Mr. COYLE:

Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your decision.

Mr. CLEAVER:

Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain your decision.

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):

Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted I would -have voted to sustain your decision.

Mr. L. R. BEAUDOIN (Vaudreuil-Sou-langes) :

Mr. Speaker, the charter before this

house for approval is the result of the most elaborate deliberations by fifty nations, on the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which were the result of individual and collective thoughts based on past experiences in the field of the maintenance of peace in the world. This nation was represented by members of all groups in this house, groups that represented the predominant shades of opinions in this *country. Our delegation must be congratulated on its initiative at the conference, ^because it succeeded in having adopted several fundamental amendments. It must be congratulated on the extreme measure of good will that it displayed throughout the discussions. Reading the report tabled in this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), one cannot help noticing that Canada wanted to make sure that every possible means would be taken in order that peace be not only maintained, but not even threatened. Remembering the deficiencies of the old League of Nations, the united nations insisted at San Francisco that this charter contain provisions whereby not only economic and diplomatic sanctions be effectively applied, but also armed forces in case of aggression.

May I express the hope at this time that the united nations charter, after it is given birth, enjoys eternal life.

From this instrument of peace, conciliation, intervention and action, many advantages derive for this country. On the other hand, we must assume our obligations, the heaviest of which are contained in chapter VII, article 42 and others.

1. Canada must negotiate an agreement with the security council;

2. Canada undertakes to make available to the security council armed forces, assistance, facilities, including right of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security;

3. Canada must practically agree on the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided;

4. Canada must hold immediately available national air force contingents for combined international enforcement action;

5. Canada -must leave its forces at the disposal of the security council and their military staff committee who will plan their utilization;

6. Canada must undertake, as the security council may determine, to cany out whatever are the decisions of the council;

7. Canada must assume the costs that this participation in the operations ordered by the council may entail, although articles 50 and 51 may bring some relief in that respect.

Since the advent of the atomic bomb, some contend that the utilization of large armies in future conflicts is a thing of the past. I fully realize the tremendous power of that bomb, although I do not think our population is sufficiently aware of its destructive capacity. Of course, the potential military effectiveness of the atomic bomb, together with the V-2 rocket bomb, the great development in radio, aerodynamics and marine engineering, call for readaptation of our plans for defence; nevertheless war will be total when it comes.

Commenting upon the report made recently by a general of the United States army, George Marshall, Time magazine, issue of October 15, 1945, says:

The doctrine that the nation no longer needed man power for its defence was foolish and dangerous talk. Said George Marshall: "The only effective defence a nation can now maintain is the power of attack. And that power cannot be in machinery alone." There -must be men to man the machines. War department planners, "who have taken every conceivable factor into consideration," advocated a system "which will permit the mobilization of an army of 4,000,000 men within a period of one year following any international crisis resulting in a national emergency for the United States." The chief units in that system, if General Marshall has his way, would be the regular army, the national guard, an organized reserve -with universal military training to fill out these ranks (and the navy's) in an emergency.

It goes on:

For those who asked: "Who is going to

attack us?" old soldier Marshall had an answer. "We have tried since the birth of our n-ation to promote our love of peace by a display of weakness. This course has failed us utterly, cost us millions of lives and billions of treasure."

United, Nations Agreement

The counsel of President Washington, said General Marshall, still held good: "If we desire to secure peace ... it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."

Now, Mr. Speaker, the special agreement which this country will be called upon to negotiate with the security council, on its call, must be foreseen in the light of regional agreements, existing in fact or tacitly, or to become effective within the provisions of article 52 of the charter. Canada is particularly lucky in being located next to a good neighbour, a great power, the United States, and at the same time in belonging to a great family of nations, the British Commonwealth. Canada may rely on both imperial and continental solidarity. Groups of nations are being formed.

In the October, 1945, issue of World Digest, Lord Vansittart, Britain's permanent undersecretary of state for foreign affairs before Munich, writes:

It is now generally recognized that Russia is establishing a protectorate, or sphere of influence, in central and eastern Europe. It is inevitable that the west should also organize itself, though in a voluntary and far looser form. Generalissimo Stalin has, indeed, explicitly commended the project. No difficulty, therefore, arises on this score. In the United States all tenable opposition has melted. There was always the Monroe doctrine and now there is the act of Chapultepec, too. Briefly this act converts the Monroe doctrine from a unilateral declaration to a multilateral agreement. It is, in American eyes, "a watertight non-aggression mutual-aid pact binding all the American states represented at the conference, whether the aggression comes from inside America or from outside.

The economic consequences of this panAmerican unity are not specified, but "a new intercontinental solidarity" will surely develop.

Equity and security both demand that we should now do as our two great allies have done, and do it quickly. This necessity was foreseen by Marshal Smuts:

"More and more states are consulting with each other and forming groups to protect their common interests", he said

"Regional groups will have to be formed within the scope of the world organization."

In the light of the structure of our regional agreements, how can we meet the specifications of the special agreement which we might be called upon to ratify between Canada and the security council; mainly as to the armed forces, the importance and degree of readiness of our contingents? Actually, if we look at the continental area, the United States is expected to enforce universal peace-time military training.

It is understood that high-ranking war department officials in the United States are now planning the peace-time army, under a system of universal military training. In Great Britain, the compulsory recruitment of men for the forces as an essential part of

the reallocation of man-power during what is called the interim period, and the conscription regime has been declared by Mr. Churchill on May 10 last as perhaps absolutely necessary for some years to come.

