took place at that time here, as in the United States, was on article X of the covenant, and- the -point -on which it centred was the degree to which that article committed this country. The hon. member for Lake Centre quoted Mr. Fielding's amendment, and then, in support of his contention that Mr. Fielding was isolationist and that that isolationism had been carried on down to the present Prime Minister, the hon. member used these words, as reported on page- 164 of Hansard:
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the statement of the Prime Minister the other day is but a continuation of that amendment of 1919; and

San Francisco Conference
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.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How did
yiou vote on that amendment? You were here.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I recall I was not
present in the house. I was present at the debate but I was absent when the vote was taken; but I have no hesitation in saying that I would have voted for the motion. But I wish to say to the hon. member for Lake Centre as well as to the house that his assumption here is wholly incorrect. When Mr. Fielding proposed the amendment he was answered by the late Hon. C. J. Doherty, who was minister of justice in Sir Robert Borden's government and- had been a member of the Canadian delegation at the peace conference. Mr. Doherty opposed the amendment, not on the ground stated by the hon. member for Lake Centre, but on the ground that it would be misunderstood abroad. He urged' this consideration and stated, as reported in Hansard, (second session), 1919, volume I, page 198:
Between the people of Canada and the operations of the council, under article X, there will always be standing the undisturbed power of the parliament of Canada.
That I think, sets the incident in its right perspective The same difficulty arose in the United States. If anybody here is interested in reading that debate in the autumn of 1919 he will find that the late Mr. Lapointe, who took a rather different view from, that taken by Mr. Fielding, quoted a statement of President Wilson to the United States Congress, that article X did not give the league of nations council power over the congress, that the league's powers were only advisory, and that consequently congress would always 'be free, if assistance were asked of it, to. maintain order in the world, to approve or reject the request.
I come now to another point which is a much more serious one, and that was a point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). He propounded an idea which I think deserves the most earnest consideration of this house. To sum it up briefly, it was no less than this, that in commonwealth relations with other nations the commonwealth should speak with one voice. That was clearly the meaning of what my hon. friend advocated, and, perhaps at some length, I wish to deal with it because it is not a new suggestion. It is one that has been discussed many times before in this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was it not only in relation to this new league of nations?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but the implication was clearly there. I can read what the hon. member said, and I wish he were in his seat at the moment. I think I can state his position, and I certainly do not wish to state it unfairly. He was endeavouring to argue that Mr. Eden and Mr. Churchill were quite willing to have the commonwealth speak with one voice but that the malign influence that prevented this came from the present Prime Minister of Canada. I wish to show, and I think I can show, that my hon. friend is absolutely and wholly on wrong ground. Let me quote from page 116 of Hansard just what he said:
There can be no doubt of the attitude of Great Britain;

That is, on this matter.
Churchill and Eden have shown it on different occasions as clearly as they dared. I have here the press dispatch of a speech made by Mr. Eden in the British House of Commons over a year ago, in which he said that "if a close and intimate understanding could be achieved between the British commonwealth of nations, the United States and Russia, all our problems, . however difficult, can be resolved."
Then he went on to quote Mr. Churchill as using these words:
I hope most earnestly and I believe with deep conviction that the warrior statesman at the head of Russia, through these years of storm and tempest will bring his country into the sunlight of a broader and happier age for all, and with him in this task will march the British commonwealth of nations and the mighty United States of America.
That was very fine and I have no quarrel with that sentiment. But my hon. friend went on to argue that we should have been represented at Dumbarton Oaks through the British commonwealth of nations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not think so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, precisely. I will quote what he said:
I believe the Dumbarton Oaks proposals ignore the existence of the British commonwealth of nations at the suggestion of this Canadian government.
I was going to say that is complete nonsense, but at any rate there is no foundation whatever for that statement. Not only that, my hon. friend makes an assumption, on the remarks of Mr. Eden and Mr. Churchill, which I do not think is warranted. When Mr. Eden spoke of Russia and the United States and the British commonwealth of nations, and when Mr. Churchill spoke in the same sense, they were not speaking of the British commonwealth as a political entity at all. They were speaking of it as a group of nations; otherwise they would not have used the language they did. They would have said the British

San Francisco Conference

commonwealth; but they used the term the British commonwealth of nations. Indeed, what Mr. Eden and Mr. Churchill had in mind in the statements they made was that there would be Russia, the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, all the members of the commonwealth. That is clearly what was meant.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think myself you are hair-splitting.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I am not, but my hon. friend is entitled to his view. The hon. member for Vancouver South proceeded in his argument with regard to the advantages that would come to Canada if we spoke with one voice through the commonwealth of nations.


Mr. GREEN:: I did not put it that way.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend did not state it in these Words but no other inference I think can be properly drawn from his remarks.


Howard Charles Green: As a matter of privilege, may I say that the minister must not put words into my mouth. He probably did not understand my speech at all. I said, on the security council.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: On the security council, and also I presume at San Francisco.


Howard Charles Green: Just read my speech again.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have read my hon. friend's speech and it is not the first time that he has ventilated this doctrine in the house. I wish at present to bring back to him a little bit of history so that he may be able to keep on the track in future. My hon. friend was speaking not only of Dumbarton Oaks but of the security council that will be set up, or which it is hoped will be set up as a result of the San Francisco conference, because he used these words in his argument:
Thus if Canada makes this request-
That is, that the commonwealth speak with one voice.


Howard Charles Green: I must rise again. If the minister is going to quote my speech he must quote it correctly. I was not talking about speaking generally; I was referring to the security council on which I said there should be a commonwealth seat rather than a seat held only by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I was very careful to point out that Canada would still have her own seat on the assembly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the point I wish to come to now. If the commonwealth is to have one seat, that is, if it is to speak as a political
rMr. Crerar.]
entity at San Francisco, or Dumbarton Oaks, or in the league council, as my hon. friend suggests-


Howard Charles Green: You stick to that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let me read what my hon. friend said:
Thus if Canada makes this request, and if it is granted, Canada still with a seat on the assembly, will be sitting in permanently on the security council, where the important decisions are being made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Surely.
That is the point he made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, let me ask this question of the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), who probably has had a little more experience in this-I say it without offence- than my hon. friend who represents Vancouver South. Does he think for a moment that if the whole group of the British commonwealth of nations were tied in together in one representation in the league council or anywhere else they could have at the same time their independent representatives in the assembly or in any other organization?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why certainly. I have no hesitation in answering the minister at all. What I do suggest, though-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister put the question to me. If he does not want me to answer it I will not answer it now, but I may try to do so later. What I suggest is that the basis of the thesis of the hon. member for Vancouver South was that the British commonwealth of nations should speak as with one voice on the security council, which would give it power that it will not have under the present set-up.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is precisely what I
said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
think so. The minister added the words "anywhere else".


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my hon. friend or anyone else thinks that the members of the British commonwealth of nations can merge their separate entities into one political entity to be represented on the security council or any other international organization and at the same time retain their individual representatives in the assembly of the council, I believe he is wholly and greatly wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister's opinion is that it is not possible.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This one-voice idea-because it is the one-voice idea-will not survive.

San Francisco Conference


Gordon Graydon: That one-voice idea is
the straw man that the minister and his party build up once in a while.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will show my hon. friend that it is not a straw man before I get through.


Mr. HOMUTH:: The minister had a straw man for five years.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is interesting to note
that when the last war ended a Canadian delegation went to Versailles. At that time I was, as my hon. friend knows, a member of Sir Robert Borden's government:	I am not
betraying any secrets of council when I say that this question of how Canada should be represented at Versailles was discussed for one whole evening at a council meeting in the east block. The government was almost unanimously of the opinion that Canada should have its own representative sitting at the peace table-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister was a member of the government at that time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -when the treaty of peace was made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The first
proposal was that Canada was not to have any say at all; and Sir Robert Borden thought that Canada had earned the right to sit in at the peace conference because of the valour of our men, not because of a political situation.


Mr. TUCKER:: We think that to-day.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Pardon me; I should not interrupt.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not interrupt hon.
members when they are speaking, and I would ask that I be permitted to continue.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister-


Thomas Vien: There have been too many interruptions of the minister's speech.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I must
say I am astounded at the minister making a disclosure of what took place in cabinet council.


Thomas Vien: It is impossible for the
minister to complete his speech in the time allotted to him if he is continually interrupted.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The minister makes factual statements which are not in accord with the record.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What does the hon. member know about it?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have some knowledge of it.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member will have an opportunity to reply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What party did the hon. member belong to at that time?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no desire, certainly in a debate of this land, to offend my hon. friends opposite; and the events of twenty-five years ago are now history. The position that Sir Robert Borden took was that Canada had earned the right to sit at the peace conference table. Every one recognizes that that was a tremendous step forward in the constitutional relations with Great Britain. I believe it is a matter of common knowledge that that request was not very warmly received in certain quarters in Great Britain when it was made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the minister's authority for that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And it was only because of the appeal made to the British Prime Minister-I think I am speaking within the bounds of truth-that we went to Versailles as a separate entity with our own delegates and signed the treaty of Versailles for Canada. Sir Robert tells that in his memoirs. I really do not need to labour the matter, but a reference to it will be found on pages 893-4 of Sir Robert's memoirs, and reads as follows:
Elsewhere I have said, and here I emphatically repeat, that Canada and the other dominions would have regarded the situation as intolerable if they, who numbered their dead by the hundred thousand in the fiercest struggle the world had ever known, should stand outside the council chamber of the conference, while nations that had taken no direct or active part in the struggle stood within and determined the conditions of peace.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We all agree with that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We all agree with that, and I trust we shall continue to agree. Sir Robert Borden continued:
The path upon which the dominions advanced to complete representation at the peace conference was at times rough and thorny.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt that is true.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I continue:
Progress could only be achieved by unfaltering persistence and unceasing effort. It affords me the highest satisfaction to declare that in our advance along that path the dominion ministers received from the British Prime Minister and his colleagues complete sympathy and unwavering support from first to last.
San Francisco Conference

That, I repeat, was a tremendous step forward. My hon. friend will also know that in successive meetings of the league of nations Canada and Britain did not always see eye to eye. That has been true under every government of this country, and Sir Robert Borden adds a footnote to what I have just quoted from his memoirs to this effect:
There was intense surprise at Geneva, with many echoes abroad, when Canadian delegates put forward views quite opposed to those of the British delegates in the first assembly of the league of nations.
That is not my statement; it is the statement of Sir Robert Borden, who was a great leader of the Conservative party. I am glad to pay that tribute to him.
I wish to make just one other reference to this matter further to show that the assumptions of my hon. friend are not sound. I do not wish to do him an injustice in the slightest degree, but while we are on this question it is interesting to note a discussion that took place in the British House of Lords on July 21, 1942, as reported in the Hansard of the House of Lords. The question came up on a motion that had to do with "the vital matter of maintaining now and in the future the unity and solidarity of the British empire." That is a sentiment with which we can all agree. Our old colleague in this house, now Lord Bennett, spoke in that debate; and he spoke with the vigour which we were accustomed to seeing when he was with us in this chamber. He sketched the growth that had taken place in the status of the dominions, the change in their relationships with Britain, and I fancied that there was in his speech a note of concern that the dominions were drifting away from the mother country. In the course of his speech he made this statement:
It is obvious that if we are to have a commonwealth of nations we must have a common policy.
That is. if I mistake not, what the hon. member for Vancouver South has in mind. I continue:
That is obvious. It must be a common foreign policy. How that is to be brought about is, I conceive, a problem of the first magnitude.
I say quite frankly it certainly is a problem of the first magnitude, if it is ever to be brought about.
In that debate he was answered by Viscount Cranborne. who was Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I should like to quote again, because this is a matter of some importance. If the house will bear with me I shall read1 at some length from what Viscount Cranborne had to say in reply to the speech of Viscount Bennett and others who spoke in the debate. Speaking of the British empire he said:

It is not a static institution. It is dynamic in character. It is a living organism. The relationship of the component parts has changed fundamentally during the last decades, as Lord Bennett has shown, and is likely to continue to change and develop in the years that are before us.
Wise words. He continued:
In this respect I think the British empire is different from most of the great empires in the past.
Then he goes on to speak of them as being predatory-empires with secret police, and that sort of thing, culminating in the dictatorship of the Third Reich. Then he continues:
Our British conception has, I think, always been entirely different. The empire has been compared to a family. My right hon. friend Mr. Mcmillan, referring to the structure of the empire in another place the other day when the colonial estimates were being considered, rightly pointed out that to try to draw such an analogy exactly would be fallacious, for, as he truly emphasized, in a family parents die, and are succeeded by their children. That is not true of nations. I very much hope that it is not going to be true of Great Britain. But with this essential exception I think a certain comparison can be drawn between the family and the relationship of Great Britain and the dominions and colonies. There is, for instance, the same alteration in the relationship as the children grow up. In the early days of the family, children are young and inexperienced, and not able to face problems of life for themselves. Therefore they have to be protected and educated. But gradually they grow up and begin to take their own line-to think for themselves. Eventually they become independent entities, independent personalities and, finally, if they are worth anything at all, they become self-supporting. They are no longer dependent upon their parents, but they remain members of the family still bound to each other by ties of affection, and still have a responsibility to help and protect each other. They all benefit, and they know that they benefit, from that mutual relationship.
I would ask hon. members to note these words:
That I think is the experience in all well-conducted families, and I think it is equally true of the British commonwealth of nations. The successful operation of this conception, of course, puts a great responsibility on the Mother country herself. She has got to recognize that her family are growing up, and that is alwrays a very difficult thing for any parents to do with regard to any children. They always tend to try and keep their children on leading strings too long. Such a course leads finally to friction and alienation of the child. Indeed, the child may-and in a number of cases does-break away entirely from the family, though the passage of time nearly always softens and even wipes away bitterness in later life.
I think that analogy is perfectly sound. But if we ever come to the position-and I do not believe it will ever happen-where the commonwealth speaks with one voice, whether it be in the council of the league of nations, at Dumbarton Oaks, at San Francisco, or at any

San Francisco Conference
other conference which may be held in the future, then I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is as certain as night follows day that the friction, the difficulties and differences which would be bound to arise under those conditions would irretrievably break those commonwealth nations to pieces. And so the path of wisdom is to continue on the basis of close and continuous consultation developed through the years. By the aid of the progress made in modern means of communication this is easy, and the prime ministers of Great Britain, Canada, Australia and South Africa can be in daily touch with each other.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member's time has expired.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Proceed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are in daily touch with each other. And that is the line along which this wise, safe and sound development must take place. The moment we try to draw closer, to get these different entities together, we are going to have trouble.


Howard Charles Green: Are we not fighting a war together?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I now pass on to only one or two comments on Dumbarton Oaks itself. As I see it, there are two important features in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which are worthy of note. The proposals themselves as a whole afford an excellent basis for discussions which will take place at San Francisco. First is the voting procedure in the security council. It will be noted that that was left blank, and that no decision was reached at Dumbarton Oaks concerning it. Now, as a result of the Yalta conference it is cleared up to the extent that any one of the permanent members of the league who may be charged with aggression cannot refuse to have the case ventilated; but they can refuse to permit punitive action, should a decision go against them. In other words, as someone has said, the league council may draw up an indictment, but it cannot enforce that indictment against a recalcitrant member. That, it seems to me, is a definite weakness in the proposed league structure; but so important is this conference that, if that cannot be bridged, then I would be for supporting it as it stands.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So would I.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I can understand the reason for this difficulty. Everyone knows that until a few years ago there was a great deal of suspicion and distrust in Russia of other countries; and I am bound to say there was some basis for that suspicion and distrust. But I do
not like that provision in the Dumbarton Oaks proposal, and I hope it may be possible to have it changed.
There is one other point I should like to mention.	One of the questions which
undoubtedly will come up at the California conference is the manner in which force may be used against a law-breaker-an international gangster-once judgment has been rendered against that law-breaker. This is a matter of great importance. The old league had no teeth in it. As I see it, there is no use in trying to build a peace structure if the machinery is not there for quick and certain, punishment for any nation, whether it be big or small, that violates the. code. Punishment must be quick and it must be certain. In this respect I should like to quote a statement made by former Governor Stassen of Minnesota in a recent address to Minnesota university. He is one of those who does not belong to the isolationist school in the United States now, if he ever did. He said:
That as a nation we will join with our present allies ... to build a definite continuing organization of the united nations of the world based on justice and law and insured by force.
He went on to say that it might be necessary to give up a little sovereignty, and he then made what I think was a pertinent statement when he said:
There may be diplomats who do not know it; there may be many political leaders who are afraid to admit it; there may be many people *who do not understand it, but the extreme principle of absolute nationalistic sovereignty is of the middle ages and it is dead. It died with the aeroplane, the radio, the rocket and the robomb.
I think that is a profoundly true statement. If at San Francisco, and what follows, the nations of the world cannot work out some means of maintaining and ensuring peace in the world, even at the expense of a bit of their sovereignty, then black indeed are the years that lie ahead.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It must be action on the minute, not waiting for parliament.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I agree with the hon.
member for Waterloo South. The aggressor will have to be dealt with quickly and effectively. It is much the same as a fire brigade in a municipality. If a fire were to break out on one of the streets of Ottawa, it would be poor business if the city council had to be called together to decide whether or not the fire fighting apparatus should be sent out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not the Prime Minister's position or Mr. Fielding's position.
San Francisco Conference


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is not right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I
am.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I must close because hon. members have been very patient with me. This business of peace is urgent because if it is not achieved, then the outlook for the future is black indeed. Yesterday I went to the civic hospital to call on a friend who is there for a few days. As I was waiting on the floor the elevator came down and a young man in uniform stepped out. He was with an elderly couple- I imagine his parents-one on his right hand and the other on his left. It required only a moment's glance to realize that the young man had been blinded, probably for life. He was very uncertain in his step. He wore the uniform of the Canadian army.
I think again of a young man from Saskatchewan who was in our naval services and who lost his life less than two years ago in the wintry, icy waters of the north Atlantic. I think of another young man from Ontario who crashed to eternity over Germany with his companions in a burning plane.
When I think of these young men who sacrificed and died that we might continue to enjoy liberty and freedom, and as well of all the terrible miseries that have been inflicted on the world through this war, I say that there is no reasonable length to which the Canadian people should not go to try to prevent for ever any recurrence of this catastrophe.
That is the great business that is to be dealt with at San Francisco. I know the way is going to be difficult. It will be something like the pilgrim on the way to the celestial city. The road is not going to be easy, but we must persevere. We must go ahead doing the right as God gives us to see the right. If we do we may with some hope in our hearts look forward to the state of society pictured by the Hebrew prophet of old, under conditions not greatly dissimilar to those of to-day, where every man can sit under his own vine and fig tree enjoying the fruits of his own labour and where none dare molest him or make him afraid.


