OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
EDMOND CLOUTIER, C.M.G., B.A., L.Ph., PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY 1946
[Stage Direction]
DotlSe Of
Commons; Debates;
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 18, 1945.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I said in Toronto yesterday at the conclusion of the conference which I called in an attempt to settle the Ford strike, that any statement I had to make regarding the situation would be made in this house.
In every industrial dispute, it is important that public statements on the part of all concerned should be factual and not provocative, and that hasty judgments be avoided. I thought it desirable, therefore, that my first statement with respect to our efforts at the conference, and the attitude of the parties towards them, should await to-day's sitting of this house.
I recall to the house the first statement I made on this strike. I then pointed out that the dispute between the union and the company over the terms of a new collective agreement dated back to April, 1944, and that relations between them prior to that time had not been good.
I placed on the record a brief review of the several attempts which had been made by the departments of labour of the dominion and the province of Ontario to resolve the dispute. These included prolonged efforts by members of the wartime labour relations board (national) acting as a conciliation tribunal, those of Mr. Justice S. E. Richards, Winnipeg, acting as an industrial disputes inquiry corn-47696-79
missioner, over a lengthy period, and finally those of the board of conciliation headed by Mr. Justice G. B. O'Connor of Edmonton.
Mr. Justice Richards, in making his report to me as commissioner, referred to the deep-seated antagonisms which he found in the attitudes of the parties towards each other. He said:
There is bad feeling between the parties, which has arisen without good reason. ... I believe the bad feeling between the parties and the lack of good will and cooperation which should exist in the interests of both parties and for the public good, are such that the parties will not approach each other at the present time in the spirit of compromise which is necessary for the negotiation of a collective agreement. . . .
The board of conciliation which reported to me subsequently on this dispute, corroborated Mr. Justice Richards' view, when it said that:
There has been considerable difficulty between the parties ever since the first contract was signed between the company and the union in January, 1942.
When, last week I decided in consultation with the appropriate minister and officials of the provincial department of labour for Ontario, to call company and union officials into conference in Toronto on Monday of this week, it was thought that there was a possibility of getting both sides to take a more cooperative attitude and of reaching a settlement based on a compromise of their respective positions.
As I intimated earlier to the house, the issues of union shop and check-off are paramount in this dispute. Let it be clearly understood that there is no question on either side of the right of men and women in the industry to belong to the union. That is not the issue in dispute. The issue in dispute is the question, as I have just indicated, of a union shop and check-off. This is what the board of conciliation said:
The issues of union shop and check-off, in our opinion, are at the root of all difficulties between the company and the union. The union insists upon the inclusion of both these provisions. The company, on the other hand, is fully determined that it shall not be a condition

Ford Motor Plant Strike


Mr. HOMUTH:: May I ask the minister
one question? He stated that apparently there were two elements in the quarrel between the union and the company. Was not the question of annual wages one of the paramount issues? I was given to understand that that is so.

Ford Motor Plant Strike


Humphrey Mitchell: That is an issue in
dispute.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is not the paramount
issue?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say that the
paramount issues are the union shop and the check-off.


Mr. COLDWELL:: In view of the minister's statement that if this dispute is not settled soon the men may be out and the plant closed for the winter, what further step does the minister propose? Something must be done. What about appointing a controller, bringing the parties together, and operating the plant pending a settlement? It seems to me this matter is so serious that some further step is necessary.


Mr. POULIOT:: No controller could do
better than the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can only say to the
hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that if he has the answer, God bless him.


Major James William Coldwell: The question was not
asked in that spirit.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, but I am sincere.
I did not interrupt my hon. friend.


Major James William Coldwell: It was a very sarcastic remark, though.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say. if he has got the answer, God bless him. I have had very little sleep in the last few days. We have had engaged in this matter the best people that I know of in the dominion, good Canadians, who have endeavoured to bring this dispute to a successful conclusion. There was Mr. Justice O'Connor of Edmonton, a man of liberal outlook. There was Mr. Justice Richards, of Winnipeg, one of the ablest conciliators in Canada. We have had our own officials, and I myself have had some experience in these matters. But there must be a willingness to come together and talk. After all is said and done, that is the genius of the British people; it is the very principle on which, this House of Commons depends. If we want a system of government which we have spent millions of lives to get rid of in the world-


Major James William Coldwell: What about Ford? Ford spent millions of dollars and was decorated by Hitler.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend wants a frank answer-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Send him down there to
run the plant, and see what they do then,


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.
47696-79J


Humphrey Mitchell: I want to say this-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Let him settle the coal
strike in Great Britain and the dock workers? strike in Great Britain.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say that if any hon..
member has a formula by which this problem may be solved, the door is always open and. I am ready to put it forward. I cannot say anything more sensible or sincere than that..


Mr. McIVOR:: I would like to ask a.
question dealing with practical needs. I was wondering who was going to supply the necessities of life for these workers. Will it be the union officials? Will it be the province of Ontario? Will it be the dominion government? Will it be the city of Windsor? Because the workers have to eat, and they have no right, so far as I can see, to go into debt to keep their bread baskets supplied. I would like to know who is going to be responsible.


James Horace King: I would remind hon.
members that there is no motion before the house. I have permitted certain questions because the minister made a very important statement, but I do not think there should be a debate. It is against the rules.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Mr. Speaker, I rise
to a question of privilege relating to what you have just said. I think that, from the way the matter has gripped the members of the house, you will realize that this is one of the most serious questions that have come before us and the country since the end of the war, and some latitude ought to be allowed in a matter of the kind. I can quite understand that Your Honour would not want to permit open debate upon it, but a reasonable number of questions might be allowed which would bring into relief the position of the government and the strike situation. Such questions ought to be permitted and may I ask very humbly that Your Honour permit, them at this time.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: I think there is some-merit in what the hon. member has said,, but the proper place, surely, is on the orders of the day. This is being done under motions..


Gordon Graydon: We have done this on
occasion before, and the subject is now before the house. No one realizes better than my hon. friend that once a subject passes and something else comes up it is not always possible to revive that subject and place it in the same position as it was before. I would ask as a matter of special consideration that Your Honour do not restrict hon. members too much.
Ford Motor Plant Strike


Mr. COLD  WELL@: If latitude is not given, there is but one recourse open to those who feel strongly in this matter, and that is, a few minutes later, to move the adjournment of the house for the consideration of a matter of urgent public importance. We know that there is some pressing business to come before the house, and we hesitate to take that step.


Mr. ROSE:: May I ask the minister two
questions? First, did the Ford representative state that he will not accept union security because there is no union security on the statute books? Second, may I ask whether or not Mr. Blackwell hinted at any legislation along the lines of giving the workers union security?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend apparently has a pipeline in the wrong direction.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: It is running up instead
of down.


Humphrey Mitchell: Obviously that question cannot be answered. It is a matter of good faith and of character. You cannot disclose what takes place in a conference of that description. There has to be some decency and confidence in respect of such things, and that goes for both sides, the trade unions and the employers.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask a question of the minister, following the exchange of comments between himself and the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell)? The suggestion was made by the leader of this group that further consideration be given the appointment of a controller pending the settlement of the dispute. The minister did not take too kindly to the suggestion, and asked if we had some formula to suggest. I would ask him this question: Is not the formula suggested by the leader of this group parallel at least to the formula adopted by the minister in connection with the packing house situation, and is not this just as serious, with the winter coming on? Would he not give further consideration to this matter?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A different thing entirely.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: May I ask a question of the minister? I am anxious to say to him how deeply I appreciate his efforts to settle this matter. I do not want any doubt about that, and I am not trying to be smart. Does he think that when parties separate on this principle of union security it can ever be a matter of conciliation? In other words, is it not something in connection with which some government, provincial or other, whoever has the authority, must by law lay down a policy? One side says, "We will not look at union
(Mr. Giaydon.]
security"; the unions say, "We will not work without union security." I ask that question as simply as I can because I know the minister is very able in these matters. Does he not think it may have gone beyond conciliation and may perhaps require some government action?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would say this. You cannot legislate on the basis of threats. I am not speaking to my hon. friend when I say that. I know he appreciates that.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Louder.


Humphrey Mitchell: I say you cannot legislate on the basis of threats by any group in the community.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Threats both ways.


Humphrey Mitchell: I know what makes the clock tick. My hon. friend should read a primer on British institutions. May I say to the hon. member for Calgary West that industrial relations are the product of slow growth and I emphasized that the last time I spoke in the House of Commons. Some people will live to regret the speeches they made a week ago last Monday. I pointed out then that agreements were based on character. I am convinced of this, that if the approach were on that basis-and I believe we had this thing out of the fire yesterday-everyone will recognize that sooner or later these people have to sleep together, as we say in the trade union movement. I believe that if that had been the approach, and I say that from my experience in negotiations of this kind, these people would be at work in the next few days. We know of the factors on both sides of the river, and it is far better that they should meet together and come to an agreement mutually satisfactory, which would be lasting on both sides of the picture. I am convinced of that and I think that will be the outcome.


Jean-François Pouliot: My good1 friend the Minister of Labour did well in his attempts to settle the Windsor strike, and spoke highly of Mr. Justice O'Connor, who has been made conciliator. The minister asked an hon. member in the C.C.F. group if that hon. member could suggest anyone who could help the minister in the matter. I have a suggestion to offer now, and it is that he should seek the assistance of the committee of this house on industrial relations. I believe the minister would find there quite as good assistance as he would receive from anyone in his department. My suggestion to the minister is that the committee be called as soon as possible, so that he may have the assistance of its

Postal Service
members in an effort to do something in connection with the condition at Windsor, and other matters.



TAKING OVER OF BURNS PACKING PLANTS AND APPOINTMENT OF CONTROLLER-REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I realize, of course, the great burden of work which has been placed upon his shoulders in the last few days. May I ask, however, if he is in a position to-day to make a statement respecting the strike situation in the meat packing plants of this country?


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, may I emphasize this point: We are now passing through a difficult period, and as I have often said before, this is not the place to negotiate trade union agreements. My hon. friend knows as much about it as I do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, I do not. I was seeking information.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute; I say my hon. friend knows as much about it as I do. I have had conversations with the packers and with the union. We have a controller in the plants. We have appointed Mr. Justice Richards of Winnipeg to act as a commissioner under the provisions of section 402. I know my hon. friend does not wish to make my task-or, might I say, possibly his task-a little more difficult. Those people are at the moment in charge of the situation; for goodness' sake give them a chance. Do not try to make it difficult for them by asking questions in the house at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I said that I realized the burden under which the Minister of Labour is working, but I think that in what he has said he has imputed to me motives of which I am not guilty.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am seeking information as to the situation, and I am not trying to make anybody's position more difficult. If the minister is not in a position to give any information, then I shall be perfectly content with an answer stating that he is not.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have no further information to give. There is no strike in the packing industry.



POSTAL SERVICE


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I wish to make a statement in connection with the rates and weight limits of parcels being sent to England and on the continent.
In the course of the past few weeks, I have answered questions on the subject. Letters in regard thereto have been received by some of my colleagues and myself, and open letters, which unfortunately did not put facts in their true light, have been sent to newspapers. It is hoped that this further statement will clear up the matter.
Shortly after the end of the war in Europe attempts were made to restore mail service, particularly parcel post services to European countries, and it has been found possible to resume the mail service for correspondence to most places, but the parcel post services are another matter and they have presented many difficulties arising out of factors entirely out of Canadian postal authorities' control.
As the house knows, shipping facilities are not always of the best, and the question of the ability of the country of destination to provide delivery has been found to be the main difficulty. We have been successful in resuming the parcel post services to England (up to a weight limit of five pounds), to Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland up to eleven pounds, and to Italy and the Vatican City state up to four pounds for gift parcels containing food, drugs, toilet articles and used clothing.
This has required constant effort, as in all cases, with the exception of one, the Netherlands, our parcel post services are at present operating through Great Britain, who are sorely pressed as regards staff and accommodation but have been most cooperative in assisting us to the greatest degree possible. The shipping situation from the United Kingdom also comes into the picture, but we are sure they are placing all facilities possible at our disposal. The fact that England has set a weight limit of five pounds and is transmitting parcels to the continent up to a weight limit of eleven pounds shows her willingness to help devastated countries.
As regards the question of parcel post rates, the parcel post service to the Netherlands, which I previously stated operates on the direct route without going through England, is, of course, the cheapest service. On all eleven pound parcels to the Netherlands, the rate is SI.60; to France it is $2.25; to Switzerland $2.10; to Belgium $2.05, and to Sweden $2.60.
Taxation

Parcel postal rates from Canada to other *countries are based on the charges due to the *country of destination and any intermediary *countries, when it is found necessary to route the parcels through those countries. Also on the amount due Canada for handling and transportation by railway in Canada, including the conveyance across the Atlantic at 75 cents per cubic foot, which is the same for any parcel going to continental Europe, except the Netherlands.
In the case of those countries in Europe to which it has been possible to resume parcel post services, it has been found1 necessary to route the parcels through England. Direct steamship services will be used as soon as they become available and when we are assured of proper accommodation and regularity of service.
Our main efforts, of course, have been directed to the reopening of these various parcel post services to those countries in Europe who have so greatly suffered during the war, and which would permit some measure of relief being sent to them by civilians in Canada. It is quite true that in some cases the rates might be considered a trifle high, but it is purely a question of what we have to pay other countries for handling in addition to the cost of the conveyance in Canada and transatlantic dispatch to Europe.
Complaints have also been lodged as to the delivery of parcels, a number of which have not reached their destination. This is absolutely beyond our control. All parcels were sent in good condition from Canada and with the least possible delay. While we are following up these matters with diligence, we cannot press the receiving countries to change their own regulations.


Mr. KIDD:: Before we leave this statement of the Postmaster General, I should like to refer to a question I submitted to him in writing a few moments ago. It is as follows:
Will the minister kindly inform the house whether immediate steps can be taken to speed un the regulations to permit ten pound parcels sf food or clothing to be sent from Canada to Great Britain, the same as applies to civilians in continental Europe?
I intended to ask this question, and I thank the minister for his lengthy reply.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Minister of Finance): Yesterday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) inquired about the 
tabling of the report of the royal commission on the taxation of cooperatives. With the scanty information I had been able to obtain over the telephone I told him that it had not yet been received from the printer and that it would be tabled as soon as it was received. The leader of the opposition then said, as reported at page 1210 of Hansard:
Would it not be possible for some of us on this side to see that report before we proceed with the budget debate? It may not be possible to make it available to every member of the house before the budget debate, but I think that before important speeches are made on the budget we should have the opportunity of seeing that report.
To that I replied:
I think that the request made by the hon. leader of the opposition is quite fair. I will communicate with the officers of the department and see if there are not copies that could be made available to the hon. member and to such other members as may wish to see it, rinless of course, I am assured that the report will be available in print almost at once.
The leader of the opposition had said that the Minister of Finance- had referred to this report in his budget speech; and I felt that if it had been used by the Minister of Finance it would be only fair that it should also be available to other members who might wish to take part in the same debate. But on further inquiry I found that all that the Minister of Finance said with respect to it is to be found at page 1008 of Hansard, and it is as follows:
The second royal commission was directed to report on the taxation of cooperatives. Its report has been received only very recently and it is now being printed for tabling in the house and distribution. There has not as yet been time to give full study to the report but, if it is possible to do so, I shall introduce in the committee on ways and means further resolutions for such changes in taxation as seem desirable after consideration of the recommendations of this commission.
I also inquired about the report itself, and I found that only two copies had been received by the government from the commission. Apart from the briefs, evidence and other material collected by the commission, the report consists of 417 pages. The preamble is a matter of 14 pages; the main part of the report 107 pages. Then there are appendices and charts, original work made and submitted by the commissioners on their responsibility, making up in all 417 pages. One of the copies was sent at once to the king's printer to be printed. He has been communicated with, and we have been informed that if he were to attempt to do the work in the king's printer office it would be a matter of some months before he could get around to it because of the pressure of the daily printing he has to do

Questions
while parliament is in session; and it has been farmed out to a contractor. It is hoped that within three or four weeks it may be available.
The other copy which was submitted to the President of the Privy Council was referred, without being examined at all, to the Minister of Finance, and is now in the hands of the experts of the Department of Finance who are preparing memoranda in connection with it for submission to the Minister of Finance. Under these conditions I cannot take the responsibility of taking it away from the experts and making it available for discussion in the debate. It could not be discussed in the debate in the budget without being tabled. I can assure hon. members that everything is being done that can be done to expedite its preparation, but, as Acting Minister of Finance I would not take the responsibility of taking it away from the experts to whom the Minister of Finance referred it for the preparation of memoranda for his use in bringing those recommendations before his colleagues, and making it available to other members of the house. I regret that circumstances are such that I cannot have copies available for hon. members, who I know are, like many others, much interested in ascertaining what are the recommendations in this report.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
special depreciation allowances
["What was the quantity of apples produced in Canada, by provinces, from September 1, 1939, to September 15, 1945?\nMr. MacKINNON;\nApple Production\tin Canada,\tby Provinces,\t1939-1945\tN.S.\tN.B.\tQue.\tOnt.\tB.C.\tCanada'000 bu.\t'000 bu.\t'000 bu.\t'000 bu.\t'000 bu.\t'000 bu.1939* \t\n5,953\t225\t1,011\t3,031\t6,195\t16,4151940 \t\n3,453\t161\t970\t2,350\t5,931\t12,8651941 \t\n3,444\t201\t767\t1,845\t4,468\t10,7251942 \t\n3,918\t246\t1,170\t1,851\t5,797\t12,9821943 \t\n4,846\t330\t911\t2,372\t4,395\t12,8541944 \t\n5.262\t297\t900\t2,620\t8,750\t17,8291945f \t\n975\t119\t80\t546\t5,764\t7,484\nNote: 1 bu. equals 45 lbs; 1 bu. equivalent to 1 B.C. box.\n Total crop harvested in 1939. Not possible to show quantity harvested before Sept. 1. t September estimate of total crop to be harvested this season. Not possible to show quantity harvested before Sept. 15. t Preliminary."]
Mr. McCANN:: I desire to answer this question orally. The answer to the first part is, none. The answer to the second part is, answered by No. 1. I recognize that this is not a satisfactory answer, but it is technically a correct answer to the question as we understand it. If the questions were drafted a little differently, however, we could give the information requested by the hon. gentleman. The first question would then be in this form:
Since November 10, 1944, under order in council P.C. 8640 of that date, how many certificates have been granted by the Minister ol Reconstruction for depreciation allowances under section 6 (1) (n) (ii) of the Income War Tax Act?
The second question would be:
What is the total amount of depreciation to be allowed under the said certificates on the assumption that the construction in respect of
which the certificate was requested is carried out according to the plan submitted and within the prescribed period?
The answer to the first question is, 1,159; the answer to the second question is $157,956,313.07. If that answer is satisfactory to the hon. gentleman who put the question I will table it together with a copy of the order in council under which that comes into effect.



Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many labour exit permits were granted to men to take employment in the woods in the northeastern states of the United States of America, (a) in 1944; (b) in 1945 to date?
2.	What is the maximum number of such permits which may be granted for such purpose, and will this maximum be increased?
3.	Within what area of Canada have American timber operators been permitted to canvass or advertise for Canadian labour, (a) in 1944; (b) in 1945?


Mr. MITCHELL:: 1.	The number of labour exit permits granted to men to take employment in the woods in the northeastern states of the United States of America was: (a) In 1944-12,902; (b) In 1945 to date 16,447.
Since more than one labour exit permit may be issued to any one man during any one year it is necessary to state that in 1944 the maximum number of Canadians working on woods operations in the United States with labour exit permits at any one time was 4,993. In 1945, this figure is 4,616.
2.	The maximum number of such permits which may be granted for such purpose is 5,060. It is proposed to increase this number to 5,750.
3.	American timber operators have been permitted to canvass for Canadian labour in the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec in both 1944 and 1945. None have been permitted to advertise.


WAR ASSETS
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: 1.	How many corvettes have been declared surplus and handed over to the War Assets Corporation for disposal?
2.	What has been the cost of each corvette?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	87.
2.	30 corvettes at $958,160 each; 7 corvettes at $780,296 each; 4 corvettes at $718,120 each; 46 corvettes at $690,000 each.
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. JAENICKE:: Did any of the following persons receive unemployment benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act during the year 1944, and, if so, how much did each of them receive: P. C. Colquhoun, Maple Creek, Sask.; C. Dixon, Luseland, Sask.; H. P. Kruesel, Kerrobert, Sask.; F. Lang, Tramping Lake, Sask.; J. T. Letourneau, Lisieux, Sask.; G. N. Morrison, Eastend, Sask.; A. R. Porter, Truax, Sask.; A. L. Rees, Stranraer, Sask.; G. Slade, Sceptre, Sask.?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not sure that the information requested should be put on the records of the House of Commons, for very-practical reasons. In the first place, there are
2,500,000	people insured under this plan, and if we are to have the proceedings of the house cluttered up with this kind of thing I do not know where it is going to end. I think also there is another principle which enters into it, which I am sure my hon. friend will see if he looks at this matter from the point of view of the workingman or woman. Pride is a very necessary element in our relations with each other, and these people do not like to have any benefits received under this or any other plan bandied about. However, I should be
glad to give my hon. friend the information privately or make it available to him if that should be necessary.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: That is satisfactory.
volunteers FOR ACTIVE SERVICE REMAINING IN CANADA


Mr. GAGNON:: 1.	How many volunteers who enlisted for
active service remained in Canada, in the various war service offices:	(a) army; (b)
navy; (c) air force?
2.	How many of such volunteers were Frenchspeaking?
3.	How many of such volunteers were Englishspeaking?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member has
agreed, in view of the considerable work involved and the difficulty of securing the information, to drop this question and redraft it.
Question dropped.