Other nations friendly to Canada, such as France, have peace-time military training from which there is no indication that they will depart. [DOT]

And here I wish to point out that there is a great contrast between Russia's demobilization policy and other allies' policy; while the western allies are taking a race to demobilize their men as quickly as possible, there is no sign that Russia is active in the same field.

I submit that a uniform system of organizing various national contingents, placed at the disposal of the security council, is commendable, and for two reasons: (a) efficiency of forces, (b) international understanding.

(a) Efficiency of forces. Article 43, paragraph 2, mentions the "general location where these forces will be stationed". Article 45 ends by saying that the security council, assisted by the military staff, will establish plans providing for the combined action of the forces put at their disposal. The general idea would be to form organically grouped units capable of concerted and united action.

At San Francisco France suggested the establishment of suitable zones of security in which such troops would be stationed.

(b) A uniform system is commendable in order to favour international understanding.

Canada is a self-governing dominion which has emerged from the war with a record unsurpassed by the other nations of the world and it is very proud and jealous of the nationhood status that it has acquired. At the San Francisco conference the attitude of Canada has been one of the most important middle power.

I share the views previously expressed in this house that this government cannot announce a definite national defence policy until the picture is clearer and therefore must undergo an interim period. But, after this interim period is over, how could it be possible for Canada to have a different system of preparing combat forces, while -its closest associates, the United Kingdom and the United States, enforce universal peace-time military training?

Often during the recent war Canada has been criticized in- the United States because, while they had universal compulsory military service, we in Canada favoured the voluntary system for overseas service together with conscription, but only to the extent that it was necessary.

United Nations Agreement

The only system which could be followed from now on is universal peace-time military training and universal compulsory war-time military service. I would wish that it could be otherwise, but as it is, in my opinion, inevitable, we might as well come right out and say so, and the time to say so is right now.

Since we would then be embarking upon a new man-power policy in the service of peace, I would suggest that we apply new methods construed to create among our young men an ambition toward military training and careers. I will refer particularly to men called up for service in this last war, who were not given a chance, by force of circumstances, to adapt themselves to army life, went absent without leave, are now being picked up, and sentenced to so many months or years of detention. I am not advocating that deserters be not punished; but, thinking that we might need every fit man sooner than we expect, I suggest that detention rules should aim at the same time at educating these young men as to what the army stands for and what an honour it is to wear His Majesty's uniform. If we are to establish a universal peace-time military training programme, I suggest that such a programme should be practical. .

If one reads article 43, which refers to special agreements determining the size of our army, et cetera, paragraphs 1 and 2, and also paragraph 3, which says that such agreements shall be ratified by signatory states according to their respective constitutional practice, one might say, "Why not wait until such agreement is presented to parliament for ratification before discussing peace-time training? All requirements imposed on us by the security council will then be knowm and might be debated more intelligently then than to-day. Tou now base jmur reasoning only on assumptions which may never materialize."

I wish to state very clearly that I hope that peace-time training is not established in this country. I hope that in future wars compulsory service is not put into effect. But in approving this charter we are undertaking obligations, among others, militarjr. I submit that the ratification of any special agreement adhered to will be almost automatic, and I want our people to know at once what their obligations are or might be under this charter. I submit that we should not wait until too much unrest is created before we discuss how this country may have to govern itself in peace and war time in the future. I remember too well the troublesome, anxious days of November, 1944, when this parliament convened in a hurry to discuss urgent matters of reinforcements. Any form of isolation is from now on impossible. Furthermore,

CMr. Beaudoin.]

neutrality is practically incompatible with the prescriptions of the charter. Any future conflict will be a battle for our very existence. Therefore I for one, voting in favour of this peace instrument, understand that I may be voting for universal peace-time military training and universal compulsory war-time service. However-and this is the main element of my speech-if and when military duties of that significance are imposed on the nation, I insist that the proposed system be practical as well as effective. It should exempt in war time certain classes of people as was the ease in the last war. Essential industrial workers and farmers should be exempted completely and without complicated formalities.

The peace-time military training programme to come should be combined with a physical fitness programme. There is in our statutes, 7 George VI, chapter 29, 1943, a law given royal assent July 24, 1943, entitled "An act to establish a national council for the purpose of promoting physical fitness".

The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) is now responsible for this act, which states:

Provinces may conclude under the act agreements with the council and receive financial help from the federal government.

The first meeting of the national council was held in Ottawa, May 23-24, 1944. Representatives of all provinces expressed their views.

During this last war, we have been amazed at discovering how large a number of candidates for our forces were rejected on the grounds of physical disabilities. In their remarks, representatives of the provinces emphasized this alarming situation, and they agreed that an extensive coordinated physical fitness programme would help this nation a great deal, in war and in peace. Mr. J. Mathisen, of British Columbia, declared:

The introduction of the national fitness bill is coming at a psychologically ripe hour. The standard of physical fitness was alarmingly low at the outbreak of the war; there are reasons and evidence that it is lower yet to-day; teenage troubles are mounting and people are becoming gravely, and justly so, concerned about the future of the growing generation.

Major A. A. Burridge, of Ontario, at the same meeting, opened his address saying; '

The problem of this council (the national council on physical fitness) is to plan for the physical fitness of our people. The ultimate aim is to reach all citizens, the immediate aim is threefold: First, to produce potential candidates for the armed forces, who will be so trained physically that the training time in the forces could be materially decreased.