Mr. A. H. BENCE (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I read with a great deal of pleasure the proposals and purposes agreed upon at Dumbarton Oaks last October. The plan quite frankly is an experiment, just as the old league of nations was an experiment, but in view of the fact that, as the Right Hon. Anthony Eden put it the other day, the San Francisco conference which is being called for the purpose of considering the Dumbarton Oaks proposals may well be the world's last chance, it is imperative that everything be

done to ensure that the possibilities of future wars be reduced to the very minimum which men and nations of good will can achieve.
I say that I read the Dumbarton Oaks proposals with pleasure, but I cannot say that I listened with as much satisfaction to the statement of government policy which was given to the House of Commons and the Canadian people last Tuesday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Before dealing with his statement, let me say that I was astounded at the political play that was made by some hon. members on the government side and some horn, members of the C.C.F. party over the desire of His Majesty's opposition to scrutinize carefully that statement of government policy. We were accused by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) of handing the answering over to the C.C.F. The members of this party, Mr. Speaker, have been giving to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals very earnest consideration for many months, but as the official opposition in this house we have the duty to scrutinize and, where necessary, to criticize important statements of government policy. Invariably in the past so far as my recollection goes, though I must admit I have not been in this house so very long, when the government has made any important statement of policy never have we been denied the right to examine it for at least twenty-four hours, and I fail to understand why there was such great surprise, or simulated surprise, on the part of some hon. members with respect to the desire of our party to examine this most important statement of government policy. I can understand that some hon. members opposite would probably be prepared to go on with their speeches, following as they do in so manj'- cases the leadership of the Prime Minister. I can quite understand the C.C.F. being prepared to go on, following its practice and coming to this house with a rigid formula which they were prepared to express without any consideration of what the Prime Minister was going to say. I presume they did not know what was going to be in the Prime Minister's statement. Certainly the opposition did not know. As the leader of the C.C.F. made an uncalled-for attack over the radio on our party saying that we were not prepared to go on, I should like to inform his listeners if I could that he came into this house with a prepared typewritten statement in answer to the important statement of government policy made by the Prime Minister, not knowing w-hat that statement was going to be.
Our role in this house, Mr. Speaker, is far different from that of pronouncing rigid formulae or indulging in unnecessary platitudes. I feel sure that all reasonable persons,

San Francisco Conjerence
examining that statement of the Prime Minister, will conclude that the stand we took was the only proper one, because it is my opinion, as I believe it is the opinion of many people in this country, that if the intention indicated in that statement is carried out, it will gravely affect the possibility of an effective agreement being arrived at in San Francisco.
I want to refer to one other significant point which many members have lost sight of, and that is that the Prime Minister stated that it will be the government policy which will prevail so far as Canada's attitude is concerned at San Francisco. His words were:
The government itself will, of course, assume its constitutional responsibility both for the selection of the delegation and for any decisions which are agreed to at San Francisco.
In view of this statement, we as members of the official opposition would be derelict in our duty to the Canadian people if we did not examine most carefully the statement of government policy which is going to prevail so far as our attitude at San Francisco is concerned.
The Prime Minister in his speech removed what seemed to me to be the very kernel of the means by which we hope that the plan now proposed for world security will be more successful than the league of nations. The principal difference between this plan and the league of nations was referred to by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), a short time ago when he said that this plan would have teeth in it. Only a day or so ago I read an article by Henry Morgenthau, Jr., in which he very aptly said with respect to this new world organization:
It is an organization for maintaining peace and political security which for the first time has teeth in it.
I repeat: "which for the first time has teeth in it." To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the important distinction between the league of nations and the plan now proposed is the fact that this plan has teeth in it. Under the old league we practically told Italy and Germany that we would not resort to arms and the consequence was these two nations were able to go on with perfect confidence in their plans for world conquest and world domination. Under the present plan, if it is carried' out in the manner in which I understand it will be carried out, the security council will have the power to act, and to act without delay, and to my mind it is that power which will do more than any other single factor to stop aggression in the future.
To my mind the Prime Minister in his speech has indicated an attitude which will emasculate completely the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Paragraph 5 of section B of chapter
VIII, which I am not going to read into the record because it has been referred to by many other hon. members, provides that agreements will be entered into by the respective members of tne assembly as soon as possible after the agreement is arrived at at San Francisco. Paragraph 6 of the same section indicates that it is the intention that the security council shall be able to act expeditiously. The Prime Minister, as I understand him, anticipates that Canada would enter such an agreement, but he suggested that the undertaking would provide that the use of military force might be confined to the territorial boundaries of the country. He indicated, as I understand him, that if action subsequently was required a second agreement would be entered into which would receive the approval of parliament.
But, Mr. Speaker, the whole value of the security council is that we would be able to act quickly; what in the world is the use of having to go and obtain an agreement from parliament after a crisis has arisen? You will destroy the whole effect of the power of this security council to prevent future aggression. If the Prime Minister believes that his attitude is proper with respect to this country, he must concede the same attitude with respect to the other countries. We shall then have this ridiculous situation: that a crisis arises, that everything possible is done to settle that crisis without success, and finally the security council decides to resort to force; then each nation must go back to its governing body for ratification of the decision which has been made. If the Prime Minister's view carries the day, in my judgment we might just as well wash thei whole thing down the river, because we cannot expect to be a beneficiary of these proposals unless we are prepared to do our part. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Martin) put it the other day, speaking only a short while after the Prime Minister had made his statement- Hansard, page 42:
Before the adjournment I concluded by saying that one had to recognize that if the world security organization now under discussion was to be operative, we had to realize also that power without responsibility, which characterized the failure of the league, would also characterize the failure of this organization.
As the Prime Minister himself said, speaking in this chamber last session, when he indicated his belief that power must be retained on the side of the peace-loving nations- Hansard, page 5908:
I said in the House of Commons last January that it was indeed true beyond question "that the peace of the world depends on preserving on the side of peace a large superiority of power, so that those who wish to disturb the peace can have no chance of success."
San Francisco Conference

Surely, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in; this house were right when they have said during the course of this debate that the day of "no foreign commitments" is done; and why we cannot come to the position of realizing it and being frank enough to admit it, is incomprehensible to me. It is obvious that if the security council is to have power, real power, it must have the threat of force to be used quickly. I ask the Prime Minister, as other hon. members have done, if he; willi clear up this point beyond any misunderstanding either on the part of hon. members or on the part of the Canadian people. I do not understand why there should be any hesitancy about committing ourselves fully to the application of force in answer to aggression, because under the proposals which have been made the security council cannot act unless all those holding seats in the council decide to do so. That means, if force is to be used, Russia, Great Britain, the United States, China, and possibly France-if she comes into it-must all decide and be unanimous on it, together with the power holding the one other seat on the council. Does anyone think for one minute that if these nations decide to engage in another world war, Canada can stay out of it? The Prime Minister does not think so, because when he made his speech the other day he said this-Hansard, page 30:
Were another great war to break out in twenty or thirty years, or at any time in the future, it is certain that Canada would not escape its fury. The development of new weapons, the development in particular of the flying-bomb and the rocket projectile, are making it impossible for any country to claim immunity from sudden aggression. So long as might is made a substitute for right by any nation there can be no security for this, or the next or any succeeding generation of Canadians.
These are grave words, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that they are accurate ones. The San Francisco conference is called for the purpose of planning a permanent peace. I want to make perfectly clear my belief that, with the type of evil which has been established in the world and which has kept this whole globe engulfed in war for over five and one-half years, in order to preserve the peace we must keep strong, at least until that evil has been removed; and the fact that we are strong and that our enemies will know we are strong will do a great deal to prevent future wars.
I personally am not in favour of early disarmament except of the aggressor nations. What have we in this country to fear by being armed? What have the peace-loving nations to fear from being armed? I say that we have nothing to fear, unless it be a repetition of what happened last time, when we

were allowed to become weak and the forces of evil were allowed to become strong. We shall need to keep our armies and armaments in good shape for many years to come. I hope most fervently that never again shall we hear bleatings in this house or outside of it to the effect that our expenditures should be reduced to one dollar; that never again shall we hear in this house or outside of it statements to the effect that the British connection is our gravest danger. I hope that never again shall we listen to absurdities such as the question which was asked as to whom we are arming against. Surely after two wars we know whom we must stand1 armed against. That should be abundantly clear. The evil forces which are opposed to our way of life will continue on in the nations of Japan and Germany and Italy for many years after this war is over. These evils cannot be eradicated overnight, nor were the forces of these evils started in Germany with the advent of Hitler. He merely exploited what had begun years before; because after all, the spirit of nazism is not so different from the spirit of junkerism; in fact nazism is a product of junkerism, and if nazism fails, as it will, the spirit 'of junkerism will continue on, planning and scheming with some new device to bring about its final objective, world conquest. It was so in the Weimar republic when the democracies were foolish enough to believe that Germany had developed a new spirit and a new outlook. During those days, as we know now, the military caste in Germany were planning for "Der Tag" and they will be planning after this war.
It is my personal judgment that we must render Germany militarily impotent for at least a hundred years to come, and we can do that only if we remain strong and united in that resolve. The German nation has been smarting under its defeat since the last war, a defeat which it never admitted1 in its own heart. It was that spirit that made Hitler perform the ridiculous function of calling back the old railway carriage when France capitulated so that he and his people could gloat over the humiliation of the French. It is that natural spirit of race superiority, that belief in the Herrenvolk, that is our greatest menace to permanent peace, and I say it must be crushed in some manner or other.
The Prime Minister has said that the peace treaties and the manner in which the aggressor nations shall be punished have nothing to do with the San Francisco conference. Nevertheless they are inextricably bound up with the San Francisco conference because the machinery which is established there will have to enforce the peace treaties that are made.

San Francisco Conference
In conclusion, may I say 'this, I am very sorry indeed that this matter has to be considered by this parliament. I realize of course that another parliament will have to ratify the agreement arrived at in San Francisco, but to all intents and purposes it will be cut and dried. We shall have to accept what is arrived at there, or nothing at all. I am sorry that this parliament has to consider this matter and make suggestions to the government, because it is not representative of the people. It is particularly not representative of the men who have been fighting this war. We should have with us here the men who have gone through the bitterness and hardships of the battles of Italy, France and Germany, the men who are manning our ships and flying our aeroplanes. We should have them because-and I say this with all respect-their perspective is a better one than ours.
We in this country have lived in comparative luxury. To many of us the rigours of war have meant very little. The men who should be here to guide us with their suggestions are those who have seen the brutality of the Hun in all its viciousness, the men who know from bitter experience that everything, and I mean everything, must be done to see that that type of bestiality never again obtains the ascendency on this earth. Those are the fathers of the sons who may be called upon to fight another war twenty or twenty-five years from now if we do not do what is proper at this time. With all respect I suggest again that the members of this house, most of whom will not be here twenty years from now, have not the same views in regard to the preservation of peace for the future that the men and women serving in our armed forces have, and whose voices should be heard at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with those who have indicated their support of the resolution now before the house, the main purpose of which is to approve the sending of a Canadian delegation to the forthcoming conference at San Francisco. I should like to associate myself as well with those who have expressed the view that this is perhaps the most important resolution that has yet come before the parliament of Canada. I believe it to be literally true that the future of this nation and the future of mankind depend upon the ability of the nations that meet at San Francisco to bring into being a world organization capable of securing the peace of the world.
I have concurred in the suggestion that this is a most important debate, but I would point out that there will be another of even greater
importance on the same subject, perhaps in September or October of this year, when the new parliament will be called upon to consider and ratify the charter adopted at San Francisco. I mention this for a purpose. I do so in order to point out how terribly tragic it would be if that next debate were not to take place; how tragic it would be if the conference at San Francisco were not to succeed. Mr. Speaker, San Francisco must not fail. The conference there may not be able to achieve everything. It may not be able to reduce to writing a perfect pattern for international relations. It may not be able to guarantee for all time that peace on earth among men of good will of which many of us still dream. But the alternative to setting up a world security organization at San Francisco is a prospect so terrible that it cannot be considered for a moment by any people with any gray matter at all.
When one thinks of the toll of the two wars which have occupied ten years in the life of this nation since 1914, ten years out of the last thirty-one, one cannot but accept it as a challenge, this time, to take whatever definite steps are clearly necessary in order to preserve the peace of the world. I take my stand therefore with the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in his contention that the Canadian delegation should go to San Francisco determined to get the best charter that can be drafted, determined to seek improvements at every point in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals where improvements are obviously necessary, but at the same time conscious of the fact that its first duty is to pull its weight for the definite establishment of a world security organization. Our delegation must bring back the best charter they can, but the first consideration is that the delegation bring back to Canada a charter, even if it is not absolutely perfect, for the next parliament of this country to consider, and I trust to ratify.
Having made that clear as my position, and it is the position of the entire C.C.F. organization, I should like to offer constructive criticism of some portions of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. I believe there is far more support in constructive criticism than there is in blind acceptance of what may be handed to us by world leaders, however great they may be.
Let me put it in this way. I feel that there are three fundamental conditions which are basic to the success of a world organization, and I trust that the San Francisco conference will see to it that these three basic conditions are met. First of all, if a world organization is to succeed, it must have authority to enact international law. In the second place, such an organization
San P'rancisco Conference

must have authority to enforce that law. In the third place, it must have the capacity to retain the authority vested in it by the consent of the governed.
May I come back to my first point, that a successful world organization must have authority to enact international law. I feel that that is basic to the whole matter now before this house and the world. If at the end of this war we simply draw up another series of multilateral treaties which those who are not party thereto may ignore; if we set up an organization whose only purpose is to deal with an emergency when it arises, or if we are to revert to the old idea of bal&nce-of-power arrangements and mutual assistance pacts, I am afraid that we shall not have made very much progress.
What the world must try to do is to set up an organization at the international level, to which the nations of the world will give some of the powers of government, specific legislative authority to enact international law, law which in certain well-defined spheres will bind the entire world. That point has already been made by the leader of this group, by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), and by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), all of whom have said that our task now is to bring international relations within the rule of law. My fear is that not everyone discussing this matter, even in this house, has yet realized that this is the basic consideration. There is still altogether too much talk that savours of the old order of multilateral treaties and mutual assistance pacts and balance-of-power arrangements. The previous speaker spoke about getting ourselves as peace-loving nations into positions of particular power. I appreciate the spirit in which he made this reference; but I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not make any real headway until we get out of that realm and begin to think in terms of definite international law which all the nations of the world will be obligated to obey. The pleas that are being made for a modification of the tremendous powers vested in the great states, the proposals that are being offered for a more effective voice for small nations, the arguments that are being advanced against the veto power of the great states, and other considerations such as these, are indicative of the desire of people who are wrestling with this matter to get out of the realm of multilateral treaties and mutual assistance pacts into the realm of world government on a democratic basis. Therefore I suggest that Dumbarton Oaks, while its proposals are encouraging-I insist that we must have nothing less-falls short on this critical point.

