March 20, 1945

LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):

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

Topic:   PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO REFUNDING OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

How did they receive the minister's overtures?

Topic:   PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO REFUNDING OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
Permalink
LIB

James Lorimer Ilsley (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. ILSLEY:

They did not accept them. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Topic:   PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Subtopic:   INQUIRY AS TO REFUNDING OF BONDED INDEBTEDNESS
Permalink

PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE


On the orders of the day:


NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Leader of the Opposition):

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

Minister outlines the policy of the government. I ask the Prime Minister if he would have any objection to that. I took it from his remarks yesterday that he had not very much objection to it. Would he care to comment on that, with a view to arriving at some workable arrangement?

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

May I just say that the leader of the opposition is not speaking for the entire house in this regard.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON :

I did not claim to.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

I thought the hon.

member said there was a pretty widespread feeling in all quarters of the house.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

Nothing of the sort.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
?

Frederick Clayton Casselman

Mr. CASSELMAN:

We saw the cooperation yesterday.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

I wish to say that in

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

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

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

San Francisco Conference-Procedure

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

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

It is a curious example of

cooperation to be met with a protest every time one proposes an item on the agenda. That has happened more or less since the house opened.

I am as anxious as any one to cooperate with all parties in the house. I just wish they were as anxious to cooperate with me and with the government. This session has been called for two purposes. That has been made perfectly clear for weeks past. One has to do with this one international question, an all important one. It should be decided at as early a moment as possible. The other is to provide the supply that may be necessary to permit a general election at an early date and to make provision for the carrying on of the prosecution of the war and of civil government between the time of the beginning of the new -fiscal year and the time that the new parliament assembles.

We are here to get through the business as rapidly as possible. May I say that if Canada is to be represented at San Francisco to discuss there the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, it will be necessary for some of us who may be [DOT]expected to be present to spend a little time in advance in giving further study to the questions that are likely to come up in the light of comment that may be made in the interval from many sources. I see no reason why hon. members opposite should not be prepared to speak on this question at once. They have had the Dumbarton Oaks proposals before them for a long time. I tabled in this house on December 5 a copy of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals for establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. It was tabled in reply in part to some questions asked by my hon friend the leader of the Social Credit party. I tabled copies as soon as they were printed. This document was distributed immediately to all hon. members, and it has since been distributed widely throughout the country.

Before the house met the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) sent me a question which I understood he wished to ask and to which he might have an immediate reply. I shall answer it now The quastion is:

To what extent and through what channels has the wartime information board acquainted the public of Canada since Dumbarton Oaks with respect to the proposals for the establishment of an international organization for the maintenance of peace and security?

The answer is:

The wartime information board has published a pamphlet entitled "Dumbarton Oaks Proposals for the Establishment of a General International Organization", over forty thousand copies of which have been distributed to date. An issue of the booklet series "Canadian Affairs" dealing with the subject is in preparation. Charts illustrating the proposed organization are being prepared for distribution to newspapers and other publications, industrial plants and trade unions and discussion groups.

The information service to independent radio stations is providing a series of notes on the subject for use by these stations. Arrangements *are being made to provide material to other radio speakers on this subject.

Assistance has been given to the Canadian Council of Education for Citizenship in making available material regarding Dumbarton Oaks for use by educational bodies and discussion groups.

All that is being done in order that, before the delegation representing Canada proceeds to San Francisco, opinions may be freely expressed by the press by many groups and organizations throughout Canada so that the delegation will be fully informed of the views of the country. But as far as hon. members of the house are concerned, as I have said they have had the proposals before them for months. More than that some of them, at least, I am sure heard the statement I made over the radio on March 2, when I said that parliament would be particularly concerned with this one question and with the voting of necessaty supply. I stated specifically that the government would seek the approval of parliament of a resolution which would serve as an expression of its support. They would surely know that this would afford opportunity for debate and discussion of the matter and that the government would wish expression of approval at the earliest possible date. The country is interested in knowing what hon. gentlemen opposite think; not only what I think but what they think. I am prepared to make a full statement this afternoon setting out as best I can the matters that are likely to come up at San Francisco and giving as clearly as possible the point of view of the government. The country would like to know the views of the Leader of the Opposition, the views of my hon. friend the leader of the C.C.F. party on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, the views of my hon. friend the leader of the social credit group and the views of hon. members generally throughout the house,

20 COMMONS

San Francisco Conference-Procedure

should they differ in any particular with the views that may be presented by the government. For that reason I think it would be inadvisable to delay the debate. I agree with the leader of the C.C.F. group that it was decided yesterday that we would proceed with this resolution this afternoon, though you, Mr. Speaker, will have to express your opinion on that point; and that any hon. members who wished to speak would be given an opportunity to do so, though if there were others who were not prepared they would not be compelled to go on to-day. I am sure it was understood that if in the debate we ran short of speakers we would take up something else, but that provided we did not run out we would go on with the debate until it was concluded.

This is a resolution which is before the house. It is not a discussion in committee. It is a resolution of which hon. members must express either approval or disapproval. I do submit that the sooner this resolution can be dealt with by this house the more pleased the free nations of the world will be to learn that this parliament is united, as I trust it may be, in accepting the invitation that has been extended to this country to participate in the San Francisco conference.

