March 22, 1945

LIB

John James Kinley

Liberal

Mr. KINLEY:

It is more than that.

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

Howard Charles Green

National Government

Mr. GREEN:

You can make your own speech.

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

John James Kinley

Liberal

Mr. KINLEY:

Well, you are wrong; that is all.

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

Howard Charles Green

National Government

Mr. GREEN:

The third power is in regard to amendments and is contained in chapter XI. This provides that amendments to the charter must be ratified by the five nations holding permanent seats on the security council, which again means that any one may veto an amendment. Finally they have great power because they are there all the time. They are to be permanent, with each of the five nations having a permanent organization actually at the headquarters of the world organization.

There is great importance attached to a permanent seat on the security council. Under the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta proposals Canada will never have a permanent seat on that council, though occasionally she may have a non-permanent seat. In other words she will seldom be a member of that council. That is a humiliating position for a nation that has raised nearly a million men during the present conflict and has given so freely of her blood and treasure. In effect, Canada is in the same position as the Irish Free State.

The Prime Minister now bewails our position, yet it is a direct result of the policies of his government. Had the Canadian government so willed, the great world power at Dumbarton Oaks could have been the British commonwealth of nations rather than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The British commonwealth of nations could have been the power named in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals as the power to hold a permanent seat on the security council. There can be no doubt of the attitude of Great Britain; Churchill and Eden have shown it on different occasions as clearly as they dared. I have here the press dispatch of a speech made by Mr. Eden in the British House of Commons over a year ago, in which he said that "if a close and intimate understanding

San Francisco Conference

could be achieved between the British commonwealth of nations, the United States and Russia, all our problems, however difficult, can be resolved." He did not say Great Britain, the United States and Russia; he mentioned the British commonwealth of nations. In October of last year, while in Russia, Mr. Churchill said:

I hope most earnestly and I believe with deep conviction that the warrior statesman at the head of Russia, through these years of storm and tempest will bring his country into the sunlight of a broader and happier age for all, and with him in this task will march the British commonwealth of nations and the mighty United States of America.

Here again Mr. Churchill did not use the term Great Britain; he was very careful to say the British commonwealth of nations. But our Prime Minister has maintained throughout that this great power must be the United Kingdom alone. On July 20 of last year he was asked in this house about the meeting at Dumbarton Oaks. He was asked who were to be the four great powers represented there. This was his answer, as it appears in Hansard:

The purpose of the meeting is that these four powers may consider the development of a general plan of world security. There wil be only the four powers at the meeting.

Then the leader of the opposition asked whether it was to be understood that the British commonwealth was included in those powers, or just the United Kingdom, to which the Prime Minister replied:

The four powers are the United Kingdom, the United States, the U.S.S.R. and China.

The actual fact is that the third great power in the world to-day is not the United Kingdom but the British commonwealth. There have been almost a million young Canadians in the forces, hundreds of thousands of Australians and thousands of New Zealanders and South Africans, as well as something like two million from India. So that between three and four million men who have been fighting in this war under the British commonwealth did not come from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The government's policy has been and is to-day based upon a false premise, with the result that now Canada finds herself in a humiliating position. But she can still get out of it. The way to get out of this humiliating position is not to shout for a seat for herself on the security council and to give more trouble in that way. The way for her to get out is to ask that in the charter provision be made for a permanent seat on the security council for the British commonwealth rather than for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

I am sure there will be no objection to that request in Great Britain. I have here a dispatch from Great Britain dated March 2, and reading as follows:

Third leg of the massive tripod that is to sustain this structure of world order has to be provided by British power. Resources of this small island are inadequate for this, and only world-wide cooperation by the British commonwealth can be regarded as sufficient. Sovereign freedom of each dominion is no bar to action in peace, with similar concert as in war.

Thus if Canada makes this request, and if it is granted, Canada, still with a seat on the assembly, will be sitting in permanently on the security council, where the important decisions are being made. She will be sitting in as a very important part of one of the three greatest world powers, playing a vital role, making her greatest possible contribution to world peace, taking the place won for her by her sons on the field of battle, on the seas and in the air, in all parts of the world, and working with the other nations of the commonwealth as a team, in peace, as we have done in two wars. We would be taking our natural position.

The former prime minister of Australia put it very clearly the other day. A press report makes this statement:

Former Premier Menzies in the house of representatives in Canberra described as unwise and dangerous the tendency of the British commonwealth to meet as units and not as a team in the international conferences, like that of San Francisco. It was more important for the British dominions to aim at a common front than insist upon their independence, which nobody challenged.

But no, none of that for this government! The Dumbarton Oaks plan ignores the fact that there is a British commonwealth of nations, despite the fact that that commonwealth of British people stood alone against the aggressor for nearly a year, with only the help of little Greece. It stood alone and saved civilization. I believe the Dumbarton Oaks proposals ignore the existence of the British commonwealth of nations at the suggestion of this Canadian government.

The Prime Minister's plan to get Canada out of the humiliating position into which she has been put by his own policy is to set up a new group of nations. He wishes to have great powers, the middle or secondary powers, and the small powers. I am reminded of the fairy story about Goldilocks and the three bears-the big bear, the middle-sized bear and the little bear. The government wants Canada to be a middle-sized nation. Then, it wants those middle-sized nations to get more rights and a preferred position over the small nations.

San Francisco Conference

In his speech the other day, in effect the Prime Minister warned the little nations away from attempting to get a non-permanent seat on the security council, because they were not able to iput up as much force as he could. A few months ago the policy of this government was that Canada should be a leader of the small nations. This is what I find in a press dispatch:

Canada to Lead Small Nations

Senator Wishart Robertson, president of the National Liberal Federation, last night asserted that Canada will go to the peace conference "virtually the leader of the smaller countries among the united nations."

This press dispatch is dated at Saskatoon January 19, 1944. Now we find that the government has shifted its stand and wishes to become one of the middle-sized nations. It is now trying to shove the small nations one rung further down the ladder. A few months ago the government was bewailing any attempt to play power politics. Now, in effect, the Prime Minister is advocating bare-faced power politics; and the C.C.F., dutiful as usual, is following along behind and advocating the same thing.

