March 27, 1945


Norman Jaques

Social Credit


He is vice-president of the American federation of labour. There is an American. Now I am going to quote an Australian labour leader. I am quoting labour leaders only so that I cannot be accused of quoting reactionaries or Tories. I am going to quote now J. T. Lang, one of the foremost labour leaders in Australia, and formerly the prime minister of a Labour government of the state of New South Wales.

Mr. Lang has just published a book on "Communism in Australia", and I have taken some notes of what he says in that book.

Mr. Lang says that the communist party is organized. The party is shown to be a highly organized concern with unlimited funds, directed by a permanent general staff, almost every member of which has done a two years' study course in Moscow in the art of moulding and controlling the thoughts and actions of the workers. The book shows that in every issue, whether it is industrial, agricultural, national or international, the communist party slavishly follows the policy laid down in Moscow.

Mr. Lang shows how the communist party, in addition to holding the key positions in most of the labour unions, has infiltrated all channels of publicity, such as newspapers and radio. They have penetrated the teachers' federation, the theatre, all avenues of education, instruction and entertainment. And that is just as true in Canada and the United States.

Communists have all this control and they are pledged to use it in the interests of a foreign power whenever that foreign power so orders them. And, as Mr. Lang shows, it makes no

Topic:   REVISED


25S San Francisco Conference

difference that that foreign power is an allied power. The local communist party calls on the Australian government to support communist actions in Greece, Italy, Poland, Jugo-Slavia, and other countries. Now, you may say those disputes are only disputes between British and Russian foreign policy, and these countries are a long way off. Very well, then, take the Pacific. That is nearer home. For years to come there will be three great powers in the Pacific-Britain, America and Russia. Our fate depends on everything those three powers do. Should they disagree it means that all the power the communists can exercise in Australia will be exercised to get the Australian government to support the Russian policy, irrespective of whether it is to the advantage of Australia or to our detriment. You may think we are too small to count. Well, what about your weekly wages, your home, your whole standard of living? How are they affected by the power of the communist party? Let me put this to you. The financial agents of all the leading countries are continually meeting to agree upon the financial system after the war. While there is yet no complete agreement there is general agreement that the scheme will be based on some modification of the gold standard. Russia supports America's claim of almost a full gold standard. After the war, Russia will want our goods to make good her war losses. How will she pay for them? There are only two ways. One way is further to reduce the standard of living of her own people; the other way is to reduce the standard and cost of living in the countries from which she wants to buy her supplies. It is only common sense that she will prefer that the standards of the other countries be lowered rather than the standards of her own people. Under that arrangement the standards of living in Australia would have to be lowered. When that comes about who is going to fight for the Australian workers and through them for the whole standard of living of the Australian people? The Australian communist party will have to carry out the new policy of reducing the cost and standard of living in Australia. The unions will not fight for Australian workers because so many of the important unions are under communist control. If the present Curtin government is still there the communist policies of the post-war reconstruction department will not defend the standards; and if Menzies is there he will not fight either. The communist party is just as much the agent of a foreign power as if the members themselves belonged to that nation. If you [Mr. Jaquea.l would not put foreigners in charge of your government, and important positions in the community, you cannot afford to have members of the communist party in those positions. That is the political picture of Australia as recorded by Mr. J. T. Lang, a former premier of New South Wales, a fearless and most able leader of Australian Labour. And how do Mr. Lang's words apply to us? How does the Australian political situation compare with our own in Canada? The communist party has infiltrated all channels of publicity, such as newspapers and radio, the teachers' federation, the theatre and all avenues of education, instruction and entertainment, and the church. All these openly advocate communism and defend its policies. What about the Liberals? Why does the communist party, now known as the Labour-Progressive party, support the Liberal party? One very good reason is the post-war reconstruction committee, appointed by the Liberal government. Listen to Dr. James, chairman of this Liberal committee for postwar reconstruction. He says: I warn my listeners against the very dangerous propaganda which would have you believe that mankind is about to enter an age of plenty. The end of the war does not promise plenty for us. Canada must depend, not on the demands of the Canadian people, but to a greater extent than ever before on the world market. Just as Mr. Lang says of Australia, Ottawa supported by the communist party, is planning to bring about an age of scarcity in Canada, for the benefit of foreigners, by means of the gold standard. Who is Doctor James, or rather what is his background? Doctor James was trained at the London School of Economics, which was founded fifty years ago by British socialists with money supplied by German international finance for the purpose of training the bureaucracy of the future world socialist state, to maintain the gold standard which, as Mr. Lang says, is supported by the Soviet government. Of course it is, because the gold standard means world control by compelling nations to lower their standards of living. Not only Doctor James, but Doctor Marsh, Mr. Deutch and I believe Mr. Rasminsky, in fact most of Mr. Usley's key men, were trained at this same socialist school of economics, founded in the interests of "gold" and socialism. But, you say, Mr. Ilsley is the great Liberal-defender of orthodox finance and of the gold standard and, therefore, he San Francisco Conference must be opposed to socialism. Then wliv does he appoint socialist trained experts to plan Canada's future? These Liberal-Communist planners were trained at the London School of Economics. One of its professors is H. J. Laski, who is one of the most influential socialists in the world to-day. Laski is the idol of the C.C.F. "brain-trust", and a confidential adviser to the New Dealers of the gold standard. Prof. Laski has written a book, for private circulation, from which I quote: Christianity has failed, and the Russian ideal is taking its place as the inspiration of mankind, and as the standard of public morality. The Old Testament is the gospel of hard work, while in the New Testament the central figure of Jesus shows no concern for the workaday world. The trouble with Christianity is that it is subdued to nationalism. So that our future is not to be based on Christian ideals; yet hundreds of religious leaders who call themselves Christians are subject to and working for Moscow because their faith in Christianity is dead; and it is these very men who believe that Christianity has failed-men trained by communists-who are planning the future of Canada. At the same time a rabid propaganda is being directed by certain religious leaders against the Christian religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, presumably because it is opposed to communism. Certain religious leaders are quoted by socialists and communists because they offer totalitarian philosophy as Christian democracy. Certainly these religious leaders have not uttered a single protest against the wholesale persecutions of people in recently liberated countries in eastern Europe. Will these religious leaders confirm or will they deny the persecution of political opponents by communists in Greece and elsewhere? Will they justify or will they condemn these political crimes? Dare they compare the freedom of religion, the press and politics in Russia with our own British freedoms? Do these religious leaders support or do they oppose the monarchy and the British empire? Do they agree with Professor Laski? Should we look to Russia for our ideals and moral standards? Have they lost their own faith and vision? Do they stand by the Atlantic charter? Are we fighting to preserve democracy or to create a totalitarian world? Are the gospels unreliable and unauthentic? Are we to follow Christian ideals according to the gospels, or communist doctrines according to Karl Marx? Now what about Bretton Woods? My friends the hon. members for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and Acadia (Mr. Quelch) have stated their objections to the Bretton Woods proposals. I should like to add just one or two 32283-17J statements of my own. I might say that I brought the matter up in a speech on this subject which I made in this house on July 12, 1943. On that occasion I quoted Mr. White, who was a member of the United States congress. He said, speaking of the plans: Both contemplate the surrender by the individual countries to the international monetary power of a large part, if not all, of the very heart of national sovereignty, that is mastership over monetary and credit resources. Section 8 of the constitution provides that congress shall coin money and regulate the value thereof. ... If Mr. Morgenthau and the forces back of him should he able to get around this provision of the constitution, then the last vestige of our great charter of liberty will have disappeared. All hope of restoring it would be gone, and the totalitarian state would be complete. No, I cannot believe that the American people have as yet been beaten into such abject submission that they will allow this to happen. Then recently a statement was made, I believe in the British House of Commons, and given to the English press, by Mr. Robert Boothby, M.P. I quote from the report in the London Evening Standard: It was American big business, not the united nations, which won the great victory at Bretton Woods. For that agreement was a victory for gold over goods. And practically all the gold of the world is at present buried in the vaults of American banks. If the House of Commons accepted Mr. Mor-genthau's advice and ratified the Bretton Woods agreement, it would deliver this country, bound hand and foot, to the money power represented by the vested interests of international finance. It would prevent us from ever making any attempt at carrying out an internal expansionist policy designed to achieve full employment. It would deprive us of all the weapons with which we could protect ourselves from the consequences of an American depression. It would prevent us from developing the sterling area into a regional group of nations with similar economic interests and objectives, and a complementary trade-which is our greatest hope for the future. Last, but not least, it would subject us permanently to the economic domination of the United States; for the whole basis of the agreement is in favour of the creditor, against the debtor nation. Mr. Morgenthau gives the game away when he says he wants to increase his exports "provided his customers are in a position to find dollars to pay for them." We don't want to have to find dollars-which, under the Bretton Woods agreement, means finding gold. Still less do we want to borrow them. We want to pay for our imports with goods of our own. Bretton Woods does nothing to help us to do this. Always it is the same old story-this insane American passion for "exports". . . . The main purpose of trade is not to get goods out of your country at all at any cost. It is the mutually advantageous exchange of goods. If you cannot do this, it is far better to make, and consume, the stuff at home. San Francisco Conference

