October 18, 1945

SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

I did not say any such thing.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Roch Pinard

Liberal

Mr. PINARD:

He has brought in an

amendment which, in my view, will have the sole effect of giving the impression to the rest of the world that Canada is not united in this effort to bring peace to the world.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

I proposed an amendment.

United Nations Agreement

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Roch Pinard

Liberal

Mr. PINARD:

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

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

That is one man's opinion.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Lalonde

Liberal

Mr. LALONDE:

The hon. member was

speaking on behalf of his whole party.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Better wake up before it is too late.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Roch Pinard

Liberal

Mr. PINARD:

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

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
SC

John Horne Blackmore

Social Credit

Mr. BLACKMORE:

You have something there.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Roch Pinard

Liberal

Mr. PINARD:

I have not yet defined what, in my opinion, is the most important condition for the establishment and maintenance of peace. That condition is one of absolute necessity and, without it, the fulfilment of others would become totally useless. That condition is the improvement and betterment of private relations; that is, a better understanding and a deeper respect for each other's rights, privileges and aspirations.

I grew up to be respectful of the liberties and rights of others. That, in a way, is a definition of liberalism, which doctrine our Liberal leaders have preached by their example and also by their fruitful legislation in this country. That generous and proud doctrine I am happy to accept and shall make every endeavour to defend. Because of our special ethnic situation, the duties of every citizen of our country are difficult but also imperative. Before we attempt to do anything in the way of helping to improve international relations, we should begin to work at home.

Nobody in Canada and nobody in this house may approve the work done by the rest of the world at San Francisco unles they are prepared to accept the principles of close relationship, cooperation, understanding and tolerance between the two races of this dominion. In other words, one will not be able to contribute to the establishment of unity in this post-war world unless he is determined to assure also unity of purpose, unity of thought and unity of action in this great country of ours.

All Canadians must feel to-day that this country has attained a state of complete independence. But in order to be worthy of that great privilege, our country must achieve and maintain perfect unity: it must become a Canadian country, having not only its own distinctive flag and citizenship and its own national anthem, but above all its own common aspirations and ideals.

It is unfortunate that some public men in seeking office have tried again to stir up old quarrels between the two major races of Canada. At times it nearly became the only-policy of a political party which tried by these dangerous means to restore its fortunes which: so many errors and blunders had imperilled.

The spendid constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house I am proud' to say condemned unequivocally at the last election that anti-national policy of division instead of unity. Although its population is almost equally divided between citizens of French and English origin, all groups live in complete harmony and entertain relations of cordiality and understanding for each other.

I was particularly touched by the generosity of those in the constituency of Chambly-Rouville who, although not belonging to my race or origin, supported me and the Liberal party in the last election.

The time has come for the people of Quebec to cease thinking as regionalists or provin-cialists. We must expand and widen our national horizons; we must not be anything but real Canadians. That duty we are ready to fulfil with pride, but all other groups in this country must follow the same path and work with us to attain these great ideals.

We wish all groups and races of Canada to unite; we wish to march forward with them as free men with our own Canadian flag unfurling toward a bright and great future. That is the^ only sure way, Mr. Speaker, for us Canadians to contribute with success to the great and noble efforts of the civilized world toward establishing a lasting peace.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
PC

Thomas Langton Church

Progressive Conservative

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us reads:

That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement establishing the united nations and constituting the charter of the united nations and the statute of the international court of justice signed at San Francisco on June 26, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.

To that motion an amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low).

Canada was very well represented at the San Francisco conference, tied up as we were to the text of the Yalta agreement. At Yalta

United Nations Agreement

Mr. Churchill, Mr. Stalin, and the late President Roosevelt entered into what might be [DOT]called a complete review of the world and came to certain agreements which afterwards came up at the San Francisco conference. All parties in the house were represented in the San Francisco conference, excepting one, which I regret was left out. They performed their duties very satisfactorily.

