He goes on to say :
Canada as a member of the assembly but not of the security council should carefully review the present proposal to prevent discussion on matters being dealt with by the council of the great powders.
When I look over section B of chapter V of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals with reference to the general assembly I find this:
The general assembly should have the right ... to discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any member or members of the organization or by the security council; and to make recommendations with regard to any such principles or questions. Any such questions on which action is necessary should be referred to the security council by the general assembly either before or after discussion. The general assembly should not on its own initiative make recommendations on any matter relating to the maintenance of international peace and security which is being dealt with by the security council.
I fail to see where there is any limitation on democratic discussion relative to the work of that organization, but I am glad to see that there is a safeguard provided against the whole proceedings being bogged down by irrelevant discussion to the exclusion of the necessary action for which the assembly is being set up. I think that is an excellent safeguard.
The leader of the C.C.F. party says that the assembly should have the right at all times to discuss matters without limitations. I would say that such a procedure, instead of protecting democracy, would expose it to body blows and to futile discussions which would be very likely to kill it. I can think of no better opportunity for those interests that still exist and would destroy world security than to have, if they could, unlimited discussion in such an assembly. Unlimited discussion could kill it. It pretty nearly kills us sometimes!
The world and its peoples want action, not words. They want to see the security organization take on life, not to be strangled at birth by unlimited1 discussion of irrelevant matters. I would1 say that defeatism in time of war is a betrayal of the cause for which we fight and of those who gave their lives to fight. I wish to say openly in front of the whole house that any person to-day who is spreading even doubts and little fears about the possibility of our achieving democratic rights and so forth in this new peace and security organization which is being set up comes into the same category as those who
San Francisco Conference
spread defeatism in time of war. Mr. Speaker, let Canada have none of that type of person. Instead, let all of us wholeheartedly wish our Canadian delegation godspeed and send them forward with the greatest enthusiasm to carry out their part in the work that has to be done.