Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

I wish to add my voice to that of those who have already spoken in support of the resolution before us; and I hope I do so with full understanding of all that is involved in it.

I do not think that any sane person in Canada to-day is opposed to this country taking part in a collective security system. What has happened in the world during the past fifteen years should be sufficient to convince us that there is an imperative need for some kind of international system that will maintain peace. It is not only necessary to prevent aggression because in a certain sense that is a negative state; it is necessary that peace may be something more than just absence of war, it must be a dynamic condition promoting human welfare and human concord.

I must say that I was very much surprised at the attitude taken by the official opposition yesterday and the day before in refusing to take part in the debate until they had heard or read what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had to say. To me the resolution itself made it clear, as clear as it could be made at this time, what the position of the Prime Minister would be. For the sake of brevity I should like to paraphrase the resolution that we are discussing. It asks that the house endorse the government's acceptance of the invitation to the conference. That is No. 1. No. 2, that the house recognizes the establishment of an international organization for the maintenance of peace is vitally important to Canada and that Canada should be a member. No. 3, that the house approves the principle and purposes set forth in the proposals of the four governments and considers them a satisfactory general basis for discussion. No. 4, that the house agrees that Canada's representatives should use their best endeavours to prepare an acceptable charter for maintaining international peace and security. No. 5, that the charter be submitted to parliament for approval before ratification. To me this is well worded and I think it is a non-controversial resolution. It is clear and to the point. It proposes five things. It asks first for the acceptance of the invitation. Unless we are opposed to collective security we could not be opposed to that, and it should not give room for criticism. The second one asks membership of Canada in an international

organization for maintaining peace. I do not believe there is any room for opposition or criticism there. The fourth asks that Canada's representatives press for the best charter possible, and the fifth that the charter as approved be brought before parliament before becoming effective. Now I believe there is no room for criticism there.

Let me go back to the third one which I left to the last, namely, that the Dumbarton Oaks proposals be the general basis for discussion.

I do not think they are a matter for criticism so far as this government is concerned, because the government was not implicated or consulted in the formulation of these proposals. The proposals themselves, of course, are open to criticism. It also suggests that we here make proposals that the' delegation may submit at the San Francisco conference. Why should the official opposition, then take the position that they could not say anything or commit themselves to anything until they heard what the Prime Minister had to say? To me the attitude of the official opposition is amazing at so critical a time and on so important an issue. It is indeed very hard to understand.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in putting the views of this party before the house yesterday covered most of the points in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals that we should like to have considered. I do not think he exhausted the points in the draft plan that we believe could be improved, but I am not going to take the time to-night to add to what he said in that regard. The most I wish to say is that I am in favour of an international security system because I see no way of avoiding war or of avoiding world chaos unless we bring our international relations within the rule of law. The inventions in transportation and communications of the last few decades have made of the nations of the world a community; and it is no longer a figure of speech to talk about the community of nations. As we have a community of nations I think those nations must now come under the rule of law as individuals and groups in nations must abide by the law of those nations; otherwise I can see no hope for peace in the future. In order that that may be done, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he spoke, nations may have and will have to give up a certain amount of sovereignty. I believe that, as is the case again with the individual who, in giving up certain freedoms acquires certain other freedoms which do not limit his opportunities but add to them, so with nations.

San Francisco Conference

Commander Harold Stassen who I believe is one of the representatives selected by President Roosevelt to go to the conference for the United States, said that one of the reasons why he subscribed to an international security system was this.

He said:

That we do not subscribe to the extreme view of nationalistic sovereignty; that we realize that neither this nation nor any other nation can be a law unto itself . . . and that we are willing to delegate a limited portion of our national sovereignty to our united nations organization.

I think that is inevitable if we want to have peace. So, then, as the nations should bring themselves under a code of laws, it follows that no nation should be above the law, as no individual is above the law. There is another function of a collective security system, that is, the function of removing the causes that lead to aggression, and improving social systems. We should stress this as much as the function of preventing aggression. Provision for this is made in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and I am firmly of the opinion that the more attention the nations give to the study and solution of social and economic problems, the less time and thought they will have to give to coercive action. Some people are cynical-perhaps that is too strong a word -as to the success of any system of international security because of the failure of the league that was created at the end of the last war. Again I agree with the hon member for Rosetown-Biggar when he said, that it was not the league that failed; it was the refusal of the nations of the world to use the machinery created by the league that brought us to the verge of catastrophe in the present struggle.