I was interested in reading a comment on this point a few days ago in the March, 1945,
issue of the League of Nations News. This publication reminded its readers that some months ago the league of nations society of Canada addressed a letter to the leaders of the political parties in this country, to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of this group (Mr. Coldwell) replied, stating the views of the league of nations society with respect to a new world organization. One of the important points which the society laid down was this:
The assembly should have specific legislative power to declare and enact international law.
The League of Nations News goes on to comment on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals with respect to the point which I have just quoted. It expresses my view precisely. This is what it has to say on the matter:
There is silence on the question of legislative power. The assembly is to be entitled to consider the general principles of cooperation to maintain peace and security, including the principles of disarmament and the regulation of armament, and to make recommendations regarding any such principles. To whom such recommendations are to be made is not stated, but it may be assumed that recommendations would go to member nations for adoption in the form of multilateral treaties, much as has been done with the many excellent conventions emanating from the international labour office. This is by no means a satisfactory method of creating a body of international law. Much of our present international law exists in treaty form which binds only the parties to the treaty. It is always open to non-parties to plead that they are not bound. There should be universality of international law and the assembly should be clothed with powers to enact such laws. This is of exceedingly great importance.
In connection with this whole matter of the rule of law in international relations, which is what we are aiming at, I should like to make a comment on the power of expulsion which is referred to in chapter V, section B, subsection 3 of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The power to expel would imply that the nations might also have the power to withdraw from the organization. I believe that is a definite weakness; it suggests again the old idea of treaties and arrangements among nations rather than the new idea which we are trying to get started, namely, that of establishing a body of international law to which all the nations of the world are obligated.
The implication in the power to expel or the right to withdraw is that a recalcitrant nation can be put or can put itself beyond the pale of the law. The day must come, and the sooner the better, when that is not the case. In other words, just as quickly as

San Francisco Conference
we can attain it, we must have universal and permanent membership in a world organization, and we must get away from the old idea of treaties and pacts and balance of power, and get down to the job in hand, namely that of establishing a body of international law.
I have already indicated, and I wish to repeat it, that in my view the Canadian delegation must bring back from San Francisco nothing less than is in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. But I suggest there is room for improvement, room for bringing back something more. At this point in my remarks, one thing which I say our delegation should bring back is a charter which gives to the new united nations organization the power to enact law. And I hope that, once that power has been granted, we will start in to build up a code of international law, binding on the entire world.
The second point which I gave as basic to the success of a world organization is the authority to enforce international law. This is a matter which has been given a good deal of consideration and discussion during the debate. Those of us who are supporting the resolution are agreed on the necessity for such authority, and indications are that there is considerable agreement on this point in other nations as well. Accordingly I hope that at San Francisco the obscurity about the methods of enforcement, which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) pointed out, will be cleared up.
I should like to say a word about that obscurity, that lack of clarity. Chapter VIII, section B, subsections 1 and 4 of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals seem to make it clear that the security council is to have power to enforce the judgment of the new organization. On the other hand subsection 5 of that same section indicates that whether or not the security council will have any force with which to give effect to its decisions hinges on the agreements to be made between the various member states and the security council.
The Prime Minister has been subjected to a good deal of criticism because of his statement on this point, which he made at page 26 of Hansard, in the second column:
One point, however, is clear. As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council. If any such commitment were sought, it would be embodied in a later agreement, freely negotiated by the government of Canada, and coming into effect only after it had been approved by parliament.
I join in the view that it is regrettable that that statement was made. But I, imagine when the Prime Minister replies to this criticism he will remind the house of a statement
on the other side of the fence, which he made on the same page. In the first column on page 27 he said something which, I notice, hon. members to my right, who desire, it would seem, only to be critical, and not to be fair, have not bothered to quote. These are the Prime Minister's words in the first column of page 26:
The new security organization would be founded on a clear recognition of the fact that world security is based upon the maintenance of a large superiority of power on the side of peace. It is also recognized that machinery would have to be devised to make it possible to apply such power instantly and effectively, should another aggressor arise to disturb international peace.
Critics of the Prime Minister will point out that he has put it both ways, and that one can have his choice. I do not like that way of putting things; the Prime Minister does it too often. But I will say this, in his defence, that that is the way the Dumbarton Oaks proposals read. One cannot but take both of those ideas from Dumbarton Oaks itself. If one reads chapter VIII, section B, subsections 1 and 4 he gets the impression of power to enforce decisions. Then if one reads subsection 5 he will see that it all depends on the agreements made between the security council and the various member nations. Then there is further confusion when one reads subsection 6 which seems to call for the setting up of some minimum police force, ready for use in any emergency until such time as a meeting of the council can be held. That is good, but the whole picture in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals is just as confused, I submit, as it is in the Prime Minister's analysis of those proposals.
I am trying to be fair in discussing this matter. I want to deal with it not on a partisan basis but as a Canadian interested in the peace of the world. In that connection it seems to me that in this debate we should not be trying to make political capital back and forth out of the different viewpoints which are suggested, hut rather we should be pointing out to the Canadian delegation any weaknesses in Dumbarton Oaks itself. The basic fault is not in the Prime Minister's statement; what is wrong is the arrangement set out in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Our delegation should go to San Francisco and endeavour to have that arrangement corrected.
What is wrong with the arrangement in the matter of each nation's obligation to the security council? It is this, that the commitments each nation will be asked to make to the security council are to be subject to separate agreements between the nations and the council. Apparently they are to be arrived at secretly. I submit that that leaves all the
San Francisco Conference

room in the world for hard bargaining and unequal arrangements, which means trouble ahead. One nation sitting down with the security council is interested in sending as little force as possible, in the event of police action against an aggressor. They drive a hard bargain. Another nation comes along, with the kind of government in power that is prepared to overreach itself; they make commitments which might be too much for that nation to carry out. And so you have inequalities, so far as obligations and commitments are concerned. Then when trouble breaks out, and nations are called upon to measure up to their unequal commitments, there is going to be a great deal of dissatisfaction, and the whole effort at collective security might easily be wrecked.
My view is this, that the obligation which a nation will have to the security council should be based on a formula openly arrived at in the assembly of the new organization. For purposes of illustration I will put it in this way; With the government of the Prime Minister in power when an agreement is made, the bargain driven might be considerably different from the bargain which would be offered if some other group were in power- for instance, a government of hon. members to my right. I do not want either. I do not want the extent of Canada's obligation to be decided on the basis of any party's viewpoint. I want the extent of every nation's obligation to be decided at the assembly of the united nations on the basis of a formula openly arrived at, a formula which applies equally to every nation of the world. We could never carry on in Canada under confederation if the tax obligation, let us say, of the citizens of the various provinces was arrived at as a result of bargaining between the provincial and federal governments. The only way we can carry on satisfactorily in a confederation is by having authority over national matters centred with the federal parliament. I submit if we are going to have satisfactory arrangements in respect of the commitments nations will make to a world security force, then the place for the formula to be decided upon is in the assembly of the new united nations.
I repeat that the issue before us is not the bargain that the present government might drive and about which my hon. friends to our right are having so much to say. The issue before the house to-day is the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Let us study them and decide whether or not they are right. On this particular point I feel that they fall short and I hope that the delegation which represents Canada at San Francisco will press for the establishing of a formula on the basis of which 
each nation's obligation will be indicated, this to be done in open session of the assembly of the united nations.
I move on to my third point which is that the success of the new world organization will depend on its capacity to retain the authority vested in it by the member nations. It is an axiom that authority in any governmental body derives from the consent of the governed. That will apply to a world organization perhaps with even greater force than it does to a national government or to governments on still lower levels. Therefore I think it is exceedingly important that every possible step be taken to win for this new united nations organization the full consent, not only of the governments and parliaments of the various member nations but of all the peoples of the world. If that consent is going to be won, and if it is going to be maintained throughout the life of this organization, it is extremely important that it be set up on a democratic basis.
I recognize all of the practical problems that have been advanced in connection with such matters as the voting powers of the security council, the right of veto and all the rest of it, but I submit that if this organization is going to carry on and do its job over a period of time it must become more democratic in its functioning than it will be if improvements are not made in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.
The suggestion has been made a number of times that if the three big powers fall out, the world itself will fall apart and break into another war. That may or may not be true, but I would remind the house of the rest of the picture. Even if the three big powers stick together that is no guarantee of worldwide peace and human accord if the rest of the member nations in the organization feel that the show is being run not in a democratic way but by the big powers at the top. I cannot stress too strongly the importance in the long run of increasing the democratic nature of the functioning of this organization.
A number of members have already asked what will happen when the security council finds it necessary to call for action against an aggressor and calls upon a nation not having a seat on the council to come through with its commitment and supply forces for use in some distant part of the world. I submit that if the control of the organization is in the hands of a small group there may be trouble when such a crisis comes; but if through the years, through the day to day functioning of this organization, it is carried on on a democratic basis so that the peoples of the nations feel that the decisions of the world organization are their decisions, then when important judg-
MAitCH 28, 1945
San Francisco Conference
ments are given there will be a much better chance of those decisions being accepted by the peoples of the nations concerned, no matter how drastic they may be.
In the matter of the new organization retaining its authority one of its most important branches will be the economic and social council. I want to join with those who have urged that the importance of this economic and social council should be stressed most strongly at San Francisco. The Prime Minister said during the course of his remarks that the main function of the police is not to catch criminals but to make it obvious that crime does not pay. He was referring to international crime. I go further. I feel that the job of this organization is not just to make it obvious that war does not pay; its job is to make it obvious that peace does pay.
I want to propose that the economic and social council should interest itself in such things as housing. That could be done without interfering with the sovereignty of the various nations. The council could establish a clearing house for research and information on the subject and give itself, with all the ingenuity at its command, to the endeavour to have the homes in which people live throughout the world improved, as definite proof of the fact that peace really pays.
Then the council should interest itself in health and education, in social security standards, and in matters now under the direction of the international labour organization. Many other matters have been mentioned during the course of this debate, such as cartels, world trade and so on. Then the council should interest itself in the possibility of increasing travel throughout the world by the peoples of all nations. The common people in all the nations should be given the chance to see the world and to get to know each other better. In other words, our task is to build a peace which is more than just an absence of war. We must have a peace which makes possible human accord and a higher standard of living for the common people everywhere.
Let us give all the support we can to the endeavour to set up the kind of world organization that will prevent another war. Let us make all the commitments that are necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of that machines'. Once we have done that, once we have taken steps that will make sure that there will not be another war, let us get on with our world business in the same way as in our local communities, once we have set up our police and fire departments, we go right ahead with the ordinary business of living. Let us cease talking about world war III; I urge that we
get out of our minds the idea that another conflict is inevitable. Having established the machinery to prevent war we should get on with the job of building a positive peace in terms of human accord and better standards of living for the common people of the entire world. .
I turn now to a few comments I should like to make on behalf of this group on some of the viewpoints that have been expressed during this debate. One viewpoint was expressed by two hon. members not now in their places to the effect that we should give blind support to the ideas handed out by the leaders of the big three nations, that we should not be guilty of making any criticism of their proposals. As I have indicated already we take the position that there is far more support in constructive criticism than there is in giving blind approval. That is all I need to say on that.
Another position has been enunciated by the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore). I shall try to be as fair as I can in stating briefly his position. As I understood it, he took the view that Canada must not surrender any of its national sovereignty. He expressed himself as being opposed to the organization envisaged in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. He wanted to make it clear to the house that the Social Credit group was not to be regarded as being opposed to any and every kind of world organization. He said that they would want Canada to join a world organization under certain conditions. I listened closely to those conditions and studied them closely in Hansard afterwards, and it seems to me that basically they amount to this, that the social credit group is prepared to have Canada join a world organization, provided that in that organization Canada retains all her national sovereignty and is not called upon to submit herself to any international law even if she participates in its enactment.
So far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is the negation of law in international relations. It is, to put it in the simplest language I know, international anarchy. It is to us utterly unthinkable that we should resort to that sort of set-up after the sacrifices that our people have made during the past six years. We must move forward, not backward.
Another viewpoint that has been expressed in the course of this debate has already been under discussion this afternoon. I refer to the idea proposed by our hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party that Canada should seek to be represented on the security council through a single voice speaking on behalf of the British empire or the British commonwealth of nations. On behalf of our group I want to
San Francisco Conference

say that we feel that we cannot have the British commonwealth of nations speaking at one time with one voice and at other times with several voices, that you cannot be one bloc on the security council and five or more different nations in the assembly. The proposal, although it may seem to be heart-warming in certain quarters, really lacks logic, and is impossible to achieve. For example, if the proposal were to be carried out, what nation would sit in the security council on behalf of the empire? Would it be the United Kingdom? If so, the dominions are shoved out into the cold. Would it be Canada? If that alternative is proposed it means that our friends of the Progressive Conservative party are shoving the United Kingdom out in the cold, which is amazing, coming from them. Would it be an alternating proposition, first one dominion and then another, with the United Kingdom taking its turn? If so, I submit that it would be placing the United Kingdom and the British commonwealth as a whole in a weaker position than that of the other four great powers on the security council.
But entirely apart from the illogicality of the proposal we of this group feel that such a step would have the effect of replacing the free association of independent nations -which we now enjoy within the commonwealth by a rigid bloc, and if that were brought about, it would destroy the strength of the commonwealth as veil as the strength of the individual nations vithin it. We hear a lot of talk about breaking jp the empire. That would be the surest way to break up the association that we now know as the British commonwealth of nations. Its strength, its integrity and its genius would soon be gone.
Furthermore, a move such as that would put Canada back in the status of a colony and would betray the aspirations of Canadian nationhood which mean so much to our Canadian people and particularly to our young men -who have fought in this war. They would not agree to that idea at all.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we feel definitely that there should be no going back. These are days for moving forward everywhere. We are proud of Canada's connection with the British commonwealth of nations. We are proud that our connection is that of an independent nation within the group enjoying the free associations that have meant so much to us and will mean more as time marches on. But in world affairs we feel definitely that Canada's job is to pull her weight as the independent nation she fully deserves to be.
Just before I finish I want to suggest two matters which I feel the Canadian delegation might well raise at the San Francisco confer-
ence. I suggest them briefly. First there is the question of dependent peoples. This must be dealt with. I feel, to put it briefly, that the states ruling over dependent peoples should be called upon by the new world organization to recognize their responsibility to an international commission for contributing to the social and economic advancement of dependent peoples and their responsibility for the advancement of self-government among them.
The other matter that I feel should be raised at the conference is the Jewish question, with particular reference to matters arising out of the Balfour declaration that followed the last war. All of us know that these people have suffered tremendously, perhaps more than any other people, during the course of this conflict. All of us know that one of the vilest and most poisonous results of this war has been the growth of antiSemitism, deliberately fostered by Hitler himself, and I feel that any steps that can be taken to set up an antidote to this poisonous thing is good not only for the Jewish people but for all the rest of us as well. I am not going into detail at this time. I merely ask that the Canadian delegation see that matters relating to the special sufferings of the Jewish people are raised during the course of the discussions at San Francisco.
The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, have made a great contribution through our fighting men and women and our workers on the industrial front and on the farms to the winning of this war. What we have done, we have not done alone. That way we would have been helpless. But recognizing as we have the indivisibility of the common cause, having pulled our weight in whatever way we could, the Canadian people have brought honour and glory to the name of this country.
We can do the same in the battle for peace. We shall not do it, however, if we go to international conferences sparring for prestige and power, seeking to align ourselves with this group or that, so as to get into the most favourable position on a balance of power basis. But we shall bring new glory and new honour to the name of Canada if at San Francisco and at other international conferences in the future we pull our weight for the .establishment of a world organization based upon the principles which alone can guarantee permanent peace. I want to underline what my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said the other night on this point. The important factor is not the leaders who come on to the stage and pass off again; what is important is the establish-

San Francisco Conference
ing of principles which will guarantee peace on a permanent basis. And so in conclusion I would say that if Canada at San Francisco and in the years that lie ahead will work for the establishing of principles, will pull its weight for world peace and all that peace can mean in terms of human accord and a better life for the common man, this nation, this Canada, will achieve a destiny than which there is none greater.


Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, the period following a victorious war, and I believe that we are about to attain that period very soon, is of special importance in the life of a nation and its citizenry. It is a time of readjustments, of new departures for the nations and for their peoples. Men and women first of all wish to pay due honour to their soldiers and fallen heroes who have made the peace possible, to pay the honour that is due their valiant men and women who have served on the land, in the air, or on the sea. The accomplishments of our military forces, of our men and women in our industries and on our. farms, speak for themselves throughout the world, and for long in the after-years of peace shall we continue to glory in and be glorified for our effort toward the allied victory about to be attained.
The resolution now being debated in this house is therefore, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, predicated upon a world readjustment of nations, in which Canada wishes, and rightly so, to take part, first of all in the international field and also with its attendant consequences in our internal economy. The international affairs of mankind cannot be conducted in peace or toward peace by separate political units. If peace is to be maintained it can be effected more safely, I believe, only through unity of political action at the international level.
The first step toward that objective is the calling of a convention representative of the allied nations, or of as many as wish to attend, to provide for the institution of the mechanics -if you will-of looking after the international affairs of their peoples. I am not to be understood as restricting the term "international affairs" to things military; I include also the economic and social divisions of the interpretation of the term. The whole citizenry of the world desire peace, and this peace is now within our grasp, provided that the leaders of the nations have international vision and refuse to be subservient to those interests which profit from the continual fragmentation into national units. It was undoubtedly with this conviction in mind that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated on October 9 last, regarding the Dumbarton Oaks proposals:
Canada is vitally concerned that an effective international organization should be established for the maintenance of peace and security. It is generally recognized that agreement between the countries which have taken part in the discussions at Washington is an essential condition of success. Without the full participation of the greatest countries it would be impossible to establish an international system which could effectively maintain the peace of the world and achieve the necessary cooperation, not only in adjusting disputes and preventing war, but also in solving the great international problems of human welfare.
This press release of the Prime Minister was undoubtedly the preamble of the house resolution now before us.
As has already been stated here since the beginning of the debate, the San Francisco conference, which from now on is to be called officially "the united nations conference on international organization", is not a peace conference or a conference to enumerate or settle the post-war economic, social or political problems of the world. Neither is it to be a boundaries commission or a court of last resort on the cases of India or of any colonies or mandates, including the colonies and mandates of the enemy powers. Neither is this conference to be the drafting committee of a new code of international law, nor a reparations commission, nor a commission for the immediate supervision of Germany and of Japan later on. Finally, it is not a war criminals commission or court.
What the conference is to be is an international meeting to agree on the details of a world security league for the post-war era, including (a) an economic council, as machinery to adjust later developments in this field in the interests of peace and fair dealing among the participating nations; (b) a statute for a world court; and (c) a trusteeship plan for the colonies and mandates of the enemy nations. Beyond these duties and responsibilities, with the possible addition of some minor points, the San Francisco conference has none. Its objective therefore is to set up an organization which, when the necessary treaties are ratified by enough nations, will be authorized to employ its enumerated powers to maintain peace in the world as it then shall exist. This situation will issue from the ultimate peace settlement, which may or may not have been completed when the organization begins its work, but which the league will have the right to review, and the duty to press for such adjustments as may later be deemed necessary and constructive.
San Francisco Conference

