December 17, 1945

APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945

LIB

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

Liberal

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

That it is expedient that the houses of parliament^ do approve the agreed declaration on atomic energy signed by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister of Canada, at Washington on November 15, 1945, and that this house do approve the same.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is being asked by the motion now before it to approve the agreed declaration on atomic

energy which was signed at the White House, Washington, on the 15th of November of this year, by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada.

The statement which embodies the declaration was read' to hon. members of this house by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, on the afternoon of the day on which the declaration was made. Copies of the declaration in English and in French were tabled in pamphlet form on December 1. The declaration has received the widest publicity. I think it may be truly said that it has met with general approval.

As the declaration is one of far-reaching significance and historic interest, it is desirable that it should be formally approved by both houses of our parliament. Apart from other positive advantages, such approval should serve effectively to meet the criticism that the Prime Minister of Canada in joining with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States in the discussions at Washington and in signing the declaration "either assumed that parliament and' the Canadian people had no views on the atomic bomb question or that their views didn't matter; that it was within his sole right and power to determine what should be done." I am happy to say that this uncalled for criticism seems to have met only with the rebuke it so obviously deserves.

No discovery, in all time, has equalled in interest that of the release of atomic energy. No discovery has been fraught with possibilities which may prove to be either so baneful or so beneficial to mankind.

It may serve as a helpful introduction to an understanding of the problems which the discovery of atomic energy has created, if I say a word or two concerning the discovery itself, and the circumstances which led to the part the release of atomic energy came to have in military warfare. My introductory words may also help to give some idea of Canada's contribution to atomic research and processes, and to explain the strategic position which Canada, along with the United Kingdom and the United States, has come to hold in working towards a solution of problems to which the use of atomic energy has given rise.

All the world now knows that the sudden termination of the war against Japan was due to the appalling destruction of life and property wrought, in August of the present year, by the use of the atomic bomb against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Until recently the world believed that the atom was the ultimate indivisible particle of

Atomic Energy Declaration

matter; a particle of matter so minute as to admit of no division. When the war began in 1939, scientists of many nations had come to recognize that the release of energy by the "splitting" of the atom, or what is scientifically referred to as "atomic fission" was a possibility. The war gave impetus to research into the means of releasing atomic energy and later to the production of atomic bombs.

At the outset, research was carried on mainly in the universities of the United Kingdom. During 1940 there was an interchange of information on war research between Britain, the United States and Canada. By the summer of 1941 such progress had been made in research in the application of atomic energy that it was felt that full use should be made of university and industrial laboratories in seeking to find, just as rapidly as possible, the means of producing atomic bombs. In October of 1941, upon the suggestion of President Roosevelt, there began a coordination and joint conduct of British and American efforts. In 1942 the United Kingdom authorities proposed that an important section of research into atomic energy should be carried on in Canada as a joint enterprise. The special Montreal laboratory of the national research council was thereafter organized, and staffed by over 300 workers. It was by far the largest organization ever created in Canada to carry out a single research project. Other research projects were undertaken at McMaster, Toronto and McGill universities, and at the national research aboratories in Ottawa.

Developments in the United States and Canada. By the summer of 1942, the expanded program of research seemed to justify a decision to proceed with the construction of large-scale production plants in the United States. The Americans alone were active in large-scale work.

At Quebec, in September 1943, an agreement was signed between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt which bound their two countries to collaborate with the object of producing, as quickly as possible, a military weapon for use in the war. Under this agreement a combined policy committee was set up. Upon the invitation of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill, in which I had concurred, Mr. Howe, the Minister of Munitions and Supply, was made a member of the combined policy committee as the representative of Canada.

Up to the present, uranium is the mineral that has been used as basic material for the atomic bomb process. Thorium is a probable second basic material for that purpose, although it is not as yet a proven material.

The largest proved deposit of uranium ore is in the Belgian Congo, and the next largest is in Canada. As soon as the significant use of uranium in the atomic bomb process was disclosed to Mr. Howe and myself, we secured the approval of the cabinet of the purchase of the Eldorado uranium properties in the Great Bear lake area, and reserved for the government control of all such minerals as might be discovered in Canada in the future. This was a strategic factor of high importance, since this second largest known source of raw material thereby became accessible to the large manufacturing plants already built in the United States.

The work of the several research projects has been closely coordinated with the development of a pilot plant at Chalk River for the investigation of atomic energy processes. This work is of considerable importance. It includes the study of the utilization of thorium as a starting point for the production of "active material". This pilot plant is unique in character and is suitable for a field of research that has not been explored elsewhere.

Here may I quote from a statement prepared by Mr. Churchill while he was at the head of the coalition government. It was made public by his successor after Mr. Attlee's assumption of office.

Mr. Churchill's statement is as follows:

In the United States the erection of the immense plants was placed under the responsibility of Mr. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, and the American army administration whose wonderful work and marvellous secrecy cannot be sufficiently admired. The main practical effort and virtually the whole ot its prodigious cost now fell upon the United States authorities who were assisted by a number ot British scientists.

The relationship of the British and the American contributions was regulated by discussion between me and President Roosevelt, and a combined policy committee was set up. The Canadian government whoso contribution was most valuable provided both indispensable raw material for the project as a whole, and also necessary facilities for the work of one section of the project which has been carried out in Canada by the three governments in partnership.

Elsewhere in his statement Mr. Churchill said:

By God's mercy, British and American science outpaced all German efforts. These were on a considerable scale but far behind. The possession of these powers by the Germans, at any time, might have altered the result of the war.

It is worthy of notice that the determination to embark on large-scale undertakings for production of atomic bombs was agreed upon while some details of the project were still in the laboratory stage. The outcome was a most impressive demonstration of the

Atomic Energy Declaration

collaboration of scientific skill and technical capacity conducted under conditions of the highest secrecy.

This aspect of the production of the atomic bomb was referred to by Mr. Churchill in the following words:

The whole burden of execution including the setting up of the plants and many technical processes connected therewith in the practical sphere constitutes one of the greatest triumphs of American-or indeed human-genius of which there is record. Moreover, the decision to make these enormous expenditures upon a project which however hopefully established by American and British research remained nevertheless an awful uncertainty stands to the everlasting honour of President Roosevelt and his advisers.

What was aimed at in the combined efforts of the scientists was the development of methods for the release of atomic energy, either to produce an explosion, or as a source of power. The immediate purpose of the construction of large-scale production plants, and the wonk of the combined policy committee, was the use of atomic energy for military purposes.

It is now known that the release1 of atomic energy can be effected so rapidly that a few pounds of "active material" will produce an explosion equivalent to that of the setting off of several thousands of tons of TNT. On the other hand, -the energy released can, it is believed, be so controlled as to produce a steady flow of heat obtainable at a temperature high enough to operate steam driven electrical generating plants. One ton of "active material" used in this way would generate as much power is about three million tons of coal.

In a passage which will carry its appeal to every human heart, Mr. Churchill has vividly expressed the sentiments -to which these amazing facts give rise:

"This revelation of the secrets of nature long mercifully -withheld from man should," he said, "arouse the most solemn reflections in the mind and conscience of every being capable of comprehension. We must indeed pray that these awful agencies< will be made to conduce to peace among the nations and that, instead of wreaking measureless havoc upon the entire globe, they may become a perennial fountain of world prosperity."

This is the problem presented by the discovery of the release of atomic energy. Here is the challenge to our day and generation.