"Here is an organization," says Mr. Morgen-thau, with enthusiasm, "which has teeth in it." It has indeed. Nasty sharp teeth, which can bite. Under the Final Act of Bretton Woods, if we don't do what we are told by an international authority situated in the United States, we can have penal charges imposed on us, for the payment of which we shall have- somehorv-to "find the dollars." We may even be blockaded by our own dominions! I am all for cooperation between Great Britain and the U.S.A. But not at this price. One final point. The present British government has no mandate from the electors to jeopardize the economic future of this country by putting us back on a gold standard, and attempting to resurrect the economic system which was one of the prime causes of the war. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an article by Mr. Paul Einzig, one of the world's best-known economists. The hon. member for Lethbridge has already put part of the statement on record, and I shall not repeat it. But this particular statement by Mr. Einzig was published by the Daily Express, which is owned by Lord Beaverbrook, and more than three million copies were printed and distributed in Great Britain. At the end of the article is this warning: On this page to-day is an article that should be studied closely by the vast "Daily Express" public, even while the news of victory in battle fills the imagination, even while the pleasures of the August holiday month tempt the multitude into more light-hearted distractions. The article deals with the decisions reached at the Bretton Woods monetary conference. It establishes clearly that those decisions enslave Britons to gold, and are even liable to imperil British good will with the other nations in the empire. The future of every man, woman, and child in this country is involved. Surely there will be a mighty national protest. Surely there will be a firm rejection of these proposals when they are submitted to parliament. May I remind hon. members that, apart from all sentiment, Great Britain is by a long way the best market we have. I would like the hon. member who has just taken his seat to tell us where he proposes to market the produce of Canadian farms if the standard of living in Great Britain is lowered. Will he dispose of it in the United States? Or perhaps he will market it in Soviet Russia? I do not know, but I know that Bretton Woods is going to reflect on the prosperity of the farmers of Canada just as it did before. I remember hauling grain for seven cents a bushel when it cost me six cents to thresh it, and I remember selling hogs for two cents and shipping a carload of cattle and getting a bill back for part of the freight. That was due to the imposition of the gold standard, and the same men who imposed it then are in power to-day. They have never been discredited, and the power behind it is international finance and totalitarianism. You cannot separate them. That is the situation we face. With regard to this San Francisco conference, legally I am not trained sufficiently to get the full appreciation of what the motion really means, what it really implies. Perhaps before the vote comes we shall be enlightened, but at the moment I will say this. I cannot support any proposal that might weaken the ties between the various sovereign dominions of the British empire, and I can have nothing to do with any proposal to reestablish the gold standard, not even in the interests of peace, because I know very well that it would destroy the possibility of any permanent peace as it did before.


Herbert Alexander Bruce

National Government

Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):

There can be no difference of opinion on the broad question of the necessity, when this war is brought to a victorious conclusion, of setting up some organization to ensure that all nations of the world will in future enjoy the blessings of peace. There will be general unanimity in favour of the resolution proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to send representatives to the conference of united nations to prepare a charter for the general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security on the basis of the discussions at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.

Undoubtedly the most vital question to be discussed at that conference will be the provision of sufficient power to ensure that the decisions of the new organization to maintain peace will be carried out. The position of this party has been ably presented by our leader (Mr. Graydon), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), and others, with all of whom I am in complete agreement. I shall endeavour not to traverse the same ground unless for purposes of emphasis.

In order to understand the government's attitude on this resolution it is necessary to try to interpret the Prime Minister's speech given on March 20 last. I must confess to a deep feeling of disappointment on hearing the Prime Minister's expressions of idealism apparently unaffected by any sense of realism such as should have resulted from the lessons learned from developments since the last war and the tragic events of this.

Some of the Prime Minister's expressions and suggestions reminded me of the impractical dreams of President Wilson, whose influence at the last peace conference resulted in a treaty devoid of the necessary power to

San Francisco Conference

prevent war. The following will illustrate what I mean. I quote the Prime Minister's words:

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

This is the Prime Minister of Canada speaking in 1945, as reported at page 31 of Hansard, and not, as one might assume, President Wilson in 1919. President Wilson's theory was that morality could be an effective power, that the morality of the rulers of nations and of civilized mankind must be the force to do good. Mr. Lytton Strachey, then editor of the London Spectator, warned him that a league based on nothing but promises could not stand the test of reality. After such a war as that of 19141918 every nation would exploit every loophole to avoid taking up arms in another's interest. To this Wilson replied :

I feel the weight of your fear, but it seems to me that the effects of this war may just as reasonably be expected to operate in the other direction.

The theory of a league for perpetual peace was not original with Wilson or with to-day's planners. Humanity has always dreamed of peace. The trouble is that so often these plans are worked out in the minds of idealists with little appreciation of the nature of men and of peoples. If they could at the same time create a new kind of humanity there might be some hope for their theories.

Speaking in the British House of Commons on February 27 last, following the Yalta conference on security organization, Mr. Churchill, who is a realist, said in part:

The new body will differ from the league of nations in the essential point that it will not shrink from establishing its rule against the evildoer or evilplanner in good time and by force of arms.

There seem to be some lucid moments in the Prime Minister's mind when he has a sense of reality, for in the speech of March 20, as

reported at page 30, he said:

Were another great war to break out in twenty or thirty years, or at any time in the future, it is certain that Canada would not escape its fury. The development of new weapons, the development in particular of the flying bomb and the rocket projectile, are making it impossible for any country to claim immunity from sudden aggression.

The Prime Minister, however, soon lapsed again into another state of unreality when he declared his intention to refer all matters of

aggression to parliament and to await its decision before taking action. The delay and uncertainty, if such a procedure were carried out, would be the most certain way of bringing about a third world war.

I was glad to hear the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) say yesterday that commitments for quick and certain punitive action against an aggressor must be written into the charter of the world peace organization if it is to be effective. May I hope that this statement coming from a senior member of the cabinet will make a deep impression upon the mind of the Prime Minister.

I believe I am voicing the opinion of the majority of the people of Canada when I say that we much prefer the advantages which accrue from being a part of one of the three big powers, where we can exert our influence upon the vital decisions which will be made, than if we occupied a place of our own in the security council as a secondary power. Within the empire Canada's voice can be powerful. Once out of the empire she will be just as one of a score or more of secondary nations and be as helpless as Belgium or Holland or become a state in the American republic.

