Mr. WOOD:

I say at least he has had the courage to attempt to get into parliament.

And you have had the courage to take in the communists.

Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):

You must be afraid of our leader, or you would not talk against him.

Mr. GRAYDON:

You are in a tight comer.

Mr. WOOD:

I could not hear exactly what the hon. member back there said, but let us analyse the position of this one-time great national party.

Mr. BOUCHER:

Analyse Tim Buck, your ally.

Mr. WOOD:

I have been in this house for nine years and in that time I have had an excellent leader of whom I am quite proud, and I have looked across at the opposition and in nine years have seen them with six different leaders in the Conservative party. .

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

They have three now.

Mr. WOOD:

They have had six leaders in nine years.

Mr. GRAYDON:

There is a usurper in the Prime Minister's seat now.

Mr. WOOD:

That would average a year and a half to each of those leaders, and if one of the leaders of that party had a seat on this non-permanent council, having a term of two years, then the average leader of the opposition of the Conservative Progressive party would not last long enough to fill out his two-year term on the security council.

Mr. GRAYDON:

We did not change as quickly as you did in Ontario.

Mr. WOOD:

They have changed their name three times.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Did they ever have one?

Mr. WOOD:

And they have also changed their policy.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):

Did they ever have one?

Mr. WOOD:

And now the only argument they have to offer to the people is that Canada's magnificent effort does not mean a thing, that we must have compulsion, that we must send the bloom of our youth to die for their

country though they are not a bit concerned about those who live for their country. I say that because I happen to have in my hand a banner that was placed over the picture of my opponent in the 1940 election indicating that their policy then was very much different from what it is to-day. They said: "There will be no conscription. Vote National Government.

R. J. Manion."

Mr. GRAYDON:

You had' the same then and you have changed.

Mr. WOOD:

I have not changed, if you want to know, because as far as I was concerned it was not mentioned in my campaign.

I have had sufficient experience in public life, having been in some form of public life since the age of twenty-three, to have come to the conclusion that it is better to be cautious and not to prophesy too far into the future. It is wise to take a step at a time and do those things which circumstances and necessity justify at the moment and not to stick your neck out making too many rash promises. If I ever have the good fortune to be reelected to this house it will not be because I out-promise the Progressive Conservatives and the C.C.F. I am prepared to reason things out with reasonable people and trust to their reason, and I hope, if I come back, that I shall be able to offer something better than rash promises, so that it will not be said that I betrayed the people's confidence at any time.

That is my philosophy in public life and it has always been my philosophy. I believe that the principle of good business is the best politics and I intend to follow that in the future as I have done in the past. I commend that motto to this new so-called Progressive Conservative party, and I suggest that instead of changing their name and leader it would be wise for them to change their policy somewhat not only in regard to conscription and protection but in regard to the many other approaches to a proper philosophy. I believe that would be better for them and it would be for the benefit of the country as a whole.

So far as compulsory service is concerned, the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) to-day said that if Canada is to be a force behind the security council it is necessary that she should have compulsion for the purpose. Well, if you are going to wreck the security council the finest way of doing so is for the council to endeavour to meddle with the domestic affairs of its members. Would the hon. member for Lake Centre say that Australia should have conscription before she should be on the security council? Would1 he say that General Smuts of South Africa should institute compulsory service before being able

San Francisco Conference

to make a contribution to society? Would he say to Mr. Churchill, "You have a little place in Northern Ireland, Ulster, where you should have conscription." Would he debar the United Kingdom because there is no conscription there? It is ridiculous.

If the security council tries to interfere with the domestic relations of its members the result will be most unfortunate, and I think that is where the argument of the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) also breaks down. If they interfere with the domestic policies of the nations we are heading for disaster and the responsibility would have to be borne by those who advocate such interference. If I can make any contribution to the welfare of the security council I shall be delighted.