APPLE PRODUCTION
Mr. McGREGOR:: What was the quantity of apples produced in Canada, by provinces, from September 1, 1939, to September 15, 1945?
Mr. MacKINNON;
Apple Production	in Canada,	by Provinces,	1939-1945	N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	B.C.	Canada'000 bu.	'000 bu.	'000 bu.	'000 bu.	'000 bu.	'000 bu.1939* 	
5,953	225	1,011	3,031	6,195	16,4151940 	
3,453	161	970	2,350	5,931	12,8651941 	
3,444	201	767	1,845	4,468	10,7251942 	
3,918	246	1,170	1,851	5,797	12,9821943 	
4,846	330	911	2,372	4,395	12,8541944 	
5.262	297	900	2,620	8,750	17,8291945f 	
975	119	80	546	5,764	7,484
Note: 1 bu. equals 45 lbs; 1 bu. equivalent to 1 B.C. box.
 Total crop harvested in 1939. Not possible to show quantity harvested before Sept. 1. t September estimate of total crop to be harvested this season. Not possible to show quantity harvested before Sept. 15. t Preliminary.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	During the years 1940, 1941 and the first month of 1942, did the national revenue department collect, (a) duty; (b) a ten per cent war exchange tax; (c) a three per cent special excise tax, on raw cane sugar coming into Canada as an import?
2.	Were these three taxes or imposts abolished in 1942?
3.	If so, on what date; by what authority and for what reason was each abolished?



WAR ASSETS-JEEPS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia);
1.	How many army jeeps, station wagons, and army trucks have been shipped out of Canada since V-E day?
2.	To whom were they shipped?
3.	How many of each type of the above vehicles have been disposed of?
4.	To whom and at what price has each type of the above vehicle been disposed of?

Mr. HARKNESS:: 1. How many officers and ratings were actually enrolled in the permanent force of the Royal Canadian Navy as of August 1, 1945?

United Nations General Assembly
2.	Of the ratings, how many comprised the seatnen ?
3.	How does this latter total break down as between chief petty officers, petty officers, leading seamen, able seamen and ordinary seamen?
4.	How many ratings in each of the above five categories are allowed for in the complement of the post-war 10,000 man navy?
5.	How many in each of these categories were enrolled in the permanent navy on August 1, 1939?



HARBOUR AND RIVER IMPROVEMENTS-HUDSON BAY RAILWAY-FREIGHT RATES

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	How much was spent by the dominion government for dredging the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, and for operating and administering the St. Lawrence ship channel during the years 1940 to 1944, inclusive?
2.	How much was spent during the years 1940 to 1944, inclusive, under the Maritime Freight Rates Act to compensate railways for the difference between the tariff tolls and normal tolls on all traffic moved during the above mentioned years ?
3.	How much was spent during the above years to provide for construction and improvements in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, and to provide for losses in connection with the operation of the railway during the above years?
4.	How much money ivas advanced by the
dominion government during the said years for the following:	(a) Montreal harbour; (b)
Churchill harbour; (c) Vancouver harbour; (d) Halifax harbour?



BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many boards or commissions have been set up or constituted, (a) since September 3, 1939; (b) since V-E day?
2.	What are the particulars, including names of persons now holding positions on each of said boards or commissions?



ORDERS IN COUNCIL UNDER WAR MEASURES ACT

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many orders in council passed under the War Measures Act since September 3, 1939, have been rescinded or revoked, (a) since V-E day; (b) since V-J day?
2.	Of these, how many were orders of controllers?



SUBSIDIES ON PRODUCTION

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	What is the amount paid by the government in subsidies from September 1, 1939, to September 15, 1945?
2.	On what products were subsidies paid during this period and how much on each?



PUBLIC SERVICE-EMPLOYEES OVER SIXTY-FIVE

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	How many employees working with, (a) civil service; (b) permanent government boards are above the age of 65?
2.	How many of these employees over 65 have been appointed since V-J day?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: A
spokesman for the United Kingdom government announced yesterday that the first general assembly of the united nations organization is expected to meet in London on December 4. I would ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, therefore, to give the following information to the house:
1.	How many representatives from Canada will be sent to attend this initial meeting of the general assembly?
2.	Who will be designated from Canada for this purpose?
3.	Is it anticipated that the Prime Minister will be able to remain overseas long enough to attend?
4.	Will consideration be given by the government to having all parliamentary parties represented at all united nations gatherings, including the initial meeting of the general assembly?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I have no information which would permit me to give any kind of definite answer to the third question submitted by the hon. member, as to whether it is anticipated the Prime Minister will be able to remain overseas long enough to attend this meeting. As to the other three questions, no decision has been made as yet with respect to any of them. I can say little more at this time than that the membership of the Canadian delegation to the first assembly of the united nations has not been determined and will be announced as soon as it is determined. The point mentioned in the fourth question will be borne in mind by the government.
I may add that it is my understanding that the meeting, which is expected to take place in December, will be concerned almost entirely with the consideration of recommendations placed before the general assembly by the preparatory commission which was established at San Francisco, dealing with the administrative and financial procedures and related organizational matters. It is expected also that at this meeting the security council and the social and economic council will be established, and the secretary-general appointed. The intention would appear to be, then, that the assembly should then adjourn

Education

and reconvene, perhaps in the spring of 1946, for the discharge of the important continuing functions vested in it by the charter.



WORLD CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that it is getting very close to November 1, will the minister state if he is prepared to announce to the house to-day the composition of the Canadian delegation to the world conference on education to be held in London? Will he, in any event, give the house the assurance that the Canadian Teachers' Federation will be represented on the delegation?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I am sorry I am not able to announce to-day the composition of the Canadian delegation. One of the gentlemen who had been approached to see if he could become a member of the delegation found it impossible to do so, and others are being approached for the same purpose. I would not care to give any commitment to the house in respect of any part of the delegation until it is possible to announce the composition of the whole of it.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Is naval headquarters, as now situated in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, to be removed? If so, why, when and where?
Mr. W. C. MACDONALD (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services):: The hon. member gave notice yesterday of his intention of asking this question. The answer is that there is no intention of removing Royal Canadian Naval Reserve headquarters at Charlottetown from that city.



BRITISH COLUMBIA CANNED SALMON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Will any British Columbia canned salmon be released to the trade in Canada this year?


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: British Columbia?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I spoke of British Columbia.


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: I shall take what the hon. member has said as a notice of the question.



ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question. I noticed that one of the ministers mentioned that he had not received notice of a question. I do not believe any notice would be required in respect of the question I am about to ask, because on October 1 an announcement was made in connection with the matter, and I assume the minister is well informed.
In information supplied by the department I find this:
A new coal order raising the amount of anthracite to which a householder is entitled to seventy-five per cent of his normal annual requirements instead of fifty per cent, effective October 1.
I am being pressed with inquiries these days as to where that seventy-five per cent is to come from. Householders are almost distracted, and I was wondering if the minister could assure us that the seventy-five per cent will be available.
["-who, he said, could compare with any of the experienced statesmen they had at San Francisco. These are matters we must keep in mind, we of the \nCanadian parliament and the Canadian nation. I am telling this house what is in the minds of my own people: miners working in the mines, lumbermen working in the forests of northern Ontario, farmers and settlers in the clay belt of the north, professional men-in a word all class of people. I am expressing their sentiments, aspirations and hopes, and also their fears in connection with the next peace conference. The old idea of colonialism naturally is repugnant to the Canadian people. Anyone who called a Canadian a colonial would arouse a terrific reaction immediately. In our.own minds we believe that this principle should disappear throughout the world, that all the people should govern themselves. I do not go so far as to say that perhaps any small nations or group of people-and no one has the right to refer to them as backward nations-should be under the guidance of bigger nations. It might be necessary for a time under certain conditions. A small nation might be under mandate for a certain number of years. .They might be under mandate for their own natural and physical protection. But we have forgotten our promises of freedom to them at these conferences, and vre tried to forget it at the San Francisco conference. We have blinded ourselves to the situation, one which is bound to face us sooner or later, and which carries with it great responsibilities.\nAnother feature was this, that regardless of the hope we' had early in the war and during the conflict, the major powers want to retain what has been traditionally theirs. It was shown again at San Francisco that the tradition of the past is to be maintained. That was shown all along the line. We saw clear evidence of the fact, the deep-rooted fact, that powerful nations never disgorge except as they are defeated. It displayed the worst side of the mentality of the great, who cannot learn to recede in time.\nI know those are hard words, but they must be uttered. I do not make these statements with pleasure, but I know the facts are there.\nI know that millions of lives have been sacrificed, and that the weary world has been going through turmoil-and almost near death in the last five years. The nations, whether big or small, should now be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the whole of the civilized world. Jealousy, fear and long established habits prevailed in large measure. ,The great powers quarrelled over irrelevancies. In Great Britain and in Canadian newspapers were big headlines, and we were afraid that the soviet representatives would wreck the conference, that they would leave it.\t,\n\nUnited Nations Agreement\nBut, to their credit, they stayed on.^ I believe they are lovers of peace. No nation, either Russian or any other, through its government or through its people, will ever dare to bring on another war. Russia would not dare to carry the responsibility of bringing on a war in which she would be involved.\nI just wish to say a few words about our delegation, and I should like to add again my word of praise for what they did. But they must have had when they went to the San Francisco conference, a sense of frustration, because it was really a big power conference. It is true that the smaller nations were invited there, but one has only to read the speeches made by our own delegation, the speeches made by Mr. Forde of Australia, the speeches made by Mr. Evatt, to realize what the situation was. Mr. Evatt fought, fought, fought for recognition of the component parts of the British empire, as did also Mr. Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand. The people whom I have mentioned, the delegates to whom I have referred, our own, knew what the situation was. I wish to offer them my sincere thanks and admiration for what they have done.\nAs I said a minute ago, the Canadian delegation did not go there empty-handed. They had no axe to grind with anyone. We had no special demand to make for ourselves. We did not want any concessions in the Pacific or Atlantic. We were satisfied that Canadian territory should remain in its full integrity. That is why eventually the voice of our Canadian delegation, and those of Australia and New Zealand, had their repercussion throughout the world, and how we won our case and the recognition of the smaller nations' viewpoints. There was a recognition that those intermediary or smaller nations should have a place in future conferences. More than that, if it was not included immediately, it was at one time included under the charter.\nThere is no doubt tlhat wonderful work has been accomplished, but in every human deliberation and every human conclusion we must not expect to have perfection. If we had not had the San Francisco conference, what would we have had? As has been so well said by hon. members, it was a marvellous step in the right direction, because the nations of the world1 have shown to the world of the future and to the whole of civilization the fact that the future resides in understanding, cooperation and peace. There can be no getting away from that. On that score alone I know that the whole of the Canadian people are 100\nper cent behind our delegation, and will be behind the parliament of Canada when it passes this resolution.\nI should like now to say a few words about what has been said so well before respecting the supremacy of moral law, the rights of human beings, international law as the basis of conduct and universality of approach. These matters were taken up by our delegation, and for that alone they deserve praise from Canadians.\nMay I say only a few words about the five great powers which were really the leading powers at San Francisco. First of all I would refer to the United States. There can be no doubt that to a large extent the spirit which prevailed at the San Francisco conference emanated from that great spirit, the thought and the drive of the late President Roosevelt. He had seen the dangers which confronted not only all Europe but every section of the world. There is no. doubt that that great spirit which had been calling and begging for many years for international collaboration was present at the conference, and that tihe doctrine of isolationism was absolutely dead. Everyone has read about the eagerness and the sincerity of Mr. Stettinius, the then secretary of state, and his efforts to create an international league. One has only to look at that to realize that the United States fully comprehends its responsibility, not only to the people of that country but to the peoples of the whole world. .\nThen at that conference were representatives of the United Kingdom-great, Great Britain, which had suffered so much, which stood alone for more than a year against the hordes of barbarism in Europe. This was the Great Britain that suffered economically, and suffered physically in her blood and in her flesh. The British people recognized that they were near exhaustion; and there is no use in covering it up, because the people of Britain would have been the first to recognize the fact that they were near exhaustion. They were cut off from commercial contact with other peoples for five years, except for purely war purposes. For five years they lived under high tension, and have had no physical security from the air, land and sea. They were reduced to the narrow limits of their own British isles, caught on the fringe of Europe between the soviet advance; and I am not suggesting it is an unfriendly advance, but we might as well face the fact that it was a new and to some extent troubling factor. There are now factors arising in Europe in which Great Britain must necessarily take part. On the other hand, she faces the United States. She has not approached the conference as a mendicant; she has not gone there to ask for sympathy,\nUnited Nations Agreement", 'She went there as one of the greatest nations that the world has ever known, for the reconquest of a place in the sun, and the integrity of her empire, and she was recognized as such.\nOn motion of Mr. Bradette the debate was adjourned.']
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: Hon. members will know that the coal situation is a veiy difficult one. Perhaps the hon. member who asked the question does not know that there are strikes in the United States.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Yes, I do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are strikes in practically the entire field, and there are work stoppages in western Canada. We are hopeful that dealers will receive a reasonable part of their quota. There is no hope of their getting the same quota as last year. But the order does permit dealers to distribute any coal they can get over their fifty per cent quota.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I do not wish to press the matter, but are we to assume that we will probably get seventy-five per cent of the anthracite instead of fifty per cent?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister so stated.

United Nations Agreement



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement establishing the united nations and constituting the charter of the united nations and the statute of the international court of justice signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that by unanimous vote this house will adopt the resolution approving the charter of the united nations. It represents not all that Canada hoped for, or probably that any one of the delegates from any of the nations would have wished, but in its present form I think we can all agree, at least those of us who were at San Francisco, that it represents the highest common denominator attainable at the conference.
Canada, because of her contributions in the two world wars, her disinterestedness in the disposition of territory other than her own and, I believe, the non-partisan complexion of her delegation and the ability of the Canadian representatives to reach agreement on fundamental issues-in spite of the fact that a general election was in progress in Canada-as well as the unique geographical and political situation of our country, enabled the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the delegation to exert a considerable influence on many aspects of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. These have been already noted, may I add, in the very excellent speeches that were made by the acting Minister of External Affairs, the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). We were recognized as near neighbours of Russia and of the United States, yet associated with the United Kingdom and other members of the British commonwealth as an independent selfgoverning nation, having, too, through our French-speaking population, an historic link with old France. To complete the picture let me add that our western shores like those of China are washed by the Pacific ocean.
Canada, then, is a nation of world-wide associations and world-wide interests. We of all nations in this hemisphere can in no sense afford to stand aloof or remain unaffected by events anywhere in this shrinking world of the twentieth century. To us, then, the main purpose of the charter, the prevention of war and the maintenance of security, is indeed of vital concern.
4/696-804
But, sir, this purpose imposes upon Canada as upon all others of the united nations the obligation to assist in every way the development of friendly relations among the member peoples and the promotion of international cooperation in both economic and social spheres, and these aims, let it be said, run like silver threads through the whole charter; for they are of the very fabric of peace.
To arrive at friendly understandings and to>
prevent misunderstandings, the representatives of the signatory nations, which one day we hope will include all the nations of the earth, will meet in annual sessions and in special sessions of the general assembly organization, to which each nation may send five delegates and exercise one collective vote for the delegation. Thus a forum for constant exchange of views has been provided, as well as the means for public men and women of all peace-loving nations to meet and get to know each other- a much more important thing than perhaps sometimes we have imagined. Indeed I came to the conclusion at the San Francisco conference that the longer it lasted and the better the delegates became acquainted with one another, the brighter were the prospects of understanding and agreement among the nations themselves. The difficulties in the way of understandings are many and immense. Apart from the question of language there were many other difficulties. The radio, the aeroplane, speedier communication in so many ways between the nations, all tend to make the world smaller and to bring diverse peoples into closer contact. This development of communication has come about in a generation, and its beneficial effects have not yet been fully felt.
We must recognize, too, that great nations have deliberately lived apart because of fundamental differences in their ideologies, their standards of living and their environments, and this has engendered suspicions that are difficult to overcome. That these suspicions were present at San Francisco no one will deny, and it is therefore all the more remarkable that a charter as comprehensive and a3 satisfactory in so many ways should have been achieved. Its principal defect, that of the veto power of the principal powers, stemmed I think from these suspicions so characteristic of the immediate pre-war period. I think we should be less than fair and frank if we failed to recognize this and to say that one of the responsibilities of public men in all countries is to do all within our power to dissipate them and to remove causes of suspicion among the nations. But in order to do this we must not
United Nations Agreement

conceal the differences that exist or gloss over the potential causes of serious misunderstanding and dispute.
We hear, for example, a great deal of discussion about Russia and the Russian atttiude towards the rest of the world. No one who was at San Francisco could fail to recognize the universal good will towards, the Soviets and the equally universal desire to establish a firm and lasting friendship with them. These desires, I am convinced, were reciprocated. True, we of the western democracies think in different terms from those who have been raised in the post-revolutionary atmosphere of Soviet Russia. Only through frequent association and discussion can we bring about that understanding upon which the security of Canada and the peace of the world will ultimately depend. My hope is that our wartime and our peace-time associations may make Russia more liberal in her political structure and the western democracies more democratic in their economic activities. Freedom is alike incomplete without freedom of speech in all respects and without economic democracy in the control and management of industry.
The charter provides many opportunities for these associations and discussions. Through its principal organs and the many functional and specialized agencies to be set up in coordination with it there will be frequent contacts and intimate associations, and if nothing else were provided, these would be important instruments for the promotion of good will and the preservation of peace. Probably, as the United States Secretary of State said at San Francisco, the most important instrument created there may prove to be the social and economic council.
May I digress to pay tribute to the excellent work done by our own secretariat. I noted that the hon. member for Peel paid a similar tribute the night before last, and I want to commend our secretariat for the manner in which they prepared and made it possible for us to place before the assembly the revised chapter of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, which formed the basis of the social and economic council as finally adopted. Canada was indeed well served by the permanent civil servants who assembled essential data for us, either in Ottawa before we left, or at the conference, where the work was carried on by those who accompanied us to San Francisco.
Throughout the chapter establishing a social and economic council the charter declares that peaceful and friendly relations throughout the nations must be based on the principle of equal rights and self-determinations of peoples.
(Mr. Coldwell.]
To achieve this, the signatory powers pledged themselves to promote-and here I quote from the document itself:
(a)	higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
(b)	solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
(e) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
May I say here that the social and economic committee had the distinction of having as its chairman Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, a gentleman from India, in colour black, but whose colour did not mean that his intellect was not the equal or superior to that of many of the delegates assembled at San Francisco. I noted that when the United States press made an appraisal of the influential personalities at the conference Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar was placed second on the list of those who had made an outstanding contribution there. I think that those of us who were present at that great conference came away fully confirmed in the knowledge that there are no superior races, that regardless of our colour or our language, given the same opportunities men and women of all races and colours may reach the same heights.
As if to emphasize the points I have read from the charter itself, all members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the united nations organization for the achievement of these purposes. To these ends specialized agencies with wide international responsibilities and established by inter-governmental agreements are to be brought into relationship with the organization. One such body may well be the food and agriculture organization approved by this parliament and now assembled in the city of Quebec.
I emphasize all this because, in approving the resolution now before us, we are pledging ourselves to something. We are pledging ourselves, this parliament and this country, to secure and to maintain higher standards of living and full employment in Canada as one contribution to assisting the whole world to achieve these aims. By this chapter of the charter the nations accept the position that starved, exploited and oppressed peoples will not remain permanently peaceful. But the entire charter is a pledge of nations all of whom, of course, retain their sovereign powers. That is to say each signatory retains its own

United Nations Agreement
independent unlimited political authority or jurisdiction, and this perhaps is most strikingly illustrated by the absence from the charter of any reference to the right or method of withdrawal. A nation can therefore withdraw its membership at any time, but of course it is expected that it will state its reason for so doing. The only recourse in that event is the judgment of world opinion, and then its position becomes the same as that of a nation that had never joined; that is, it would be subject to action by the organization if it threatened the peace of the world. Perhaps if the united nations conference had met subsequent to August 6 instead of in the preatomic era the dispositon of individual nations to retain unlimited sovereign power might have been modified. Many delegates undoubtedly shared the view of Premier Soong of China, who some time before the conference said this:
Past failures have not dimmed our hopes that an effective world instrument to dispense and enforce justice will arise from the terrors, sufferings and sacrifices of this war: for such an international government China, with all other liberty loving nations, will gladly cede such of its sovereign powers as may be required.
But in June, 1945, a majority of the nations at least were not prepared to go that far. It may be that the application of atomic power to the instruments of war will make nations reconsider their attitudes towards this problem. Our scientists tell us frankly that the secret of the atomic bomb cannot be withheld from any modern industrial power, and that a nation using it in a surprise attack could in a few hours destroy another great nation's ability to defend itself. If anything were needed to underline the need for an effective international organization to dispense and enforce justice, the atomic bomb should be sufficient. General Marshall of the United States army has warned the world, however, that robot bombs, in addition to atomic bombs, travelling to selected targets through the stratosphere at incredible speeds and for almost unlimited distances with unerring aim, are already assured. That being so, the armies and navies of three months ago-in the pre-atomic age, if you care to call it so-are to some extent obsolete, making both national defence, as we have understood it in the past, and isolationism, terms that have little meaning in the dreadful prospect of another war.
Thus, while we must accept and endorse the document before us, a new agreement in the light of recent developments becomes, I believe, a necessity now; and that agreement will have to recognize that no nation, great or small, can safely continue to retain
its own independent unlimited authority and jurisdiction in its external affairs. In its own interests it must agree to a limitation of its sovereign power to do as it pleases, because its own security requires that the power of its neighbour to do as it pleases shall be limited also. That involves indeed no real loss of sovereignty but rather an extension of it.
In our own communities we obey the law which we ourselves have made for our own protection as well as for the protection of our neighbours. Indeed, democratically-made law extends our individual influence, our individual power, our personal sovereignty, if you will, beyond ourselves into the wider field of the life of the whole community. Democratic law is thus an insurance against harm to ourselves as well as harm to our neighbours. In the same way and in the same sense I believe that collective security among nations

sovereign in domestic issues-will be in effect an extension of our national influence, our national jurisdiction, our national sovereignty, far beyond our national borders; thus giving us a voice in influencing conditions beyond our borders which determine depression or prosperity, war or peace, affecting for good or ill all within our borders.
A limitation, then, to do as each nation pleases externally, would be not a limitation of national freedom as distinct from international licence, but a very real extension of our power to exercise a new and important control of our nation's destiny among the nations of the world and thus to secure still greater internal freedom for our people.
Membership, then, in the united nations organization will give Canada a voice in influencing conditions far beyond our borders. The alternative is isolationism, a narrow isolationism which, if all nations pursue it, will lead to international anarchy, international chaos, and another world war. But in the world in which we live isolation is not a policy; it is a myth. Canadians must have done with it. Yet as I see it, the alternative to a world organization for the prevention of war and the pacific settlement of disputes is some new attempt at that mythical isolationism through national self-sufficiency, or in another form, association with some economically, numerically and politically strong power bloc, which in turn will promote the-formation of another powerful, self-sufficient and therefore isolated bloc. But with the development of such scientific weapons of warfare as the robot plane and the atomic bomb, this can offer no permanent hope of peace or security. On the contrary it will' breed fierce competition and lead again to-another war. However we look at this:
United Nations Agreement

problem, a world organization based upon the closest understanding and cooperation among all the nations, and more particularly among the great powers, offers the only true hope of humanity's survival in this and in future centuries.
San Francisco, to my mind, represents the beginning of such an organization. It provides a bare-yes, and I will admit, a pretty bare-skeleton upon which mankind must mould the body of real world security; and let progressive people keep some facts in mind. Under the charter the security council is under no definite obligation to inquire into the merits of a dispute brought to its attention. Article 34 says:
The security council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
If the situation or the dispute is not likely to endanger international peace and security, there is certainly no obligation on the part of the security council to take any action at all. True, a nation threatened by aggression, may bring its grievance to the attention of the council or the general assembly; but the general assembly will be subject to articles 11 and 12 of the charter, which expressly forbid the general assembly making any recommendations to the security council upon any matter concerning which the council is exercising any functions assigned to it by the charter, unless the security council itself requests the assembly to do so.
It can be seen therefore that contrary to what many people assume, the charter does not provide for obligatory intervention of any sort by the security council unless it determines itself that the situation is likely to endanger the general peace of the world. In the effort to maintain complete national sovereignty of the nations, the charter does not provide, as the old league of nations charter did provide, any definite guarantee of action in the event of violation of the territorial or political independence of a member nation.