It will be obvious that Canada cannot sit on the security council as a separate nation; for if she attempted to do so Russia and perhaps the United States would be certain to claim more seats. Britain cannot retain her position as an equal in strength with the other two great powers without the support of her dominions, owing to the sacrifices she has made in this war in material wealth and in man-power. Her navy is no longer mistress of the seas. We all know of our own magnificent war effort, and Mr. Churchill has been most generous in his praise of what Canada has done. But I do not think that all of us realize what a tremendous contribution Great Britain has made to the winning of the war. She has called up twenty-two million men and women between the ages of fourteen and sixty-four, who have been mobilized for direct war service and industry. This represents sixty-nine per cent of her people between those ages. Her army numbered 384,000 when the war broke out. In July of last year it had increased to four and a half millions. Her casualties in the armed forces have mounted to nearly six hundred thousand men. One in three of her houses has been damaged by enemy action and 57,298 of her civilians have been killed. But in spite of this Britain herself produced seven-tenths of all munitions and merchant vessels used by the British commonwealth and empire since the outbreak

San Francisco Conference

of war. Only one-tenth of those munitions were supplied by other empire countries. Her scientists and inventors have led the war in the development of Radar, in the fight against the U-boat and magnetic mine, and in the development of jet-propulsion planes. In five years the war has cost Great Britain S9S,000,000,000.

From purely selfish motives it is in our best interests to continue to exert our influence as a part of the British commonwealth of nations. If we indicate our intention of doing so at the San Francisco conference our example will probably be followed by Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and the British commonwealth will continue to remain one of the three great powers.

Not long ago the Prime Minister was desirous of being the head of one of the small nations. Now he has become more ambitious and wants Canada to be regarded as a secondary state. I would remind him that a higher place of influence on the security council will carry with it increased responsibilities. It will be totally inconsistent with) his pre-war policy of no commitments and isolationism, to which he still seems to cling. Modern instruments of war have brought all nations so close together that it is no longer possible for anyone to live in isolation. May I express the hope that when the Prime Minister attends the San Francisco conference he will promise on behalf of Canada to place at the disposal of the world security organization a reasonable quota of our resources, including armed forces, to ensure future peace.

Since there will be no Canadian parliament in existence at that time it will be necessary to get the approval of the new parliament on the decisions arrived at. If this is all the Prime Minister contemplates there will be general agreement, but when peace is threatened, to make a proviso that the consent of parliament must be obtained before our armed forces can be used, as proposed by the Prime Minister, is to invite another world conflict.

I should like to say a word in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Bence) that representatives should be chosen from men who have served in this or the last war. These men have shown their willingness to fight and, if necessary, to die for Canada. They have earned the right to have a voice in determining the measures necessary to ensure that never again will the world suffer the terrors of another war.

It is significant that the meeting at San Francisco is described not as a peace conference but as a security conference. Already

comments upon this conference in many countries leave no doubt that it is generally agreed that the main purpose of the conference will be to establish some basis of collective action for the preservation of peace in the future which has behind it the sanction of armed might. If that is a correct inter- . pretation of the general attitude, and if it is the intention of the government of Canada to commit this country to participation in such a plan for collective military security, it is the first duty of those who are called upon to vote in support of Canada's participation in that conference to examine carefully, and with the utmost frankness, the full implications of our undertaking, to be one of those nations which will, if necessary, use military force to preserve peace in the event of any law-breaker in the future once again threatening the outbreak of another general war.

Any nation which becomes a party 'to a collective security agreement under which force, if necessary, will be employed to restrain an aggressor must be prepared to contemplate the possibility of war itself. Anything less would only be a repetition of what led to the collapse of the authority of the league of nations and the progressive steps of appeasement which culminated in the war in which we are still engaged. If there is one lesson which emerges more clearly than any other out of those years of crushed hopes and disillusionment, it is that pious expressions of peaceful intentions are little more than an invitation to aggression, unless those who believe in peace are prepared to keep peace by force, if necessary. Recent history teaches us that the surest way to prevent a recurrence of the world-wide catastrophe of these past six years is to be willing to pledge our whole strength in a joint effort to prevent such a thing from happening.

If we are to take the first step, we must be prepared to take the last step. Not to do so would be repeating the weaknesses of the league of nations. If we are to give our undertaking to other nations to standi by them in preserving peace, we must have a clear understanding here at home as to how we will raise those military forces which might become necessary through such an undertaking. The fact that we would hope that such collective action would itself prevent the possibility of another war can be no excuse for ignoring the possible consequences of our undertaking and leaving ourselves in the position where, if we were challenged, there might be any doubt about our fulfilment as a nation of the obligation we had assumed. We must, therefore, support the principle of collective action for the preservation of peace, and Canada should

San Francisco Conference

be a party to such collective agreement. But before Canada commits her national honour to any such undertaking it must be made perfectly clear to the people of Canada exactly how that undertaking will be carried! out, in the event that in spite of all efforts toward' peace this nation once more should be committed to the ultimate test of war.

Twice in a generation the emotions of this country have been torn by the fact that the burden of war was not borne in equal measure throughout the whole of Canada. This has done more to create division within this country than anything else in our national life. It has created bitterness in those parts of Canada where the heaviest burden has been borne, and it has created bitterness in that part of Canada where the load has been less because they feel that they were promised immunity from such an obligation. It would be blind folly to deny the depth of the division which has been created1 in Canada by that one fact. There is one way above all others by which this sense of injustice and misunderstanding will be removed!; that is to leave no doubt that never again will there be any possibility of divided responsibility for the preservation of the security of the state, either in war or in peace.

Universal military service equally applied throughout the whole country is the peace-time law of Britain. The President of the United States has already expressed his desire that a similar law be enacted in the United States. It is the only course consistent with any joint understanding that carries with it even the most remote possibility of military responsibility in the years to come. That being so, the new parliament will have to decide that universal military service to such extent as may be required in peace, and to any extent that1 may be required in waT, will be the law of the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific, to be applied without distinction in every part of Canada.

It would be illuminating at this time to give the house the important parts of the statement issued by the prime ministers of the British commonwealth after their meeting in London on May 17, 1944, quoting from the Associated Press dispatch appearing in the New York Times of May 18 of that year. The dispatch reads:

We, the king's prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, have now, for the first time since the outbreak of the war, been able to meet together to discuss common problems and

future plans. The representative of India at the war cabinet and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, have joined in our deliberations and are united with us.

I will leave out some passages that refer to the war and simply pay tributes of praise to those who participated, and continue:

We have also examined together the principles which determine our foreign policies, and their application to current problems. Here, too, we are in complete agreement. We are unitedly resolved to continue, shoulder to shoulder with our allies, all needful exertion which will aid our fleets, armies and air forces during the war, and therefore to make sure of an enduring peace. We trust and pray that victory, which will certainly be won, will carry with it a sense of hope and freedom for all the world.

It is our aim that, when the storm and passion of war have passed away, all countries now overrun by the enemy shall be free to decide for themselves their future form of democratic government.

Mutual respect and honest conduct between nations is our chief desire. We are determined to work with all peace-loving peoples in order that tyranny and aggression shall be removed or, if need be, struck down wherever it raises its head. The people of the British empire and commonwealth of nations willingly make their sacrifices to the common cause. We seek no advantage for ourselves at the cost of others. We desire the welfare and social advancement of all nations and that they may help each other to better and broader days.

We affirm that after the war a world organization to maintain peace and security should be set up and endowed with the necessary power and authority to prevent aggression and violence.

In a world torn by strife we have met here in unity. That unity finds its strength not in any formal bond but in the hidden spring from which human action flows. We rejoice in our inheritance, loyalties and ideals, and proclaim our sense of kinship to one another. Our system of free association has enabled us, each and all, to claim a full share of the common burden.

Although spread across the globe, we have stood together through the stress of two world wars, and have been welded the stronger thereby. We believe that when the war is won and peace returns, this same free association, this inherent unity of purpose, will make us able to do further service to mankind.

Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.

John Curtin, Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Peter Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand.

J. C. Smuts, Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa.

It is to be hoped that the close cooperation which this declaration indicates has existed among the nations of the British commonwealth during the war, will continue at the security conference in San Francisco and in the difficult days that will follow after victory.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

San Francisco Conference

After Recess

The house- resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   EDITION

Vincent-Joseph Pottier


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):

Mr. Speaker, I have been- following with interest the speeches of hon. members during the present debate, and I think it can be said, speaking generally, that except for hon. members in the Social Credit group, and a few independents, members of the house are in- agreement in their support of the proposals for the establishment of a general international organization, which subject is to be considered at the coming San Francisco conference. The Social Credit group and the few independents referred to, although perhaps for different reasons, fear that by joining the world organization we will lose our independence or sovereignty. Hon. members who have indicated that they will support the resolution on the order paper favouring our taking part in the San Francisco conference appear to- me, quite frankly, to be holding too idealistic a view. I am afraid that a practical observer looking on would come to the conclusion that there are too many who, as in the case of the league of nations, fail to realize that high ideals are only of immediate value, in a matter of this kind, up to the point where they are possible and practicable in their application.