No other nation says there should be a new group of middle-sized nations with more rights. There is nothing about it in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals or in the Yalta proposals. The sad feature for humanity is that it is complicating an already complex plan. The suggestion for middle-sized powers may well be the source of much trouble. It asks for a dangerous distinction. What is a middle-sized nation? The Prime Minister mentioned Brazil, the Netherlands and Australia. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Martin) mentioned Belgium and Canada. Well, what about Turkey, Sweden, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, Italy, Rumania, Czechoslovakia? They will all want to be classed as middle-sized nations too. The other day the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour admitted, rather dubiously, that it would be difficult to define just what a middle-sized nation is, and he was dead right. It will be even more difficult to determine the preferred position that these middle-sized nations are to get. And all this is caused because the government is dodging, twisting and turning to get away from a permanent commonwealth seat, with the result that Canada is not to get her rightful place in this world organization.

I had meant to say something about regional arrangements and regional agencies, particularly as they apply to the Pacific coast. As my time is almost up, however, I shall not deal with those matters in detail. But I think the government should tell the house what plans

it is going to advocate by way of regional organization. For instance, there is now a Pacific council, and we should like to know what that council has been doing. We should like to know what the government thinks about having a regional organization in the Pacific, where there are questions of defence, and communications; airways, through Alaska and into Russia, and thence to other parts of Asia, airways to points across the Pacific ocean such as Australia and New Zealand. There is the question of a highway to Alaska, and the connecting link by ferry with Russia, so as to join the two great continents of North America and Asia. There is the question of trade. Cauadians who live on the Pacific coast are vitally interested in all those questions. We should like to know what the government will be proposing at San Francisco concerning regional organization for the Pacific. Canadians, with our blood brothers the Australians and New Zealanders, have the responsibility of deciding, in conjunction with the Americans, the Chinese, the Russians and the Dutch, and of course the folks of the motherland, just what sort of future there shall be around the shores of that great ocean.

In conclusion may I say that there will be more world conferences. This is only the first. At every one of those conferences the lives of our sons and their sons, the survival of the nation and the continuance of civilization will be at stake. The Canadian people are in no mood and they will be in no mood to have their representatives make commitments that are only half commitments, that leave open a line of retreat. Canada's commitments must be clear-cut, they must be fully binding. Canada must fulfil not only the letter of the law but also the spirit. Then as a nation she will be acting as every true Canadian would act. Further, the Canadian people are in no mood to have their representatives start an argument or perhaps a dispute by insisting on a regrouping of powers other than those occupying the permanent seats in the security council under the Dumbarton Oaks plan, a regrouping into middle-sized or secondary states, or whatever you wish to call them, and small nations. There should be no demanding of recognition and extra rights for the middle-sized nations because Canada happens to be one of them. The Canadian people are not interested in having Canada declared a middle-sized nation or a secondary state, but they are interested in Canada's developing into a great world power, standing beside Great Britain and the other dominions in the British empire. That is the destiny of this nation.

San Francisco Conference

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

Daniel (Dan) McIvor

Liberal

Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity of saying a word in this debate. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the fine opening address he made. I do this because I respect his judgment and because what he said is in keeping with what he said in London, what he said before the labour congress in Toronto and what he has said on several occasions, that this is the beginning of a better day.

I also congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Graydon) upon the endeavour he made yesterday. I think he did pretty well with a most difficult job. He interjected a little politics into the debate, but I do not blame him for doing that because I am going to do the same thing. I do not agree with what the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) said about the places that would be suitable for the proposed house of peace. I think the Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) will agree with me when I say that if the hon. member for Parry Sound would stand on the hill at Mirady park and look out over Thunder bay; if he could see Fort William sleeping quietly there; if he would see the sleeping giant away over yonder or the squaw looking for her husband coming home with his fishing boat; if he could stand on Mount McKay with all its majesty at the head of the lakes; if he could see Loch Lomond, from which that city gets its water eight hundred feet above Fort William; if he could see the background of Kakabeka falls with their one hundred and ninety foot head, he would then agree that the finest place in Canada for the peace house would be in the Thunder Bay district.

I was sorry the Prime Minister did not go further afield in his selection of the delegation. If he knew, and I hope he does, of the intelligent judgment, the practical common sense and the sweet influence of the fairer sex, both inside and outside the home, he would have then chosen representatives from both houses of parliament, from both sides of the house and from both sexes in the house. I say that the delegation will not be complete unless it contains one of the fairer sex to keep the men where they ought to be kept.

Knowing hon. members of this house as I do, I do not think that any member of this delegation will stoop to play politics, either on the way to the conference, while he is there or on the way home. I know they will all be big enough to get behind the scene and study the needs of the countries that are represented, especially Canada.

I was terribly disappointed at results after the last war. Nobody wanted war immediately after the last war. I sat on a school board at that time and I was criticized for advocating cadet training. It was said it was just the thin end of the wedge to bring back war. Women all over Canada, universities and high schools, labour and farmer organizations all passed resolutions condemning war, saying that it was all being done to satisfy the whims of the war lords of Europe and to supply cannon fodder.

What are we fighting for? The hon. member for Parry Sound said it was freedom, but I would go farther than that. You cannot have freedom without permanent peace. Before I am through I shall show you upon what permanent peace is based.

I expect that this will be the greatest conference that the world has ever known. There will be a sacred trust upon every one who represents us, every man or woman, and I am sure they will all measure up to that trust. This conference is to outlaw war. As someone said the other day, it will also put out of business the league of nations. I was disappointed with the league of nations. They did many fine things, but when they allowed Italy to sweep into Ethiopia and take over that country, when they allowed Japan to go into China, a large nation but one militarily helpless, I was disappointed.

I read that splendid book "One world7' by Wendell Willkie. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) is right when he says the small nations should be respected. W7hen I think of the way the Prime Minister looks out for the little men, the people with low incomes, then I know he is not going to pass up the small nations. He will see that they get fair play. I know it is important for every naan to have a job, but if every man in the country had a job there would not be heaven on earth just the same. I know that every nation should be free and enjoy security. I do know, too, that I was of the opinion that no nation taking part in this great war was going to seek territorial advantage. I remember that I stood up in this house, whether I was the first or not I do not know but I was first on the government side, to advocate that there be ambassadorial relations between Canada and Russia. Dear knows where we would be to-day were it not for Russia. She has kept us living. But I am not so optimistic when I find a big slice of Poland going to Russia. That is just a sign. of. the times, and I hope that Russia will be big enough to give that territory back to Poland.