As to sharing information; up to a certain point the processes for releasing atomic energy are the same whether the purpose is an industrial, commercial or humanitarian use, or whether it is that of mass destruction. Up to this point of departure the processes are already quite widely known. The scientific knowledge upon which these processes are based has been shared by a number of nations.

Beyond this point of common development, the construction of atomic bombs consists of a series of highly technical manufacturing processes which are still very secret. Knowledge of these technical manufacturing processes is popularly referred to as the "knowhow". It is this "know-how" which is possessed in whole or in part by Britain, the United States, and Canada, and which has not been made known to other nations. The reason for not imparting to other nations, without certain guarantees and controls, the "knowhow" in the production of atomic bombs, is because of the potentialities of vast destruction involved.

It should not be supposed that the control of the raw materials presently enjoyed by Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States will, for any length of time, prevent developments in other countries. Neither should it be imagined that the processes in manufacturing atomic bombs-now secret-will prevent, indefinitely, similar developments in other countries. Even with international measures of supervision -and control, it will be but a matter of time before all processes are known to practically all nations. Hence the need for immediate action to seek every available means to end all possibility of war itself.

I come now to the declaration on atomic energy signed at Washington, on November 15th last.

As hon. members are aware, I visited President Truman at the White House on September 30th, the day before I sailed from New York for England. During this visit, matters related to the atomic bomb were referred to in conversation between the President and myself. Mr. Truman invited me to visit him again on my return from abroad. He also told me that he was looking forward to a visit from Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Upon arrival in London, I learned from Mr. Attlee that, toward the end of September last, he had made known to the President his view on the vital importance to the world of the discovery of atomic energy. He had expressed the opinion that the application of atomic energy to warfare made it essential that those in responsible positions in the countries under whose auspices the development had taken place, should consider the problems to which it had given rise. In conveying to the President the tentative conclusions at which the British government had arrived, Mr. Attlee had suggested that personal discussion might follow.

Atomic Energy Declaration

On October 3, in a message to Congress, President Truman said:

T therefore propose to initiate discussions, first with our associates in this discovery, Great Britain and Canada, and then with other nations in an effort to effect agreement on the conditions under which cooperation might replace rivalry in the field of atomic power.

While I was in London, communications were received from President Truman inviting Mr. Attlee and myself to come to Washington at as early a date as could be arranged to discuss with him the problems related to atomic energy.

In his Navy day speech on United States foreign policy, on October 27, President Truman, referring to his message to Congress, added that discussion of the atomic bomb with Great Britain and Canada, and later with other nations, could not wait upon the formal organization of the united nations.

Mr. Attlee and I arrived in Washington on the morning of Saturday, November 10th. Mr. Attlee had left London by plane on the afternoon of the previous day. I had left London on Saturday of the previous week to cross by ship. We arrived in Washington at the same hour. During our stay in Washington, every courtesy was extended to Mr. Attlee and myself by the President and the Secretary of State, Mr. Byrnes. From the hour of our arrival to the day of the signing of the declaration, meetings and conversations were held continuously.

In our consideration of the problems discussed, the President and Mr. Byrnes had the assistance of Dr. Vannevar Bush, director of the office of scientific research and development, and scientific adviser to the President's committee on atomic energy. Prime Minister Attlee was accompanied by Sir John Anderson, chairman of the advisory committee in the United Kingdom on atomic energy. Sir John Anderson is perhaps the best informed of anyone in the United' Kingdom on the whole subject, and on the circumstances attending the work with the Americans and ourselves in the researches on atomic energy. Mr. Attlee was also assisted by Lord Halifax, the British ambassador. I was joined in Washington by Mr. Howe, the Canadian member of the combined policy committee, and Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, president of our national research council. I was also assisted while in Washington, by the Canadian Ambassador, Mr. L. B. Pearson; by Mr. Norman Robertson, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, who had accompanied me to England, and by Mr. Hume Wrong, Associate Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, who joined Mr. Robertson and myself on our arrival in Washington.

I should like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance given me by all these gentlemen and by members of our embassy staff in Washington.

In asking hon. members to support the motion which is now before the house, approving the Washington declaration on atomic energy, I feel I cannot do better than to set forth essential features of the declaration itself and, in so doing, indicate governing considerations which were constantly in the minds of all who participated in the discussions.

There was recognition at the outset that the vast significance of the discovery of the release of atomic energy was not yet fully comprehended; that very few realized the far-reaching effect of the discovery upon the future of the world-. It was agreed that the discovery had1 placed at the disposal of mankind means of destruction hitherto unknown, and against which there could be no adequate military defence, and in the employment of which no single nation could, in fact, have a monopoly. In a word, it was agreed that civilization could not survive an atomic war. It was also recognized that it was impossible to isolate the problem of the atomic bomb from the problem of the use of other weapons of destruction. The atomic bomb was seen as the latest word in destructiveness, but not necessarily the last.

The truth is that no system of safeguards that can be devised will of itself provide an effective guarantee against production of atomic weapons by a nation bent on aggression. Nor can we overlook the probability of the development of other major weapons of mass destruction, or of new methods of warfare which may constitute an ever greater threat to civilization than the military use of atomic energy. At Washington, we were therefore called upon to consider not merely the elimination of the atomic bomb as a weapon of war, but also the kind of world order which is necessary in an atomic age, if civilization is to survive.

In our deliberations we were seeking to take the first step in an effort to rescue the world from a desperate race in weapons of mass destruction. We were prepared to concede that the progress our three countries had made in the development and use of atomic energy demanded that our countries take the initiative in an international effort to prevent the further use of atomic energy for destructive purposes. We felt an equal obligation on the part of our countries to promote the use of recent and future exchanges of scientific knowledge, particularly in the utilization of atomic energy for peaceful and humanitarian

Atomic Energy Declaration

ends. At the same time we sought to make very clear that the responsibility for devising means to ensure that the new discovery should be used for the benefit of mankind, instead of as a means of destruction, rested not on our nations alone, but on the whole civilized world.

In the agreed declaration we felt obliged to draw a distinction between the information essential for the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy.

Representing, as we did, the three countries which possess the knowledge essential to the use of atomic energy, we declared our willingness, as a first contribution, to proceed with the exchange of fundamental scientic information, and with the interchange of scientists, and scientific literature for peaceful ends, with any nation that would fully reciprocate. We stated our belief that the fruits of scientific research should be made available to all nations, and that freedom of investigation and the free interchange of ideas were essential to the progress of knowledge. The basic scientific processes essential to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes have already been made available to the world. We declared that all further information of this character that might become available from time to time Should be similarly treated.

As I have already explained, the use of atomic energy for industrial, commercial and hur-manitarian purposes is dependent upon the same methods and processes as, up to a certain point, are required for the military exploitation of atomic energy. While we were prepared to share the information essential to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, we were not convinced that the spread of the specialized information regarding the practical application of atomic energy in the manufacture of bombs, before it was possible to devise reciprocal and enforceable safeguards acceptable to all nations, would contribute to a constructive solution of the problem of the atomic bomb. On the contrary, we thought it might have the opposite effect. However, we stated our readiness to share, on a reciprocal basis, with others of the united nations, detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy, just as soon as effective and enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purposes could be devised.

The attention so far directed to the strictly war aspects of atomic energy-that is, to the atomic bomb-should not be allowed to obscure the immense possibilities of development of atomic energy for the arts of peace.