I wish to make one passing observation, however, with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). At page 117 of Hansard he is reported to have said this. .

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.

There is nothing new in this thought. It is one of the things already discussed in the house and, as indicated, one of the things which was considered when the league of nations was formed. It was considered and discussed when the post-war policy of the league of nations was under consideration. The question was then, as perhaps it may be said it is to-day-and I quote from G. M. Carter's pamphlet, "Consider the Record":

Should the commonwealth act as one unit or should nations of the commonwealth become particularists in policies, each determining its attitude toward commonwealth issues out of its own immediate interest.

I oppose the idea of one vote for the commonwealth. We have gone too far along the road of nationhood to retrace our steps. There would be danger of quarrels within the commonwealth, with the consequent possibility of the parts breaking away from the whole. It

is, moreover, not difficult to visualize occasions arising when one member, with power to vote for the entire commonwealth, would be faced with one of the following possibilities: on the one hand he might find that one or more of the dominions would oppose any proposed stand, and threaten to leave the com- . monwealth; on the other hand he might find that the threat might be of such a nature that it would prevent the views of the other parts of the commonwealth from being put into effect in the proceedings of the security council.

I believe the Dumbarton Oaks plan shows some indication that it was going to follow what happened in the league of nations. When we examine how the security council of the league was formed we find that from September 15, 1927, as long as the league council remained operative, one of the dominions sat as a member. From the record there would seem to have been an understanding in that regard. We might describe it as a rotating member from one of the dominions, the rotation placing Canada first, Ireland second, Australia third, New Zealand fourth, and, I take

it, if it had carried through, South Africa would have come next.

For a three-year period each dominion in its turn had the right to be and as a matter of fact was a member of the security council of the league. This meant that from 1927, as long as the league existed, the commonwealth had two members on the security cSuncil, one of whom was from the United Kingdom, sitting as a permanent member, and another from one of the dominions, each dominion taking its turn. As I indicated, the result was that, from 1927, on the security council of the league there were two members who had at heart the interests of the commonwealth, if we wish to put it in that way.

If we follow the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South, and ask for one member for the British commonwealth as a whole, striking out the membership of the United Kingdom, we would stand a great chance of losing one member on the security council. I cannot see any other conclusion from what took place and, having in mind that in large measure the Dumbarton Oaks plan will follow what took place in the league of nations, it seems to me that the same can be anticipated this time.

So much for that phase of the matter. May I now proceed to indicate that the greatest

danger in international policy, when plans for international peace are being worked out, is idealism. There are too many well-meaning people desiring to see world peace who work themselves into the belief that human nature can be suddenly altered, and forget what history has shown over and over again.

The idea or the attempt to stop world wars is an old story, and one which can be traced back for centuries. Not going too far back, we see the league of the great powers after the Napoleonic wars, and the need for a wider plan was felt after the first great war, a plan which would join all self-governing countries not , only with a view to bringing about international peace, but also with the thought of bringing material gains to the agreeing nations.

Not only have we now a new plan under consideration for a still broader attempt to maintain international peace, but still greater stress is laid upon international cooperation for the purpose of greater social and material gains in the different countries of the world.

The organization proposed by the Dumbarton Oaks plan is practically the same as the organization in the league of nations plan. We find the organization of the league of nations consisted of an assembly, a council, a secretariat, a permanent court of international justice, and technical organizations and advisory committees, dealing with financing, economics and the like.

The organization of the Dumbarton Oaks plan, instead of calling the large body an assembly calls it a general assembly; the council is called a security council and the secretariat goes under the same name. Then, there is provision for a permanent court of international justice. And in considering the material and social matters in the various countries we have under this plan a proposal to establish an economic and social council.

In the Dumbarton Oaks plan provision was made for eleven members, of which five, namely the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States, France and the republic of China are permanent, and the remaining six are elected by the general assembly.

Under the league of nations plan the council of the league, in 1935, was composed of fourteen members. Of these, four, namely France, Great Britain, Italy and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were permanent. The remaining ten were elected by the assembly.

I could1 go on and- show the similarity between the two plans in regard to the proposal for a permanent court of international justice, for technical committees of the league for the social and economic councils proposed1 under the new plan.

San Francisco Conjerence

I am not overlooking, of course, the fact that in some important particulars the jurisdiction of the general assembly and1 security council has changed, as well as the voting power, particularly of the permanent members of the security council. These are made to correct what were thought weaknesses in the league of nations plan and meet what the great powers demanded before they would join in an international organization. _

I have gone to some detail in comparing the plan of the league with that of Dumbarton Oaks because I wanted to impress upon this house that the league of nations failed, and I am not sure that this plan is going to succeed. I am sure it will not succeed' if the men who have the responsibility of -this international organization lack the power of -practical consideration and the capacity of practical application in the working of the plan.

I am not one of those who believe that you can by this plan or any other plan, in one year, ten years or a hundred years, -make various peoples differing in races, environment and resources, propelled by impulses and power, and the frailties of human nature, become one great happy family. _

Let us not be deceived- into thinking that human nature has so completely altered that all that is now required is a new plan.

Lord Birkenhead, in an address to -the students of Glasgow university, put it in this way:

Summing up this branch of the matter we are bound to conclude that from the very dawn of the world man has been a combative animal. To begin with, he fought violently for his own elemental needs; later, perhaps in tribal or communal quarrel; later still, with the growth of greater communities, upon a larger and more sophisticated scale. And it is to be specially noted that there have nevertheless almost always existed men who sincerely but very foolishly believed, firstly, that no war would arise in their own day; and, secondly (when that war did arise) that for some reason or other it would be the last. At this point the idealist degenerates into the pacifist; and it is at this point consequently that he becomes a danger to the community of which he is a citizen.

I -heard a few d-ays ago a very wise clergyman make the statement that this old world was a hard place to live in. There is no doubt that that is true. We are intended to survive by work and struggle. We cannot change overnight the forces that have been working for centuries in opposite and conflicting directions for survival. The league of nations failed because its too high ideals could not be worked out. Every nation was willing and- ready -to applaud slogans, dogmas, cure-alls and liberty plans, but we saw a dismal failure when the testing time came. It came, for example, when an investigation was requested through the

San Francisco Conference

league for the international control of raw materials. Very little progress was made, and a sense of frustration was felt on the part of the countries suffering from that problem. I have in mind Italy in that particular field. The same was true when the testing time for collective security came when the Japanese took Manchuria in 1931, and also when Italy went into Ethiopia. In the raw materials case, the countries which thought they would suffer from international control objected.

In the case of the Sino-Japanese conflict several things were demonstrated1. We saw first that great powers would not risk fighting each other for the sake of preventing aggression were they not directly involved. Second, powerful countries preferred looking after their own interests and would not compromise for the sake of the league. Third, secondary powers had little influence to bring about force. Fourth, great powers must be in agreement before pressure can be exerted.

In the case of Ethiopia the same things were demonstrated, with emphasis on the point that you cannot enforce a decision unless you are ready to use force. It was found that there had been a lack of previous planning and understanding of what the realities of the situation might be. The league had not developed a system to use force when it was necessary. To secure peace on a world scale may mean war, and if Canada joins the plan under discussion, we must 'be ready and willing to face this possibility,

I am afraid there may be too many people, as in the case of the league of nations, who believe that we are seeing the last world war, if we can arouse public opinion; in other words, that public opinion is sufficient to stop aggression without the necessity of force. If that takes place, they may succeed in arousing public opinion to an extent, but these ideals will build a house upon sand, and in the future it will be said-and I quote from the Good Book:

And the rains descended and the floods came; and the wind blew and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

Let no one in this house assume that the millennium is promised by this measure.