San Francisco Conference

I would also say that no man and no group of men and no nation can live in luxury while others are living in abject poverty, for there afe the seeds of war.

Our delegation to the San Francisco conference, of course, should prepare thoroughly, thinking not of Canada only but in terms of the whole world. They should emphasize things that the nations have in common and forget the petty differences. We have plenty of things in common that stand out-our belief in the Divine Creator; the need for every man to eat and live and have his children educated and have a fair degree of comfort; the need for freedom to worship as we desire.

When the peace conference is called I hope the women will be represented there, indeed that every interest will be represented. I know I have my bias but I would say that labour has qualified for a position at the peace table.

It has been my sad privilege, Mr. Speaker, to visit many homes in the Thunder Bay district afflicted by casualties. I remember three days, one after the other, when I visited ten homes a day. I saw a husband standing beside his wife whose boy of great promise had been taken, and I listened to the wife saying to us, "Dan, do you think the peace will be worth it?" I wonder how you would answer that woman! I had my answer. There are two answers to that. First, I said, "If ouY boys and Canada and the United States had not gone into this war we would not be here to-day as we are now, because Germany would be in Canada." The other answer is, "The peace will be worth while provided that we build it upon a foundation that does not give way." I dare quote, Mr. Speaker, from the greatest book in all history, a book that took over a thousand years to write, whose contributors have been the greatest men in every age, and whose truth is infallible. I do not say that the book itself is infallible because we could burn it, but I do say that the truth that this old book contains is infallible and I dare to quote from it to-day.

We hear at Christmas time a great deal about the coming of the Prince of Peace. We have all heard in all our churches throughout the length and breadth of Canada of the only foundation upon which a peace that will endure can be built. I am convinced that that foundation is the teachings and character of the Peacemaker himself. You will find the principles laid down in his first sermon, what you might call the speech from the throne. There you will find laid down the principles upon which the peace conference should be founded, and I am sure that if the delegates

take into account the principles of the Prince of Peace, a peace will be built that will last. The Peacemaker sums up by saying that the man who builds upon the sands-it may be the sands of education only, it may be the sands of fame or ambition, it may be the sands of money, love of power, property-when the storm comes the superstructure will be swept away, but a house built upon the Rock of Ages will stand the test of time, and I hope that a peace will be built upon that rock because it is the only kind of peace that will last.

The Peacemaker outlines the principles, the foundation of the new kingdom, the new social order, if you like to call it that, which we are to have after the war. He says that they that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.

Take Hannibal, Nero, Napoleon, Hitler or any other would-be world conqueror-every one of them has had to learn that the man or nation that lives by the sword shall perish by the sword. I can hear the historian telling of how Napoleon said, "Talk not to me of Providence, for Providence is on the side of the heaviest battalions." But Napoleon lived to rue the day because he found that Providence was not on the side of his great battalions but on the side of the soft white snowflakes of Russia that froze half a million of his men in their saddles or where they lay upon the ground. Hitler had the largest and best equipped army in the world. Why did he not sweep into England when there was not enough ammunition there to keep the soldiers of Britain fighting one hour? I would say that it was in answer to the prayers of a Christian people in a Christian world. It was due to Divine intervention, just as it was in a time of crisis in the last great war.

Then He tells us how to deal with your enemy. Bless them and curse not, He says. Hon. members will agree that that is not so easy. You have to be completely unselfish to love even your political enemies in this house and to ask for a blessing upon them.

Then we have His statement about those who will not cooperate in the building up of the kingdom of peace. We remember His saying, "Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Did we not have a perfect example of that when Chamberlain as Prime Minister of Britain journeyed twice to see Hitler as leader of Germany in an effort to avoid war? But what did Hitler do? He trampled the arguments of Chamberlain under foot and prepared to rend England into smithereens. And it did not do him any good.

San Francisco Conference

I quote the saying of another great statesman who at first had a Jewish name, Saul, but afterwards changed it to Paul. He laid down the foundation which our delegation should bear in mind in following the principles of the Prince of Peace in building a new world, "other foundations can no man lay than that which is laid in Him." You may have geographical descriptions of economic needs and natural resources, but if you leave out the foundation laid by the Prince of Peace, the peace conference will be wrecked. I heard the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) quoting the words of Joshua, the successor to Moses-"Be strong and very courageous." I would quote a bigger man than Joshua, the apostle Paul, who said, "Fight the good fight", the fight against selfishness and cruelty and wrong. I have confidence in our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because I know something of his practical Christianity, that he will use his influence for the sake of peace, and he and his delegation, I am confident, will lay the foundation for the peace of the world upon the Rock of Ages.

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

Percy Ellis Wright

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

Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):

It is a

very healthy sign that there is almost unanimous consent of the house to the proposal for a world organization after this war is over to prevent in so far as possible the recurrence of such a catastrophe. I believe it is also a healthy sign that there is almost unanimous agreement that Canada should accept her place as a member of this world assembly. Possibly we do not agree in all details as to how that membership should be expressed. We heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) his opinion or that of his party of how our representation at that conference should act. I do not agree with him in his analysis in that respect, and probably some of our group will later make our position clear in this matter. It is also reassuring that the house is almost unanimously in agreement that when Canada accepts membership in the league she should accept all the responsibilities which go with it. I agree in that respect with the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South; if we are to take our place in the world community we must accept the responsibilities which that membership entails.

This afternoon, however, I propose to deal with the economic angle of the Dumbarton Oaks agreement, that part of the agreement which suggests the setting up of an economic and social council. We all agree that it is necessary to have machinery to settle disputes and maintain peace. I say it is just as necessary to remove the causes of these disputes. One of the greatest of these

in the international as in the national field is economic and social injustice. The Dumbarton Oaks agreement recognizes this principle, and I believe our delegation should ask for the strengthening of this part of the agreement. Wars can be promoted only when there is fear, want and inequality in the world; remove these and you remove the basic causes of war. Neither individuals nor nations as a rule start a fight on a full stomach. Therefore, I say, the increased production and proper distribution of food can be one of the major factors in maintaining world peace. I hope our Canadian delegation to the San Francisco conference will see to it that this matter receives adequate attention and discussion. Canada is vitally interested. She is in proportion to her population by far the greatest producer of food in the world. Last year we exported from thirty to forty per cent of our total production of food and produced over $1,750 millions of agricultural products. The raising of the nutritional standards of not only our own people but the peoples of other countries is consequently of paramount importance to us. Canada's delegation to the conference should therefore endeavour to strengthen the authority and importance of the social and economic council.