Mr. MARTIN:: Neither did the old
covenant.


Major James William Coldwell: But it did guarantee that the matter would be carefully investigated and a conclusion arrived at. This charter provides for investigation only if the security^ council shall so decide. Should such a situation be brought to the attention of the security council there is no obligation of any sort, unless it considers that the maintenance of international peace and security is threatened.

This council, I think it might be said again, is to consist of eleven members. Five members, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China, are to have permanent seats on the security council. The remaining six shall, after the first year, when three will be elected for two years and three for one. year, hold office for two years; and in the election of non-permanent members the Canadian delegation as the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) stated the other evening, secured an important proviso, that the potential contribution of the members of the united nations to the maintenance of peace and security should receive consideration. A nation like Canada, which has made a very considerable contribution to peace and security in two world1 wars, should be in a position somewhat different from that of a small nation like San Salvador, which is unable to make the type of contribution that Canada can make, and that is to be one of the considerations when appointing a non-permanent member to the security council. Also, some heed is to be taken of the geographical position of the nation to receive a non-permanent seat on the security council.
Decisions of the security council regarding procedural matters require an affirmative vote of seven members-any seven members; but on all other matters apart from procedure, that is matters determining any sort of action, there is required an affirmative vote of seven members with the proviso that these1 seven must include the votes of all the permanent members. This provides the veto power, about which there has been so much discussion, which simply means of course that one of the five permanent member powers can prevent any declaration condemning its own actions or that of one of its friends or satellites as endangering international peace and security.
I think it is safe to say that some of the permanent members of the council, or at least some of the delegates to the conference representing some of the permanent members of the council, disliked this proviso as much as we did, and certainly most of the nations wished it could have been abandoned. But the bald fact is that without it, and for somewhat different reasons, neither the United States nor Russia would be likely to sign or to ratify the charter. And this is what I mean when I say that the bare skeleton of security has been provided1. But in accepting the skeleton we must make up our minds to do all in our power so to nourish and cover the skeleton

United Nations Agreement
with the real body of healthy human interest that in the course of time it may become itself a healthy, living, dynamic organism.
Now I have devoted considerable attention to the economic and social council and to the security council because of the need of very clear understanding of their implications. In doing so I am not for one moment minimizing the importance of other phases of the charter, such as the international court of justice, in the establishment of which the Minister of Justice played an important and distinguished part; or the international trusteeships system for the administration and supervision of territories which may be placed under it by individual agreement and the like.
Time does not permit me to elaborate today on the importance of the military general staff under the security council, to which I made some references the other day when we were discussing the proposed war and demobilization appropriation bill. All these and related matters should receive careful study and indeed the sympathetic consideration of our people. They represent definite, if inadequate, advances toward a more peaceful and stable world. I believe it is the duty of this parliament, the duty of this government, the duty of individual members of this house, who believe that the welfare of the world in future years depends upon some form of collective security, to undertake ourselves the solemn obligation of going out among the people of Canada and explaining this charter, and urging the people from one end of the country to the other to give collective security, such as we have it their whole-hearted and complete support in the hope that it may become a reality in the years ahead. If I may say so. I believe that individual members of this parliament can do more than the government can do itself, that an organization which is not a governmental organization can do more than the government itself. I urge upon members of this house that they assist the organization that has already been set up in Canada to educate public opinion toward the need of understanding and support for the united nations charter. I refer, of course, to the united nations society.
But I must not detain the house longer. In conclusion I want to state concisely what has been, I believe, implicit in my remarks this afternoon: that on behalf of the C.C.F., for whom I am definitely speaking now, I welcome this charter as a promise for the future. I want to say to the house that both here on the vote and in the country afterwards we
shall give it our whole-hearted support, not because it satisfies us, but because it represents the best agreement attainable at this time.
During the war a great measure of cooperation was achieved by the united nations. This cooperation must be carried forward into the years of peace. Frank discussion, as long as it is honest and straightforward, will help, not hinder, understandings among the nations.
We saw an example of frank discussion at the recent council of foreign ministers in London. It alarmed a good many people, but when Mr. Molotov left London he sent Mr. Ernest Bevin a cordial message, which in part expressed:
Confidence that the war against our common enemies having been victoriously concluded, our future collaboration in the interests of the people of Great Britain and the Soviet Union, and of the strengthening of peace throughout the world will continue, having overcome the temporary difficulties encountered on the way, and that we shall jointly endeavour successfully to achieve this great end.
To which Mr. Ernest Bevin answered in
part:
I share your confidence in our future collaboration in the interests of the peoples of the Soviet Union and Great Britain, and for the strengthening of peace throughout the world. We may, as you say, encounter difficulties on the way, but the cause we serve is so compelling that no trouble must remain unmastered in pursuit of this high aim. Mankind throughout the world wants peace, economic recovery and a rising standard of life. The fulfilment ox this must be our prime purpose.
Thus, while the break-down of the foreign ministers' conference is disturbing, the exchange of messages between Mr. Bevin and Mr. Molotov-incidentally on the Russian commissar's initiative-gives great hope of future understanding. It is because we believe that the charter is a step toward the fulfilment of what Mr. Bevin rightly calls his prime purpose that we support its endorsement now. But in so doing, Mr. Speaker, we look into the future believing that some day mankind will establish democratic government at the international level and endow it with the powers necessary to maintain peace and to provide economic justice and equality of opportunity among all of the peoples of the world, regardless of race, of creed, of language or of colour. That may be some way off, perhaps a long way off- But I am convinced that the day will come when this world will see government at the international level. The setting up of such an institution on the basis of democracy with an equal voice in the affairs of the whole world for all mankind
United Nations Agreement

will bring in universal peace, universal security and universal justice, and then the words of the ancient prophet will be indeed fulfilled.
They shall beat their swords into plough shares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the three contributions that have already been made to this debate; and I was just thinking as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) was delivering that sincere address of his that it was a good thing we do not all think alike; if we did we would not be thinking. Therefore it becomes my duty to present something of the other side of the picture that has been neglected in the debate thus far.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the second great world war is presumed to be over, but the problems of peace loom at the present time against a progressively darkening sky. I find that great confusion exists amongst the people so that very few things stand out clear and unmistakable. However, of one thing we can all be fairly certain, namely, that the problems we faced following world war I were as child's play compared with the chaos and the confusion on a world-wide scale which we now face. We can be fairly certain, too, that the air of confidence or of casual tolerance towards the future which seems to be exhibited by Canadian statesmen is not in any way an honest reflection of a very ugly world situation.
At this very moment fear grips the hearts and minds of all men who honestly face up to the magnitude and complexity of the consequences which already threaten to overwhelm us all. In Europe to-day one finds conditions tragic beyond1 description. Out of the shambles of a land desolated by ruthless and useless war the threat of totalitarian tyranny everywhere raises its ugly head. Fascism and nazism, while they have been beaten by the might of the free united nations, still lurk resurgent underground in many countries, and communism is making a terrific bid for power in the remaining countries of Europe. Hunger, disease, starvation and frustration are driving men beyond the bounds of sanity and reason.
But tragic as these horrible and ugly conditions are, Mr. Speaker, my greatest fear for the future is that the light of reason will be extinguished in the minds of men so that they lose the urge to struggle to preserve the

basic principle of the dignity and sanctity of human character. We do not know exactly what the goal is toward which the soul of man is striving, but we do know that he makes the most rapid progress toward that goal under conditions which allow the fullest possible freedom for growth, expansion and development of the individual human personality. It has been amply demonstrated over the centuries that men love freedom more than they love life. Millions have given their lives to establish freedom of speech, freedom to worship God in their own way without molestation; freedom from fear and freedom to live their lives as individuals and not as parts of regimented groups. The men of the world are now locked in a struggle to win freedom from want, but there are signs that tremendous forces are at work in society to extinguish the light of reason amongst men and to effect the imposition upon humanity of totalitarian tyranny.
If the nations of the world, and in particular this nation, revert to pagan faith so that in the hearts of men the will to make truth triumphant in free conflict with error and unrighteousness, then I say that the hope for moral leadership amongst Canadians and amongst the nations and peoples of the world will perish for generations to come. If the individual, with all the dignity and sanctity of the human personality, along with the creative genius of the human mind, is to be compelled to exist only as a means of serving a mythical thing-the state-then the world of the future will degenerate into nothing better than an intellectual, moral and spiritual concentration camp. That, Mr. Speaker, I fear, is the trend of international affairs today; and against that trend all red-blooded Canadians should strive in protest. It is against that background we must consider the charter that is before us to-day.
I have carefully examined the United Nations charter, and in all its 111 articles there is not one clear, specific provision for the preservation of the Christian principle of the sanctity of human personality. I know that much has been said about what we are going to do, and about the four freedoms which we are going to establish throughout the whole world, but in this charter I find no human bill of rights; I find no protection for the individual against tyranny. Only one small reference to the dignity and worth of the human person is to be found in the whole charter; that is in the second article of the preamble. That is one reason, I think, why it would be imposible to exaggerate the importance of the resolution now before the house. That is one reason why I have been

United Nations Agreement
shocked at the superficial manner in which the charter has been presented to the people of Canada and to the members of this house for their decision on behalf of the people of Canada. I think Canadian participation in the united nations security organization should not be ratified until the people of Canada have had full opportunity to learn what it is all about, until they understand all that is involved. I maintain, too, that an understanding of the united nations charter is not possible without full consideration being given to the circumstances under which that charter came into being.
To emphasize this point I need only touch upon an aspect of the whole matter which I have no doubt will be in the minds of many hon. members of this parliament. It is generally understood and accepted that the preamble of a statute or, as in this case, of a charter, provides the pith and substance of its purpose. If the preamble is false or is in direct conflict with the body of the charter, then the purpose of the charter cannot be sustained. That applies to the united nations charter at present before this house. The opening paragraphs of the preamble to the charter read as follows:
We the peoples of the united nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. . . .
I leave it at that point, because that is the part which is essential. These, Mr. Speaker, are noble sentiments to which the vast majority of the peoples of all nations doubtless would subscribe whole-heartedly. I am confident that if they were put to a vote in this house right now, these clauses would win unanimous support. Unfortunately the profession of beliefs and intentions set forth in that preamble is at variance both with the essential features of the whole world organization proposed in the body of the charter and with the facts of the world situation with which we are now confronted. The organization which is proposed concentrates all effective power in a central security council on which the five largest and most powerful nations are to have permanent seats. Any one of these nations has the power to veto any decision of the security council to take
action; thus these five large and powerful nations are placed above the law in the proposed organization. I put it to hon. members: is this an affirmation of faith in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small- Is that establishing conditions under which justice can be maintained?
I contend that it is sheer cant and hypocrisy, when examined in the light of facts and reason.
I know that it is not popular to mention the Atlantic charter, but I am not seeking popularity. That charter was a solemn declaration by the representatives of the two permanent members of the security council with whom the future of Canada is most closely bound up. That charter was acclaimed with enthusiasm by the people's representatives of both those nations, Great Britain and the United States, and by the entire democratic world. The flagging spirits of millions of men in the armed forces who were locked in uneven struggle with the tyrannous wreckers of civilization took heart and were spurred on by the thought that here at last was a set of principles worth fighting for. They fought and died, glad to give their lives to secure for their sons and daughters, their mothers, fathers and sweethearts at home the freedom promised in that Atlantic charter.
Later, however, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the charter was repudiated as being, not in the nature of a pact, but rather a guide for the democratic allies. And this, sir, in spite of the fact that already thousands of the cream of our manhood had given their lives for the objectives so clearly defined in that historic instrument, and believing their supreme sacrifices would result in a sure expansion of human freedom.
Does that repudiation reflect a determination to establish conditions under which respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained? Again, hon. members will remember vividly the solemn undertaking by treaty which Great Britain extended to Poland before the war. It was the observance of that undertaking which forced Great Britain into the war when Germany and Russia marohed into Poland. Poland was an ally of the nations which finally became the united nations, and that should be borne in mind. And now, what is the price of victory for her? She is to lose a large portion of territory to Soviet Russia, a permanent member of the proposed security council. And Soviet Russia, Mr. Speaker, makes this gain with the concurrence of the four other permanent members of the security council. The rest of her
United Nations Agreement

country, apparently, is to be subject to domination by Russia. Yet we were assured repeatedly that the united nations were not fighting for any territorial gain.
I remind you that on November 6, 1941, no less a person than Stalin himself said:
We have not, nor can have such war aims as the seizure of foreign territories or the conquest of other peoples, irrespective of whether European peoples and territories or Asiatic peoples and territories, including Iran, arc concerned. Our first aim is to liberate our territories from the German nazi yoke.
And again, on March 16, 1942, Litvinoff said:
We are all interested in the speediest possible ending of the war; the speediest possible conclusion of a just peace treaty, enabling each nation to develop in accordance with its own aspirations without interference from outside, and in no fear of war again breaking out.
You ask anybody in Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Rumania, or Bulgaria what has happened since those promises were made, and what is happening to the people in those various countries to-day? I would also remind hon. members of the house of the conditions under which elections are being conducted in Bulgaria and Hungary-conditions to which no self-respecting democratic country can possibly subscribe.
What justice is there in those conditions for the people who are concerned? What respect is there for the obligations arising out of recognized international law? Where is the observance of human rights or the rights of small nations?
These are questions which make it pretty clear-patently clear, that Kenneth Crawford, liberal newspaperman of the United States, was mighty close to the truth when he said this:
The charter and the organization it creates are only new crepe paper window dressing for a store that sells the same old goods-domination of weak nations by strong nations; rivalry between the big, dominant nations; potential world war.
The united nations charter was signed by the representatives of governments as a means of ensuring the future peace of the world. Since that was done the war has ended. But with each day that passes the world situation is deteriorating rapidly. And who, Mr. Speaker, but the nations that yesterday wanted peace are causing that deterioration? With the conclusion of hostilities only a few weeks behind us, there is already a growing fear of a third world war.
I should like to place upon the record a quotation from a recent issue of the daily Herald of England, the official organ of the British Labour party. This is a quotation

which, to me, strikes a most ominous note. I quote from the report which appeared in Canadian newspapers:
London:	The Daily Herald, organ of the
British Labour Party, declared Wednesday that the "world is heading with its eyes open for another war."
The Herald said the council of foreign ministers meeting in London has been dominated throughout by power polities, by suspicions and ambitions" and that the Atlantic and San Francisco charters "seem already to have been forgotten."
That is serious. Even in the United States, reports indicate that congress has been giving its attention to the steps which have to be taken by that country in preparation for what they call the next war. I need hardly mention, either, the military expedition that is to set out upon a long trip to do research work in our northwest territories, right here in Canada. Why?
One is struck with the fact that while the cry of "peace, peace" goes up from millions of war-stricken victims, there is no peace. Hatred, despair, suspicion, and intrigue are rampant among the ruins of what was once European civilization. Totalitarianism is as strongly entrenched as ever-only it is red totalitarianism now, instead of the black variety of the nazi-fascist axis. Where totalitarianism in any form exists, there is a constant threat of violence and aggression. And what makes all these things infinitely worse, commercial imperialism is already on the march. This can bring on a form of warfare far more destructive of human resources than is military warfare, far more destructive than it can ever be. I refer to economic warfare, which is ruthless even in so-called enlightened countries.
Now, what evidence is there in those conditions of a determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" and "to practice tolerance and live in peace," as the preamble to the charter declares? The more closely it is examined, the plainer it becomes that the preamble of the united nations charter cannot be sustained. It conflicts with the world organization set out in the body of the charter, and it conflicts with the evidence of conditions as they exist throughout the world which lies smouldering in ruins but in which the old games are still being played.
Let us look at the nature of the organization which is proposed under the charter. In the limited time available to me I cannot do more than touch on one or two of the highlights.
Article 2 states that the organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all nations. Yet, as I have already pointed

United Nations Agreement
out, under article 27, on all essential matters member nations are subject to the decisions made by an affirmative vote by seven members of the eleven-member security council; [DOT]except the Big Five permanent member nations represented on that council. Any one of these five can veto any such decisions. The special privilege of having permanent seats on the security council, combined with this overriding power of veto, places the five big nations in a special category. While other nations must be subject to their decisions, they themselves are not to be subject to the decisions of other nations at all. Does that represent the sovereign equality of all nations? If so, it would indeed be a peculiar interpretation of that term so far as I am concerned.
Another point. Article 4 declares that membership in the united nations organization is open to all peace-loving nations. What is a peace-loving nation? Is it one that declares a noble intention one day and the next by its actions gives the lie to those professed intentions? W'ho will decide what is a peace-loving nation? Apparently the Soviet Union is qualified as a peace-loving nation, and yet its neighbours to the west, Finland, the Balkan states and Poland have not had a very happy experience of Russia's peaceful intentions. The best guarantee of the fulfilment of any contract or pact or undertaking is in the establishment of the integrity of the contracting parties-always.
Then, as we come to the actual organization itself, we find that the general assembly is virtually powerless. Under article 5 it may suspend a member nation but only upon recommendation of the security council, which council also has the power to restore the rights and privileges of the suspended member, evidently against the desires even of the assembly itself. Otherwise the general assembly's powers are confined to discussing, considering, calling attention to, or recommending. It should be noted that all power is vested in the security council, and under article 28 that body must be so organized as to be able to function continuously. Therefore permanent representation on this council is not likely to be by any elected representatives of the nations and of the people, but by government officials who will be in the nature of permanent civil servants. That, Mr. Speaker, is the negation of the true democratic principle.
I pass over the possible efficacy of the actual machinery with which the security council will be expected to operate, except to point out that in a world in which the destructive
power of atomic energy has rendered all previous weapons of war obsolete, it would1 be remarkable indeed if counter-action to a sudden attack by one powerful nation against a weaker nation could be mobilized in time to prove at all effective. It is quite conceivable that the whole of one of the small nations could be completely destroyed before that could be done. But the objection I wish to raise goes far deeper than that.
Suppose that a nation came into conflict with another on an issue which divided the Big Five permanent members of the security council, or to put it in this way, the five permanent members of the security couneil, a thing which is quite possible, bent as these nations seem to be on continuing the old game of power politics; and hell-bent as they are to vie with each other for world industrial, commercial and influential supremacy. For example, suppose that a communist government in Bulgaria threatened to take armed action against a democratic government in, let us say, Greece. Any proposed action by the security council could and probably would be vetoed by Soviet Russia. Would Great Britain and the United States remain passive in such a case? If they did, or if they did not, either way, that would be the end of the united nations organization for world peace. That, actually, is but one of hundreds of situations likely to arise that could bring the members of the security council into conflict among themselves, and then we would have another global conflict instead of a localized affair.
All we have to do in order to test the possible efficacy of the proposed organization is to consider what would happen if it had existed before the second world war. At that time Germany and Italy probably would have been included as major powers. Suppose the member nations of the security council had been Great Britain, the United States, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, and five smaller countries. Does anybody think for one moment that that war would have been averted?
I now turn to another matter. In chapters 9 and 10 of the charter, provision is made for setting up an international economic and social council, which was dwelt upon at some length by my hon. friend the member for Rosetown-Biggar. All member nations pledge themselves, under article 56, to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the organization for achieving the purposes set forth in article 55. This naturally means bringing national economies more or less under the control of an international organization.
United Nations Agreement

Now who will be the wise men with the superhuman ability to advise and direct the nations on how to manage their own domestic affairs? Who are they likely to be but the financial and economic experts that have been chosen by the various governments to advise them?


