Mr. HANSELL:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I concluded with the presentation of the amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The resolution, which I

need not read in its entirety proposes:

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

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

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

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

I do not think I need read the rest of the resolution. I will simply refer to clause 3 which, I think, is the essence of the resolution now presented to the house.

In the amendment as proposed by the hon. member, 3 (a) might be considered an enlargement of the preamble of the clause, taken in conjunction with clause 2. Paragraph (6) imports a new subject of discussion which is not within the four walls of the motion. It is a subject which is foreign to the resolution before the house. I shall therefore have to rule it out of order.

The law is well established and has been the subject of discussion many times in the house. I will read the decision given by Mr. Speaker Lemieux on March 17, 1927. The remarks which I make with regard to the amendment now before the house are, I think, apropos and in accord with that decision. I quote:

Amendment ruled out, because it raised a new question which could only be considered on a distinct motion after notice.

The house resumed the debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Woodsworth-that, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.

And the debate continuing;

Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Gott, moved an amendment thereto:

That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"it be referred to the standing committee of this house on mines, forests and water-powers, to consider and investigate all leases, grants, or permits issued during the past year in respect to natural resources under the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada, known as 'water powers'; with power to send for all papers and documents, to summon and examine witnesses, regarding any such leases, grants and permits.

"And further, with power to the said committee to report whether such leases, grants or permits are in the public interest, and whether the interests of the federal authorities are amply protected.

"And also, to report whether, in the opinion of the committee, the said lease or permit in respect of the Seven Sisters falls in the Province of Manitoba should be revoked and cancelled, and if so, upon what terms and conditions.

"And to report all matter and findings to this house."

Mr. Speaker: In my humble opinion the

amendment is out of order for the following reasons. Beauchesne, section 397, states:

"An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice."

The honourable gentleman will notice that the question before the house is an abstract one. It reads:

San Francisco Conjerence

"That in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal parliament, shall be effective until ratified by parliament."

By his amendment the honourable gentleman asks, inter alia, that the lease of a specific water power called the Seven Sisters falls, be investigated by the committee on mines, forests and water powers. What is the procedure in this matter?

What is the procedure in this matter? I read from Bourinot, Fourth Edition, at page 321:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment has been proposed, and this rule has been invariably insisted upon by Canadian Speakers.

Then farther down:

If such a practice were tolerated, all the benefits of giving due notice of a motion, and allowing the house a full opportunity of considering a question, would be practically lost. A member would then be in a position to surprise the house at any moment with a motion of importance-

This is undoubtedly a question-of importance. -and the necessity of giving notice would be superseded to all intents and purposes. It is not, therefore, surprising that the latest English decisions are in accord with those of the Canadian Speakers. Sir Erskine May, in later editions, however, lays it down as "an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed."

I have, on many occasions, looked over the vexed question of amendments and subamendments, and the ruling is uniform on the subject that no new question must be introduced on- an amendment. It must be relevant to the main question. In the present instance the resolution is an abstract one while the amendment refers to a specific subject different from the main one.

No new question must be introduced by an amendment to the- question before the house. A new question has been introduced in the amendment in paragraph (b) which reads as follows:

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 "ould result in rendering the Canadian economy subservient to external control.

I am satisfied that paragraph (b) in the amendment now offered is new matter which can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice. It is not relevant to the resolution before the house and I therefore rule it out of order.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Would Your Honour permit any discussion on the ruling?

Mr. SPEAKER:

There is only one method of discussing a ruling from the chair, and that is by an appeal.

Mr. J. W. BURTON (Humboldt):

There is no desire on my part to prolong unnecessarily this debate; therefore, my remarks this evening will be very short. However, as one of the junior members of this group I should like to make a few observations in connection- with the motion under discussion. May I express my appreciation to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the clear-cut, straight-forward wording of the motion he presented for our consideration. This is such a departure from what seems to be bis usual practice that it is no wonder our friends of the Progressive Conservative party were caught flat-footed and unprepared to proceed with the debate when it was opened by the Prime Minister.

Mr. GRAYDON:

May I rise to a question of privilege? I know the hon. member does not desire to misinterpret the situation. I thought when I rose on- a question of privilege early to-day it would be sufficient to make every member understand that a statement such as is now being made is not in accordance with the facts. I do not want to protest again, but I trust that such allegations will not be repeated.

Mr. BURTON:

I am sorry that the leader of the opposition is so touchy on this matter.