I appreciated very much the remarks of our spiritual adviser, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) the other day. It is true it was not a gilded speech, but it contained something that was worth while, because there are the finer and better things of life and they should be recognized. Society stands on a tripod, a strong triangle. It is built upon body, soul and mind. Material things contribute to the satisfaction of the body, the spiritual to the soul, and education to the mind. If this council does not give recognition to all these things, then in my opinion it will fail.

Two thousand years ago there was a Man who had a philosophy of life that probably made the greatest contribution to the happiness of humanity, greater than has ever been made by any one else. I speak of the philosophy of the Christian faith, the religion of Jesus Christ. We have had other philosophies, the Marxian philosophy for instance, and if you analyse it you will find that it is purely materialistic, for it contributes only to material things. Similarly if you analyse socialism you will find that it is nothing but the material. Marx found that religion was an obstacle to the working out of his ideals. He preached the necessity of supplying the physical needs of humanity but he had no recognition for the spiritual. I feel, therefore, that if we are to have a better world in which to live in the future we must have regard to spiritual values, for that is the power that will keep the machinery of life going.

The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) made a good suggestion in regard to education, but again I cannot see how the security council can interfere with the domestic relations of its members. I suggest that it would be wise for the council to keep records in the form of a Hansard which might be available to those who might wish to increase their

knowledge of international affairs and familiarize themselves with the problems of others as well as their own, for I have come to the conclusion that if greater demands continue to be made on governments it will be necessary to establish in different educational centres a system of statecraft for the education of men and women in the duties of the state. Because of the complexities of government, availability of records of an international institution such as I have described would be a great source of knowledge.

In closing may I be personal. The reason why I advance this particular theme is that when I was born it was supposed to be the horse and buggy days. Yes, the rag carpet adorned the living room floor and we had three square meals a day, but thanks were given to the Almighty for that. The day's work was always preceded by the reading of a passage of scripture from the Divine Word, and it was followed by a supplication to the Almighty for direction throughout the day. One thing has always impressed me, namely, that that supplication was always prefaced-and I commend this philosophy to our friends of the C.C.F.-by giving thanks for what we already had. We were not always asking for more. Because of that background, Mr. Speaker, I was prompted to suggest the contribution that might be made to humanity in this world conference. I do not believe there is any other place where it can be expressed quite as well. I only hope and trust that we shall have something that will give us greater results than did the league of nations. I am one of those who have always tried to defend the league of nations. While the league of nations failed, the league of nations was not a failure because it did contribute. It showed there vas an honest effort by a certain element of society to find some solution and to see that young men and women would not be plunged into a blood bath periodically. We have to make it a success this time.

I have always had a great respect for the man who sponsored the league of nations, President W ilson. He was one of those men who died before he had an opportunity to see the results of his work. He happened to be one of those because there are too many people in the Tnited States who live in Missouri. They had to be shown. Circumstances and events have^ shown that they made an error when they rejected the president. I can remember reading a newspaper report of a great mob going to his house. At that time his health was impaired. He stood on the verandah and said: "Some day you will realize that I was right." I believe that to-day Presi-

San Francisco Conference

dent Wilson is living in the minds" and hearts of many people throughout this world. The fact that he had the courage of his convictions has impressed them immensely. He was the man who sponsored the league of nations only to come back home and see, unfortunately because of political treachery, his plans defeated in the senate. The result was that the nation which was responsible for the idea of the league, probably more so than anyone else in the world, was responsible for it not being a success, bet that be as it may. They are a democratic country; they are a peace-loving country; they like liberty. They did not want to become embroiled in Europe. But we cannot allow that to happen again. The errors and mistakes made at that time brought us to disaster and we do not want to see it happen again.

Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):

The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) who has just taken his seat, in explaining the failure of the late President Wilson in the peace conference of the last great war, omitted to mention the greatest cause of that failure, which was that he had not taken to the peace conference a sufficiently representative number of the other lines of political thought or the opposition in the United States. Not having done so, he did not properly portray in a unified way the spirit of his country, and because of that he did not get the cooperation from his countrymen when he returned. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will keep that in mind when he picks the delegation to accompany him to San Francisco on this occasion.