The atomic bomb is a weapon of destruction unsurpassed in human experience. But the energy locked up inside the atom, controlled and directed to useful and constructive ends, may make it possible to provide goods and services for people throughout the world on a scale which we cannot now envisage. It may be the means of raising the standard of living; of providing physical comfort against hazards of weather and extremes of heat and cold. It may revolutionize some present-day means of transport and communication, making all countries of the world near neighbours in a more immediate sense than has been made possible even by the development of air transport.

It must never be forgotten, however, that the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes cannot be developed without at the same time producing the very material which is used in a bomb.

In order to attain the most effective available means of entirely eliminating the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes, and for promoting its widest use for industrial, commercial and humanitarian purposes, we gave it as our opinion in the Washington declaration that at the earliest practicable date a commission should be set up under the united nations organization, to prepare recommendations for submission to the organization. We expressed the view that the commission should be instructed to proceed with the utmost despatch; and that, in particular, it should make specific proposals (a) for extending, between all nations, the exchange of basic scientific information for peaceful ends; (b) for the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; (c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction; and (d) for effective safeguards by way of inspection and other means, to protect complying states against the hazards of violations and evasions. These tasks may well have to move forward by separate stages, building upon the confidence which the progressive exchange of information will provide.

Under the charter of the united nations the signatory powers have pledged themselves not to use force except in support of the purposes and principles of the charter. At Washington we expressed the view that by whole-hearted support of the united nations organization, and by consolidating and extending its authority, thereby creating conditions of mutual trust in which all peoples

Atomic Energy Declaration

will be free to devote themselves to the arts of peace, there would be found the most immediately available means of maintaining the rule of law among nations and of banishing the scourge of war from the earth. We declared it to be the firm resolve of our three countries to work without reservation to achieve these ends.

Nothing can be truer than that without unremitting cooperation and the united effort of nations there will be no enduring and effective protection against the atomic bomb. Nor without this cooperation and united effort can there be protection against the indiscriminate use of poison or against the latest refinements in gas warfare, or protection against bacteriological warfare, all of which are even more frightful methods of human destruction than the atomic bomb. To ensure civilization from destruction it is not enough to banish atomic or gas or bacteriological warfare; we must banish war itself.

It is intended that the proposals of the Washington declaration for the establishment of a commission to prepare recommendations on the means of dealing with the problems raised by the development of atomic energy should be submitted to the first general assembly of the united nations. It is expected that the general assembly will open its first session in London on January 10. On the exact procedure to be followed in bringing up this vital matter for consideration by the united nations organization, I am unable to say anything at present.

Before leaving Washington on Thursday last December 13, to take part in the meeting in Moscow of the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, the Secretary of State of the United States announced that he wished to discuss with the Soviet government its views on how they would be prepared to cooperate in the establishment of the commission and on the procedure which should be followed. On these questions we are in constant consultation with the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, the other parties to the Washington declaration on atomic energy.

While I do not wish at the moment to attempt to look too far into the future with respect to proceedings of the united nations organization, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak of the past in reference to the erection of the united nations organization -itself. I recall very well while the war against Germany and Japan was still in progress, there were many who felt that President Roosevelt was pressing, with

undue haste, the establishment of a united nations organization. Echoes of this criticism were heard at San Francisco last spring at the time of the united nations conference on international organization. It was not until after the conference was over, and the charter of the united nations organization had been brought into existence, that the world learned of the discovery of the release of atomic energy and of its practical application against Japan. The use of the atomic bomb as a major weapon of military warfare presented, in an instant, to all nations wholly new problems of security. Against the use of the atomic bomb in war, nothing has thus far been suggested which could be regarded as a means of defence.

President Roosevelt's prophetic vision had once more come to the aid of humanity at a time of its greatest need. Had President Roosevelt waited until the war was over to call a united nations conference to bring the charter into being, we should not have had the united nations organization at hand to-day to assist in the solution of the problems which the atomic bomb has brought so conspicuously to the fore. Instead, the countries seeking a solution of its problems would have been more bewildered and baffled than they are. The world is but slowly recognizing what it owes to the late President.

If I have made myself clear as to problems of the atomic era with which we are now faced, it will be apparent that they are primarily political problems affecting the relations between men and1 governments. Fundamentally they are a part of the age old conflict between good and evil. As such their ultimate solution will be found only in the realm of philosophy and morals. One thing is certain: they admit of no mechanistic solution. By themselves, devices for the control of atomic energy are at best but temporary expedients. For this reason, I believe, it is an error to contemplate the control of the use of atomic energy in commodity and police terms, as if atomic energy were some new and dangerous drug. Technical scientifiec controls of production, processing and final disposition are indispensable, but they are obviously inadequate. It would, I believe, be criminal folly to allow ourselves to imagine that the peace and security of mankind can be attained by any scheme of commodity control.

As political problems affecting the relations of governments, the solution of the problems presented by atomic energy must be sought in the realm of world politics. The more deeply one ponders the problems with which our world is confronted in the light-"the

Atomic Energy Declaration

terrible light", aa Mr. Attlee said-of the implications of the development of atomic energy, the harder it is to see a solution in anything short of some surrender of national sovereignty. With a limited surrender of national sovereignty, there must be instituted some form of world government restricted, at least at the outset, to matters pertaining to the prevention of war, and the maintenance of international security.

The united nations organization is not a sufficient answer to the problems of peace and security which the world is now seeking. It is a first step, and an all-important step, in the direction of that cooperation between nations which is essential to the survival of civilization. It is not, however, the only, much less the final step. The united nations organization is an indispensable medium and Channel and forum through which the peoples of the world can work out new institutions and arrangements which their peace and security now require.

We do well to recall that the united nations charter had been signed before the world knew of the existence of the atomic bomb, much less anything about its ghastly military potentialities for mass destruction. The coming of the atomic bomb has opened our eyes to the appalling possibilities which will face the world if the united nations should fail tc achieve effective international cooperation. It is to be hoped that such a prospect may be sufficient to cause every country, in the interests of its own citizens, to recognize that "over all nations is humanity". It is devoutly to be hoped that the nations will not delay too long in welcoming, albeit in the form of some self-denying ordinance upon individual national sovereignties, a measure of world sovereignty sufficiently effective to maintain international security and to end all possibility of war.

If we are agreed on the ultimate necessity of some measure of world government to maintain world security, we should, by every means in our power, support and strengthen every agency of international cooperation anc understanding which can help to make the world community a reality. The peoples of all nations must address themselves to the task of helping to devise and shape institutions and relationships which will enable mankind to ensure, if not its salvation, at least its survival. We must work with all our might for a world order under the rule of law. This seems to be our only hope. Humanity is one. We must act in the belief that no nation and no individual liveth to himself alone, and that all are members one of another.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
PC

John Bracken (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all listened with very great interest to the remarks of the Prime Minister as he outlined Canada's part in achieving the release of atomic energy and the various steps leading up to the agreed declaration which is now before us, and his elaboration of the various clauses in the declaration.

At the outset I wish to compliment the Prime Minister, and all those associated with him, and particularly the scientists of Canada, on their respective parts in bringing about the results of that great discovery. With much of what the Prime Minister has said I am in entire agreement, and I should like to think that in that respect I speak for members in every section of the house.