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink
NAT

Gordon Graydon (Leader of the Official Opposition)

National Government

Mr. GRAYDON:

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

Topic:   PROCEDURE IN DEBATE ON RESOLUTION RESPECTING SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Permalink

SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE

PROPOSED GENERAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND SECURITY

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, on account of the great importance of this subject and the desire of hon. members to have the fullest possible information in regard to the government's point of view I have devoted considerable time to the preparation of what I have to say. I feel that, instead of attempting to speak extemporaneously, it would be helpful if I gave my remarks to the house in the form of a statement. I hope that, in the course of reading this statement, I may not be interrupted, but when the statement is concluded, if there are any questions in the minds of hon. members arising out of what I have said I shall be very glad to attempt to answer them. As, of course, I shall be speaking again at the conclusion of the debate, it is my intention to follow as closely as possible the points raised by hon. members in the course of their remarks with a view to being able to give the house, before the debate concludes, any additional information the house may wish to have. I may add that were it not for the fact that I believe hon. members on all sides of the house are likely to be in very full agreement with the purposes and principles of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals and with the resolution now before the house I would perhaps not be so desirous of proceeding as rapidly as possible with this resolution. I think the matter is one on which hon. members already have more or less made up their minds. In this debate 1 trust there will be very little in the way of diversity of opinion or occasion for any kind of party controversy.

Hon. members will have felt a special interest in the following paragraph which appears in the speech from the throne, opening the present session of parliament:

The government has accepted the invitation to Canada to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25 at San Francisco to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security. My ministers are of the opinion that the Canadian delegation at the San Francisco conference should be assured of the widest possible measure of support from parliament. A joint resolution of both houses will, accordingly, be submitted for your approval.

The invitation to the conference at San Francisco reads as follows:

Embassy of the United States of America,

Ottawa, Canada

No. 293 March 5, 1945.

Sir,-The government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

San Francisco Conference

and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China, invites the government of Canada to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The above named governments suggest that the conference consider as affording a basis for such a charter the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which were made public last October as a result of the Dumbarton Oaks conference and which have now been supplemented by the following provisions for section C of chapter 6. C. Voting

1. Each member of the security council should have one vote.

2. Decisions of the security council on procedural matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members.

3. Decisions of the security council on all other matters should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under chapter 8, section A and under the second sentence of paragraph one of chapter 8, section C, a party to a dispute should abstain from voting.

Further information as to arrangements will be transmitted subsequently. In the event that the government of Canada desires in advance of the conference to present views or comments concerning the proposals, the government of the United States of America will be pleased to transmit such views and comments to the other participating governments.

Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

Ray Atherton.

The Right Honourable

the Secretary of State for External Affairs,

Ottawa.

The invitation was accepted in the following terms:

Office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs

Ottawa, March 5, 1945.

Sir,-The government of Canada is pleased to accept the invitation conveyed in your Note No. 293 of March 5, on behalf of the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The government of Canada agrees that the conference should accept as a basis for its discussions the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which were made public in October, 1944, and have now been supplemented by the addition set forth in your Note of provisions regarding voting procedure in the security council.

Note has been taken of the offer of the government of the United States of America to transmit to other participating governments such views or comments concerning the proposals as the government of Canada may desire to present in advance of the conference. I shall communicate with you again if the government of Canada decides to take advantage of this offer.

Accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

W. L. Mackenzie King, Secretary of State for External Affairs.

His Excellency

The Hon. Ray Atherton,

Ambassador of the United States

of America,

United States Embassy,

Ottawa.

I do not think there is any question that this house will be prepared to endorse the acceptance by the government of the invitation to Canada to send representatives to the world security conference at San Francisco.

At yesterday's sitting, I gave notice of the resolution which appears on to-day's order paper. In accordance with the understanding reached at the time, I now move, seconded by Mr. St. Laurent:

That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the following resolution:

Whereas the government of Canada has been invited by the government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of the governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China, to send representatives to a conference of the united nations to be held on April 25, 1945, at San Francisco in the United States of America to prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and

Whereas the invitation suggests that the conference consider as affording a basis for such a charter the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization which have been made public by the four governments which participated in the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, and

Whereas the government of Canada has accepted the invitation to send representatives to this conference,

Therefore be it resolved

1. That this house endorses the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference;

2. that this house recognizes that the establishment of an effective international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security is of vital importance to Canada, and, indeed, to the future well-being of mankind; and that it is in the interests of Canada that Canada should become a member of such an organization;

3. that this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, and considers that these proposals

San Francisco Conference

constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization;

4. that this house agrees that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security;

5. That the charter establishing the international organization should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.

Next to the winning of the war, the supreme end to be achieved is the winning of the peace. Peace can only be made lasting through cooperative action on the part of peace-loving nations. The purpose of the forthcoming conference at San Francisco is the creation of a general international organization to maintain peace and security in the post-war world.

In some quarters there appear to be misconceptions as to what it is intended the San Francisco conference should accomplish. It might be well, were I at the outset to remove one prevalent misconception. The purpose of the conference has been set forth clearly in the communication of March 5 on behalf of the inviting governments which I have just read. The conference at San Francisco is not the peace conference. It will have nothing to do with the preparation of the treaties of peace. It will not discuss the terms which the united nations will impose on Germany and on Japan at some future time. It will deal only with the constitutional framework of the future society of nations. The purpose is to provide for the maintenance of peace, once peace has been secured.

It may be helpful to the house if I proceed at once to give an outline of the negotiations that have led to the calling of the San Francisco conference.