The representative who endeavoured the most to show the usefulness of a physical

United Nations Agreement

fitness programme in preparing citizens for military tasks, was Doctor Jules Gilbert, of the province of Quebec. In his address, he said:

Twice in a lifetime, war has demonstrated that man-power is vitally affected by health and physical fitness. We were shocked that between one-third and one-half of service eligible men were found unfit for any form of military duty, being rejected for physical and mental defects or educational deficiencies. Of those accepted, many are unprepared for the hardships of military duty, it takes several months to bring them back into satisfactory condition; this waste of time could be avoided. On the other hand, some authorities claim that any young man who is healthy and who has been subjected to a rational programme of physical education can be brought to fighting fitness within two or three months. Any enlisted man needs a few months technical training before being sent to actual combat, and this period lends itself to combine physical training with other military studies.

It is therefore recognized in Canada by health authorities that a programme of physical fitness would not only help our population to improve its health, an improvement which must be achieved when we know that in Canada thirty-six per cent of our people die before they reach fifty, but also contribute to shorten the period of military training. The same truth is recognized in the United States. Statistics have shown thatapproximately fifty per cent of the applicants have been rejected for regular army service in the United States army. Nine out of tenvolunteers, namely, approximately ninety per cent, for service in the United States army air corps were rejected on the basis of physical examinations. Three out of seven of the men discharged for disability from the United

States army in 1939 were suffering from mental 4iseases.

In a resolution adopted by the national convention of the American legion, in Boston,

Massachusetts, in September, 1940, it was stated that more than twenty-five per cent of the men called for service were unfit and therefore it adopted a resolution saying;

It is the opinion of the delegates to the 1940 convention of the American legion that great benefit, both to the nation and to the individuals concerned, would result from a more active recreation and physical training programme for the young men of America.

In public health reports of September 27, 1940, we read;

More than ever before the nation has recognized health as an essential element of preparedness. . . . We need now, as never before, an integrated effort on the part of all agencies which represent the purpose of our citizens to attain personal and national health.

Mr. Speaker, here is my point. It is recognized that health standards are low in most

parts of the world. It is the duty of every country to take care of its human capital. With the evidence that we have before us, we, in Canada, know we must do something about it. On the other hand, it is recognized that in military training programmes a large proportion consists of physical exercises. It has been recognized in the United States, in Canada and in other countries. Let us remember, for instance, the importance that has been given in Germany, Italy and Japan to physical training in view of forming militia men. Let us remember the Sokol movement in Czechoslovakia, which was imitated by other countries in Europe.

If we are to embark on a universal peacetime military training, I do not see how it could be more practical and effective than to combine it with a programme of physical fitness. We have the tools there, ready to be used. I suggest that the cooperation of the provinces toward that end be discussed anew at the reconvening of the dominion-provincial conference, which is fixed pro jorma for November 26 next.

I congratulate the initiators of the national fitness project on the assurances that they have given right at the start by insertions, in the law, that provincial autonomy would be safeguarded. In order to avoid all possible loss of time and make sure at the same time that national defence objectives will be attained, in order to fill our national and international obligations under chapter VII, I suggest that if peace-time military training must be established, allocation in time of military training be granted to those who will have observed the requirements of the national programme on physical fitness.

I suppose that a physical fitness programme would be in force, directed by the provinces, on a voluntary basis, I presume, because inspired by an idea of peace, together with a universal peace-time military training programme controlled by this government of, let us say, two years; a man could shorten his period of universal peace-time military training in the proportion that he would have followed the programme of physical fitness of his province, under the guidance of the national council established by virtue of the above-mentioned law.

I submit that the united nations could adopt a universal peace-time military training formula which would be similarly combined with a programme of physical fitness. The operations of that combined programme could be very well supervised. On the military side, this nation will have a military staff committee linked with the general military staff of the security council, and in the field of physical fitness the Canadian national

United Nations Agreement

council organization could be linked to an international agency of the type provided for . under the provisions of articles 57 and 63 of this chanter. Talking about international agencies, as it is anticipated that the international food and agriculture body now meeting in Quebec city will be brought into relationship with the united nations organization, I know I express the sentiments of all hon. members when I extend to Hon. L. B. Pearson, Canadian ambassador at Washington, who was unanimously elected chairman of the world food body, our most sincere congratulations and our thanks for a great honour to Canada.

Should a combined programme as above outlined be considered I would urge this government to provide funds for the establishment in Canada of a French-styled university school of physical education and to create, among the extra facilities that will be necessary, a French-styled naval academy, airforce school and military college. Here I should like to remind the house that at the last congress, held in the city of Granby, in the constituency of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), of the federation of the Chambres de Commerce des Jeunes of the province of Quebec, which is affiliated with the Canadian Federation of Junior Chambers of Commerce, in my opinion the most serious and progressive organization of young business men Canada has ever known, a resolution was adopted in which the government was asked to create a French-styled naval academy and military college in Canada.

I also suggest, that more cadet corps be created and developed throughout the nation. Such training should be accounted for in the requirements under universal peace-time military rules, so that the period of military training would be shortened proportionately thereby. According to an editorial article published on Saturday, July 8, 1944, in I'Action Calholique of Quebec city, the district of Quebec had at that date a total of

14,000 cadets, forming 110 corps, the figures closely following those of Toronto where there were 17,000 cadets. It also stated that the district of Montreal had 29.000 cadets. It was noted that Quebec alone had almost one-third of all the registered cadets in Canada.