John Horne Blackmore: Harold Laski will be one.


Mr. LOW:: I hardly need remind hon. members that the appalling economic havoc of the pre-war years, which culminated in the hideous world shambles through the most devastating war in all history, remains as a monument to the extent of their combined wisdom.
The utter folly of subjecting national economies to the direction and even partial control of such men should be apparent even to the most naive of high-school youngsters. But when we bear in mind that the proposed economic and social organization will be backed by an all-powerful security council, equipped to take armed action if necessary to suppress any revolt against the conditions resulting from the work of the so-called economic planners, the dangerous nature of this aspect of the charter begins to take shape.
Let me be more specific. The first fruits of the kind of international planning that is suggested are the so-called Bretfon Woods proposals for setting up an international monetary fund. Those proposals have been denounced already by the London chamber of commerce, the eminent monetary authority Paul Einzig, and many others. The Bretton Woods idea involves re-imposing the discredited gold standard system upon all nations, entrenching the existing financial system in an impregnable position, and subjecting the economies of all countries to a rigid centralized control by those in control of the fund. In the final analysis those who will control the fund will be the powerful, German-dominated banking houses, the same groups which some day, I hope, will be brought to the bar of judgment for bringing on the last tragic war and for causing untold human suffering and misery.


Mr. PINARD:: By whom will they be
brought before the court? By the united nations?


Solon Earl Low: Perhaps the hon. member has
a suggestion. I say that such an organization as Bretton Woods proposes, backed by the armed forces at the disposal of the security council, would constitute a virtual international dictatorship.


John Horne Blackmore: Backed by the atomic bomb! Imagine 1


Solon Earl Low: Under a condition of centralized control of all economies and all armed forces, national governments would become mere puppets subject to the overriding domination of a world organization responsible to nobody.
I know that many people will pooh-pooh the idea that anything like that can happen when the declared intention of the proposed world organization is so entirely different. I ask them to remember that when some of us mentioned the possibility of nazi Germany becoming a menace to the world there was pooh-poohing also, even for several years after Hitler appeared on the scene; yes, and even when Hitler had published his blueprint, "Mein Kampf."


Mr. JAQUES:: And who denounced him?


Solon Earl Low: And in these matters, where
human lives and human liberties are at stake, I maintain that we must examine the evidence most carefully and most dispassionately. I think I have shown that the San Francisco charter does not bear such an examination.
I invite hon. members to investigate another aspect of the circumstances surrounding the charter. How did it come into being, and who proposed the particular form of organization embodied in the charter? I am sure it will be found that mainly it is an elaboration of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) made that clear, I think, in introducing the resolution the other night, and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) also mentioned that again to-day. But how did the Dumbarton Oaks conference come about? Who took the initiative in calling it? Who drafted the scheme which was adopted by it?
I invite investigation of these questions, because the circumstances under which the various moves have been made toward the setting up of a world organization are open to grave suspicion on the evidence of what has preceded it.
Shortly after the outbreak of war, and when the war was still in what was described by many as "the phoney stage", an intensive campaign was carried on in this country, Great Britain, Australia and the United' States to win support for the socialist and communist idea of a centralized world government-a kind of world UB.S.R.


John Horne Blackmore: "Union Now".

United Nations Agreement


Solon Earl Low: At that time Russia was allied to nazi Germany. The idea propagated was the formation of a world federation of nations under which all countries would surrender some of the essential elements of their sovereignty to a central authority. These included control over finance, international trade and the armed' forces.
I recall that this idea was put forward in a book bearing the appealing title "Peace in our Time". Its author was James P. Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, the German international financier who played a leading role with Jacob Schiff in the centralization of the money power in the United States, and its consolidation with the highly-centralized money power of Germany. That particular group of international bankers are predominantly German in origin, stemming from the house of Rothschild in Frankfurt-on-Main. They have become the most powerful financial group in all the world, and they have consistently pursued a policy of centralization of control with the single objective of complete world domination.
It is from that group that the idea of a world federation of nations emanated. However, it was not James Warburg's book which was used as the chief instrument for putting over the idea. It was another book under the title of "Union Now", by Clarence Kirsham Streit, which elaborated in great detail on world federation union, with centralized control of finance, international trade and armed forces. The mechanism was ingeniously designed to impose a virtual world dictatorship, under the guise of democracy; which dictatorship, by its very nature, would lead step by step to an absolute world totalitarian tyranny.
The attempt to popularize that idea failed. The next move, then, was the introduction of the British and United States suggestions for a world monetary fund. The British proposals emanated from the Bank of England, while the United States proposals came from the United States treasury under Mr. Morganthau, Junior, who is likewise connected with the same group of international financiers I have already mentioned. Sir Cecil Spring-Rice has given valuable evidence on this point.
Stemming from these two financial proposals were the suggestions of a group of selfappointed "experts" who introduced, out of the blue, the prelude to the Bretton Woods conference. Then followed the conference at Bretton Woods, which adopted the general scheme proposed by the "experts", a scheme for shackling the nations of the world once more to gold under the centralized control of a specialized agency of the world security organization which this charter we are considering proposes to set up.
Now, the control of international finance is an essential requisite to world domination; but to make that domination absolute, similar control of armed forces of great strength is equally essential. It is quite significant, therefore, that the Bretton Woods conference was followed up by the Dumbarton Oaks conference at which the first step toward placing the armed forces of the world under a single authority was formulated. Then came the San Francisco conference in which all these various proposals were consolidated into a single charter. But the real authors of the charter, the men who actually drafted it, were evidently so anxious to obscure any of its dangerous and anti-democratic features behind a smoke-screen of platitudes and humanitarian phraseology that they overreached themselves. I have already shown that the profession of purpose set forth in the preamble of the charter bears no relation to the sinister purpose which one uncovers in the proposed organization itself. The organization embodies features which are flagrant violations of the most precious principles of democracy and of human justice. It is not only unworkable, but, I submit, highly dangerous. By no stretch of the imagination could it in its present form possibly serve the cause of peace and human progress.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind the hon. member that his time has expired.


Solon Earl Low: I shall be just about three or four minutes more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


William Ross Macdonald: With the permission of the house.


Solon Earl Low: I appreciate the indulgence of the house in this instance, and I will not detain it long.
There is another serious'weakness in the charter which I wdsh to point out at this time. It was by the grace of God that world conflict in arms ceased before the utter destruction of civilization itself resulted. Our nation and many others acknowledged this by setting aside days of prayer and of thanksgiving during and at the conclusion of hostilities. But I wonder if we have so early forgotten the humility which accompanied us in those dark days. It must be evident to any thinking person that world-wide peace under God requires world-wide good will. Anything we do to bring world peace for which we long, or any organization we set up to assist us in attaining this most desirable objective, must be infused with Christian
United Nations Agreement

motives, wherein the teachings of Christ maybe applied to establish world order and happiness.
The present day is witnessing in varied forms a most intense struggle between the forces of evil and darkness arrayed on one side and the legions of righteousness and good will on the other. We must never lose sight of that for one moment. It has always been my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that when men think they can get along without God's guidance, they have come to the point where they are most vulnerable to the influences of unrighteous and evil forces.
This charter was man-made, and it flouts the very idea of the dependence of men on their Creator by its failure to include in any one of its clauses or provisions a single reference to the need of the hand of Almighty God to guide and direct the nations of the world in their search for peace. There will be no peace until the nations of the earth repent and get down on their knees earnestly and humbly acknowledging the need of divine guidance in all their affairs.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that the Social Credit group is not opposed to the principle of international cooperation. We recognize the need of some form of international organization for mutual protection against aggression. In fact, we strongly favour such cooperative international understanding. However, our approach to the problem is from the realistic point of view, that it is not possible to get such cooperation until the main causes of international friction are removed. Until that is done, there can be little hope for peace in the world, because these deep-rooted causes of friction prevent international good will based upon Christian motives.
The first problem which confronts all the nations, therefore, is the removal of the main causes of international friction, which are two in number. In the first place, each country must put its own house in order and remove the causes of internal friction. Peace has its roots in the well-being of every human family in the land. What kind of contribution can Canada make to world peace so long as we have internal strife within our own country -the rest of Canada against Quebec, or Quebec against the rest of Canada, the east versus the west, recurring labour disputes and intense prejudices and hatreds? What contribution to world peace can the United States make while she is torn by internal strife over the negro problem, conflicting labour groups, the clash of fractional and sectional interests? So long as internal strife is so much a feature
fMr. Low.]
of national social structures, so long will war remain a feature of the world social structure. And down that road lies the annihilation of the human race.
The only manner in which internal strife can be eliminated is by the reorganization of the national life to ensure security with the fullest possible measure of freedom for all men in that nation, irrespective of race, creed, colour or language.
The second dominant cause of war is the insane obsession on the part of each nation,, necessitated by the defects of our monetary system, that it must export all it can and import as little as possible. This fight for foreign markets is simply organized economic war, which can lead only to all of the horrors of armed military war.
Having set our own house in order, and having led the way by a real and honest-demonstration of the right kind of international trade relationships, namely, exchange of goods for goods, balancing of exports with imports, then, I submit, our Canadian people will be ready to take their place in a world community of nations and to make their honest influence felt for great good. When the various nations of the world have, through like action, indicated and established their integrity, then, I submit, the world will be ready for full, successful participation in a democratic world assembly, the parliament of man.
When Anthony Eden visited Canada in 1943 he spoke in this very chamber on April 1, in the course of which he made the following remarkable statement:
I am going to ask hon. members of these two houses if for a moment now they will cast their minds back to the early days of the war, because I should like to tell them that there is in the minds of all my countrymen one recollection above all which stands out from those days. We can never forget that when we went to war to redeem our pledged word

a fact that I like to keep present in my mind-when we did that, you stood with us. Four self-governing dominions of the British empire took their stand in partnership with us. That event is part of recorded history. No man can change it. It is an event of which the British commonwealth will always be, I trust, supremely proud. This close association in the hour of danger was the outward expression of the inner meaning of the British commonwealth.
Let us for a moment consider its significance, because I am of the opinion that we do not talk about ourselves enough. What did it mean? It meant that a number of self-governing communities scattered all over the world realized as clearly as we did, who were very much closer to the scene, the peril that beset not only them but mankind. Understanding full well that the threat to one was a threat to all, they rallied unanimously in defence of the common cause. That event was all the more remarkable when we reflect that the citizens of this commonwealth

United Nations Agreement
are not all of one common stock. Here in Canada are millions of French descent, whilst in South Africa the majority is in fact of Hutch origin. Moreover, India and the colonial territories of the empire have from the first day taken their place at our side. When, therefore, all is measured, there has been no more striking, no more inspiring episode in human history than this free and spontaneous action by .all the peoples of the British empire.
Do hon. members think that such spontaneous, concerted action on the part of free, sovereign nations as referred to by Mr. Eden is worth preserving in a world such as this? Do hon. members believe that the will to concerted spontaneity of action in the common interest can be preserved and protected by a patent attempt to bring about peace through centralization of power maintained by force? We in this group are anxious to preserve the spirit which has drawn members of the commonwealth together time after time throughout our history, a spirit of concerted action which has saved the world on more than one occasion. It is because of the leading and glorious role which Canada has played within the commonwealth that I believe Canada should now take the lead in questioning the whole basis of the united nations charter. Britain is in no position to do so, and no other nation is in so good a position for the task as is Canada.
This, Mr. Speaker, is no narrow political issue. It is a matter which concerns the lives and happiness of hundreds of millions of human beings. It is a matter upon which the whole future of this country, yes, of the whole world, depends. I have placed the facte as I see them before the house, and in doing so I have discharged my duty. This group cannot give its unqualified support to the charter in its present form. Yet we earnestly desire to see a charter brought forward which will ensure genuine international cooperation, and which will hold out genuine promise of peace in the world. We want to see a charter which gives complete and unhampered opportunity for the kind of spontaneous and voluntary concerted action, under God, in the common cause that has been at once the foremost character, and the major secret of the endurance of the British empire through the storms of the centuries.
I have repeatedly stated that if the people know the truth the people generally will take the right action. I am satisfied, however, that the people of this country do not know the situation with respect to the united nations charter. They have not had an opportunity of learning; and in order that they may have a full opportunity of finding out for themselves, and thereafter, of directing this house on what its duty should be, in the light of all circumstances, I move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore):
That the resolution be amended (a) by inserting after the word "that" where it first appears in the resolution the word "before"; and (b) by inserting after the figures "1945" the words: "it is desirable that an educational campaign for a period of one month be conducted throughout Canada by allotting on the transcanada network of the CBC abundant, free, and equal time to those in this house who oppose the charter in its present form, and those who support it, so that the Canadian people may have the fullest possible opportunity to study the proposal, and in the light of their matured judgment, to express their will as a guide to the houses of parliament."


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the hon.
member a question? He made it appear that the delegates at San Francisco were unmindful of the influence of religion. He is aware, of course, that all the religions of the world were represented, each referring to its Divine Being in different terms. Is he aware that on the first Sunday of the meeting of the united nations at San Francisco great religious demonstrations were held by all the great religious denominations, praying for divine guidance in the drafting of this charter; so that while the charter is silent, the delegates who were there cannot be accused of neglecting to recognize the great Supreme Authority of the universe.
Mr. LOW; Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar could not possibly read into what I said any imputation of the kind which he has suggested.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Solon Earl Low: I am answering the question.


Major James William Coldwell: You, are quite right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The
hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked for permission to ask a question. He has asked the question, and the hon. member for Peace River may answer.


Solon Earl Low: I am perfectly aware that the delegates who went from Canada, and perhaps those who went from other countries-I do not know so much about them as I do about our delegates-are men who are devout, and I give them credit for being sincere Christians. I do not question that for a moment; but what I did say, sir, and what I did try to emphasize, is that there is, either in the charter itself or- and this is the more serious, it seems to me- in the wording of the resolution that is before the house, no mention whatever of our dependence upon divine guidance.


John Horne Blackmore: Explain that awav.
United Nations Agreement


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is quite right to assert that this critical period in, the history of humanity through which we are now passing requires from public men a deeper sense of responsibility. A violent and sharp evolution is now shaking the peoples of the world, and through all that a tired world is trying to find its way; therefore, all decisions must be considered with shrewdness and perspicacity, and hasty decisions might provoke fatal consequences. Our country in particular, whose noble and generous efforts have excited the admiration of the whole civilized world finds itself now at extremely important cross-roads. The wise and1 level-headed men who presided over our administration have deserved and have gained the people's support, and that is proof of sound judgment on the part of the people. It is also a manifestation of confidence in our government.
The reputation of our country has improved and grown for many reasons, and it is now the duty of Canada to gather the fruits of its toils, efforts and sacrifices. It will be to the glory of this government to have enabled the nation to take its place with confidence and determination on the international scene. The reputation of our country has been strengthened and ennobled in the blood of her sons on the battlefields of the whole world. The name of Canada has become symbolic everywhere, in Europe as in the Pacific, on the beaches of Dieppe, as in Italy, in Holland as in Germany, with the words, courage, bravery and heroism.
I respectfully bow before the graves of those who died, and their ashes should remain burning in the soul of the Canadian nation. To those who fought in all theatres of war this grateful country owes and offers the help that their toils have earned and that their sacrifices have deserved. It is also of great importance not to forget those who have been stricken by sorrow, the families mourning those who are absent; and I am grateful to our government which did not forget them and which has supplied them with due assistance by means of generous and effective legislation.
Yes, the name of Canada has been exalted in the sacrifices of her sons, in the blood of her heroes and also in the sorrows of the afflicted at home. So far as those who stayed in the country are concerned, if their effort was more discreet, it has all the same contributed to a great extent to the good renown of our nation.
The tools manufactured by our workers, the products cultivated by our farmers, and also the supplies our government has been distributing and is still distributing to the hungry nations of Europe-all this, I say, has added rMr. Blackmore.]
to the prestige and the high reputation of Canada. It is also owing to the united efforts and toils of all that our country has become an important power which may, with authority, have its voice heard in the international councils. This proud and powerful voice of our nation was heard with eloquent conviction in the deliberations which were held at San Francisco during the months of April, May and June last, and which ended with the signature of the charter of the united nations on June 26.
During the last session an important debate was held on 'the question of sending a Canadian delegation to the conference of the united nations, and there were voices in this house which raised protests against the participation of Canada in those historic discussions. Some of those voices expressed the opinion that conferences of that kind were always useless and that the decisions arrived at could be of no profit or advantage whatsoever to the Canadian community; and yet, Mr. Speaker, these were the same voices which on many occasions uttered strong protests against the colonial remains which we still have in this country. They were the same voices which wanted a greater recognition of our privileges as a free nation in the British commonwealth.
What a strange attitude! When it is given to our country to set foot in the field of world discussions; when it is so urgent to participate freely in those noble deliberations for the preparation of the future of our nation; when, finally, all the other nations are uniting in a common effort to find remedies for the evils of the world, our country, which has devoted all its energies to assure the maintenance of those privileges and rights so dear to every free man, would stay in the background and refuse to express her opinions! How strange indeed that it should be the same persons who denounced our participation in the conflict, who now deny our country the right to work for the prevention of these wars whose horrors and evils they so gladly talk about!
I am proud not to belong to such a group, for, in spite of many mistakes and errors, in spite of the interests and intrigues which constantly try to influence its decisions and judgments, in spite of prejudices and weaknesses, I still have faith in international justice, and above all I believe in free discussion .of the numerous problems of international relations because it is indispensable to good human intercourse.
Moreover, I am proud that our government deemed it expedient to send to San Francisco her front-rank men, men of good will like our

United Nations Agreement
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) and other leaders of our political parties or groups in order to have our country known better by the other united nations, and in order that the latter may know what price our country attaches to the full exercise of her rights as a free and independent nation.
Finally, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, every public man must, in this critical period of our national life, face his responsibilities and accept them in all their sense and severity.
We have all learned once more what war means, what it entails in misery, sorrow and ruin; therefore it is our most sacred duty to work to our utmost in order to prevent any such conflict in the future. A French writer, Georges Scelle, professor of law at the university of Paris, wrote in 1940, in the magazine La paix par le Droit:
Each of us has within himself a portion of the possibilities for peace: he is free to desire it or to be indifferent. The present generation is accountable for the blood of the generations to come.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact, a peremptory and decisive fact; the present generation is accountable for the blood of the generations to come. I believe if Canada were not using every effort to participate in a practical and constructive way in the work done for the improvement of international relations and for the prevention of future wars, the present leaders of our nation and all of us, members of this house, would bear before future generations terrible responsibilities for our negligence and selfishness.
I did not have the pleasure to attend, as a member of parliament, the debate of last session to which I referred, but I am glad the great majority of our nation's representatives voted in favour of participation in the united nations conference. All men of good will have followed with attention the progress of those historical deliberations. The discussion appeared at times to be bitter enough, as was explained by the Minister of Justice, but all the nations taking part finally agreed on basic principles and also on common measures to be enforced in order to prepare the peace organization.
At San Francisco the world certainly made great headway and great studies, and these peace preliminaries will be of great benefit for the improvement of relations between nations and individuals.
These international reunions are not new; indeed, they have taken place at all times and date back to the middle ages. Every important conflict was followed by meetings of the same kind, and in spite of criticism some bore excellent fruits, even if sometimes they proved unsuccessful.
On the other hand, certain great minds, scientists, economists or philosophers have thrown light on our agitated world and their ideas have guided discussions and debates, and the orientation of peace movements. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, long before any international conference, we discover the names of men of great ability associated with projects to promote the peaceful solution of the problems between individuals and nations. Those of us who are interested in those important works and writings have found, I am sure, the names of l'Abbe de St-Pierre, Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant.
There is a fundamental principle expressed in their writings which struck me particularly. This principle I found clearly defined in a peace project dating as far back as the year 1795, and without its application it seems to me no peace movement can hope to succeed. This idea constitutes a truth of first importance upon which the following centuries truly conferred a really prophetic sense.
In this project is stated as an absolutely essential condition to the progressive discussions for the quest and safeguarding of peace, that in each and every nation wishing to participate in discussions, the form of government be democratic. In other words, the contention was that a nation's voice should be always the voice of all her citizens. Well, Mr. Speaker, does it not strike everybody that if such a principle had been adopted by all the important nations, many if not all important conflicts which have steeped in blood and ruin the European continent and the whole world would have been avoided?
Nearly all wars indeed have been the result of the pride and ambition of a single man or group, and history has proven that wars were seldom attributed to a whole nation's initiative. At all times the memories of war have been closely associated with the names of great warriors like those of Alexander, Caesar or Napoleon, but I do not believe anyone can assert that general conflicts have ever been launched by the people's will, for at all times human groups have hated and despised war. That dreadful calamity has always been the immediate result of narrow nationalism and of the unrestrained ambitions of usurpers or tyrants.
In 1795, when the world was given that historical advice, the European situation was tense and critical indeed. France had just crushed monarchy, and in the blood of revo-
United Nations Agreement


John Horne Blackmore: I wonder if the hon.
member would permit a question just before six o'clock. I think it is only fair that he give permission, because a few minutes ago he made some remarks which were really in the nature of innuendoes respecting certain hon. members who sat in parliament last spring. He said either too much or too little. I would ask the hon. member if he would prepare, during the recess this evening, the documented evidence to support the statement that he made regarding what was said by hon. members who sat in the house last spring.