The question of atomic energy, its production, its control and its use, everyone will agree, is of great importance at this time. The immediate question before this house is the declaration recently issued and signed by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of Canada. The resolution before us makes a statement and asks a question. It declares that it is expedient at this time that we approve the statement that has been presented to us. This statement, I am sure the Prime Minister will agree, is one which will have no effect in law at the moment, but is one which may be a guide to public opinion throughout wide areas of the world.

The Prime Minister has dealt with the history and the development of this recent gain in science. My remarks will deal more particularly with the political consequences of that development. The declaration before us contains nine clauses. I propose to analyse these very briefly and to make a brief comment on each as I proceed.

The first clause indicates the recognition of an important fact, perhaps the most important fact of the age in which we live, the fact that the modem developments in physical science are so far in advance of the modem developments in social science as to constitute a grave danger to the human race.

I believe it was Wells who, in one of his books, said that civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. If that were true twenty years ago, it is much more true to-day in the light of the new knowledge that science has given to the world. The question now is whether our growing control over the physical forces around us is to be used for the progress of mankind or for the destruction of mankind. That is the problem that has been dropped into the lap of this

Atomic Energy Declaration

generation, and that is what makes this particular time the most interesting and perhaps the most challenging in which any generation of man has ever lived.

The second paragraph sets out that the responsibility arising from this discovery rests upon this generation. It rests upon us to see that all these discoveries are used for the benefit of mankind and not for its destruction. That paragraph indicates one other fact, that the initiative rests with those nations who happen to have been the first to discover the truth of the atomic bomb. But it indicates also, that the responsibility for ultimate success in controlling this new discovery rests with all the nations of the world.

The third paragraph is a statement of fundamental truth. It is in these words: that the only complete protection for the civilized world against the destructive use of scientific knowledge lies in the prevention of war.

I believe. Mr. Speaker, that with the statements contained in these three clauses of the declaration no one in this house will be in disagreement.

The fourth paragraph is a statement of proposed policy. In it we are asked to declare our willingness to proceed with the exchange of fundamental scientific information, and^ the interchange of scientists and scientific literature for peaceful ends, with any nation that will fully reciprocate. Here we face, an immediate question: Are the scientific data

and the technological knowledge so far developed to be entrusted by those who have them to those who do not have them?

This is a question to which an answer must be given reasonably soon. If the present attitude of exclusion prevails for an indefinite period, suspicions and distrust will be engendered in those who do not have this knowledge. At the same time there are few who would favour the distribution of the data and the technical processes indiscriminately, without taking every reasonable precaution to preserve world peace. It would seem reasonable that any nation which is to be permitted to have the knowledge we possess, and from it to develop atomic energy on a commercial scale, ought first to be prepared to submit its mines and laboratories to regular inspection. It is difficult to see how this secret can be shared without serious risk until every one of the great powers of the world is prepared to permit the free dissemination of news and the free admittance for observation of representatives of our great news services. I think it is not going too far to say that to our newspaper men and women we owe our survival in the last half dozen years of war. Had they not been able to find 47696-229

out what our enemies were planning for us and report, as they did, we would have been conquered before waking up to what wras going on in the world.

The fifth paragraph contains four statements; one a statement of belief, one a statement of fact, one a statement of intention, and one a statement of hope. The statement of belief is this:

We believe that the fruits of scientific research should be made available to all nations, and that freedom of investigation and free interchange of ideas are essential to the progress of knowledge.

I think everyone will agree with that statement of belief. The statement of fact is:

. . . the basic scientific information essential to the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes has already been made available to the world.

That is, the "basic" scientific information is widely known. The statement of intention is this:

It is our intention that all further information of this character that may become available from time to time shall be similarly treated.

But that is it is to be made available under conditions mentioned later on. The statement of hope is this:

We trust that other nations will adopt the same policy, thereby creating an atmosphere of reciprocal confidence in which political agreement and cooperation will flourish.

All will approve I am sure, of the general attitude expressed in this paragraph. The human race has never yet. been denied the fruits of invention by conscious public policy, and denying them now would be unnecessarily holding back material progress. This new knowledge has potentialities for both good and ill. We cannot prevent its development. We .must therefore control its use. We must make ourselves capable of turning this and other secrets'of nature to constructive use.

Paragraph 6 contains a statement of opinion, and an offer to share the scientific knowledge. The opinion is that the spreading of specialized information before it is possible to devise effective safeguards would 'not contribute to a constructive solution of the problem of the atomic bomb. The second part of the paragraph is an offer, as I have said, to share scientific knowledge on a reciprocal basis. It states:

We are, however, ,prepared to share on a reciprocal basis with others of the united nations, detailed information concerning the practical industrial application of atomic energy just as soon as effective enforceable safeguards against its use for destructive purpose can be devised.

This brings us nearer to the nub of the problem we have to face. Is it possible or practical to develop the use of atomic energy

Atomic Energy Declaration

for peaceful purposes and prevent its use for war purposes? We. cannot now be certain that explosives produced for one purpose will not be used for the other. The problem, of policing the use of this process is a complicated one, much more complicated than any political problem ever undertaken in the past. Can society draw a line of demarcation-and see that the line is observed-between developing atomic energy for peaceful purposes and outlawing it for the purposes of war? That is the challenge. It is a challenge we must accept, and -as the lines suggest, we accept it by tying our faith to reciprocal agreements to banish its use in time of war.

The seventh paragraph is another statement of opinion. In effect if says, "We state it as our opinion that a commission should be set up to -prepare recommendations aimed at -the elimination of the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes, and to make possible its use for humanitarian purposes". If -any member of parliament has any criticism of this clause I suppose it would be in order for those subscribing to the agreement to ask what better solution could have been proposed. Its authors at -best see through the glass but darkly. They are only groping their way, with care and hesitation. I hope this clause does not reveal a disposition to try to escape from the responsibilities incumbent upon those who possess the secret. It is practically certain that the bomb will be used if another war breaks out. Unless we- are visionaries this must soon be realized. If there is to be war, any nation wanting to live -cannot afford to be without -a means of defence or retaliation if it is attacked. The secret is ours to-day. Others will have it to-morrow, and many will have more dangerous ones later on.

Paragraph 8 suggests a procedure. It suggests that the proposed commission should proceed by separate stages, and more specifically that it should undertake first a wide exchange of scientists and scientific information; and second, to develop a full knowledge concerning natural resources and raw materials. This clause adds a note of realism to which I think most of us will subscribe. We are dealing with a secret process, at least a process that is now secret. If the secret were no secret at all there would be little use in this elaboration of machinery. If it is still a vital secret in the hands of three nations a terrible responsibility rests upon these nations to devise the best safeguards possible for its use. There is no reason not to believe that some nations will relapse into a passive state, believing that entrusting the task to some international body will settle everything. The danger is

that while the innocent will keep their promises, the aggressors will prepare to break their promises and war will be more likely than if no promises were made at all. A half-baked plan will mean that once more this generation will go to sleep on an inactive but still live volcano. That is what happened prior to the recent war.

Paragraph 9, as I interpret it, is an appeal to rationalism in a world made up of nation states. In t-hat paragraph the necessity of. three things is pointed out: the necessity of the rule of law among nations as well as among people within nations; the necessity of active and generous support to the united nations organization as the best means now known to humanity of achieving a world of peace; and the necessity of doing everything that humanity can devise to banish war. The paragraph concludes with this brief but strong resolve:

It is -our firm resolve to work without reservation to achieve these ends.

