Peace Above Politics

It was a week of decision.

The Prime Minister was deadly serious; no colloquialisms spiced the earnest, careful, 10,000-word speech in which he asked Parliament to support Canada's participation in the World Security Conference at San Francisco. He carefully stated the conference's great objective: to erect an enduring world peace structure. He patiently explained the Dumbarton Oaks blueprint, on which the conference would be based. He discreetly suggested changes: "middle (secondary) nations" like Canada should have powers commensurate with their responsibilities; those without powers --i.e., without representation on the peace organization's security council--should not be expected to send armed forces against an aggressor.

William Lyon Mackenzie King had no delusions: "It is not a question so much of what is perfect as of what is possible. . . . Even should the charter as finally drafted not be all that we could wish, its acceptance might nevertheless be preferable to its rejection." He had sound reasons for thinking so: "Were another great war to break out . . . in the future, it is certain that Canada would not escape its fury. The development of . . . the flying bomb [makes] it impossible for any country to claim immunity from sudden aggression."

This was talk that every Canadian could understand, and Parliament responded in kind. A handful of diehard isolationists said that they would vote no (cried Frederic Dorion: "We are asked to declare, right off, that we will participate in any future war"). Some Tories demurred, but only to the extent of urging that Canada do nothing to "endanger our close ties with the British." For the most part, the debate was above politics. Member after member rose to support the Prime Minister.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.