The Moscow conference which ended on November 1, 1943, was the first step by the great powers towards the development of plans for a new international security organization forecast in the Atlantic charter, and endorsed by the united nations' declaration of 1942. In the declaration issued at the conclusion of the Moscow conference the four governments which were later represented at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, declared that they recognized "the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security."

At the prime ministers' meeting in London in May, 1944, there were discussions of proposals framed by the United Kingdom govern-

ment. Since that meeting there have been, frequent interchanges of opinion between commonwealth governments.

Between late August and early October, 1944, meetings were held at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington. At these meetings discussions took place between officials representing the governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom looking to the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of peace and security. At a subsequent stage, meetings were held of officials of the United Kingdom, United States of America and China. At the end of these meetings, there was issued on October 9, 1944, what are known as the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Canada was not represented at Dumbarton Oaks, but the Canadian government received day to day reports on the progress of the discussions.

The official delegations at Dumbarton Oaks were unable to reach agreement on some points. The proposals there framed were, consequently, but the first stage in the development of a draft charter for consideration by all the united nations. The proposals were subsequently accepted and supplemented by the initiating governments at the Crimea conference at Yalta held in February of the present year. They were thereafter concurred in by China, and were then submitted to other countries for their consideration.

At Yalta the three greatest world powers achieved unified proposals for a charter of a world security organization. That of .itself is a hopeful augury for the future. Without continuing unity among the great powers there would be little hope for enduring peace.

As I have already stated, it was on the 5th of this month, that invitations were extended to Canada and other united nations to attend a conference at San Francisco. The invitations were extended by the United States of America on its behalf and that of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. The invitation suggests that the conference should consider, as affording a basis for the charter of the new organization, the proposals which have been agreed upon between these four governments.

Since the invitation was received, I have had an opportunity for personal conversations with President Roosevelt, in the course of which we discussed the main features of the proposals, and suggestions which the Canadian government believe would make for improvement in the effectiveness of the proposed organization. Early in April, there is to be a meeting of representatives of Commonwealth governments

San Francisco Conference

in London to discuss the proposals. I shall not be able to be present myself at this meeting. Our government will be represented by the Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Hume Wrong, in cooperation with the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, the Canadian High Commissioner in London. I believe that the discussions in London will serve a useful purpose as an exchange of information, and as a clarification of views among the different nations of the commonwealth, all of which alike are deeply interested in the success of the conference. This meeting will be a continuation of the exchanges of information and ideas which have been taking place between Canada and the other countries of the commonwealth and some of the united nations.

I might here mention that there was some discussion of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals at the recent inter-American conference on the problems of war and peace at Mexico City. Canada was not represented at that conference, and received no invitation to attend. The conference adopted a gracious resolution which rendered a tribute of admiration to Canada for our country's great war effort, and expressed a desire for closer Canadian collaboration with the pan-American system. To this resolution I have made an appreciative reply.

I have here a copy of the letter from the foreign secretary of Mexico transmitting this resolution to the government of Canada. I have also a copy of the reply I have since made, and at the conclusion of my observations I would ask permission to table these documents. Perhaps the letters might be included as a part of this statement.

Telegram

Castle of Cliapultepec, D.F.

March 9, 1945.

(Translation)

The Right Honourable

William Lyon Mackenzie King,

Prime Minister of Canada,

Ottawa, Canada.

1 have the honour to communicate to Your Excellency the following resolution adopted with enthusiasm by the respective delegates:

"The Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace considering that Canada has contributed and is contributing essentially to the defence of the American Continent, realizing a war effort whose magnitude includes all the resources of the country; that because of its geographic position Canada belongs to the American Hemisphere and within that occupies a prominent position for the high development of its culture, industry and democratic institutions, and that it maintains diplomatic and consular relations with the other American states, as also commercial and financial relations, the Inter-American Conference resolves:

"To render its tribute of admiration and gratitude to Canada for its great war effort in defence of the American Continent.

"To express its desire that Canada's collaboration with the Pan-American system may daily become closer and closer."

I have real pleasure in communicating the foregoing resolution to Your Excellency and avail myself of this opportunity to renew the expression of my most distinguished consideration.

Ezequiel Padilla,

Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

Telegram

To: Ezequiel Padilla, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Mexico City,

Mexico.

From: W. L. Mackenzie King,

Prime Minister of Canada.

En Clair

Ottawa, Canada, March 16, 1945.

On behalf of the people and government of Canada, I extend our sincere thanks for the generous tribute to Canada's war effort contained in the resolution which you transmitted on behalf of the Chapultepec Conference. We are proud to share in the defence of freedom on this continent, as in Europe and Asia. We are convinced that the increasing solidarity of the peace-loving peoples of this hemisphere, will contribute materially in the post-war period to both regional and world security. We greatly welcome the increased collaboration in all matters of mutual interest and concern with our neighbours of the Americas.

W. L. Mackenzie King.

While the San Francisco conference will concern itself with international cooperation in matters other than the assurance of security, its main purpose will be to erect a firm and enduring structure for the maintenance of world peace. The proposals formulated at Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta are not in final treaty form. They are a general basis for discussion of the charter for the proposed international organization. It is the purpose of the conference to develop from the proposals a complete instrument for signature by the united nations. For the success of any final plan of world security, it is essential that it should command the cordial assent of the great powers, as well as the support of a large number of intermediate and small countries. The great defect of the league of nations was not that it had an imperfect constitution, but that, at no time, did it include more than half the great powers. The great powers will no doubt support the inclusion in the completed charter of the substance of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. For that and other reasons, the resolution now before the house recognizes that the proposals which have been made public constitute a satisfactory general basis for discussion of the proposed international organization.