I accept his correction.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

He is only telling the truth.

Mr. BURTON:

But nevertheless the fact remains that the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party fumbled the ball. It was picked up by the leader of this group and he carried it over for a touchdown.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

He

made a foul.

Mr. GRAYDON:

It was only a part of the alliance of the hon. member's party with the government; that is all.

Mr. BURTON:

If the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party will just have a little patience I may say something later on that will please them. Prior to the opening of this session of parliament the Prime Minister was quite frank in stating that certain people would not be chosen as delegates to go to the conference at San Francisco. He- furthermore gave the impression that this would be a non-partisan delegation consisting of members from both sides of the house.

San Francisco Conference

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

Of his own choosing.

Mr. BURTON. But he did not say that it would be a fifty-fifty proposition. In my opinion anything less would be only a poor imitation of President Roosevelt's arrangement for the delegation representing the United States. When we consider that President Roosevelt has had a recent mandate from the American people and then stop to think that this parliament will have passed its allotted span of life before the conference takes place, we will realize that our delegation will be handicapped and weakened if the majority of its members are supporters of a party of which there is a question of its being able to obtain a fresh mandate from the Canadian people.

My purpose in raising that point is my keen desire and hope that our delegation should be in a position to carry as much weight as possible at the conference and leave no question in the minds of delegates from other nations as to whether or not our delegates represent the full viewpoint of all our Canadian people.

I can speak quite frankly in my plea for an equalized representation because I have no desires or aspirations to be a member of the delegation; nevertheless there are plenty of experienced members on this side of the house to choose from. When the invitations were being sent to the various nations inviting all peace-loving nations to attend, many people wondered why only those nations that had declared war should receive the invitation. My answer to such questions has been, that there are times and places when the only way you can love peace is to be willing to take off your coat and fight for it.

What some people, yes, and even a few members of this house forget is that this is not a peace conference to settle the present war. Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynba) make an eloquent plea for the people of the Ukraine. Prior to that, on Thursday, March 22, the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) pleaded the case for poor, long-suffering Poland. Both of these hon. members are to be congratulated for the able way in which they have presented their respective cases. I would, if they are so kind as to allow me, join with them in then-plea for justice. But in view of a statement made by the Prime Minister during the course of his speech, I would say that we are pleading this case in the wrong court at the wrong time. Let me quote from the Prime Minister's speech of Tuesday, March 20, when on page 22 of Hansard he said:

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

Therefore in my opinion any discussion as to terms, boundaries and so forth in connection with any country cannot be of any help at the present time, because these are matters that can be dealt with only after the cessation of hostilities. Our delegates to the peace conference will have to deal with these problems. But we hope that at San Francisco machinery will be set up to guard the peace of the world' for many years to come; and if, unfortunately, the peace conference should leave unsettled' any questions such as those referred to by hon. members, I submit they can be brought quite properly before the security council under section A of chapter VIII of these proposals. I believe every hon. member has a copy of this pamphlet, which is headed: "Proposals for the establishment of a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security." On page 10, under section A of chapter VIII, the heading is: "Arrangements for the maintenance of international peace and security including prevention and suppression of aggression." I contend that cases such as have been brought to the attention of this house, if they exist after this organization has been set up, will be dealt with in such a way that the people of these different countries may have their views considered.

Some people become quite vexed when suggestions are made warning our delegates of certain pitfalls or dangers. They seem to take such warnings as personal affronts to the leaders of the three great powers. Let me tell those of such mentality that the youth of the united nations have been called upon to pay a tremendous price to free the world from such slavish following of a fuehrer. While we are prepared to give all due credit to the ability and leadership of Prime Minister Churchill, President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin, our democratic people will never allow any one of these, or a combination of all three of them, to become Hitler's counterpart. I believe that if the suggestions and warnings offered by the leader of our group, the hon. member for

San Francisco Conference

Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), are carefully considered by the delegates they will be able to make a greater contribution to the success of the conference.

I also believe that the point of view expressed by the leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) with regard to Bretton Woods, is well taken. The hon. member made one statement, however, with which I cannot agree, when he said the combined military strength af the British empire, France and the United States had not been sufficient to enforce oil sanctions against Italy when that nation was starting on its path of aggression. In my opinion the main reason why oil sanctions were not imposed against Italy, and why our delegate who had proposed such action was so quickly reprimanded, was that there were oil interests which had greater influence at court than did the people who later on had to pay the price, through their sweat and blood and tears. Those self-same interests and other cartels are still flourishing in most countries. Will they be lurking around the corridors at San Francisco? I leave that to your imagination, Mr, Speaker, but I believe my guess would be as good as any; in fact I would not be very much surprised if their emissaries should try to run the show.