This clause sets before us a goal, but it does not guarantee that we shall attain it. It states the challenge that faces us. The united nations charter was founded on an agreement of the Big Three. That charter has been elaborated on the foundation of certain basic understandings. But the discovery of how to release atomic energy has shattered our faith in that foundation as it is now laid. The most vital problem, therefore, faces -us still. Can the world, organized as it is to-day or as it may be organized in the future, so conduct itself as to save itself from destruction? Are man's own- inventions to be the cause of his own destruction? Is the world to remain an age of unreason; or is man, with his new gadgets, to revert to times we thought were passed-times without the controls civilization could provide?

I am not one who feels that we must close this debate on a note of pessimism. I feel that many discussions outside this house have been characterized by too much alarm and despair and by too little hope and optimism. If man is to be destroyed by his own inventions, why weep about it beforehand? Rather, knowing the danger, let us set about with determination to avoid that end. Let us set out to find and to provide the most practical political solution that the collective mind of man is capable of making.

Some say: Let the problem be entrusted to the security council of the united- nations organization. That would mean entrusting it to eleven sovereign states, leaving some forty others out of consideration. Let us not forget that warfare has experienced a great trans-

Atomic Energy Declaration

formation in recent years. In the first great war, a country like Belgium could defend itself for weeks or months-this time, only for a matter of days. In future, days will not be allowed us to get ready-only hours, perhaps only minutes, possibly not even that. It is possible that non-aggressors will be less helpless than they have been in the recent past. Aggressors will at least know that if they make war there is every risk that an instrument is in being that may abolish their largest cities in a matter of seconds. That will surely be a restraining influence upon aggressors.

The choice for us seems to be between an association of powers in which it becomes the necessity of nearly all to prevent any one from dominating the scene-either that or a renunciation of some part of our sovereignty, some abridgement of our national sovereignty. If the latter is to be the solution, it ushers in the beginnings of a world state.

The nations of to-day were not built in a day. The national state as we know it has been a thousand years and more in the building. And a new international order will not be built in a day. But it can be started in a day-in fact, it has already been started; and while it is in the building, we must move with caution and with awareness. We are fortunate in being a member of the British commonwealth of nations and in being a neighbour of the United States. We all rejoice that the agreement before us to-day is one made between Britain, the United States and Canada, Thus we in Canada must all fed, as a member of this triumvirate, that while we are in good company we share a terrible responsibility.

What does it all add up to? If my sixty years tell me anything, they tell me that humanity will neither be satisfied nor safe till there is world security against aggressors. Any realist must know that this security will come in one or other of two ways-the way of war, followed by slavery to a dominating state, or the way of understanding, followed by a cooperative world; by force of arms that will result in a world state, in which one part will be dominant, or by force of reason in which nations will live together, each contributing its proper share of the price of discipline, and each bearing the fruits of the consequent peace and progress of mankind.

Our path as Canadians is clear. Collective security for humanity is possible only in. international collective agreement. We must pay the price of international collective agreement. That price is the sacrifice of some degree of national sovereignty. That price the nations will only grudgingly and slowly be willing to 47696-2291

pay; but that price we have already commenced to pay. A world state we now living may never see, but the various peace pacts of the past, the international labour organization, the united nations organization, the food and agriculture organization, the Bretton Woods agreement, the proposed international trade conference-all these are steps toward international security. All these give up something, even though it be little, of national sovereignty. What we are enduring to-day is the labour pains of better world understanding, the beginnings of a world of peace and of potential progress such as man has never before witnessed.

We have two things to do, both of which require conscious effort and a degree of international tolerance and understanding never before demonstrated in the world. We must determine to have international peace, and we must determine to be relieved of the shackles that have tied us to war and hunger and disease in the past. We must go forward in faith, conscious that, while we may not reach the goal in our day, we are going at least in the right direction and knowing that we are doing our part in bringing the world nearer to the time when peace and prosperity 'rather than war will be the inheritance of mankind.

'Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I regret that owing to a slight indisposition the leader of this group is not here this morning, and I regret it particularly because I know that he had prepared something on this subject. He has given a great deal of thought to it, and while I, or anyone else who may speak from this group, would express the same views, I am sure we cannot do it as well as he would have done it.

The question before us to-day has to do with approval of the agreement arrived at in Washington by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of Canada, in regard to the control and use of atomic energy. I approve, and I believe this group approves, the agreement. It makes provision for passing on information to the other nations as quickly as an understanding can be arrived at as to the proper use of atomic energy.

I believe the proper organization to control this matter is that of the united nations. However, I am sure', and I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he says that what must be done is not only to prohibit the use of atomic energy in war, but rather to abolish war altogetlmr. So long as we have wars, those who make them will

Atomic Energy Declaration

use every means they can find to win them. The question which we should put our minds to, then, is not the prevention of the use of atomic energy for war purposes, but the prevention of war itself.

One thing that is disturbing at the present time in connection with atomic energy is the fact that research seems to be in the control of private organizations 'such as the Duponts in the United States, the Imperial Chemical Industries in the United Kingdom and Canadian Industries Limited in Canada. I believe it is quite improper to leave research of this kind in the hands of private organizations, particularly when those organizations have demonstrated in the past that they are not much concerned with the social uses to which the results of research may be put. These organizations have tremendous vested interests and large aggregations of capital which might easily be rendered obsolete by the development of a new power of this kind. I had hoped that one of the things that would be done would be to bring research in this matter under the full control of the united nations organization, following what has been done by the three nations which at present seem to have the knowledge of this power.

The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) says we have come to the stage in world affairs where cooperation is not only necessary but imperative. Indeed, in my humble opinion the atomic bomb has brought us to the stage where world government at the international level is not only a desirable thing, but a necessity. The choice before us is either world government or world destruction.

Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the problem of securing peace on a world scale seems presently to be the responsibility of the United States, Great Britain and Canada. In my consideration of the declaration made by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States, and in my study of the whole problem of the atomic bomb and of the world situation, I have come -to several conclusions which I wish to outline briefly to the house. *

The first of these is this: If the United States and Canada and Great Britain were to remain in exclusive possession of the secret of the technical production of the atomic bomb for some long period of time, I am satisfied that for that period of time the world would have peace. Of course we must admit that eventually the other countries of the world.5 will discover the technique of manufacturing these terrible weapons, and at

that time the supremacy of the Anglo-American people will disappear and the problem of securing peace for the world will no longer be their exclusive responsibility.

The second conclusion which I have reached from my studies is this: If all the governments of the world and the nations, large and small, were truly democratic, then I am convinced that an international agreement on the production and application of atomic energy and the organization of effective international control for the production of atomic energy in all countries of the world could be made effective. I am satisfied that that would then be possible, because democratic governments are amenable to the influence of public opinion and of parliaments like our own. It would be possible, because in democratic countries secret -arming would be out of the question, mainly because in countries like our own and in those having democratic governments money cannot be spent without the approval of parliament.

Let -us examine in a realistic way the situation in which one of the parties to an international agreement-particularly an international agreement concerning the atomic bomb-is a dictatorship. In a dictatorship you would find -no free press, you would find no opposition to the government, either in the so-called parliament -or throughout the country, such as we have in this country; you would find no regard for parliament. There are such totalitarian countries in this world, andi I may say that Russia is not the only one. However, I iam convinced that Russia is perhaps the most closed and most totalitarian country of all the major powers.