Roch Pinard: I was not at all referring
to hon. members in the Social Credit group. I was referring to three or four members of parliament at that time, of whom there are only a few in the house, who voted against Canadian participation in the resolution then under discussion which had for its purpose the sending of a delegation to San Francisco. That is what I referred to; but let me say-


James Horace King: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but it is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, before the
recess I was dealing with certain means of rendering more profitable, in my opinion, the charter of the united nations. As a last means offered to the world in its quest for peace there is the frightening progress of modem science in the service of war, which creates a salutary threat to those who would be tempted to throw the world into another war.
I have listened very carefully to all the speeches that have been made on the resolution before the house, especially the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). I am surprised that he personally has decided with the members of his party to vote against the resolution.


Solon Earl Low: I did not say any such thing.


Roch Pinard: He has brought in an
amendment which, in my view, will have the sole effect of giving the impression to the rest of the world that Canada is not united in this effort to bring peace to the world.


Solon Earl Low: I proposed an amendment.
United Nations Agreement


Roch Pinard: The hon. member called attention to the numerous obstacles which the world faces to-day in its organization for peace. I shall not deal with his arguments point by point but will make this general answer, that in my opinion the worst enemy of peace is criticism such as was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River.


Solon Earl Low: That is one man's opinion.


Mr. LALONDE:: The hon. member was
speaking on behalf of his whole party.


John Horne Blackmore: Better wake up before it is too late.


Roch Pinard: I must admit that the hon. member for Peace River made a remarkable speech, but in my opinion it was unfortunate that his conclusion degenerated into his dealing with vile monetary questions.


John Horne Blackmore: You have something there.


Roch Pinard: I have not yet defined what, in my opinion, is the most important condition for the establishment and maintenance of peace. That condition is one of absolute necessity and, without it, the fulfilment of others would become totally useless. That condition is the improvement and betterment of private relations; that is, a better understanding and a deeper respect for each other's rights, privileges and aspirations.
I grew up to be respectful of the liberties and rights of others. That, in a way, is a definition of liberalism, which doctrine our Liberal leaders have preached by their example and also by their fruitful legislation in this country. That generous and proud doctrine I am happy to accept and shall make every endeavour to defend. Because of our special ethnic situation, the duties of every citizen of our country are difficult but also imperative. Before we attempt to do anything in the way of helping to improve international relations, we should begin to work at home.
Nobody in Canada and nobody in this house may approve the work done by the rest of the world at San Francisco unles they are prepared to accept the principles of close relationship, cooperation, understanding and tolerance between the two races of this dominion. In other words, one will not be able to contribute to the establishment of unity in this post-war world unless he is determined to assure also unity of purpose, unity of thought and unity of action in this great country of ours.

All Canadians must feel to-day that this country has attained a state of complete independence. But in order to be worthy of that great privilege, our country must achieve and maintain perfect unity: it must become a Canadian country, having not only its own distinctive flag and citizenship and its own national anthem, but above all its own common aspirations and ideals.
It is unfortunate that some public men in seeking office have tried again to stir up old quarrels between the two major races of Canada. At times it nearly became the only-policy of a political party which tried by these dangerous means to restore its fortunes which: so many errors and blunders had imperilled.
The spendid constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house I am proud' to say condemned unequivocally at the last election that anti-national policy of division instead of unity. Although its population is almost equally divided between citizens of French and English origin, all groups live in complete harmony and entertain relations of cordiality and understanding for each other.
I was particularly touched by the generosity of those in the constituency of Chambly-Rouville who, although not belonging to my race or origin, supported me and the Liberal party in the last election.
The time has come for the people of Quebec to cease thinking as regionalists or provin-cialists. We must expand and widen our national horizons; we must not be anything but real Canadians. That duty we are ready to fulfil with pride, but all other groups in this country must follow the same path and work with us to attain these great ideals.
We wish all groups and races of Canada to unite; we wish to march forward with them as free men with our own Canadian flag unfurling toward a bright and great future. That is the^ only sure way, Mr. Speaker, for us Canadians to contribute with success to the great and noble efforts of the civilized world toward establishing a lasting peace.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us reads:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement establishing the united nations and constituting the charter of the united nations and the statute of the international court of justice signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.
To that motion an amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low).
Canada was very well represented at the San Francisco conference, tied up as we were to the text of the Yalta agreement. At Yalta

United Nations Agreement
Mr. Churchill, Mr. Stalin, and the late President Roosevelt entered into what might be [DOT]called a complete review of the world and came to certain agreements which afterwards came up at the San Francisco conference. All parties in the house were represented in the San Francisco conference, excepting one, which I regret was left out. They performed their duties very satisfactorily.
I wish to say that foreign affairs should not be a party matter. I am not now speaking for any political party; I am speaking simply as a private member who has supported what has been the consistent policy of the Conservative party on foreign affairs and the empire during all these years, and I have not changed my opinions. When all is .said and done, if we are to embark upon internationalism we would be wise to stay in the pond and not wander out into the lake. Let us start with our own empire, which after Dunkirk saved civilization in this war, and saved the United States and Canada. But for that stand we know what happened to the countries of Europe and would have befallen *Quebec and Ontario, the maritime provinces and all the other provinces. That fate was .averted by the protection which Britain, save for the dominion's aid, gave after Dunkirk, when she had to face the world alone. As I said on March 21, 1945, speaking on the subject of the San Francisco conference, and on August 4, 1944, dealing with foreign affairs in general, we should get back to primary objects and not concern ourselves so much with secondary objects.
How is it that more of the dominions are mot willing to make an agreement of that sort? We are not real internationalists, if we are not ready to join with other branches of the empire, the other dominions, as one family in a united *empire policy of cooperation and collaboration with the mother country.
That is what the late Prime Minister Curtin of Australia and Prime Minister Fraser [DOT]of New Zealand proposed when they visited us and spoke in this chamber.
Why should we not have a league of nations of our own? As has been well said to-day, the . only league of nations that has ever achieved any success is the British empire. The United *States knows that; the world knows it; and out of this war there should emerge a great league of nations, namely, the British empire.
As Lord Milner said in 1919, speaking at *Oxford, it was a most strange anomaly to hear that the self-governing parts of the British *empire should be joining a league, binding themselves by a formal tie to a number of foreign nations, when they had theretofore been unwilling to enter similar obligations with one another.
That is a fact. I pointed out that we had had experience of internationalism and international policies before the last war, and what
happened? Where would we have been if we had had such an international policy as would have meant the giving up of empire bases like Gibraltar, the Suez, the Cape, the far east, and the West Indies? The empire would have been destroyed, and further it would have meant the fall of civilization. Already the United States have secured ninety-nine year leases on various territories in British Guiana, Trinidad and the West Indies. But these bases, which it was proposed to sell before the last war started, and the others I have mentioned, are the back-bone of the British empire on the seven seas. Without them where would we have been? Germany would have won the war after Dunkirk. Upon such strong bases as these the British empire has depended for two hundred years, and will depend in the future. Without them the commonwealth and the colonies would go adrift and the empire would be a perfect absurdity on the map. Imagine what would have happened in 1940 if we had surrendered Gibraltar, Malta, the Suez, Alexandria and all these other bases! In 1940 the United States and Russia were not in. the war. Britain entered the war because of her pledge to Poland. The United States entered the war because she was attacked at Pearl Harbor. Russia entered the war because she was invaded by Germany. Upon what would we have been able to depend in the first two and a half years of the war if all these ideas of internationalization had been carried out? Internationalism is all right if we have a perfect world, but we have not a perfect world yet, and are not likely to have it for some time to come. It is a dangerous policy unless we can see far ahead. We should be ready to cooperate with our allies, and allow them to use our bases, but the empire should retain its sovereignty over them.
As regards the proposals which were made at San Francisco. In a previous speech I gave some reasons why I believed the conference could not succeed, although I hoped, and everybody in the world hoped, that it would be a success. I support the charter, although it does not mean very much. I shall refer to it in more detail in a few minutes. I believe, as Napoleon said, "we must look upon things as they are and not as we wish them to be", and I believe that any foreign policy which is resolved upon will have in the future to be supported by power; otherwise it will be treated, as such policies have been in the history of the world for centuries, as a scrap of paper.

United Nations Agreement
What was the result of Britain's supremacy on the seas? It proved the salvation of the world in the days of Philip II of Spain, in the days of Louis XIV and Napoleon and twice against Germany in our generation. Britain has had a long connection with European history; and as a result, as I said in the last debate, this vast collection of European peoples of various races, colours, creeds and civilizations have had for four centuries three of the freedoms of the Atlantic charter. They have had them ever since Britain first invaded the continent of Europe hundreds of years ago. What were the freedoms which Britain gave and which she has continued to give all down the ages? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from fear, three of the clauses of the Atlantic charter, have guaranteed to Europe by Britain's command of the seas. She also conferred on the world by the same agency a hundred years of peace, from the signing of the peace treaty after Waterloo in 1815 to the invasion of Belgium in 1914.
Therefore I say again, that if we want internationalism let us start with the British empire, because none of the dominions are able to go it alone; unless the dominions hang together with the mother country they will hang separately, and they will have nothing to say whatever about peace terms. That is something which we might reflect upon when we are considering the charter.
We have no reason to apologize for what the mother country has done for the world and for civilization. I have referred to that matter briefly, and time will not permit me to go farther. The task which remains for the mother country is a prodigious one, and one which will test all her strength.
As regards these security pacts, we have had them for more than two hundred years and we have had various mythical leagues of nations.
When the San Francisco conference was proposed and the subject was under discussion on March 21, 1945, I pointed out that this treaty would teach us one or two things which we should bear in mind. As I said then, we should not forget the lessons of history, because it is inconceivable that English people in the Elizabethan or the Victorian era, under Burleigh or Palmerston, or the French under Louis XIV, or the Americans under Monroe or Lincoln, would have dreamt of submitting their personal concerns to state control, or of surrendering the sovereign rights and national interests of their countries to the control of any international organization. A great professor, I pointed out, had written a textbook

on the subject-Professor S. R. Gardiner. This historian, commenting on the treaty of Utrecht, said:
The truth is that states combine readily through fear and very seldom through a desire for the common good, and when Louis XIV ceased to be formidable each state thought exclusively of its own interests.
It was in the same year, 1713, that the great scholar 1'Abbe de St. Pierre, first set out the theory of collective security in France. He went to an able cardinal of France, Cardinal Fleury, and asked him to consider the scheme. The cardinal replied, "Have you sent out missionaries to turn the hearts of men?" I thing that is what we should have done in San Francisco. We should have sent missionaries among some of these forty nations.
Nothing more was heard of collective security until in 1815 Emperor Alexander I of Russia proposed what is known as the Holy Alliance or the Concert of Europe. Between whom? Between Russia, Prussia and Austria. They were to meet every few years, the contracting parties look over the face of Europe and see how peace and security was. What did it lead to? It led to the great prime minister of Great Britain, George Canning, urging that Britain should get out of Europe and seek a new alliance for a while; and it led by provocation to the United States adopting the Monroe doctrine in 1823. As Lord Castlereagh, the great foreign minister wrote to Lord Liverpool in 1815 at the Quai D'Orsay, "It was not without difficulty that we went through the interview with becoming gravity." It was the spiritual force behind the Concert of Europe of which Russia, Austria and Prussia were the protagonists. They were the high contracting parties. It lasted eight years, its most notable achievement toeing that it provoked the United States into establishing the Monroe doctrine in 1823.
Then another century passed and you have the league established which I have referred to before, and now Dumbarton Oaks.
I have here an article written by the Right Reverend R. J. Renison, of the Church of England, in the Globe and Mail of August 13, under the title, "The Tower of Babel," in which he says:
The legend of Babel may be untouched folklore, but it is an uncomfortable picture of man. For man always has built his towers, and the end always is the same. The latest lies in ruins on the Bavarian Alps, and now, God help us, we have the Big Three and the San Francisco conference.
Let us translate Genesis into modern English: "And they said: 'Come on, let us make a new-world which will give us heaven on earth'." The effort of man to work out a scheme of life for

United Nations Agreement
himself, apart from God, is no less amazing in its impious madness than attempting to build a sky-scraper that will land its passengers by elevator in paradise.
"Man," says Horace Bushnell, "is most impressive in his ruins." You have only to visit such a monument as the Roman wall to realize that. Impressive it must have been in the days of its building, but not nearly so impressive as now. It is hung with mystery.
So it is with all man's ruins. Made by man, they have ceased to belong to him. They belong to the ages and are adopted into the family of time.
Man tames the horse and rides him to battle. He invents the gasoline engine to drive a tank. He rides under the sea to drown women and children. He conquers the air to murder babies.
I have always contended that before embarking on any of these international undertakings involving treaties with outside powers we should consider the more important things that concern the British empire. As I said at the time the late Mr. Curtin and Mr. Fraser were here, if we want internationalism we can find room for it first within our own empire. The first essentials that should precede these international agreements are the questions that affect the welfare of the empire, such as preferential trade, defence, and migration within the commonwealth. We must solve these problems first, because it is useless to expect harmony in our empire with regard to foreign affairs unless we give our attention to basic principles. The United States and Great Britain have got along very well together in the war, and it is most essential now that they should cooperate in time of peace. I have pointed out before that it is not a wise thing for Canada to join in pan-American union or undertakings, but if over the heads of the other dominions Canada thus commits herself, she has made a mistake and taken a retrograde step which might lead to the dissolution of the British empire. I have also pointed out on previous occasions that in the last four hundred years the security of the world has depended upon the supremacy of Britain on the seas.
This San Francisco agreement, I would point out, comes after the agreement that Great Britain entered into with Russia. At the time of Yalta, Mr. Churchill, on behalf of the mother country, entered into that bilateral agreement, the high contracting parties being Britain and the Soviet Republic. These two powers made a ten-year security contract which is outside this particular agreement. So did the United States. They made an agreement which does not come within the four corners of the San Francisco agreement.
The same thing happened in 1920. No sooner had the League of Nations started to function at that time than the great powers
began to cast about for possible allies with whom they could enter into treaties. In other words, they simply cast aside the covenants to which they had agreed. A great historian, H. A. L. Fisher, in his "History of Europe," has said:
The League of Nations can be no better than the member states which compose it. If they wish for peace the league provides machinery by which peace may he better secured and maintained, but league or no league, a state which is resolved on war can always have it.
What then of San Francisco? Is it ground on which a greater prospect of success can obtain than in the past three failures of three similar leagues of nations? It is argued here and outside [DOT] the house with great eloquence by those who believe in it that the united nations should form a world organization as set out in the charter, as a gesture or symbol of cooperation among nations, a new heaven and a new earth. I have taken the trouble to look up the congressional record to read the debates that took place in the United States senate with reference to the charter. I find that the view was taken there that while it may be of little use it might do harm, and so they voted to set it up as a thing to be desired but not as an instrument to eliminate war. That argument therefore falls to the ground "so long as nations are free to act as their interest, guided by justice, shall counsel," as George Washington declared in 1796. If their national sovereignty is neither compromised, restricted nor interfered with, this new charter falls to the ground and is not binding on anyone a party to it, because it leaves all to cooperate or not. No nation is bound to observe it if it interferes with its own national security and any one of the Big Five can veto it in the security council. The United States and others are willing to be in this charter and in this new league if it does not interfere with their own national sovereignty; but if it interferes with their own sovereignty and autonomy, or programme, then they will not remain in it. Thus the security council is of no effect and no nation of the Big Five is to be bound by it.
The only difference between the league of 1920 and this one is that in the old league the general assembly could deal with all these matters. The new league proposed by the Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco meetings sets up what is called a security council, but it applies only to and is over the small states; it does not apply to the larger five at all, because each one can veto any adverse decision. France will always be a great nation, because of its long connection with the mother country; but the French people were not included at Yalta because of their lack of
United Nations Agreement

military strength at that time. They are to be included and have a very important voice in the future. I would say that no nation of the Big Three or Five is bound under this new security council. Any one of the five can, if against them, veto the proposals. Suppose something is proposed against Germany, Britain, Russia or the United States. They have now added China and France. Any one of those five can veto everything that the general assembly does contra to their programme and everything that the small states do. What kind of agreement is that? As Mr. Churchill said, we have sacrificed everything on the altar of war.
I have referred to the fact that we should first of all try to solve the empire problems and not advance until then into these international field agreements. Let us consider and reconsider our own problems. Nations as well as individuals must have a conscience, and every person in them is responsible before the bar of history for what is done in that nation's name.
As has been said, we should first try to solve our own empire problems along the lines I have indicated. We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of that high calling our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire, and have made the most extensive and the only honourable conquests, not by destroying but by promoting the welfare and happiness of the human race
Unless we revive that faith which inspired us, the faith in ourselves as a nation and in the mission which is ours to serve the world, we shall have fought this war in vain. Even in the darkest days there were few, except a few intellectuals, who lacked confidence that in the end we should win. That was after Dunkirk when Britain was thrown back with but a few arms left. The whole world thought Britain was done and gone, and only the people of Britain and the dominions across the seas had faith that she would save the world and civilization.
I like to look at the real picture. I should like to look at another more realistic side of this picture. At Yalta the terms of peace for Europe and practically the whole world were settled. Those present understood Mr. Churchill's great persuasive powers, because he had great persuasive powers, with the head of Russia and the head of the United States. Notwithstanding his persuasive powers, he could not persuade Russia to alter its stand regarding Poland. Russia claimed that that was their territory and that

others had nothing to do with it. Notwithstanding the protests of Mr. Churchill and of the President of the United States, the great head of Russia announced that nothing could be done. They looked upon it as their own Russian preserve, which it was, and they continue to say that. They do not mind United States and Britain having something to say regarding their own territory that does not concern Russia. But Russia has insisted from the start that they look upon Poland as concerning themselves alone. They have objected very strongly to the United States, Britain, or any other great power and the rest of the world having anything to do with what they look upon as their own territory.
British imperialism has been attacked in this house for years between the two wars; but what about Russian imperialism and United States imperialism? I do not say that Russia and the United States want to grab territories; that remains to be seen; but both those great nations are imperialists and have always been imperialists. They want to have a much larger share in world affairs, and if we are to divide up our empire into a lot of small states and leave the mother country over there all alone to become a second Denmark, then so far as the British empire is concerned it will go into liquidation. Mr. Churchill, that great prime minister, said that he was not going to preside over the liquidation of the British empire. That is a fact. Are we going to throw aside the mother country in her darkest hour? She depends on us very largely for her food. She might have been starved out by the U-boats. She had only six weeks food on hand. She needs our imports and an exchange of her exports and services to pay for them. Are we to throw her aside in so far as trade and commerce is concerned, in favour of Argentina and a lot of other South American republics and others, or are we to stand by our own people within the empire first and trade with our empire and those who supported us against the axis, and then branch out into internationalism? That is the question before us to-day. In my opinion we are back to the old policy of balance of power. It was a good policy for the world for four hundred years. As Mr. Churchill said in the House of Commons when he spoke in regard to this matter:
The expression "power politics" has largely been used in criticism against us in some quarters. I have anxiously asked the question, "What are power politics?" I know some of our friends across the water so well that I am sure I can always speak frankly without

United Nations Agreement
causing offence. Is having a navy twice as big as any other navy in the world, power politics? Is having the largest air force in the world, with bases in every part of the world, power politics? Is having all the gold in the world, power politics? If so we are certainly not guilty of these offences, I am sorry to say. They are luxuries that have passed away from us.
We go farther; we define our position with even more precision. We have sacrified everything in this war. We shall emerge from it, for the time being, more stricken and impoverished than any other victorious country. The United Kingdom and the British commonwealth are the only unbroken force which declared war on Germany of its own free will. We declared war not for any ambition of material advantage but for the sake of our obligation to do our best for Poland against German aggression, in which aggression, there or elsewhere, it must also in fairness be stated, our own self-preservation is involved.
This is from a speech delivered by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill in the House of Commons on January 18, 1945.
Nothing can be done to avoid foreign wars until men change their hearts, because we shall always have strife between nations as between individual men and women. No one knows when those changes are to come. The only direct way is for the British empire and the commonwealth to stick together on a common policy for the reasons which I have given. The only hope I see for the world is for Britain, the United States and Russia to carry on in peace, as I believe they can do. with the same spirit of cooperation and coordination that they used during the war. We had most harmonious conferences with the United States and Russia during the war. I believe they can be continued in peace in the future. But I believe in facing realities, in seeing the picture as it is. To-day politicians, in the light of these circumstances I have mentioned, and in spite of the failures of all other polices, content to follow rather than mould the views of the people, are determined once more to set up a world organization by means of which they seek to eliminate war and by a system of collective security achieve at long last the brotherhood of man. Well, it will not come. I have named three league failures already, and I believe the fourth failure will come later. First at Dumbarton Oaks and later at San Francisco they strove to hammer out a world order which would give effect to these high purposes, but only among the smaller nations, who will have nothing to say about [DOT] the future. In the same way the various parts of the British empire will have nothing to say about the future unless we remain in the empire and hang together and with Britain remain a 47696-81
first-class power. On July 2 of this year President Truman sent a message to the senate in favour of-
... a general international organization based on the principle of sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.
That is the resolution now before us. He went on to add:
What I am now presenting to the senate carries out completely this expression of national and international necessity.
There were many speakers in the senate, and the attitude with which these proposals were looked upon in Washington was one of cynicism and apology for the charter. Senator Engene Millican of Colorado said that the charter reminded him of what was said after the Lisbon earthquake, although he also said he was going to vote for the resolution. Following that earthquake men went about selling what they called earthquake pills. When they were asked if those pills were guaranteed to cure earthquakes the vendors replied that although they could give no guarantee, the pills were the best offered on the market for a cure. So that was what they thought in a cynical and illusive way of this resolution in the United States Senate. To get down to the real facts, the united nations cannot rely upon any world organization to obtain and maintain security if that interferes with their own affairs. It has been said that someone changed the name of the conference from San Francisco "the Sham Fiasco". A great English writer. Arthur Page, a member of the British House of Commons and one of Mr. Churchill's great supporters who coined that phrase, has asked if it is not about time we got back to the old power system which saved the mother country for so many years. Everyone wants pence and no more war, but all these other policies have been failures. We should stand by the mother country first, and as an empire act as an economic unit, adhering to the policy I have enunciated. Mr. Page goes on, in the National Review to say:
Is it not time that our "futurist" politicians refrained from drafting fantastic "plans" for international control abroad and state control at home? On October 2, 1934, Mr. Attlee, the parliamentary leader of the Labour party, propounded the new doctrine as follows:
"We have absolutely abandoned any idea of nationalist loyalty. We are deliberately putting a world order before our loyalty to our own country. We say we want to see put on the statute books something which wall make our people citizens of the world before they are citizens of this country."
Was there ever, as Lord Gastlereagh said of the Holy Alliance, such "sublime mysticism and nonsense"?