The day is far distant when one note of concord or love will stir all mankind to a harmonious response. Nations will go on quarrelling and may come to fighting. There will be great resentment against the police power among peoples it restrains. There will be big problems to be solved and the solutions may involve violence in order for any part of this plan to succeed.

Canada, to take advantage of any benefits that may arise from time to time, must be prepared to give at times in material things more

than she will get. She must also be prepared to insist upon plans that are practical; she must not allow the idealist to degenerate into the pacifist, leading nations into a slumber away from the possibility of armed force, where the world will grow soft and our nation will let go from its own hand adequate means for our own protection.

I do not want to be misled by peace organizers who are premature. The world is ready for some things, but let us realize what they are. Expecting it to go beyond its strength will only bring wreck and ruination. A world meeting place should be encouraged, and it will:

1. Make a world affair of any proposed conflict.

2. Bring world judgment on any troublemaker.

3. Bring about the only possibility of all countries joining against an aggressor.

I was not surprised to find that the question of voting power in the Dumbarton Oaks plan was one of the last things made public, nor was I surprised that the great powers were realistic enough to protect themselves by making provision for the power to veto, if I may call it such, an attack upon themselves. I doubt if the conference is able to change this provision and, if it did, I think ,it would be a mistake at the present time, in that when the testing time would come, a great power would either disregard the organization or leave the organization. In other words, better give them power, if they cannot be coerced, than take that power away from them and have them break away from your organization, for you will then have no organization at all. Let no one deceive himself; unless we can by some plan keep these great powers together there will be another war, and sooner, perhaps, than anyone in this house imagines. This plan must be realistic enough to keep the great powers together. That is why I am in favour of the provision giving any great power the right to veto-if I may use that term-any steps which are taken against it.

In conclusion, I hope my remarks will not be interpreted, first, as from one who is opposing the proposal for the establishment of a general international organization, or as from one who is a pessimist in thinking that the organization itself will not succeed. I believe there is a duty cast upon us, as one of the great freedom-loving countries, to join a world organization such as is proposed, and that by our ways of life and influence we can,

San Francisco Conference

in a measure at least, bring to the other countries of the world something which will be helpful and beneficial.

Our common experience with the United States in developing a great civilization on the north American continent, through the processes of idealism and realism marching side by side, will be of value in trying to set up a better world civilization.

We shall in turn profit from our association with other countries, and in the final analysis, by joining minds and hands in an open world, we shall in an increasing measure, as the years roll on, be striving to lessen man's combative instinct, replacing it with a growing conviction of universal good will.

Topic:   EDITION

Maxime Raymond

Bloc populaire canadien

Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, the

resolution about which the Prime Minister requests the concurrence of the house implies: acquiescence in the sending of representatives to San. Francisco on April 25 next, with a view to helping in the preparation of a charter establishing an international organization for the maintenance of world peace and international security; recognition that such an organization is important for Canada and the future welfare of all mankind, and that in her own interests Canada should join that organization.

Further, it approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals drawn up as a result of the Dumbarton Oaks conference and it considers that these proposals constitute a basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization.

Lastly, it states that the charter, establishing the said: international organization, will be submitted to parliament for approval before ratification.

Let us note at once that the resolution involves no commitments for the time being, that the mandate entrusted to our representatives at the San Francisco conference is not to commit Canada to the charter that will be worked out, but only to help in the preparation of that charter, and that parliament alone can accept or reject it.

When that charter is submitted to us we shall judge whether it fulfills our hopes. And we shall accept or reject it, as the case may be.

The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion) has put on this resolution a construction which is in no way justified and he did not bring up a single piece of evidence in support of his absolutely groundless assertion. He said:

To-day through this resolution we are asked

to declare, right off. that we will participate in any future war in the world.


Now, nothing like that is to be found in the resolution. Not only is there no question of participating in a war, but the only thing contemplated is the sending of delegates to a conference for considering the means of preventing war and ensuring world peace, without any commitment on our part. Besides, in his speech the hon. member himself recognized the true purport of the resolution when he said:

At a time when we are thinking of seeking the means to restore universal peace. . . .

Take part in a conference to "seek the means to restore universal peace" is entirely different from "participating in a war."

The interpretation which the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay attempts, without reason, to read into a motion, reminds me of the stand he took in November last on a positively anti-conscriptionist amendment introduced by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Jean).

On that occasion, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, after inverting the wording of the amendment, claimed that it was favouring conscription, which was something entirely remote from the actual truth.

However, all the hon. members who favoured the conscriptionist policy of the government, whether Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F. or Social Credit, voted with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay against the amendment of the hon. member for Mercier, because it was against conscription.

If the hon. member intended to convey the impression that those who will support this resolution will thereby go on record as being in favour of world war in general, he is formally contradicted by the official text of the resolution, as last November he was contradicted by the wording of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier who took the government to task for having imposed conscription.

In an editorial which appeared in Le Droit of last Saturday, under the title "Should we participate in the San Francisco conference?", Mr. Camille L'Heureux, who is well known for his independent attitude, outlines the true meaning of the resolution. Here are some excerpts:

We do not understand the attitude of those who are opposed to Canada's participation in the forthcoming conference at San Francisco, the object of which is to prepare a charter for an organization entrusted with the maintenance of world peace.

Indeed, the House of Commons is not being asked whether it approves the plan submitted In- the great powers, although it is the duty

San Francisco Conference

of every member bo point out any defects therein and to insist that the government endeavour to correct them at the conference. The object of the resolution is to decide whether Canada will send a delegation to San Francisco.

It will be up to the next parliament and not to the present one bo ratify the agreements which may have been entered into at San Francisco.

What is the object of the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister? This resolution asks parliament, in the first place, to approve ''the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments," in the second place, to agree "that these proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organisation."

The editor then states the aims and principles set forth in the proposals which the Prime Minister has already brought to the attention of the house and he concludes as follows:

No member of the House of Commons may oppose the approval of those aims and principles. On the contrary, each member must strive in order that they might prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I respect the views of those who oppose our participation to the San Francisco conference, but I think the stand taken by some members who have expressed their opposition to this participation is most extraordinary.

Who are the opponents of Canada's participation to this conference? The hon. members for Charlevoix-Saguenay, (Mr. Dorion) for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix), for Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou) and I believe that I am not mistaken in adding the name of the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Roy) unless he disapproves of the attitude taken by his leader, the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay.

This attitude, Mr. Speaker, is in formal contradiction with that taken by the same members only a year ago.

A glance through Hansard will show the zeal with which the hon. member for Gaspe denounced the fact that Canada was not participating in inter-allied conferences. Here is what he said on February 8, 1944, as reported in Hansard:

Since the beginning of the war we have had quite a few inter-allied conferences.

There was a conference which took place on the Atlantic ocean. At that conference there was drawn up what was called the Atlantic charter which is supposed to be the basis of governing all the democratic countries when the war is over. Was Canada asked to take part in that conference as an independent country? Was the Canadian Prime Minister invited to that conference? No. As I say, we were told that it was a charter for all the allied countries after the war is over.

We had another conference at Washington and yet Canada was not there.

We had a conference at Casablanca and we find that it was just like the others. There was no place there for Canada. We were just a negligible quantity.

Since then we have had another conference at Teheran. At this conference China, Russia, the United States and Great Britain was represented. Canada, being the fourth largest power in the war, was not represented by its Prime Minister. There was no place for Canada at all, although she is in the war with all her resources. What had then become of our independence ?

The hon. member for Gaspe closed his remarks by introducing a subamendment to the speech from the throne, which is to be found on Hansard as well as in the Votes and Proceedings of February 8, 1944.

He therefore proposed, seconded by the hon. member of Charlevoix-Saguenay, that the following words be added:

We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that in the opinion of this house Your Excellency's advisers have failed ... to demand Canada's partnership in allied conferences on account of her independent status and of her important share in the war.