It i.* recognized generally that it has a large and delicate and difficult task, and that a heavy enough burden rests on a group of nations meeting for the first time during the progress of a great and exhausting war, with the problems of liberation and peace already intruding.
The conference will have to work out a voting system for the proposed security council which will appeal to the intermediate and small nations as fair, just and wise. This system will have to be consonant with the responsibility and ability of the large nations to keep order in the interval between the end of hostilities and ultimate peace, and yet be eventually protective of all national sovereignties and dignities.
The San Francisco conference, therefore, as I see it. Mr. Speaker, is unlike the P&ris-Versailles meeting, in that, although eventually it has to deal with peace, there is this distinction. The Paris-Versailles reunion took place after the end of hostilities, the surrender of the enemy, and the signing of an armistice. Paris-Versailles was concerned with the formation of a league to keep the peace, but it was simultaneously at work on the terms of that peace; and the tasks were completed at the same time and bound up in one treaty. The San Francisco meeting, however, is confined to forming a world league-only a part of the work done by the Paris-Versailles reunion-and the other part of the task, that of peace, is to be kept carefully separated. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals recognize the fact that the interests of individual nations lie in the international as well as in the national field, and the present war has by now convinced Germany that unfettered nationalism is a destructive, philosophy; if we do not have international order we shall have international anarchy. A community of nations, like any other national association of mankind, possesses certain rights in its own name, and in so far as it speaks in its own' name in the common interest of all humanity, the rights of these associations are paramount over those of any individual nation, however rich, however mighty, which may seek to violate the common good. In certain instances this may mean that compulsion will have to be effected ; but if all compulsion were removed from human associations we would have not freedom but anarchy and insecurity. Freedom and .compulsion, both long recognized in the organization of our social life, are at times fatally ignored in the field of our international relations.
I feel that it is to the interest of Canada that the Canadian delegation headed by our Prime Minister should take part in the deliberations of the united nations conference

on international organization. I also feel that no one in this country is better qualified to lead that delegation than our own Prime Minister. I had the honour to be one of the delegates who attended the Bretton Woods conference held in July last year, and I wish here and now to pay public appreciation and congratulations to the able, competent and expert departmental delegates who represented Canada at that conference. They brought honour and prestige to Canada and were recognized by the delegates of the other forty-four nations present at the conference as leaders of thought and direction in the shaping of the policies discussed at Bretton Woods. The departmental delegates held responsible positions on committees of the conference, and I think the civil service is to be highly complimented upon the efficient and expert technical services which these faithful incumbents gave to Canada at Bretton Woods.
Some of the reasons for my favouring the participation of Canada in this conference are, first of all, that Canada has nothing to gain by remaining out of it but a great deal to expect in contributing as it will to the general welfare of the dominion and to the cause of humanity. The organization is not perfect by any means. This is an exceedingly imperfect world in which progress is almost invariably obtained by evolution and not revolution. Second, practically all the peoples of the world have been wanting peace. They want peace to-day and they want peace for the future. Still we have had wars and are in a colossal war to-day which may be but a miniature edition of wars to come if some new mechanics are not evolved for peace. One of the pronounced evils of the world to-day is international hot-house finance combinations which must be brought to reason and to justice, and the new league provides the best and indeed the only present hope of curbing their excessive abuses. Third, the proposals of Dumbarton Oaks provide for the establishment of an economic and social council of eighteen members elected by the assembly to handle social, economic, labour and humanitarian agencies. This council should go far toward remedying the worst mistakes of the former league of nations, which was to centre its attention on political matters and almost ignore the economic and social aspects of the world.
Last but not least of this enumeration is the fact that our Canadian parliament remains supreme as to acceptance or rejection. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals only give authority to discuss and advise. For Canada to take part in this conference is for her to exercise rights of nationhood, the consciousness of which her people are gradually grasping since

San Francisco Conference
the statute of Westminster. We find this same change of opinion in the United States, where in 1920 very few were in favour of the Wilson league of nations thereby entailing international commitments. But to-day seven persons out of every ten in the United States are in favour of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals.
For the first time in her history, there is a definite Canadian army in the battlefield, a separate Canadian air force, a separate Canadian navy fighting because of the declaration of war by Canada, this also for the first time in her history. Since the present war began, Canadian legations and missions in a number of countries-the United States, Russia, China, Belgium, Chile and Brazil-have been raised to the status of full-fledged embassies on a reciprocal basis. The attainment of Canada's nationhood in the family of nations may have brought obligations on her which, as a corollary, to-day bestow upon her the rights of a nation in her international relations.
I fully accept the words, the very true words, of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) during the course of this debate. He said that the old-time view of Canada's position within the empire as expressed' by Kipling has changed. He voices the sentiments of many when he says that it should not be forgotten by the Canadian delegates to the conference that Canada is a north American nation and that she has interests and problems which are essentially different from those of the nations of Europe and Asia.
I also feel that if no one can speak for Canada no one should act for Canada. As to the spirit in which the conference is being approached by the member powers. I might say that the first declaration of Foreign Secretary Eden on March 21 last at Glasgow was:
We are determined that Europe shall only be united by . the free will of its separate states. When that happy day comes, we shall hope to be in partnership with it. But we have never sought to create coalitions against European powers, unless they have pursued a policy of aggression. ... It is against all traditions of our policy to allow unity among our great powers, to become a means to bully the smaller. There can be no freedom in the world, unless the smaller states can be joined with the great powers in their common interest.
Further on in his speech he said:
We hope to lay the foundations of this at San Francisco. This endeavour may well prove to be the world's last chance.
On the very same day, March 21, the Moscow radio declared :
Future international organization of security can in reality insure the interests of the small countries, only, if it becomes an effective organization; that is, if it will be built on the same foundation on which is being built the great structure of our common victory; that is,
on agreement and unanimity, and the close collaboration of the main great powers of the anti-German coalition.
A press report of March 2 issuing from General Charles de Gaulle says:
France favours collective security and will make sacrifices of sovereignty to insure it, on condition that it be real and not deceptive, as in the league of nations, is the outstanding point made by the declaration of the government of France to-day. This declaration states that an immediate post-war peace will depend mainly on the harmony of the great powers.
A press release of March 24 from the secretary of state of the United States, reads as follows:
Joseph MoCrew, acting secretary of state, affirmed to-day in a statement aimed at clarifying the question of voting procedure in the proposed international security council, that no one nation, could prevent discussion of any dispute or situation that might arise.
This same article quotes Secretary Hull's view as follows:
Without an enduring understanding between these four nations (United States, the British commonwealth, the Soviet Union and China) upon their fundamental purposes, interests and obligations to one another, all organizations to preserve peace are creations on paper, and the path is wide open again for the rise of a hew aggressor.
This essential understanding and unity of action among the four nations is not in substitution, or derogation of, unity among the united nations, but it is basic to all organized action, because upon its reality depends the possibility of enduring peace, and free institutions, rather than new coalitions and a new pre-war period.
If these approaches of the various powers are sincere, Mr. Speaker, and I trust they are, then it will be seen that surely we should collaborate to the utmost in order to become a party to our security and also to world security. I also feel that whatever attitude is taken by the Canadian delegation at San Francisco it will be for the best interests of Canada. True it is that force remains as a medium of peace, but I believe it was Blaise Pascal who said:
Bight without might is weakness, but might without right is tyranny. We must therefore combine right and might, making -what is right mighty and what is mighty right.
In my humble opinion, to obtain such a combination is by common consent the major problem of world politics in our time.
That the right of small nations should be protected is to be gainsaid by no one, but at the same time let us not forget that small nations may have security at times, only if the big powers act together, and small nations will be trampled underfoot if the big powers fall apart.
San Francisco Conjerence

The best protection which could be offered not only to small nations but to large nations and to the whole world would undoubtedly be the divine precept of love, charity and justice, and it would be salutary for all nations to have recourse to the inspirations of these three virtues, for then we could not be false to ourselves, to our country or to our fellow men, and if these three virtues would form the preamble of Dumbarton Oaks and all further world conferences, then I would prophesy the end of all wars and continued peace to the end of time.
If the power at the disposal of all the united nations is dissipated in disunity, or divided against itself, the result will be global anarchy and violence. If that power is kept united no other state or combination of states will rival it or stand against it.
In my humble opinion here lies the only surviving hope for world order. And as Secretary Eden has so truly said, it may well be the last hope. To lose that hope out of fear that power may be abused is to despair of man's capacity to master the instruments of his own devising. To reject that hope because it falls far short of past expectations is to forget that anarchy is the worst of evils. To grasp the opportunity now presented without illusion, with sincerity, with frankness and with clear perception of all difficulties and danger and to build with firm resolve a better mansion of order and freedom, on this foundation will be the highest service to mankind.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess


Mr. GILLIS:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might speak to a question of privilege before we proceed further. I should like to draw attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) as it appears at page 174 of Hansard, where he refers to what I said in this debate. He makes this statement at the page I have mentioned:
I was rather shocked to hear him say to-night-
Referring to me.
-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 want to state that I was present when the hon. member spoke. I did not hear him make those remarks. Had I done so I would have called attention to it at that time. In my remarks in this debate no such statement has been made by me. There is nothing to
TMr. Blanchette.]
suggest any reason for the remarks of the hon. member for Brant, and I take this opportunity of making the correction. I do not want the country to believe, if this is quoted in the future, that 'I was prepared' to have parliament abdicate. In view of the fact that the statement is completely incorrect I believe it should be expunged from the record.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, at the close of his remarks, the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Blanchette) uttered what I thought were some beautiful expressions in reference to the hopes being expressed in connection with the outcome of the conference to be held at San Francisco. I believe it was the poet Pope who, in his "Essay on Man," devoted several verses to the emotion "hope," that emotion which moves the human heart to go on and on, despite reversals and bitter trials. These were the poet's lines:
Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never is, but always to be, blest.
And so it is very gratifying to see everywhere throughout the world the hope being expressed by statesmen as to what they expect will be achieved at San Francisco, namely, permanent peace.
Every hon. member who has spoken in the debate, beginning with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who introduced the resolution, has urgently advocated that San Francisco result in permanent peace. Therefore it is interesting to see all hearts so full of hope as to the outcome of that conference.
In spite of my best hopes-and like others who have spoken, I am hopeful, and see a vision of permanent peace-I feel we should be on our guard, particularly those who are to be chosen to go to San Francisco. Something was said earlier in the debate to the effect that we on this side of the house were ' not ready. Well, I am one who has made a long and ardent study of such matters as this. And in the course of study I have looked into all the conferences held between 1918 and 1938, upon the reports of which I could lay my hands.
Those reports show twenty years of failure. Yes, I say failure; because no matter what was done at each individual conference, in the end they all failed, because they did not achieve their objective of making Versailles work, and agreeing about permanent peace.
The ink was scarcely dry on Versailles, in 1919, when, in 1920 came the first conference at San Remo. It was a failure, because it achieved nothing.

San Francisco Conference
In 1921, the following year, came the Washington disarmament conference. What did it achieve? In the aggregate it achieved nothing.
Came 1922, and the conference at Geneva, called together for putting teeth and claws into clause 16 of the Versailles treaty. But it did not succeed.
On went the show, until we come to 1924, and the conference called to compel arbitration. And that arbitration was on whose behalf? On behalf of Japan. And against whom? Against Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Thanks to the dear old motherland, Japan did not achieve her objective of forcing compulsory arbitration on Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Apart from that, the conference failed.
Then in 1925 came Locarno. Was ever a conference called with such high hopes. All the great statesmen assembled, and looked forward, with hope, to what they could achieve. What did they achieve? Locarno went the same as all the rest; nothing came of it.
Then came 1928, and the Kellogg pact. A meeting was held in Paris, I believe, at which sixty nations sat around the board, all signing for the abolition of war. But the pact was hardly signed in that old hall, the Salle d'Horloge on the Quai D'Orsay when back they went to their homes, to continue in the same old way. Nothing came out of it. They could not make Versailles work.
Then came 1929, and the Hoover moratorium. What did it do? Well, it looked all right, but nothing was achieved.
Then came 1930, and the London naval conference. It might as well not have been held, because within the next few months Germany commenced work on her pocket battleships.
Then came 1932, and the disarmament conference to deal with Japan. Why was that necessary? Because she was making attacks on Shanghai. It, too, was a failure.
In 1933 the world economic conference was held in London. Well, it did achieve something-but achieved nothing so far as eliminating war is concerned.
In 1934 was held the first of what might be called the bad conferences, when Mussolini and Hitler met in Venice. No one knows what they planned, but what has resulted was likely indicated or planned at Venice.
Came 1935, in Rome, with Mussolini and Laval. We are told in the report that Laval agreed there to give Italy a free hand in her attack on Ethiopia.
Another conference was held in 1935 at Geneva, where an attempt was made to prevent the murder of Ethiopia. But it failed, too.
There were no claws in any of the clauses sufficient to compel peace.
Came 1937, and the Brussels conference, called to stop Japan from her attack on China. It, too, was a failure.
Then, in between was the conference at Lausanne, and another at Cannes, and others at Geneva.
I commend a study of the minutes of those conferences to those who are to be chosen as our delegates. Why? A reading of them will bring the minds of the delegates closer to what they are going to be up against. It would perhaps forearm them to withstand those things that could cause a failure at San Francisco.
This is perhaps our last chance to secure peace and every effort should be made by the peace-loving nations to make this conference a success. The more those going to the conference know, the better able they will be to combat the arguments that will be set up against them. I recommend that those who are to go study carefully the debates in the United States congress in 1919 when there was opposition to the signing of the Versailles treaty. That opposition was led by Massachusetts' Senator Lodge, and such a strong argument was put up that they were able to defeat the advocacy of the then President of the United States, the man who was perhaps a main factor in the drawing up of the Versailles treaty. That pact was not signed in Washington and later on Washington signed a separate treaty with Germany.
Those who go to the conference are going to be up against some very capable men, men who know, men who have been there. I recommend that our delegates make a study of the causes of the failure of the eighteen or twenty conferences to which I have referred. The ardent ambition of all of us is to create something permanent at San Francisco. Perhaps when the delegates arrive on the shores of the great Pacific in the vicinity of the Golden Gate, one of nature's miracles; perhaps when they arrive at this gap in the rockbound coast through which pass to safe anchorage great ocean ships from all countries into California's majestic inland sea; perhaps under the inspiration of that setting wisdom will enter into the hearts of these men. We all hope that the result will be permanent peace.
I should like to say a word about our own position. I read that the statesmen from the empire are going to London shortly to attend an empire conference in order that the delegates to San Francisco may have some common platform and be able to fit themselves best to present the views of this peace-loving empire. No country in the world is more
San Francisco Conference

peace loving than the British empire. The Prime Minister gave us the names of two eminent men, men of great ability, who are going to attend. Some of the other countries of the empire are sending their prime ministers; others are sending their deputy prime ministers, while others are sending their great statesmen. VVe should have a representative of the cabinet there. I am not criticizing the government, but I hope that what I say will influence them to send a member of the cabinet. Who should be there but a member of the cabinet to attend this conference of prime ministers? There is one member of the cabinet who within the last year or two has gained some experience in foreign affairs and I suppose he could be spared. It is not for me to say who should go, but I do think a cabinet minister should go to London for that empire conference. This should be done out of respect for Canada's position in the empire. We should consider what the world would think if we do not have some one of cabinet calibre at that conference.
I suggest that those who are chosen to go to San Francisco should study thoroughly the opinions of other outstanding men. I am not going to deal with the voting clauses of the proposed agreement since that matter has been covered thoroughly by several others, including the Prime Minister. Our delegates should study what United States Senator Vandenberg has said. Our delegates cannot know too much. The objective should be permanent peace.
According to a Washington despatch which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of March 19 Senator Vandenberg recommended that agreements made during the war should be reviewed. I am not going to pass comment on that, other than to say that our delegates should be posted on the boundaries of all countries so that they will be qualified to discuss these matters with men of that capacity. I have in mind what the French government has recommended in the long memorandum it has presented.
One recommendation by the French government is something that has been in the mind of almost everyone who has spoken, namely, the power of the council on which any one of the five principal members of the council can block consideration of anything sent up to it. There is no power to enforce action unless the five main participants agree to provide the forces. The considered recommendation of the French government was that a two-thirds majority of the eleven members should be sufficient to call for the enforcement of peace. Our delegates should make a thorough

study of that programme. I am not going to pass any further comment on it because I am not competent to do so.
Our delegates cannot know too much. They should study everything possible in order to be able to discuss all angles necessary to achieve the distant objective, permanent peace. We cannot afford to have another failure because we have had too many in the past. Moscow has issued a statement and this should be studied. In effect Moscow suggests that the matter of enforcement should be left as the big powers decided at Yalta and that the small nations will be protected. The Moscow pronouncement should be thoroughly analysed, not only as it appears in the press despatches but in the form of the full statement which should be obtained by our foreign service.
I come now to Canada's position. I am not satisfied with Canada's position. I am not going to criticize it but I believe it should be looked into carefully. Before our delegates take up time advocating position, I am going to suggest other important things for them to discuss. At page 29 of Hansard of March 20, 1945, the Prime Minister in discussing the San Francisco conference said:
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.
I defer to no man in my respect for my native land, but my own personal opinion is that our delegates should not waste too much time in discussing that proposition. What would be the outcome if that proposal were accepted? A short time ago-I have not the quotation with me-I read that the Soviets are going to ask for representation for their various autonomous socialist republics. The federal Soviet republic, the great central republic of the Soviet union, has a population of over one hundred millions within its boundaries. The Ukraine has over thirty million people within its boundaries and there are half a dozen other autonomous socialist republics with from six to ten millions each of a population. What position, would Canada be in if all the 17 autonomous socialist republics got representation in the assembly? She would not be leader if even the first two of these great republics got representation. Then suppose France, rehabilitated, comes and asks for representation on the assembly for her Cochin-China with a population of over thirty millions. What position would Canada' be in when Germany by and by is admitted info the council of the nations? It took eight years after the last