San Francisco Conference

The resolution asks this house to approve the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments.

The purposes of the organization as set forth in the proposals of the four governments are:

1. To maintain international peace and security; and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means adjustment or settlement of international disputes which may lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems: and

4. To afford a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the achievement of these common ends.

These are purposes for a general international organization of which this house will surely cordially approve.

In pursuit of these purposes the proposals recommend that the organization and its members should act in accordance with the following principles:

1. The organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states.

2. All members of the organization undertake, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership in the organization, to fulfil the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the charter.

3. All members of the organization shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.

4. All members of the organization shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization.

5. All members of the organization shall give every assistance to the organization in any action undertaken by it in accordance with the provisions of the charter.

6. All members of the organization shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which preventive or enforcement action is being undertaken by the organization. The organization should ensure that states

not members of the organization act in accordance with these principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

These principles upon which the general international organization will be expected to act will also, I am sure, be cordially approved by all hon. members of this house.

According to the proposals, membership of the organization should be open to all peace-loving states. It is proposed that the organization should have as its principal organs: A

general assembly; a security council; an international court of justice; and a secretariat. It is also proposed that the organization should have such subsidiary agencies as may be found necessary.

One of the first questions which anyone looking at the proposals for the new world security organization will ask is: How do these proposals differ from the covenant of the league of nations and in -what respects do they improve upon it? The failure of the league to secure world peace was a world tragedy. It must not, however, be thought that the idealism and effort which went into the league have been wasted. That would be a shallow judgment. The ideal of the new international organization remains the same-the organization of enduring peace. There are, however, important lessons to be learned from the league's failure to attain that end. The knowledge gained should be applied to building on more solid foundations.

The structure of the proposed organization bears a general resemblance to that of the league of nations. But there are important differences in the authority of the various organs proposed.

The general assembly, like the league assembly, would be composed of representatives of all members, with one vote for each delegation. The assembly would discuss and make recommendations on any matter of international importance with the single exception of international disputes which may be under consideration by the security council. These disputes the assembly might discuss, but in order to avoid conflict of jurisdiction, it could not make recommendations for their settlement. The assembly would also elect the non-permanent members of the security council, the members of the economic and social council, the secretary-general of the organization, and, probably, the judges of the international court. It would control budgets and apportion expenses. It would have wide powers of initiation and supervision in the economic, social and humanitarian fields. Its important decisions would be

San Francisco Conference

reached by a two-thirds majority, thus abrogating the league rule of unanimity for important decisions of the assembly.

The Security Council. It is when we come to consider the security council that we encounter an important difference between the proposed organization and the league of nations. Unlike the league, in which both the assembly and the council concurrently had many similar general powers, the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security would, in the proposed organization, be assigned to the security council. A further point of difference is that, whereas the league council dealt with many matters other than those directly related to security, the new council's functions would be confined to the consideration of international disputes, and of situations which might lead to friction and give rise to international disputes. The council would deal with disputes, present or prospective, likely to endanger the peace. The assembly's main concern would be to promote general progress through concerted international action to foster the general welfare.

The security council therefore would be vested with primary authority for guarding the peace of the world. It would consist of five permanent members (the United States, the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, France and China), and six other States elected for two years by the assembly and not immediately eligible for reelection. Each member would have one vote and seven votes out of the eleven would be required for decisions.

Under the formula proposed at Yalta, decisions on questions other than procedural matters would be taken by a majority of seven votes, including in the majority, the votes of the five permanent members. To this rule there would be one important exception. If a permanent member were involved in a dispute before the council, that member would abstain from voting when the procedure for the peaceful settlement of the dispute was being followed. If it came to a decision that a given situation was a threat to the peace, or to a decision requiring the imposition of penalties, the right to vote would be restored to the permanent member in question. Thus a permanent member could not block the consideration of a complaint against it by another state, nor an effort to solve the problem by pacific means. If, however, pacific means were to fail, the permanent member could by its vote block a decision to take punitive action against itself.

A new agency is now proposed which had no exact counterpart in the league. This is the economic and social council. It would

consist of eighteen members elected for three years by the assembly. There would be no permanent members and no provision preventing reelection. The economic and social council would be charged with the general supervision of international economic, social and humanitarian activities, in the light of the policies laid down by the assembly. Expert commissions and staffs would be attached to the economic and social council.

The proposals recognize that there should be a court of justice as the chief international judicial organ. The question as to whether the present statute of the permanent court of international justice should be revised or a new statute prepared is left open. It is to be hoped that as time goes on, and as a more stable world emerges, international differences will more and more be amicably settled by judicial methods. Only in this way can a body of precedent be developed, and broadened, until all the differences between nations come to be settled as a regular practice in accordance with principles of law and equity, and with respect for contractual obligations. Here I might mention that the Canadian Bar Association is performing a most useful task by making a series of valuable studies on the subject of international jurisprudence.

The machinery for dealing with disputes between nations which is outlined1 in chapter VIII of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals deserves close study. The procedure falls into tw7o stages. The first is concerned with the peaceful settlement of disputes. The security council on its own motion or at the request of any state would have the power to investigate any dispute or situation likely7 to give rise to international friction. Members of the organization would be bound to seek peaceful solutions by the normal methods of negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement. If the parties to the dispute themselves should fail to reach agreement by any of these means, the security council could recommend appropriate procedures, such as reference to the international court; or seeking the court's advice on the legal aspect of the questions at issue. Matters within the domestic jurisdiction of states would be expressly excluded.