Such is the motion of non-confidence submitted to the house by the hon. member for Gaspe, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay. On the question being put, this motion was negatived and the Totes and Proceedings of February 10, 1944 show that, besides the proposer and seconder the hon. members for Quebec-Montmorency and Rimouski voted for the subamendment, together with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Choquette) and myself.

The hon. members for Charlevoix-Saguenay, Gaspe, Quebec-Montmorency and Rimouski are free to contradict themselves to-day, my hon. friend for Stanstead and myself will remain true to our stand of nearly a year ago, by supporting Canada's participation in the San Francisco conference.

This will be the acknowledgment of our independent status. The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay seems to base his opposition on the fact that the Vatican will have no representatives at the conference. I am of a mind with him on that point. An invitation should have been extended to them, I shall return to this later on. However, is it reasonable to remain aloof because a party that should have been invited has been left aside? On the contrary, this is an additional reason to attend in order to represent the views of the absent party.

San Francisco Conference

The hon. member is fearful lest the three great powers control the conference. This is a further motive for taking part so as to boost the number of secondary and small powers in attendance and thus be in a position to oppose the selfish designs of the others. If our representatives fail to discharge their trust, we shall judge and condemn them.

A number of conferences have been held lately, where decisions contrary to moral principles have been taken. Only three or four great powers were in attendance. This time the membership will come from forty-four nations. It will be the duty of all these nations, secondary and small,-who are being consulted at last-Canada among them, to see that the principles of good order and justice are upheld; this will offer them an opportunity to oppose certain subversive doctrines which tend to invade the world, such as communism. This will be the time to denounce the unfair treatment meted out to Poland and to take appropriate measures; however, the way to eliminate the causes of evil is not to abstain either from taking part in the discussions, or from joining the other countries who do not wish to witness the maintenance of social wrongs.

The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay is right when he grieves over the evils assailing society, but he attributes them to the economic conditions prevailing in most countries and he adds:

In order that economic life may be suitable within nations, international economic life must necessarily be cleansed.

Is it not well known that one of the proposals that will be under discussion at the conference relates to economic and social cooperation in the international field? Among the basic proposals that will be discussed is the following:

The organization should facilitate the solution of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems, and promote the respect of human rights and primary liberties.

Reform on an international basis is demanded; we are asked to participate in the discussion of such reform and we would decline to do so. That is an odd way of reasoning.

As regards the need of an international organization for the maintenance of peace, let me refer to the advice contained in the message which Pius XlII directed to the whole world on December 25 last, and in which I find the following:

It is indispensable that ill the world organization there should be some body able to maintain a body invested by general consent with supreme authority and whose duty it would be, among other things, to quell at the very beginning every attempt at aggression.

The decisions already announced by international commissions justify us in the belief that one of the main points of any future international agreement will be the establishment of an organization foT the maintenance of peace, of a body invested by general consent with supreme power, whose duty it will be to strike at its very source every individual or collective threat of aggression.

No one will hail such an event more joyfully than he who, for a long time, has expounded the principle that war, as a suitable means of settling international differences, is now obsolete.

Is the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, who has spoken at length about the Vatican, unaware of those directions?

However, the hon. member for Gaspe, who seems to oppose to-day the establishment of such an international organization, recognized last year that it might be in the interests of world peace and to the advantage of Canada's international trade, and he approved its creation.

Here is what he said on February 8, 1944, as recorded in Hansard:

We are told that after the war there will be a sort of international body composed of the allied nations, and in which the small nations will be on an equal footing with the larger ones. That would be a very fine thing for Canada as a peace policy and in so far as her international trade and commerce are concerned. That is all very well.

Does he know that the main principle set forth in the proposals which we are requested to approve in the resolution is precisely "the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states"?

Opposed to war, desirous to see the reign of peace, I do not hesitate to say that I am in favour of the establishment of an international organization for the prevention of war and the maintenance of international peace and security, and that I believe Canada should become a member of such an organization under acceptable conditions. And I am happy to heed the advice which the Pope has given along those lines. I have, in fact, already made a public statement on that matter: I refer to my declaration published in the January 1944 issue of Maclean's Magazine.

Speaking for the group which I represent, the bloc populaire canadien, I made the following statement:

We are in favour of a permanent international institution which would have the characteristics of a genuine league of nations:

It would group together all the civilized states, or at least the majority of them.

It would grant to them, small or large, equal rights; in consequence of this it would not become the mere tool of imperial powers and imperialists, as was the Geneva league.

It would prepare to establish a truly international order, both from the economic and the political point of view.

San Francisco Conference

In our opinion Canada should work to form some such institution, then join it and take on responsibilities in proportion to her importance and interests.

That is what I said scarcely a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve the object it has in view, the organization which it is proposed to establish will have to be truly democratic, rather than being, in some regards, a replica of the league of nations, formed in 1919 and which, in spite of the outstanding services it has given, has all too often been, in the hands of certain powers, the means of promoting their selfish and materialistic interests.

Its aim should be, as was said in a recent statement of the Catholic episcopate of the United States:

To include all nations, while respecting the equal rights of every one, great or small, weak or powerful.

Since the object is to devise means for ensuring international peace, I regret that neutral countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, Ireland and others have not been invited to the conference, and especially that the Vatican has not been requested to send representatives there.

No one can question the desire to cooperate in the general welfare, and the absolute impartiality of a world power like the Papacy. Who is unaware of the efforts made by the Vatican with a view to ending the conflict and ensuring future peace in a spirit of Christian charity?

And what about the absence of Poland, a country obviously doomed to be eternally victimized? If there is a country which should have an outstanding place on that occasion, it is surely the one which has suffered most from this war. The Prime Minister should make the necessary representations.

What part shall we play in that conference?

In the first place, the part of a free and independent country, with all these words imply. The Prime Minister has set forth the aims and principles outlined at the Dumbarton Oaks conference and referred to in the resolution, and they have been highly approved. These aims and principles must be upheld and our representatives must endeavour to set up an organization which will guarantee that they will not be violated.

The security council will be called upon to play an important part. In view of the extraordinary powers with which it will be endowed, it must be more representative than is advocated in the suggested proposals if it is not to be made the tool of one of the great powers. Recent events make it necessary to act cautiously. Indeed, the security council which is

the supreme authority entrusted with the maintenance of universal peace, will be composed of five permanent members (United States, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R.. France and China) and six other members elected by the other nations. Decisions must be approved by seven of the eleven members. Moreover, if any one of the five great nations were guilty of an act of aggression, it could use its power of veto against any sanctions contemplated against it. I feel that should such authority be granted to the five great powers it would be tantamount to recognizing that might is right. This would be a violation of the democratic principle, of the principles which are to be the basis of the contemplated international organization. Its hands would be tied. As this is one of the proposals which will be discussed, I would ask the Canadian representatives to demand a larger representation on the security council for the secondary and smaller nations, and to refuse the right of veto to any of the five great powers.

We want an enduring peace based on right and not on might.

The San Francisco conference must be approached in the light of past history and of possible future events. Since the outbreak of the war, England, the United States and Russia held several conferences. Canada was neither invited nor represented. And yet we were vitally concerned.

The Atlantic charter, which held out hopes for the post-war period, was the outcome of one of these conferences. Alas! what has become of this Atlantic charter which was accepted by the great powers? It has been violated. What are the views of the Prime Minister in this respect?

We have lost track of the number of treaties broken by Russia since 1939. On November 30, 1939 while Russia was a member of the League, of Nations, she ruthlessly attacked heroic Finland, notwithstanding a pact of nonaggression between the two nations; this prompted the Prime Minister to say in a broadcast on February 23, 1940:

Finland is fighting gallantly against brutal aggression.

Later on, Russia occupied the Baltic States and part of Roumania, and took Bulgaria and Yugoslavia under her control.

The partition of Poland, in violation of a treaty and of the Atlantic charter, with the approval of Mr. Churchill, is the latest act of brigandage committed by Russia.

A compromise has been mentioned! Who will benefit by that compromise?

One thing is certain; all relations between peoples are impossible when there is no mutual faithfulness to the pledged word, and no power

San Francisco Conference

may arrogate to itself the right unilaterally to break a treaty which does not suit its purpose.