United, Nations Agreement

The so-called leaders of public thought in this country would do well to reflect upon Edmund Burke's admonition that "people will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors," and bear in mind the statement of our traditional foreign policy as set out by Sir Eyre Crowe in his famour memorandum of 1907:
"England, as a tiny island power with vast overseas colonies and dependencies, whose existence and survival is inseperably bound up with the possession of preponderant sea power, has a greater interest than any other country-in the independence of nations . . . England's traditional policy has been to maintain the balance of power by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single state or group at a given time. The opposition into which England^ must inevitably be driven to any country aspiring to such a dictatorship assumes almost the form of a law of nature."
These observations are every whit as apposite to-day as they were forty or four hundred years ago.
Then in conclusion he says:
Let our politicians no longer grope in the dark for new-fangled forms of policy that lose their substance and fade away as hands are stretched out to grasp them. Let them rather follow the light as they have been shown the light; for in this way only will they be able to find the clue to peace and security, and lead the world once more into the sunlight.
My time is about up, Mr. Speaker, but in conclusion I should like to refer to one remark of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in regard to the celebrated atomic bomb and Japan and foreign affairs. I call his attention to the leading editorial in the Manchester Guardian of August 1, which states:
The allies believe that the authority of the emperor is essential to make the surrender effective. Without his order the Japanese commanders in the field would continue the fight. It is a strange paradox. On the side of the allies stand immense fleets and invincible armies, the whole panoply of modern war weighted with the new and terrible menace of the atomic bomb. On the side of Japan there is little except an obscure and feeble simpleton who embodies the primitive religion of a Polynesian myth. Yet for this purpose the Emperor Hirohito is more effective than the atomic bomb, and the allies no matter how they may phrase it, have been forced to accept something less than the unconditional surrender for which they asked.
. A correspondent to the National Review has this to say in regard to the editorial:
A moral force which has a greater power over a nation even than the atomic bomb is something to think about. It is something one would think to preserve at all costs. "Polynesian myth?" We do not know whence the sentiment derived but if, as it appears, it is stronger than death and disaster we should be grateful

for it in this disintegrating world, and we had better, as the Manchester Guardian suggests in the same article, "try to understand the meaning and importance of the imperial throne in the Japanese policy." Unhappy, -warring China gives us a picture of a country that has lost its "imperial myth."
I wish to support the charter on the ground that it will do no harm to anyone, but it will not provide any security against war or be of any value to prevent war. I remind hon. members of the pills to cure earthquakes. The only cure I know of for the future is to take our stand as members of the British empire in peace and war alike. If we do that we shall soon find that the cooperation and coordination we had enjoyed with the United States and Russia in war will continue into the peace, so that we can look to the future without fear.


James Horace King: At this moment I should like to give my decision on the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), that the resolution now before the house be amended as follows:
(a)	by inserting after the word "that" where it first appears in the resolution the word "before", and
(b)	by inserting after the figures 1945 the words "it is desirable that an educational campaign for a period of one month be conducted throughout Canada by allotting on the transcanada network of the C.B.C. abundant, free and equal time to those in this house who oppose the charter in its present form and those who support it, so that the Canadian people may have the fullest possible opportunity to study the proposal, and in the light of their matured judgment, to express their will as a guide to the houses of parliament."
It has become my duty to consider whether or not the proposed amendment is in order. No principle in our parliamentary practice is more firmly grounded than the rule that no resolution or vote can be passed upon a motion involving an expenditure of public money before such a motion is referred to the committee of the whole. I should like to quote from page 171 of Beauchesne's Third * Edition where, in citation 453, we find this:
The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons for the past twenty-five years to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. Our Journals are full of precedents to this effect.
The amendment offered proposes that an educational campaign be conducted throughout Canada for a period of one month, by the

United Nations Agreement
use of the transcanada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The amendment further provides that time be allotted on the said network to those who oppose the united nations charter in its present form, and to those who support it, and that this time be abundant and free to those who make use of it.
It is quite clear, therefore, that this would entail, the expenditure of public moneys and would necessitate a charge upon public revenues. For phis reason I rule the amendment out of order.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to your decision, I find myself in the position of having to challenge it because of this fact: the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is government owned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member must know that the Speaker's decision is not debatable.


Solon Earl Low: Then I have no alternative but to challenge your decision.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton). Had I voted I would have voted1 to sustain your decision.


Air. ISNOR:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your decision.
United Nations Agreement


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was
paired with the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor). Had I voted I would have voted' to sustain your decision.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your decision.


Mr. COYLE:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your decision.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your decision.


William Ross Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted I would -have voted to sustain your decision.


Mr. L. R. BEAUDOIN (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes) :: Mr. Speaker, the charter before this
house for approval is the result of the most elaborate deliberations by fifty nations, on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which were the result of individual and collective thoughts based on past experiences in the field of the maintenance of peace in the world. This nation was represented by members of all groups in this house, groups that represented the predominant shades of opinions in this *country. Our delegation must be congratulated on its initiative at the conference, ^because it succeeded in having adopted several fundamental amendments. It must be congratulated on the extreme measure of good will that it displayed throughout the discussions. Reading the report tabled in this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), one cannot help noticing that Canada wanted to make sure that every possible means would be taken in order that peace be not only maintained, but not even threatened. Remembering the deficiencies of the old League of Nations, the united nations insisted at San Francisco that this charter contain provisions whereby not only economic and diplomatic sanctions be effectively applied, but also armed forces in case of aggression.
May I express the hope at this time that the united nations charter, after it is given birth, enjoys eternal life.
From this instrument of peace, conciliation, intervention and action, many advantages derive for this country. On the other hand, we must assume our obligations, the heaviest of which are contained in chapter VII, article 42 and others.

1.	Canada must negotiate an agreement with the security council;
2.	Canada undertakes to make available to the security council armed forces, assistance, facilities, including right of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security;
3.	Canada must practically agree on the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided;
4.	Canada must hold immediately available national air force contingents for combined international enforcement action;
5.	Canada -must leave its forces at the disposal of the security council and their military staff committee who will plan their utilization;
6.	Canada must undertake, as the security council may determine, to cany out whatever are the decisions of the council;
7.	Canada must assume the costs that this participation in the operations ordered by the council may entail, although articles 50 and 51 may bring some relief in that respect.
Since the advent of the atomic bomb, some contend that the utilization of large armies in future conflicts is a thing of the past. I fully realize the tremendous power of that bomb, although I do not think our population is sufficiently aware of its destructive capacity. Of course, the potential military effectiveness of the atomic bomb, together with the V-2 rocket bomb, the great development in radio, aerodynamics and marine engineering, call for readaptation of our plans for defence; nevertheless war will be total when it comes.
Commenting upon the report made recently by a general of the United States army, George Marshall, Time magazine, issue of October 15, 1945, says:
The doctrine that the nation no longer needed man power for its defence was foolish and dangerous talk. Said George Marshall: "The only effective defence a nation can now maintain is the power of attack. And that power cannot be in machinery alone." There -must be men to man the machines. War department planners, "who have taken every conceivable factor into consideration," advocated a system "which will permit the mobilization of an army of 4,000,000 men within a period of one year following any international crisis resulting in a national emergency for the United States." The chief units in that system, if General Marshall has his way, would be the regular army, the national guard, an organized reserve -with universal military training to fill out these ranks (and the navy's) in an emergency.
It goes on:
For those who asked:	"Who is going to
attack us?" old soldier Marshall had an answer. "We have tried since the birth of our n-ation to promote our love of peace by a display of weakness. This course has failed us utterly, cost us millions of lives and billions of treasure."

United, Nations Agreement
The counsel of President Washington, said General Marshall, still held good: "If we desire to secure peace ... it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
Now, Mr. Speaker, the special agreement which this country will be called upon to negotiate with the security council, on its call, must be foreseen in the light of regional agreements, existing in fact or tacitly, or to become effective within the provisions of article 52 of the charter. Canada is particularly lucky in being located next to a good neighbour, a great power, the United States, and at the same time in belonging to a great family of nations, the British Commonwealth. Canada may rely on both imperial and continental solidarity. Groups of nations are being formed.
In the October, 1945, issue of World Digest, Lord Vansittart, Britain's permanent undersecretary of state for foreign affairs before Munich, writes:
It is now generally recognized that Russia is establishing a protectorate, or sphere of influence, in central and eastern Europe. It is inevitable that the west should also organize itself, though in a voluntary and far looser form. Generalissimo Stalin has, indeed, explicitly commended the project. No difficulty, therefore, arises on this score. In the United States all tenable opposition has melted. There was always the Monroe doctrine and now there is the act of Chapultepec, too. Briefly this act converts the Monroe doctrine from a unilateral declaration to a multilateral agreement. It is, in American eyes, "a watertight non-aggression mutual-aid pact binding all the American states represented at the conference, whether the aggression comes from inside America or from outside.
The economic consequences of this panAmerican unity are not specified, but "a new intercontinental solidarity" will surely develop.
Equity and security both demand that we should now do as our two great allies have done, and do it quickly. This necessity was foreseen by Marshal Smuts:
"More and more states are consulting with each other and forming groups to protect their common interests", he said
"Regional groups will have to be formed within the scope of the world organization."
In the light of the structure of our regional agreements, how can we meet the specifications of the special agreement which we might be called upon to ratify between Canada and the security council; mainly as to the armed forces, the importance and degree of readiness of our contingents? Actually, if we look at the continental area, the United States is expected to enforce universal peace-time military training.
It is understood that high-ranking war department officials in the United States are now planning the peace-time army, under a system of universal military training. In Great Britain, the compulsory recruitment of men for the forces as an essential part of
the reallocation of man-power during what is called the interim period, and the conscription regime has been declared by Mr. Churchill on May 10 last as perhaps absolutely necessary for some years to come.
Other nations friendly to Canada, such as France, have peace-time military training from which there is no indication that they will depart. [DOT]
And here I wish to point out that there is a great contrast between Russia's demobilization policy and other allies' policy; while the western allies are taking a race to demobilize their men as quickly as possible, there is no sign that Russia is active in the same field.
I submit that a uniform system of organizing various national contingents, placed at the disposal of the security council, is commendable, and for two reasons: (a) efficiency of forces, (b) international understanding.
(a)	Efficiency of forces. Article 43, paragraph 2, mentions the "general location where these forces will be stationed". Article 45 ends by saying that the security council, assisted by the military staff, will establish plans providing for the combined action of the forces put at their disposal. The general idea would be to form organically grouped units capable of concerted and united action.
At San Francisco France suggested the establishment of suitable zones of security in which such troops would be stationed.
(b)	A uniform system is commendable in order to favour international understanding.
Canada is a self-governing dominion which has emerged from the war with a record unsurpassed by the other nations of the world and it is very proud and jealous of the nationhood status that it has acquired. At the San Francisco conference the attitude of Canada has been one of the most important middle power.
I share the views previously expressed in this house that this government cannot announce a definite national defence policy until the picture is clearer and therefore must undergo an interim period. But, after this interim period is over, how could it be possible for Canada to have a different system of preparing combat forces, while -its closest associates, the United Kingdom and the United States, enforce universal peace-time military training?
Often during the recent war Canada has been criticized in- the United States because, while they had universal compulsory military service, we in Canada favoured the voluntary system for overseas service together with conscription, but only to the extent that it was necessary.
United Nations Agreement

The only system which could be followed from now on is universal peace-time military training and universal compulsory war-time military service. I would wish that it could be otherwise, but as it is, in my opinion, inevitable, we might as well come right out and say so, and the time to say so is right now.
Since we would then be embarking upon a new man-power policy in the service of peace, I would suggest that we apply new methods construed to create among our young men an ambition toward military training and careers. I will refer particularly to men called up for service in this last war, who were not given a chance, by force of circumstances, to adapt themselves to army life, went absent without leave, are now being picked up, and sentenced to so many months or years of detention. I am not advocating that deserters be not punished; but, thinking that we might need every fit man sooner than we expect, I suggest that detention rules should aim at the same time at educating these young men as to what the army stands for and what an honour it is to wear His Majesty's uniform. If we are to establish a universal peace-time military training programme, I suggest that such a programme should be practical. .
If one reads article 43, which refers to special agreements determining the size of our army, et cetera, paragraphs 1 and 2, and also paragraph 3, which says that such agreements shall be ratified by signatory states according to their respective constitutional practice, one might say, "Why not wait until such agreement is presented to parliament for ratification before discussing peace-time training? All requirements imposed on us by the security council will then be knowm and might be debated more intelligently then than to-day. Tou now base jmur reasoning only on assumptions which may never materialize."
I wish to state very clearly that I hope that peace-time training is not established in this country. I hope that in future wars compulsory service is not put into effect. But in approving this charter we are undertaking obligations, among others, militarjr. I submit that the ratification of any special agreement adhered to will be almost automatic, and I want our people to know at once what their obligations are or might be under this charter. I submit that we should not wait until too much unrest is created before we discuss how this country may have to govern itself in peace and war time in the future. I remember too well the troublesome, anxious days of November, 1944, when this parliament convened in a hurry to discuss urgent matters of reinforcements. Any form of isolation is from now on impossible. Furthermore,
CMr. Beaudoin.]
neutrality is practically incompatible with the prescriptions of the charter. Any future conflict will be a battle for our very existence. Therefore I for one, voting in favour of this peace instrument, understand that I may be voting for universal peace-time military training and universal compulsory war-time service. However-and this is the main element of my speech-if and when military duties of that significance are imposed on the nation, I insist that the proposed system be practical as well as effective. It should exempt in war time certain classes of people as was the ease in the last war. Essential industrial workers and farmers should be exempted completely and without complicated formalities.
The peace-time military training programme to come should be combined with a physical fitness programme. There is in our statutes, 7 George VI, chapter 29, 1943, a law given royal assent July 24, 1943, entitled "An act to establish a national council for the purpose of promoting physical fitness".
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) is now responsible for this act, which states:
Provinces may conclude under the act agreements with the council and receive financial help from the federal government.
The first meeting of the national council was held in Ottawa, May 23-24, 1944. Representatives of all provinces expressed their views.
During this last war, we have been amazed at discovering how large a number of candidates for our forces were rejected on the grounds of physical disabilities. In their remarks, representatives of the provinces emphasized this alarming situation, and they agreed that an extensive coordinated physical fitness programme would help this nation a great deal, in war and in peace. Mr. J. Mathisen, of British Columbia, declared:
The introduction of the national fitness bill is coming at a psychologically ripe hour. The standard of physical fitness was alarmingly low at the outbreak of the war; there are reasons and evidence that it is lower yet to-day; teenage troubles are mounting and people are becoming gravely, and justly so, concerned about the future of the growing generation.
Major A. A. Burridge, of Ontario, at the same meeting, opened his address saying; '
The problem of this council (the national council on physical fitness) is to plan for the physical fitness of our people. The ultimate aim is to reach all citizens, the immediate aim is threefold: First, to produce potential candidates for the armed forces, who will be so trained physically that the training time in the forces could be materially decreased.
The representative who endeavoured the most to show the usefulness of a physical

United Nations Agreement
fitness programme in preparing citizens for military tasks, was Doctor Jules Gilbert, of the province of Quebec. In his address, he said:
Twice in a lifetime, war has demonstrated that man-power is vitally affected by health and physical fitness. We were shocked that between one-third and one-half of service eligible men were found unfit for any form of military duty, being rejected for physical and mental defects or educational deficiencies. Of those accepted, many are unprepared for the hardships of military duty, it takes several months to bring them back into satisfactory condition; this waste of time could be avoided. On the other hand, some authorities claim that any young man who is healthy and who has been subjected to a rational programme of physical education can be brought to fighting fitness within two or three months. Any enlisted man needs a few months technical training before being sent to actual combat, and this period lends itself to combine physical training with other military studies.
It is therefore recognized in Canada by health authorities that a programme of physical fitness would not only help our population to improve its health, an improvement which must be achieved when we know that in Canada thirty-six per cent of our people die before they reach fifty, but also contribute to shorten the period of military training. The same truth is recognized in the United States.	Statistics	have	shown thatapproximately fifty per cent of the applicants have been rejected for regular army service in the United States army.	Nine	out	of tenvolunteers, namely, approximately ninety per cent, for service in the United States army air corps were rejected on the basis of physical examinations. Three out of seven of the men discharged for	disability	from	the	United
States army in 1939 were suffering from mental 4iseases.
In a resolution adopted by the national convention of the	American	legion, in	Boston,
Massachusetts, in September, 1940, it was stated that more than twenty-five per cent of the men called for service were unfit and therefore it adopted a resolution saying;
It is the opinion of the delegates to the 1940 convention of the American legion that great benefit, both to the nation and to the individuals concerned, would result from a more active recreation and physical training programme for the young men of America.
In public health reports of September 27, 1940, we read;
More than ever before the nation has recognized health as an essential element of preparedness. . . . We need now, as never before, an integrated effort on the part of all agencies which represent the purpose of our citizens to attain personal and national health.
Mr. Speaker, here is my point. It is recognized that health standards are low in most
parts of the world. It is the duty of every country to take care of its human capital. With the evidence that we have before us, we, in Canada, know we must do something about it. On the other hand, it is recognized that in military training programmes a large proportion consists of physical exercises. It has been recognized in the United States, in Canada and in other countries. Let us remember, for instance, the importance that has been given in Germany, Italy and Japan to physical training in view of forming militia men. Let us remember the Sokol movement in Czechoslovakia, which was imitated by other countries in Europe.
If we are to embark on a universal peacetime military training, I do not see how it could be more practical and effective than to combine it with a programme of physical fitness. We have the tools there, ready to be used. I suggest that the cooperation of the provinces toward that end be discussed anew at the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference, which is fixed pro jorma for November 26 next.
I congratulate the initiators of the national fitness project on the assurances that they have given right at the start by insertions, in the law, that provincial autonomy would be safeguarded. In order to avoid all possible loss of time and make sure at the same time that national defence objectives will be attained, in order to fill our national and international obligations under chapter VII, I suggest that if peace-time military training must be established, allocation in time of military training be granted to those who will have observed the requirements of the national programme on physical fitness.
I suppose that a physical fitness programme would be in force, directed by the provinces, on a voluntary basis, I presume, because inspired by an idea of peace, together with a universal peace-time military training programme controlled by this government of, let us say, two years; a man could shorten his period of universal peace-time military training in the proportion that he would have followed the programme of physical fitness of his province, under the guidance of the national council established by virtue of the above-mentioned law.
I submit that the united nations could adopt a universal peace-time military training formula which would be similarly combined with a programme of physical fitness. The operations of that combined programme could be very well supervised. On the military side, this nation will have a military staff committee linked with the general military staff of the security council, and in the field of physical fitness the Canadian national
United Nations Agreement

council organization could be linked to an international agency of the type provided for . under the provisions of articles 57 and 63 of this chanter. Talking about international agencies, as it is anticipated that the international food and agriculture body now meeting in Quebec city will be brought into relationship with the united nations organization, I know I express the sentiments of all hon. members when I extend to Hon. L. B. Pearson, Canadian ambassador at Washington, who was unanimously elected chairman of the world food body, our most sincere congratulations and our thanks for a great honour to Canada.
Should a combined programme as above outlined be considered I would urge this government to provide funds for the establishment in Canada of a French-styled university school of physical education and to create, among the extra facilities that will be necessary, a French-styled naval academy, airforce school and military college. Here I should like to remind the house that at the last congress, held in the city of Granby, in the constituency of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), of the federation of the Chambres de Commerce des Jeunes of the province of Quebec, which is affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Junior Chambers of Commerce, in my opinion the most serious and progressive organization of young business men Canada has ever known, a resolution was adopted in which the government was asked to create a French-styled naval academy and military college in Canada.
I also suggest, that more cadet corps be created and developed throughout the nation. Such training should be accounted for in the requirements under universal peace-time military rules, so that the period of military training would be shortened proportionately thereby. According to an editorial article published on Saturday, July 8, 1944, in I'Action Calholique of Quebec city, the district of Quebec had at that date a total of
14,000	cadets, forming 110 corps, the figures closely following those of Toronto where there were 17,000 cadets. It also stated that the district of Montreal had 29.000 cadets. It was noted that Quebec alone had almost one-third of all the registered cadets in Canada.
In view of our international obligations, and to safeguard our own national interests, it is of paramount importance that defence means be constantly surveyed. The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) have suggested the establishment of a defence committee. I agree with the idea that it should be non-partisan. I suggest that the 
proposed non-partisan committee be composed of representatives of all the total war necessary organizations which we knew in the last war, and such others as it may be found advisable to 'add. To this defence board, the joint United States-Canada defence board could be ramified, integrated with the work of this defence committee. This non-partisan defence board of experts could operate with the same latitude and freedom from political interference as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but could be submitted yearly to a thorough cross-examination by a committee of this house, in order that the representatives of the people might be in a position to satisfy themselves as to whether or not our military experts were keeping our defence means up to date.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my opinion that universal peace-time military training may be inevitable if we are to assume our full obligations under the prescriptions of the united nations charter. I wish, however, that the system: of training to come should be practical as well as effective. In addressing the legislators of the nations of the world on Christmas eve, 1944, His Holiness Pope Pius XII said:
There is a duty, besides, imposed on all, a duty which brooks no delay, no procrastination, no hesitation, no subterfuge: it is the duty to do everything to ban once and for all wars of aggression as a legitimate solution of international disputes and as a means towards realizing national aspirations.
By approving this charter and assuming our obligations under it, we are doing what it is our solemn duty to do. I trust that by a very strong vote we shall demonstrate to the world the will for peace and international solidarity which animates all citizens of Canada.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the resolution may I reiterate what I said on a similar subject in this house last Thursday evening. In the matter of our approach to international agreements I hope it will be possible for this house to speak with unanimity. Nothing could be more desirable with respect to the attitude of this parliament toward the united nations organization and the charter presented to us for. ratification than that this house should speak with one voice.
We approach this subject with pride in the part that was played by the Canadian delegates at San Francisco. We recall at the same time an epic event in the history of this country in the year 1919, when, through its own representative, Canada signed the treaty of Versailles on behalf of His Majesty. That was a great step in the constitutional development of this country, a great accomplishment which will stand as a monument to the

