Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):
Mr. Speaker, down on the Atlantic coast there is a broadcasting station which, when they announce their identification, usually give this message, "This is the friendly voice of the maritimes." That station sends its message to our neighbours and it also goes out upon the sea. It is heard by the fishermen, by the men of the navy, and by the travellers who come to our shores. It carries, I think, an appropriate touch of good will. For generations the men of the maritimes, moved by a spirit of adventure and a desire to trade with other countries, have sailed- the seas, visiting many places in distant lands. There they met many people, sometimes strange people with different customs and a different way of life, but they made friends, and by experience they learned the practical value of friendship; so much so that down there among our people there is something, bred in the bone, that
makes us value friendships with other people and leads us to have a tolerance for their views and a high regard for the rights of others.
Then again there is the comradeship of the sea. That is always liberal and generous and international in its aspect, so that it is not hard to understand why the people in my section of the country should give full and enthusiastic support to the resolution before the house. It is my purpose to try to bring to bear on the resolution that friendly spirit which we think is so necessary for its success. Our people, I believe, will support the resolution because it means cordial relations with other countries, because it will bring orderly progress in the future, and also the extension of international trade.
Canada is very fortunate in her friendships and associations. AVe are part of the British empire, and although we are separated from Britain by an ocean, on the coast we always have a visible evidence of Britain's greatness. Some years ago when I visited the docks of an eastern Canadian port with a friend we saw there one of Britain's greatest battleships which had just come in from the sea. After contemplating the scene my friend said to me, "There is the fortress that will give security to Canada."
On the other hand, we are surrounded on all sides by the sea except on the southern border and beyond that border lies our great neighbour country, the United States. Between our countries there are no fortifications or battlements. The dividing line is almost imaginary so far as movement is concerned, but from the geographical point of view it is definite and it is also definite in the minds of the Canadian people. Because of our relations and our geographic position Canada has a splendid opportunity to do a great service to promote good will between the United States and Great Britain, two great English-speaking countries. Our Prime Minister has always regarded this as a noble duty; in his long and meritorious service he has worked along this line, and that work has been outstanding, so that we can say that he has a fine record of service and achievement, especially for the promotion of good will.
Mr. Churchill, in introducing the Prime Minister of Canada in May, 1944, to the British parliament had this to say:
Canada is the link which joins together the old world and the new; which links the vast American people, with whom I trust we shall ourselves develop a fraternal association. Canada, bound by sacred ties to the mother country, and also by terms of the deepest intimacy and friendship to the United States, clamps the whole structure of this benignant, unfearing
San Francisco Conference
glorious British empire together into one homogeneous mass which, when crisis comes to the world as a whole, will never fail in its duty.
I also have in mind that the President of the United States some years ago, while visiting Canada, said that his country would not stand idly by if Canada were threatened by an invading foe. I think that the results of the war, the strength and power which Canada has demonstrated both as an industrial country and as a fighting nation, must convince the American people that it is also to their advantage to have Canada as a good neighbour, because Canada is a strong right arm in the northern part of this American continent.
I think that the first essential for world peace is close association between the English-speaking countries. They will be expected to give the lead and it will have a salutary effect upon the rest of the world. Some suggest that Canada should be more closely allied with Britain; others fear that we might fall unduly under the influence of the United States of America. I rather believe that for this purpose Canada is strong enough to stand on her own merit, to be a member nation in her own right at the San Francisco conference and take a self-respecting place in that forum of good will for the benefit of peace.
May I quote from the Prime Minister's speech made before the British parliament when he was there last year on the occasion when Mr. Churchill introduced him, as I indicated a moment ago. At that meeting the Prime Minister of Canada, addressing the British houses of parliament, said in part:
It will ever be a prime object of Canadian policy to work for the maintenance of the fraternal association of the British and American peoples. When peace comes it is our highest hope that the peoples of the British commonwealth and the United States will continue to march at each other's side united more closely than ever. But we equally hope that they will march in a larger company in which all the nations united to-day in defence of freedom will remain united in the service of mankind.
