¹ Although strictly speaking the Pan American Union was only the principal agency of the Union of American Republics established in 1890, the term was commonly used to refer to the inter-American system itself. In 1948, the Pan American Union became the secretariat of the new Organization of American States.

² Canada, , House of Commons Debates, 07 9, 1943, p. 4565–4566Google Scholar, August 4, 1944, p. 5924, and July 15, 1960, p. 6375.

³ No attempt is made here to present a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of Canada's attitude to OAS membership over the years, as this has been discussed fully elsewhere. See especially Humphrey, John P., The Inter-American System: A Canadian View, Toronto, Macmillan, 1942Google Scholar; Roussin, Marcel, Le Canada et le système interaméricain, Ottawa, Editions de l'Université d'Ottawa, 1959Google Scholar; Soward, F. H. and Macaulay, A. M., Canada and the Pan American System, Toronto, Ryerson, 1948Google Scholar; Miller, Eugene H., “Canada and the Pan American Union,” International Journal, 1948 (Vol. 3), p. 24–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Iris S. Podea, “Pan American Sentiment in French Canada,” ibid., p. 334–348; Massey, Vincent, On Being Canada, Toronto, Dent, 1948Google Scholar, Ch. 9; and the biennial volumes on Canada in World Affairs, Toronto, Oxford.

⁴ Barrett, John, “The New Pan-Americanism,” Addresses Delivered Before the Canadian Club of Toronto, 1922–23, Toronto, Warwick and Rutter, 1923, p. 214–215Google Scholar; New York Times, December 14, 1926, p. 26.

⁵ On the eve of Confederation in 1867, the House of Representatives in Washington adopted a resolution which asserted that; “A confederation of States on this continent, extending from ocean to ocean, established without consulting the people of the provinces to be united, and founded upon monarchical principles, cannot be considered otherwise than a contravention of the traditions and constantly declared principles of this government.… “ Quoted in Hart, A. B., The Monroe Doctrine, Boston, Little, Brown, 1916, p. 155Google Scholar.

⁶ Barrett, , “The New Pan-Americanism,” p. 213, 214Google Scholar.

⁷ Owens, Clarence J., “Pan-American Unity,” Addresses Delivered Before the Canadian Club of Toronto, 1925–26, Toronto, Warwick and Rutter, 1926, p. 310–311Google Scholar. The resolution was readopted in 1925 and 1926. See also New York Times, December 18, 1925, p. 22, and December 17, 1926, p. 9. At the 1925 Congress, the Canadian government delegate got carried away and declared: “No conception of Pan-America is complete that does not include the Dominion of Canada.… I pledge our allegiance to Pan Americanism in its broadest spirit,” though he tried to insist that he meant only that “Canada is an integral part of economic America.” New York Times, December 17, 1925, p. 1, 12, and December 18, 1925, p. 22.

⁸ Barrett, , “The New Pan-Americanism,” p. 208, 213, 214Google Scholar; New York Times, December 14, 1926, p. 26, and February 17, 1928, p. 2.

⁹ Canada, , Senate Debates, 03 11, 1927, p. 74Google Scholar, and May 19, 1931, p. 116.

¹⁰ Foreign Policy Association, Information Service, 04 27, 1928 (Vol. 4, No. 4), p. 51Google Scholar (n.3).

¹¹ Foreign Relations of the United States, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1928 (Vol. 1), p. 583Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as FRUS.

¹² FRUS, 1933 (Vol. 4), p. 127, 128Google Scholar. Italics added.

¹³ Trotter, R. G. et al. , eds., Conference on Canadian American Affairs, 1937: Proceedings, Montreal, Ginn, 1937 P. 208Google Scholar; Toynbee, Arnold, Survey of International Affairs, 1927, London, Oxford, 1929, p. 431Google Scholar (n.1). It is possible that Kellogg may have stated this in his “oral instructions” to the United States delegation prior to the conference. See FRUS, 1928 (Vol. 1), p. 583Google Scholar. Even so, to refer to this, without any mention of the written instructions, is highly misleading.

¹⁴ FRUS, 1933 (Vol. 4), p. 128Google Scholar. Nevertheless, Kellogg felt that Canada would “probably be gratified” by an invitation. The adoption at Havana of a convention renaming the Union of American Republics, the Union of American States appears not to have been inspired by any desire to include Canada since the terms “States” and “Republics” were used interchangeably in the text. In any case, the convention remained unratined.

