Mr. KINLEY:

Read farther on.

Mr. ADAMSON:

Or their representatives.

Mr. KINLEY:

Go on.

Mr. ADAMSON:

Who work out the quotas to be supplied by the members of the organization and prepare schemes for the disposal of such forces for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace.

Mr. KINLEY:

Is the hon. member talking about military staffs?

Mr. ADAMSON:

Yes, it is chapter VIII, B. 9. The hon. member can read it for himself.

Mr. KINLEY:

Paragraph 9 is the paragraph.

Mr. ADAMSON:

I am reading chapter VIII, paragraph 39.

We mow come to the right of members to amend the council.

The right of the members with permanent seats to veto any amendment was thought to be necessary', since they have the major responsibility in the question of maintaining international peace and security and could hardly be expected to undertake to carry out this duty under conditions not agreed to by themselves.

Your permanent council have the power to complete and absolute power of veto.

The next clause is very significant:

Amendments so adopted would be binding on all members, even on those voting against them. They are not allowed to withdraw from the organization on this ground as was provided by the covenant of the league of nations. This is undoubtedly a great innovation in inter-

[Mr. Adamson.7

national procedure, but it was thought to be necessary if the organization was to be able to adapt itself to the rapidly changing world, of to-day.

I believe you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this is a charter of power if ever there was one. I am not objecting to that. We have seen that these nebulous, indecisive charters, such as the first Hague court and the league of nations, failed because it did not have the power at its disposal. Because the Dumbarton Oaks proposals do have power it is necessary that we should consider where we stand in Canada as one of the- nations going into this agreement under the present proposals without a permanent seat on the council and exactly how far this will affect us.

The three permanent members with power at the present time are Russia, the United States and Great Britain. You will find in Russia a bi-continental country of some 270 millions of people, stretching from the Atlantic in Europe to the Pacific in Asia, probably the greatest military power in the world to-day. The second of the great powers is the United States, a country of 130 millions of people, certainly the greatest industrial power in the world to-day. Under our proposals at the present time and at Dumbarton Oaks the third permanent power outside of China and possibly France is the government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is a country devastated by war and crippled financially, whose industries have been wrecked by bombings, whose cities have been largely destroyed by fire, and whose population numbers scarcely forty-three million people. So under these proposals we have two great world powers with upward of four hundred million people, the greatest industrial and military powers in the world to-day, and we have a country with but one-tenith the combined population of the other two.

It is for this reason that I disagree with this proposal. The two major powers are fundamentally land or continental powers. If we can judge by history we see that if we are to limit war-and I only say . "limit"-we must have the freedom of the seas and the power of the seas. The government of England has said in unmistakable terms, through Mr. Churchill and Mr. Eden, that Great Britain can no longer undertake the job of securing the freedom of the seas. Now we are putting ourselves in the hands of one great land country, Russia, which has no need for international trade, and' another great land country, the United States, as nearly sufficient unto itself as any country could be in this day and age, a country which is now a great naval power, I admit, but only of comparatively

San Francisco Conference

recent days, and which in the past considering its trade has not been a great maritime power. I submit that if we leave the thing as it now is and do not take into consideration the importance of the freedom of the seas we will destroy our best chance for world peace by merely including in these proposals as the third member of the power group the United Kingdom rather than the British commonwealth.

That is my first reason for disagreeing with these proposals. You may say that if the British commonwealth acts as a unit there will be the danger of imperial commitments. I think I have shown that if we are going into this thing at all we will be undertaking very great and serious international commitments, greater than were ever asked of any nation before. Surely any British or imperial commitments we might be asked to undertake would be light as compared with the commitments we are hoping and willing to undertake under these proposals.

We have to look at the British commonwealth from the point of view of population and production. Great Britain is a country of some forty-three million people, with perhaps two-thirds that number of white people in the remainder of the empire. If we include India the empire population other than that of the United Kingdom is many times greater than the population of the United Kingdom; but if we base our strength on population and industrial production we find that even now the commonwealth, with India and the colonial empire, has a greater industrial potential than the United Kingdom. With the commonwealth acting as a unit in this power group we would have an equal voice with the great military and industrial powers of the world.