What is to become of the reasons invoked to justify the declaration of war in September, 1939: respect for the treaties, for the territorial integrity of the countries; protection of weak nations; struggle for the safeguard of Christian civilization, of democracy?

I have said so already andi I say it again, there is no such thing as a war for ideologies; there are only wars of interests. It was true in 1914; it is true for the present war.

I enumerate these facts in order to prove how important it is for our representatives to oppose the assumption, by any of the great powers of the right to veto a decision and, further to obtain that the secondary and small nations be better represented on the security council, in accordance with the principle of the "sovereign equality of all peace-loving states," as set forth at Dumbarton Oaks.

As the control of armaments will come under discussion, I suggest that the export of weapons from one country to another be prohibited and that the various states alone be authorized to manufacture them according to their protection needs, to the exclusion of all private enterprises.

Let us not forget that the rearmament of Germany by gun manufacturers of various countries is responsible for the 1939 conflict.

One of the proposals to be considered at the conference deals with economic and social cooperation in the international sphere.

I shall refer, if I may, to a statement I made in this house on September 9, 1939, on the occasion of the declaration of war by Canada:

Border disputes are of little moment in comparison with the disorder in production and trade which reduces certain countries to famine.

The publications of the universal assembly for peace, a body established, by the league of nations with a view to deal with international situations which are apt to provoke war, contain a detailed analysis of the three principal economic causes of war: the problem of raw materials, that of labour and that of trade outlets.

In one of these works it is stated that:

"No more than individuals, can the proletarian countries resign themselves forever to remain such in neighbourhood of richly endowed and satisfied nations. Until such time as the world takes the necessary steps with a view to systematically and logically solving these problems in a spirit of international fellowship, there shall exist this struggle for economic life, too often the prelude of military war."

Walter Lippmann, the famous American publicist, openly sympathetic to the so-called democratic nations, has written:

"The great crime of post-war politics in Europe, was that the victorious powers took advantage of their supremacy to monopolize the resources of the world."

Mr. Speaker, post-war problems will be of various kinds; one of the most important will concern the economic and social order.

Real peace implies social peace. It matters little whether social life is simple or complex, whether the needs are few or many. What does matter is that the needs be met according to order and justice.

Society must sincerely devote its efforts to the improvement of material, intellectual and moral conditions; it must recognize the principle of equal opportunities for.all and realize that worldly goods, which are necessities of life, are not the privilege of a few, but exist for the benefit of the masses.

The peace that is to follow the present war must be more than a clever balance of military powers, it must be founded on real efforts to establish international justice.

Let us work for the realization of political understanding and reconciliation among the various nations, based on justice, while remembering that all human beings have equal rights to life.

Topic:   EDITION

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on this motion to approve the acceptance of the invitation by four of the great powers to an international conference in San Francisco, I desire to make but a few observations. In the first place there should be the closest cooperation among nations for the preservation of peace and security. I believe, therefore, that the invitation should be accepted, and that a delegation representing Canada should attend this conference. In my own mind this is perhaps the most momentous conference to be held in the history of mankind. As a matter of fact, when I think of the issues at stake; when I realize that this conference may determine the destiny of the nations of the world for centuries to come, I am a bit surprised that so little time should be given in this house for the discussion of such great issues as are involved here.

As I say, decisions may be made that will seal the destiny of nations for centuries to come. There is perhaps one tiny qualifying clause in the proposals; that is the last clause, which provides that no commitments will be made until the results of the conference have been brought before this parliament and approved by it. But I am fearful lest in practice that last clause may turn out to be simple routine. As I see it, the real question is, what sort of world do we want? It is not enough to say that we want a peaceful world. We also want a free world, a world free from want, free from fear, free to worship God according to the

San Francisco Conference

conscience of each individual. We want freedom of expression. We want a world where we are free to live out our own lives, a world of freedom to live with our own consciences.

In my short experience and perhaps my limited thinking it seems to me that there are two great world philosophies. One is the philosophy of authoritarianism or totalitarianism, the philosophy which paves the way for a world dictatorship. On the other hand we have that democratic concept of the way of free men. I am going to suggest that the one philosophy is anti-Christian, a philosophy which regards man as the servant of the state, a cog in the machine, a philosophy which believes in force and compulsion. On the other hand we have that Christian concept which regards as of some importance the dignity of the individual, that man is a free moral agent, that man has a soul. That philosophy believes in the principle of persuasion rather than compulsion.

I have some very strong personal convictions along these lines. Each of those philosophies has a world programme. One is a programme designed eventually to bring to fruition a world dictatorship, and to enthrone in the world all that is anti-Christian. It has a programme of propaganda, and we must be very careful along those lines, for there is a programme of anti-Christian propaganda filled with deceitfulness and lies, the workings of which are after the order of the one who, from the beginning, was a liar.

Topic:   EDITION

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit


And, as the hon. member for Wetaslciwin says, a murderer. If it is allowed to come to fruition it will issue in world mass murder on a scale such as this world has never before seen. That is what I regard as the danger of that particular philosophy.

The other philosophy, whieh I describe as Christian, also has a programme of, shall I say, propaganda, although it is a vulgar word to use in that connection. It believes in the propagation of truth; for the greatest Man of all mankind once said: "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." That philosophy proclaims the good news of peace and of righteousness.

Although what I shall say might be unpopular in some places, I would dare say that all the great conferences, and particularly those designed to determine the future destiny of nations, cannot leave God out, and expect an era of righteousness and peace, nor will there be peace until the Prince of Peace returns, whose right it is to reign.

I say I have some very strong personal view's along those lines, because I believe- and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) would be with me in this-that the quotation from Holy Writ is true where it states that "We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

And I say that as this delegation goes to a conference as important as the united nations conference in San Francisco it cannot go without recognizing that behind all the scenes of human activity a battle is going on that will mean either the supremacy of right and truth, or the downfall of righteousness ana truth and the enthronement of all that is evii. That is one thing I claim we cannot escape.

If the Canadian delegation in its deliberations at San Francisco expects to bring these two great philosophies together, so that each will be in a league with the other, I am afraid they are doomed to disappointment. One is at war with the other.

I believe the ideals, the objectives, the desires and the beliefs of those nations comprising the British commonwealth are that the nations of the world should live in a world of free men. British idealism, if I may put it in that way, is opposed to the authoritarian philosophy, the philosophy of totalitarianism and world dictatorship. Let the British nations that are represented at San Francisco sell out to what might become a world dictatorship, and I say the day will come when people will read Holy Writ with a new meaning.

Topic:   EDITION

An hon. MEMBER:

It will be too late.

Topic:   EDITION

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit


Yes, it will be too late, for the time will then be that "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh". Make no mistake about that. I believe the British commonwealth as an association of nations has been and can be a bulwark against totalitarianism. This has been and will be because among the British commonwealth of nations there is a free association of nations with a common tie.

In this connection might I read a clipping of a reprint from a book by Sir Norman Angell, entitled, "What Comes First". So as not to detain the house, without destroying the context I shall abridge the article somewhat. Sir Norman goes on to say this:

Upon what do hopes of democracy and freedom in the last resort depend? The Germans are brave, but the world has little hope of democracy or freedom from them. The French are brave, and they passionately desire freedom and democracy. The Russians have shown bravery unequalled perhaps, certainly not exceeded, in any of the armies now fighting. They are dying as no other soldiers have died, not unwillingly, not forced, not driven and with

San Francisco Conference

a faith in their cause certainly as great as the faith of the young nazi in his. But the Russian has not yet achieved democracy in the western sense. His government is a dictatorship.

It was not merely or mainly British courage (no greater than the courage of other peoples) which first of all prompted Britain to challenge the Hitlerite power at a time when Russia, America and so many others who have since joined the struggle, were neutral, or like Russia, politically associated with Hitler. If the British community throughout the world has done some service to the cause of freedom it is not the service merely, or chiefly, of courage. It is the service of a certain political attitude or temper. No Vichy governments were possible in Britain or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or South Africa. The last-named perhaps came nearest such a possibility but the genius of Smuts kept it at bay. The British morale for resistance was not, first of all, a matter of "guts" but a capacity for national unity-a unity which did not spring suddenly into life with the war.