I wish to say that foreign affairs should not be a party matter. I am not now speaking for any political party; I am speaking simply as a private member who has supported what has been the consistent policy of the Conservative party on foreign affairs and the empire during all these years, and I have not changed my opinions. When all is .said and done, if we are to embark upon internationalism we would be wise to stay in the pond and not wander out into the lake. Let us start with our own empire, which after Dunkirk saved civilization in this war, and saved the United States and Canada. But for that stand we know what happened to the countries of Europe and would have befallen *Quebec and Ontario, the maritime provinces and all the other provinces. That fate was .averted by the protection which Britain, save for the dominion's aid, gave after Dunkirk, when she had to face the world alone. As I said on March 21, 1945, speaking on the subject of the San Francisco conference, and on August 4, 1944, dealing with foreign affairs in general, we should get back to primary objects and not concern ourselves so much with secondary objects.

How is it that more of the dominions are mot willing to make an agreement of that sort? We are not real internationalists, if we are not ready to join with other branches of the empire, the other dominions, as one family in a united *empire policy of cooperation and collaboration with the mother country.

That is what the late Prime Minister Curtin of Australia and Prime Minister Fraser [DOT]of New Zealand proposed when they visited us and spoke in this chamber.

Why should we not have a league of nations of our own? As has been well said to-day, the . only league of nations that has ever achieved any success is the British empire. The United *States knows that; the world knows it; and out of this war there should emerge a great league of nations, namely, the British empire.

As Lord Milner said in 1919, speaking at *Oxford, it was a most strange anomaly to hear that the self-governing parts of the British *empire should be joining a league, binding themselves by a formal tie to a number of foreign nations, when they had theretofore been unwilling to enter similar obligations with one another.

That is a fact. I pointed out that we had had experience of internationalism and international policies before the last war, and what

happened? Where would we have been if we had had such an international policy as would have meant the giving up of empire bases like Gibraltar, the Suez, the Cape, the far east, and the West Indies? The empire would have been destroyed, and further it would have meant the fall of civilization. Already the United States have secured ninety-nine year leases on various territories in British Guiana, Trinidad and the West Indies. But these bases, which it was proposed to sell before the last war started, and the others I have mentioned, are the back-bone of the British empire on the seven seas. Without them where would we have been? Germany would have won the war after Dunkirk. Upon such strong bases as these the British empire has depended for two hundred years, and will depend in the future. Without them the commonwealth and the colonies would go adrift and the empire would be a perfect absurdity on the map. Imagine what would have happened in 1940 if we had surrendered Gibraltar, Malta, the Suez, Alexandria and all these other bases! In 1940 the United States and Russia were not in. the war. Britain entered the war because of her pledge to Poland. The United States entered the war because she was attacked at Pearl Harbor. Russia entered the war because she was invaded by Germany. Upon what would we have been able to depend in the first two and a half years of the war if all these ideas of internationalization had been carried out? Internationalism is all right if we have a perfect world, but we have not a perfect world yet, and are not likely to have it for some time to come. It is a dangerous policy unless we can see far ahead. We should be ready to cooperate with our allies, and allow them to use our bases, but the empire should retain its sovereignty over them.

As regards the proposals which were made at San Francisco. In a previous speech I gave some reasons why I believed the conference could not succeed, although I hoped, and everybody in the world hoped, that it would be a success. I support the charter, although it does not mean very much. I shall refer to it in more detail in a few minutes. I believe, as Napoleon said, "we must look upon things as they are and not as we wish them to be", and I believe that any foreign policy which is resolved upon will have in the future to be supported by power; otherwise it will be treated, as such policies have been in the history of the world for centuries, as a scrap of paper.