To me, Mr. Speaker, that is imperative. But there is another danger if we do not come into this thing as a commonwealth unit. To-day we find England virtually bankrupt, with her foreign investments gone. We have taken some of them, I think unwisely. She has been forced1 to endeavour to form what is known as a sterling bloc, a group of empire countries outside Great Britain, including also probably the trading countries of Scandinavia and the lowlands, two of the Mediterranean countries and the greater part of Africa. On the other hand Russia and the United States have definitely intimated that they believe in trading on some form of gold standard. In the past our prosperity resulted in large measure from being the sterling broker for Great Britain in New York. We sold to Great Britain and bought from the United States, to a very large extent. If we find ourselves, 32283-9i

depending on sterling for our exports, situated between two great gold countries, we will find ourselves in perhaps the worst economic dilemma we could imagine. I believe we must point this out with brutal frankness to both the United States and Great Britain, and I see no better way of doing so than by demanding that we take our place as a member of the commonwealth in the permanent seat on the security council. If we do not do that we may find ourselves ground between the upper and nether millstones of gold and silver.

There is another clause which is of some interest; that is the provision with regard to the world court. The world court was a judicial device brought about in the first place at the Hague as long ago as 1904. We know there have been many other attempts at a world court, but the great attempt was made in conjunction with the league of nations. It was upon this world court that we very nearly got joint action and cooperation from the United States. But the stumbling block on which the United States refused to enter the world court was that clause dealing with advisory opinion; that is, opinion of the court in an advisory capacity with regard to a dispute between two nations.

In the Dumbarton Oaks proposals it is definitely stated that the court could also be asked to give advisory opinion to the security council on questions where a legal issue arises. That fact is stated, and stated clearly. It has been decided, and I think rightly so, that the world court shall be empowered to give advisory opinion. I think that is one of the functions of any international judicial body, and one of its most important functions. But it is on that stumbling block that the United States senate foreign relations committee refused to enter the world court before. We must be prepared for that contingency this time.

One thing further I should like to suggest to the delegates who will leave for San Francisco, is in connection with the manufacture of armaments. We have seen an

attempt-an abortive attempt it is true

to restrict the manufacture of armaments. All during the unquiet years of peace, from month to month one would see stories in the newspapers telling about some country that had a new gun, or some other country that had a new tank, or some other one that had a new type of lethal gas, or one that had an extremely powerful bomb, or a new type of aircraft. All of these things were developed and kept in secret in the war departments of the various countries concerned.

San Francisco Conference

We are not going to stop the invention of lethal weapons. We are not going to stop the designing of new bombs. We are not going to stop the invention of better and more devastating explosives. We are not going to stop the invention of faster aircraft, or new weapons such as the flying bomb. But I do feel that one of the things the security council should do is pool all information with regard to the manufacture and invention of ordnance. If we do that we will know each other's weapons; we will stop trafficking in arms; we will prevent the publicity of arms competition, which has done so much to keep the world in a state of unrest.

Because I have been critical of some of the measures and proposals resulting from the Dumbarton Oaks meeting, it is not to be construed that I am opposing in any way the San Francisco conference. We cannot be perfectionists; perfectionism is the path to war. All government is compromise. Certainly all democratic government is compromise, the very fact of having a government and an opposition indicates that compromise. Because we compromise internally we must compromise externally. To go to San Francisco with rigid minds or fixed ideas is fatal. Let us take this last chance, for if we fail this time we perish-and Canada is likely to be the battlefield of the future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Kipling, let us say to the delegation that goes to San Francisco: Do not look too good or

talk too wise.

Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion of the resolution before the house the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has asked for free expression of the different points of view of hon. members. There appears to be unanimity of opinion as to the desirability of holding a conference, and of preparing a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of international peace and security, and to that end taking collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and bringing about by peaceful means adjustments or settlements of international disputes which may lead to breaches of that peace. This is one of the purposes of the conference.

I agree with the government's action in accepting the invitation to the conference, and believe that now is the time to make preparation for world security, rather than leave it, as after the last war, to be added as an appendage to the peace treaty. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. There must be

collective security, and the responsibility that any nation undertakes must be backed by power; because it has been amply demonstrated that no single nation of itself can ensure its own safety.