At this time, however, in my opinion we are discussing international security in a very different atmosphere. After the last war collective security was an idea in the mind1 of one statesman at the peace conference. Because of his position and the prestige of his country he succeeded in having his proposals become part of the treaty of Versailles, but I do not think it is any secret that other statesmen at that conference accepted those proposals with their tongues in their cheeks. They did not like them. They were afraid of them. They were afraid they would interfere with the old system of grab, and no sincere attempt was ever made to make them work. To-diay we are talking about collective security in an altogether different situation. We are talking about collective security at a time when the nations of the world have become convinced by the events of the past

five or six years that there is no safety in isolation. War has become so terrible that no country or individual can escape its consequences. As a result everyone must accept his or her responsibility for putting an end to it; and in my opinion there is no other way to put an end to war in general except the way we are going to put an end to this one, and that is by the cooperation of the nations of the world. President Roosevelt told congress recently that the United States would have to take the responsibility for world collaboration or have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict. We in Canada are facing the same situation that is being faced by the people of the republic to the south. We have come through this war, at least so far, without the invasion of our shores or the destruction of our cities, but it is most unlikely that if another war should take place in ten, twenty or twenty-five years, we should again escape.

I think it was the Prime Minister who said yesterday that we should not expect perfection, and I suppose that is true. But there is no reason, I suggest, why we should not strive for it, and I hope our delegates to the San Francisco conference will put forward every effort, because they have a sacred trust to do everything in their power to make the charter as perfect as possible. In this I am sure they will have the good wishes of all hon. members of this house.

Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):

On behalf of the Labour-Progressive party I wish to endorse the resolution which has been moved by the Prime Minister concerning Canada's participation in the San Francisco conference. I want to urge upon hon. members that we adopt this resolution unanimously, as an expression of the united desire of the Canadian people for lasting peace. Lasting peace! Here are two words that mean so much to suffering humanity. The men at the front and the people at home look to us to leave no stone unturned in our endeavour this time to make possible a peace that will endure. Many ask if this can be done, if it is only a utopia. The answer is to be found in the mighty combined offensives that are giving nazism its death blow. The answer is to be found in the unprecedented unity of the three great leaders of world democracy who charted a new course for mankind at the Crimea conference. The answer is being given by the people of all lands who fight for freedom and who are utterly dtetermined that never again must the world pass through the horrors and devastation of war.

San Francisco Conference

The decision that we are called upon to make at this session is truly a momentous one. Should we fail to grasp its implications we shall fall short of what Canada expects from us. At San Francisco this country must help shape the pattern of the post-war world. The Dumbarton Oaks proposals for a world security organization, endorsed by this resolution, unquestionably provide a real and workable basis for maintaining peace. These proposals are based, not on fictitious abstractions, but upon realities of the world to-day. And the biggest of these realities is the fact that for the first time in the history of mankind the vast majority of the world's peoples, represented by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, have achieved definite agreements for planned, long-term cooperation on a world scale.

If we had no peace in the past it is because never before was agreement achieved on such a scale and on such a high level of understanding. Capitalist democracies, the socialist Soviet Union, the peoples of Europe and the far east fighting for liberation have overcome all differences in order to wage war. They are no less firmly united in their determination to establish enduring peace and economic collaboration for world prosperity.

That determination is fully shared by Canada's people, French- and English-speaking alike.

Our achievements in this war, of which all Canadians are justly proud, have been possible above all, because we have had before us a supreme national objective, the objective of victory.

So likewise, in the post-w'ar years we must fight unitedly for an objective that will be as easily understood and as widely supported by the overwhelming majority of Canadians- the establishment of an enduring and prosperous peace. Only by maintaining such a unity in pursuit of this new great objective can we make sure that Canada will play her full part as a sovereign power in world affairs.

Just because Canada is so strategically placed as a member of the British commonwealth of nations, a nation of the Americas, and a next-door neighbour both to the United States and the Soviet Union, she can make a most vital contribution to the security and the peace of the world. In making this contribution constructively and independently Canada can best fulfil her destiny as a young, vigorous and growing power.

Canada's new stature as a power should find expression at San Francisco. She could declare herself publicly prepared to accept responsibility as a member of the new world security organization, ready to share responsibility for jointly preventing aggression, and ready to 32283-7

maintain a permanent armed force after the war in order to help in the collective safeguarding of peace. Nothing less than that is required of us.

I welcome the unanimity with which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and leaders of other groups on this side of the house have expressed support for the principles embodied in the resolution. My party, from the very first, has sought to popularize among the people the historic agreement reached at Teheran and more recently at Yalta by the three leaders of the world. We believe that the attitude of parties and individuals toward those momentous agreements will determine whether or not we have lived up to the opportunities and responsibilities of this decisive turning point in the history of the world.

The Prime Minister's speech expressed the desires and aspirations of the Canadian peoples for a peace which will endure. It is therefore regrettable that anything in his speech should have given ground for the kind of interpretation that has crept into some of to-day's newspapers, which suggest too much emphasis on reservations and alterations.

It is disturbing that in the discussion reservations over secondary and even minor features of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals have tended to overshadow what is primary, namely that the big three have reached a definite agreement on the basic principles for a world security organization.