Under such circumstances I ask in all seriousness, of what value would be an-y international agreement on the atomic bomb? Of what value would be an international control committee? Who would -discover and bring to light, let' us say, secret armaments plants that might be established in a totalitarian country? Who would uncover preparations for a new war and -bring them -to light so that the world would know? Lastly, who would uncover the secret production of this outlawed atomi-c -bomb? Those are questions to which we must give serious thought. Those are questions to which answers are not easily found.

On the other hand, if Canada becomes a party to an international agreement on the atomic bomb and obligates herself not to produce the bomb or to use it in case of war, there are a number of important things which it seems to me we ought to be ready to look squarely in the face. Under such circumstances, in the first place we must ask: would

Atomic Energy Declaration

the united nations organization be able to ensure the complete fulfilment of Canada's pact?

In the first place we have a comparatively free press in Canada. This free press certainly would publish the facts and the whole facts of what was going? on. Sometimes we are irked at the actions of the press, but thank God in these days the press can say what it wishes to say. I uphold them in saying it, even though it may be criticism of me or of my actions or of those of the party that I represent.

We have here a free parliament. My first experience down here has assured me that this is a parliament in which men can and do speak their minds. The members of parliament will find out, or at any rate make a great effort at finding out, just what is going on. The government. will daily be confronted with resolutions to place on the table copies of all documents relating to any of the processes concerning the atomic bomb that might be going on. Somebody, because of that free parliament, will find out what is going on. In this house we have an opposition to the government, constantly watching to see that the government does not do anything of which*the opposition disapproves, and ready always to divulge to the world the things that the government is doing. I have known oppositions to take great glee in divulging such things. I cannot understand how a government in a democratic country could keep very long any secret such as that of the manufacture of the atomic bomb.

' We have also throughout the country political parties in opposition to the government, constantly on the watch to find out and divulge what the government is doing. If Canada -were signatory to an international pact on the atomic bomb I am satisfied that an international commission could come into our country freely and as often as it wished; and could investigate thoroughly over, as widespread a territory as it wished, every plant, every arsenal, every laboratory. This would be in compliance with our solemn pact, and it is what would happen in a country such as ours, and in any other democratic country that can truly be said to be democratic. The commission could talk freely with people anywhere in Canada, and the people would give information to the commission freely because we do preserve in Canada, as in other democratic countries, a good measure at least, of personal freedom. People need not be afraid to talk. There is certainly no such fear in Canada-I have noticed that. No person in our country would be afraid to discuss almost any matter with an international commission, because we have guarantees of personal freedom-and we have no secret police, no death penalties for political offences, or what is often referred to as military espionage.

One must conclude therefore that the united nations organization would come into Canada and other democratic countries and find them fulfilling to the letter the pact and pledges given with respect to the atomic bomb.

Now the question I must face and all of us must face is this. What about Russia or any other totalitarian power? Would it be possible for the united nations organization to secure fulfilment of Russia's pact on the atomic bomb, or that of any other totalitarian country? We must know that in such countries there is no guarantee of personal freedom, and therefore the people cannot talk freely. Every remnant of personal freedom has gone. There is no free press. The press is wholly controlled and muzzled by the government and cannot divulge what is going on. There is no free parliament; there is no opposition to the government either in the so-called parliament or throughout the whole land. They liquidate oppositions in such countries. They do not allow oppositions to work, and no commission for controlling the atomic bomb could possibly have free access to such a country. They would allow the commission to come in, perhaps, but the commission would be allowed to see only what the government wanted them to see. They would be accompanied and guarded. They would be allowed to go into this and that innocent-looking place, but they would have no freedom at all to look into the arsenals and laboratories or to visit the plants and factories. I would point out also that in Russia, as in some other countries, there are vast areas about which foreigners know little or nothing, which have been developing over many years but which are completely fenced around so far as getting information in or out is concerned. Do you suppose for one moment that an international control commission would be allowed to go into such an area? Would it not be possible for plants, any number of them, to be established in such an area for the manufacture of the atomic bomb? Why, of course. It is unthinkable to suppose that an international commission could possibly find out what was being done there, especially in the light of the fact that an international commission for control would be up against the secret police and the threat of death for any who give information and speak their minds freely. There are death penalties in Russia and in all totalitarian

Atomic Energy Declaration

countries for "military espionage", a term which is often loosely used to include most innocent observation and discussion. The prohibitions in such countries do not end with death. They often result in deportation of friends and families. These things are a constant threat to the people.

Under all these circumstances I am forced to the conclusion that a country like Russia simply cannot be controlled by an international organization. I am convinced that so long as there are dictatorships amongst the great powers, an effective international solution of the atomic bomb problem is utterly impossible. Now, if the secret technical methods of the manufacture of the atomic bomb are turned over to the united nations organization, it seems inevitable that the secret of this most dangerous weapon in the world's history will be conveyed to the dictatorships without attaining in return, any real and effective guarantees in return that the bomb will not be made and1 used in a war of aggression. Remember that only a dictatorship-and this I must impress upon hon. members with all the vehemence at my command-could possibly prepare secretly an atomic Pearl Harbour. It could not be done in democracy. Therefore it is absurd to talk of international control so long as Russia and some other totalitarian countries remain as they are.

I have reached another conclusion, of which I must speak briefly. I think it is absurd to talk of government at an international level so long 'as Russia remains as she is. I should like to hear those who advocate government at the international level tell us exactly what it means. Just what does it mean to Canada, and what does it mean to the other nations of the world? "Government at the international level" has been bandied around freely and loosely. Taking the situation in 'Canada right now, I wonder if anybody would advocate Canada becoming a party to an international government with representation on a basis of population? I wonder where would Canada's twelve million people stand in relation to the 130 million people in the United States? Suppose we should become party to an international government in which the United States might be the dominant nation, and come in on a basis of population, would Canada be prepared to become the northern share-cropper area for the United States? Has'anybody ever taken the pains to study what happened in the southern United States, and how they became the southern share-cropper area for the industrial north of the United States? I say that the people of Canada, if they knew the truth, would1 not

support for one moment any such thought; and if they would not accept such an attitude towards our friends of the United States, to whom would they subordinate themselves as a nation? Would it be Russia? I am not prepared to grant that, not for one moment. So far as I am concerned, I can see only one end to such a complex as has been developed on this "government on the international level", and that is the destruction of the British commonwealth of nations of which we form a part-the only real security, the only guarantee of international security we have under the present circumstances. The situation may look black, but situations have looked black at various times in the past.

Mr. Speaker, there is a man not far from me the hon. member for Yorkton, who speaks of my being "the worst bloody imperialist"-I do not know what he was going to say further, but I should just like to have him know that I am not going to lend a hand to selling my country down the river for any association with a doubtful international organization which rests upcto the balance of a strong totalitarian country.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

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

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

There was no reference to the hon. member. He just imagined that.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

Of course the hon. member for Yorkton is very smooth in getting out of situations of a kind where his tongue runs away from him. I have seen him in those situations before.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
CCF

Harry Grenfell Archibald

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

Mr. ARCHIBALD:

Anybody stirring up

hatred in the world the way the hon. member for Peace River does deserves what he gets.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

I am talking straight to the communists, Mr. Speaker like the one who just cut in. I say to you that God has come to the aid of the United Kingdom and the commonwealth of nations times without number. The only way we can ever explain some of the interesting, important and almost supernatural events which have happened in the past through our history is to recognize that God's hand was in it. There have been times when it looked as though all was lost; times when great men such as Wellington and Pitt have been led to exclaim that all was lost and that there was no hope for the empire or the commonwealth; that we were bound to be defeated and destroyed. Well, Mr. Speaker, men have commonly said such things; they have, said them in all ages.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

But it will last a long while yet.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

Yes. it will last a long while

yet if we do our duty and do not sell ourselves and our birthright into slavery.