The events of the last twenty-five years make it all the more necessary that our delegation to the conference should be as representative and as strong as possible. There will be need of careful consideration before many important decisions are made. Let no one kid himself or mislead the public by saying there are no causes for fear. Nevertheless every effort should be made to set up a fair and workable arrangement to safeguard the peace of the world in the years to come. If we fail in that endeavour there is grave danger that the next world war may destroy our entire civilization. Therefore, I am sure the prayers this young, virile, Christian nation will go with the Prime Minister and the delegation he leads to San Francisco.

In this connection I should like to add a word to what was said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), who preceded me. I was very much touched when he dealt with this point. His training over past years enabled him to express his thoughts much better than I can do, but I should like to say I am satisfied that unless the delegation from this country and all the delegations that sit around that conference table at San Francisco pay heed to the warning given by the hon. member for Macleod; unless they are prepared to take God into that council and try to bring about a fair

and just arrangement, they will be erecting the framework of the new structure on a foundation of shifting sands.

There may be some who will scoff at the idea of trying to establish an organization to maintain the peace of the world. They may point to the failures of all such attempts in the past. May I remind such people that it is told of the late Thomas Edison that when he was informed of the failure of his two-thousandth experiment in the search for a suitable filament for the electric light he replied, "Well, that leaves two thousand less to try in future." Did he throw up his hands and quit? Just imagine the loss to civilization if he had done so! Other people adopt a hopeless attitude and say there always have been wars and we will continue to have wars as long as man inhabits the earth. That is only partly correct. It is true that there will be constant combat between the forces of good and the forces of evil, but only until the Prince of Peace reigns supreme in the hearts of men. Have the people of the world ever tried that method? Two thousand years ago the Prince of Peace came to bring peace to the world. This reminds me of the words of the gospel, wherein it says:

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

He came unto His own, and His own received Him not.

After two thousand years the greater part of the world pays only lip-service to that great commandment He gave us, to love our neighbours as ourselves. We have not only failed but have refused to follow His example and teachings. He drove the money-changers from the temple, but most of the nations of the world still worship at the feet of the golden calf.

At this time of the year, when we are commemorating His suffering, death and resurrection. it is also proper that we remember the suffering and death of many of His brothers, our fellow citizens, who have paid the supreme sacrifice so that we may live.

Let us pass this motion, unanimously and ask our delegates to give the necessary leadership along these lines, so that this structure will not be built on a foundation of sand. And, having done that, in future years we may look back to this Easter time as having also been the dawn of peace.

Mr. J. SASSEVILLE ROY (Gaspe):

Mr. Speaker, before setting out my remarks on the subject matter of the resolution now be-for the house, I should like to say a few words of welcome to the hon. members for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe),

San Francisco Conference

Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) and Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), who have come to sit with us. Indeed I am very happy that these hon. gentlemen have joined the independent group in the house. This will prove an important factor toward assuring the election of all independent members in Quebec on the next polling day.

I was amazed when I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Beauhamois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). The hon. member questioned my logic, and tried to show contradiction in what I said last year on February 8 in respect of conferences which were held and attended by three or four of the great powers, but to which the Canadian nation was not invited. One is amazed to see a man attempting to find contradictions between what has been said in the past, and what one is going or not going to say in the future. Surely that is an example of good logic! Nevertheless the hon. member is permitted to discuss what he believes to be my opinions in respect of certain definite matters-although I have never dis-' cussed his opinions, particularly when I do not know what he is going to say or do. And even if I did know, surely it is the duty of one hon. member to respect the opinions of others. However, the hon. member need not worry; I am not annoyed; I have been amused, and what he has said has permitted me to relax a little.

The hon. member has recalled what I said last year when I blamed the government for not having insisted upon representation at those great conferences-the one at which the Atlantic charter was drawn up, the conference at Casablanca, those at Quebec and Yalta, and so on. I purpose once more to-night blaming the government for the very same reason. It is one among many other very important reasons why I oppose the resolution now before the house.

The hon. member for Beauhamois-Laprairie read some of the clauses in the resolution, number 3 of which states:

(3) That this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, and considers that these proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization.