United Nations Agreement

What was the result of Britain's supremacy on the seas? It proved the salvation of the world in the days of Philip II of Spain, in the days of Louis XIV and Napoleon and twice against Germany in our generation. Britain has had a long connection with European history; and as a result, as I said in the last debate, this vast collection of European peoples of various races, colours, creeds and civilizations have had for four centuries three of the freedoms of the Atlantic charter. They have had them ever since Britain first invaded the continent of Europe hundreds of years ago. What were the freedoms which Britain gave and which she has continued to give all down the ages? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from fear, three of the clauses of the Atlantic charter, have guaranteed to Europe by Britain's command of the seas. She also conferred on the world by the same agency a hundred years of peace, from the signing of the peace treaty after Waterloo in 1815 to the invasion of Belgium in 1914.

Therefore I say again, that if we want internationalism let us start with the British empire, because none of the dominions are able to go it alone; unless the dominions hang together with the mother country they will hang separately, and they will have nothing to say whatever about peace terms. That is something which we might reflect upon when we are considering the charter.

We have no reason to apologize for what the mother country has done for the world and for civilization. I have referred to that matter briefly, and time will not permit me to go farther. The task which remains for the mother country is a prodigious one, and one which will test all her strength.

As regards these security pacts, we have had them for more than two hundred years and we have had various mythical leagues of nations.

When the San Francisco conference was proposed and the subject was under discussion on March 21, 1945, I pointed out that this treaty would teach us one or two things which we should bear in mind. As I said then, we should not forget the lessons of history, because it is inconceivable that English people in the Elizabethan or the Victorian era, under Burleigh or Palmerston, or the French under Louis XIV, or the Americans under Monroe or Lincoln, would have dreamt of submitting their personal concerns to state control, or of surrendering the sovereign rights and national interests of their countries to the control of any international organization. A great professor, I pointed out, had written a textbook

on the subject-Professor S. R. Gardiner. This historian, commenting on the treaty of Utrecht, said:

The truth is that states combine readily through fear and very seldom through a desire for the common good, and when Louis XIV ceased to be formidable each state thought exclusively of its own interests.

It was in the same year, 1713, that the great scholar 1'Abbe de St. Pierre, first set out the theory of collective security in France. He went to an able cardinal of France, Cardinal Fleury, and asked him to consider the scheme. The cardinal replied, "Have you sent out missionaries to turn the hearts of men?" I thing that is what we should have done in San Francisco. We should have sent missionaries among some of these forty nations.

Nothing more was heard of collective security until in 1815 Emperor Alexander I of Russia proposed what is known as the Holy Alliance or the Concert of Europe. Between whom? Between Russia, Prussia and Austria. They were to meet every few years, the contracting parties look over the face of Europe and see how peace and security was. What did it lead to? It led to the great prime minister of Great Britain, George Canning, urging that Britain should get out of Europe and seek a new alliance for a while; and it led by provocation to the United States adopting the Monroe doctrine in 1823. As Lord Castlereagh, the great foreign minister wrote to Lord Liverpool in 1815 at the Quai D'Orsay, "It was not without difficulty that we went through the interview with becoming gravity." It was the spiritual force behind the Concert of Europe of which Russia, Austria and Prussia were the protagonists. They were the high contracting parties. It lasted eight years, its most notable achievement toeing that it provoked the United States into establishing the Monroe doctrine in 1823.

Then another century passed and you have the league established which I have referred to before, and now Dumbarton Oaks.

I have here an article written by the Right Reverend R. J. Renison, of the Church of England, in the Globe and Mail of August 13, under the title, "The Tower of Babel," in which he says:

The legend of Babel may be untouched folklore, but it is an uncomfortable picture of man. For man always has built his towers, and the end always is the same. The latest lies in ruins on the Bavarian Alps, and now, God help us, we have the Big Three and the San Francisco conference.

Let us translate Genesis into modern English: "And they said: 'Come on, let us make a new-world which will give us heaven on earth'." The effort of man to work out a scheme of life for

United Nations Agreement

himself, apart from God, is no less amazing in its impious madness than attempting to build a sky-scraper that will land its passengers by elevator in paradise.

"Man," says Horace Bushnell, "is most impressive in his ruins." You have only to visit such a monument as the Roman wall to realize that. Impressive it must have been in the days of its building, but not nearly so impressive as now. It is hung with mystery.