United Nations Agreement
memory of Sir Robert Borden. Canadians have increasing reasons to be proud of the part Canada is playing in international councils. Of our delegates to the San Francisco conference I believe it is correct to say that every one of them valued the honour of being a delegate of Canada at that conference, and all ayquitted themselves with great credit.
I think they all feel that much has been gained for themselves and for parliament by their contact with leaders of the other nations of the world; and the fact that the Canadian delegates were able to speak with a united voice meant much in the weight Canada was able to carry at that conference. It is a great thing for a country when there can be substantial unanimity among its people in support of its international policy. It was a great thing for Great Britain that even with the change of government last summer there has been no interruption in the international policy which that nation has pursued. And it is a great thing for Canada that at San Francisco this nation should be able to speak with one voice. May that situation continue. May the parliament and people of Canada be able to approach their international relations with a substantial measure of wholesome unanimity.
In their excellent reports to this house mention has been made by those who attended that conference as Canadian delegates of the contribution Canada made to the deliberations of the conference. As we know, Canada has been chosen by destiny to be an interpreter. Fo a long time we have known that we were assigned the role of interpreting Britain to the United States and the United States to Britain. Canada is now enjoying the expanding role of interpreter among the nations of the world. We are now regarded as at least one of the leading nations among that group classified as the secondary nations of the world. This gives us a special opportunity to help to bring about understanding between the so-called major nations of the world, or the great powers, and those in lesser positions.
The heritage we as Canadians enjoy is an increasing heritage. Day by day and year by year the Canadian heritage grows and is enhanced. It was a great thing for our fathers to be Canadians. It is a great privilege for us to be Canadians. Yes, and it will be a greater privilege for our children in years to come, when we fulfil our potentialities as a nation. We have been given an unparalleled opportunity; let us be faithful to that trust.
I should like to say a brief word concerning the contribution made by permanent officials of those departments which were represented at the conference, officials of various departments of government. Their contribution was 47696-82	HEVISED
extremely valuable. I believe that parliament would like to record its sense of obligation to those permanent officials. Governments come and governments go, but it will be a source of strength to this country to have in its departments of government men with international experience. As was clearly shown at San Francisco, we have at the present time in those departments men of a quality and calibre sufficient to take their place with the permanent officials of governments of other nations. This is a matter of satisfaction and congratulation to Canadians.
May I make a brief observation concerning British-oommonwealth relations. If I for one moment thought that by supporting this charter I were weakening the ties that bind members of the commonwealth together, I should not cast my vote in favour of its ratification. But, Mr. Speaker, how can it reasonably be contended that there is anything in the charter which in any sense would weaken the bond which binds together the free members of the commonwealth? Rather, I say we weaken that commonwealth if we fail to give strong support to the charter. It has been clearly shown times without number-it was manifest at San Francisco-that the commonwealth needs us and we need the commonwealth. We would inevitably weaken the one if we failed to give strong support to the other; let there be no mistake about that.
At the hands of the parliament at Westminster the charter enjoyed unanimous approval, and in the United States senate virtually unanimous approval. Is Canada, then, to withhold approval ; are we to withhold unanimous approval? Is it to be suggested that we are in any way contributing to the weakening of commonwealth ties by doing the very thing the parliament at Westminster has done unanimously?
May I offer to the house some observations concerning the charter? In the first place the writing of it was a vast accomplishment. That fifty nations of the world, drawn from all quarters of the globe, were able to agree upon a charter, a lengthy and involved charter extending to so many aspects of international relations, is, of itself, a great and lasting accomplishment in the field of international relations.
In the second place, great benefit was derived by all participants. I am not speaking only of delegates; I speak of the countries themselves which gained by meeting together. As we know to our cost, ignorance only too often lies at the bottom of misunderstanding. And misunderstanding lies at the bottom of much of the suspicion and distrust we see in the


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
United Nations Agreement
[Stage Direction]
world to-day. A contribution of lasting value can be made simply by meeting together and learning more about each other as nations.
In the third place, let us not forget the fact that we owe much to the timing of that conference, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said the night before last. It may be open to doubt whether the charter could have been brought about, or whether agreement could have been brought about under the terms of the charter, had the meeting been held to-day. It may be that it required the strain of war and the stress of conflict to bring these nations to agreement. Agreement has been achieved through their delegates, and it is up to us and to other parliaments and legislatures throughout the world to give strong endorsation to what those delegates brought about.
It is a noteworthy fact that this charter has not been entered into in quite the same spirit of idealism which attended the signing of the treaty of Versailles in 1919. We seem to have lost something of the idealism of the Wilsonian era. Perhaps we have been sobered by the experience of' the world in the intervening years. But that must not abate the internationalism which we must apply to this charter, and the matters contained in it. There must be an international outlook. It is nothing short of folly for us in Canada to speak about ensuring security at home, if there be no security abroad. Without peace and without security abroad our efforts in this country to build peace for our citizens are simply doomed to failure.
Let no one think, however, that the conference was attended by a group of idealists removed from reality. As a matter of fact, I do not suppose a more hardened or seasoned group of experienced politicians and statesmen ever assembled at any time in the his, tory of the world. Those men were realists, men with experience in the realm of politics. Let it not be- thought that they were carried away from the realm of reality by some vague vision; far from it. They conceived this as a workable instrument, something that had the possibilities of permanence in it.
It is well that the charter was not linked with the treaty of peace. That was one of the greatest mistakes made by the statesmen in 1919, when they tied the covenant of the League of Nations to the treaty of Versailles, and made it a chapter of that treaty. And when the senate of the United States did not choose to ratify the treaty, in effect they were turned away from the League of Nations. That is one of the reasons why the United States senate did not vote approval of the

entry of the United States into the league, and in that way the greatest body-blow the League of Nations ever sustained was dealt It.
Let us not discuss this matter as though we were discussing a treaty of peace. In the remarks of a previous speaker, I thought I detected a suggestion that we were sitting here to-night to deliberate on the 'terms of peace to be effected between ourselves and our enemies. We are not. We are dealing with a charter. In due time we shall have to deliberate upon the articles of peace. But it is well that the mistake of 1919 has not been repeated.
While ,we may criticize the charter, and the different provisions of it, so far as parliament is concerned we must take it all, or reject it in its entirety. Would we do ourselves any great service, would we do the people of Canada any great service, or would we do the united nations organization any great service by indulging in a large degree of criticism? Of course we could do that, because there is nothing perfect about this organization. There are, indeed, great imperfections in it, both in subsiance and in draftsmanship. For instance, we could all strenuously criticize the veto power. But. again, facing realities, we know very well that that was the price which had to be paid for Russia's adherence to the United Nations organization. We may not like the veto; I do not suppose there is a membfcr in the house who likes it. But let us be realists. We have to take the whole of this charter, or reject it in its entirety. There is no other course. We cannot amend it here. We shall simply have to invite our delegates in the years to come to make the utmost use of the power of amendment contained in article 108 of the charter. I liked what the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) had to say in his report to parliament when he urged that we must avoid rigidity in the permanent organization. That is imperative. I do not suggest that our delegates at succeeding meetings of the general assembly or of other bodies which they may attend should seek to undermine the organization by constantly working for revisions, but I 'do say that we must not permit the article on amendments to fall into atrophy. The Canadian delegates were statesmanlike in their proposals for revision of the charter at the end of ten years. While the veto power does apply to amendments, nevertheless the calling of a conference for revision of the charter is not subject to that power. Any seven members of the general council supporting it, along with the necessary number of the general assembly, can bring about the

United Nations Agreement
conference. It will still require approval just as the approval of amendments is required under article 108. Let us give approval to the attitude .of our delegates in that respect at San Francisco. They were wise in their attitude on that question, and let our delegates in the years to come seek to make articles 108 and 109 really function.
Now a word with reference to the effect of the charter. The charter has been covered so ably in the reports which have been made by our delegates that it would be presumptuous of me to review it in detail, but I offer this word of caution. This is not a federation; it is not even a federation of the member nations. It is simply an organization set up by the nations which choose to adhere to it. It may expand into something more tightly knit later on, but at the moment it stands as an organization brought about by agreement among the nations. I do not think I need dwell on the preamble or on the principles that underlie it. I defy any member of the house to quarrel with the statement of principles or with the preamble to this charter. Both are noble statements. Can anyone quarrel with the express determination of the united nations to reaffirm their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom? Can anyone quarrel with the statement of determination of the united nations to practice tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, or with their determination to unite their strength to maintain international peace and * security, to employ international machinery for the promotion of economic advancement for all peoples? It is fortunate for the charter that it fell to Field Marshal Smuts to draft the preamble, a man who has made a great and lasting contribution to the statesmanship of the world. We recall the outstanding contribution' that he made in the drafting of the covenant of the League of Nations, and perhaps it will be said in generations to come that the preamble is the noblest statement that has ever appeared in an international document.
There are one or two things which I think Canada should seek without delay. We are told by to-day's press that the first meeting of the general assembly of the united nations organization is to be held in London on 47696-82i
November 4, and told by the same press that a proposal is on foot to locate the seat of the organization on Navy island in the Niagara river. I think we would all like to see the seat of the united nations organization in Canada. I think we all join in the desire expressed by the hon. member for Peel in his remarks the night before last that Canada should even at this late date seek to have, the seat of the organization located in Canada. Perhaps Navy island would be a very good compromise. In any event, in the location of the seat due regard must be had to the position of the north American continent. We must not forget how the League of Nations suffered by reason of the non-adherence of the United States. The adherence of the United States to the united nations organization is of itself I think the greatest single guarantee of success for that organization where the League of Nations unhappily failed.
May I say a word concerning one of the most important recommendations contained in the charter, one of the leading features of the charter, namely, the economic and social council? This type of thing is not exactly new in international agreements, and if there is opportunity I may have occasion to refer later to the place that this type of work occupied in the League of Nations organization. Here we have machinery established for the prosecution of what may properly be regarded as the positive side of the work of bringing about peace in the world and preserving peace. It has its inspiration, in subsection 3 of article 1, where one of the purposes of the united nations is stated thus:
To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Then we have carried into article 55 a definition of the intentions of the united nations organization in the field of economic and social cooperation. Here we have these three purposes which the organization is pledged to promote:
(a)	higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
(b)	solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
(c)	universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
The council that is to be set up is a council of eighteen member nations, each having one representative. They wdll sit for three-year
United Nations Agreement
[Stage Direction]
terms, six retiring each year and each being eligible for immediate re-election. The powers assigned to the council are important. The council may make or initiate studies and reports with respect to international economic, social, cultural, educational, health and related matters and may make recommendations to the general assembly with respect to any such matters, to the members of the united nations and to the specialized agencies concerned. It may prepare draft conventions for submission to the general assembly. It may call international conferepces on matters falling within its competence. It may set up commissions in the economic and social fields.
We have had it reported to us that the Canadian delegates played a leading part in writing the sections of the charter dealing with the social and economical council. Canada gave leadership, it is our proud boast, in writing in these sections of the charter. Let Canada follow that up in succeeding sessions of the assembly and of other bodies of the united nations organization and try to give the nations of the world leadership in the social and economic fields. It may be that there is our greatest opportunity to make a great and lasting contribution in the international field. Let us seize that opportunity; let us by all means urge that Canada be given a place on that council.
In passing, I want to lay stress on this, because in an earlier address this afternoon there was, I thought, a suggestion to the contrary. There was a suggestion that the Christian conception of the sanctity of the individual had been completely overlooked by the framers of this charter, that there was contained in it no bill of human rights. It is true that there is not to be found in the charter as it stands to-day in precise terms a bill of human rights, but provision is made right in the sections I have read-as a matter of fact it is one of the first duties laid upon the social and economic council-that it should frame such a charter of human rights. How can anyone give any other reading to those sections of the charter? Regard must be had for human rights and the fundamental freedoms, the freedoms that are to be put before all men and all nations as their right.
I do not see how it could be better put than it is right in these sections. The whole of the work to be done by the united nations in years to come was not done at San Francisco. How could it be? Those who went there were framing a charter; they were setting up an organization through which these nations in years to come should seek to work out those purposes and objects which have been declared to be the purposes of all the nations,

and one of the greatest of those objects has been set forth as the safeguarding of the rights of human beings the world over.
I do not think any hon. member should be invited to subscribe to this charter without full appreciation of certain facts. In the first place, no international organization or international agreement can be of any benefit to mankind which does not command commitments from nations. If one is simply thinking about the kind of organization which will permit us to subscribe to or reject proposals from time to time, I do not think much can be expected from that type of agreement. If we have any hope of seeing this united nations organization made the means and vehicle for the establishment of peace throughout the world for years and years to come, commitments-binding commitments-must be entered into; and had our delegates brought back from San Francisco anything less than an agreement which called for commitments on the part of this and other nation members, they would have failed in their duty.
We are asked to make certain commitments. We are also asked to pledge ourselves to adhere to the commitments wei now enter into. It may be thought by some a rather trite observation, but the history of the world -yes, including the history of this country- has shown that nations have sometimes entered into commitments and then have sought, when it suited their purposes, to deny adherence to their commitments. The commitments which are involved in this charter are in the field of the defence of nations, not just our own nation, but a contribution to the defence of nations which majr be attacked by aggressors, and which we are called upon to assist, as undoubtedly this country' would be. We are called upon to make commitments in the field of diplomacy, and in our social and economic programme.
As good a summary as I have seen of the commitments which Canada undertakes under this charter is contained in a brochure issued by a worthy organization, of which I am proud to have been a member for many years, the United Nations society in Canada, formerly known as the league of nations society. This is the way it describes the more important pledges which Canada undertakes in this charter:
1.	To conduct our foreign policy and international relations on the basis of the principles set forth in the charter.
2.	To accept and carry out (in accord with predetermined arrangements) the decisions of the security council even if the use of force is involved.
3.	To endeavour to settle all disputes by peaceful means.

United Nations Agreement
4.	To enter into agreements with the security council placing facilities at its disposal, under specified conditions, and providing methods of implementing its decisions.
5.	To endeavour to mantain high standards of living, full employment, and a high level of cultural development.
6.	To cooperate with other nations in the solution of economic problems.
7.	To accept the jurisdiction of the international court of justice.
8.	To register all international agreements with the organization and to accept the principles outlined in the charter as the basis upon which such treaties must be based.
Let me, in passing, offer this one observation. These principles must guide us not only in our international relations but also in our internal policy. We have given our national pledge that we subscribe to this charter, that these are the ends we shall seek to serve not only in the external sphere but in our internal relations as well.
In the matter of fulfilment I offer this observation, and it is not an idle observation having regard to the history of the past two decades.
" If we do not fully subscribe to these commitments, if we do not mean to carry them out to the letter, it would be far better if we rejected the charter now. Far better to administer a quick coup de grace than slow poison.
Let us for a moment look back over the unhappy history of the past two decades, and it is well that we sho'uld have this in mind because I hope we are taking a realistic point of view in our approach to this charter. In the first place we watched treaty after treaty, solemnly entered into by many nations, broken, and not only by aggressor nations-Versailles, the pact of Paris, the Kellogg-Briand pact, Locarno, and Munich. We have seen, too, apart from outright breaches of treaties, situations where it was found impossible for nations to agree. Let us remember the failure of the disarmament conference which sat from 1932 to 1934, sixty-one states of the world meeting together with the highest object and being unable to enter into an agreement. The situation we have seen in the recent meeting of foreign secretaries of the great powers is not a new one, and we do not need to be overly alarmed. We regret it, but it is not new in international relations. '
With repect to the League of Nations-and I offer no apology for saying a word concerning the League of Nations-there is a fundamental similarity of aims and objects between this charter and that of the league. The League of Nations covenant was intended to provide machinery to prevent war and to punish aggression. It could have prevented war if it had been used. It was based on collective security, and that must be our ultimate
hope of lasting peace. The same things which reduced the League of Nations to impotency to prevent war can do the same thing with respect to the united nations organization. It rests with the member nations and, in the last analysis, with the peoples of the world to say whether this machinery shall be used for the purpose for which it was intended, or whether it shall be allowed to atrophy, as was the machinery provided by the covenant of the League of Nations; and with us Canadians [DOT] there rests an obligation in that respect no less than the obligation resting upon any other people the world over.
It is very easy to blame other people and to say that they are responsible for the failure of the league, but a review of history would not do us any harm. The last thing that we Canadians ought to do is to adopt in this field a "holier than thou" attitude toward other nations. I do not profess to be one of those Canadians who conceive patriotism in such terms as to overlook everything that has not done honour to our country. Canada after the last war, in the twenties, through her delegates at Geneva did on many an occasion lift her voice in the direction of weakening the covenant.
Let us not forget that the voice of this nation was not raised in denunciation of Japan in 1931 when the Manchurian episode was before the League of Nations. Let us not forget what happened in the fall of 1935 when the League of Nations, through the committee of eighteen, was getting machinery under way to apply economic sanctions to-Italy to deny her the coal, oil and iron which she so badly needed to wage aggression on hapless Ethiopia. It remained for the government of Canada, our country, to instruct its delegate to have nothing further to do with the proposals for the application of sanctions against Italy.
Canada, our country, led the retreat from the sanctions front that had a chance of that time of beating back aggression. Yes, let us not forget, too, that this nation went on selling to Japan all that country wanted while it was waging aggressive war upon the Chinese for four and a half years before Pearl Harbor; and much of the lumber that went into those Zero aeroplanes came from Canadian forests.
Let Canadians have a full realization of the seriousness, the gravity of the commitments that parliament is proposing to take to-night on their behalf. Let us not throw away the great work done by the League of Nations in the fields of economic and social cooperation. I can only mention the work of the international labour organization. That was not set up
United Nations Agreement
[Stage Direction]
by the League of Nations but under another chapter of the Versailles treaty, but it was always worked hand in hand with the league. Let us not forget the work of the health organization of the League of Nations; the work, done in the suppression of the traffic in opium; the work done in bringing about international conventions for the suppression of the manufacture of narcotic drugs. Let us not forget the work done by the league in the effort to suppress human slavery, the effort to suppress the traffic in women and children, the work done on behalf of refugees and in connection with child welfare.
In all these things the league did great work. Provision has been made in this charter for the economic and social council to enjoy the full benefits of the work done by these organizations, and it is a good thing that the economic and social council should seek to use those benefits and extend them.
We have here an opportunity, just as the United States senate had an opportunity, to say that this country has done with isolationism. We all deplore the fact that the voice of the United States was not heard in the years between the two wars, in strong terms, giving leadership to the nations of the world. The United States is taking a position of leadership to-day. The senate of the United States has forsworn the old isolationism. Can this parliament do less? Isolationism has not been absent from the policies of this country; it has been predominant, and it is high time that we renounced for all time isolationism as a policy with which we shall have anything to do in this country.
Nothing can be accomplished without the support of the people. The individual citizen is the man who fights the wars; he is the man who dies in the wars; he is tire man who must have a part in this peace. This charter cannot command the allegiance of the Canadian people or of the united nations; it cannot thrive, unless there is the widest possible support for it. It is a case not only of adopting the charter but also of assuring the united nations organization of the support of the Canadian people in all measures seeking to carry out the professed purposes and objects of the organization.	,
We must combat public indifference, an indifference on which politicians in this country have played on many an occasion. It is the duty of the government to mobilize public opinion; it is the duty of parliament to do all in its power to mobilize public opinion behind the united nations organization. Let us not cloister our delegates; let us not cloister the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whoever he may be from time to time. Let

us ask them to go throughout the length and breadth of Canada supplying information to people and mobilizing public opinion.
In conclusion, may I say that this charter provides an organization and machinery, but it does not provide the will to peace. The united nations organization as such cannot create the will to peace. It is only a vehicle through which that will can be expressed. It will establish, we trust, a preponderant force on the side of peace. The hope of the world must rest, however, with those ambassadors of good will, preachers and missionaries if you like, who will go throughout the world creating good will. John R. Mott said thirty years ago, "If we do not send ten thousand missionaries to Japan we shall be sending a million bayonets within my lifetime." John R. Mott is still living, and the million bayonets and more have gone to Japan.
Mr. Speaker, dare we contemplate the failure of the united nations organization? So much has been sacrificed for the winning of the war; much must also be sacrificed to win the peace. These lessons of the war must not be lost. The hope of peace cannot survive without international cooperation, and organization and security must be collective. Difficulties there are. Let us admit them; we all concede the difficulties. We admit the imperfections of the charter. But dare we surrender to fear, foreboding, cynicism and distrust? If we do, what is the alternative? Dare any man face the alternative-war? No. If that is the alternative, then I say very reverently, for God's sake let us remember the debt we owe to the dead.
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: In rising to speak on the resolution I wish to say at the very outset that I am absolutely in favour of the agreement signed at San Francisco in June of this year, and I fervently hope it will be supported almost Unanimously, if not unanimously, by the House of Commons. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). He gave a marvellous speech, well documented, eloquent and well delivered, but I have' some trepidation in saying what I intended to say, because I think we all realize that we are not now discussing a future peace conference, but this charter is certainly a preliminary to it. There is no doubt in the minds of the Canadian people that the Bretton Woods resolution, the Dumbarton Oaks conclusion, the San Francisco charter and the last London conference are bound to be projected and to have their effects on future peace conferences. The representatives of all the governments in the world will be bound

