Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the report on the second part of the first session of the general assembly of the united nations which was held in New York from October 23 to December 15 last year. Copies of the report are being circulated to all members of the house. The present copies of the report are in English; a French edition is in preparation. Though the report is formally a report on the New \rork meeting of the assembly, it is in fact more than that. The discussions of some issues in New York were part of a process of study and discussion which had gone United Nations on in various bodies of the united nations since the end of the first part of the first session of the assembly in London. The report therefore covers many of the developments in the united nations during the whole period from the close of the London meeting on February 14, 1946 until the close of the New York meeting on December 15, 1946. This is indicated in the title of the report, which is "The United Nations, 1946". The report is the third in the series of reports which the Department of External Affairs has issued on the united nations. The first report was on the San Francisco conference and the second report on the London meeting of the assembly. Together, those three reports describe the progress of the united nations and Canada's participation in it from the opening of the San Francisco conference to the end of 1946. In many ways, this report is a departure from ordinary practice. It is not merely that it is more extensive but it is more explanatory and more outspoken. Frankness is, I think, appropriate in a report of the united nations from the government of Canada to the parliament and people of Canada. The charter of the united nations begins with the words "We, the peoples of the United Nations". The charter thus recognizes a very direct relation between the united nations and the individual citizen of the member states. It is, therefore, fitting that the Canadian government should give to the citizens of Canada a full account of its steward' ship in respect of the united nations. The report contains not only a summary of the discussions and decisions of the assembly but also the text of the more important resolutions adopted by the assembly. It tells how Canada voted on about forty of the more important or the more controversial issues and gives the reasons why the Canadian representatives voted as they did. It also gives the text of the more important speeches made by Canadian representatives at the plenary meetings of the assembly and in the committees. The report is a lengthy document and perhaps the members of the house w'ould allow me to draw attention to some of the sections which might be of particular interest. The preface to the report explains the structure of the united nations and of the various bodies linked to it. We thought that this might be useful because the structure is somewhat complex. This is followed by a general survey of the work which the assembly was able to accom-83166-119j plish in New York. Perhaps I might mention some of the conclusions set forth in that survey. More was accomplished in New York than could reasonably have been expected when the assembly opened. The assembly demonstrated that, when it had delicate political questions to deal with, it would usually deal with them with moderation and restraint. Usually, not always. It would be too much to expect of any deliberative body, when it is dealing with questions which arouse deep feelings, that it should always act with moderation and restraint. Appeals to passion and prejudice were made, for example, in the debates on the Spanish question and on the treatment of Indians in South Africa. These appeals were not confined to the advocates of any particular resolution. Under present conditions issues like the Spanish and South African issues cannot be properly settled in a deliberative body such as the assembly by counting heads. Unfortunately this truth was not always recognized in the discussion of these issues but it was recognized in the discussions on disarmament. What appears to be the most important accomplishment of the assembly in New York was the unanimous adoption of the resolution on disarmament, and this unanimity was made possible only by the joint and sustained efforts of many delegations to reconcile the separate proposals which each had advanced. These efforts were based on a common recognition of the fact that, if an assembly resolution on disarmament was to have practical results, it had to be concurred in by all the heavily armed powers and by the great majority of all the other powers. One encouraging feature of the assembly was that in voting on important questions there were few hard and fast blocs of states. To demonstrate this, we have included in the report an appendix showing how each of the 54 members of the united nations voted on ten significant issues. This table is worthy, I think, of careful study. The general survey of the work of the assembly is supplemented by a somewhat similar survey of the work of the economic and social council. The structure of organized intergovernmental cooperation on economic and social questions is more complex today than before the war. In addition to the economic and social organs of the united nations itself there are at present seven, and there may soon be twelve, international organizations which are specialized and functional and to which large areas of international collaboration have been entrusted. It is hoped that this great United Nations

series of organizations will provide for comprehensive and varied attack on those economic and social problems to the solution of which international collaboration can contribute. The range and complexity of the system, however, carry with them certain dangers. The report sets forth some of these dangers as we see them and some of the ways in which they might be minimized. One of the dangers is that, because of the increasing number of international meetings and their increasing length, governments may find it difficult to send adequate delegations to all the meetings. It was for this reason that the Canadian government had included in the agenda of the assembly in New York an item entitled "measures to economize the time of the general assembly". Our views on this question, to which we attach considerable importance, are set forth fully in the report. The general survey is followed by sections dealing with each of the main issues which arose in New York. These are grouped under six heads-political, economic and social, trusteeship, administrative and budgetary, legal, and other questions. I shall not attempt to list these questions. I would, however, like to draw the special attention of the members of the house to the section on disarmament. We feel that Canada was able to make a valuable contribution to the discussions in New York. On this question and in order that the record may speak for itself, we have included in the appendix to the report the text of the final disarmament resolution together with the various preceding drafts including the Canadian proposals. We have also included the speeches given by Canadian representatives in explanation of the Canadian proposals. It seems clear that, had the assembly adopted a disarmament resolution wrhich contained the imperfections and ambiguities present in the original proposals, the debates, which would have been precipitated in the security council and the atomic energy commission on the precise meaning of the words of the resolution and exactly what the assembly had recommended the security council and the atomic energy commission to do, would have been long, harassing, and probably sterile. As members of the house who have attended international conferences know, a great deal of the most useful work of a delegation does not appear on the surface of events. Perhaps the proportion that rises above the surface is very much the same as the proportion of an iceberg which is above the surface of the water. As an indication of this, we have thought it wise to include in the report the text of the "working paper" on disarmament which was prepared in the Canadian delegation over three weeks before we formally submitted to the assembly our resolution on disarmament. We have also printed for the first time the memorandum on sanctions and the veto which the Canadian delegation to the atomic energy commission circulated to the commission on December 19. Questions have been raised about Canada's attitude on the various issues which have arisen in the united nations concerning relations with the present regime in Spain. I think that hon. members will find that these questions are fully dealt with in the report. There is, for example, a statement of the position which Canada took on each of fourteen votes on the Spanish question. In the hope that it might be of assistance to the special committee of both houses which is to be set up to study the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms, we have included in the report the statement of essential human rights which was drawn up [DOT]by a committee appointed by the American Law Institute, the resolution of the assembly referring that statement to the commission on human rights, and the resolution of the economic and social council establishing the human rights commission. During this session of parliament, the house may be asked to consider various questions relating to refugees and international relief. There are sections in the report dealing with these questions which might provide useful background material for the members. The same applies to the sections in the report on the budget of the united nations and on the scale of contributions to those budgets. The Canadian delegation to the assembly in New York .contained members not only from the government side but also from the Progressive Conservative and C.C.F. parties. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to express on behalf of the government our appreciation of the contribution which was made to the work of the delegation in New York by the leader of the opposition in this house and the leader of the opposition in the Senate and by the leader in this house of the C.C.F. party. We worked together as a team in New York. We discussed fully and frankly at daily meetings the problems with which the delegation was confronted. This policy of sending to the general assembly of the united nations a delegation representing all the major political parties of Canada is an experiment. Under our system of government, the government of the day must accept full responsibility for every action of a delegation at an international conference. United Nations That responsibility must be ours and we do not ask the opposition parties to share it. We do feel, however, that it is of immense value to the people of Canada .to have leading members of the opposition parties participate at the united nations assembly in the discussions which lead up to decisions on the attitude which the Canadian delegation should take. Pending the time when we may be able to have a discussion in this house of Canada's relations with the united nations, it might be appropriate to have this report considered by the standing committee on external affairs and, if I have the unanimous consent of the house, I should be glad to move that the report now tabled be referred to that committee. .