So it is with all man's ruins. Made by man, they have ceased to belong to him. They belong to the ages and are adopted into the family of time.

Man tames the horse and rides him to battle. He invents the gasoline engine to drive a tank. He rides under the sea to drown women and children. He conquers the air to murder babies.

I have always contended that before embarking on any of these international undertakings involving treaties with outside powers we should consider the more important things that concern the British empire. As I said at the time the late Mr. Curtin and Mr. Fraser were here, if we want internationalism we can find room for it first within our own empire. The first essentials that should precede these international agreements are the questions that affect the welfare of the empire, such as preferential trade, defence, and migration within the commonwealth. We must solve these problems first, because it is useless to expect harmony in our empire with regard to foreign affairs unless we give our attention to basic principles. The United States and Great Britain have got along very well together in the war, and it is most essential now that they should cooperate in time of peace. I have pointed out before that it is not a wise thing for Canada to join in pan-American union or undertakings, but if over the heads of the other dominions Canada thus commits herself, she has made a mistake and taken a retrograde step which might lead to the dissolution of the British empire. I have also pointed out on previous occasions that in the last four hundred years the security of the world has depended upon the supremacy of Britain on the seas.

This San Francisco agreement, I would point out, comes after the agreement that Great Britain entered into with Russia. At the time of Yalta, Mr. Churchill, on behalf of the mother country, entered into that bilateral agreement, the high contracting parties being Britain and the Soviet Republic. These two powers made a ten-year security contract which is outside this particular agreement. So did the United States. They made an agreement which does not come within the four corners of the San Francisco agreement.

The same thing happened in 1920. No sooner had the League of Nations started to function at that time than the great powers

began to cast about for possible allies with whom they could enter into treaties. In other words, they simply cast aside the covenants to which they had agreed. A great historian, H. A. L. Fisher, in his "History of Europe," has said:

The League of Nations can be no better than the member states which compose it. If they wish for peace the league provides machinery by which peace may he better secured and maintained, but league or no league, a state which is resolved on war can always have it.

What then of San Francisco? Is it ground on which a greater prospect of success can obtain than in the past three failures of three similar leagues of nations? It is argued here and outside [DOT] the house with great eloquence by those who believe in it that the united nations should form a world organization as set out in the charter, as a gesture or symbol of cooperation among nations, a new heaven and a new earth. I have taken the trouble to look up the congressional record to read the debates that took place in the United States senate with reference to the charter. I find that the view was taken there that while it may be of little use it might do harm, and so they voted to set it up as a thing to be desired but not as an instrument to eliminate war. That argument therefore falls to the ground "so long as nations are free to act as their interest, guided by justice, shall counsel," as George Washington declared in 1796. If their national sovereignty is neither compromised, restricted nor interfered with, this new charter falls to the ground and is not binding on anyone a party to it, because it leaves all to cooperate or not. No nation is bound to observe it if it interferes with its own national security and any one of the Big Five can veto it in the security council. The United States and others are willing to be in this charter and in this new league if it does not interfere with their own national sovereignty; but if it interferes with their own sovereignty and autonomy, or programme, then they will not remain in it. Thus the security council is of no effect and no nation of the Big Five is to be bound by it.

The only difference between the league of 1920 and this one is that in the old league the general assembly could deal with all these matters. The new league proposed by the Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco meetings sets up what is called a security council, but it applies only to and is over the small states; it does not apply to the larger five at all, because each one can veto any adverse decision. France will always be a great nation, because of its long connection with the mother country; but the French people were not included at Yalta because of their lack of

United Nations Agreement

military strength at that time. They are to be included and have a very important voice in the future. I would say that no nation of the Big Three or Five is bound under this new security council. Any one of the five can, if against them, veto the proposals. Suppose something is proposed against Germany, Britain, Russia or the United States. They have now added China and France. Any one of those five can veto everything that the general assembly does contra to their programme and everything that the small states do. What kind of agreement is that? As Mr. Churchill said, we have sacrificed everything on the altar of war.