In view of our international obligations, and to safeguard our own national interests, it is of paramount importance that defence means be constantly surveyed. The leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Irvine) have suggested the establishment of a defence committee. I agree with the idea that it should be non-partisan. I suggest that the

proposed non-partisan committee be composed of representatives of all the total war necessary organizations which we knew in the last war, and such others as it may be found advisable to 'add. To this defence board, the joint United States-Canada defence board could be ramified, integrated with the work of this defence committee. This non-partisan defence board of experts could operate with the same latitude and freedom from political interference as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but could be submitted yearly to a thorough cross-examination by a committee of this house, in order that the representatives of the people might be in a position to satisfy themselves as to whether or not our military experts were keeping our defence means up to date.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my opinion that universal peace-time military training may be inevitable if we are to assume our full obligations under the prescriptions of the united nations charter. I wish, however, that the system: of training to come should be practical as well as effective. In addressing the legislators of the nations of the world on Christmas eve, 1944, His Holiness Pope Pius XII said:

There is a duty, besides, imposed on all, a duty which brooks no delay, no procrastination, no hesitation, no subterfuge: it is the duty to do everything to ban once and for all wars of aggression as a legitimate solution of international disputes and as a means towards realizing national aspirations.

By approving this charter and assuming our obligations under it, we are doing what it is our solemn duty to do. I trust that by a very strong vote we shall demonstrate to the world the will for peace and international solidarity which animates all citizens of Canada.

Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the resolution may I reiterate what I said on a similar subject in this house last Thursday evening. In the matter of our approach to international agreements I hope it will be possible for this house to speak with unanimity. Nothing could be more desirable with respect to the attitude of this parliament toward the united nations organization and the charter presented to us for. ratification than that this house should speak with one voice.

We approach this subject with pride in the part that was played by the Canadian delegates at San Francisco. We recall at the same time an epic event in the history of this country in the year 1919, when, through its own representative, Canada signed the treaty of Versailles on behalf of His Majesty. That was a great step in the constitutional development of this country, a great accomplishment which will stand as a monument to the

United Nations Agreement

memory of Sir Robert Borden. Canadians have increasing reasons to be proud of the part Canada is playing in international councils. Of our delegates to the San Francisco conference I believe it is correct to say that every one of them valued the honour of being a delegate of Canada at that conference, and all ayquitted themselves with great credit.

I think they all feel that much has been gained for themselves and for parliament by their contact with leaders of the other nations of the world; and the fact that the Canadian delegates were able to speak with a united voice meant much in the weight Canada was able to carry at that conference. It is a great thing for a country when there can be substantial unanimity among its people in support of its international policy. It was a great thing for Great Britain that even with the change of government last summer there has been no interruption in the international policy which that nation has pursued. And it is a great thing for Canada that at San Francisco this nation should be able to speak with one voice. May that situation continue. May the parliament and people of Canada be able to approach their international relations with a substantial measure of wholesome unanimity.

In their excellent reports to this house mention has been made by those who attended that conference as Canadian delegates of the contribution Canada made to the deliberations of the conference. As we know, Canada has been chosen by destiny to be an interpreter. Fo a long time we have known that we were assigned the role of interpreting Britain to the United States and the United States to Britain. Canada is now enjoying the expanding role of interpreter among the nations of the world. We are now regarded as at least one of the leading nations among that group classified as the secondary nations of the world. This gives us a special opportunity to help to bring about understanding between the so-called major nations of the world, or the great powers, and those in lesser positions.

The heritage we as Canadians enjoy is an increasing heritage. Day by day and year by year the Canadian heritage grows and is enhanced. It was a great thing for our fathers to be Canadians. It is a great privilege for us to be Canadians. Yes, and it will be a greater privilege for our children in years to come, when we fulfil our potentialities as a nation. We have been given an unparalleled opportunity; let us be faithful to that trust.

I should like to say a brief word concerning the contribution made by permanent officials of those departments which were represented at the conference, officials of various departments of government. Their contribution was 47696-82 HEVISED

extremely valuable. I believe that parliament would like to record its sense of obligation to those permanent officials. Governments come and governments go, but it will be a source of strength to this country to have in its departments of government men with international experience. As was clearly shown at San Francisco, we have at the present time in those departments men of a quality and calibre sufficient to take their place with the permanent officials of governments of other nations. This is a matter of satisfaction and congratulation to Canadians.

May I make a brief observation concerning British-oommonwealth relations. If I for one moment thought that by supporting this charter I were weakening the ties that bind members of the commonwealth together, I should not cast my vote in favour of its ratification. But, Mr. Speaker, how can it reasonably be contended that there is anything in the charter which in any sense would weaken the bond which binds together the free members of the commonwealth? Rather, I say we weaken that commonwealth if we fail to give strong support to the charter. It has been clearly shown times without number-it was manifest at San Francisco-that the commonwealth needs us and we need the commonwealth. We would inevitably weaken the one if we failed to give strong support to the other; let there be no mistake about that.

At the hands of the parliament at Westminster the charter enjoyed unanimous approval, and in the United States senate virtually unanimous approval. Is Canada, then, to withhold approval ; are we to withhold unanimous approval? Is it to be suggested that we are in any way contributing to the weakening of commonwealth ties by doing the very thing the parliament at Westminster has done unanimously?