While later on in his speech the hon. member emphasized his opposition to the consequences of those proposals of the Dumbarton Oaks conference, yet he said at the beginning of his observations that all that the government was proposing was acceptable. This looks to me like a contradiction.

I should like to say a few words about what was said last Friday by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Bertrand), when he raised the question of separatism. At page 159 of Hansard he is reported as follows:

The class of people to whom these gentlemen are appealing have only one definite article in their programme-the separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada. That is a programme which would bring immediate civil war if Quebec tried to enforce it.

That is the talk we always hear, Mr. Speaker; but the truth surely has its rights, even in the mouth of a minister of the crown. I challenge any one to find in any of our speeches or in any of our acts anything that could lead one to believe that we could have supported such a policy. On the contrary we have always preached and are still preaching sound collaboration between the two ethnic elements of our country.

I pause to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that at one time in our province there was a move for separatism. Some years ago a Liberal member in the Quebec legislative assembly moved a resolution to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. That Liberal member was afterwards a minister in a Quebec Liberal cabinet. He also came to this house as a Liberal member, and finally was appointed by the present government to one of the most important positions in our province, namely that of a seat on the bench of the court of appeal. I refer to the Hon. Mr. Francoeur. If this man, the only one in Quebec to promote a policy of separatism, could be so generously treated, then surely it goes without saying that we all must know those who are the sponsors of such a policy.

In order to be in a position to understand the matter under discussion we should first try to ascertain what is to be the true character of the San Francisco conference. When we understand its character, I should be very much surprised to find there are any others, like the hon. member for Beauhamois-Laprairie, who do not understand and respect our opinions.

Too many people are inclined to speak about the San Francisco conference as if it were to be a peace conference. That is giving a false impression. The conference has for its object the setting up of an organization having for its purpose the maintenance of peace. We should not confuse the maintenance of peace with the establishment of peace itself. The two things are altogether different.

After witnessing this horrible world massacre, Mr. Speaker, we all eagerly desire a true peace and strongly call for its permanent maintenance throughout the world. But before deciding to share in the working out of a scheme of the kind proposed at the Dumbarton Oaks

San Francisco Conference

conference, before leaving for San Francisco, we ought to know first what bind of peace the great powers controlling the conference intend to impose upon the world. What will be the spirit at the basis of the establishment of the peace which we are going to engage ourselves to maintain? And for whose benefit will the depositions of such a peace be?

Second, what will be the effect of this conference upon our country? How can we figure . out that our participation in this conference will be worth anything to ourselves as well as . to all the other nations when we know that our government, after having drawn our country into this war, has not found the means of having had a single word to say in any of the conferences which have taken place during the last five years?

Third, what is the exact international situation of our country when even here in this chamber we see the government declaring that they are going to try to obtain from other nations recognition of us as a kind of middle state between the great powers and the small powers, and on the other side we see the official opposition claiming that there should be another great power composed of the nations of the British commonwealth of which our country would be only a part?

Fourth, what are the prospective guarantees for a fair and durable peace so solemnly promised by our immediate leaders and which is expected by the whole of humanity when we' know what is going on in Europe at the present time?

Is it the proper time to set up that organization for the maintenance of peace before peace itself is made? What are the reasons for such a hurry?

It is only the answers to these questions that can enable one to form an opinion on the present resolution. The conclusion one would draw would be positive or negative according as he bases his decision on the policy of imperialism and international finance, on/or a policy of Canadianism against world-wide cartels and all sorts of international financial schemes.

As Canada was not represented in the most important conferences of the Atlantic at Casablanca, Teheran, Quebec and Yalta, we are not aware of the character of the decisions taken at these conferences. What were the secret agreements reached? Would it not be only elementary to know that before deciding on ' the course of action that we should take in regard to the San Francisco conference?

What must seem the most extraordinary to intelligent people is the fact that we are endeavouring to organize the maintenance of a peace of which we do not know the first word.

,

Then the question may arise, what kind of peace are we to have? What role will Canada play in the establishment of the peace itself? Will we, as usual, endorse all the decisions already taken by the great powers? Will that-peace be based on democratic principles and Christian justice? Will the only guardians of social doctrine in the world'-I mean the representatives of the different Christian churches -be invited, as they were for the winning of the war, to bring forth at these conferences the sound directives upon which peace must be based if it is to be one of social justice and last forever? Will that peace be the Versailles kind of peace? That is to say, will it be the work of the international financiers and their representatives? Will that peace be only the expression of will of the dictatorial power and materialist thinkers, Russia ?