San Francisco Conference
great war, in 1926 I believe, before Germany was admitted to the family of nations. The world cannot get along without these great countries cooperating in harmony in peace time. Germany has a population of eighty millions within her boundaries, and after she has received in this war the thorough beating which she so richly deserves, she may apply for a position in the council of nations. What position would Canada be in then? There are many principalities in Germany with a much larger population than Canada has, and they may want representation too. The same thing applies to almost every great nation of the world. Fancy the great state of New York, with fourteen millions of population, the richest state in all of America, sitting on the sidelines watching Canada go by to the conference table! We have to study this thing carefully, Your Honour, before Canada takes up its time with a proposal of that kind at the conference. I do not think that question should come up at the conference. Canada should devote her time to much more important matters. After all, we are a part of the empire. I take the stand that Canada's position as outlined in the passage as quoted from the Prime Minister's speech is simply not good enough; it will not do.
What can the Canadian delegates put their time in at? We have problems here in America to solve. Our closest neighbours are the United States and Russia. I am not going to discuss in detail to-day, as I shall do so on a later occasion, the development of the Alaska highway and of what will be the greatest airway in the world, that great route north from Edmonton. I can envision a population of half a million people in Edmonton. Even to-day Edmonton has, I believe, the greatest airport in America, if not in the whole world, with a whole string of airports to Whitehorse in the Yukon on up through the north, a string of airfields such as I have never seen anywhere else. That is only a start. We can spend some of our time to good purpose in discussing with our great neighbours to the south, with whom we have to live in the utmost harmony, the maintenance of the Alaska highway. For our own economic salvation our delegates should1 spend some of their time at the conference in discussing these matters instead of talking about our status. Let them discuss the economy of this country and the providing of work for the men and women in Canada. I am' sure that we can enter into some agreement with the United States in relation to the Alaska highway.
I would go farther and suggest that our delegates discuss with our great neighbour to the south the construction of a through
highway straight east from Sherbrooke to Saint John and the maritime provinces. The maritime provinces are like a forgotten part of Canada. They are cut off by that great northern bend in our international boundary around the state of Maine. If we allow our American cousins, as we should, to use the Alaska highway, they might help us to build a through highway from Sherbrooke straight east to Saint John, New Brunswick, a superhighway that would bring the maritime provinces much closer to our great central provinces and provide quicker transportation. We must have quicker and better transportation to keep this country going. That is a compromise we might make with our American cousins. We must work harmoniously together, and it would involve no surrender of sovereignty but would be for the good of both countries.
Next is the problem of oil. I have read a lot about the possible abandonment of the Norman Wells pipeline. I am going to suggest to our delegates that they take that matter up with our American cousins. Can we afford to let these wells or line be abandoned? I spent five days up at Norman Wells last August, and there were a lot of people there, and a lot of oil there too. The Yukon must have oil and they can get their oil at Norman Wells cheap. Those wells should be maintained for the sake of the Yukon and also for the sake of the Mackenzie valley and the Coppermine valley and to serve all that great area around Great Slave lake and Great Bear lake. Those wells must be kept going. I believe that question should be discussed by our delegates at the conference.
We may have to send economic experts there; I believe we should. Our delegates should comprise not only the class which the Prime Minister mentioned but economists as advisers and experts. The British delegation is going to comprise some of their ablest economic advisers. We have to provide a lot of work in this country. I am not one of those who believe that our factory wheels will turn just for the sake of turning. They have to have orders to keep them busy and men and women have to have jobs and an opportunity to live. How can they have that unless San Francisco can help to secure a better economy not only in the United States but our own great country?
Other members have spoken of the Jewish question. A short time ago I attended a demonstration in Toronto in the Royal York hotel which was put on by an Anglo-Jewish association. I heard there, and later read
San Francisco Conference

about it, that a shipload of Jews who had suffered everything but death, appalling crucifixions in central Europe, had been loaded on board ship in some Black Sea port on their way, they were told, to Palestine, their homeland for which they have pleaded, they and their ancestors, for two thousand years. While the boat was in sight of their homeland it was torpedoed so that they never reached Palestine. It was not torpedoed by any of our allies or by any belligerent so far as I know, but in any event the boat was torpedoed and those Jews did not reach Palestine.
I cannot see why the conference cannot come to some arrangement or understanding with the Arabs. They occupy a great deal of land and thev have been in possession for a long time, but I believe that arrangements. might be made with them by the great allied organizations which would assure the Arabs fair play and territory while granting a home land in Palestine to the Jews. I have seen much of what the Jews have done; I know something of their accomplishments in medicine and the other professions. I have seen their great charities and recognize the vast contribution their business capacity has made in building up this country. So I join with others in expressing the hope that our delegates along with those from all over the world will make an effort to see to it that at long last fair play is given to the Jewish race.
I have also in mind a matter which was raised by Senator Vandenberg when, in his remarks on March 19, he touched on the boundary question as it affects Yugoslavia and other countries. This is a very serious problem. I stood for an hour in a great German museum on Unter den Linden, Berlin, which contains a map that would cover all one side of this great chamber. It was a map of Germany. I do not know whether the attendant was a nazi, or if he was trying to rouse up his people, but he certainly inflamed them when he pointed to the corridor which cut eastern Germany in two; he had them crying, he had them gnashing their teeth, he had them clenching their fists. The little knowledge I have of German did not enable me to understand what he said, but I know that he and his hearers were damning all and sundry who were responsible for cutting the country in two. I carefully examined the map after the crowd had moved away, and I discussed with officials whether there would have been much objection if the corridor had been run from Poland to Memel. I did not find much opposition to the idea. Poland is entitled to a corridor; Memel did not at that time 
belong to either Germany or Poland, and the corridor might have been drawn between Lithuania and East Prussia. I hope that those whose duty it will be to plan for permanent peace will not break up great areas and separate millions of people who wish to remain united. If they do, what must we look for?
It has been said with truth that every treaty which has been written in the last hundred years had within it the germs of another war. We now have an opportunity to banish war for ever if we can only rise to the occasion and prove ourselves big enough and charitable enough, recognizing that all others have a right to live too. I myself am offering no specific suggestion; that is for statesmen to do.
Something has been said about Poland. That great prime minister, Mr. Churchill, said the other day that he prayed-or words to that effect-that the two Polish governments would get together and get together quickly, so that their nation shall have what it is entitled to, representation at San Francisco. That desire is shared by us all. The Poles are a great people and have made a notable contribution to the world. It would be too bad if internal troubles kept them from being represented at the coming conference. Perhaps before the date of the conference they will compose their differences and so obtain representation.
Near the end of his recent speech the Prime Minister, as reported in Hansard, at page 31, used some very high and exalted language. I heard him, and I was proud of his utterance on this subject; he said:
A new world order will be born, not made. It will be something that lives and breathes, something much closer to the soul of man than a mere mechanical or legalistic device. A new world order needs to be worked out and have its place in the minds and the hearts of men. It should express itself in brotherhood and good will. It will be the application, in all human relations, of the principle of service and of mutual aid.
I hope the Prime Minister will stay on that high plane, but if he is to do so he will have to reverse some of the statements he has made about those who should go to the conference. We have four national parties. The one farthest to our left had a national convention and chose as their leader a cabinet minister of their own province, Hon. Sol'on Low. I cannot see why, if the intention is to select a Social Credit leader, the recognized national leader of the party should not be chosen, the more so because after April 17 many of the proposed delegates will no longer have the status of members of parliament. Mr. Low, on the other hand, will remain a member of a legislature. The leader of the C.C.F. is, of course,

San Francisco Conference
a member of this house and was chosen, at a national convention. I agree with what my own leader in the house' has said; I cannot see on what principle the Prime Minister can bar from the delegation the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, a man of great ability, and for twenty-two years, Your Honour, premier of your own province. I should like to see the Prime Minister adopt the high principles he enunciated toward the close of his speech and renounce any animosity against individuals. Our party has several persons well qualified to be representatives. I believe that our house leader is quite entitled to go. I believe also, as was so well remarked by the hon, member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), a place should be found for representatives of the soldiers, the Canadian Corps and the Legion, the great professions, not forgetting business and labour.
With all others who have spoken, I look forward with the greatest hope to the coming conference. What I have said this evening is in support of the resolution. I cannot see how anyone can oppose it. I cannot understand how anybody can disagree with its objective, which is permanent peace. What I have said has been said in a humble attempt to stimulate delegates to procure information which will enable them to play a greater part at San Francisco. If we keep our activities on a high plane, remembering always the monumental and terrible sacrifices which have been made by our own people and those of our allies in this most catastrophic war, it may be given to us to do something for the realization of that great message left with us by our Blessed Redeemer, "Peace on earth, good will toward men."


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, down on the Atlantic coast there is a broadcasting station which, when they announce their identification, usually give this message, "This is the friendly voice of the maritimes." That station sends its message to our neighbours and it also goes out upon the sea. It is heard by the fishermen, by the men of the navy, and by the travellers who come to our shores. It carries, I think, an appropriate touch of good will. For generations the men of the maritimes, moved by a spirit of adventure and a desire to trade with other countries, have sailed- the seas, visiting many places in distant lands. There they met many people, sometimes strange people with different customs and a different way of life, but they made friends, and by experience they learned the practical value of friendship; so much so that down there among our people there is something, bred in the bone, that
makes us value friendships with other people and leads us to have a tolerance for their views and a high regard for the rights of others.
Then again there is the comradeship of the sea. That is always liberal and generous and international in its aspect, so that it is not hard to understand why the people in my section of the country should give full and enthusiastic support to the resolution before the house. It is my purpose to try to bring to bear on the resolution that friendly spirit which we think is so necessary for its success. Our people, I believe, will support the resolution because it means cordial relations with other countries, because it will bring orderly progress in the future, and also the extension of international trade.
Canada is very fortunate in her friendships and associations. AVe are part of the British empire, and although we are separated from Britain by an ocean, on the coast we always have a visible evidence of Britain's greatness. Some years ago when I visited the docks of an eastern Canadian port with a friend we saw there one of Britain's greatest battleships which had just come in from the sea. After contemplating the scene my friend said to me, "There is the fortress that will give security to Canada."
On the other hand, we are surrounded on all sides by the sea except on the southern border and beyond that border lies our great neighbour country, the United States. Between our countries there are no fortifications or battlements. The dividing line is almost imaginary so far as movement is concerned, but from the geographical point of view it is definite and it is also definite in the minds of the Canadian people. Because of our relations and our geographic position Canada has a splendid opportunity to do a great service to promote good will between the United States and Great Britain, two great English-speaking countries. Our Prime Minister has always regarded this as a noble duty; in his long and meritorious service he has worked along this line, and that work has been outstanding, so that we can say that he has a fine record of service and achievement, especially for the promotion of good will.
Mr. Churchill, in introducing the Prime Minister of Canada in May, 1944, to the British parliament had this to say:
Canada is the link which joins together the old world and the new; which links the vast American people, with whom I trust we shall ourselves develop a fraternal association. Canada, bound by sacred ties to the mother country, and also by terms of the deepest intimacy and friendship to the United States, clamps the whole structure of this benignant, unfearing
San Francisco Conference

glorious British empire together into one homogeneous mass which, when crisis comes to the world as a whole, will never fail in its duty.
I also have in mind that the President of the United States some years ago, while visiting Canada, said that his country would not stand idly by if Canada were threatened by an invading foe. I think that the results of the war, the strength and power which Canada has demonstrated both as an industrial country and as a fighting nation, must convince the American people that it is also to their advantage to have Canada as a good neighbour, because Canada is a strong right arm in the northern part of this American continent.
I think that the first essential for world peace is close association between the English-speaking countries. They will be expected to give the lead and it will have a salutary effect upon the rest of the world. Some suggest that Canada should be more closely allied with Britain; others fear that we might fall unduly under the influence of the United States of America. I rather believe that for this purpose Canada is strong enough to stand on her own merit, to be a member nation in her own right at the San Francisco conference and take a self-respecting place in that forum of good will for the benefit of peace.
May I quote from the Prime Minister's speech made before the British parliament when he was there last year on the occasion when Mr. Churchill introduced him, as I indicated a moment ago. At that meeting the Prime Minister of Canada, addressing the British houses of parliament, said in part:
It will ever be a prime object of Canadian policy to work for the maintenance of the fraternal association of the British and American peoples. When peace comes it is our highest hope that the peoples of the British commonwealth and the United States will continue to march at each other's side united more closely than ever. But we equally hope that they will march in a larger company in which all the nations united to-day in defence of freedom will remain united in the service of mankind.
That speech caught the imagination of the Canadian people and shows that the Prime Minister, even at that time, had in mind what is about to become a reality at the San Francisco conference. I think it is significant that this conference is being held in the new world. The delegates are coming to the land of hope and glory where life is lived most abundantly. It has also been suggested that Canada might be the permanent home of the city of peace. That might well be. It would be a great compliment to Canada; it would be a high tribute to her association with both the United States and Great Britain and the other parts of the commonwealth.
TMr. Kinley.]
Canada has no territorial ambitions, is not big enough to invite the selfish envy of other nations, and we are a country where the four freedoms are being intelligently brought into play. I think we could welcome with legitimate pride the world to come to this country to establish the city of peace.
The proposals for the conference come from the conference at Dumbarton Oaks and the meeting at Yalta. The basis of the new organization is similar to that of the league of nations, which fell by the wayside through the greed and ambition of other days. At that time the seed fell on stony ground. Let us hope that this time better preparations are made so that the seed will fall on good ground. At that time President Wilson had a high purpose, which was damaged at the peace conference, where he was outmanoeuvred; then difficulties at home kept the United States from joining the league, which seriously impaired its powers and abilities. Mr. Wilson was criticized at home by leading Republicans, who were able to keep the United States from participating in the work of the league of nations. But the world has changed a great deal since then. Now we see national leaders inviting those of opposing political faiths to join with them in this international work. Thus we hope to have harmony and unity of purpose, so that when these men return to their own parliaments for ratification of what has been done their work will not be judged in a political sense; there will be no question of political advantage, but only the rights and benefits of the nations they represent.
With regard to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, I believe all hon. members must subscribe to the principles underlying them. This is a pledge, and we have great regard for pledges. When we join an organization or institution we pledge ourselves to support it; and we regard that as a matter of honour. Every man who belongs to a labour union in this country pledges his support to that union. When countries sign I regard it as the cement which will go a long way in keeping them together. Many times the statesmen of the world have tried to get nations to sign pledges of this kind. We recall that some years ago the late William Jennings Bryan, who was a great advocate of peace, tried in every way to get arbitration treaties signed by nations so that war would be prevented. I wish to read just a few paragraphs from the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, which I regard as a pledge of great importance:

San Francisco Conference
All members of the organization undertake, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership in the organization, to fulfil the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the charter.
All members of the organization shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.
All members of the organization shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force an any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization.
This in itself, Mr. Speaker, is a forward movement. We are told that there may be a dictatorship of the big three and eventually the big five in the conduct of the affairs of the association because of the way it is organized. Well, a glance at the proposals will show that the general assembly is composed of all nations of good will, great and small. Each retains its own sovereignty; and each member, which means each country, has one vote. It is true that the bigger nations have some veto privileges which would enable them to halt forward movements, but the general assembly elects the majority of the security council, and in my public experience I have always found that the elected members of any parliament or any assembly usually have a great deal to say about what is going to be done. It is my opinion that in the hands of resourceful men the majority of the security council consisting of the smaller nations will be very useful. While it may be true that they cannot go forward without the consent of the larger nations, they can stop anything being done that is not to their liking. In time the peace-time activities of the organization will overshadow its war-time activities. The general assembly will be able to do a great deal for the benefit of mankind, in coordinating the peoples of the world in order to bring mankind to higher levels. We must realize that as far as security is concerned, it depends upon harmony among the bigger nations, who must combine power with responsibility. While we might like to see more control left with the assembly, we must realize that we have to be practical and that to-day it is only through power that we can secure peace.
I think it is a great thing to have Asia, Europe and America brought together in an association of this kind; and we must not forget the potential power of China. We do not know what will happen in the future, and China is a country which it will be well to have in the association. They are a different race, out there in the east apart from the other countries of the world. It seems to me that to get China into an organization of this kind is far-sighted. Then there is the Soviet republic, which controls a great part of the world.
Those people have come a long way and have shown themselves to be powerful, resourceful and intelligent. Would it not be quite inadvisable to attempt to keep nations like these out of this league simply because they do not want to be too closely controlled at the outset? It must be remembered that this is only the start. As they go along and the people become more confident thej'' will not fear each other, and the organization can be improved from time to time.
There is to be an international court. We are told by the proposals that, ipso facto, each member nation comes under the statute of the international court. Let us hope that that will include the larger nations, as well as the smaller nations. We are not quite clear on that point.
There has been some criticism about Canada's position. Some think that because Canada has great military power, and now that she has developed great industrial power, she should be placed with the big nations on the security council. Well, that might cause difficulty at the outset. We must remember that Brazil, with an area of 3,275,000 square miles, has a population of 41,356,605; Mexico, with an area of 763,994 square miles has a population of 19,473,471; Argentina, with an area of 1,078,278 square miles, has a population of 13,518,239. and Canada, with an area of 3,695,189 square miles, has a population of 11,506,665.
It seems to me that Canada is in the forefront in all her activities and in her importance much more than she is in the number of her people. Therein might be found a lesson for the future government of this country.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are by speech and by our relations close to two powers on the security council, namely Great Britain and the United States. Surely when we are in such good company as that we do not need to be afraid that our interests will be hurt because Canada has not assumed a place on the security council with the big nations.
Some people say that the British commonwealth of nations should be the member to sit on the security council, and that we should thus be represented. Well, let us look at this in a practical way. There is one vote for each member. Does anyone think that Great Britain will appoint a representative from Canada? Would not Westminster want to appoint its representative from Great Britain? And if we were with the British commonwealth as a unit, what would become of Canada's position on the security council by election? I say that because each nation has a membership on the general assembly, and if we made a