May I offer to the house some observations concerning the charter? In the first place the writing of it was a vast accomplishment. That fifty nations of the world, drawn from all quarters of the globe, were able to agree upon a charter, a lengthy and involved charter extending to so many aspects of international relations, is, of itself, a great and lasting accomplishment in the field of international relations.

In the second place, great benefit was derived by all participants. I am not speaking only of delegates; I speak of the countries themselves which gained by meeting together. As we know to our cost, ignorance only too often lies at the bottom of misunderstanding. And misunderstanding lies at the bottom of much of the suspicion and distrust we see in the

Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):

In rising to speak on the resolution I wish to say at the very outset that I am absolutely in favour of the agreement signed at San Francisco in June of this year, and I fervently hope it will be supported almost Unanimously, if not unanimously, by the House of Commons. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). He gave a marvellous speech, well documented, eloquent and well delivered, but I have' some trepidation in saying what I intended to say, because I think we all realize that we are not now discussing a future peace conference, but this charter is certainly a preliminary to it. There is no doubt in the minds of the Canadian people that the Bretton Woods resolution, the Dumbarton Oaks conclusion, the San Francisco charter and the last London conference are bound to be projected and to have their effects on future peace conferences. The representatives of all the governments in the world will be bound

United Nations Agreement

to be guided to a large extent by the deliberations and conclusions reached at the conferences which I have just mentioned.

There is no doubt in the mind of anyone that this resolution and the agreement transcend all party and political lines. At the very outset I wish to give my most sincere words of praise to the Canadian delegation for the fine work they did at San Francisco. As has been well said by previous speakers, politics were clearly forgotten. No doubt it would have been much easier for the delegates to be in their respective ridings or in Canada during the political campaign. However, they realized the great work and the accomplishments that were requested by the Canadian people. They deserved, and they received, words of praise not only from the Canadian people but from everyone who became familiar with the fine results that they accomplished at that conference.

In a moment or two I may say a few words about what they thought about what went on at the conference, but before I proceed any farther I believe I am expressing the opinion of what may be called the common people in my constituency. Since the San Francisco conference there have been established in that constituency at least ten study groups which have made it their duty and work to study thoroughly every section and part of the San Francisco conference. On many occasions I have been invited to sit in as a witness, not as a participant; and I have been agreeably surprised at the keen interest of the people of my constituency in international questions. I am sure the same thing can be said of most of the people of Canada. Workers, lumbermen, men of the soil, men working hard, women of the professions and trades were intensely interested not only in the work of our delegation but also in what was being done in San Francisco.

In those deliberations there was a certain amount of realism which can hardly be found even in the House of Commons. I mean by that there was always in their minds, when discussing the San Francisco conference, the Versailles peace treaty and what happened to the League of Nations, the causes of friction after war No. 1. They were also interested in the friction that arose between the allies- I do not need to mention any names at the present time. They thought of the hundreds of thousands of the soldiers of our allies who are sleeping their last sleep on the soil of France, and only a few years after the ink had become dry on the Versailles treaty frictions and divisions arose. They were realists as far

as the five great nations were concerned; they were realists as far as our own nation was concerned.

Again I repeat; it may not make very pleasant repetition, but at the same time I believe it is my duty to mention not only the wonderful accomplishments that were reached at San Francisco, but also the shortcomings, so that they may become a guide for future deliberations. There is no doubt that some marvelous and constructive things have been accomplished. They have been steps in the right direction; those preliminaries have shown us how well we can work, and how impossible it would have been, for instance, if the fifty nations of the world had not met previously, but had come suddenly to a peace conference without the deliberations and preparations that we have had in the last few years.

We have only to consider what happened in London at the conference of foreign ministers of the five great powers. I know we were all glad when we heard the message delivered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) in which he stated that hope was not lost. There may have been some friction; there may have been some divergence of opinion, but at the same time these men are statesmen; they must by their position realize their terrific responsibilities. I am sincerely convinced that none of them desire to see another world-wide war; they know that their people will not stand for it. What they want is peace and all that it implies, and they will make all the necessary sacrifices to attain peace.

No doubt every Canadian was highly elated that in a space of time notable for its shortness and with the minimum of discussion the document was placed before the senate of the United States, sent to the foreign relations committee, discussed there and brought to the floor after public hearings and passed with so small a vote against it. That constitutes one of the real important landmarks in the history of the United States. That great nation was far away from the isolationism of 1919 and 1920. That nation realized that it had been wounded, and wounded very deeply in its national pride at Pearl Harbor. Every American citizen realized that the United States was an integral part of the united nations. They also realized that the shores of the United States were three thousand miles away from Europe and if not for Pearl Harbor, it might not have to join the conflict. They thought that they had a certain amount of security as far as the Atlantic was concerned because that great ocean was mastered by a friendly power, and that they were absolutely immune as far as an attack

United Nations Agreement

in the Pacific was concerned. But it was a terrific awakening, and again the pride of that great nation realized the seriousness of the situation, and the position into which the world was getting and that war or peace in the world was part of her responsibility.