Would it not be the most elementary kind of wariness, Mr. Speaker, that we should' know these conditions before accepting the invitation to go to San Francisco? The main objective of that conference is to set up an international body empowered with the means to maintain . peace in the world. Its authority must be backed up by armies and guns. That is to say, if it offers a possibility for permanent peace, it alike represents a permanent danger of war. That possibility is interdependent on the nature of the .peace treaty that will be made at the conclusion of hostilities. The supreme control of that organization will ibe left in the hands of the four great powers only. That is full of significance.

The hon. leader of the Social Credit group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) has made the clearest analysis of that significance that has been submitted to you, Mr. Speaker. Here is what he said on the subject and I thank the hon. member for having permitted me to quote his words. He said:

Now the governemnt is asking this house to approve a policy which involves the establishment of a world organization under an executive body which would have effective control of the armed forces of all nations and could mobilize economic sanctions against any nation for the purpose of imposing its dictates.

That is what the Dumbarton Oaks proposals involve which are to form the basis of the San Francisco conference. However, those proposals cannot be considered without reference to the Bretton Woods proposals, which involve a centralization of economic power on a world scale by setting up a world authority with control of the monetary policy of all nations.

It will be argued that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals specifically provide that each nation is to have its sovereignty. But what is the use of talking nonsense like that when you at once proceed to set up an organization where it is impossible for any nation to have its sovereignty? ,

It will be argued that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals envisage the control by each individual

San Francisco Conference

state of its military forces until it surrenders it. But there will be such mechanisms set up in this whole arrangement, including Dumbarton Oaks, UNRRA, the monetary fund, the international bank and all the rest, that such pressure will be brought to bear on any nation which hesitates to surrender the control of its forces that it will be obliged to surrender those forces in order to subsist.

Thus we find that the policy that the go-vern-ment is asking this house to approve involves the surrender of Canada to an international authority of all effective sovereignty and the concentration of power in an alien-dominated international group over, first, our economic policy, second, through this, our political policy, and third, of the armed forces. In short the power of the proposed international authority will be absolute. Every vestige of effective democracy will be destroyed and Canada will become a vassal state under an overriding international dictatorship. The British commonwealth will be swallowed up in a federated agglomeration of servile states. The relationship of this parliament to the world authority would be that of a Canadian village council to-day to this parliament. Human freedom would be a mockery, and we would have a world totalitarian dictatorship fastened upon us until conditions became so intolerable that a universal revolt would destroy it. And, Mr. Speaker, the design of the planners of this whole set-up is that when this universal revolt occurs there will be fastened upon the people in their helplesness and uncertainty and chaotic condition another dictatorship which will be one of militarv power.

The hon. member goes on to express his amazement at the Prime Minister being "so anxious to surrender every vestige of effective national sovereignty to some, as yet unspecified, group" whose interests are not ours.

This is the meaning, Mr. Speaker, of the proposals of Dumbarton Oaks which the government is asking us by the present resolution to endorse.

It is a tremendous responsibility which rests upon hon. members to authorize at this time a government to go to San Francisco with no mandate and engage Canada in such a perilous adventure, knowing, as we all know, that this government not only has no mandate but has no longer the confidence of the people, as is well proven by the results of all recent by-elections. Further, the government has not ventured to proceed with ten by-elections which, according to the law, should have been held.

In spite of an adverse mandate, the Liberal government has plunged Canada into participation and has made our contribution more tremendous than anyone by the stretch of the imagination could have thought of.

Now the war is nearing its end, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), not being satisfied with his responsibility for the actual war, goes ahead now, before being thrown out of political life by the people of this country,

in a desperate effort to engage Canada not only in the future wars which the empire may encounter, but in any war that may occur anywhere. His record as a participationist will be a nice thing for the Liberal party. The debate on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals may bring about all kinds of consequences. One of these is tied up with the maintenance of an international military force, which may very well mean for Canada the maintenance of compulsory military service. We should fear that probability. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that Canada's delegation will do its utmost to well serve Canada's interest. But what is the situation of us, members in this house, who are asked to take the tremendous responsibility of adopting a world policy of which we do not know anything, since it is based on decisions and secret agreements which are hidden from us? Our situation cannot but be false to the utmost. The point is that -we are required to rely entirely upon the ability of the government or of the Prime Minister.