United Nations Agreement
to be guided to a large extent by the deliberations and conclusions reached at the conferences which I have just mentioned.
There is no doubt in the mind of anyone that this resolution and the agreement transcend all party and political lines. At the very outset I wish to give my most sincere words of praise to the Canadian delegation for the fine work they did at San Francisco. As has been well said by previous speakers, politics were clearly forgotten. No doubt it would have been much easier for the delegates to be in their respective ridings or in Canada during the political campaign. However, they realized the great work and the accomplishments that were requested by the Canadian people. They deserved, and they received, words of praise not only from the Canadian people but from everyone who became familiar with the fine results that they accomplished at that conference.
In a moment or two I may say a few words about what they thought about what went on at the conference, but before I proceed any farther I believe I am expressing the opinion of what may be called the common people in my constituency. Since the San Francisco conference there have been established in that constituency at least ten study groups which have made it their duty and work to study thoroughly every section and part of the San Francisco conference. On many occasions I have been invited to sit in as a witness, not as a participant; and I have been agreeably surprised at the keen interest of the people of my constituency in international questions. I am sure the same thing can be said of most of the people of Canada. Workers, lumbermen, men of the soil, men working hard, women of the professions and trades were intensely interested not only in the work of our delegation but also in what was being done in San Francisco.
In those deliberations there was a certain amount of realism which can hardly be found even in the House of Commons. I mean by that there was always in their minds, when discussing the San Francisco conference, the Versailles peace treaty and what happened to the League of Nations, the causes of friction after war No. 1. They were also interested in the friction that arose between the allies- I do not need to mention any names at the present time. They thought of the hundreds of thousands of the soldiers of our allies who are sleeping their last sleep on the soil of France, and only a few years after the ink had become dry on the Versailles treaty frictions and divisions arose. They were realists as far
as the five great nations were concerned; they were realists as far as our own nation was concerned.
Again I repeat; it may not make very pleasant repetition, but at the same time I believe it is my duty to mention not only the wonderful accomplishments that were reached at San Francisco, but also the shortcomings, so that they may become a guide for future deliberations. There is no doubt that some marvelous and constructive things have been accomplished. They have been steps in the right direction; those preliminaries have shown us how well we can work, and how impossible it would have been, for instance, if the fifty nations of the world had not met previously, but had come suddenly to a peace conference without the deliberations and preparations that we have had in the last few years.
We have only to consider what happened in London at the conference of foreign ministers of the five great powers. I know we were all glad when we heard the message delivered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in which he stated that hope was not lost. There may have been some friction; there may have been some divergence of opinion, but at the same time these men are statesmen; they must by their position realize their terrific responsibilities. I am sincerely convinced that none of them desire to see another world-wide war; they know that their people will not stand for it. What they want is peace and all that it implies, and they will make all the necessary sacrifices to attain peace.
No doubt every Canadian was highly elated that in a space of time notable for its shortness and with the minimum of discussion the document was placed before the senate of the United States, sent to the foreign relations committee, discussed there and brought to the floor after public hearings and passed with so small a vote against it. That constitutes one of the real important landmarks in the history of the United States. That great nation was far away from the isolationism of 1919 and 1920. That nation realized that it had been wounded, and wounded very deeply in its national pride at Pearl Harbor. Every American citizen realized that the United States was an integral part of the united nations. They also realized that the shores of the United States were three thousand miles away from Europe and if not for Pearl Harbor, it might not have to join the conflict. They thought that they had a certain amount of security as far as the Atlantic was concerned because that great ocean was mastered by a friendly power, and that they were absolutely immune as far as an attack
United Nations Agreement

in the Pacific was concerned. But it was a terrific awakening, and again the pride of that great nation realized the seriousness of the situation, and the position into which the world was getting and that war or peace in the world was part of her responsibility.
It does not mean, as has been so well said, that we expect to have everything accomplished in a perfect manner. No one expected that the conference would turn out a formula which would say to the world that we shall never have another war, that the solution of all our problems had been found. It was the wish of every representative there, as it was the wish of all people, that they would find ways and means so that never again, if humanly possible, shall we have to go through the horrible experience of the last war. However, we must take certain situations into consideration so that we shall not fall into the same pitfalls into which the nations fell from 1918 to the beginning of the war just finished. For instance, it seemed that the great nations, generally speaking, have learned very little from the last holocaust.
In reading the speeches I had the feeling that national sovereignty, absolute and unimpaired, was still pretty much the watchword of the great nations. There is an old French proverb which says, "plus ?a change, plus c'est la meme chose". Surely the nations of the world must have learned from what happened in the past. More than that, all nations were just as jealous of their so-called national right as ever before. Sovereignty cannot any longer be absolute, and interdependence must be the keynote of the modern world. .There is no getting away from that fact. Surely what happened to Holland, what happened to Belgium, what happened to Norway, what happened to all the neutral nations, to Luxembourg, and so on who thought they were safe from the great power of their neighbours, must be a lesson to all the smaller nations. They must realize, and they realize very, very bitterly after their crushing, just how unsafe they were. There is no doubt about it that the moral atmosphere of the united nations conference was far from conducive to renunciation. We have the right to expect, and I should say that we all expect the nations to understand the implication of that principle or else there will be some danger for the future. In many instances it was more a case of acquisition. Again I repeat these words with all the sincerity that I possess. I believe that I am expressing the sentiment of the common people in my own section of Ontario, people who have suffered during the present war and the previous war, people who

at the bottom of their hearts wish and pray every day of their lives that never, never again will we have another war.
After all, it was really a meeting of the victorious powers. There is no getting away from that fact. And to prevent future aggrandizement it was limited exclusively to the states that had entered nations to defeat the present enemy. Again I repeat that the nations of the world, as individuals, learn through errors and mistakes.
Personally I should like to see Switzerland among the nations at that conference. Switzerland has accomplished wonderful work during the whole war. For many years she was practically the only intermediary Canada had, not only through the Red Cross, but- also with respect to international problems. I should like to see Sweden there. No doubt Sweden was in- a delicate situation. Sweden, really showed that she was a democracy. No one can doubt the fact that Sweden always acted as a democracy. I could mention other nations, and I know our own delegates would have liked to have them included with the other nations at the San Francisco conference. It is true that the final document will give those nations the right to take part in that organization, and at the same time they will likely have to come there with hat in hand, which is not a very happy situation for a small nation or, in fact, any nation.
I just wish to say one word about Russia. Unlike a good many people I can never forget what the Russian people have done for civilization and for the freedom of the world. I can never forget the many millions of young Russian lives that were nipped in the bud in fighting for our cause and also their cause. It is true that she had to fight for her own life, but in doing so, she also helped our cause. It is true that sometimes the people are baffled by what is happening, as for in- , stance by some of the statements made at the San Francisco conference by Mr. Molotov. In one of his first speeches he said he thought the primary objectives of the conference should be to prevent and suppress the spread of fascism. As far as I am concerned I hate and detest fascism. At the same time, during the last few years that word has been given such a. wide application that in it one could almost include anything. One could take in socialism, liberalism, fascism and even communism, so that we must be very careful to make these distinctions. It is the duty of the governments of the world to make their peoples realize that they should be very careful not to refer to fascism in other nations

United Nations Agreement
and peoples without knowing exactly what is meant by it, and not to make it an excuse for persecution or intolerance.
There is also the fact that among the big nations of the world there were bound to be some differences at San Francisco, differences which were bound to animate frictions among the nations concerned. By their very nature, because of their powers and their populations, they could not be on an equal footing. However, we had there the great republic to our south, which showed what democracy could do in time of stress and danger. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone, I think, that to-day the United States is the leading world power. As far as I am concerned I am not afraid to have the United States lead the world, because I know the United States believes in the common man, in freedom of the individual, in democracy, in the great principles of Christianity. So that in my own mind I am not afraid to have the United States in a position to lead the world. The second greatest nation there certainly was Russia. To some extent Russia had found its national soul, had done wonders in defending its own soil as well as the things we also were defending. Then we had China, that martyred nation of hundreds of millions of people, who had been tortured and butchered by Japan, who suffered for nearly nine years. China realized that at the San Francisco conference she was shaping her future and that in a long period of peace she would find her destiny. We also had France, proud France, which had known four years of occupation by a barbarian foe and mutilation, which had learned vrhat it meant to be oppressed by the invader for five years. We had all these countries, united for the formulation of a new peace charter, and it was a revelation to the world to see the fine spirit which animated each of them. No doubt they did not always adopt the proper attitude; their way of approach might be incomprehensible, but they were groping, searching, studying, doing everything they possibly could to make sure that never again in this world would we have horrible conflicts such as we have known during the present generation, and that may ultimately destroy civilization.
There was much that was baffling to many people, and one of the things some found it hard to understand was the old policy of the balance of power. That expression has been used very often. That is something left over from the old diplomacy which we were supposed to have done away with. At the conference there was zone of influence; there was a system of alliances; there were these
other things all of which contain a certain amount of danger. Our representatives went to San Francisco with an open mind. Canada had participated in two European wars, voluntarily and with all our strength and energy, in which we all agreed that Christianity and civilization were jeopardized. But after all the sacrifices we made we never thought in terms of aggrandizement, of a safety zone. We never could have been attacked outside our own borders because we had no possessions, no land outside Canadian soil. That is why our delegation was so highly respected at San Francisco. Among all the nations of the world we were perhaps the only one, if I may use an ordinary term, that had no axe to grind. We were practically the only country that was not there to obtain a certain amount of compensation as far as territories or influence were concerned. Only a few weeks ago I happened to visit in the United States and saw in what respect they held our Canadian delegation. They said, "There is a nation that was on our side even before we were in the fray ourselves. There is a nation which has given of her best for idealism, civilization, freedom and democracy, unselfishly and wholeheartedly, and that is one of the nations that should be listened to and respected."
There are also some factors of which we must be aware at the next peace conference, and again I offer no excuse for mentioning these facts. I am sincerely convinced that what I am stating now will come "to the fore very forcibly at the peace conference, even more so than at the San Francisco conference. There was talk of zones, and that is only natural. To some extent big nations must have their own defensive ramparts, in some cases thousands of miles away from their own borders. In the matter of zones immediately we had conflict between some nations. On the one hand we had Russia, perhaps with justification, trying to establish her own zone of influence in some parts of Europe and Asia. Perhaps she goes too far, although this is not the time or place to discuss that point. Russia is asking for a zone of influence, in any case, and her only argument is that it is necessary to protect the full integrity of her own soil. The same would apply to the United States, who are applying to the full the Monroe doctrine as far as the two American continents are concerned. They have been asking, no doubt logically-and presumably with our sanction-for what they call the American zone of influence in the Americas and the Pacific. After all the sacrifices they have made I believe they are fully en-
United. Nations Agreement

titled to have it. I believe they will expand that zone right to the shores of Japan, and in my opinion, in doing so, they will help safeguard the future peace of the world. However, in connection with these zones of influence there is a certain amount of danger to other nations, and the question necessarily must come into the open. It is no use leaving these skeletons in the closet; they will come out eventually and the sooner we will face them the better for all concerned. Public opinion, which is not the same as it was in previous years, which is more alert, more enlightened, will not tolerate some of the things that took place in connection with the treaty of Versailles. How often, right in these precincts, were we told before the war that the great cause of discontent and disunion in Europe, the causes of the last war, was the treaty of Versailles? Let us build better now than we built then. Surely nations, like individuals, must learn from tihe sad and terrible experiences through which we have gone. These great powers, I believe, have the right t'o these zones of influence and also to what might be called satellite states. That has been almost consecrated as a principle, and it will be absolutely impossible to get away from it at the peace conference. But we must have safeguards as far as these zones are concerned. If we do not try to establish those safeguards or mandates now, they will be forgotten and passed over, and these matters will continue to fester after the peace has been signed, and may be the cause of new wars.
I should like to say one word in passing on the attitude of Great Britain and France with regard to subject territory, and again I do not say this in a critical way, because I believe the same principles apply to the United States and Russia. Here we have involved 750,000,000 coloured people in the world. At the San Francisco conference it was stated that eventually they will have self-government, but certainly not in the immediate future. I am not in a position nor have I any right to blame these nations for what has occurred in the past, but again we must face the facts. We see what is happening at the present time in Indo-China, the Dutch possessions, and other parts of the world. You cannot for all time keep 750,000,000 people in subjection. I sincerely appreciate what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said this afternoon in regard to an Indian politician or statesman-


Major James William Coldwell: A statesman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: -who, he said, could compare with any of the experienced statesmen they had at San Francisco. These are matters we must keep in mind, we of the 
Canadian parliament and the Canadian nation. I am telling this house what is in the minds of my own people: miners working in the mines, lumbermen working in the forests of northern Ontario, farmers and settlers in the clay belt of the north, professional men-in a word all class of people. I am expressing their sentiments, aspirations and hopes, and also their fears in connection with the next peace conference. The old idea of colonialism naturally is repugnant to the Canadian people. Anyone who called a Canadian a colonial would arouse a terrific reaction immediately. In our.own minds we believe that this principle should disappear throughout the world, that all the people should govern themselves. I do not go so far as to say that perhaps any small nations or group of people-and no one has the right to refer to them as backward nations-should be under the guidance of bigger nations. It might be necessary for a time under certain conditions. A small nation might be under mandate for a certain number of years. .They might be under mandate for their own natural and physical protection. But we have forgotten our promises of freedom to them at these conferences, and vre tried to forget it at the San Francisco conference. We have blinded ourselves to the situation, one which is bound to face us sooner or later, and which carries with it great responsibilities.
Another feature was this, that regardless of the hope we' had early in the war and during the conflict, the major powers want to retain what has been traditionally theirs. It was shown again at San Francisco that the tradition of the past is to be maintained. That was shown all along the line. We saw clear evidence of the fact, the deep-rooted fact, that powerful nations never disgorge except as they are defeated. It displayed the worst side of the mentality of the great, who cannot learn to recede in time.
I know those are hard words, but they must be uttered. I do not make these statements with pleasure, but I know the facts are there.
I know that millions of lives have been sacrificed, and that the weary world has been going through turmoil-and almost near death in the last five years. The nations, whether big or small, should now be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the whole of the civilized world. Jealousy, fear and long established habits prevailed in large measure. ,The great powers quarrelled over irrelevancies. In Great Britain and in Canadian newspapers were big headlines, and we were afraid that the soviet representatives would wreck the conference, that they would leave it.	,

United Nations Agreement
But, to their credit, they stayed on.^ I believe they are lovers of peace. No nation, either Russian or any other, through its government or through its people, will ever dare to bring on another war. Russia would not dare to carry the responsibility of bringing on a war in which she would be involved.
I just wish to say a few words about our delegation, and I should like to add again my word of praise for what they did. But they must have had when they went to the San Francisco conference, a sense of frustration, because it was really a big power conference. It is true that the smaller nations were invited there, but one has only to read the speeches made by our own delegation, the speeches made by Mr. Forde of Australia, the speeches made by Mr. Evatt, to realize what the situation was. Mr. Evatt fought, fought, fought for recognition of the component parts of the British empire, as did also Mr. Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand. The people whom I have mentioned, the delegates to whom I have referred, our own, knew what the situation was. I wish to offer them my sincere thanks and admiration for what they have done.
As I said a minute ago, the Canadian delegation did not go there empty-handed. They had no axe to grind with anyone. We had no special demand to make for ourselves. We did not want any concessions in the Pacific or Atlantic. We were satisfied that Canadian territory should remain in its full integrity. That is why eventually the voice of our Canadian delegation, and those of Australia and New Zealand, had their repercussion throughout the world, and how we won our case and the recognition of the smaller nations' viewpoints. There was a recognition that those intermediary or smaller nations should have a place in future conferences. More than that, if it was not included immediately, it was at one time included under the charter.
There is no doubt tlhat wonderful work has been accomplished, but in every human deliberation and every human conclusion we must not expect to have perfection. If we had not had the San Francisco conference, what would we have had? As has been so well said by hon. members, it was a marvellous step in the right direction, because the nations of the world1 have shown to the world of the future and to the whole of civilization the fact that the future resides in understanding, cooperation and peace. There can be no getting away from that. On that score alone I know that the whole of the Canadian people are 100
per cent behind our delegation, and will be behind the parliament of Canada when it passes this resolution.
I should like now to say a few words about what has been said so well before respecting the supremacy of moral law, the rights of human beings, international law as the basis of conduct and universality of approach. These matters were taken up by our delegation, and for that alone they deserve praise from Canadians.
May I say only a few words about the five great powers which were really the leading powers at San Francisco. First of all I would refer to the United States. There can be no doubt that to a large extent the spirit which prevailed at the San Francisco conference emanated from that great spirit, the thought and the drive of the late President Roosevelt. He had seen the dangers which confronted not only all Europe but every section of the world. There is no. doubt that that great spirit which had been calling and begging for many years for international collaboration was present at the conference, and that tihe doctrine of isolationism was absolutely dead. Everyone has read about the eagerness and the sincerity of Mr. Stettinius, the then secretary of state, and his efforts to create an international league. One has only to look at that to realize that the United States fully comprehends its responsibility, not only to the people of that country but to the peoples of the whole world. .
Then at that conference were representatives of the United Kingdom-great, Great Britain, which had suffered so much, which stood alone for more than a year against the hordes of barbarism in Europe. This was the Great Britain that suffered economically, and suffered physically in her blood and in her flesh. The British people recognized that they were near exhaustion; and there is no use in covering it up, because the people of Britain would have been the first to recognize the fact that they were near exhaustion. They were cut off from commercial contact with other peoples for five years, except for purely war purposes. For five years they lived under high tension, and have had no physical security from the air, land and sea. They were reduced to the narrow limits of their own British isles, caught on the fringe of Europe between the soviet advance; and I am not suggesting it is an unfriendly advance, but we might as well face the fact that it was a new and to some extent troubling factor. There are now factors arising in Europe in which Great Britain must necessarily take part. On the other hand, she faces the United States. She has not approached the conference as a mendicant; she has not gone there to ask for sympathy,
United Nations Agreement

She went there as one of the greatest nations that the world has ever known, for the reconquest of a place in the sun, and the integrity of her empire, and she was recognized as such.
On motion of Mr. Bradette the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The first order of business to-morrow will be the resumption of the debate on the budget. That will be adjourned, and then we will resume the debate upon this resolution, in the hope of concluding it. It is of a very urgent nature.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Has the minister given consideration to using the hour devoted to private members business in the event of its becoming necessary to use that time to get this through?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can do that only with the unanimous consent of the house. If the house would consent to transferring the private members hour to one devoted to government business, between eight and nine o'clock in the evening, it would certainly expedite business. However, that could be done only with the unanimous consent of the house.


John Bracken: Could the minister give any indication as to whether it is needed or not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It will be needed, unless the debate on this resolution is concluded by six o'clock to-morrow night. Otherwise we shall have from nine to eleven o'clock for debate on this resolution.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Has any thought been given to asking the opposition speakers-or speaker-if they would care to postpone the budget debate, because I suggest that this debate on the charter should go through to-morrow. I wonder if consideration has been given to that.


John Bracken: Some consideration had been given to it, but in view of the fact that a public announcement had been made we felt, we could agree to a postponement of it from to-day until to-morrow. I do not think, however, that it should be postponed farther. So far as this group is concerned we are prepared to give up private members hour to-morrow evening if that is necessary to bring the charter resolution to a consummation.


Major James William Coldwell: If the official opposition goes on to-morrow afternoon with the budget debate and the budget debate is adjourned immediately thereafter I agree to the hour
	*
from eight to nine being taken, but the original arrangement for to-morrow was that there would be four speakers in th budget debate, although I think four is far too many. However, I think this charter debate should be completed; that to-morrow the leading speaker for the opposition in the budget debate, the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-donnell) should go on, if he wishes, and that then the budget debate should be adjourned. On that basis I would agree to the hour from eight to nine being taken, but otherwise I would not be disposed to agree.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then have I unanimous consent for taking the hour from eight to nine o'clock to-morrow night?


Solon Earl Low: May I ask whether the normal
order of business will apply on Tuesday night from eight to nine o'clock?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think my hon. friend has in mind the motion of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair), and I can assure him that that will be protected.


Solon Earl Low: Then under those circumstances I agree.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will give an undertaking that he- is protected next Tuesday from eight to nine o'clock, and with the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I now move:
That the order of business between the hours of eight and nine p.m. on Friday, October 19, be suspended and transferred to government business in order to discuss the resolution dealing with the charter of the united nations standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
That is to cover the undertaking which the house has just been generous enough to give regarding private members hour from eight to nine o'clock to-morrow night.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, October 19, 1945.