It does not mean, as has been so well said, that we expect to have everything accomplished in a perfect manner. No one expected that the conference would turn out a formula which would say to the world that we shall never have another war, that the solution of all our problems had been found. It was the wish of every representative there, as it was the wish of all people, that they would find ways and means so that never again, if humanly possible, shall we have to go through the horrible experience of the last war. However, we must take certain situations into consideration so that we shall not fall into the same pitfalls into which the nations fell from 1918 to the beginning of the war just finished. For instance, it seemed that the great nations, generally speaking, have learned very little from the last holocaust.

In reading the speeches I had the feeling that national sovereignty, absolute and unimpaired, was still pretty much the watchword of the great nations. There is an old French proverb which says, "plus ?a change, plus c'est la meme chose". Surely the nations of the world must have learned from what happened in the past. More than that, all nations were just as jealous of their so-called national right as ever before. Sovereignty cannot any longer be absolute, and interdependence must be the keynote of the modern world. .There is no getting away from that fact. Surely what happened to Holland, what happened to Belgium, what happened to Norway, what happened to all the neutral nations, to Luxembourg, and so on who thought they were safe from the great power of their neighbours, must be a lesson to all the smaller nations. They must realize, and they realize very, very bitterly after their crushing, just how unsafe they were. There is no doubt about it that the moral atmosphere of the united nations conference was far from conducive to renunciation. We have the right to expect, and I should say that we all expect the nations to understand the implication of that principle or else there will be some danger for the future. In many instances it was more a case of acquisition. Again I repeat these words with all the sincerity that I possess. I believe that I am expressing the sentiment of the common people in my own section of Ontario, people who have suffered during the present war and the previous war, people who

at the bottom of their hearts wish and pray every day of their lives that never, never again will we have another war.

After all, it was really a meeting of the victorious powers. There is no getting away from that fact. And to prevent future aggrandizement it was limited exclusively to the states that had entered nations to defeat the present enemy. Again I repeat that the nations of the world, as individuals, learn through errors and mistakes.

Personally I should like to see Switzerland among the nations at that conference. Switzerland has accomplished wonderful work during the whole war. For many years she was practically the only intermediary Canada had, not only through the Red Cross, but- also with respect to international problems. I should like to see Sweden there. No doubt Sweden was in- a delicate situation. Sweden, really showed that she was a democracy. No one can doubt the fact that Sweden always acted as a democracy. I could mention other nations, and I know our own delegates would have liked to have them included with the other nations at the San Francisco conference. It is true that the final document will give those nations the right to take part in that organization, and at the same time they will likely have to come there with hat in hand, which is not a very happy situation for a small nation or, in fact, any nation.

I just wish to say one word about Russia. Unlike a good many people I can never forget what the Russian people have done for civilization and for the freedom of the world. I can never forget the many millions of young Russian lives that were nipped in the bud in fighting for our cause and also their cause. It is true that she had to fight for her own life, but in doing so, she also helped our cause. It is true that sometimes the people are baffled by what is happening, as for in- , stance by some of the statements made at the San Francisco conference by Mr. Molotov. In one of his first speeches he said he thought the primary objectives of the conference should be to prevent and suppress the spread of fascism. As far as I am concerned I hate and detest fascism. At the same time, during the last few years that word has been given such a. wide application that in it one could almost include anything. One could take in socialism, liberalism, fascism and even communism, so that we must be very careful to make these distinctions. It is the duty of the governments of the world to make their peoples realize that they should be very careful not to refer to fascism in other nations

United Nations Agreement

and peoples without knowing exactly what is meant by it, and not to make it an excuse for persecution or intolerance.

There is also the fact that among the big nations of the world there were bound to be some differences at San Francisco, differences which were bound to animate frictions among the nations concerned. By their very nature, because of their powers and their populations, they could not be on an equal footing. However, we had there the great republic to our south, which showed what democracy could do in time of stress and danger. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone, I think, that to-day the United States is the leading world power. As far as I am concerned I am not afraid to have the United States lead the world, because I know the United States believes in the common man, in freedom of the individual, in democracy, in the great principles of Christianity. So that in my own mind I am not afraid to have the United States in a position to lead the world. The second greatest nation there certainly was Russia. To some extent Russia had found its national soul, had done wonders in defending its own soil as well as the things we also were defending. Then we had China, that martyred nation of hundreds of millions of people, who had been tortured and butchered by Japan, who suffered for nearly nine years. China realized that at the San Francisco conference she was shaping her future and that in a long period of peace she would find her destiny. We also had France, proud France, which had known four years of occupation by a barbarian foe and mutilation, which had learned vrhat it meant to be oppressed by the invader for five years. We had all these countries, united for the formulation of a new peace charter, and it was a revelation to the world to see the fine spirit which animated each of them. No doubt they did not always adopt the proper attitude; their way of approach might be incomprehensible, but they were groping, searching, studying, doing everything they possibly could to make sure that never again in this world would we have horrible conflicts such as we have known during the present generation, and that may ultimately destroy civilization.