I deeply regret that I, for one, cannot feel all the confidence in the Prime Minister which I should like to have. Past experiences have taught us to be careful. I will give a few examples of the Prime Minister changing his mind.

In 1937. after a political campaign waged by the Liberal party in the constituency of Lotbiniere against participation in any war, the Prime Minister wired to the winner as follows:

The electors of Lotbiniere have voted for a Canadian who places the national interest above all.

That telegram was dated December 28. 1937.

On August 11, 1944, the same Prime Minister made this declaration in the House of Commons, as reported in Hansard, at page 5275:

. . . I do tell this House of Commons to-day that my visit to Germany had as its objective to make it perfectly clear that, if there was a war of aggression, nothing in the world would keep the Canadian people from being at the side of Britain. That was known to the German government at that time, and my action in the matter was fully known to the British government; but I did not talk about it at the time, for it is just as well that some of these matters should not be spoken of until later years.

That contradiction should be enough to support my contention that the policy of the Prime Minister is one of furtiveness and concealment.

Speaking over the Canadian radio network on February 3, 1940, the Prime Minister warned the people of Canada against the National government proposed by Mr. Manion, saying:

Just recall conscription of the union government.

San Francisco Conference

On January 26, 1942, the Prime Minister made the following statement in support of the anti-war pledges of the Liberal party in Quebec, as reported in Hansard, at page 46:

Every hon. member of this house knows that, except for the assurance that, in the event of a European war, there would be no conscription for service overseas, this parliament would never have decided, in the immediate and unanimous manner in which it did, to stand at the side of Britain in the resistance of aggression and the defence of freedom.

Hon. members are also aware that if, at the time when Canada's participation in the war was challenged in an election in the province of Quebec by a government professing a different political faith, a like assurance with respect to service overseas had not been given in the name of the present government by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and other Liberal leaders and members of the House of Commons from the province of Quebec, the verdict of the people of that province might have been wholly different.

At that time, the people of the province of Quebec turned out of office the government that had sought to thwart Canada's war effort, and placed in office under the leadership of Hon. Mr. Godbout, a government which was prepared to cooperate with the federal administration in furthering the national effort. I doubt if any service at the time meant more to the allied cause than that rendered by the people of the province of Quebec in thus demonstrating the unity of Canada in its war effort.

Yes, it was unanimous, but it was obtained under false promises. I could give many other examples of the same kind. But that should be sufficient to prove that the people of Canada at that time were deliberately misled, and there is evidence to-day that they have also been misled by some other slogans and promises during the present war. Have we not been told that we were fighting for democracy, for liberty and for Christianity? Now we are watching the comer at the right awaiting the emergence of the victory' of democracy and Christianity. We have been informed that victory is about to be realized. At the same time we are looking at the left corner, the opposite corner, and there we see something of a different complexion. In other words, we may witness the victory of totalitarianism and materialism over democratic and Christian principles, and that may be the achievement for the maintenance of which we are asked to work.

Speaking on Friday last, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde)-I am glad to see that he is in his place-

Mr. LALONDE:

I am here.

Mr. ROY:

I know you are there, in body I am sure, if not in spirit. The hon. gentleman accused the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay

fMr. Roy.]

(Mr. Dorion) of not being logical in urging the presence of the Pope's representatives at this conference and in opposing, on the other hand, Canada's participation at San Francisco. He went on to quote Pius XII as favouring the setting up of an organization of the type of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals inserted in the present resolution. But the hon. member did nob state the fundamental conditions on which such an organism could work in accordance with the Pope's suggestion. That is very important.

Should those conditions be observed and some of the guardians of Christian doctrine be invited, our attitude would be different, because then we would be offered a certain amount of security with regard to the results.

Mr. LALONDE:

Would you be in favour

of the conference then?

Mr. ROY:

I have just said yes. If the hon. member is not aware of what has been done along that line he is not eligible for participation in this discussion. However, I will try to make clear to him that we are in favour of such a conference being held, but what we are opposed to is the wrong way in which our government and the great powers are going about it. We contend that it is untimely for two reasons. First, peace has not yet been made; and, second, the present government has no mandate to engage Canada's future.

Mr. DUPUIS:

You want to send Mr. Bracken instead?

Mr. ROY:

No, Mr. Dupuis shall be sent.