December 17, 1945

LPP

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. ROSE:

No, it is not going to be carried so quickly; this is one time I am going through with it. I will say that those who have been speaking against the Soviet Union are using the language of the Hitlerites. That is a sharp statement, isn't it? One day they will speak about the Soviet Union. The next day they will speak about bankers, international bankers, and they will mention any Jewish name they can think of in the banking world, forgetting the Mellons, the Chase National Bank, the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal-on the board of which there is not a single Jew-and all the rest of them. They are carrying on an agitation anti-soviet, anti-Jewish, anti-Socialist. Why, they even charged the Liberal party with becoming a socialist party. In eyery sense the sort of agitation they are conducting to-day resembles the agitation of the Hitlerites in the good old days. I have before me their attitude toward foreign, affairs. Here in this house, of course, they have to polish it up a bit, but down in the province of Quebec they believe they can sell the people anything they wish. Here is their attitude, for instance, toward San Francisco, from their own paper, Vers demairp, dated April 15, 1644:

Nous pouvons etre surs qu'a San-Franciseo, il y aura d'autres delegues que les representants officiels des nations invitees. Ils n'auront pas le droit de vote, mais ils seront la pour inspirer ceux qui auront le droit de vote. Les financiers y seront. Les Juifs y seront. Les socialistes y seront. Toute la bande infernale essayera de eanaliser ce concil eceeum^nique de la mati&re.

_ I should like to translate that, because it is too good to Ire missed by some hon. members [DOT]

Atomic Energy Declaration

We can be certain that at San Francisco there will be other delegates than those^ officially representing the various nations. They wil not have the right to vote but they will be there to inspire those who have the right to vote. The financiers will be there, the Jews will be there, the socialists will be there. All that infernal gang will be there to canalize this conference into their own channels.

And, speaking about the peace we want to have, in another edition of the same paper, under date of May 1, 1945, they say: (Translation).

The last peace, brought about by the Versailles treaty, was shaped by international Jews such as Schiff. Warburg and their associates; we all know what came out of it. Is the Christian but paganized world of 1945, about to yield to the same influences?

Then, speaking about the peace after the last war, they say that the last treaty, the treaty of Versailles, was fashioned1 by international Jews, Schiff, Warburg and Company, and that we know what has come out of it. Then they ask if the Christian world, Christian but paganized in 1945, is to pass through the same status.

Let me say that that was Hitler's argument.

I have one extract here which actually uses material I saw in a nazi paper, and which states that the Jews, the Jewish financiers, such as Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had helped the Russians to carry out their revolution. Those are the stories, printed in that paper, which appeared in the nazi press. According to one of these papers the hon. member for Wetaskiwin '(Mr. Jaques) was to speak over the air about Shylock and Marx.

Listen to that language. That is language we have not yet forgotten, language that is not yet dead. Here they come to the House of Commons and, while they do not use the same language, that is what they mean. It is language which can only create trouble. If we proceed on the basis of it we can have no peace, no stability.

It is the good fortune, however, of the people of Canada that those people are limited to one province. We understand that we must have peace, and Canada as a neighbour of the Soviet Union and the United States and as a member of the British commonwealth holds great responsibility. We must do everything in our power to cement that degree of unity needed throughout the world, and especially among those who have carried most of the burden in the war. Otherwise we shall have chaos and disaster.

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

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, I shall not take much time this afternoon. J had not intended speaking at all until, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) was speaking, I heard certain

47696-230i

mumblings in this section of the house. I 'did not have to strain my ears to hear the last speaker, the hon, member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), and I am not going to answer him.

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

Fred Rose

Labour Progressive

Mr. ROSE:

It is just a debt repaid.

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

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

However, he has attacked some of our supporters in the province of Quebec. All I wish to say is that whether they are our supporters or not, the people of Quebec have the happy faculty of speaking their minds. And they use the freedom Canada gives them as citizens. That is all.

There is no semblance of hatred whatsoever in the minds of hon. members of the Social Credit party; no hatred toward any people or any nation. We disagree with totalitarian dictatorship, and we have been outspoken in our disagreement. We wish no ill, and will fight against anything that will bring ill to any people or any nation anywhere.

May I compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the other signatories of the declaration now before us for consideration. I have read it with considerable care and, after reading it, it was my view that it is a magnanimous document, Great Britain, the United States and Canada, represented by the heads of those nations, in that document have offered to the world all *the benefits of atomic energy which they have discovered. I repeat that those benefits are offered to the entire world.

For a period of time, for economic reasons those countries could have retained this development of science. They could have brought to the western democracies the greatest standard of living yet dreamed of. But they have shown themselves willing to share this development with the world. The only place they have stopped in extending their gift is when it comes to destruction. And even in that respect, the declaration goes so far as to say that they will let the world have the benefit of their knowledge, when they are sure it is safe to do so.

Surely no nations could be more generous or more magnanimous to the rest of the world than have these three, when dealing with this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather

from the debate that the house is all but unanimous in support of the resolution, and that at most there is but one member, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), who is opposed to it It will be, I know a source of great satisfaction to all members of parliament-members of all parties-that both in the Senate and in the House of Commons of

S65(i

Atomic Energy Declaration

Canada there has been unanimity in support of the resolution. That will help in all parts of the world.

May I convey to my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr, Bracken) my congratulations upon the splendid address he delivered this morning. Clearly, it was one to which much thought had been given, and which will be helpful I am sure to all who are interested in this all-important question.

There was one reference my hon. friend made-I believe it was to paragraph 7 in the declaration-where it seemed to me, if I heard his words aright, that either he had not in mind the true interpretation of the language of the motion, or that he was saying something that was not wholly what was in his mind. If I heard his words correctly, he said we were relying upon reciprocal agreements to see that the atomic bomb would not be used in future wars. Hansard will show whether I have understood my hon. friend correctly.