There was much that was baffling to many people, and one of the things some found it hard to understand was the old policy of the balance of power. That expression has been used very often. That is something left over from the old diplomacy which we were supposed to have done away with. At the conference there was zone of influence; there was a system of alliances; there were these

other things all of which contain a certain amount of danger. Our representatives went to San Francisco with an open mind. Canada had participated in two European wars, voluntarily and with all our strength and energy, in which we all agreed that Christianity and civilization were jeopardized. But after all the sacrifices we made we never thought in terms of aggrandizement, of a safety zone. We never could have been attacked outside our own borders because we had no possessions, no land outside Canadian soil. That is why our delegation was so highly respected at San Francisco. Among all the nations of the world we were perhaps the only one, if I may use an ordinary term, that had no axe to grind. We were practically the only country that was not there to obtain a certain amount of compensation as far as territories or influence were concerned. Only a few weeks ago I happened to visit in the United States and saw in what respect they held our Canadian delegation. They said, "There is a nation that was on our side even before we were in the fray ourselves. There is a nation which has given of her best for idealism, civilization, freedom and democracy, unselfishly and wholeheartedly, and that is one of the nations that should be listened to and respected."

There are also some factors of which we must be aware at the next peace conference, and again I offer no excuse for mentioning these facts. I am sincerely convinced that what I am stating now will come "to the fore very forcibly at the peace conference, even more so than at the San Francisco conference. There was talk of zones, and that is only natural. To some extent big nations must have their own defensive ramparts, in some cases thousands of miles away from their own borders. In the matter of zones immediately we had conflict between some nations. On the one hand we had Russia, perhaps with justification, trying to establish her own zone of influence in some parts of Europe and Asia. Perhaps she goes too far, although this is not the time or place to discuss that point. Russia is asking for a zone of influence, in any case, and her only argument is that it is necessary to protect the full integrity of her own soil. The same would apply to the United States, who are applying to the full the Monroe doctrine as far as the two American continents are concerned. They have been asking, no doubt logically-and presumably with our sanction-for what they call the American zone of influence in the Americas and the Pacific. After all the sacrifices they have made I believe they are fully en-

United. Nations Agreement

titled to have it. I believe they will expand that zone right to the shores of Japan, and in my opinion, in doing so, they will help safeguard the future peace of the world. However, in connection with these zones of influence there is a certain amount of danger to other nations, and the question necessarily must come into the open. It is no use leaving these skeletons in the closet; they will come out eventually and the sooner we will face them the better for all concerned. Public opinion, which is not the same as it was in previous years, which is more alert, more enlightened, will not tolerate some of the things that took place in connection with the treaty of Versailles. How often, right in these precincts, were we told before the war that the great cause of discontent and disunion in Europe, the causes of the last war, was the treaty of Versailles? Let us build better now than we built then. Surely nations, like individuals, must learn from tihe sad and terrible experiences through which we have gone. These great powers, I believe, have the right t'o these zones of influence and also to what might be called satellite states. That has been almost consecrated as a principle, and it will be absolutely impossible to get away from it at the peace conference. But we must have safeguards as far as these zones are concerned. If we do not try to establish those safeguards or mandates now, they will be forgotten and passed over, and these matters will continue to fester after the peace has been signed, and may be the cause of new wars.

I should like to say one word in passing on the attitude of Great Britain and France with regard to subject territory, and again I do not say this in a critical way, because I believe the same principles apply to the United States and Russia. Here we have involved 750,000,000 coloured people in the world. At the San Francisco conference it was stated that eventually they will have self-government, but certainly not in the immediate future. I am not in a position nor have I any right to blame these nations for what has occurred in the past, but again we must face the facts. We see what is happening at the present time in Indo-China, the Dutch possessions, and other parts of the world. You cannot for all time keep 750,000,000 people in subjection. I sincerely appreciate what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said this afternoon in regard to an Indian politician or statesman-

Mr. COLDWELL:

A statesman.

Mr. BRADETTE:

-who, he said, could compare with any of the experienced statesmen they had at San Francisco. These are matters we must keep in mind, we of the

Canadian parliament and the Canadian nation. I am telling this house what is in the minds of my own people: miners working in the mines, lumbermen working in the forests of northern Ontario, farmers and settlers in the clay belt of the north, professional men-in a word all class of people. I am expressing their sentiments, aspirations and hopes, and also their fears in connection with the next peace conference. The old idea of colonialism naturally is repugnant to the Canadian people. Anyone who called a Canadian a colonial would arouse a terrific reaction immediately. In our.own minds we believe that this principle should disappear throughout the world, that all the people should govern themselves. I do not go so far as to say that perhaps any small nations or group of people-and no one has the right to refer to them as backward nations-should be under the guidance of bigger nations. It might be necessary for a time under certain conditions. A small nation might be under mandate for a certain number of years. .They might be under mandate for their own natural and physical protection. But we have forgotten our promises of freedom to them at these conferences, and vre tried to forget it at the San Francisco conference. We have blinded ourselves to the situation, one which is bound to face us sooner or later, and which carries with it great responsibilities.

Another feature was this, that regardless of the hope we' had early in the war and during the conflict, the major powers want to retain what has been traditionally theirs. It was shown again at San Francisco that the tradition of the past is to be maintained. That was shown all along the line. We saw clear evidence of the fact, the deep-rooted fact, that powerful nations never disgorge except as they are defeated. It displayed the worst side of the mentality of the great, who cannot learn to recede in time.

I know those are hard words, but they must be uttered. I do not make these statements with pleasure, but I know the facts are there.

I know that millions of lives have been sacrificed, and that the weary world has been going through turmoil-and almost near death in the last five years. The nations, whether big or small, should now be willing to make sacrifices for the good of the whole of the civilized world. Jealousy, fear and long established habits prevailed in large measure. ,The great powers quarrelled over irrelevancies. In Great Britain and in Canadian newspapers were big headlines, and we were afraid that the soviet representatives would wreck the conference, that they would leave it. ,

United Nations Agreement

But, to their credit, they stayed on.^ I believe they are lovers of peace. No nation, either Russian or any other, through its government or through its people, will ever dare to bring on another war. Russia would not dare to carry the responsibility of bringing on a war in which she would be involved.