I have referred to the fact that we should first of all try to solve the empire problems and not advance until then into these international field agreements. Let us consider and reconsider our own problems. Nations as well as individuals must have a conscience, and every person in them is responsible before the bar of history for what is done in that nation's name.

As has been said, we should first try to solve our own empire problems along the lines I have indicated. We ought to elevate our minds to the greatness of that trust to which the order of Providence has called us. By adverting to the dignity of that high calling our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into a glorious empire, and have made the most extensive and the only honourable conquests, not by destroying but by promoting the welfare and happiness of the human race

Unless we revive that faith which inspired us, the faith in ourselves as a nation and in the mission which is ours to serve the world, we shall have fought this war in vain. Even in the darkest days there were few, except a few intellectuals, who lacked confidence that in the end we should win. That was after Dunkirk when Britain was thrown back with but a few arms left. The whole world thought Britain was done and gone, and only the people of Britain and the dominions across the seas had faith that she would save the world and civilization.

I like to look at the real picture. I should like to look at another more realistic side of this picture. At Yalta the terms of peace for Europe and practically the whole world were settled. Those present understood Mr. Churchill's great persuasive powers, because he had great persuasive powers, with the head of Russia and the head of the United States. Notwithstanding his persuasive powers, he could not persuade Russia to alter its stand regarding Poland. Russia claimed that that was their territory and that

others had nothing to do with it. Notwithstanding the protests of Mr. Churchill and of the President of the United States, the great head of Russia announced that nothing could be done. They looked upon it as their own Russian preserve, which it was, and they continue to say that. They do not mind United States and Britain having something to say regarding their own territory that does not concern Russia. But Russia has insisted from the start that they look upon Poland as concerning themselves alone. They have objected very strongly to the United States, Britain, or any other great power and the rest of the world having anything to do with what they look upon as their own territory.

British imperialism has been attacked in this house for years between the two wars; but what about Russian imperialism and United States imperialism? I do not say that Russia and the United States want to grab territories; that remains to be seen; but both those great nations are imperialists and have always been imperialists. They want to have a much larger share in world affairs, and if we are to divide up our empire into a lot of small states and leave the mother country over there all alone to become a second Denmark, then so far as the British empire is concerned it will go into liquidation. Mr. Churchill, that great prime minister, said that he was not going to preside over the liquidation of the British empire. That is a fact. Are we going to throw aside the mother country in her darkest hour? She depends on us very largely for her food. She might have been starved out by the U-boats. She had only six weeks food on hand. She needs our imports and an exchange of her exports and services to pay for them. Are we to throw her aside in so far as trade and commerce is concerned, in favour of Argentina and a lot of other South American republics and others, or are we to stand by our own people within the empire first and trade with our empire and those who supported us against the axis, and then branch out into internationalism? That is the question before us to-day. In my opinion we are back to the old policy of balance of power. It was a good policy for the world for four hundred years. As Mr. Churchill said in the House of Commons when he spoke in regard to this matter:

The expression "power politics" has largely been used in criticism against us in some quarters. I have anxiously asked the question, "What are power politics?" I know some of our friends across the water so well that I am sure I can always speak frankly without

United Nations Agreement

causing offence. Is having a navy twice as big as any other navy in the world, power politics? Is having the largest air force in the world, with bases in every part of the world, power politics? Is having all the gold in the world, power politics? If so we are certainly not guilty of these offences, I am sorry to say. They are luxuries that have passed away from us.

We go farther; we define our position with even more precision. We have sacrified everything in this war. We shall emerge from it, for the time being, more stricken and impoverished than any other victorious country. The United Kingdom and the British commonwealth are the only unbroken force which declared war on Germany of its own free will. We declared war not for any ambition of material advantage but for the sake of our obligation to do our best for Poland against German aggression, in which aggression, there or elsewhere, it must also in fairness be stated, our own self-preservation is involved.

This is from a speech delivered by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill in the House of Commons on January 18, 1945.