If peaceful measures should fail, the second stage of the procedure would come into effect. The security council could then declare that the failure to arrive at a solution, to a dispute constituted a threat to the peace, and it could proceed to further measures. These measures might- include, in the first instance, diplomatic and economic sanctions such as

San Francisco Conjerence

the severance of diplomatic relations, the interruption of communications, an embargo upon trade, and other forms of pressure short of the use of armed force. The security council could call upon all members of the organization to join in the application of such measures.

If sanctions of this nature were still ineffective, the security council could in the last resort require forcible action against the disturber of the peace. In such action, the council would be aided by a military staff committee which would be in charge of plans for the application of armed* force. The military staff committee would: also have to d*o with long-term problems concerning the regulation of armaments. Here is another fundamental difference between the proposed organization and the league of nations. The new security organization would be founded on a clear recognition of the fact that world security is based upon the maintenance of a large superiority of power on the side of peace. It is also recognized that machinery would have to be devised to make it possible to apply such power instantly and effectively, should another aggressor arise to disturb international peace.

It will, I am sure, be agreed that peace-loving nations cannot afford to risk a return to conditions which allowed* one nation after another to be struck down by an aggressor before concerted action could be organized and taken. Nations have surely teamed that they cannot secure their liberties except on an agreed basis of mutual aid. The proposed arrangements with their emphasis on the exploration of peaceful means of settlement, and with organized force in the background to deal with recalcitrants, ought to prevent international disputes from reaching the point of danger. The main function of the police is not to catch criminals, but to make it obvious that crime does not pay. The police do not interfere in the settling of disputes by discussion or litigation, but the police are available if the disputes threaten to lead to the breaking of head's.

The question arises: How would the security council be able to call out forces when the danger point had been reached? Under the present proposals, members of the organization would not be required to place forces under the control of the security council except in accordance with special agreements separately entered into, setting forth the number and types of the forces, and the facilities and assistance which they are prepared to provide. The agreements would limit the military aid, pledged by members, to what each member

was ready to give of its own volition. The agreements might include provisions governing the circumstances in which any forces could be called upon to serve abroad. These agreements would need separate approval in accordance with the constitutional processes of each country. In Canada that would mean approval by parliament before such agreements were ratified.

There is at present a good deal of obscurity about the methods by which this part of the proposals would be developed in practice. One point, however, is clear. As they stand, the acceptance of the proposals would in no way commit Canada to send forces beyond Canadian territory at the call of the security council. If any such commitment were sought, it would be embodied in a later agreement, freely negotiated by the government of Canada, and coming into effect only after it had been approved by parliament.

Provision is also made in the proposals for the use of regional agencies to handle local disputes under the general direction of the security council. The relationship of such regional agencies to the security council is likely to prove one of the important questions which will come up for consideration at San Francisco.

The maintenance of security is only one aspect of the creation of a world society in which peace can take root and flourish. It is not merely the security of nations that is indivisible; prosperity also is indivisible. Few would wish to return to the years before the war when many nations sought economic security in economic isolation. What happened was that the economic security of all nations was destroyed. Now is surely the time for the whole world to realize that just as no nation can ensure its own safety of itself, so no nation or group of nations can ensure its own prosperity in isolation.

In the social, economic and humanitarian activities contemplated under these proposals, which would extend over the whole international field, Canada would be certain to take both a prominent and a useful part. It would be a mistake to think of the world organization as exclusively preoccupied with the prevention of war. Indeed, if the defeat of our enemies brings about a securer world, we may hope that considerations of security will gradually recede into the background, and that progress in the arts of civilization by international cooperation on many fronts will be the first topic and central concern of foreign policy. We should come to think and act, less and less, in terms of force, and, more

San Francisco Conference

and more, in terms of forces-the forces that create or destroy international amity and goodwill.

Economic and social collaboration was always a useful and active part of the work of the league of nations. It is now proposed to expand into new fields and establish further special bodies to deal with particular problems. In almost all these aspects of economic and social activity, Canada will have a deep interest. As a great trading nation with a progressive and expanding economy, we are, from the point of view of markets and supplies, concerned with conditions all over the world. The assembly and the economic and social council will be central agencies of initiation and cooperation in this field. It will be clearly in the interests of Canada to participate fully in the work of these special bodies. Moreover, the humanitarian tradition which has played so worthy a part in our national life should give us a special interest in worldwide social betterment which the assembly and the economic and social council will seek to foster.

It is one of the proposed functions of the assembly "to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". This is an aspect of the world organization which should never be forgotten. If this great war, and the last, have taught us anything, it is the truth that "we are members one of another, and that the freedom both of men and of nations is one and indivisible".

The new organization and its affiliated agencies should be able in time to sponsor long-term arrangements for human welfare.

Just here, I should like to say a word or two on one problem of human welfare with which the united nations are immediately faced. The retreating enemy has left behind him, in western and eastern Europe, starvation, disease, and an alarming shortage of the elementary necessities of life. This situation represents a critical danger to the recovery of liberated Europe. The reports reaching the government portray appalling conditions. Even for those who greeted with joy the expulsion of the Germans from their homelands during these last few months, from the point of view of food, fuel, clothing and shelter, this sixth year of war is the bleakest year of all. The privations of those still under German domination are even more terrible.