I just wish to say a few words about our delegation, and I should like to add again my word of praise for what they did. But they must have had when they went to the San Francisco conference, a sense of frustration, because it was really a big power conference. It is true that the smaller nations were invited there, but one has only to read the speeches made by our own delegation, the speeches made by Mr. Forde of Australia, the speeches made by Mr. Evatt, to realize what the situation was. Mr. Evatt fought, fought, fought for recognition of the component parts of the British empire, as did also Mr. Fraser, Prime Minister of New Zealand. The people whom I have mentioned, the delegates to whom I have referred, our own, knew what the situation was. I wish to offer them my sincere thanks and admiration for what they have done.

As I said a minute ago, the Canadian delegation did not go there empty-handed. They had no axe to grind with anyone. We had no special demand to make for ourselves. We did not want any concessions in the Pacific or Atlantic. We were satisfied that Canadian territory should remain in its full integrity. That is why eventually the voice of our Canadian delegation, and those of Australia and New Zealand, had their repercussion throughout the world, and how we won our case and the recognition of the smaller nations' viewpoints. There was a recognition that those intermediary or smaller nations should have a place in future conferences. More than that, if it was not included immediately, it was at one time included under the charter.

There is no doubt tlhat wonderful work has been accomplished, but in every human deliberation and every human conclusion we must not expect to have perfection. If we had not had the San Francisco conference, what would we have had? As has been so well said by hon. members, it was a marvellous step in the right direction, because the nations of the world1 have shown to the world of the future and to the whole of civilization the fact that the future resides in understanding, cooperation and peace. There can be no getting away from that. On that score alone I know that the whole of the Canadian people are 100

per cent behind our delegation, and will be behind the parliament of Canada when it passes this resolution.

I should like now to say a few words about what has been said so well before respecting the supremacy of moral law, the rights of human beings, international law as the basis of conduct and universality of approach. These matters were taken up by our delegation, and for that alone they deserve praise from Canadians.

May I say only a few words about the five great powers which were really the leading powers at San Francisco. First of all I would refer to the United States. There can be no doubt that to a large extent the spirit which prevailed at the San Francisco conference emanated from that great spirit, the thought and the drive of the late President Roosevelt. He had seen the dangers which confronted not only all Europe but every section of the world. There is no. doubt that that great spirit which had been calling and begging for many years for international collaboration was present at the conference, and that tihe doctrine of isolationism was absolutely dead. Everyone has read about the eagerness and the sincerity of Mr. Stettinius, the then secretary of state, and his efforts to create an international league. One has only to look at that to realize that the United States fully comprehends its responsibility, not only to the people of that country but to the peoples of the whole world. .

Then at that conference were representatives of the United Kingdom-great, Great Britain, which had suffered so much, which stood alone for more than a year against the hordes of barbarism in Europe. This was the Great Britain that suffered economically, and suffered physically in her blood and in her flesh. The British people recognized that they were near exhaustion; and there is no use in covering it up, because the people of Britain would have been the first to recognize the fact that they were near exhaustion. They were cut off from commercial contact with other peoples for five years, except for purely war purposes. For five years they lived under high tension, and have had no physical security from the air, land and sea. They were reduced to the narrow limits of their own British isles, caught on the fringe of Europe between the soviet advance; and I am not suggesting it is an unfriendly advance, but we might as well face the fact that it was a new and to some extent troubling factor. There are now factors arising in Europe in which Great Britain must necessarily take part. On the other hand, she faces the United States. She has not approached the conference as a mendicant; she has not gone there to ask for sympathy,

United Nations Agreement

She went there as one of the greatest nations that the world has ever known, for the reconquest of a place in the sun, and the integrity of her empire, and she was recognized as such.

On motion of Mr. Bradette the debate was adjourned.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

The first order of business to-morrow will be the resumption of the debate on the budget. That will be adjourned, and then we will resume the debate upon this resolution, in the hope of concluding it. It is of a very urgent nature.

Mr. BRACKEN:

Has the minister given consideration to using the hour devoted to private members business in the event of its becoming necessary to use that time to get this through?

Mr. MACKENZIE:

I can do that only with the unanimous consent of the house. If the house would consent to transferring the private members hour to one devoted to government business, between eight and nine o'clock in the evening, it would certainly expedite business. However, that could be done only with the unanimous consent of the house.

Mr. BRACKEN:

Could the minister give any indication as to whether it is needed or not?

Mr. MACKENZIE:

It will be needed, unless the debate on this resolution is concluded by six o'clock to-morrow night. Otherwise we shall have from nine to eleven o'clock for debate on this resolution.

Has any thought been given to asking the opposition speakers-or speaker-if they would care to postpone the budget debate, because I suggest that this debate on the charter should go through to-morrow. I wonder if consideration has been given to that.

Mr. BRACKEN:

Some consideration had been given to it, but in view of the fact that a public announcement had been made we felt, we could agree to a postponement of it from to-day until to-morrow. I do not think, however, that it should be postponed farther. So far as this group is concerned we are prepared to give up private members hour to-morrow evening if that is necessary to bring the charter resolution to a consummation.