I noticed the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) took up the point and I thought quite rightly, said that the whole purpose of my remarks, in interpreting the declaration, had been to make clear that we cannot afford to rely upon any agreement anywhere; and that the only security against the use of the atomic bomb is the abolition of war itself. That was the point I wished to make very clear, namely, that so far as a major weapon of warfare of this kind is concerned, agreements amount to nothing at all, unless there can be some way in which apart from agreements an unscrupulous people may be prevented from violating an agreement into which they may enter or from using weapons of mass destruction. I repeat, the only safeguard for the preservation of civilization, now that the world is possessed of a weapon of war so devastating as the atomic bomb, is that matters be so worked outjn the course of time, and in the near time, that nations will realize that those who take up weapons of this kind to destroy other nations are going to destroy themselves as well. In this last war the use of the bomb by one-country was replied to by the use of the bomb by others, but it was not the atomic bomb. In an atomic age, that same kind of conflict, can only bring disaster to all mankind.

I am quite sure that my hon. friend is in agreement with myself on that particular point.

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. BRACKEN:

I was not conscious that I was in disagreement; I am trying to find the reference to which my hon. friend alludes but I have not been able to find it as yet.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It may not be there, and I hope it is not, but if it is there I am quite sure my hon. friend did not mean in any way to disagree with what had been said by myself.

May I express also to the hon. member for Vancouver East my appreciation of the manner in which he spoke this morning, and, with one exception, of what he said. I shall allude to the exception in a moment. I should like to say that we all regret that the leader of the C,C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) has been prevented from taking part in this debate, particularly for the reason which has prevented him from being here this. morning. Fortunately, he has already spoken elsewhere on this question, and a good deal of publicity has been given to what he has said. | think his remarks have made it clear that he would strongly support this resolution.

- The one remark, if I caught it aright, of my hon. friend the member for Vancouver East to which I wish to take exception was his statement that research into atomic energy for use in war had been in the hands of the DuPonts in the United States, Imperial Chemical Industries in Britain and Canadian Industries Limited in Canada. That statement is absolutely untrue, and I want to make the strongest possible denial I can make of the statement. This particular field of research w-as a matter of the most complete cooperation between the universities and government departments; it was not in the hands of these industrial concerns to which my hon. friend has referred. It is quite true that in the building of some of the: plants firms which were possessed of special skills and had been associated with one or other of the industries to which my hon. friend referred were employed to help on the work of construction, but so far as the research work is concerned that was a matter which was kept entirely under the control of Government departments of our three countries and the industries mentioned were not parties to the research work.

Mr. MaoINNIS: Have they access to/ the research and the use of it?

Mr. MAiGKENZIE KING: No, and I wish to make that very clear. Will my hon. friend give the house his reason for believing that they have had such access?

Mr. MaeINNIS: If I did not think that I had fairly good reason for saying that, I certainly would not have made the statement. I am very glad to accept the Prime Minister's statement that it is not true, although I do not think that is the best way of saying it.

Atomic Energy Declaration

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say to my hon. friend that a thing is either true or untrue. If it is not true, then there is only one way of stating the fact.

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

Angus MacInnis

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

Mr. MacINNIS:

If I had said that about my right hon. friend, I am sure he would have objected.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I would never have made the statement that my hon. friend made.

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

Angus MacInnis

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

Mr. MacINNIS:

I would not agree with the right hon. gentleman.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

John Ritchie MacNicol

Progressive Conservative

Mr. MacNICOL:

Would the Prime Minister add the name of Doctor Banting?

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am very happy to add Doctor Banting's name to the . list of scientists who will ever be remembered as among the great benefactors of mankind. In referring to Louis Pasteur, I was quoting from one who so far as the world's record is concerned stands, I believe pre-eminent as a scientist and benefactor of mankind.

I believe that by enabling us to make prevail among nations, the law of peace, work, and health, science will have given us the key to the solution of our world problems. The great scientists are known to be men of wide

Atomic Energy Declaration

vision and of large heart. I am sure the motive that actuates them is, in most cases, at least, that of service to their fellowmen. Again, in the words of Pasteur, I believe thfe final verdict upon their researches will be: "Science will have tried by obeying the laws of Humanity to extend the frontiers of Life."

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. BRACKEN:

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I caught the full significance of the Prime Minister's comments with respect to one of my observations. I am sure there is no difference of any consequence between us, but lest there should be I should like to refer to the matter. I think it was not paragraph 7 but paragraph 6 to which the Prime Minister must have been referring. The last sentence in paragraph 6 of the declaration reads as follows:

We iare, 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 purposes can be devised.

My comment on that was as follows: I said 'that it was an offer to share scientific knowledge on a reciprocal basis, and I added: 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.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That was the phrase I meant-tying our faith to reciprocal agreements to banish its use in time of war.

I do not think we are tying our faith ito anything but the abolition of war itself. That is my point.

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. BRACKEN:

I think the Prime Minister will agree that I was dealing with the clauses1 as I came to them, and that what I said was not meant to be an all-inclusive statement, but rather an interpretation of the clause itself.

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

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I quite agree.

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. BRACKEN:

I might have made it more inclusive and said, banish its use in time of war and to banish war itself. But I went on to say that it "must be our main effort to banish war itself. Since the Prime Minister has referred to it, and in order that there may be no doubt as to the record, perhaps I might be permitted to repeat what I said with respect to war itself. I said:

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-

And so forth; I need not repeat it all, but I ended by saying:

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 toleranace 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.

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

Motion agreed to.


December 17, 1945