The united nations have pooled their efforts to build up their great armed forces. For some time to come, it will be in Canada's interest, no less than in the general interest, for all to continue to pool their efforts to make available food and materials for relief and rehabilitation.

Some activities of the proposed world organization in the field of human welfare are likely to be conducted directly under the supervision of the economic and social council. These may include the collection of statistical and other economic information, international health problems, and the control of traffic in narcotics. Such services would be for the most part a continuation of very useful activities previously directed from Geneva. Expert commissions are contemplated to study these and related matters, from the point of view of general welfare and utility, with the experience and wisdom of the world's best technicians at their service.

Apart from activities under the direct supervision of the world organization a number of large functional inter-governmental bodies have already been established and others are being considered. The proposals to be discussed at San Francisco should1 be considered in relation to these other very important agencies. These inter-governmental bodies would be related to the world organization by agreements reached between them and the economic and social council. Among those agencies is the international labour organization which has already existed for twenty-five years, and is a solid reality. In the very important fields of agricultural production and of nutrition, a constitution has been drawn up by an interim commission for a united nations organization of food and agriculture. The interim commission, of which Mr. L. B. Pearson is chairman, was appointed at the Hot Springs conference of 1943. Proposals were developed at the Bretton Woods conference for an international monetary fund and an international development bank. The setting up of an international agency to deal with problems of civil aviation is also well under way. Proposals for further specialized agencies are under discussion, all of much interest to Canada. These include the establishment of an international agency to deal with questions of commercial policy, designed to assist in removing, by agreement, impediments to trade, and in promoting uniform customs practices, lower tariffs, the removal of exchange controls and similar matters Proposals for the international regulation of cartels and for the adoption of measures to regulate the prices of certain raw materials are also under consideration. This is not an exhaustive enumeration.

If all proceeds as it is hoped it will, it may be found that, within a few years, there will be six or eight large international bodies performing functions which are beyond the capacity of any one nation or small group of nations. Such international agencies would

San Francisco Conference

not be regimenting or controlling individual nations, but, by agreement, would be framing courses of action designed to serve the general interest. It would be one of the functions of the general assembly and of the economic and social council to coordinate the activities of these bodies, to prevent overlapping of activities, and to fill in gaps where joint action proves to be desirable.

I have now completed a summary outline of the proposals to come before the San Francisco conference. Let me mention some of the difficulties and objections which are certain to present themselves in any consideration of the proposals.

In considering the proposals as a whole it is important to have constantly in mind that the international organization should be so constituted that it will function as effectively as possible. It is no less important for us, that in whatever is agreed to, the interests of Canada should be safeguarded. It is also most desirable that the organization, as finally established, should command the assent of the people of Canada so that, over the years, its underlying principles will secure steady public support. It may be that no fundamental changes will be needed to safeguard our interests. But that is not to say that the proposals could not and should not be improved.

Let me first refer to the position which would be accorded to the great powers. I have already mentioned that the participation of the great powers in the enforcement of peace is imperative, and that the main task of maintaining peace must rest with them. The five permanent members of the security council would be given the special voting rights I have described. If responsibility is to be fairly matched with power, it is essential that the great powers should have permanent membership in the security council. Incidentally, permanent membership was given to the great powers in the council of the league of nations.

Objections are certain to be raised to the special voting rights proposed for the great powers. There can be no question that they are open to theoretical objection. To what degree they are open to practical objection depends upon how far objection can be taken to a recognition of the fact of "power" in this imperfect world. It would not be realistic to expect to establish immediately an international system strong enough to coerce any great military power bent on attaining its aims by force. In the proposed new organization, all its members, great and small, would be bound to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any

manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization." If this solemn promise were broken by a great power the world would be faced once more with a situation like that presented by German aggression in 1914, and again in 1939. Such a situation could not be met in any international body merely by an arrangement of voting, however theoretically perfect. It is not a question so much of what is perfect as of what is possible. No charter can give the world security if, among the powerful, there be not the will for security.

Furthermore it should not be assumed that the possession by the permanent members of the security council of an individual veto on the application of penalties would make the security organization impotent in the event of a breach of the principles of the charter by . one of the great powers. Penalties are the last resort. Before they were applied, there would have to be full discussion of the merits of the dispute. If, by its voting procedure, the council were blocked in proposing a solution, the general assembly could make its own recommendations by a two-thirds majority of its members. The great power concerned would know where, in the eyes of the world, ' justice lay, and the risks such a power would incur in violating the charter.

To expect perfection in any plan would be utopian. Both Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt have stated that while the proposals are not perfect, they are in substance the best upon which, up to the present, it has been found possible to secure agreement. President Roosevelt has said he expects that, over the years, the charter will be amended from time to time in the light of experience.

The decision with regard to voting taken at Yalta represents an achievement of substantial unity by the three greatest powers. It would be unrealistic and unwise to reject the decision outright. Here, if anywhere, there is reason to keep an open mind, and to reserve judgment as to our position until all points of view have been explored at the conference.

In general, exception can hardly be taken to the extension, within the organization, of some special prerogatives to the great powers, on whom the major responsibility for keeping the peace must rest. That is a correct application of the functional idea to international organization, which is that- the position accorded to a state should correspond with the functions which it is able and ready to discharge. In marshalling force against aggression, the position of those able to contribute the greatest force must be respected.