Those statements I believe to be correct, and right at this point I wish to ask a question. The Prime Minister has already stated that if there are any questions to be asked in this debate he would appreciate our asking them throughout the course of our remarks and then when he comes to Teply he will do his best to give satisfactory answers. Personally I believe that we should have moved into committee of the whole house where the debate could have been carried on with experts from the Department of External Affairs present, with the Prime Minister, so that we could have had question and answer on this very important subject. But such is not the case and the house is at a disadvantage in consequence, because the Prime Minister will close the debate when he makes his reply and then there can be no more questions. But since he is willing to answer questions I have a number to ask him. These are not necessarily all my own because the members of this party in the house are associated with me in asking them-and we want the answers.

Speaking of the unity which exists between the nations of the British commonwealth, I will ask the Prime Minister this question: Would adoption of these proposals in any way weaken the ties or relationship between the countries which comprise the British empire, and if so, in what manner and to what extent? I have these questions written out in order here, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on, and may comment on them a little bit, but for the convenience of the Prime Minister, and so that they will not be buried in Hansard I shall hand them to him' to facilitate his reading of them and giving the answers.

I would like to know whether the proposals now outlined as a basis for discussion at San Francisco will give us the absolute right to control our own internal economy; or is our own internal economy to be tied to some external authority? If it is, I claim that that is one of the greatest dangers there can be not only to Canada but to the British commonwealth of nations.

I should like to ask in my second question whether, if the proposals are adopted, would the control of this nation's currency and credit remain within our own power? In other words, would we retain absolute control over our own currency and credit?

I ask a third question. Do any of the proposals or principles involve a return to the gold standard, and if so, will the Canadian delegation oppose such a step, or will the government as far as it is concerned oppose such a step? In this connection, and to put my questions in somewhat of logical order I would ask another question which is important with respect to our own internal economy, and I want the members of the house to get this. If the proposals are adpoted would Canada and any other individual nation be able to negotiate a trade agreement upon a basis satisfactory to the two countries concerned without any interference by the world organization? If they are not able to do that, there is a red flag of danger just ahead.

I ask a fourth question, and this is in respect of the Bretton Woods proposals. Do any of the proposals or principles involve the acceptance of the Bretton Woods proposals, and if so, will the delegation oppose such a step, or will the government as far as it is concerned oppose such a step?

I notice that there is a good! deal of concern expressed in England about these matters at the present time and that public meetings are being held, attended not only by important individuals but by very large crowds of public-minded citizens. I notice also that some experts are beginning to put out warnings to the British government with respect to these matters. The other day I picked up the Ottawa Evening Citizen, containing an article by A. C. Cummings, of the London News Bureau, which no doubt appeared in several other papers in Canada. The article says in part:

The British commonwealth representatives, headed by Field Marshal Smuts, will begin their preliminary discussions on April i and consider details of the proposed economic council, world court and other business on the conference agenda.

That was not the part I particularly wanted to read, but since I have read it, I wonder if Canada will have any representative at these preliminary discussions. I think it would be well if the Prime Minister would tell us that.

San Francisco Conference

The article goes on to give an account of some warnings which are heard in England to-day. After discussing the relations of the three great industrial powers, namely the United States, Russia and Great Britain, the writer points out that Britain may find henself in a very unfavourable position should either the United States or Russia gain tremendous advantage by further developments of their immense industrial power. He states:

Despite Foreign Secretary Eden's assurance to the contrary, fears that British delegates at San Francisco may be confronted with the alternative that either they accept the Bretton Woods monetary proposals or they will not obtain the world security plan outlined at Dumbarton Oaks are expressed by the noted economist, Doctor Paul Einzig. He thinks that under the Bretton Woods plan Britain would be required to abandon existing monetary arrangements with the dominions, that within five years-

Here is something for my Conservative friends to listen to.

[DOT]-the so-called sterling area would have ceased to exist and that the Ottawa system of imperial preference could not survive.

Topic:   EDITION

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit


That is the big idea.

Such a weakening of the British commonwealth, he considers, would be suicidal in the event of another world war-especially when it is recalled that in 1940 the only nations to give Britain effective help in her deadliest hour were the dominions.

These are words worth taking note of.

It was in my mind to ask whether the present vote is to be regarded as one of confidence in the government's foreign policy. Perhaps there is no need to ask that question, because it is expected that an election will be held soon, and there is no virtue in putting the government out at the present time because they are going to die the natural death of all governments when their term of office expires. When they are dead I hope we shall bury them so deep that they will never rise again.

Speaking of elections, I do not want to sound a partisan note. So far this debate has been pretty well managed in that politics have not largely entered into it. The Prime Minister, when he opened the debate, said that it was not of a political nature, and that we must stay clear of trying to gain political advantage, and we were told that the delegation which is to go to San Francisco is to be inter or nonpolitical. But I should like to ask him, when the election is called, which it will be before the report of the committee can possibly be presented to this house, will he refrain from bringing the matter into political discussion during the election?

Topic:   EDITION

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit


I will ask him, also, is this vote to be regarded as a vote of confidence in the delegation? If it is, perhaps the Prime Minister should have announced before this debate commenced who are to constitute the delegation.

Another thing I think the Prime 'Minister should have done is to have called this parliament in time to submit this whole question to the appropriate parliamentary committee in order that the subject could be thoroughly investigated, witnesses called, and nothing left undone to provide parliament as a whole with a full and complete picture of all the intricacies involved. But he has not done that. I suppose I could at this moment move that the matter 'be referred to one of the standing committees; if I did so a vote would be taken, and I understand such a motion is not debatable. But there is now no time for such action; there would have been if the Prime Minister had not been watching the political straws a few months ago. There is not time now; he has gained a round in this matter at the expense of all parties in the house. But I have a question which I will ask him and which I will also put to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party. I do so because I do not know who will be in power after the election.

Topic:   EDITION

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit


Whoever is in power will have to deal with this matter, because it requires ratification by parliament. I ask of anyone who may be prime minister in the next parliament, will he assure this house that as far as he is concerned this whole matter will be brought before the appropriate committees of the house for full investigation before any commitments are made?

I am not satisfied with the last clause as it stands. The statement that the charter will be "submitted to parliament for approval" is a very general one. Will he say that this matter, if economic proposals are involved, will go to the banking and commerce committee; if armed force is involved, to some other committee; if a matter of trade, to yet another committee? In other words, will he undertake that the proposals will undergo microscopic examination by the proper committees whose duty it will be to report to parliament, and will he promise that these committees will not be loaded with his own supporters; and will other parties in this house promise the same thing? I contend that this is important and calls for an answer.

San Francisco Conference

I shall make one statement on behalf of this group and then I desire to present an amendment. My statement is as follows: Speaking on behalf of the Social Credit group, I wish to state that we are desirous of seeing a delegation from Canada attend the San Francisco conference and take part with the representatives of the other nations in a sincere, determined effort to work out an effective method of guaranteeing peace and security with freedom throughout the world. Therefore, because voting against the main resolution as it is worded would of necessity be voting against even accepting the invita^ tion to attend the San Francisco conference, we will vote for the main resolution. But we oppose the acceptance of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals in any form or modification which embodies by stipulation or implication the international monetary stabilization technique of Bretton Woods, which gives any board of officials power to interfere in the monetary, financial or economic affairs of any state.

And now I propose the following amendment:

That the resolution be amended by striking out clauses three and four respectively, renumbering clause five as clause four and substituting for clause three the following:

3. (a) That this house is of the opinion that an acceptable charter for an international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security should be constructed on a pattern in which the full national sovereignty of each cooperating nation is insured, and in which free peoples are freely associated for the mutual benefit of all striving for the attainment of a common ideal of peace, freedom and security.

[DOT] (b) And this house therefore disapproves of the monetary stabilization technique emanating from the Bretton Woods conference designed to fetter all peoples to the gold standard and which would result in rendering the Canadian economy subservient to external control.

Topic:   EDITION

March 27, 1945