Personally I hope and believe that a workable arrangement for the maintenance of peace and the laying of foundations for world-wide social and economic justice can be achieved, if the free nations of the world show the same measure of good will and cooperation they have evidenced throughout the war. I hope, too, that the social agencies which were a part of the league of nation's set-up may be incorporated in the new set-up. I refer particularly to those agencies that had to do with the control of narcotics, the control of vice, and the standardization of drugs. Those agencies did remarkable work and accomplished much, and they should be continued and enlarged. Let me here pay a tribute to Doctor Nansen, a Nobel prize winner and great Norwegian physician who had charge of that particular part under the league of nations set-up.

Canada, a peace-time nation, has become a fighting world power. Let us maintain her position as a peace-time world power for the peace and security of the world. No doubt there are those who will advocate that Canada should line up with Britain and the commonwealth as one of the big three rather than take the position of having a voting power of her own. Should we follow such a course, much of what we have striven for and obtained under the Statute of Westminster would be thrown into the discard. We would once again revert to colonial status. I think we can continue to maintain our place in the British commonwealth of nations and yet at the San Francisco conference, and indeed at the peace conference, claim and take our place as one of the most important nations of the world and assert our position in that regard.

I have every confidence that our Prime Minister who will lead Canada's delegation will see to it that Canada's interests are protected. Our voting strength should be based on our contribution in men, arms, production and achievement in the present war. Our delegation should strive to that end and not be relegated to a position comparable with that of San Salvador or some other small nation whose only claim to a seat at the conference is that they have shown evidence of friendliness to the allied cause. Just as there has been a difference in the capacity of the different nations to contribute to the war effort, go too will there be a difference in their ability to contribute to peace.

But there are doubts in the minds of some citizens of this country as to the success of the

San Francisco Conference

conference. These doubts have some basis in fact and will continue and become of graver importance unless all countries and the free nations of the world are invited and represented and unless injustices which have already been committed are set aright.

Take the case of Poland. This is of interest to all of Canada and of particular interest to the Polish citizens of Canada. These are not an inconsiderable number. Do you know that there are in Canada 167,485 persons of Polish extraction, and over a million persons of Polish extraction in the United States of America? Renfrew county, which I have the honour to represent, has between five and six thousand citizens of Polish birth and ancestry. In this war Polish citizens from Renfrew county have joined the armed forces voluntarily in large numbers. Many have been decorated for gallantry, and many have laid down their lives for a cause which they deemed to be just and to give evidence to their fatherland and to their relatives in Poland that the ancestral ties were still strong and that they were willing and ready to make the supreme sacrifice if needs be.

Let me say that no county has a finer class of citizens than the Polish people of Renfrew county. They are honest, industrious, hardworking, good living and God-fearing people. They are men of the land and of the forest. They have been there for many years;, they have raised large families, have become prosperous and are splendid law-abiding citizens. They have their own parishes and churches. As a matter of fact the parish of Wilno in Renfrew county is called after Vilna in Poland and is the oldest Polish parish in Canada.

These people have made an appeal to me to present the case of their country to the Canadian parliament on their behalf, on behalf of their fatherland and in the name of justice and British and Canadian fair play. They ask this to be done in order that Poland may obtain the justice 'which she so much deserves for her loyalty to her British allies. I accepted that task gladly and I make no apology for making this protest or bringing up the matter here because it has been brought up already in the British parliament and in the congress of the United States.

I am mindful of the position which the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Blake took in the defence of the country of my ancestors w'hen her position was somewhat similar to that of Poland. No country under the banners of the united nations has fought more valorously, gained more of glory on land and sea or in the skies than has Poland. There were Polish paratroopers in that heroic band which

endured to the last at Arnhem. There is an armoured Polish brigade under General Maezek fighting in Holland. There is a Polish legion with the first Canadian army. There is a Polish division under General Anders with the eighth army in Italy. There are Polish airmen daily and nightly in the skies over Germany and forty-five per cent of all allied naval decorations granted by the British government have gone to Polish sailors-to that Polish navy which is but nine per cent of the allied naval effort. All of us, therefore, should be proud to salute Poland and proud also to hope that the Polish people fighting Hitler and tyranny with the finest heroism, will win for their own country the freedom it deserves.

Poland is a constitutional state, constituted under international law with boundaries de- _ fined. It was a free sovereign and independent nation, a very ancient state over 1,500 years old with a distinct language and strong powerful racial sense. Belonging to the western civilization, possessing a great degree of culture, having produced many learned scientists, musicians, poets, writers, painters and sculptors

to mention only a few, Copernicus, Chopin, Paderewski, Conrad and Madam Curie-Poland has always had a democratic form of government. It has some of the oldest universities in Europe.