That speech caught the imagination of the Canadian people and shows that the Prime Minister, even at that time, had in mind what is about to become a reality at the San Francisco conference. I think it is significant that this conference is being held in the new world. The delegates are coming to the land of hope and glory where life is lived most abundantly. It has also been suggested that Canada might be the permanent home of the city of peace. That might well be. It would be a great compliment to Canada; it would be a high tribute to her association with both the United States and Great Britain and the other parts of the commonwealth.
Canada has no territorial ambitions, is not big enough to invite the selfish envy of other nations, and we are a country where the four freedoms are being intelligently brought into play. I think we could welcome with legitimate pride the world to come to this country to establish the city of peace.
The proposals for the conference come from the conference at Dumbarton Oaks and the meeting at Yalta. The basis of the new organization is similar to that of the league of nations, which fell by the wayside through the greed and ambition of other days. At that time the seed fell on stony ground. Let us hope that this time better preparations are made so that the seed will fall on good ground. At that time President Wilson had a high purpose, which was damaged at the peace conference, where he was outmanoeuvred; then difficulties at home kept the United States from joining the league, which seriously impaired its powers and abilities. Mr. Wilson was criticized at home by leading Republicans, who were able to keep the United States from participating in the work of the league of nations. But the world has changed a great deal since then. Now we see national leaders inviting those of opposing political faiths to join with them in this international work. Thus we hope to have harmony and unity of purpose, so that when these men return to their own parliaments for ratification of what has been done their work will not be judged in a political sense; there will be no question of political advantage, but only the rights and benefits of the nations they represent.
With regard to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, I believe all hon. members must subscribe to the principles underlying them. This is a pledge, and we have great regard for pledges. When we join an organization or institution we pledge ourselves to support it; and we regard that as a matter of honour. Every man who belongs to a labour union in this country pledges his support to that union. When countries sign I regard it as the cement which will go a long way in keeping them together. Many times the statesmen of the world have tried to get nations to sign pledges of this kind. We recall that some years ago the late William Jennings Bryan, who was a great advocate of peace, tried in every way to get arbitration treaties signed by nations so that war would be prevented. I wish to read just a few paragraphs from the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, which I regard as a pledge of great importance:
San Francisco Conference
All members of the organization undertake, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership in the organization, to fulfil the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the charter.
All members of the organization shall settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered.
All members of the organization shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force an any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization.
This in itself, Mr. Speaker, is a forward movement. We are told that there may be a dictatorship of the big three and eventually the big five in the conduct of the affairs of the association because of the way it is organized. Well, a glance at the proposals will show that the general assembly is composed of all nations of good will, great and small. Each retains its own sovereignty; and each member, which means each country, has one vote. It is true that the bigger nations have some veto privileges which would enable them to halt forward movements, but the general assembly elects the majority of the security council, and in my public experience I have always found that the elected members of any parliament or any assembly usually have a great deal to say about what is going to be done. It is my opinion that in the hands of resourceful men the majority of the security council consisting of the smaller nations will be very useful. While it may be true that they cannot go forward without the consent of the larger nations, they can stop anything being done that is not to their liking. In time the peace-time activities of the organization will overshadow its war-time activities. The general assembly will be able to do a great deal for the benefit of mankind, in coordinating the peoples of the world in order to bring mankind to higher levels. We must realize that as far as security is concerned, it depends upon harmony among the bigger nations, who must combine power with responsibility. While we might like to see more control left with the assembly, we must realize that we have to be practical and that to-day it is only through power that we can secure peace.
I think it is a great thing to have Asia, Europe and America brought together in an association of this kind; and we must not forget the potential power of China. We do not know what will happen in the future, and China is a country which it will be well to have in the association. They are a different race, out there in the east apart from the other countries of the world. It seems to me that to get China into an organization of this kind is far-sighted. Then there is the Soviet republic, which controls a great part of the world.
Those people have come a long way and have shown themselves to be powerful, resourceful and intelligent. Would it not be quite inadvisable to attempt to keep nations like these out of this league simply because they do not want to be too closely controlled at the outset? It must be remembered that this is only the start. As they go along and the people become more confident thej'' will not fear each other, and the organization can be improved from time to time.