¹⁵ FRUS, 1933 (Vol. 4), p. 127–129Google Scholar; Seventh International Conference of American States, First, Second and Eighth Committees: Minutes and Antecedents, Montevideo, 1933, p. 199Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 188–200; Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Seventh International Conference of American States, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1938, p. 259Google Scholar; Dziuban, Stanley W., Military Relations between the United States and Canada, 1939–1945, Washington, Department of the Army, 1959, p. 143Google Scholar. See also the comments of the Ecuadorean delegate in Geneva, September 24, 1935—League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement, No. 139, p. 66.

¹⁷ FRUS, 1933 (Vol. 4), p. 129Google Scholar. Senator Dandurand argued that, while “there is no doubt that we have suffered in the economic field” by remaining outside the Union, there W3S an “insuperable” political objection to joining, viz., the danger of becoming involved in disputes between the United States and Latin America—Senate Debates, 05 19, 1931, p. 116Google Scholar.

¹⁸ House of Commons, Standing Committee on External Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, 11 18, 1949, p. 27Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Rosenman, Samuel I. (comp.), The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, New York, Random House, 1938Google Scholar, Macmillan, 1941; 1936 (Vol. 5), p. 600; 1938 (Vol. 7), p. 491–492. In the light of this, the opinions expressed by James Brown Scott at the time are instructive. “The real difficulty,” Dr. Scott claimed, “seems to be that the American Republics are in fear of a rebuff. If they were sure of an affirmative answer to their invitation, it would, I veritably believe, be presented without delay. To my personal knowledge, such has been the situation for a number of years. Indeed, the invitation has more than once been on the verge of issue.” Trotter, , Conference on Canadian-American Affairs, 1937, p. 208Google Scholar.

²⁰ FRUS, 1936 (Vol. 4). p. 11Google Scholar; Humphrey, , The Inter-American System, p. 139, 243, 244, 290Google Scholar. Canada had already acceded to various “inter-American” postal and radio conventions.

²¹ League of Nations Society in Canada, , Monthly News Sheet, 05–06 1939, p. 8Google Scholar.

²² Shepardson, Whitney H., The United States in World Affairs, New York, Harpers, 1939, p. 216–217Google Scholar; New York Times, December 7, 1938, p. 19; Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Governing Board of the Pan American Union, January 5, 1938, Appendix B, p. 3.

²³ FRUS, 1938 (Vol. 5), p. 78–79Google Scholar; Report of the Delegation of the United States of America to the Eighth International Conference of American States, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1941, p. 34–35Google Scholar; Humphrey, , The Inter-American System, p. 249, 253, 287–290Google Scholar; House of Commons Debates, March 30, 1959, P. 2420–2421.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 2421.

²⁵ The Memoirs of Cordell Hull, New York, Macmillan, 1948 (Vol. 2), p. 1480Google Scholar.

²⁶ Langer, William L. and Gleason, S. Everett, The Challenge to Isolation, New York, Harpers, 1952, p. 429–433Google Scholar: FRUS, 1940 (Vol. 2), p. 254–255, 370–371. 744–745Google Scholar. When the British Ambassador suggested that Canadian rather than British guards be sent to Aruba, Hull said “the same objection of this Government applies, although the situation would not be so acute in these circumstances.” Ibid., p. 745.

²⁷ House of Commons Debates, July 31, 1940, p. 2195, and August 6, 1940, p. 2540. Dziuban (p. 144) refers to King's remarks as evidence of “Canada's desire to attend the meeting.” This is not correct, though his other claim, that “the United States discouraged Canadian participation,” was certainly in keeping with past United States policy. It should be noted that the Canadian-American Permanent Joint Board on Defense, set up in August 1940 to “consider in the broad sense the defence of the north half of the Western Hemisphere,” in practice completely ignored the problems of the Caribbean and Central America. Dziuban, , Military Relations between the United States and Canada, p. 26 (n.80), 48Google Scholar.

²⁸ Harvard University Library, Jay Pierrepont Moffat Papers, memos/conv. with Norman Robertson (Canadian Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs), February 14 and 18, April 24, May 28, and July 22, 1941, and April 1 and 21 and June 15, 1942. According to Moffat (United States Minister in Ottawa, 1940–1943), Robertson claimed that the opening of the legation in Chile was “as much in deference to Mr. Welles' wishes as to anything else.” Ibid., March 25, 1942.

²⁹ Franklin Delano Roosevelt Papers, President's Secretary's File—Canada, June 7, 1941. This letter may have been inspired by a hint from Robertson that “an approach in broad general terms” by President Roosevelt or Secretary of State Hull to Ottawa would be more effective than diplomatic intervention in specific problems. Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Robertson, May 28, 1941.

³⁰ Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Berle and King, June 23, 1941.