So far as the part the hon. members of this house and the people of Canada are going to play in this conference at San Francisco is concerned, I think it has been apparent that every hon. member and every true Canadian is heartily in accord with the aims and objects of the conference. I also believe that to a very great extent they are in accord with the major portion of the proposals set out. We have been honoured with an invitation to this conference. We have not had the background of having had representation at the Dumbarton Oaks or Bretton Woods conferences, but we should be very sincere in any comments we make in this house. We should first consider the fundamental questions that arise in setting up any organization that will maintain the peace and prosperity of the world in post-war days.

In my humble opinion there are three outstanding problems that we in this parliament should solve before our representatives go to this conference. I believe that the first thing we should decide is whether or not we are

prepared to make commitments to obtain international peace in advance of any international discord by acquiring and coordinating in advance the necessary policing and striking forces to beat down and overcome aggression. I think we should consider very carefully the necessity of our cooperating by friendly and good neighbourly policies in economic, social and humanitarian problems, which are the fundamental causes of war or peace and prosperity. I think we should decide what particular place our own country shall play in this post-war organization.

Whatever international organization is set up must have a definite policy to keep the economic, social and humanitarian problems of all the nations of the world in such a state of liberty, equality and balance as will not cause discord. To do that I think the second main proposition is the inevitable result. The organization must be able not only to police the nations that may show inclinations to stray, but they must have power behind them in the form of armed strength, an army, navy and air force at all times so that they can enforce their will and beat down the aggressor should he raise his foul head. I do not believe it is sufficient to stand by and feel that any number of nations or accumulation of nations, because a high ideal is set for them, will live up to that ideal. So long as human beings live in this world errors will be made; different viewpoints will arise. It is only by curbing and controlling these factors that a recurrence of war can be avoided.

I believe we in Canada, like the peoples in many other nations of the world, felt before the war that we could sit back in our own country, mind our own business in our own way, and wait until trouble came right to our door. Bad mistakes were made along those lines prior to the war. The result is that, much as we of the democratic nations resent the necessity for having international armies or, if you like, power blocs, we must face the fact that an order is good only if it can be enforced. A law that cannot be enforced is seldom obeyed, and if it is not enforceable to a high per cent of its possible efficiency it should never be a law at all.

Any international organization composed of any group of nations must have within it the power to enforce equitable and just decisions that it may make. In my view it should not have only that power to requisition from the world at large, by individual or collateral agreement, after an occasion has developed, such strength as it might feel required to use.

In this respect the Canadian parliament has to-day a fundamental question, one of pure

San Francisco Conference

principle, to decide. According to the suggestions from Dumbarton Oaks we are not supposed to have a permanent seat on the security council, such seats being left to Russia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, China, the United States and, later, France. I draw the attention of the house first to the fact that one of the seats is to be held by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not representative of the British commonwealth of nations or the British empire.

The result is that on this security council, consisting of five great nations, a great deal of power is concentrated. The other nations of the world must place implicit confidence in the wisdom, fairness and equity of those five powers. Canada, which contributed so much in the last war, when she won her nationhood, and has done such a splendid job in this war, where she has established her nationhood, and which for the past twenty-five years has taken pride in the justification she has for calling herself a nation, must remain with the other nations.

According to that set-up our position in the international organization is to be exactly like that of any other small nation. Our opportunity of holding even a non-permanent seat shall be equal to that of the smallest of the other small nations, with the result that according to those proposals we must take a place similar and equal to that of about 150 or 200 other nations.

In his speech when opening the debate the Prime Minister suggested an intermediate class in which Canada would be placed. In his speech he suggested-and in this I believe he was right-that Canada merited a better position than other small nations. At one time he said we should be a leader of the small nations, but for some reason or another at a later time he developed that thought to where we are to be one among an intermediate set of nations.