Any attempt to argue legally and on technical ground in this regard in respect of that agreement means that the peoples of the world can only undermine unity and help the foes of peace. Among the close to fifty nations to be represented at San>

Francisco Canada should stand out as a staunch supporter of the unity achieved in the Crimea. Pressure from the opponents of that unity will operate with most telling effect on small nations which have more limited responsibility. Canada should under no circumstances fall victim to such reactionary pressure.

I could not help feeling that such pressure found some expression in the speech of the leader of the C.CE. Instead of telling the house that we should go to San Francisco to assure the immediate setting up of a permanent organization for world security the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar goes no further than saying-

The Dumbarton Oaks agreement provides a good basis for at least the discussion at San

Francisco of concerted action among the nations to outlaw war.

San Francisco Conference

"At least a discussion" is not enough. What we are called upon to do is to act, and not merely discuss.

I cannot escape the impression that the reservations regarding points of procedure in relation to discussion, voting procedure and the implementing of decisions flow from a failure to support wholeheartedly the essence of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals as a whole.

It would be nothing short of disastrous should controversy over secondary matters lead Canada to place herself among the obstructionists who seek to imperil agreement at San Francisco. Flanking attacks against Dumbarton Oaks are being made under the dishonest and misleading slogan of "defence of small nations' interests". This should lead us to ponder on the fact that in the last analysis Canada's role will be determined not by our status in a hierarchy of gradations among states, but by the firmness of our support to the principles of the Crimea agreement, which must underlie any enduring organization for peace.

We take second place to none in our advocacy of a strong affirmation of Canada's independent role in world affairs. But that role must be a constructive one; nothing less than that will serve our national needs. This house must decide and state frankly which thing it places first in the struggle for a world security organization; the question of hierarchy and the exact place that Canada is going to occupy, or the question of how Canada can contribute most to the establishment of a world security organization.

It is perfectly reasonable to recognize the fact that if it is possible to organize the voting powers and the seating on the permanent council in such a way that there is a differentiation between those powers on the basis of their ability to contribute, then it is good that it should be done. It will bring the world security organization more into harmony with the actual gradations of power in the world. But that is a very secondary question.

For Canada to come forward and make this a divisive issue, or to come forward as a representative of those states which consider that as middle powers they should have a separate special status, might well place this country at the head of the opposition to the establishment of a world security organization.

It is quite natural for us to accept in the conduct of the war the assumption of military leadership by the great powers in the making of vital decisions. There is no reason in the world why, in the battle for peace, we should have less confidence in the leadership of those powers. On the contrary, without their united leadeship there can be no security for the lesser powers or for the world.

There is a great fundamental difference between the league of nations and the proposed new world organization. It consists precisely in the fact that whereas the league attempted to operate without the simultaneous participation of all the greatest powers, including the Soviet Union and the United States, and in fact at its outset bore the imprint of the exclusion of the Soviet Union,-it is now possible, in the midst of the war against nazism, to give lasting permanence in organized form to the all-inclusive unity of the freedom-loving peoples, great and small.

I believe that I can best answer the ifs and buts that have crept into the discussion in the following words of President Roosevelt, contained in his recent address on the state of the union. I quote:

Perfectionism no less than isolationism or imperialism or power politics may obstruct the paths to international peace. Let us not forget that the retreat to isolationism a quarter of a century ago was started not by a direct attack against international cooperation, but against the alleged imperfections of the peace.

Another kind of flanking attack on Canada's support for Dumbarton Oaks comes from the camp of those who seek to counterpose empire unity to world security. To these imperial centralizers, the Prime Minister has given Canada's answer in his admirable address to the commonwealth conference last May.

Behind the outburst of Premier Drew of Ontario against the Prime Minister's advocacy of a distinctive national flag and anthem for Canada lies a deep-seated opposition both to Canada's sovereignty and to the primary need of world cooperation. The constant protests and insistence of the Progressive Conservatives that Canada's decisions on world affairs must pass through London before the Canadian government can act, when coupled with their equally constant omission of any expression of desire for full cooperation with the Soviet Union all add up to the policies of empire exclusiveness which can only weaken the chances for strengthened world cooperation. This Tory attitude, detrimental to commonwealth interests as well as to Canada's, is expressed also in opposition to any increase in Canada's participation in inter-American affairs.

As against those who try to keep Canada from full participation in the affairs of the American community of nations, it is our opinion this house should associate itself with the historic decisions reached a few weeks ago at the inter-American conference held in Mexico city. Canada should endorse the

San Francisco Conference.

act of Chapultepec, with ita proposals for strengthening of the political and economic solidarity of the Americans. There are two reasons for this. First of all, Canada should not be the only democracy in the western hemisphere that does not adhere to that pact. Second, such a step would demonstrate Canada's determination to contribute fully as a sovereign state in North America to the achievement of the new relationships of world cooperation, which victory in the war is making possible.