Under this council, I believe, will act the permanent committee set up by the united nations conference on food and agriculture at Hot Springs, Virginia, in May .and June, 1943. That conference appointed an interim committee to draw up a permanent constitution, that constitution to be ratified by the thirty-six nations represented at the conference. To date only nineteen nations have ratified that constitution, and Canada is not one of them. I believe that before our delegation goes to San Francisco this house should see that the permanent constitution of the united nations conference on food and agriculture held at Hot Springs is ratified, and that the permanent commission for carrying out the recommendations of the conference should be immediately set up. President Roosevelt about a month ago asked the congress of the United States to ratify that constitution. It is essential that Canada also should do so, and, as I said, before our delegation goes to the San Francisco conference.

At Hot Springs, Virginia, for the first time, an international conference recognized the principle that human needs should be the first consideration in setting up any new world order. They made definite recommendations as to methods that might be used in the carrying out of a world plan for the most economic production and distribution of food and other agricultural products. In this connection I

San Francisco Conference

would like to quote from the declaration of that conference, because I believe it is very-important to us here in Canada:

(1, The first task is to complete the winning of the war and to deliver millions of people from tyranny and from hunger. During the period of critical shortage in the aftermath of war, freedom from hunger can be achieved only by urgent and concerted efforts to economize consumption, to increase supplies and distribute them to the best advantage.

(2) Thereafter we must equally concert our efforts to win and maintain freedom from fear and freedom from want. The one cannot be achieved without the other.

(3) There has never been enough food for the health of all people. This is justified neither by ignorance nor by the harshness of nature. Production of food must be greatly expanded; we now have knowledge of the means by which this can be done. It requires imagination and firm will on the part of each government and people to make use of that knowledge.

(4) The first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty. It is useless to produce more food unless men and nations provide the markets to absorb it. There must be an expansion of the whole world economy to provide the purchasing power sufficient to maintain an adequate diet for all. With full employment in all countries, enlarged industrial production, the absence of exploitation, an increasing flow- of trade within and betwen countries, an orderly management of domestic and international investment and currencies, and sustanied internal and inter-ational economic equilibrium, the food which is produced can be made available to all people.

(5) The primarv responsibility lies with each nation for seeing that its own people have the food needed for life and health: steps to this end are for national determination. But each nation can fully achieve its goal only if all work together.

(6) We recommend to our respective governments and authorities the study and adoption of the findings and recommendations of this conference and urge the early concerted discussion of the related problems falling outside the scope of this conference.

(7) The first steps toward freedom from want of food must not await the final solution of all other problems. Each advance made in one field will strengthen and quicken advance in all others. Work already begun must be continued. Once the war has been wron decisive steps can be taken. We must make ready now.

Later on in this document they go on to show how these objects may be obtained-by a long-term food production policy, by adequate agricultural credit, by the encouragement of the cooperative movements throughout the world, by changes in our land tenure and farm labour conditions, by education and research, by conserving land and water resources and by the development and settlement of land for food production. To carry out this programme it would be necessary to facilitate the exchange of agricultural products between nations. We believe that one of the chief ways in which this can be done is to take the exporting and importing of food products

out of the hands of the speculator, as has been done to a very large extent during the war, and make it a government responsibility. We believe that it is in the interests of both importing and exporting nations to have long term agreements as to prices, quality and quantity of food to be exchanged. No country can get the maximum production of food without stability in the price structure. This has been amply demonstrated in Canada by the increased production during the war when we had stabilized prices.

It is equally to the advantage of exporting and importing nations to know that they are guaranteed a continuous supply of quality goods at a known price. Any return, therefore, after the war to the speculative handling of food should be vigorously opposed by our government. Long-term agreements should be negotiated between exporting and1 importing countries for periods of not less than five years and should be renegotiated at least one year before termination of the contract. This we believe would greatly assist in obtaining maximum production and continuity of supply. We believe that in the collection, processing and distribution of food within the various nations the cooperative movement should be encouraged. In this connection I do not think I can do better than quote again from the recommendations of the united conference on food and agriculture held at Hot Springs. The following paragraphs appear in the document:

1. Whereas the cooperative movement has been of very great importance in many countries, both to urban and rural populations, especially in agricultural districts where farming is based on small units and in urban areas of low-income families;

2. The proper functioning of cooperative societies may facilitate adjustments of agricultural production and distribution, as members have confidence in the recommendations and guidance of their own cooperative organizations which they know operate in the interests of their members and of society in general;

3. The democratic control and educational programmes, which are features of the cooperative movement, can play a vital part in the training of good democratic citizens, and assist in inducing a sound conception of economic matters;

The united nations conference on food and agriculture recommends:

1. That, in order to make it possible for people to help themselves in lowering costs of production and costs of distribution and marketing:

(a) all countries study the possibilities of the further establishment of producer and consumer cooperative societies in order to render necesary production, marketing, purchasing, finance, and other services.

In that connection the C.C.F. government of Saskatchewan has been, I believe, the first government in the world to implement this

San Francisco Conference

recommendation made at that conference. One of the first acts of that government was to appoint a minister of cooperatives to encourage the cooperative movement in that province.

(b) each nation examine its laws, regulations and institutions to determine if legal or institutional obstacles to cooperative development exist, in order to make desirable adjustments.

Yet we find that in Canada the cooperative movement has been asking for years for a dominion cooperative act to clarify its position with regard to taxation and several other matters. It has not yet received that consideration from our government. Instead we have shirked our responsibility and thrown the whole matter into the hands of a commission, thereby keeping the cooperative movement in Canada, at a time when it should be expanding, in a static state and endeavouring, one would almost think, to stop its growth.

(c) full information as to the present development of cooperatives in different countries be made available through the permanent organization recommended in resolution II.