The point I would establish- to-night is that as a nation within the British commonwealth, Canada has risen to the top, and that she will emerge from this war as the greatest of the nations within the commonwealth, with the exception of course of the United Kingdom itself. In the last twenty or twenty-five years we have not heard any objection within- Canada respecting one nation within the commonwealth infringing upon our liberties. When it came to Dunkirk the British commonwealth of nations, the empire faced the task with a solid- moral front. Within the w-hole of the commonwealth was the unanimous desire that the British isles, standing as they do as the spearhead- of the British commonwealth and empire, should sur-

vive the present war. The will was there. But how close we came to losing the solidarity of the empire and the commonwealth of nations by virtue of not having the material to accompany the spirit.

Had Dunkirk not been- the God-given blessing, and the miracle it turned out to be, I think the whole organization of the British commonwealth of nations would have fallen apart, or very nearly so. I hate to think what other nations would have then felt in respect of their chance of surviving a German invasion. What chance would civilization, as we in Canada understand it, have had to survive the onrush of the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese hordes?

I give this to the house as an illustration to show that in any organization that may be set up to handle any matter for the public weal or welfare there must be both a spirit to cooperate and the material with which to cooperate-not just the right at a future date to secure that material.

I do not know just where we in- Canada, or where in fact the British commonwealth fits into the picture in the minds of those who drafted the Dumbarton Oaks -proposals. I am very anxious to know where it is going to fit into this world organization to maintain and establish peace. I see no part for that organization which through the years has been- built up, which has withstood the trials and tempest? of time I see no place where it will fit into this world conference. Nor do I see where the pan-American union fits in.

I think it is only human- nature to associate in small groups before cooperating in large groups. To my mind that which works to the advantage of the individual works also to that of the nation. We should look with great care upon tht future. Further, we should judge with care those things in the past which have survived and withstood the test of time. I believe there are none within this dominion to-day who, with any justification, can complain about the liberties they have lost or the liberties they have not obtained by virtue of their adherence to that cooperative enterprise of freedom-loving nations known as the British commonwealth.

When we set up a world organization to maintain peace we must have intermediate organizations to deal with economic, social, humanitarian and militaristic problems of the world. When we realize Canada's proposed position as one of the small nations, in the light of our pride in the resources, munitions, supplies and men we have contributed to this war, we feel that she is entitled, not only to

San Francisco Conference

more benefits but to many more obligations in connection with this new organization to establish and maintain peace.

In order to partake in any cooperative undertaking one must look forward to the benefits being commensurate with the obligations. I think the folly of pre-war thinking over the democratic world was a desire for benefits and an abhorrence or abstinence from any commitments as to obligations. I do not think we can expect any recompense by way of benefits that does not carry with it obligations.

Let us think of our position in this world organization. Any one nation, hundreds of them as it may be, may be elected to the nonpermanent seats on the security council for two years, and then not be reelected immediately thereafter. This dominion of ours, of which we are so proud, may not be able to get a seat on the security council, which is made up of eleven members, for many years, or once having got a seat and occupying it for one term, will be left out of it for many years to come. These non-permanent seats must be passed around.

I think Canada is capable of a greater contribution to world peace and in international affairs than has been set out. As the hon. member for Brant has just said, we have relied, we can rely and we will rely on our very good neighbour to the south. With all of that I agree, but I say we can rely, we have relied and we should still rely upon our good neighbours within the commonwealth. We want to make sure that the collateral organizations in which Canada may take part do not break down the things that have been good in the past. We need more, not less, participation in British commonwealth affairs.

According to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals Canada shall be apart altogether from the representation of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland on the security council, Canada shall be apart from the representation of France, of China, of the United States and of Russia. She is to be totally out of the picture. I should like to know, and I think the Prime Minister might very well explain this to us, what moves have been made to bring the British commonwealth of nations into the security council and what objections have been raised to that move and by whom. I believe that a world organization should keep the commonwealth of nations in line with the greatest nations of the world through the cooperative policy that does prevail within the British commonwealth and within the empire. This would be to the betterment of the world organization and very much to the betterment of Canada herself.