San Francisco Conference

unit of the commonwealth of nations, Canada's position on the general assembly would be imperilled.
There has been some discussion, too, about the military staff. Chapter VIII, section B, paragraph 9 of the proposals does not confine the military staff to the big nations. It associates on the military staff the member of any nation directly interested. Then subsequently they appoint the commanding officer after that nation is included.
Then, some persons worry about Canada's commitments. Canada has no commitments yet. I believe there will be commitments; they will be decided by parliament. And while some hon. members may wish to bring ghosts into the picture to obscure the situation, and perhaps cause fear among sections of our people, it seems to me that their motives are not purely for the purpose of helping out this organization.
After this war Canada will certainly have an air force. She will have a navy, and a permanent militia. It seems to me that instead of being a burden that will be an opportunity, because our forces will have a peace-time objective. Instead of being trained and equipped for war they will be for purposes of peace. They will be associated with other nations in such a way that they will be part of the economic set-up. They will not seem to be a military burden. They will be cooperating with other countries for the service of the world. That is a fine vision and a fine ambition for the future services in this country. I do not see why anybody would consider it a burden; because if they stick together they may not be used very much. It -will be something of which people who want to disturb the peace will be very much afraid.
Our friends are very much concerned about the sending of men outside Canada. I was talking with a friend the other day who lives in my county and he said to me, "It is a peculiar thing, that when you want a dollar in parliament you are asked to bring it before the House of Commons, and discuss estimates, and justify it down to the last dollar; but when they want men they want an all-inclusive order in council."
It seems to me that this organization will deal primarily with security in its early stages. After that it will deal with trade and social improvements. No doubt it will be of great benefit to all mankind. Through it all there comes to us the thought as to just how dependent and interdependent men and nations are. In the last analysis you can do in this world only what other people

will let you do. Logic, perseverance and ability will carry one a long way. The public will salute all those virtues. But to carry one right through they must be for the benefit of mankind.
Even foreign trade is subject to good will. I recall that some years ago my hon. friends to my right were going to blast their way into the markets of the world. However, they have changed their opinion to-day, and I am glad they have. Yet I believe that was done for their new leader-and it was all to the good, unless they change again. Future tariffs and world trade will be economic and scientific questions.
I am not going to prolong the debate, but I do give a message of godspeed to our delegates who will go to this important meeting. May you there meet noble and sincere friends, so that you will be able to say with Bobby Burns:
And there's a hand, my trusty fere!
And gie's a hand o' thine!
And we'll tak a eup of kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
And when their work is over-and we trust it will be abundantly successful-may we go forward in this country and in the world, having justice with majesty and peace -with beneficence.


Mr. ANTHONY HLYNKA (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are anxious and desirous to see Canada assume her rightful share of the responsibility in the gigantic task of organizing the world for a just and lasting peace. There can be but one view in this matter. I am sure that the members of this honourable assembly are unanimous in regard to this view and are ready to support any motion which would serve as a basis for the discussion of ways and means and for the setting up of the necessary machinery to make a lasting peace a reality.
For this reason I favour the sending of a Canadian delegation to the San Francisco conference. However, to agree to the decisions which may be reached at the conference, based on the proposals set forth at the Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks conferences, is an entirely different matter. It does appear to me that those two decisions are being tied together and should one support the sending of a delegation to the San Francisco conference his support would be interpreted as favouring, at least on the broad outline, the principles of the Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks conferences and also any decisions which may be reached at the San Francisco conference. I repeat that I am in complete agreement in regard to the sending of a Canadian delegation

San Francisco Conjerence
to the conference, but I consider the principles forecast, upon which the future world structure is to be organized, as unsound and contrary to the democratic concept of life and prejudicial to the sovereignty of many small nations and peoples.
It is in the light of past history that I view with reluctance the giving of a ready approval to any scheme of world organization which fails to convince me that the read causes of war will be eliminated. The leaders of the present era are not the only ones who have studied the desirability of organizing the world for a lasting peace. Throughout history the people of the world have pondered over this problem but thus far failed to find an effective solution.
Let us recall for a moment what has happened in that regard during the course of our own lifetime. At the termination of the last war the statesmen of that day exhausted aid the means at their disposal in an endeavour to purge the world of all wickedness and to render the resurrection of evil impossible. President Wilson of the United States of America made a valiant attempt to incorporate into his fourteen points the vision of effective sovereignty for nations and peoples. Subsequent to that the principles of sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples were incorporated into the covenant of the league of nations. In my opinion the concept of sovereignty is still the only right doctrine of effective freedom so long as the more powerful nations retain sovereignty for themselves.
All attempts to organize the world for a lasting peace failed, as we discovered to our misfortune, in 1939. This happened1 because the formula of freedom for all peoples was never applied. While the principles of sovereignty were applied to all political entities called nations, which were arbitrarily set up by force, the broader concept of the sovereignty of the people as applied to historic, ethnic and ethnographical groups was conveniently ignored. This broader concept of the sovereignty of peoples which I regard as the more fundamental was relegated to the position of internal problems of the various political entities. The tragic result was that might and force continued to rule the world.
Twenty years after the conclusion of the first world war the world was again plunged into a still greater demoniacal conflict. The flower of the world's manhood is once again being sacrificed and with more disastrous losses. Following these two tragedies, surely it must be evident to all by now that unless all democratic minded citizens of the world make certain that justice and not might shall guide the affairs of the world, we may again find 32283-154
ourselves hopeless in averting a third world war within our lifetime, and one of perhaps still greater proportions. That problem presents to us the supreme challenge of the present day.
As we approach victory in this war, strangely enough our slogans for peace have changed diametrically opposite to those we used in the last war. As I mentioned already, we then advocated sovereignty and self-determination for both the victors and the vanquished peoples and nations. At the present time all political parties in Canada, with the exception of Social Crediters, advocate the forfeiture of the principles of sovereignty to the dictates of international authority and perhaps to the Big Three. As a matter of fact there is a powerful and relentless movement on foot which aims openly at the destruction of the very idea of sovereignty and holds up to ridicule and even contempt anyone who dares rise in defence of sovereign ideals. An individual who to-day attempts to defend the concept of sovereignty is called "an obstructionist of the new order", "an extreme nationalist" or even a "a fascist." These are the tactics which are being employed to discredit the last vestige of real democracy and justice which can be found only where individuals and peoples are sovereign in their own rights. It may, therefore, be instructive to ask ourselves the question: Why has there been a reversal in our position in regard to the basic principles which underlay the last world organization for peace and which underlie the proposed future world organization? Is it because we have no other choice in the matter, or is it because the power is slipping out of the hands of the people?
The desire to be free is inherent in all human beings. The desire of nations to be free from foreign domination and the yearning of peoples to govern themselves remains one of the strongest impulses in human beings. Every nation, no matter how small, aspires to freedom so that her people can fulfil, in their own way, their mission in this world by way of contribution to the culture, civilization and the general advancement of the world. Or was it the purpose of the Great Creator that they live out their lives in submission?
Unfortunately, it has not been the policy of any nation to concern itself with the basic rights of subjugated peoples unless it were directly or indirectly in its own interest to do so. That being so explains another reason why the world has not had a lasting peace. But what of the future? Will the right be recognized as right and the wrong be recognized as wrong irrespective of where it is found? Does there not seem by this time to be a need for a human code in regard to the basic rights of all
San Francisco Conference

peoples, for so long as there is no such a code then might, aggression and covetousness will continue to rule the world.
Let me repeat here that I believe that all Canadians are vitally interested in assisting in the organization of the world in order that a lasting peace may be possible. In my humble opinion, therefore, it is imperative that each component part which goes to make up the world structure be most carefully examined. The success of the future wTorld organization will depend on the stability of each of these constituent parts. Should any part of the new organization be built on an unsound and unstable basis the whole structure would naturally be exposed to weaknesses and be subject to dangerous consequences. I propose therefore to point out a few of the most obvious weaknesses which are apt to become the seeds of future trouble if not given due consideration at this time. I wish to discuss briefly the three maj or world powers which in the military, political and economic sense hold dominant positions in the world to-day. I refer, of course, to the British commonwealth of nations, the United States of America, and Russia. I believe that a frank appraisal of these powers should be made if past errors are to be avoided.
Let us examine first of all the British commonwealth of nations which constitutes one of the major bodies in the sphere of world affairs. On past occasions I have expressed my views on the British commonwealth of nations, and I do not hesitate to express those views again. In my opinion the British commonwealth of nations is still the most outstanding example of political organization that the world has ever seen. It is the largest and the nearest to the ideal world organization ever built. Let us not forget that this concept of organization has been evolved on the basis of practical experience, in contrast with the theorizing of present world dreamers. True there are many imperfections and even blunders in the history of the British people. But where can you find its parallel, where sovereignty and freedom of the individual is enjoyed to such a high degree as in the British commonwealth of nations?
Some may say, of course, that India constitutes a vexing problem. So it does, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that India will eventually gain complete sovereignty and become an equal partner in the British commonwealth of nations. That is more than can be hoped for by any subjugated peoples anywhere else in the world.
Nor is India an isolated case of imperfection of British organization. There are others, but all of them are being adjusted and we may

look with hope and confidence to proper adjustments being made in solving all these problems in the British sphere.
The second most important world power is the United States of America, that colossal giant in the industrial world. Her problems, it will be agreed, are mainly internal and economic. She too is a major world power and has certain problems of world importance, but no one, to say the least, hears cries to high heaven in condemnation of the United States of America for her treatment of her subjugated peoples. So in regard to our good neighbour to the south I trust the enlightened opinion of that nation to look after herself and do what she can do to help the rest of the world.
May I pause here to say that the British commonwealth of nations and the United States of America are privileged to be two of the greatest democratic leaders of mankind. This age demands of them not only that they preserve their own existence, but also that they give leadership in ensuring the preservation of the life of many other peoples and nations who fought this war by their side.
Let us now turn to the third great world power-the Russian empire. It is in the sphere of influence and control which fell to Russia, as the result of territorial expansion, that we find that which spells ill omen to world security and peace.
I know there will be those who will say that eastern European and central European problems should be regarded as Russian internal problems. There will be those who will say that any discussion of these matters may strain our relationship with our powerful ally or that any such discussion would embarrass our own government.
In answer to these arguments let me say that eastern European and central European problems did not become Russia's problems by the will of the people occupying those historic territories. May I say also that I am not the first in this house to be touching on these problems in this debate. Already two hon. members on the government side of the house have expressed their views on these matters. Both the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand) dealt with this subject, so that, I need not apologize for making reference to another phase of the same problem.
The Canadian people, without exception I believe, profoundly appreciate the role played in this war by our Russian ally. The sacrifices of the Russian people have been immense and we recognize them as such. When, however, it is said that it was Russia alone that saved us the victory in this war, then I say

Sail Francisco Conference
that that is not entirely true. We should also remember that we owe a great debt to many other submerged nations that have not as yet seen the light of freedom and to which sovereignty and self-government is as much an ideal as it is to the Canadian people.
May I read a few excerpts from an article which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, of January 27, last, written by Edgar Snow, who apparently sent in the article from Kiev, the historic capital of the Ukraine. The article is entitled: "The Ukraine Pays the Bill". Incidentally, the author of the article obtained his information from the official sources of the Soviet government; it was therefore written to suit the government, and yet we glean this striking and most revealing information:
... it was not till I came here on this sobering journey into the twilight of war that I quite realized the price which 40,000,000 Ukrainians have paid for Soviet victory. This whole titanic struggle, which some are so apt to dismiss as "the Russian glory," has, in all truth and in many costly ways, been first of all a Ukrainian war. And greatest of this republic's sacrifices, one which can be assessed in no ordinary ledger, is the toll taken of human life. No fewer than 10,000,000 people, I was told by a high Ukrainian official here, have been "lost" to the Ukraine since the beginning of the war. That figure excludes men and women mobilized for the armed forces.
A relatively small part of the Russian Soviet republic itself was actually invaded, but the whole Ukraine . . . was devastated from the Carpathian frontier to the Donets and Don rivers, where Russia proper begins. No single European country has suffered deeper wounds to its cities, its industry, its farmlands and its humanity.
The post-war Soviet market for American goods .is to a major extent a Ukrainian market. In the same degree, the heaviest Soviet war claims against Germany are Ukrainian claims.
Because of that, if for no other reason, we should become more familiar with the Ukrainian people, which has its own language and culture and history, older than and quite distinct from that of great Russia.
The rest of the U.S.S.R. is fifty times the size of the Ukraine, but formerly the latter accounted for about half of the giant nation's key industry. One district alone produced more pig iron and steel than Japan. Belgium, Italy and Poland taken together. Ukrainian mines supplied half the hard coal and three-fourths of the cooking coal for the entire Soviet Union. The Ukraine produced 62 per cent of Soviet iron ore, and its bauxite mines furnished 70 per cent of pre-war Soviet aluminum.
The quotations which I read, give us some indication of the sacrifices which the Ukrainian people have made to the allied cause. I presume that a great majority of the people in the English-speaking world do not know that the Ukrainians have been their silent partner to such a great extent. The staggering losses in human and material resources which the Ukrainian people sustained "are unequalled
by any European country", according to Mr. Edgar Snow's article which I quoted. I am certain also that other subjugated peoples have made great sacrifices as well to our common cause.
In view of what I have said in my remarks thus far, and in view of the colossal sacrifices which many peoples in Europe have made, I submit that there should be provided a recourse to the submerged nations to make it possible for them to make presentations of their own cases at any and all world conferences to which all free nations are invited. I am making this plea on behalf of the millions who cannot now speak for themselves. I believe that a similar request was made after the last war, but as we know no such privilege was extended to any submerged nation, which fact also contributed to the failure of the league of nations.
In regard to the representation of the Ukrainian people I suggest that the Ukrainian Canadian committee and the Ukrainian congress committee of America be asked to send their delegations to any and all world conferences for the purpose of presenting the Ukrainian case. These organizations include the vast majority of Canadians of Ukrainian origin and Americans of Ukrainian origin and embrace all the Ukrainian church bodies. These organizations have also well proven their loyalty to Canada and the United States of America, their respective countries from the very first day of the war.
Should there be any less informed critics who would advance the view that the Soviet delegation will take it upon itself to speak for all the submerged nations in her sphere of control, then I would quote for their benefit what William Henry Chamberlin, one of the foremost American authorities on the Soviet Union, has to say in his book. "The Ukraine: A Submerged Nation", at page 82:
When Soviet newspapers criticize Stalin's policies as freely as American newspapers criticize President Roosevelt's then, and only then, we may conclude that freedom of speech and press has been established in the Soviet Union. When foreign correspondents in Moscow report a lively contest, with two or more lists of candidates competing for election to the Soviet congress and discussing without inhibition the foreign and domestic policies of the Soviet government, then, and only then, can we assume that the peoples of the Soviet Union enjoy some genuine right of selecting their rulers.
Suggestions that the recent constitutional change in the Soviet Union has transformed the character of the Soviet federation into a loose association of independent peoples, comparable with the self-governing states of the British empire (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eire) are naive and premature, to say the least. Only recently Prime Minister Mackenzie King of Canada pub-
San Francisco Conference

licly took issue with the contents of a speech delivered by Lord Halifax, British Ambassador to the United States. When the Prime Minister of the Ukraine, or of some other Soviet republic, expresses public disapproval of a statement by the Soviet Ambassador in Washington we may fairly assume that there has been some genuine measure of decentralization in the Soviet Union. Until there is some such development it will be wiser to proceed on the assumption that the essential political and economic controls are still lodged in Moscow.
I believe that any further comment on that point from me is unnecessary.
In closing, I should like to say that people desire peace only to the extent that it is consistent with the principles of freedom, for as we well know, Canada, Great Britain, France, Belgium and other allied nations did not think of peace in 1940 or 1941. Neither can there be a lasting peace in the world with a score of submerged nations fighting for their self preservation.
I pray and hope that the San Francisco conference will give serious consideration to the points which I have raised in the course of my remarks.