This question is particularly important, in the light of the fact that there can be no prosperity for Canada in the post-war years unless international cooperation is developed to the fullest possible extent in the world. The issues of peace and prosperity are inseparably linked together. The fight for markets, which in the past has been one of the chief causes of war, can now for the first time be resolved on the basis of a new concept-planned world economic cooperation. This will be one of the chief tasks of the economic and social council, envisaged in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals. Canada more than any other country is vitally concerned in the successful attainment of this objective.

The huge task of reconstruction in Europe, the vast opportunities for the industrialization of the countries of Latin America and1 of the far east, provide a solid basis for full employe ment and prosperity in the post-war period. The democratic reconstruction and industrialization of these areas will make possible the carrying through of policies aimed at the con-tiuous raising of purchasing power and living standards. An illustration of what is possible is to be seen in the fact that if we were to increase the purchasing power of every individual in India and China by ten cents a day it would mean an increase in world purchasing power of $25,500,000,000 a year.

The key to the carrying through of this world programme is the joint cooperation of the capitalist democracies and the socialist Soviet Union on the one hand, and the resolving of conflict among the capitalist nations on the other. It is in the interest of Canada's peace and security that the agreement reached at Crimea for long-term cooperation between capitalist and socialist states should be firmly upheld and vigorously developed, The touchstone of the enduring unity among the capitalistic states is the relationship between Britain and the United States. Canada is vitally concerned in resolving the conflicts and frictions between these two great powers.

32283-7J

Canada is excellently placed to make a vital contribution to the solution of this very serious problem because she is at one and the same time a leading member of the British commonwealth and the second industrial nation in the Americas. It is my belief that our representatives, both at the London meeting of commonwealth spokesmen and at San Francisco, should make constructive proposals in this regard.

These proposals should express recognition of the fact that the productive capacity of Britain, the United States and Canada is such that any return to the policies of restricted markets that prevailed before the war can bring nothing but disaster to all three of us. In the light of this we should urge that definite agreements be reached first and foremost between Britain and the United States upon a division of export markets, a division which would make it possible for British industries to operate at full capacity, while at the same time guaranteeing an equitable share to the United States, Canada and other powers. Such an agreement is just as much in the interests of the United States as of ourselves and other peoples, because the only alternative to it is a reversion to a cut-throat struggle which would undermine the whole of world security. There is no country in the world so favourably placed as Canada for advocating such an agreement. An accord of this kind is vital to our domestic prosperity. Achievement of such economic collective security will make it possible for us to carry through the policies at home which will provide full employment and raise the purchasing power of Canada's people.

Only in such a perspective of peaceful world development, and not in isolation, can the people of Canada and of my own province, Quebec, be assured that our factories, shipyards, mining and forest industries as well as our farms, can be kept in full production. As I have emphasized, the raising of living standards at home can be achieved and must be pursued within the framework of such world cooperation.

Of particular urgency here is the problem of helping to expand the domestic market in the province of Quebec. It is a startling fact that total retail sales in my province amount to scarcely more than half of what they are in Ontario. According to the Financial Post Business Year Book for 1944, the figures are $1,368,0001100 for Ontario as against $777,000,000 for Quebec.

This means that by raising papular purchasing power to the Ontario level alone wouldi provide Canadian business with' an annual

jlOO

San Francisco Conference

market for half a billion dollars worth of goods. This is practically half of our total pre-war exports. That .means that we must have postwar policies which will raise substandard wages, increase farm income and provide a national minimum of social security. It means rejection of the suicidal isolationism advocated by the Tory-inspired Nationalists, whose programme is both a denial of the realities of the present day world and a betrayal of the true interests of the great French Canadian community.

These things I have been speaking about are all dependent on world stability and world cooperation, made possible by the crushing of the fascist monster. Anti-Semitism was part of the official programme in all countries of the Hitlerite coalition. Hitler's anti-Semitic poison has had its effects in countries outside the fascist axis. Every member of the united nations is duty bound to ban by law all racial discrimination. We should do so in Canada, and should strive to have it established by the new organization that all member states rid themselves of fascist anti-Semitism.

No single national group has suffered more than have the Jewish people at the hand of Hitlerite barbarism. With approaching victory the solution of the much-discussed problem stands before us in full sharpness. There is little doubt in my mind that world democracy and the complete destruction of fascism, and its tool anti-Semitism, are the true prerequisites for a new world order for all' peoples, and a new deal for my people, the Jewish people. With victory in the war, the problem of resettlement of the survivors of the Maidenek murder factories will become more and more acute.