³¹ Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Vol. 10), p. 181; Sherwood, Robert, Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York, Harpers, 1948, p. 297Google Scholar.

³² Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Robertson, April 24, 1941.

³³ Humphrey, , The Inter-American System, p. 284Google Scholar (n.43) and Moffat Papers, Notes on Visit to Washington, December 1–4, 1941. The previous year, an unofficial Canadian observer to the Havana Conference found “a perfectly kindly feeling on the part of the Latin Americans” to the prospect of Canadian membership, “but no appreciation that it was or might be important.” Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Percy C. Corbett, August 7, 1940.

³⁴ House of Commons Debates, August 6, 1940, p. 2540.

³⁵ Moffat Papers, memos/conv. with Robertson, December 16 and 19, 1941.

³⁶ Moffat Papers, Notes on Visit to Washington, March 2, 3, and 4, 1942.

³⁷ Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Robertson, December 16, 1941.

³⁸ Montreal Gazette, December 18, 1941, p. 1; Montreal Daily Star, December 18, 1941, p. 1, 12; University of Manitoba Library, John W. Dafoe Papers, Box 38, memo, by B. T. Richardson on Department of External Affairs press conference, December 17, 1941.

³⁹ Moffat Papers, memos/conv. with Robertson, December 16, and with King, December 17, 1941 (incorrectly dated the 16th); Roosevelt Papers, President's Secretary's File—Canada 1941, Welles’ memo/conv. with Wrong, December 18, 1941.

⁴⁰ Moffat Papers, memos/conv. with King, December 17, 1941, and January 9, 1942.

⁴¹ Dziuban, , Military Relations between the United States and Canada, p. 62–76Google Scholar; FRUS, 1941 (Vol. 3), p. 129–136Google Scholar; Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Milo Perkins, January 26, 1942.

⁴⁵ Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Keenleyside, December 22, 1941; Notes of Visit to Washington, April 4–11, 1942. Keenleyside, along with Désy, but not Robertson, was “a rabid partisan of joining the Union.” Memo/conv. with Robertson, April 21, 1942.

⁴⁶ House of Commons Debates, August 1, 1942, p. 5146; Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Vol. 2), p. 1480. See also Ottawa Citizen, December 23, 1941, p. 17.

⁴⁴ Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Robertson, December 19, 1941; Roosevelt Papers, President's Secretary's File—Canada, 1941, Welles’ memo/conv. with Wrong, December 18, 1941. Grant Dexter, a wellinformed Ottawa correspondent, forecast that “within the next 12 months, Canada will be proposed as a member of the Union and, if elected, will take her place.” Winnipeg Free Press, January 9, 1942, p. 1.

⁴⁵ Moffat Papers, Notes on Visit to Washington, March 2, 3, and 4, 1942; memo/conv. with Keenley side, March 11, 1942. Moffat interpreted Keenley side's remarks to mean that “nearly every South American country had informed Canada that they hoped she would join the Pan American Union.” Notes on Visit to Washington, April 4–11, 1942. Keenleyside had not canvassed the Central American republics. Dziuban (p. 145) states that “several” Latin American countries had “offered to nominate Canada to participate” in the Rio conference.

⁴⁶ October 15, 1941. Humphrey, , The Inter-American System, p. 284Google Scholar (n.43).

⁴⁷ Moffat Papers, Notes on Visit to Washington, April 4–11, 1942.

⁴⁸ Dziuban, , Military Relations between the United States and Canada, p. 146, 160, 335Google Scholar; FRUS, 1940 (Vol. 3), p. 147–148Google Scholar; Moffat Papers, memo/conv. with Atherton, March 3, 1942; Notes on Visit to Washington, March 2, 3, and 4, 1942. In May 1943, Churchill advocated a postwar Regional Council for the Americas on which Canada would “represent the British Commonwealth,” a prospect which did not appeal to Hull. Churchill, W. S., The Second World War (Vol. 4), Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1950, p. 803Google Scholar; Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Vol. 2), p. 1644–1645.

⁴⁹ Moffat Papers, Notes on Visit to Washington, March 2, 3, and 4, 1942. A previous United States Minister to Canada had noted that Mackenzie King was “inclined far more than the other party to play the game with us.” Roosevelt Papers, President's Secretary's File—Canada, letter of Warren D. Robbins to Roosevelt, December 18, 1934.

⁵⁰ New York Times, September 2, 1943, p. 7; Montreal Gazette, November 17, 1943, p. 11. Both statements were personal and noncommittal. Claxton's was also intended to be off-the-record. See McCarthy's, address to the Institute of Inter-American Affairs, New York, 10 10, 1942Google Scholar; also, New York Times, February 20, 1944, p. 21.