There is to be an international court. We are told by the proposals that, ipso facto, each member nation comes under the statute of the international court. Let us hope that that will include the larger nations, as well as the smaller nations. We are not quite clear on that point.
There has been some criticism about Canada's position. Some think that because Canada has great military power, and now that she has developed great industrial power, she should be placed with the big nations on the security council. Well, that might cause difficulty at the outset. We must remember that Brazil, with an area of 3,275,000 square miles, has a population of 41,356,605; Mexico, with an area of 763,994 square miles has a population of 19,473,471; Argentina, with an area of 1,078,278 square miles, has a population of 13,518,239. and Canada, with an area of 3,695,189 square miles, has a population of 11,506,665.
It seems to me that Canada is in the forefront in all her activities and in her importance much more than she is in the number of her people. Therein might be found a lesson for the future government of this country.
However, Mr. Speaker, we are by speech and by our relations close to two powers on the security council, namely Great Britain and the United States. Surely when we are in such good company as that we do not need to be afraid that our interests will be hurt because Canada has not assumed a place on the security council with the big nations.
Some people say that the British commonwealth of nations should be the member to sit on the security council, and that we should thus be represented. Well, let us look at this in a practical way. There is one vote for each member. Does anyone think that Great Britain will appoint a representative from Canada? Would not Westminster want to appoint its representative from Great Britain? And if we were with the British commonwealth as a unit, what would become of Canada's position on the security council by election? I say that because each nation has a membership on the general assembly, and if we made a
San Francisco Conference
unit of the commonwealth of nations, Canada's position on the general assembly would be imperilled.
There has been some discussion, too, about the military staff. Chapter VIII, section B, paragraph 9 of the proposals does not confine the military staff to the big nations. It associates on the military staff the member of any nation directly interested. Then subsequently they appoint the commanding officer after that nation is included.
Then, some persons worry about Canada's commitments. Canada has no commitments yet. I believe there will be commitments; they will be decided by parliament. And while some hon. members may wish to bring ghosts into the picture to obscure the situation, and perhaps cause fear among sections of our people, it seems to me that their motives are not purely for the purpose of helping out this organization.
After this war Canada will certainly have an air force. She will have a navy, and a permanent militia. It seems to me that instead of being a burden that will be an opportunity, because our forces will have a peace-time objective. Instead of being trained and equipped for war they will be for purposes of peace. They will be associated with other nations in such a way that they will be part of the economic set-up. They will not seem to be a military burden. They will be cooperating with other countries for the service of the world. That is a fine vision and a fine ambition for the future services in this country. I do not see why anybody would consider it a burden; because if they stick together they may not be used very much. It -will be something of which people who want to disturb the peace will be very much afraid.
Our friends are very much concerned about the sending of men outside Canada. I was talking with a friend the other day who lives in my county and he said to me, "It is a peculiar thing, that when you want a dollar in parliament you are asked to bring it before the House of Commons, and discuss estimates, and justify it down to the last dollar; but when they want men they want an all-inclusive order in council."
It seems to me that this organization will deal primarily with security in its early stages. After that it will deal with trade and social improvements. No doubt it will be of great benefit to all mankind. Through it all there comes to us the thought as to just how dependent and interdependent men and nations are. In the last analysis you can do in this world only what other people
will let you do. Logic, perseverance and ability will carry one a long way. The public will salute all those virtues. But to carry one right through they must be for the benefit of mankind.
Even foreign trade is subject to good will. I recall that some years ago my hon. friends to my right were going to blast their way into the markets of the world. However, they have changed their opinion to-day, and I am glad they have. Yet I believe that was done for their new leader-and it was all to the good, unless they change again. Future tariffs and world trade will be economic and scientific questions.
I am not going to prolong the debate, but I do give a message of godspeed to our delegates who will go to this important meeting. May you there meet noble and sincere friends, so that you will be able to say with Bobby Burns:
And there's a hand, my trusty fere!
And gie's a hand o' thine!
And we'll tak a eup of kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
And when their work is over-and we trust it will be abundantly successful-may we go forward in this country and in the world, having justice with majesty and peace -with beneficence.
Topic: SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE
Subtopic: PROPOSED GENERAL INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND SECURITY