Nothing can be done to avoid foreign wars until men change their hearts, because we shall always have strife between nations as between individual men and women. No one knows when those changes are to come. The only direct way is for the British empire and the commonwealth to stick together on a common policy for the reasons which I have given. The only hope I see for the world is for Britain, the United States and Russia to carry on in peace, as I believe they can do. with the same spirit of cooperation and coordination that they used during the war. We had most harmonious conferences with the United States and Russia during the war. I believe they can be continued in peace in the future. But I believe in facing realities, in seeing the picture as it is. To-day politicians, in the light of these circumstances I have mentioned, and in spite of the failures of all other polices, content to follow rather than mould the views of the people, are determined once more to set up a world organization by means of which they seek to eliminate war and by a system of collective security achieve at long last the brotherhood of man. Well, it will not come. I have named three league failures already, and I believe the fourth failure will come later. First at Dumbarton Oaks and later at San Francisco they strove to hammer out a world order which would give effect to these high purposes, but only among the smaller nations, who will have nothing to say about [DOT] the future. In the same way the various parts of the British empire will have nothing to say about the future unless we remain in the empire and hang together and with Britain remain a 47696-81

first-class power. On July 2 of this year President Truman sent a message to the senate in favour of-

... a general international organization based on the principle of sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.

That is the resolution now before us. He went on to add:

What I am now presenting to the senate carries out completely this expression of national and international necessity.

There were many speakers in the senate, and the attitude with which these proposals were looked upon in Washington was one of cynicism and apology for the charter. Senator Engene Millican of Colorado said that the charter reminded him of what was said after the Lisbon earthquake, although he also said he was going to vote for the resolution. Following that earthquake men went about selling what they called earthquake pills. When they were asked if those pills were guaranteed to cure earthquakes the vendors replied that although they could give no guarantee, the pills were the best offered on the market for a cure. So that was what they thought in a cynical and illusive way of this resolution in the United States Senate. To get down to the real facts, the united nations cannot rely upon any world organization to obtain and maintain security if that interferes with their own affairs. It has been said that someone changed the name of the conference from San Francisco "the Sham Fiasco". A great English writer. Arthur Page, a member of the British House of Commons and one of Mr. Churchill's great supporters who coined that phrase, has asked if it is not about time we got back to the old power system which saved the mother country for so many years. Everyone wants pence and no more war, but all these other policies have been failures. We should stand by the mother country first, and as an empire act as an economic unit, adhering to the policy I have enunciated. Mr. Page goes on, in the National Review to say:

Is it not time that our "futurist" politicians refrained from drafting fantastic "plans" for international control abroad and state control at home? On October 2, 1934, Mr. Attlee, the parliamentary leader of the Labour party, propounded the new doctrine as follows:

"We have absolutely abandoned any idea of nationalist loyalty. We are deliberately putting a world order before our loyalty to our own country. We say we want to see put on the statute books something which wall make our people citizens of the world before they are citizens of this country."

Was there ever, as Lord Gastlereagh said of the Holy Alliance, such "sublime mysticism and nonsense"?

United, Nations Agreement

The so-called leaders of public thought in this country would do well to reflect upon Edmund Burke's admonition that "people will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors," and bear in mind the statement of our traditional foreign policy as set out by Sir Eyre Crowe in his famour memorandum of 1907:

"England, as a tiny island power with vast overseas colonies and dependencies, whose existence and survival is inseperably bound up with the possession of preponderant sea power, has a greater interest than any other country-in the independence of nations . . . England's traditional policy has been to maintain the balance of power by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single state or group at a given time. The opposition into which England^ must inevitably be driven to any country aspiring to such a dictatorship assumes almost the form of a law of nature."

These observations are every whit as apposite to-day as they were forty or four hundred years ago.

Then in conclusion he says:

Let our politicians no longer grope in the dark for new-fangled forms of policy that lose their substance and fade away as hands are stretched out to grasp them. Let them rather follow the light as they have been shown the light; for in this way only will they be able to find the clue to peace and security, and lead the world once more into the sunlight.