In Canada we have very little conception of the tremendous growth of the cooperative movement throughout the world. I must admit that I myself had very little conception of the growth of the cooperative movement in Great Britain until last fall when we were privileged to visit there. We were entertained by the cooperative wholesale society of England and by the Scottish cooperative wholesale society. They took us down to the Thames in London and showed us a flour mill owned by the cooperative there, the largest flour mill in the world, a flour mill which produces every day enough flour to feed a million people. They told us that they were producing fifty per cent of all the flour produced in Great Britain. We were taken up to Scotland and shown the tremendous cooperative development in that country.

When the British government asked the people of Great Britain in 1940 to register the stores with which they wanted to do business during the war so that there would be a fair distribution of supplies forty-two per cent of the people of Scotland registered with the cooperatives as the stores through which they wanted to do their buying. We were shown the banks which the cooperatives had started in Great Britain. Last year these cooperative banks did over five billion dollars' worth of business in Great Britain. The cooperatives are the greatest merchandising organization in the British empire. They have their own tea plantations in Ceylon, their own shipping facilities, their own factories and their own distributing centres. I believe that in the aftermath of the war they will be one of the stabilizing factors in Great Britain.

World trade and the freest possible exchange of goods are necessary if living standards are to be raised in the world. Manipulations of exchanges and tariffs to secure profit and provide gain must be eliminated. We believe that only in this way can a world of plenty be built when war is outlawed. If Canada is to export, as she must if our agricultural industry is to be prosperous, she must be prepared to import. This was emphasized by everybody we met in Great Britain last fall. It did not matter whether you talked to members of the labour party, the cooperative associations, their boards of directors, or the Conservatives, they were all agreed that so far as Great Britain was concerned she had to find markets for her products if she was to import the necessities of her people.

Great Britain's ability to raise the standards of living of her people, or even to maintain them are dependent on this. She has been and will probably remain the greatest market for Canada's agricultural products. If we are to retain that market it will be necessary for us to readjust our economy so as to use more British-made goods. Great Britain has one great asset, her ability to produce quality' goods and materials. Nowhere else in the world can you buy better quality leather goods, woollen goods, china or cutlery than in that country. Unfortunately, before the war the financial position of the average Canadian citizen was such that he had to be satisfied with secondary grade articles because they were cheap. We found our shelves in this country flooded with trash and cheap goods. When you looked at them you almost invariably found stamped on them "Made in Germany" or "Made in Japan". We bought them not because we preferred them, not because we would not rather have bought better quality goods that could have been supplied by Great Britain, but because we could not afford the better goods. If we again allow the purchasing power of the people of the Dominion of Canada to be decreased by the lowering of the prices of agricultural products, or the lowering of our wage scales, or by unemployment, we shall find ourselves in the same position once more.

One of the chief aims of our delegation to San Francisco should be to secure the freest possible flow of goods between nations, and we believe that this can be done only by one of two methods. A great many people, a great many newspapers and many members of this house say we must export, but they say very little about importing. They say we can solve all our problems by exporting more goods. We in this group believe that if we are to obtain export markets we shall have to be

San Francisco Conference

prepared to accept imports and raise the standard of living of the people of Canada so that they may use those goods that we bring into this country. The first thing we must do is raise the purchasing power of our people who need goods and services, and the second thing is to remove some of the artificial barriers that at present hinder the flow of trade. Permanent peace cannot be brought about by the more industrialized nations building up investments in other countries; yet this is what must take place if we export more than we are prepared to import. This has resulted in the past and will result in the future. I believe, in friction and dissatisfaction. These investments have often resulted in interference in the internal policies and governments, of the countries in which they have been made. This interference has resulted in ill-will between nations, and has been one of the contributing factors to wars. It also has been one of the methods adopted to build international cartels and monopolies, which in turn have been deliberately used to prevent the free exchange of goods. These cartels are not particularly interested in the nutritional or living standards of the peoples in the countries in which they operate. They are interested principally in maintaining their special privileges and profits obtained by monopoly control. We believe, therefore, that our delegation should be especially interested in seeing that through the economic and social council these cartels and monopolies which restrain trade are abolished.

In that connection I should like to refer to the recent judgment handed down by a special panel having the authority of the supreme court of the United States with respect to the Aluminum Company of America and Aluminium Limited of Canada. This judgment, which was handed down on March 12 and appears in the March 13 issue of the New York Times, states that the Aluminum Company of America and Aluminium Limited, the Canadian company, are part of a monopolistic conspiracy in restraint of trade. This finding amply bears out the evidence presented to this house in 1942 and 1943 by the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). In passing I should like to remark that both the government and the official opposition were loath to accept the evidence presented at that time.

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

Roy Theodore Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

On a question of privilege,

Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member. The committee which reported to this house on the aluminum contracts did not base one finding of fact upon any decision of any United States court examining into an alleged

infraction of the Sherman act of that country. Every single finding by that committee was based upon the evidence of witnesses who appeared before it, or upon documents properly authenticated by witnesses appearing before it; and the reversal of a decision of an inferior court in the L'nited States cannot affect in any way the report presented to this house by the committee.

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:

May I speak to the question of privilege, as the hon. member has done. The committee relied very largely upon the judgment of the lower court, which now has been reversed by the judgment of the supreme court of the United States.

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

Roy Theodore Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

I am amazed at that statement by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, because he was a member of the committee and knows that it is completely incorrect and untrue.

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:

I ask that the hon. member's statement be withdrawn. I know what I said was completely correct and true, and if hon. members will examine the report of the committee they will find lengthy references to the judgment of the lower court of New York, the findings of which now have been reversed. The hon. gentleman should withdraw his remark that my statement was completely unfounded and untrue.

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

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman should withdraw.

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

Roy Theodore Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

I am quite content to

leave the accuracy of my statement, as compared with the accuracy of the statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, to the report itself. The report will speak for itself.

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:

I ask for the withdrawal of the statement that something I said was wholly untrue. I believe that is unparliamentary language.

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

Thomas Vien (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is. The hon. member who made the statement must withdraw.

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

Roy Theodore Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

If the rules of the house compel me to withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling and withdraw it.

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

Percy Ellis Wright

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

Mr. WRIGHT:

As a matter of fact I did not mention the committee at all. I said both the government and the opposition in this house were loath to accept the evidence presented by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar with respect to the aluminum industry being a cartel and a monopoly; and I said that his allegations have been amply borne out by the panel of the supreme court of the United States. That is not the only monopoly or cartel we have in Canada; and I say

San Francisco Conference

further that these monopolies have grown under Conservative and Liberal administrations alike. So that when we hear hon. members opposite saying in this house that they are going to abolish monopolies we wonder why they ever allowed them to grow in the first place. Their promises certainly do not sound genuine to many of the farmers and working people in this country. We therefore believe our delegation should be especially interested in seeing that through the economic and social council these monopolies and cartels which restrict trade are abolished.