Mr. M. E. McGARRY (Inverness-Rich-mond):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a very few remarks on the resolution now before the house, a resolution than which no other of greater importance has ever been brought before this parliament for the careful consideration of its members.
This debate has gone sufficiently far to make it obvious that on the principles contained in this resolution the great majority of hon. members are in agreement, and I believe that parliament could do itself no greater honour or no greater credit than to show its unanimity in a matter which is of such vital importance not only to Canada but to the whole civilized world.
This proposal to send a delegation to the San Francisco conference is, I think, the prelude to the setting up of the security council. It is not only fitting but timely because the peace-loving peoples of the world to-day are not disposed to wait until the end of the war to know what kind of new world they have to live in. They want to know what utopian change will obtain after this red reign of death and destruction will have terminated. A military victory is essential and a military victory will and must be achieved. But a military victory is only a milestone on that road that leads to the new world; and while victory can make peace possible it cannot attain peace nor can it make peace secure.
All round us at this very moment we see evidence of this new world shaping, and indeed it may be fixed before the end of the war.

After all, a military victory is an evanescent thing, because quite often we see that before the victor has assessed his gains some new force may arise to dispossess him of those gains. Moreover, we do not know whether differences and disagreements will occur among the victors themselves.
It is well, I think, to realize that we profited from what happened after the last war when the allies failed to discover any aims of peace or attempted to have an agreement thereto. Aims of peace are not soulfully realized after the war; on the other hand, if we have authoritative pronouncements on the aims of peace the effect will be to shorten the victorious conclusion of the struggle itself. We must remember, therefore, that the San Francisco conference is not set up to fix terms of peace but rather to discuss peace aims.
It is not the way of democracy that the fundamental problems of peace should be left to a few political leaders, to have them deal with those problems in private conference and announce the results to the world, because the members who comprise the security council are but human beings and as such, like ourselves, susceptible to error. Therefore we must try to disabuse the minds of some people of the idea that the San Francisco conference is a conference to decide terms of peace. We are also taught not to be carried away by some of, shall I say, the reckless announcements or declarations that are being made that the San Francisco conference is a guarantee of peace.
'It is the democratic way that we have taken, so that the nations of the world shall meet in conference, and it provides an opportunity for discussion and for conclusions to be arrived at in the different stages.
I may pause for a moment to make some reference to what I hear urged by some in the house and others outside, who say that every nation should have an army; in other words, that there should be an international police force set up in order to carry into effect the provisions of the council in case of aggression. I am not going to criticize that, but I am very doubtful of such a plan, which proposes that all countries, Canada included, shall maintain an army, a navy, and1 an air force to be at the beck and call of the security council to fight anywhere at any time, regardless of the possible disagreement which may arise as regards the rights and wrongs of the issue.
As I have already intimated, I believe it would be very difficult to get any agreement in this regard because it would be difficult to imbue the members representing the different nations

San Francisco Conference
with the idea that a few human beings should be given uncontrolled power over the armies and resources of the nations, and that their whims are to become law. This seems to me to present a rather difficult task, and I think we may anticipate that it will be hard to persuade the nations of the world, including Canada, of the wisdom of such an idea. The difficulty in bringing about agreement on this matter is one reason why we may have the assurance that Dumbarton Oaks will not immediately at least be a perfect instrument.
I do not want to take the time of the house in going into details, but will merely say that I have been pleased to see such unanimity of opinion on the part of the great majority of the members of this house in regard to this very important question. I join with others who have wished our delegation to San Francisco godspeed and good luck. Before resuming my seat, however, I should like briefly to refer to one matter. I was somewhat impressed with the eloquent and forceful speech delivered in this house last Thursday evening by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann), in behalf of Poland. There is no doubt that, comparatively speaking, Poland has suffered greater loss than perhaps any other of the allied nations. I know many people in this country feel that a grievous wrong has been done Poland in the partitioning arrangement that has been announced, and in the way the establishment of a democratic government has been interfered with. I say that is the opinion held by many people in this country, although I am not going to say whether or not they have given the matter sufficient consideration to be sure this is the right conclusion. I feel, however, that at the San Francisco conference the delegation representing Canada should ask to have the findings of the Yalta conference with respect to Poland reviewed. Otherwise many people in our country will feel that the Atlantic charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals were meaningless, to say the least. The Prime Minister, who will lead the Canadian delegation, has been a champion of justice throughout his political career, and I am confident that one of the matters he will bring before that conference will be the Polish question. I have every reason to think that he will insist on having this matter reviewed, so that the world may be shown that the Canadian delegation are not disposed to leave the impression that the hopeful pronouncements which emanated from Dumbarton Oaks are merely counterfeit or transitory, but are real and lasting. Conditions exist which will make it possible for Canada to advance in harmony with the other nations to a new level
of social well-being, and I have every faith that the Canadian delegates to the San Francisco conference will exert their very best efforts to obtain for Canada her proper place in the new world. This will be achieved by seeing to it that labour and management and the other progressive elements of this great country of ours are given an opportunity for maximum production, a higher standard of living and full employment at home, with the freest possible trade abroad. These are world conditions essential for the attainment and preservation of peace.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, during the first month of the life of the present parliament the nazi forces overran France, Belgium and the low countries, and in July of that year Hitler boasted that before Christmas he would be occupying Buckingham palace. A year later, in 1941, after his attack on Russia, he boasted that he would have his Christmas dinner in Moscow. During the greater part of the life of this parliament there have been dark clouds overhead, but now, fortunately, during the closing days of the nineteenth parliament of Canada, we can look forward to the complete collapse of the nazi forces and the victory of the allied nations.
I am sure we are all pleased that before the business of this parliament should be concluded hon. members were given an opportunity to express their views with regard to the important conference which will be held in San Francisco. The people of Canada have reason to be proud of their contribution during the present conflict; and similarly we look forward with confidence to the part we will play in laying the foundations for permanent peace. The young men and women of this country have distinguished themselves and brought glory to the name of Canada while serving in the army, the navy and the air force. In 1939 we had in the navy a mere handful of 1,700, as compared with the present strength of over
90,000.	We had 4,500 in the army as compared with 465,000 at the present time, and 4,000 in the air force as compared with a present strength of over 200,000. That is a total strength of more than 750,000. I mention these figures not to give credit to any government or to place our contribution in contrast with that of other members of the united nations, but merely to emphasize that we have no reason to be ashamed of the role Canadians have played.
In the factory and mine, on land and in the home, civilians who were not permitted to take part in military activities also have performed remarkable feats. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) has awarded contracts
San Francisco Conference

totalling more than $9,500,000,000 on account of Canadian, United Kingdom and other allied war production. The farmers of Canada also have established all-time records. In 1943, three male farmers, as compared with four in 1939, produced 160 per cent of the 1939 agricultural production. In other words in 1943 one farmer produced as much as two produced five years earlier. Canada has been able greatly to increase her exports to the United Kingdom, and to other united nations.
One of the interesting observations in connection with food statistics in the present war is that in the United States and Canada parl)airy products	
Meats	
Poultry, game and fish	
Eggs	
Total fats and oils	
Sugar	
Potatoes	
Nuts and pulses	
Tomatoes and citrus fruit	
Fruits, other than citrus	
Leafy green and yellow vegetables
Other vegetables	
Grain products	
Beverages, tea, coffee, cocoa....
ticularly, after we have depleted our labour forces on the farms, and after we have exported such a large volume of food, we have consumed more and better food on our own tables.
We find that the consumption of food in the United Kingdom during the war years compares very favourably with the pre-war years. A pamphlet on the food consumption in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, shows the following consumption in 1944, as compared with the four prewar years from 1934 to 1938:
United		United
States	Canada	KingdomPer cent	Per cent	Per cent118	120	126116	132	81104	106	74113	121	10294	104	8489	87	69100	97	161125	126	83129	153	6989	110	70120	116	147110	100	140104	121	117103	98	83
So that in the United States and Canada particularly we really cannot complain about the rationing and shortages of food products, when there has been an improvement in the per capita consumption of these important items.
In addition to the supplies we have sent to our own troops, Canada in 1943 passed mutual aid legislation which provided the supplying of commodities to the united nations up to the value of a billion dollars. Again last year another appropriation was made to the extent of $800,000,000. The total cost of the war to the end of the present fiscal year will be over fifteen billions of dollars, as compared with a total cost of the great war, including rehabilitation, of 81,629,958,869.
After having made such an important contribution to the defeat of the nazi forces it is only natural that the people of Canada should be equally interested in considering the changes that must be made in national and international affairs in order that there never again will be a world war. Canadians have followed with keen interest the important conferences which have been held during the course of the war. I think it is significant that quite early in the conflict, as 
early as 1941, we had important statements coming from Roosevelt and Churchill, outlining the shape of things to come, as they visualized it.
During the years 1914 to 1918 most people felt that all that was necessary was that we achieve a military victory over our enemies. And then when victory came the victorious nations were not prepared to lay down any formula that would guarantee peace and security to the world. In the Atlantic charter Roosevelt and Churchill reached agreement on eight important clauses. Following that, a conference was held in Washington in December, 1941. Then Roosevelt and Churchill met again at Casablanca. Two conferences have been held at Quebec, one at Moscow, one at Cairo, one at Teheran, and more recently at Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta.
Representatives of the united nations have met, pooled their ideas, and considered working arrangements, in order that we might be able to proceed immediately when victory has been achieved with plans for a permanent peace. Just as it was necessary for the united nations to put everything they had

San Francisco Conference
into defeating our enemies, so is it likewise essential to make our maximum contribution with a view to having enduring peace.
Canada should be able, as I have indicated, to make an important contribution in this field. As a result of our geographical position we must interest ourselves in international affairs. For a century and a quarter we have been able to maintain happy relations with our good and powerful neighbour to the south. Our connection as a member of the British commonwealth of nations enables us to interpret to the world the problems and achievements we have experienced as a member of this large family.
Since Russia is our near neighbour to the north we must be interested in interpreting the aims and aspirations of this northern neighbour to the United States and the United Kingdom. In our own country we have had people from all parts of the world come to establish permanent residence here. For many years we have been able to work out our differences of opinion without resorting to war. While we have had problems in different parts of the country from time to time, we have always found, from experience, that it has been in the best interests of all to have resolved those problems peacefully.
On this continent, both in the United States and in Canada, we have found from experience that working together for the greatest good for the greatest number has been far, far better than each province or each state trying to maintain a powerful army with a view to protecting its rights and enabling it to force its demands upon its neighbours.
In my own constituency, for example, for nearly fifty years people from many countries have been working together to build up a strong and united Canada. The 1941 census gives the largest racial group as being of Ukrainian origin, and places the number at 18,334. The Scandinavians come next with
8.000,	the English 6,000, Scottish 4,000, Irish
3.000,	Polish 5,000 and Russians 4,664.
My children attend a school where more than fifty per cent of the children are nonAnglo-Saxon. Recently I attended an entertainment given by the third grade and I found a miniature league of nations. The teacher is Anglo-Saxon, while her husband of a Ukrainian origin, is a major in the Canadian army serving in Italy. The father of one of the children is a prisoner of war in Hong Kong. These children derive inspiration from the achievement of their forbears in the Scandinavian countries, central Europe, eastern Canada and the Unifed States. The children in that particular room of necessity are keenly interested in the welfare of Canadian prisoners
of war in Hong Kong, in the progress of Canadians in Italy and in the achievements of Canora boys on the high seas, in the air force and in the armed forces everywhere. It is only natural that children growing up in that sort of environment will not be handicapped by prejudices that frequently are deep rooted in countries where it is assumed that all virtue is to be found in those who are of the race or colour or creed of one particular group.
In order to win the war we have made tremendous expenditures in blood, sweat and tears. Is it too much to expect that during the next five years the people of Canada, if given leadership by the government of this country, will be prepared to make similar sacrifices and similar contributions with a view to seeing that never again will the peoples of the world resort to war? I mentioned that the expenditures incurred by Canada in conducting the war have totalled over S15 billion. I need not mention that this is a very large sum.
I should like to indicate what could be accomplished during the five years after the war with similar appropriations. We could vote $3,000 to each family in the country to build a new home. There are approximately 2i million families in Canada and this would total $5 billion. We could give $3,000 to each man and woman in the armed services. A $1,000 car could be supplied to every family in the country. We could make a grant of $200 million a year for each of the next five years for mutual aid to countries that have been overrun; $250 million a year for family allowances for five years and another S250 million for a comprehensive medical, dental, hospital and nursing service for five years could be provided. We could pay $1,000 a year to the 97,000 pensioners of the last war and 81,000 a year to the 200,000 old age and blind pensioners for 5 years. We could make a grant of $500 a year for four years to approximately all university students in Canada. The total of the items I have given is $14,835,000,000. There would be sufficient left over to settle the dispute between the Department of Finance and the Saskatchewan government in connection with certain seed grain advances a few years ago, leaving still a considerable balance.
During the progress of the war the policy of Canada and of every country of the united nations was that whatever was physically possible must be made financially possible. That must still be our goal. I think Canada should stress the importance of chapter IX of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals dealing with international, economic and social cooperation. If permanent peace is to be realized we cannot

San Francisco Conference

have one-third of the peoples in several countries ill-housed, ill-clothed and ill-fed. Canada should take a lead; in seeing that our own industries operate at capacity, that our natural resources are developed to the limit of our ability and that our man-power is gainfully employed in doing useful work for ourselves and the people in the other parts of the world.
Just as in the war we found it desirable to give of the materials that were needed to achieve victory, so in the years which are to follow Canada must be prepared to give of the surpluses which we have in order that the countries which have been devastated by the years of war shall not be required to wait years and years before they can have their homes rebuilt and decent standards of living.
There is a suggestion I should like to make, one which I do not believe has been offered to the Canadian delegation. Provision should be made for international scholarships for professors and students in order that they may travel freely from one country to another and be able to bring back to their own people stories of the problems and achievements in other countries. During my university days it was my good fortune to attend several international conferences. I will be forever grateful for the privileges that were made available to me.
I remember attending one conference in Yugoslavia. At first there were strained relationships between the students of the different countries, but after we had been there for a few days we found that we had a great deal in common if we were willing to give and take, sufficient agreement could be reached to make real progress in our discussions.
The students in Europe had been able to convince their governments of the importance of making concessions to students to encourage them to travel. We travelled from London to Yugoslavia on a tour that had been arranged by an international organization. Railways in several of the countries gave reductions of fares up to fifty per cent to parties of students that were travelling. In all the university cities we were met by groups of students who took us to their hostels where it was possible to have room and lodging at prices that students could afford to pay instead of having to stay at the expensive hotels. We were able to visit centres of learning in those cities during the limited time at our disposal, and we came away with a better understanding and appreciation of these important centres of learning.
In laying plans for cooperation and understanding in the future I think that generous provision should be made in order to encourage people to visit their neighbours and to
IMr. Nicholson.]
become familiar with the work being done. We might start here in Canada. Recently I saw a picture presented by the national film board giving the story of the T.V.A. I feel sure that if that picture could be shown in China, India and Africa a useful purpose would be served. If Canadian, United States and British technical experts were willing to place their services at the disposal of people in Asia and Africa who had not had the advantage of an achievement such as the Tennessee valley authority, we could go a long way toward cementing the peoples of the different nations together in better understanding.
I want to join with all those who have preceded me in expressing the hope that at San Francisco the Canadian delegation will make a worth-while contribution toward reaching a working basis in connection with these important and complicated international problems; and just as we have given of our best into the pool for the prosecution of the war I feel sure that the people of Canada will give this government and any other government the most loyal cooperation in carrying out the programme which will be necessary if this is to be a war to end wars.