On account of war-time conditions Poland, like Belgium, Holland and other countries, has had her legal government in London, which government is based on the principal of legal continuity and was the successor to the government of General Sikorski whom Mr. Churchill clasped so warmly by the hand, vowing friendship in life and death, saying, "We shall conquer together or we shall die together". Thus spoke Mr. Churchill in 1940. The Polish government in London is recognized by the Polish nation. An army of nearly 200,000 men is sworn to this government and the Polish underground is likewise sworn to this government. This government was recognized by all the countries of the world as the legal government of Poland. Even Russia recognized this as the legal government of Poland until the Moscow-made Lublin committee of liberation took its place.

The legal Polish government in London has not been invited to the San Francisco conference where it might be given an opportunity to present its case, and where a decision as to the matter of its present and future status might be honourably sought. We find that at the Yalta conference that government has been repudiated and one of Russia's choosing at Lublin recognized.

San Francisco Conference

We all recall that Hitler pounced on Poland in 1939. Great Britain at once declared war on Germany. Only a few hours afterwards the parliament of this country declared war on Germany to protect Poland and western civilization. I need not recall the course of events since that time as it is well known the part Poland played in keeping her part of the Anglo-Polish pact. Poland honoured and sealed this pact with her blood, shed at home and on allied battle fronts for her own defence and that of her ally.

Hon. members are familiar with the decisions of the Crimean conference with reference to Poland. Her eastern territorial boundary is now to be the so-called Curzon line, and by it Poland will have lost forty-two per cent of her pre-war territories. It is true, of course, that [DOT] she is being given compensation in being allotted German territory. The question of the frontiers between Poland and Soviet Russia is of secondary importance. The supremely important aspect of the whole Polish problem is the future independence of the Polish state and the freedom of the Polish people to elect the kind of government they desire. The government, both national and municipal, is to be of the kind prescribed by Russia and forced on the Polish people. Elections are to be held on conditions agreeable to Russia.

Poland has comparatively suffered the greatest losses during this war. More than five million Poles have been killed, murdered or starved to death. There are millions of innocent Poles who are alleged to be prisoners of the Soviets. It is surprising that the champions of liberty the world over have not demanded the release of these people. Poland has been done a grevious wrong; she has been sacrificed to appease Soviet diplomacy. The eyes of the world are on Poland. Hilaire Belloc said:

The test is Poland

watch Poland; see what they do with Poland.

Captain Allan Graham, a member of the British parliament, said:

Poland is the test case for European civilization. If Great Britain deserts Poland Europe will desert Britain and that will be Great Britain's ruin.

A few days ago Mr. Churchill asked the British House of Commons for a vote of confidence in the Yalta decisions, which involve Russia's annexation of nearly half of Poland. Let me quote from an editorial of the Canadian Register of recent date, entitled "Mr. Churchill's Speech on Poland":

He repudiated any suggestion that he was making a questionable compromise or yielding to force and fear! He thus showed his anticipation of the accusation of betrayal. It is very

Churchillian and it serves its purpose at a time when there are few willing to take the responsibility of depriving Britain of an effective government and causing a split between the three chief allies. But Mr. Churchill would not expect any informed persons to be converted by his rhetoric. He showed doubts himself that even the Polish troops who have covered themselves with glory fighting on the side of the allies will want to go back to their country. It was a strange suggestion to make, that victorious troops should not want to go back to the land they had fought to save. Of course it would not be strange if Mr. Churchill has a secret consciousness that they have fought in vain, that Poland has been robbed by its allies of far more than the corridor for w'hich she defined the might of Germany. Moreover. Mr. Churchill will know, though he will not say, that the Russians_ have established, and may be able to maintain, a system of purging in Poland whereby all men who could put up a fight against them are being eliminated. As soon as the Russians were able to advance into Poland and drive the Germans out they began to imprison or deport members of the underground. Mr. Churchill calls this the "liberation" of Poland. He thinks Poland should be so grateful to Russia for this "liberation" that it should surrender half the country to the liberators. At the same time he suggests that as this kind of liberation may not appeal to the Polish soldiers and airmen who have contributed so largely to British victories in Africa, Italy and on the western front, the British empire might be able to find new homes for them.