⁵¹ House of Commons Debates, August 4, 1944, p. 5913. Canada had previously joined the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain (1931) and the Inter-American Radio Office (1939), and had attended a number of official and unofficial conferences, mainly of an “inter-American” rather than of a specifically “Pan American” nature.

⁵² Ibid.; Memoirs of Cordell Hull (Vol. 2), p. 1659–1648; Dziuban, , Military Relations between the United States and Canada, p. 147Google Scholar.

⁵³ Ibid., p. 147 (n.24).

⁵⁴ Toronto Globe and Mail, January II, 1945, p. II, and February 5, 1945, p. 20; House of Commons Debates, August 4, 1944, p. 5912; Wartime Information Board, “Canada and the Inter-American System,” Reference Papers, 02 16, 1945 (No. 34)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ New York Times, February 27, 1945, p. 15, and February 28, 1945, p. 17; Report Delegation of United States to Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1946, p. 95Google Scholar; Mouse of Commons Debates, March 20, 1945, p. 23; Dziuban, , Military Relations between the United States and Canada, p. 147Google Scholar. The preamble and first paragraph of the substantive part of the resolution remained unchanged. On his return from the conference, Senator Warren Austin stated, in reply to a question from Senator Fulbright, that:

There was great interest shown in having Canada articulated in some way with this hemispheric arrangement. Everyone desires it. Often, it came up and often discussion arose: “How can we invite this great neighbor of ours into this cooperative effort for peace?”…

Mr. Fulbright. In any case, there was no objection to Canadian entry if it could be brought about?

Mr. Austin. No.… There was no objection. On the contrary, there was a great desire to have that effected. The difficulties involved are somewhat complex at the present moment.

Congressional Record, 03 12, 1945 (Vol. 91, Part 2), p. 2025Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Dziuban, , Military Relations between the United States and Canada, p. 147Google Scholar (n.24), 334–335.

⁵⁷ Congressional Record (Vol. 93, Part 11), p. A1692; Globe and Mail, April 21, 1947, p. 9; Winnipeg Free Press, April 21, 1947, p. 1. Italics added.

⁵⁸ House Cong. Res. 48, May 7, 1947, Congressional Record (Vol. 93, Part 11), p. A2161–A2162. Reintroduced as House Cong. Res. 55 on April 14, 1949— ibid. (Vol. 95, Part 4), p. 4624–4625, 4699. What Pearson actually said was: “‘Why doesn't Canada join the Pan American Union?” The short answer is that we have never been asked. I think I can say, however,… that this lack of an invitation has not caused us any great distress.” Department of External Affairs, Statements and Speeches, 03 8, 1947 (No. 47/7). P. 3Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Letter, George C. Marshall to Charles A. Eaton, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, July 10, 1947.

⁶⁰ House of Commons Debates, March 20, 1945, p. 23; Department of External Affairs, Press Release, 09 4, 1947 (No. 31)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Spencer, Robert, Canada in World Affairs, 1946–1949, Toronto, Oxford, 1959, p. 326–335Google Scholar; Miller, , “Canada and the Pan American Union,” p. 34–38Google Scholar; Vincent Massey, On Being Canadian, Ch. 9. Welles claimed that majority opinion in Western Canada and Quebec favored joining the Union and that “the greater part of the opposition” was “centred in Ontario, and especially, perhaps, in Toronto.” Massey, the leading opponent in Canada of membership, hotly denied that opposition was “confined to any locality,” but instead was “very widespread.” Globe and Mail, April 21, 1947, p. 9.

⁶² Pearson, L. B., “Canada and the North Atlantic Alliance,” Foreign Affairs, 1948–1949 (Vol. 28), p. 374Google Scholar; External Affairs, May 1949, p. 33; Standing Committee on External Affairs, Minutes, 11 18, 1949, p. 20, 27Google Scholar.

⁶³ Ninth International Conference of American States: Report of the Delegation of the United States of America, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1948, p. 14Google Scholar; Vandenberg, Arthur H. Jr, ed., The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1952, p. 370Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ At the Caracas conference in 1954, a Brazilian draft resolution extending an invitation to Canada appeared to have unanimous support but was not formally presented. Roussin, , Le Canada et le système interaméricain, p. ix, 145, 233, 238Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Standing Committee on External Affairs, Minutes, 11 18, 1949, p. 27Google Scholar, and March 5, 1959, p. 15.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 8; House of Commons Debates, July 14, 1960, p. 6298, and July 15, 1960, p. 6374–6375.

⁶⁷ Standing Committee on External Affairs, Minutes, 03 11, 1960, p. 99Google Scholar.