San Francisco Conjerence

If this be granted, it would seem that a further application of this principle would be both logical and appropriate.

The contribution of states, other than the great powers, to the success of the organization will vary widely. It would be in the general interest to develop the idea, and to accept as a guiding principle that power and responsibility should, as far as possible, be made to coincide. If this could be done, the result would be to narrow the gap between the great powers and other nations, while maintaining the principle of the sovereign equality of all member states. It would mean that the smallest and least powerful members would not nominally be given the same responsibilities as, let us say, Australia or the Netherlands or Brazil. It is the view of the government that the constitutional position within the organization of important secondary countries should be clarified, and that the delegation from Canada should exert the utmost effort to secure due recognition of their relative standing among the nations of the world.

As the proposals stand, all states, other than the five great powers would have the same constitutional position in the organization. No regard would be paid to their international significance, or to their record in resisting aggression, or to their potential contribution to the maintenance of peace. It is surely desirable that among the states which are to be elected members of the security council there should be several countries which can make a valuable contribution to the maintenance of security. At the same time, there should, of course, be representation in the council of different parts of the world. Without doubt much consideration will be given at San Francisco to the character of the elected representation on the security council. Some method of selection which would have due regard for the power and responsibilities of secondary states would make the council a more powerful and efficient body.

The proposal that all members should bind themselves to carry out diplomatic, economic and military sanctions at the request of the security council raises another difficult question for Canada and other secondary states. As I have already mentioned, military action would be limited to whatever was undertaken by each state in a special military agreement. It would seem to be desirable to develop some procedure whereby states not represented on the security council would not be called upon to undertake serious enforcement action without the opportunity of participating in the

council's proceedings, or without agreeing separately to join in executing the decisions of the council.

To be effective, nearly all decisions of the council imposing sanctions would require the assistance of one or more states not represented on the council. The cooperation of states bordering on the offending state, or of states in which operational facilities might be essential, would be particularly needed. In practice, if the enforcement of sanctions required active aid from a country not represented on the council, its consent would probably be sought. The probable practice might well be made the formal rule.

A further question arises in connection with such transitional arrangements as may be necessary for the enforcement of the surrender and peace terms against Japan and Germany in the years following their defeat. Special arrangements will clearly be required so long as those countries are under full military occupation. It will be necessary to have a definition of the relations between the security council and any inter-allied authority which may be set up to supervise any longterm measures of control of the enemy countries.

In view of the difficulty of planning a world security organization, especially while the world itself is still at war, it might be desirable to include in the charter some provision for its general review after a term of years.

The government's views on the composition and powers of the security council and on other aspects of the proposed organization have already been communicated to the greater powers. It is not at present the intention of the government to propose particular provisions or amendments in advance of the discussions at the conference.

In considering this great plan for organizing peace, it is all-important that we think broadly and take a long view. The benefits which Canada may hope to gain from full participation in the organization are immense. They should not be weighed merely in terms of prestige. No country has a greater interest than ours in the prevention of another general war. That is the overriding consideration.

It was on the battlefields of an earlier war that our country reached the full stature of nationhood On all the seas, in the skies over land and sea and in some of the bitterest land battles of the present world-encircling conflict, our fighting men have held high the name of Canada. Our contributions to the fashioning of victory have been far greater than could

San Francisco Conference

have been imagined six years ago. Our part in the shaping of peace may be no less urgent and no less effective.

The organization of world security is a cooperative undertaking. The present effort will be, perhaps, the greatest of its kind in history. To achieve success there will have to be a willingness to give and take. The results should not be regarded piecemeal. They should be assessed as a whole. Concentration on security and on the need to organize force to meet the threat of war will not be enough. Once confidence has been established, international action and organization in many fields will be required to make peace enduring. The strong bonds of comradeship and cooperation which have been developed under the stress of war, should be made ever stronger in the organization of peace.

Were another great war to break out in twenty or thirty yiears, or at any time in the future, it is certain that Canada would not escape its fury. The development of new weapons, the development in particular of the flying-bomb and the rocket projectile, are making it impossible for any country to claim immunity from sudden aggression. So long as might is made a substitute for right by any nation there can be no security for this, or the next or any succeeding generation of Canadians.

Even should the charter as finally drafted not be all that we could wish, its acceptance might nevertheless be preferable to its rejection. At all events, the interests of Canada are fully protected by the wording of the resolution. Hon. members will have noted that the resolution provides that the charter should, before ratification, be submitted to parliament for approval.

In proposing this course, the government is following the procedure customary with respect to treaties. No treaty obligation could be more solemn than that which the united nations will assume under the charter. The course which the government is proposing would, moreover, ensure to a parliament newly elected by the people, the final word with respect to the adoption of the charter.

It is important to Canada that her representatives at the world security conference should be assured of the widest possible measure of support from parliament and from the people. It is important that our representatives should speak with a clear, strong and united voice. There is every reason to believe that the vast majority of Canadians of all parties desire to have Canada participate in measures to safeguard the peace which we hope to see established at the close of this terrible war. For this, as well as other reasons,

it is desirable that Canada's delegation to the San Francisco conference should be broadly representative. As I have already announced, it is the government's intention to select representatives from both houses of parliament, and from both sides of each house. The government itself will, of course, assume its constitutional responsibility both for the selection of the delegation and for any decisions which are agreed to at San Francisco. It is desirable that the house should make its decision upon the resolution now before it, before the membership of the delegation is announced. Once the resolution is adopted, I would hope very shortly thereafter to be able to make an announcement. By associating with the delegation members of political parties other than its own, the government is seeking to lift and to keep the effort to achieve enduring peace above the arena of party strife.