Mr. F. D. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house and the debate now proceeding is in my opinion one of the most important ever to come before any parliament in Canada. The effects of the San Francisco conference can be tremendous. The implications may well be decisive for our world. If the results of this conference are successful we can go on to a happy future; if unsuccessful, then it may be ruined for all.
Here in Canada this government has put into legislation during the last year a programme of far-reaching importance-a social legislation as advanced as any in the world, agricultural, economic and trade measures that will guarantee the farmer, the fisherman, the lumberman and the labourer a fair return and equitable treatment. Our measures for the rehabilitation of returned service men and women are more liberal than those of any other country in the world. We have completed a full programme of domestic legislation; we have joined in trade and monetary discussions with the united nations, looking to supplement our domestic legislation; and if world peace is assured, not for another twenty-five years but for a long period of time, we can look to the future with hope. But if peace is not assured, then all our national and domestic legislation is in vain and will avail us nothing. Because of that this conference at San Francisco is one of the most important to be held anywhere and this debate trans-

San Francisco Conjerence
cends in importance any other subject with which parliament has ever had to deal. That is why I wish to go on record.
Because thinking men everywhere sense the implications involved and matters to be discussed in San Francisco there is apparently readiness long before the event to tiy to see the other man's viewpoint, to be prepared to give as well as take, to work together in the cause of peace. This is seen on every hand in the united nations. It was seen at Dumbarton Oaks; it was seen at Yalta; it is seen in the United States congress and in statements by the press and public men over there. It is seen in this very debate, where the great majority of the members of the house seem to realize that unless we have peace nothing else matters. They seem to realize also that peace is something that cannot be had for the mere wishing but that wre must one and all assume obligations, responsibilities and commitments and maybe even fight for peace if we must.
Again, more significant than what public men have been saying and what governments are saying and the support given by the press, is the support of the people themselves. This time I believe the American people have their heart set on this and are willing to go through with it; and this is important, when we remember that the American people and the Canadian people have not been converted by bombs and shells as some of the European people have.
The arrangements for the conference at San Francisco to establish the general international organization go far toward assuring the future peace of the world.
That great contemporary American, the late Wendell Willkie, in his book "One World" used these words:
I was a soldier in the last war and after that war was over, I saw our bright dreams disappear, our stirring slogans become the jests of the cynical, and all because the fighting peoples did not arrive at any common post-war purposes while they fought. It must be our resolve to see that that does not happen again.
I shall never forget some of the disappointment in my own case, following the last war. Some of us did hope for something from the league of nations at the beginning.
I shall never forget an experience in the early 1920's. I attended a meeting of the local league of nations society in Winnipeg. At that meeting the speaker was the late John W. Dafoe, whose trenchant pen became known throughout the world, who saw clearly from the first that there must be collective security and that this entailed responsibilities and obligations, and who continued) to press his views to the very end. Mr. Woodsworth and other public men were present.
32283-16J
After the address in which Mr. Dafoe presented his well known views, discussion followed. I was surprised at the heat engendered in that discussion and the wide division of opinion held. And I was greatly disappointed. Another young returned man was with me and when we got outside I said to him: "Isn't it all a hopeless mess. Here we have the world in its present awful state, just out of a destructive war; most of us believe that it requires a world organization with teeth, to control national bandits, and yet, when a possible set-up is suggested, what do we get? Here, to-night, were some 90 or 100 men, all sincerely hoping for a peaceful future, all speaking the same language, educated in the same schools, living in the same community for years as neighbours and yet, when it came to a fundamental matter, in hopeless and heated disagreement. If we who are so similar cannot agree, how in all conscience can we hope for agreement among people who do not speak the same language and are strangers in many ways. Can you see any hope?" I asked him, "because I can't."
Can men agree on common world action to-day? Well, they did not in the 1920's.
To speak more technically, the experience of the league of nations proved that the abstract concept of law removed from an apparatus capable of enforcing it could not be made to apply in the mutual relations of states, and that wherever the authority of law applies, it does so only by the intercession of some recognized political machinery which in essence possesses the superior sovereignty. Can we evolve that machinery and clothe it with the necessary superior sovereignty?
Well, to-day it seems to be different. A second war has struck us, and I am hopeful that the lesson has been driven home. This time already a large measure of agreement has been reached. In our own country the people generally, the press also and right here in this house are looking forward with hope to San Francisco. Listening to this discussion, I cannot remember a debate in which so much agreement has been expressed with the fundamental issue and so little of doubt, selfishness and suspicion.
In the United States the people are prepared to support an organization which, although it means obligations and responsibilities, yet has some assurance of keeping the peace.
As I said before, the European countries were taught by bomb and shell that wars must cease; even Germany must know that now; but conversion has come to the Americas without the aid of that violence. Already there is much agreement among the united nations; we have had Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta, and
San Francisco Conference

now comes San Francisco. All this gives us hope that this time men will exhaust every effort to agree on plans for an effective organization.
Who will be so sadistic as to sabotage humanity's attempt to save itself? Who will even speak ill of this attempt and refuse to join in helping it along? Surely no one in this Canadian parliament.
Wars on this earth must cease if the human race is to survive. Peace must prevail, even if we must fight for it.
Perhaps the old quotation, "Peace on earth among men of good will" might be altered for the present to read, "Peace on earth maintained by men of good will". The last time, men of good will wished for peace. This time men of good will must be prepared even to fight and sacrifice for it.


Mr. RAYMOND EUDES (Hochelaga) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the conference to be held by more than forty nations at San Francisco heralds that new order for the establishment of which those nations have been fighting for more than five years and a half.
This war marks the final stage in the evolution of an era. Featured by the countless and marvellous discoveries of science, by the conspicuous progress of civilization, this era has witnessed the formation of two social classes: capital and labour. The former, becoming more exacting and selfish as it acquired wealth, stirred up the opposition of the latter.
Successively, these various factors stimulated the particular interests of nations, and in this way they strengthened the character of each one. At the same time, the multiplicity of international relations made more numerous the occasions of friction. Class strife and wars thus became inevitable.
In the belief that they had a solution for such evils, some nations adopted a policy of uncompromising nationalism, which destroyed the self-reliance and freedom of the individual for the benefit of dictatorship. Yielding to a stupid impulse, they wanted to dominate the world, and compel it to accept their ideology.
We have fought against this threat to enslave the world, in the magnificent hope that the world would emerge purified from this chaos. On several occasions, during the war, nations have expressed their unshakeable will to set up a better order where they will live harmoniously and peacefully and where people will lead a happy existence under the banner of justice, freedom and mutual respect.
Solidly united, the freedom-loving nations have foiled the tremendous forces threatening to enslave them. To-day victory is certain.
[Mr. F. D. MacKenzie.J
This same spirit of cooperation must unite all nations in order to save humanity from the recurrence of such a catastrophe.
The object of the San Francisco conference is to bring the different nations together so that they may prepare the charter of the organization which will be entrusted with the maintenance of world peace and security.
If mankind is to 'live in a better world, it will not. be sufficient to put an end to war; peace requires more than freedom from war; it requires calm and order in all classes of society. Human beings, endowed with the same nature, have equal rights to life and to the possession of worldly goods. If this order is flouted, peace does not exist. Nor is it a reality if anyone is deprived of the free exercise of his rights, if the worker has no job, if the capitalist builds up his wealth at the expense of the common people, if the aged and the indigent are abandoned to their sorry lot, if, in short, material comfort is not equally attainable by all.
Peace does not exist if, in a country, a group of persons attempts to dominate the rest. In Canada, it will not be a fact until the two ethnical groups have realized mutual understanding and cooperation or as long as the extremists nurse a grudge.
Peace must spring from the heart and be a living sentiment before being incorporated into treaties. Signs of its existence are the mutual respect of rights, the practice of justice, charity, true and sincere cooperation of all for the common good.
To be real, peace must be international. Commercial needs and cultural relations, stimulated by scientific discoveries have done away with distance. The ceaseless evolution of human society has so closely bound the various nations together that an isolated state can neither be self-sufficient nor even subsist. The nations truly constitute a vast commonwealth whose members are interdependent, so that the wrong suffered by the one, the injustice perpetrated on the other, have repercussions on the whole community.
The necessary relations between states have a counterpart in reciprocal rights and obligations. When these obligations are ignored, when these rights are trespassed upon, international peace is broken. Flowing from the respect of the international order, peace is the ultimate result of the prevalence of order at all levels of human activities.
This order is dependent on the recognition based on justice, of the rights of each state and on the efficient cooperation of all nations for the common good. It requires the posi-

San Francisco Conference
tive attunement of the will and the coordination of efforts. Such attunemenit can only be apparent and such coordination can only be undertaken if there exists a supreme institution above all national enterprises, grouping the states in an effort to promote between nations relations based on justice, and if an efficient solution is applied to economic and social problems.
The modern state cannot now insure all conditions necessary to a happy life without actively participating in the life of international society. Such an international social life is therefore a normal condition of our times and entails an obligation of universal cooperation. From all these considerations, it is apparent that the nations have the duty of taking part in the organization of an international society and of cooperating to the maintenance of international peace and security.
I am pleased to support the government's resolution requesting the house to approve our participation in the San Francisco conference. In thus contributing to the preparation of a charter for an international organization, our country proves its autonomy. The membership of Canada in the British commonwealth, its geographical position, its racial duality, its immense possibilities, its contribution to the present conflict, the nature of its economy based on the relation of imports and exports, its airways and maritime routes, all these imperiously demand that our country adhere to and cooperate with this international organization. Canada is in a position to contribute to its work in a way that will be beneficial to both its citizens and the rest of the world.
Indeed, by remaining away from that conference, Canada would become isolated from the rest of the world. The standard of living of Canadians would certainly not benefit therefrom.
It has been claimed that the acceptance of this international organization would pave the way for war, entail useless expenditures and make us subject to perpetual conscription. It has been said that it would be more advisable to restore order in our country and to devote our energies to the establishment of national peace and security.
Can it be said that we are paving the way for war when we endeavour to get all the countries of good will to exert a continuous and concerted effort in order to eradicate at the source the causes of war? It is possible that eventually this international organization
will prove powerless to prevent war. Is this a sufficient reason not to exert every effort to prevent war?
Of course it is advisable to restore order and peace at home. It is absolutely necessary that all Canadians, regardless of their racial origin, should consider that they have equal rights. But this is not inconsistent with the aim of the international organization. It facilitates its attainment. In view of the absolute interdependence of countries, is not national peace a delusion if international peace no longer exists?
Technical arguments have been. resorted to. It was alleged that democracy, that our constitution have been disregarded because the government has accepted an invitation to the conference without first having called parliament together. It was claimed that because on the date of the conference the term of office of this parliament will have expired, the house has no power to appoint representatives. By the same token, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the delegates will have no mandate and will not represent anything.
In rebuttal, it is sufficient, as it has been pointed out, to distinguish between the government and the House of Commons. The former is endowed with the executive power; the latter, together with the Senate, holds the legislative power. The government, which is composed of the cabinet ministers, remains in office until the succeeding government has taken the oath of office. Therefore, on the date of the conference the government will still be in office.
The invitation to the conference was forwarded to the government and not to parliament. Further, the acceptance of this invitation, as well as the appointment of the delegates, come under the executive power. The delegates will be the representatives of the government and not of parliament.
Responsible as they are to the people, the government, out of respect for the constitution and democracy, should submit for approval to parliament their attitude at the conference as well as the ratification of the charter of the international organization. That is indeed the purport of paragraph 5 of the resolution now before us.
'On the whole, no sound reason can be adduced for refusing to approve the resolution introduced by the government.
In the preparation of the charter of the new international organization, I hope that our government will emphasize the necessity for all nations to join this organization; otherwise, the object in view will be difficult to achieve. I hope that the government will proclaim that
23S
San Francisco Conference

all nations, small or great, have equal rights and that they will see to it that weak nations are not dominated by strong ones, that they will endeavour to confer upon that organization a true authority and adequate powers; to develop, in improving it, the machinery for the peaceful settlement of international differences and to extend the field of cooperation that will ensure a satisfactory solution for economic and socia'l problems.
I hope that this international organization will do justice to Poland. I have neither the authority nor the information required for passing judgment on that vexed Polish question but I do claim that on the coming into existence of an organization dedicated to the preservation of peace, and proclaiming as its primary principle the sovereign equality of all nations, the world is justified in demanding a serious and impartial study of that problem and in insisting that right be recognized and justice respected.
It would be a utopian idea to believe that the creation of this international organization will mean the elimination of all ills and the beginning of an endless golden age. This organization is but an institution, a framework designed for the grouping of nations but within ' which men, with their qualities and their weaknesses, will be active.
Whatever be in store for this organization, whatever part it may be called upon to play in the future, the fact remains that it constitutes on the part of men a noble effort to make mankind better and to ensure a more pleasant life on earth.


Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: For some days now this house has been discussing one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to have come before parliament, a subject which is of vital importance not only to every Canadian but to every peace-loving nation throughout the world. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking on the resolution, in his splendid speech outlined the proposals at Dumbarton Oaks and other international meetings and told us something of what he thought would be discussed at San Francisco. Members on all sides of the house have expressed their ideas as to what should or should not be done at this conference.
I am indeed glad, and I believe the people of Canada are proud, that the Prime Minister is to head the delegation from Canada. I am sure I am safe in saying that no one in Canada has had a greater knowledge of international affairs than the Prime Minister, nor is anyone held in higher esteem by the statesmen of the world than he. His close associations with the President of the United
SMr. Eudes.]
States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain for so many years, and the wonderful contribution of Canada to the war, place him in high standing in the nations of the world.
There has been some suggestion in the press that he might be chairman of the conference. This would be a tribute not only to himself but also to Canada, and I know that, regardless of party affiliations, he would be the unanimous choice of the Canadian people. I am glad also that this delegation from Canada is to be representative of different political parties and I hope that the opposition members who attend will put Canada and the world first. In fact, I know they will.
While some political notes have been sounded in this debate I am sure they will all be forgotten at the conference and no one will take advantage of San Francisco to make political capital. There is too much at stake in these days for that.
We have heard a great deal about the basic things that must form a free world-security, which means freedom from fear and freedom from want. This is a kind of economic structure based on world outlook. Unless it is, I doubt very much if we can have this freedom. Then there is freedom of worship and freedom of the peoples, by which I mean an attitude of respect and cooperation toward each other, not looking down upon any race but realizing that all human beings throughout the world are entitled to the same consideration. Those are the basic things we will need for a free world, because there never was a time when we should be more careful not to make hasty decisions, without first considering the point of view of the other fellow.
I should like to emphasize this one point. We are not the people who will have to be convinced of what must be done in the future. No doubt this delegation will do whatever must be done, will accommodate itself, will work and compromise, if necessary, as long as we are moving forward toward the goal of lasting peace; but this cannot be done at one conference. You know it is very easy to go on talking about things with those who to a large extent agree with what you say, but we must go out into the world and talk to those who do not agree, and try to discover the basis of their disagreement. I hope we can unite on the basic things which all people must accept for a better world. Some speakers have suggested that the smaller nations may not be given much consideration in formulating policies for peace but that the big four, as

San Francisco Conference
they are known, will have all the say. In an address made some time ago, Mr. Churchill said:
For the purpose of preventing wars there must be a world-controlling council, comprising the greatest states which emerge victorious after this war, who will be obliged to keep within certain minimum standards of armaments for the purpose of preserving peace.
However, he would not exclude all participation by smaller nations. In addition to the controlling or executive council of great powers, he added:
. . . there must be a world assembly of powers whose relations to the world executive or controlling power for the purpose of maintaining peace, I am in no position to define.
President Roosevelt seems to agree that the great powers must bear chief responsibility for the maintenance of peace. While we know Canada is not one of the larger nations she has contributed to the war effort, according to her size, more than any other nation in the world, in men, material and food, and to my mind is entitled to a high place among those making the decisions for peace. When history is written Canada will be among the first nations and the Prime Minister of Canada will be among the great statesmen of the world. On the basis of population this country stands only about thirty-fifth among world nations. We have less than one per cent of the peoples of the earth. But the catastrophe of two world wars,	plus historic accidents of
geography and racial association, have hastened our economic maturity. Before the war we took pride in being the fifth trading nation of the world. To-day we are third, or second as far as mutual aid is concerned. Canada has become one of the few surplus-producing nations of the world. In a way this is no new thing. Canada has always produced far more food, materials and goods than her people could consume; but this war has vastly increased our surplus position. To put it in another way, although thirty per cent of our eligible man-power is in the armed forces our productive war capacity, expanded yet not devastated by war, is being made available to the extent of almost eighty per cent for the use and support of other than our own troops. Of a total of over nine billion dollars of war production, between six and seven billion have been made available for use 'by the other united nations. Our productive capacity, large though it may seem to us, is still small compared with the combined total of Great Britain and the United States.
Canada's early collaboration with the United States provided a pattern for future allied combined economic operations. Even when Canadian munitions production reached its peak of a quarter billion dollars a month in 1944, it represented not more than five per cent of the combined output of Great Britain, the United States and Canada. Nevertheless Canadian aluminum helped to make it possible for England to win the battle of Britain. Unprepared as we were, it was the thin but widening line of communication and supply between Canada and Great Britain which for a time weighed materially in the balance between victory and defeat. Of importance, too, is the fact that in a very real sense Canada and the United States pointed the way toward the pooling of resources of skill and brain power which has been one of the most important single factors in the success of the united nations. As far back as August, 1940, at Ogdensburg, the Prime Minister and Mr. Roosevelt reached agreement on the creation of a joint board of defence for the two countries. In April, 1941, these two leaders met again at Hyde Park to pool the resources of the two nations. Subsequently, in 1942, this Canada-United States partnership was further extended through the fact that Canada obtained top-bracket membership on two of four combined United States-United Kingdom boards created to coordinate and allocate available supplies, raw materials, shipping and food. In July, 1944, a meeting was held at Bretton Woods at which many of the suggestions put forward by Canada were accepted.
One of the most significant trade developments of 1944 was the overwhelming support given President Roosevelt in the November elections and the increased majority he obtained both in the house of representatives and the senate. It is generally expected that some time in 1945 the United States will call an economic world conference and indicate to some extent her willingness to fulfil the reciprocal trade arrangements enacted by all nations under lend-lease.
There are ways of keeping out the goods of other people in addition to building a tariff wall around a country. One of these methods is by quotas. The United States keeps out a great many Canadian cattle which we would like to sell in that country, simply by saying that our sales of cattle in any one quarter may not exceed so many thousand head. In other words, by giving us a very limited trade quota a barrier to trade is maintained and United States cattlemen are protected to that extent.
In my remarks I have tried to show that at least as far as Canada is concerned trade is an important matter in which, as a farmer, I am very much interested. We have heard it said that Great Britain will buy from us after the
Meat Shipments

war because we have shipped her so much during the war, but I fail to see it in that way. I think she will buy from the country that can supply what she wants at a price comparable with that of other countries, a price she can afford to pay; and the same will be true of other nations. We must also remember that if we are going to sell we must buy. So it behooves us as Canadians to go out and find markets for our goods, if possible, because that will mean either prosperity or poverty after the war. Canada has laid the foundation for international trade by the quantity and quality of goods she has sent to all parts of the world. Let us see to it that we continue along this way. But governments cannot do this alone. We must have the cooperation of every manufacturer and every producer of goods to supply the highest quality products and at the lowest possible cost.
On motion of Mr. Tustin the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 1.1.06 p.m.
Tuesday, March 27,1945