Atomic Energy Declaration

I say that the spirit of unity which was placed amongst us was put there for the purpose of rallying the various parts of the commonwealth to the aid of each other in times of stress. That spirit has rallied us all many times in the past, and it will do it again if we give it a chance. I should not like to see that spirit destroyed. It can easily be destroyed by such loose talk on "government at the international level" as we hear so often in this house.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. ROSE:

It came first from England,

did it not?

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

I am convinced that the Prime Minister has set his hand to a fairly wise declaration. I believe history will record that in its main clauses it was wise.

Now, having set its hand to this declaration, the government should, it seems to me, take under serious and earnest advisement the reform of its whole external policy somewhat along the lines which I shall now give and which, I may say, the Social Credit Association of Canada will endorse most heartily.

There have been numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, on which people in and out of this house have declared that the Social Credit people are narrow nationalists. That is not so;

I deny.it most vigorously. Just because we are not ready to accede to every request and every suggestion to sell our birthright, to yield our sovereignty completely and become subject to the domination of tremendous forces outside Canada, does not mean to say that we are in any way narrowly nationalistic.

In the first place, the government should be determined to preserve within Canada, the spirit and the practice of true political and economic democracy. I claim that that is the best guarantee of the intentions of any country not to become a dictator or to tolerate anything like a dictatorship. I repeat that we V should be careful to preserve all the elements of true democracy, with all that that means, and we shall then have done our best to assure the nations of our peaceful intentions.

The second thing I suggest is that we give every assurance of the fullest international cooperation on the part of Canada, as a sovereign nation, for the achievement of an era of peaceful prosperity throughout the world.

Third, we should be prepared to extend as a nation to all other nations the hand of good will and brotherhood and justice.

Fourth, we should be prepared to send economic aid to all needy nations, if necessary without even expecting repayment. Give them every opportunity to balance their payments

with us and I am satisfied we shall thereby convincingly demonstrate our peaceful intentions.

In the fifth place, I plead with the government not to yield to this diabolical doctrine of surrendering our sovereignty to any supranational government. We must be in a position in the next few years to act quickly and unfettered. The speedy action of Canada alone might be a means at some time in the future of saving the world.

Sixth, because it is not possible to devise a foreign policy which will be acceptable to the great majority of Canadians so long as they have no real knowledge and are torn between opposing opinions which are spread through the country, mainly through the propaganda of legions of foreign agents, the government must now provide the people with really accurate information. That is the only way the people can possibly make up their minds -on the basis of facts, conveyed by sound and accurate information about what is going on abroad.

Canada can never have a successful and sound external policy until the people of Canada are informed, and through their possession of accurate information are ready to instruct and to support their government.

Seventh, Canada should meticulously keep the peace, praying God that the Anglo-American people will be true to their great trust. At the same time they should be_ ready instantly, if necessary-and I emphasize this very particularly-to rain fire on those nations who disregard their solemn pledges and wantonly wage war.

I know that some hon. members, particularly in the group to my right, will declare that in saying this I am -a warmonger. That is not so. I am a lover of peace. But the only way to guarantee non-aggression in such a world as we now have is to be strong, and just, and ready to act on a moment's notice if necessary.

Last but not least, I say to the government that their foreign policy as well as their domestic policy should be one of absolute trust in God and keeping our powder dry.

I support the resolution.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
CCF

George Hugh Castleden

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

Mr. CASTLEDEN:

And the brotherhood of man?

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
SC

Solon Earl Low

Social Credit

Mr. LOW:

Yes, sir.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):

We have just heard from the leader of the Social Credit party what is practically a war declaration-in my opinion a very irresponsible way of talking in this atomic period. If he were concerned with his own province of Alberta-because we know against whom he made the war decla

Atomic Energy Declaration

ration-he would realize that parts of that province would be very much in the area of the war which he was advocating this morning.

i Mr. LOW: I was not advocating war. That is just the hon. member's own microbic interpretation.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. ROSE:

It is most regrettable that only a few months after the war we should have here a discussion of so serious a problem as the prevention of another war. People throughout the world, and that includes Canada, are disturbed by present events. I have here a letter from a woman in Ottawa, Mrs. Sheila Woodsworth, who writes to me as follows:

I am afraid of the atomic bomb. Alone I can do nothing -about it. I am writing to you in the hope that you will do all in your power to see that this great discovery is not left in the hands of a few countries but is controlled by a world organization. This seems to me the only hope for us and our children.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Who wrote it?

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. ROSE:

I gave the name-Mrs. Sheila Woodsworth, of Ottawa. I do not know her. As I said before, it is most disturbing that a few months after the war, people feel impelled to write such letters as this to members of ' parliament, asking them to do something so that this atomic bomb shall not be used among peoples. The Washington declaration does not reassure me any more than it reassures that person; I do not think it reassures any member of this house. The fact is that the declaration leaves in the hands of those who have it the power to use the atomic bomb at their discretion, and leaves the door open to an atomic armament race. It may sound very harsh, but it is a fact that it has left in the hands of the United States, Great Britain and Canada not only a dangerous weapon of war, but a dangerous weapon of diplomacy.

War simply does not come by itself; someone once said that war is a continuation of politics in a different way. Politics goes on before war, and politics to-day is becoming an atomic diplomacy. We see it going on right now in Washington, more perhaps than anywhere else. And recently we had the example when Ambassador Hurley practically demanded that the United States should use the advantage of the atomic bomb in her diplomatic dealings. Such voices are heard more and more in the United States. Pressure is being exerted on Washington for the United States government to use the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon [DOT] to club everybody.

I follow closely the United States press. I spoke in Boston a week ago Sunday, and there you get the feeling that a new diplomacy is

being advocated in the United States. There is the intervention in China, and Washington practically says: "We will keep those marines there until the situation fits into our pattern." One hon. member spoke about Anglo-American democracy. I would say that this is far from a democratic action. We read daily about the wiping out of Indonesian villages, of people poorly armed fighting for their freedom against British forces, and again we hear about Anglo-American democracy. This is not the type of pattern we had hoped for in the post-war period. It is not the type of pattern that will produce lasting security.

The Prime Minister praised the great work of President Roosevelt, and we all had the greatest respect for the late president, but I would remind hon. members of something that he said in March 1945. He knew that collaboration cannot be Anglo-American but must be collaboration among those powers that made victory possible, the powers that can preserve the peace together. Speaking about the trouble at the time, he said:

It is fruitless to try to place the blame for the situation on one particular nation or another. It is the kind of development which is almost inevitable unless the major powers of the world continue without interruption to work together and assume joint responsibility for the solution of problems which may arise to endanger the peace of the world.

The other day President Truman seemingly forgot these words when he said: "No more conferences of the big three; we don't have to get together any more,"

There is no solution but in the continued unity of the big three. Only a few weeks ago when Cordell Hull, that great old statesman, accepted the Nobel prize, he said:

We must never forget that to achieve the great goal of lasting peace it is imperative that there be continued unity, friendly understanding, and common effort among the people and statesmen of -the major united nations who bore the principal burden in the war against the axis.