Scattered through the European continent many of the Jewish survivors will seek to leave the lands where so much suffering has been visited upon them. The coalition cemented at Teheran, at Yalta, and as it will be further extended in San Francisco, makes possible a new and constructive way of solving longstanding problems of nationalities and frontiers. It is in the light of these historic faots that we should approach the problem of Palestine.

The problem of the creation in Palestine of a Jewish homelandl is one which requires solution and which can now be achieved' as a result of the new world order envisaged and planned at Crimea. Following the Crimea conference both Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt held discussions with the Arab peoples. While no official reports were issued on the results of these discussions, it is to be hoped that the Arab leaders will understand that mass migration of Jewikh people into

Palestine is essential and is not a menace to a prosperous future of the Arab people. Such mass migration should be encouraged by the united nations, and all financial responsibilities connected with it should be undertaken by the united nations as part of their general resettlement and rehabilitation plans.

The Crimea conference and the subsequent discussions with the Arab people as well as the San Francisco conference will make possible a peaceful, industrial, cultural and political advancement of all countries in the near east.

On the background of such a bright future the Arab people can and should consider the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine as a constructive factor in the development of the near east.

Iam sure that I express the sentiments of the house when I voice our sincere hopes that the Crimean charter will herald the establishment of the friendliest, fraternal relations between the Jews and Arab people, so setting this stage for a great future of all people in the near east, and for the fulfilment of the aspirations of the Jewish people through the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

May I here repeat what was stated in the house before, that we of Canada should stand prepared to participate in the joint solution of the problem of resettlement of refugees.

The greatness of Canada at San Francisco will be reflected, not in gradation of our country's position in relation to other powers, but in the action of our delegation. That delegation should be unanimous in expressing the desire of the Canadian people for durable peace and for prosperity.

The makeup of our delegation is important in that regard. Canada can demonstrate the new spirit and give a lead to other nations to follow her example by including in her delegation, a unity delegation, representatives from the ranks of organized labour, preferably from the two congresses, the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour.

Labour has achieved, at the recent world conference of trade unions held in London, representing 60 million organized workers, a new high level of unity, on the basis of the policies arrived at simultaneously in the Crimea meeting. Canadian labour, to its great credit, participated in that conference through a joint delegation.

Labour is one of the biggest and most homogeneous groups of the Canadian population. Labour has played a fine role in this war; labour is concerned about the future of Canada's peace and prosperity, and the organized labour movement should therefore have representation at the San Francisco conference.

San Francisco Conference

Mr. Speaker, we are deciding in this session a matter of vital concern to all Canadians. The issue of banishing the scourge of war for generations to come rises high above partisan politics and rhetoric. The men at the front, their families and friends at home, all Canadians, say that it must never happen again. We must not fail them.

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:

If the hon. member will permit a question, has he read the entire paragraph on page 38 of Hansard from which he quoted a sentence from the speech by the hon. member of Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and does he not think that he has distorted the meaning of that paragraph by giving just the sentence he quoted?

Mr. ROSE:

No, I have not distorted it.

I read and studied that whole page very carefully and I based my remarks on the whole essence of the hon. member's speech, not just on those few words.

Mr. NOSEWORTHY:

Did the hon. member read the sentence regarding the solidarity of the three great powers?

Mr. ROSE:

Is the hon. member making a speech now?

Mr. WILFRID LaCROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, paragraph 3 of the resolution on which the government requests our approval reads as follows:

That this house approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals of the four governments, and considers that these proposals constitute a satisfactory general basis for a discussion of the charter of the proposed international organization.

Now, I think the decisions which have already been taken at Yalta and which undoubtedly will be ratified at San Francisco already include the germs of a new war, and this as a consequence of the stand which Russia, England and the United States have taken at Yalta in agreeing to the spoliation of Polish territory, and also because Russia has been conceded a right of veto on whatever decisions may be taken against her interests by a majority of the four powers having permanent membership.

To my mind it is not to be doubted that the San Francisco conference wall ratify the decisions taken at Yalta. Yet, the government asks us, by this resolution, to approve the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals already framed by the governments which will have permanent membership in the security council. At Yalta the reasons put forward to involve Canada into the war have shamefully been side-stepped, and Hitler resorted in 1939

to historical arguments just as Stalin is doing to-day, when he claims eastern Poland. Because England and Canada considered the nazi demands as being at variance with the Versailles treaty and other agreements with Poland, neither London nor Ottawa wanted to let Hitler take Polish territory without Warsaw's consent, and our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) even went to Berlin, at the request of the British government, to warn Hitler that if Polish territory was in any way violated, it would mean war as far as Canada was concerned. Stalin's present demands, to which Churchill and Roosevelt have yielded, are much harsher for the Poles than were Hitler's in 1939. Moscow claims more than one-third of Poland, and Polish integrity and sovereignty are definitely cast aside. All this has happened in violation of the principles expounded at the beginning of the war in the Atlantic charter which has foundered in the ocean of that name.