We have emerged from this war with a reputation as a fighting and producing force, and our obligation is to carry forward as a moralizing and stabilizing force on the comity of nations, the council of man, if you like to call it that. For twenty-five years we have sat down, having cut our national teeth in' the last war, and have not partaken of the national obligations or the international spirit that befits the progress we have made. If there has been one thing more than any other that has caused difficulty within Canada during the present war it has been the lack of an international outlook. That lack of an international outlook is entirely and directly the result of a lack of international outlook on the part of our government. We are not going to expand that international outlook by sitting quietly to one side.

The second question is an economic one. Many collateral organizations will be found to deal with these matters. These may not be as important as the military questions, but there is one thing that puzzles me more than anything else. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement which was discussed by each of the two speakers who preceded me to-night. I am sure that this is worrying every member in this house. What contribution by way of commitment is Canada going to make at the San Francisco conference as an offer or gesture of her willingness to accept obligations in the way of providing armed strength, if you like, to stop future wars?

As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has said, no policing can be done if you must first raise your police force, train them and get them to the place where the crime has been committed. The criminal will have escaped long before. An international army will have to be maintained. An international air force will have to be kept immediately available to the international organization. Munitions will be needed for many years to come. I do not think we are going to emerge from this war with such complete disillusionment that we will believe that war will never happen again, or that every one will be so fed up with war that they will never fight again.

Even in peace time we shall have to have a police force to police the nations of the world, to control economic, social and humanitarian conditions. Then there must be a force to back up the policeman on his beat. That being the case, Canada with her national status must look carefully at how that international police force is going to be organized and set up. I think it is just as important for us to see that we have representation on that force as it is for us to see that other nations have not too strong a representation.

San Francisco Conference

I do not think that world confidence can be established if the Prime Minister of Canada goes to the San Francisco conference and says: We are willing to bind ourselves to contribute to an international police force only on these conditions: (1) If we can say whom we shall send; (2) if we can say when we shall send them; and (3) when we have decided to send them and whom to send, if we can say where we shall send-them-long after they have been requisitioned. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that such a policy would be not only a failure but such evidence of lack of good faith on the part of Canada that we should never suggest it. I do not think it would do credit to us as a nation if we went to the conference and said: We trust you people but we will not trust you when the occasion arises for our assistance. That we shall decide for ourselves on an "if, as and when" basis; for that is really what it amounts to, and I think we should d'well upon that aspect much more than has been done so far. Surely we have been taught the folly of isolationism by this time.

I well remember sitting in the gallery of this house one evening in March, 1939, before I was elected to this chamber, and I heard the Prime Minister of the day, as well as the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party at that time and many other members voicing this sentiment-not exactly in these words but to this effect: Any nation, Great Britain, or the British commonwealth of nations can go to war and yet Canada can remain neutral. When the election of 1940 was fought, the general cry of all parties was that conscription would not be resorted to. That was a concrete illustration of our lack of appreciation of international involvements that existed that day. Surely now we have learned our lesson, and I hope that when our delegates go to San Francisco they will act in a way that will show that Canada realizes that it must accept international obligations and accept them now, and that Canada has reached a stage in her development where she can take her just and rightful place of responsibility with the other nations. But she is not taking her rightful place in my opinion if she says to the conference: We will let the rest of you contribute to this international army. All you other countries can commit yourselves in advance, but we wish to make a separate and distinct agreement with the security council irrespective of what the other nations may commit themselves to. We must realize that if we enter into a peace organization we must do so in a spirit of confidence and good faith and be prepared even to give a lead and tell

the other countries what we are prepared to do to make peace secure and urge other countries to do likewise.