Although he paints the partition of Poland as just and fair, Mr. Churchill hastens to assure Poland she will be "compensated" for giving up what has justly been taken from her. Poland is to get large slices of Germany, not only parts of Pomerania and Upper Silesia to which Poland has some claims on ethnic and historic grounds, but cities like Breslau, which are thoroughly German. He offers Poland the assurance that she will have no difficulty in keeping these annexed Germans in subjection because Germany is to be so treated that she will never be able to arm herself again. "Never" is a long time and Mr. Churchill, who is a very good historian, hardly does himself justice in pretending to believe that any confidence can be placed in the durability of these arrangements of power politics.

Churchillian hardihood in squaring the circle is nowhere better exemplified than in his claim that the Great Powers must be allowed to have their own way by the rest of the world but are not to be called a dictatorship because their whole aim is not to rule but to serve. No, Mr. Churchill did not go so far as to say that this is the great powers' aim; he merely said it is their duty, and of course great powers never think of doing anything except their duty.

The world outlook has been made sombre, to use one of Mr. Churchill's favourite words, by the Yalta decisions, which make for a dictatorship by three great powers whose "overwhelming force" is flourished before the rest of the world. The rest of the world knows well, however, that the force is overwhelming as long as the Big Three are in agreement, and not a moment longer. As regards Poland the chief present desire of her friends for the immediate future will be that her new government, when it is formed, will be genuinely representative of the Polish people and that it will not consist of stooges

San Francisco Conference

like those at present installed in Warsaw by the Soviet and which the British government has not yet brought itself to recognize.

Mr. Churchill was quite right in saying that the question of the frontiers of Poland is much less important than that of the freedom of Poland, though he does not show much respect for the freedom of Poland when, against the protests of the legal government of Poland and without even the pretence of consulting the people of Poland, he helps a foreign country to take away nearly half her territory. Still, if a truly Polish government is installed Poland will be able to make the best of the territorial situation and work towards improvement. A genuinely Polish government will not be anxious to be saddled with German territories and to make its country a buffer to Russia against Germany. Britain had need of Poland in 1939, and it is easy to imagine circumstances in which she will be seeking Poland's cooperation again. The task of British statesmen, when that day comes, will not be facilitated by the remembrance of Mr. Churchill's speeches and actions in 1945.

The ordinary man on the street cannot understand why the empire went to war to save Poland, and now, when a conference is about to be held to discuss security measures, why Poland is not invited to sit in.

Mr. Speaker, I resent the treatment handed out to Poland and my resentment is based on the sound concept of justice and common decency and respect for freedom. I respectfully request this government through its Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to use its good offices with Great Britain and the United States that Poland may be represented * at San Francisco, where she may have an opportunity of presenting her case. I further request that, when the proper time comes, Canada may make representations that the Crimean findings be reviewed and justice done to Poland.

Mr. ROEBUCK:

Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question? Will he permit me to be associated with these sentiments in defence of Poland?

Mr. McCANN:

Very gladly.

Mr. J. W. NOSEWORTHY (York South):

I rise to support the resolution before the house. As for the resolution itself, I feel it should have the unanimous support of the house. Concerning the proposals which have been placed before us and which constitute the basis of discussion at San Francisco, I feel that there is no impropriety in any hon. member's discussion of these proposals.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to have your ruling. On March 20 you stated, as reported in Hansard, at page 34:

As I interpret the rules of the house 1 would have to rule that the leader of the opposition

would be taking part in the debate by asking a question, and would have exhausted his right to speak.

I do not want to stop the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) from speaking, but I want a ruling. As reported in Hansard, at page 101, the hon. member asked a question. What I want to find out, Mr. Speaker, is, is it all right to ask a question of an individual member and is it not right to ask a question of the Prime Minister?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

There is no difference at all.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

Well, then, I want a ruling.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The position is very different. We had to-day a question asked by an hon. member of another hon. member on the other side of the house to which that hon. member may or may not reply, as he wishes; he has the floor and he need not reply unless he likes. The question addressed to the Prime Minister was of a totally different nature, and was based on the assumption that the Prime Minister would answer questions from any part of the house, not in the course of his speech. If an hon. member should interrupt the speech of another and inquire if he may ask a question, that is altogether different.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

The question of the hon. member for York South was asked after the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose) had concluded his speech.