To sum up, I should like to say that we in this group believe our Canadian delegation should be interested not only in the setting up of machinery to outlaw war, but should be definitely interested in the removal of some of the basic causes of war. If we can build a world in which there is genuine freedom from fear and freedom from want we shall have gone a long way toward the establishment of permanent peace in the world; and one of the ways in which this can be done, we believe, is by providing an abundant food supply and seeing that it is properly distributed throughout the world.

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

Frédéric Dorion

Independent

Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay):

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that strikes us in reading the motion now before the house is the fact that the government has already come to a decision involving the participation of Canada, and is now asking us to ratify that decision. I wonder if we can call this procedure a democratic one. Since the beginning of the war our government has ruled the country almost by order in council, and by all kinds of decisions taken by controllers, boards and the like. We have always been told that this kind of government would last only for the duration, and that we would revert to real democratic government as soon as the war is over. But if we consider the fact that a great number of decisions regarding the organization for peace, of which this resolution is a striking example, have already been taken, and are still being taken by the government, the public is being led to the belief that if we want to revert to real democratic government we must have some real changes in the government itself.

I wonder what would happen if, after acceptance by the government to participate in this conference, the House of Commons were to refuse to adopt this resolution, as it has a fundamental right to do. I know that to-day the government can rely upon its majority in the house; but as my colleague the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) has said, we must not forget that those who will represent Canada at this con-

ference will have no mandate from the Canadian people, because after April 16 there will be no more parliament in Canada.

Therefore it may well happen that after the next general election the new members of the House of Commons will not feel themselves bound by the decisions or engagements taken by the Canadian delegates at this conference. So far as the group of independents is concerned, we must advise the government that we will not accept in advance the decisions taken at this conference; and as in the next government of this country we will surely have a word to say we wish to state right now that we will not feel ourselves bound by these decisions.

We are asked to endorse the acceptance by the government of Canada of the invitation to send representatives to the conference. There is no doubt that this measure is one of the most important that has been introduced in the house since September, 1939. In fact at the beginning of September, 1939, parliament was asked to recognize a state of war with Germany and to accept participation in the present war. To-day through this resolution we are asked to declare, right off, that we will participate in any future war in the world. That is the real point. That is the only meaning of our accepting this resolution and our participation in the San Francisco conference. The question is: Shall we consent to engage ourselves and our country in participation in any war that may arise in the years to come in any part of the world? The resolution speaks about the safeguarding of mankind, and the magnificent part Canada is called upon to play in the organization of a new world. This is all very well and good. But I believe, as do other people, that we must first think of ourselves, rather than the world at large. I would like to see Canada's own interests just as vigilantly protected as Mr. Roosevelt intends to protect the self-interest of the United States, as vigilantly as Mr. Churchill intends to protect Britain's self-interest, and as vigilantly as Mr. Stalin intends to protect the Soviet republic's self-interest.

In view of the stand we are taking just now, hon, members in this section of the house may be called, as we often have been in the past few years, a group of isolationists. But I should like to ask whether it is a crime to stand for Canada first. Nobody will deny that Mr. Roosevelt himself stands for America first, Mr. Churchill for Britain first and Mr. Stalin for Russia first.

In the last few years we have witnessed the most extraordinary manner in which Canadian affairs have been conducted by the present

San Francisco Conference

government. If we examine carefully all the legislation that has been passed by the government we might ask ourselves what part of it, with the exception of a few social laws, has been really and truly enacted for the benefit of our Canadian people. Everything has been done to favour other nations, under the fallacious pretext that we have to save humanity and civilization.

I should like the Canadian government, before attending this conference, to give Canadian people a thought-instead of always endeavouring to save the world. I should like to see the Canadian government working in favour of the Canadian people's welfare, 'before going elsewhere to try to save 'humanity. Everybody admits that Canada is at present going through an internal crisis, and that we are suffering from disunity. All this is due to the present government. Would it not be the first and the most important task of this government to see to it that a true and lasting peace be established in our own country, before trying to organize the peace of the whole world? All right-thinking people are wondering to an even greater extent about wthat good may come from this conference.

We have witnessed many conferences in the last twenty-five years. We participated' in the league of nations, which was supposed to prevent any further wars. We have spent large sums of money as our share for the upkeep of the league, and to cover the travelling expenses of our Canadian representatives in that organization.

Other nations have organized all kinds of peace conferences and all kinds of disarmament conferences. But in spite of these we have been drawn into this terrible war, one which is upsetting the whole world. Now this question arises: What reason have we to believe that the proposed conference at San Francisco will offer any better guarantee or results than did previous ones?

I believe that, not only does this conference fail to offer better expectations but, because of its very organization, it cannot avoid driving the world to anything but another war.

All hon. members know that the conference will be controlled by only the three powers. These are the three powers which at present are fighting alongside each other-but for how long? What would become of the conference if to-morrow one of those three great powers happened to disagree with either of the other two?

If the powers controlling the conference could all be described as democratic powers, we might possibly entertain some hopes; but when we know that the one which, up to now,

has imposed its will1 upon all the others is a dictatorial power, exactly like those against which we are now fighting, we are not very hopeful nor can we rely very much on the results which may flow from the conference.

Then, when we see that Poland is the country which should have been the first to be asked to participate in the conference, and for whose safety our country was drawn into the war, is not only cast aside but has been broken to pieces in order to please that dictator, who is about not only to control the conference but also to govern all Europe after the war, we have serious cause for concern.

The situation is, I know, a difficult one. In many countries there are people of good will who will endeavour to correct the situation; but in Canada let us not lose all sense of proportion. Let us not try to convince ourselves that we can settle everything-and especially when we know that our international status does not- permit us to do so.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, the question that comes up is whether, with feelings as they are now, it is humanly possible that the San Francisco conference may give the results expected from it, and bring a solution to the problems at hand.

If the establishment of peace in the world is eagerly desired, should not a beginning be made by redressing the wrongs suffered by the people within participating nations?