After this sacrifice of the right of peoples to self-determination, Yalta will be recorded in history as a conference constituting a repetition of Munich, as well as the most complete surrender of democracy to Stalin's dictatorship. If we were opposed to nazi annexations in 1939 why did we declare war to permit sovietic annexations in 1945? We shall see, after this war, communistic influence permeate the whole of Europe and if Canada approves the purposes and principles set forth in the proposals already framed at Yalta, it means for us a war in which we shall inevitably be involved within ten or fifteen years.

The security council will have only four permanent members and, contrary to the principles of international justice, each one of those four member-governments will have a right of veto on any decision taken by the majority, which will necessarily mean war, should a decision be unacceptable to Russia. As the Russian government is wholly under the control of a dictator, Stalin, just as the German government is under the control of Hitler, one can easily imagine the adventure toward which we are heading by going to San Francisco. Such an adventure will be all the more regrettable as it will mean for this country permanent enforcement of conscription so that we may play our part in the international army which will have to maintain order in the world. That is an absurd and *idiotic policy for a young country like ours, whose population is just 12 million, with an area as large as Europe awaiting development. Why should we not imitate Ireland and the Irish who unlike us, remain first and before all

San Francisco Conference

Irishmen and do not accept as binding decisions that may be taken by the London government if they are against their interests.

Further, as the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) so aptly said, what mandate has the present government to thus commit the future of our country? It has no such mandate. And I am convinced that notwithstanding the statements made by the Prime Minister the decisions which will be reached at San Francisco will be submitted to the new parliament as a fait accompli. Can we expect that the three groups present in this house will refuse to ratify them? I do not think so, for the present Prime Minister has become as much of a Tory as the staunchest of the imperialists who sit opposite him, and although he had about 160 supporters in the present house, he readily yielded to all the demands of the 39 Conservative members opposite, in spite of the most formal pledges which had been given to the electors of my province, and in such a flagrant manner that all the Liberals who sit in the Quebec legislature, headed by the former premier, the Hon. Mr. Godbout, could not refrain from passing a motion which was unanimously adopted in which the Quebec legislature vehemently protests against the enforcement in Canada of conscription for overseas service and deeply regrets that the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada has broken his most sacred pledges. Therefore, the legislative assembly unanimously instructed its clerk to forward copy of this resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the other ministers of the cabinet for the province if any still remain.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, how could we rely on future promises on the part of the Prime Minister, when he has completely broken his past pledges? If he had kept the promises he had already made, we would not have now a whole province which has lost faith in a man who owes it his present standing.

Will it be possible for us, at the time of ratifying the treaty, to have confidence in the Progressive Conservative group? No, for their imperialistic and reactionary doctrines together with their electioneering methods of continuous mud-slinging against the province of Quebec, inspire me, as a Canadian, with the greatest contempt.

Could we rely, in these circumstances, on the C.C.F. group? Again no; for I have noticed, in the eight years I have spent in this house, that they have never failed to support the views of the Russian government in the field of international politics.

What will be needed in this house, after the next elections, for I doubt that any of the three parties I have just mentioned will have a working majority, is a group of members strong enough to force the other parties to follow a truly Canadian policy.

In a talk delivered recently before the Cercle des Femmes Canadiennes, in Quebec the British High Commissioner to Canada stated that we remained masters of our fate and that each of the dominions was free to decide for participation or neutrality on the declaration of war and that no imperial edict, originating in London should or could influence our decision or force us into the struggle. But, Mr. Speaker, all the speeches made in this house by the government supporters before the declaration of war, were based on the assumption that neutrality was impossible because we were a British dominion. However, the attitude, of Ireland proved that this was not true. The simple truth was that an order had been given in London and we had to obey. The same thing will apply when the time comes to ratify the decisions taken at San Francisco for then, unless the Canadian people is sufficiently wide awake to think of their own interests, as at the declaration of war, we shall be confronted with a situation and an accomplished fact arranged in London and not in Ottawa. All the attractive promises that may be offered to us during the next electoral campaign will not be worth much more than the pledges taken in the past and we shall be irrevocably launched in a policy of internationalism and cooperation in the establishment of a programme of world security dependent on the good will of Stalin, the dictator or, which would still be worse, of international high finance.

For these reasons I shall vote against the motion - before the house, for I believe it to be my duty to prevent Canada from being drawn into another war and- at the same time to protest against the wanton annexation by Russia of one third of Poland, and of the Baltic States, without mentioning the moral occupation of Yugoslavia and part of the Balkan countries.

Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce):

Twice in my lifetime Canada -has been plunged in an European war and to add to it, on the second occasion, we have had a Pacific war and in which we are still engaged. It seems to me that, next to the declaration of war, the most important measure that has come before parliament is the present resolution, and we should take steps immediately to do what we can to prevent a recurrence and our being involved in a third world war. I believe we should take these steps at once, because it

San Francisco Conference

requires the complete support of the Canadian people for anything that we decide to do at this conference or in any later plans that are made.