My time is about up, Mr. Speaker, but in conclusion I should like to refer to one remark of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in regard to the celebrated atomic bomb and Japan and foreign affairs. I call his attention to the leading editorial in the Manchester Guardian of August 1, which states:

The allies believe that the authority of the emperor is essential to make the surrender effective. Without his order the Japanese commanders in the field would continue the fight. It is a strange paradox. On the side of the allies stand immense fleets and invincible armies, the whole panoply of modern war weighted with the new and terrible menace of the atomic bomb. On the side of Japan there is little except an obscure and feeble simpleton who embodies the primitive religion of a Polynesian myth. Yet for this purpose the Emperor Hirohito is more effective than the atomic bomb, and the allies no matter how they may phrase it, have been forced to accept something less than the unconditional surrender for which they asked.

. A correspondent to the National Review has this to say in regard to the editorial:

A moral force which has a greater power over a nation even than the atomic bomb is something to think about. It is something one would think to preserve at all costs. "Polynesian myth?" We do not know whence the sentiment derived but if, as it appears, it is stronger than death and disaster we should be grateful

for it in this disintegrating world, and we had better, as the Manchester Guardian suggests in the same article, "try to understand the meaning and importance of the imperial throne in the Japanese policy." Unhappy, -warring China gives us a picture of a country that has lost its "imperial myth."

I wish to support the charter on the ground that it will do no harm to anyone, but it will not provide any security against war or be of any value to prevent war. I remind hon. members of the pills to cure earthquakes. The only cure I know of for the future is to take our stand as members of the British empire in peace and war alike. If we do that we shall soon find that the cooperation and coordination we had enjoyed with the United States and Russia in war will continue into the peace, so that we can look to the future without fear.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

At this moment I should like to give my decision on the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), that the resolution now before the house be amended as follows:

(a) by inserting after the word "that" where it first appears in the resolution the word "before", and

(b) by inserting after the figures 1945 the words "it is desirable that an educational campaign for a period of one month be conducted throughout Canada by allotting on the transcanada network of the C.B.C. abundant, free and equal time to those in this house who oppose the charter in its present form and those who support it, so that the Canadian people may have the fullest possible opportunity to study the proposal, and in the light of their matured judgment, to express their will as a guide to the houses of parliament."

It has become my duty to consider whether or not the proposed amendment is in order. No principle in our parliamentary practice is more firmly grounded than the rule that no resolution or vote can be passed upon a motion involving an expenditure of public money before such a motion is referred to the committee of the whole. I should like to quote from page 171 of Beauchesne's Third * Edition where, in citation 453, we find this:

The tendency has been in the Canadian House of Commons for the past twenty-five years to rule out all motions purporting to give the government a direct order to do a thing which cannot be done without the expenditure of money. Our Journals are full of precedents to this effect.

The amendment offered proposes that an educational campaign be conducted throughout Canada for a period of one month, by the

United Nations Agreement

use of the transcanada network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The amendment further provides that time be allotted on the said network to those who oppose the united nations charter in its present form, and to those who support it, and that this time be abundant and free to those who make use of it.

It is quite clear, therefore, that this would entail, the expenditure of public moneys and would necessitate a charge upon public revenues. For phis reason I rule the amendment out of order.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

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

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

James Horace King (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

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

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

Then I have no alternative but to challenge your decision.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. FRASER:

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

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Gordon Benjamin Isnor

Liberal

Air. ISNOR:

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

United Nations Agreement

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Humphrey Mitchell (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I was

paired with the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor). Had I voted I would have voted' to sustain your decision.

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink
PC

John George Diefenbaker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

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

Topic:   ORDER INCREASING ENTITLEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER-POSSIBILITY OP SUPPLYING REQUIREMENTS
Subtopic:   UNITED NATIONS
Sub-subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT SIGNED AT SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE 2-5, 1945
Permalink

October 18, 1945