If a satisfactory result is expected, should it not, in the first place, be shown beyond any doubt to the citizens of interested countries that this new organization which it is desired to set up will not be solely in the interests of a group or of certain international influences which have always, so far, caused the wars that have plagued us.

In short, if practical measures were really desired, if there was a wish to bring the people to take a serious view of the discussions of that conference and of the commitments which it is proposed to take, proof should first be given that the governments concerned have as their primary purpose, the elimination of the factors that cause world wars.

No one will deny that the world is seriously ill at the present time. Everyone will recognize that if a permanent cure is to 'be achieved, it is not sufficient to apply temporary remedies, but it is necessary, first, to eradicate once for all the causes of the illness.

Should we succeed in putting back on its feet a wounded and bruised world, if we allow it to continue living among unhealthy surroundings, amidst the same dangers as those which

San Francisco Conference

prevailed before the war, it will only continue to suffer without ever regaining the full freedom which would enable it to live a normal life.

If we look for the cause of the ills which beset humanity, if we wish to seek these causes in good faith and in all honesty, it is easy to find that peoples themselves are not to blame. Indeed as Ernest Renan said: "The immense majority of mankind dread war." Therefore, if all nations loathe war why at ewer more frequent intervals, must they be dragged into conflicts in which they are suddenly pitted against one another? If we go through the whole world and analyse the thoughts of the inhabitants of the various countries, we shall realize that all peoples have a common wish: to live in peace one with the other. Therefore, all wars have been caused by the leaders of the different governments who, in turn, have often been drawn into them by international financial powers who have always found their interests in confusion and have immensely profited by these world conflicts.

As long as we refuse toi recognize these facts, as long as we voluntarily turn away from the light, as long as we refrain from taking appropriate steps to check these evil powers who work havoc with the whole world, so long will conferences such as the projected San Francisco meeting remain a delusion and a deception and so long will they be of no use whatever.

At a time when we are thinking of seeking the means to restore universal peace so avidly sought by all, we are not sufficiently concerned with guaranteeing social security as an indispensable foundation for international peace.

All individuals have a right to the full development of their personality; however, it is their duty to curtail their own activities so as to leave room for the expansion of their neighbours'. We should abstain from restricting the development of other people's personality; and it is not only our moral duty to do so, but it is equally a condition to the attainment of social peace.

When economic conditions are such that two opposite groups are created: one extremely prosperous, the other lacking the very necessities of life, society becomes unbalanced to a point where living is impaired. We see individuals interested solely in the building of their own fortune, grasping, selfish, unscrupulous people, who, in order to attain their ends, are willing to provoke the most cruel wars. On the other side of the abyss, we see the destitute, those who have no other alternative than to work for the wealthy, those who have neither the time nor the means to draw from life their share of happiness.

Such a society cannot long endure. It lacks balance. It is undermined by too much suffering, too much bitterness, by the injustice and humiliation of human life. And when, within societies, disorder rather than peace exists, international conflicts are not far off.

In order that economic life may be suitable within nations, international economic life must necessarily be cleansed; hence the need to fight egotism and greed. The reign of international justice and world peace will be possible only on a basis of social justice and altruism. So long as we have organizations like the International Settlements Bank which I have already had occasion to denounce in this house, peace will just be a mere ideal.

If, as I said a moment ago, wars have mostly been the handiwork of international finance, it is nevertheless true that in the last few years there has come to the fore another international power which must be watched closely and which, if it is not checkmated at once, will also lead us to new international conflicts. I am referring to communism. The Third International, which still exists, and is increasingly active in this country, as in almost all other countries in the world, means the destruction of a class to the advantage of another which is neither better, nor more intelligent, but which is less educated. Consequently, other countries cannot but lose by having anything to do with it. Communism, which was to save us from all ills through the formula "What is mine is also yours" and inversely, has been without any effect.

Every time an attempt was made to disregard the principles which are natural to men, society has gone to ruin and in spite of these warnings, in spite of these resuits, there are still a large number of promoters of communism who dream of the day when this nefarious form of government will rule the w'hole universe.

If, Mr. Speaker, every country were to clean its own house and do away with all its subversive elements, the need would probably disappear for conferences such as the proposed San Francisco meeting to seek a remedy to the ills which afflict humanity.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the principal reason which convinces me that this conference cannot produce anything worth while is that, I repeat it, the greatest international power in the world, the Vatican, is systematically ignored.

In the course of the debate on the address, on January 31, 1944, I said in this house:

Since the beginning of the war we have been told we were fighting for democracy and Christian civilization. For us Canadians, we cannot

San Francisco Conference

aspire to anything other than the reestablishment of an enduring peace in the world. We cannot expect territorial possessions. We cannot expect much compensation. Therefore, if we wish to reach our end, if we wish to be true to ourselves and to others, we have nothing to do other than to see to it that all the necessary precautions be taken to have this time not twenty years' truce, but a real, everlasting peace. One of the most necessary precautions would most certainly be the attendance at the next peace conference of the most powerful moral authority, the greatest friend of peace, the greatest advocate of the moral brotherhood of mankind.

As long as this great international power, the Vatican, is deliberately left aside and excluded from international discussions, the suffering and unhappy peoples of the world will be offered only incomplete and insufficient remedies.

I recalled then that in 1919 the Pope had been excluded from the peace conference on account of the secret treaty between Italy, Great Britain, France and Russia, and I added:

What wonderful success resulted from this policy of excluding the sovereign pontiff and of ignoring the rights of Providence!

The treaty of Versailles has probably lasted for a shorter period of time than any other treaty in history. Is it not very evident that after the present war, when we must start from scratch, it will be absolutely necessary to rectify the mistakes made from 1899 to 1919 and ask the Pope to enlighten by his moral authority the nations which will have the task of drawing up the next peace treaty?

Is there not, at the present time, another secret treaty, another convention designed to keep the Vatican out of international discussions? I hope not, for such a state of things would simply be a repetition of a crime for which we might have to pay very dearly.

Indeed, the fair-mindedness and the influence of the Pope have been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt.