Unity and understanding among those who bore the burden in the war! But this declaration of Washington has been made by powers outside one great power that bore one of the greatest burdens, and this can only tend to create suspicion and bring about a situation that is not the best at the present time. Some people are always suggesting that the Russians are close-mouthed, that they do not say what they want to say, that they do not say what they mean, that they just keep everything t.o themselves, and so on. Hon. members who are interested have the same opportunities as I have for acquiring information. They can resort to the New York Times, as I do. If they will look at that newspaper in its issue of Wednesday, November 7, 1945, they will

Atomic Energy Declaration

find reported therein a speech made by foreign commissar Molotov in which he referred! to atomic 'diplomacy. What he says reflects the feeling of the Soviet people over the fact that they are being kept out, and are being given reason for suspicion. He said:

A word must be said about the discovery of atomic energy and about the atomic bomb, the colossal destructive force of which was displayed

in the war against Japan. Atomic energy nas not yet been tried, however, for averting aggression or safeguarding peace, but it is not possible at the present time for a technical secret of any great size to remain the exclusive possession of some one country or some narrow circle of countries. This being so, the discovery of atomic energy should not encourage either a propensity to exploit the discovery and the play of forces in international policy, or an attitude of complacency as regards the future of peace-loving nations.

Plainly and simply, Mr. Molotov says that there are some nations who believe that they have an advantage because they have the bomb, but that it cannot, be kept a secret. It shows that there is a good deal of suspicion in his mind. He ends his speech by saying, "We will' have atomic energy and many other things." I would say that as a result of the great contribution which the Russians made to victory, it should have been possible for the three nations to get together, making the atomic bomb the possession of all, because we would then know that it would not be used by any one nation.

, It has been disclosed that the Germans had some very dangerous type of poison gas but they did not use it because they knew that everyone had it. From the point of view of equilibrium in diplomatic and political relations, it would have been better if the atomic bomb had been placed in the hands of all rather than in the hands of the Anglo-American natibns. It is true there is a conference of foreign ministers where the matter is being discussed, but this is taking place after the Washington understanding and agreement. It could have taken place before, and it should have occurred before.

One United States newspaper man, Leland Stowe, referring to the atomic bomb as a diplomatic weapon, gives the following picture, writing in the Montreal Standard on November 24, 1945. He is a newspaperman of great repute who has travelled throughout the world and has seen the various countries at war. He knows of their sufferings. He says:

If the Soviets had the bomb and had followed Washington's precise course since August 6, how would the average American feel? I think the newspapers would be full of explosive condemnation of the "imperialistic power-seeking" Russians-and an awful lot of us would be olenty scared.

We would say: If the Russians don't intend to use the bomb, actually or for blackmail purposes, why didn't they invite President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee to a conference right away?

We would say: Why is Moscow treating the Americans and British as if they were second-class allies? Military men would be derelict m their duty if they didnT say: We've got to build a bomb of our own in the shortest possible time. Don't trust the Russians. The very fact that they only talk about sharing, after they ve had time to make many more bombs themselves shows they can't be trusted.

If I were a Russian I think I should feel exactly like that. But I am not worried about being a Russian. As one member of this house and as a Canadian interested in the peace of Canada and the world, I am afraid that the damage which has been done already will be hard to heal in the coming months, though I hope it may be healed. Scientists who have worked on the bomb have spoken publicly for the first time, and this is all to the good. Scientists who know exactly what is involved in this atomic energy, much better than at least many of us in the house can know, have advised that we hand over the secret to an international committee, not at some future date but right away. A number of scientists were engaged in this work. One very prominent man, Doctor J. R. Oppenheimer, who directed atomic bomb research at Los Alamos, New Mexico, said:

It has momentarily strengthened us-

[DOT] _

Meaning the United States.

-but not in the long run. Some people apparently have been reluctant to draw this to the attention of the world.

Then he recommends that it be placed in the hands of an international organization. Doctor Curtis, who was one of the leading scientists working on atomic energy at Oak Ricfge, Tennessee, - said that atomic energy should be turned over to an international organization to control all aspects of atomic power. There are many more. Only the other day Professor Sziland, appearing before the senate committee on atomic energy, said it would appear that we were producing bombs against the soviet union. One of the senators interjected, "No, no; we are friends." Professor Szilard replied, "Well, I assume we are producing them against the Soviet Union," and he was one of those who first thought of the \ possibility of the bomb. He went on to say: "Well, if we are, we are going to be at a disadvantage." He pointed out that it would take the United States twenty years to decentralize her industries, which would have to 'be done in the event of atomic war, but he said it would take Russia only

Atomu Energy Declaration

two years, and therefore the advantage of having the bomb now would be completely lost. One of the most ridiculous arguments against passing on the "know-how" to other countries was presented by Major General Leslie G. Groves, who was in charge of the whole project of producing the atomic bomb. He gave some reasons why it should not be placed in the hands of an international organization; and do you know what he said: He said it would erase national boundaries, end the sanctity of the home and destroy private commercial enterprise. That was the reason for his opposition to an international organization; that it would destroy the sanctity of the home and destroy private free enterprise. If these are the reasons then I would Say that those who oppose handing this over to an international organization are relying on pretty weak arguments. After all, the atomic bomb would definitely destroy the sanctity of the home; everyone will agree with that.

I was not going to speak on this at all, but before I conclude I must say a few words about one group in this house who have been carrying on a. most vicious agitation against a country which has been a loyal ally and which has been carrying out all the decisions reached at various conferences. People say you cannot trust the Soviet Union, that they are going to bolshevize the world. Well, right next door to Russia is Finland. We were told that was a country Russia was going to swallow. They had elections in that country. The communists did not come into power. A .majority of those elected were neither communists nor socialists. They said Russia would swallow Hungary. Well, Hungary has not been swallowed. They had elections there and the small holders' p'hrty came out with the largest group. Then people said, "Aha! now there has been a free election, because the communists did not come out in the majority." In France, of course, the communists came through the election as the largest party and the Red Army is not there. Again, something was said about Austria, but in Austria the Russians actually placed their cards on the table. They recognized the free government at the head of which was Renner, a socialist. They had elections there, and what happened? We all know the results. Then the Soviet Union said they would withdraw from Manchuria, and they are allowing Chinese troops to go into that country. I should like to see the other countries living up to their promises and responsibilities as the Soviet people have been living up to theirs. Let the other countries prove their good faith. Let them prove it in Indonesia,

IMr. Bose.] - [

in French Indo-China, in China and everywhere else. They have not done so. The Social Credit group in this house, and particularly the leader of that group, assisted very ably by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, have been carrying on a vicious agitation here.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

What about me?

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. ROSE:

I am sorry; I did not mean to overlook the hon. member for Macleod. They have been carrying on a most vicious agitation against the Soviet Union, actually speaking as though the Soviet people have been our enemies, carrying on the type of agitation which I have said before does not help bring about unity, does not help us when we try to build peace in the world, which will not solve anything but in my opinion will only help create more and more suspicion.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Carried.

Topic:   ATOMIC ENERGY
Subtopic:   APPROVAL OF AGREED DECLARATION SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 15, 1945
Permalink

December 17, 1945