In the resolution, the house is asked to agree that the representatives of Canada at the conference should use their best endeavours to further the preparation of an acceptable charter. I think I may assure hon. members that Canada's representatives will certainly be guided by the determination to do everything that is humanly possible to make the most effective provision for the maintenance of international peace and security.

At the approaching San Francisco conference, the united nations will be laying the foundation of a new world order. I know that the people of Canada, regardless of party or other affiliations, welcome the opportunity thus afforded our country to make its contribution to this vast undertaking. I am equally sure that this parliament will approach the question of world security and reach its conclusions with a full sense of its responsibility to our own and to future generations of Canadians and, indeed, to all the peoples of the-world.

In any charter to establish a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, the spirit in which the approach is made, and in which effect is given to its provisions will be vastly more important than the letter. As long ago as March 24, 1941, I spoke, in Toronto, of a new world order to take the place of the old order when the war was at an end. On that occasion I said:

If that new world order is not already on its way before the war is over, we may look for it in vain. A new world order cannot be worked out at some given moment and reduced to writing at a conference table. It is not a matter of parchments and of seals. That was a part of the mistaken belief at the end of the last war.

San Francisco Conference

A new world order will be boro, not made. It will be something that lives and breathes, something much closer to the soul of man than a mere mechanical or legalistic device. A new world order needs to be worked out and have its place in the minds and the hearts of men. It should express itself in brotherhood and goodwill. It will be the application, in all human relations, of the principle of service and of mutual aid.

These words, I believe, express the spirit underlying the Atlantic charter and the united nations declaration of 1942. This spirit has found concrete expression in lend-lease, in mutual aid and in the united nations relief and rehabilitation administration. The same spirit will, I believe, guide the united nations in their deliberations at San Francisco. It is important that the machinery of the new world organization should be realistically devised and wisely planned. But no constitutional machinery, however ingenious, will be effective unless the nations of the world profit by the lessons they have learned in these five and a half years of war. The supreme lesson is that humanity should no longer be made to serve selfish national ends, whether those ends be world domination or merely isolated self-defence. Nations everywhere must unite to save and serve humanity.

Topic:   SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   PROPOSED GENERAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND SECURITY
Permalink
NAT

Richard Burpee Hanson

National Government

Hon. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what some hon. members may think, I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the debate. I confess, as I did once previously this afternoon, my inability to proceed at this time. I think I might be pardoned, however, for saying to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he has made a very notable speech with which in great measure I find' myself in agreement. There are a few outstanding points as to which perhaps we might be permitted to have some difference of opinion, and I shall advert to those on a later occasion if I find myself capable of participating in this debate, as I hope I may.

I rise primarily for the purpose of taking advantage of the kindly offer made by the Prime Minister, to permit of certain! questions being asked at the conclusion of his address. I have given a good deal of thought to the setting up of this world organization, a new and enlarged league of nations, but I am puzzled over one factor as perhaps the Prime Minister is also puzzled. It occurs to me, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that he might take time to consider it, that the preservation of peace for to-morrow and for the future- and the Prime Minister was quite right when in his opening remarks he differentiated between peace-making and peace-keeping-depends not upon this new league of nations but upon the attitude oft the three great powers, Great Britain, the United States and Russia, toward whatever agreement is reached among them outside the framework of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement. That is the part of the proposal that has been borne in upon me, and I would ask the Prime Minister-not now, because it is a big topic-to give consideration to that aspect of the whole position. We all desire peace; but does not the preservation of peace in the future depend upon the attitude of these three great powers? That is a vital question and a vital problem; and their attitude in that regard is not circumscribed or confined by the Dumbarton Oaks agreement.

That is the main question to which I should like the Prime Minister to give consideration, not now, as I have said, but at a later time. Then I should like to know if the government has forwarded any communications to the im-viting powers or to the United States of America as is contemplated) by the concluding paragraph of the Prime Minister's letter as Secretary of State for External Affairs to the United States ambassador, in which he states:

Note has been taken of the offer of the government of the United States of America to transmit to other participating governments such views or comments concerning the proposals as the government of Canada may desire to present in advance of the conference. I shall communicate with you again if the government of Canada decides to take advantage of this offer.

From something the Prime Minister stated this afternoon, though I am not quite clear about it, I gathered that representations had been madle. I wonder if that is true and, if so, what they are.

Then there are a few subsidiary questions to which I desire to give attention. What instructions will be given to Canada's representatives at the London conference? Have those instructions been framed, and if they have not been framed will they be presented to parliament? I am assuming, of course, that the London conference will meet before parliament is dissolved.

Then, I should like to know why Canada was not represented at Dumbarton Oaks. Is it because we were not invited? Having regard to our contribution I regret exceedingly that Canada was not invited to Dumbarton Oaks. However, the first question is the one which troubles me, if we are going to have peace in the world. Does it not depend upon the attitude of the three great powers, outside the framework of the Dumbarton Oaks agreements? When I ask these questions I

San Francisco Conference

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

Topic:   SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   PROPOSED GENERAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND SECURITY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. COLDWELL:

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

Topic:   SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Subtopic:   PROPOSED GENERAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND SECURITY
Permalink

March 20, 1945