Prior to 1914 Canada knew little about war. We had in fact had the South African war, but for all practical purposes I assume that war came to Canada for the first time in 1914. We had become world conscious before that because the west had developed wheat and had exported it in great quantities to Europe and we knew that dislocation of trade in Europe would adversely affect our economy. Nevertheless, it was not with that in mind that we went to war in 1914; it was because we decided that small nations had rights which had to be protected and that Germany in particular had acted in a most uncivilized manner in attacking a smaller nation. So that while we entered the war to aid a small nation we knew we had nothing to gain ourselves and would only have losses as a result. In fact, we had 60,000 killed and many more incapacitated, and when we came out of the war we had nothing to show except our losses.

Prior to the war our position in the British empire had been one which required a certain amount of consideration and which did not altogether agree with the situation as the world knew it. Owing, I believe, to our contribution to the last war, and to other matters as well, it was agreed during the war that our position needed clarification, with the result that in 1921 it was first made known informally and in 1926 formally by statute. What had been the practice became the law; that this country was free and self-governing, and by a common allegiance to the crown, was a member of the British commonwealth, free to do as it wished. Therefore upon the appearance of world war II, there was a very considerable difference in the method by which we joined it. World war I had been entered because Great Britain declared war on Germany and we automatically followed. We followed then, I believe with almost the unanimous support of all hon. members of the House of Commons at that time, and certainly with the practically unanimous support of the country.

On this occasion parliament was assembled, the government recommended a declaration of war, debate ensued and war was declared. It was not suggested on that occasion that we had automatically followed in any event because Great Britain had gone into the war. On the contrary it was tacitly admitted, I believe, that it was within the full power of this parliament to have made a decision not to enter the war. To an outsider there might have been certain evidence that it would

have been in our material interest to have decided to stay out, because war is undoubtedly the greatest evil that can overtake a nation, and that it might better serve the people to postpone it as long as it would be possible to do so. However, it is my personal opinion, for what it is worth, that had any government attempted to stay out at that time it would not have lasted much longer after having made known its intention.

The reason for the practically unanimous decision of parliament to enter the war was I think due to a circumstance which I believe was properly explained by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he called parliament. He said something like this, that the fate of a single city or the independence of a particular nation was the occasion rather than the real cause of the war; that the real cause was that there had grown up in one nation of the world a belief not in the individual personality of all of us, but that the person belonged to the state and in consequence it was proper that states might use might in its relation toward any neighbour, particularly a smaller neighbour.

By September, 1939, the Canadian people had been firmly convinced that that was the intention of Germany, and that if we were to defend our homes, our religious and our parliamentary institutions it was necessary to go to war and' it was desirable to go to war at the time when we had friends with whom we could join. Once again we had no material gain at stake in Europe, but once again we hazarded everything, knowing that we would have losses, and knowing that there was nothing we could gain directly by entering the war. Up to the present time we have in fact lost over thirty thousand people again, and our losses are mounting each day and will continue to the end of the war. Yet on each occasion, Mr. Speaker, we did not entirely lack all profit in the war. There is such a thing as national honour, which is something like the individual conscience. On each occasion I think we have saved that honour, because had we not done so national life in this country would have been empty and we would not be entitled to the future which I think is in store for the Canadian people. We decided that evil as war was there was no price that we would not willingly pay if we could reassert again certain spiritual values which seemed to have gone out of fashion in the world.

To say that world1 war II was an admission of failure of our efforts to maintain the peace after world war I is of course true, but there is no nation that sought to maintain

San Francisco Conference

peace as much as Canada did since 1918. We joined the league of nations; we aided in every plan for disarmament; we suggested! to the world that we had experience in negotiating and in arbitrating of our difficulties with our neighbours; that these methods might very well be adopted by other nations, and' we did on every occasion what we thought would advance the interest of civilization.

It is true we felt extremely disappointed that the United States did not join the league of nations. We also felt that the United States did not advance the cause of peace when she refused to join with Great Britain in guaranteeing the security of France for fifteen years if France did not insist on occupying all lands west of the Rhine; but we did admit that the United States and all nations would have to make these decisions for themselves. And in so far as we1 could as a good neighbour we attempted to show the United States that her interests as well as those of the world could best be served if she joined, if not the league, then every other body which attempted to solve any differences which might lead to war. At the same time we appreciated the fact that isolationism as it grew up in the United States was understandable, because a similar opinion developed in this country, particularly in the period from 1929 to 1935; and many public men in this country in all sincerity and after considerable thought made it clear that it was doubtful what Canada might do if another European war occurred. Of course, we know that when the time came there was no doubt about it and that we did go into the war, if not united, at any rate united except for a vote or two in this house. I repeat these things to remind ourselves that isolationism is a condition of mind which grows, I think, through weariness and cynicism; that that opinion may very well rise up again in Canada in the future if it does not already exist in some parts, and that it is an error into which we must never fall again lest we lose the hold we have on ourselves and cease to work for peace so that we may avoid future wars.