I wish to quote the following from a book on the league of nations by Father Yves de la Briere:

More than anyone else in the world, the Pope deserves to be the messenger, the nmpire, the legislator of peace and right among nations. His religious mission is to be the universal pastor of the souls. He has been entrusted with the evangelic doctrine of peace, justice and charity. The theological schools of which he is the supreme head, have been giving for centuries enlightening and coherent lessons on the code of peace and war. The institutions of Catholicism enable him to exert a deep influence on the moral, intellectual, social and spiritual formation of over two hundred million of human beings. Throughout the centuries, the name of the Pope of Rome has remained identified, in the settlement by arbitration of international conflicts with the best and most efficient effort in history.

In addition to his spiritual jurisdiction, the Pope of Rome possesses a temporal sovereignty which is no longer territorial but personal . . .

This book was written before the Pope became once more the head of a Sovereign state.

. . . which to-day is diplomatically and authentically recognized by international law. On this score, it is in order that the diplomatic representatives of the Pope should take part in conferences attended by the diplomatic representatives of all sovereigns and chiefs of state, especially so when tne aim of the conferences is to conclude or guarantee peace between nations, an object which is quite in keeping with the distinctive mission of the Holy Father.

To confer to international agreements the august and sacred prestige which are necessary in the eyes of nations, to give to the rules of mediation and arbitration, to international laws and sanctions, the moral authority which, frequently at least, will insure respect, what sovereign, what chief of state will be in a position to exert, by his recommendation, by his public endorsement, a more beneficial influence than the Pope of Rome?

As we have said, he rules spiritually over several million subjects in each state or group of states in Europe and throughout the world. He is not affiliated to any system of alliances, to any political, diplomatic or economic scheme; yet he is nowhere a stranger. In every country, Catholics regard him as their Pastor, their Doctor and their Father, and the right-minded non-Catholies see in him a moral force whose authority commands their esteem, their respect, nay their veneration.

Who could, in all fairness, deny the Pope the right to partake in the diplomatic and legal conferences involving international law?

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, considering all those reasons I have mentioned, I cannot place any confidence in this organization and I am satisfied I am loyally discharging my duties as a member and as a citizen of Canada in voting against this resolution.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

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

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. R. ADAMSON (York West):

Mr. Speaker, the debate on this resolution is in danger of becoming an orgy of wishful thinking. Every hon. member wants peace; but by blind adulation of the present proposals we are not assisting the Canadian delegation to the San Francisco conference, nor are we fulfilling our duty to our constituents. The failure of the league of nations was started by the hysterical praise of the idealism of President Wilson. The world forgot man's essentially human nature and for a period believed that all men were angels We forgot that each of us contains a great deal of the old Adam. This led the way for the destruction of the power of the league and eventually of the whole league itself by selfish' and sinister influences. Their

San Francisco Conference

methods were, first, to advance objections because the charter of the league was not perfect. They were devastatingly effective, and nowhere more so than in the United States Senate. The battalion of death headed by Borah and Lodge placed the demolition charges under the bridge of collective security, and Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo saw to it that electric wires and fuses were well placed and did not fail when the firing trigger was pressed. Now that the world believes nothing without reservations and that we call ourselves realists, when perhaps we confuse realism with cynicism, we can approach the international issue without the sugar icing of Wilsonian idealism. We now get to the meat directly, and the meat we get to is power, and is called by that name. This is a tremendous gain over 1919.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the first hypothesis is that the world wants peace. True, every member in this house wants peace and every Canadian wants peace all the time. But because we want peace, or because the huge majority of the rest of the world, war-worn and weary of devastation and bloodshed, wants peace, it does not automatically follow that all the world wants it too, and will continue to want it in the future.

The last effective long-time organization for peace was the pax Britannica; and the pax Britannica, which was in force for the years between the Napoleonic and the great wars- virtually a century-did not prevent war but it did localize war. During that time there were a number of wars in which the major countries of the world took part. First, there was the Crimean war in which Turkey, Great Britain and France were pitted against Russia. Because of Britain's command of the sea Russia was unable to attack the British isles; therefore the war was localized. Then there was the Franco-Prussian war, in which two major European countries, France and Prussia, fought bitterly. Alsace-Lorraine was overrun and Paris besieged and taken. But that war did not proceed any further. With the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to Prussia, which became Germany, the war came to an end. Then there was the Russo-Japanese war. Here again two major powers fought, but the war was localized. One major mutiny, the Indian mutiny, occurred, and there was one important civil war. the civil war in the United States. There was the religious war of the Mahdi against the British in the Soudan and Egypt; and there was what is now considered by enlightened people everywhere a predatory war, known as the South African war. All these wars were localized, and they were localized because the power possessed by the British 32283-9

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

REVISED


fleet, which had a ratio of two to one over all the other fleets of the world during a great part of that time, prevented the spread of war. It was not because of modern inventions that war was prevented from spreading, because the Napoleonic wars were virtually world wars. They effected war in Canada, in the islands of Oceania, in Java and Sumatra, in southern India, and in Egypt, where, near Cairo, the battle of the Nile was fought; and almost the entire continent of Europe was also involved. At that time there was no guiding, overwhelming force to control and localize wars; and since the beginning of the German movement for equality of strength in naval armaments, Great Britain could not maintain a strong enough navy to guarantee world peace. So, in 1914, we had the first of the modern world wars. Because we failed to heed the lesson of power we have had another world war within a period of a quarter of a century, the most devastating war in the world's history. We have now had a conference at Dumbarton Oaks, and for the first time since the ending of pax Britannica the world has admitted the necessity for power. I do not believe that this house is sufficiently aware of the tremendous import of the power clauses in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. I propose to quote briefly the major power proposals of this conference. The first is in chapter V, section B, 1. It compares the proposals with the league of nations. In the league of nations both the assembly and the council could take action with regard to the settling of disputes and the maintenance of international peace and security. Under the charter of Dumbarton Oaks such action would rest solely with the security council. In other words the assembly is now relegated to an advisory position only. Under the Dumbarton Oaks proposals the general assembly will have the right to discuss any question relating to world peace, but if action were necessary it would be for the security council to decide and act. That is the first fundamental difference between the new proposals and the old league. The next power clause is chapter VI, paragraph 4, which reads as follows: The security council would have the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security; such responsibility to be freely conferred upon it by the charter by the members of the organization. The powers to be conferred on the security council are greater than have ever before been given to an international body. I should like to repeat those words, "greater than have ever before been given to an international body."


March 22, 1945