I believe we ought to consider realistically the position of Canada with respect to the world. We are members of the British commonwealth of nations and as such we are bound by sentiment and common interests to at least six self-governing nations which are scattered around the globe, and in the commonwealth, or empire, if you like, there are colonies in various stages of self-government and there are dependencies and there are what are known as crown colonies. In this very large group there are many countries which from a strictly military point of view, must,

for our security, remain in friendly hands. It is only necessary to remind ourselves of the real fear which arose in this country in June, 1940, of the thought of Great Britain being invaded to realize what I mean. We could not contemplate the possibility of Great Britain being in unfriendly hands, and I suggest- and it is my own opinion-that for some time to come we could not contemplate that happening. In this country there is an honest realization that Great Britain was the first country which taught the world that a man might be free if he so willed; that individual freedom is restricted for the sake of the common good, but restricted as little as. possible, and that these principles were not only given to the dependencies and colonies, as they started out to be, but encouraged as the various countries became self-governing. When one contemplates that situation and realizes this is the inheritance which this country received from Great Britain, I for one at any rate feel that we owe so much that time alone will tell when we feel we have paid the debt, if we ever have that feeling. I pass over the other members of the commonwealth, not because they are different but- because they are the same. Each is going its own way, yet the roads are not diverging very much. They are trying, as we are, to improve their inheritance in order that they may pass it on to succeeding generations.

With respect to the United States, we have been at peace with that country for 130 years and in each of those years we have seen an improvement in our methods for the negotiation and arbitration of any differences. We have now reached a point in our relations with that country where I believe we have eliminated the suspicion which is so often the bar to countries having confidence in dealings with each other. I think we have reached the position, indeed, that not only in this war but in peace each country counts on the other to resist aggression on the continent of North America. I am sure we feel, the United States would do so, and from what happened in 1939 and 1941 I know the United States counted on us if aggression came this way. However, our two countries face the Pacific together, and our interests there may be the same; at any rate I do not believe they are very different I cannot conceive of an occasion arising in the Pacific in connection with which we will clash with the United States; nor can I conceive an occasion arising in the Pacific in which, if their interests are adversely affected, our interests at the same time will not be adversely affected. Under these conditions, concerned as we are with Great Britain in Europe, with the United

San Francisco Conference

States in the Americas, with the commonwealth of nations and the United States in the Pacific,

I feel it reasonably certain that should any major war break out in future we will inevitably be drawn into it, whether we like it or not, and I approach this resolution with that in mind.

The resolution calls for the approval by this parliament of the action of the government in accepting an invitation to attend the conference at San Francisco to promote world security, and it is suggested that the proposals made last fall by the big four, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and China, should be accepted as a basis. I do not intend to go into those proposals; I am sure all hon. members have read them. As I understand them, the proposals do not vary very much from the old set-up of the league of nations. There is a general assembly, a security council, a court of justice and of course the administrative officers. There is one noticeable difference, however, with the league of nations setup; that is in the voting. It was said that one of the weaknesses of the league was that one small nation might block any decisive action, and the framers of these proposals apparently have tried to avoid that situation in the future. They have succeeded in doing so, but it is possible that they have swung too far in the other direction, so that small nations now will not be in as strong a position as they were under the league of nations. It seems to me that may be a mistake, because at the beginning of this war a number of small nations maintained their neutrality until they were invaded. Those of us who were in the war considered this unreasonable; we could not understand their attitude, since we thought we knew they would inevitably find themselves involved in any event. Yet I wonder if their decision was not made because in the past they found that their advice to the league was not accepted, or that they were not in a position to bring their advice forcibly before the league. However, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to examine the proposals in detail.

I am sure that by the time the conference ends they will have been changed, and I am sure the nations concerned will attempt to draw up a charter in such a way that every country will be given an opportunity to make its views known, and that proper voting strength will be decided having regard to the contributions made in this war and the contributions to be made toward maintaining peace.

To give the reasons commonly advanced, wars begin through racial and national strife, religious differences and economic disloca-32283-8

Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):

Mr. Speaker, may I just take a moment to congratulate my gallant and learned friend from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Harris) upon the informed and thoughtful address he has just delivered. It ran through my mind that if all statesmen of the world approached this problem with such judicial calm, good will and kindness of thought we would not have war in the world, irrespective of the institutions we might support. It was a fine address.

On motion of Mr. Roebuck the debate was adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

FMr. W. E. Harris.]

Thursday, March 22, 1945