1956-11-28

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the minister to comply with the recent request of the western wheat pools that the interest rate on moneys borrowed exclusively for the handling and movement of grain be reduced from the present rate?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the obvious answer is that the intention will be translated into action, if it is, and announced at that time. However, I must say that I did not hear the precise wording of the question and I will take it as notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether, before this special session ends but after the business announced in the speech from the throne has been completed, the government intends to introduce any legislation of any kind to alleviate the extremely severe shortage of cash on the prairies? That is a grave emergency out there today.


Righi Hon. L. S. St. Laurenl (Prime Minister):: If the emergency becomes as grave as the hon. gentleman seems to suggest, we might perhaps have to meet again. But I have put a notice of motion on the order paper that I intend to move tomorrow to adjourn this session to January 8 at eleven o'clock in the morning unless, in the meantime, events would appear to be such that Mr. Speaker, after discussing the matter with the government, decided that an earlier meeting was required.
81537-8i


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister is aware that thousands of farmers on the prairies have not enough cash on hand to buy winter fuel supplies or other necessities or pay their accounts, taxes or anything else?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that and I would not be able to accept the hon. gentleman's impression as establishing that as a fact.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the Prime Minister this further supplementary question. Is he aware that the Saskatchewan wheat pool, in annual meeting a couple of weeks ago, passed a resolution to the effect that if its demands were not met in the way I have suggested a march on Ottawa was being contemplated?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would hope, if that were contemplated, that wiser counsel would ultimately prevail.
LLater:]


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if his statement with reference to his motion to adjourn the house to January 8 means that the present session will be continued on that date or that the present session will be prorogued and a new session opened on that date?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If nothing now unforeseen happens it would be the intention to have prorogation on the morning of that day and a new session started immediately the same day.



INQUIRY AS TO DELIVERY OF MESSAGE FROM EMPEROR OF JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. house leader a question. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has had a successful visit to Japan and he received a message from the Emperor of Japan addressed to the government and the people of Canada. Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce have an opportunity of delivering that message to this house?


Mr. Macdonnell:: Question.


An hon. Member:: There is a friend.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Canadians were delighted that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was able to pay a visit to Japan and I am sure we are all looking forward to his report on that visit. I would assume that he would deliver that report and the message in the course of the debate on the address during the next session, but of course that would be something for him to decide.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister would say something about the million dollar fire that took place in military buildings within the last 24 hours, damaging equipment, and why the water in that place was turned off?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I am aware of the fire to which the hon. member has just referred, but I have not been provided with any details as to the cause of it or the measure of damage. We have sent the fire warden to Calgary and also a RCEME team to estimate the damage. The statement that the water was turned off has not been verified as yet, and until I have the facts I would rather not comment.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell the house what assistance, if any, will be given by the government to the veteran farmers in the tree fruit area of British Columbia operating under the V.L.A., particularly the Cawston area? These veterans suffered heavily during last winter's severe frost, some losing as high as 70 per cent of their trees.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I believe at the time the departmental estimates were being considered last session this matter came up and I indicated to the house that a survey would be made of the veteran settlements so affected. This survey was initiated at the end of the summer. We had four or five fieldmen make a thorough survey, and a short time ago the reports reached the office of the director of the Veterans Land Act. These reports indicate, as my hon. friend has mentioned, that most

of the veterans affected are in the Cawston area. I believe there are 49 in that development who are affected and whose losses vary from 10 to 70 per cent. The director of the Veterans Land Act is studying the reports received with his officials and he will be making recommendations to the minister.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Carfier):: Since press reports indicate that the Jewish community of Egypt totalling 50,000 persons is threatened with the gravest disaster in contravention of the Geneva convention of 1949, can the minister tell the house whether our government is making any representations to the government of Egypt, or to the United Nations, to take effective steps to safeguard these people against illegal and inhuman treatment before it degenerates to nazi proportions?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have already sent a telegram to our ambassador in Cairo asking him to inquire into this situation.


UNITED NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a reported statement of Mr. Krishna Menon at the United Nations yesterday, which apparently was most critical of Canada. Has the minister any observations to make on that statement, and when he is elucidating his answer to that question will he indicate an answer to the question that he himself propounded yesterday that the commonwealth stood in grave danger of dissolution? Which were the nations that had threatened in any way to remove themselves from the commonwealth?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I have already seen the text of what Mr. Menon said yesterday at the United Nations assembly, and it does not warrant the interpretation given to it by my hon. friend. Mr. Menon was told by a member of our delegation that some uneasiness might well be aroused by a wrong interpretation being given to his observations which dealt with the initiative of the Canadian delegation with respect to the United Nations force. Mr. Menon said that he would

be very regretful indeed if such an interpretation were given; that he did not intend it to be read that way, and it was no reflection of any kind on Canada's initiative in this matter, which he approved. So far as the other part of the question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it was well known that at the time fighting began at Port Said the governments in Karachi, New Delhi and Ceylon were considering the effect of this action on their membership in the British commonwealth of nations. It undoubtedly placed an immediate stress and strain on that membership at that time.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Restigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Has the legal action which has been taken against Forest Protection Limited for $5,700 for a couple of barrels of pin fish been settled?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: The case between the government of Canada and Forest Protection Limited because of the destruction of 800,000 salmon fingerlings is now before the exchequer court.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to ask a supplementary question of the minister. Is he trying to give the impression to the house that these were 30-pound salmon instead of being fish one inch long?


James Sinclair: If the hon. member had
listened to me a moment ago he would have heard that I said 800,000 salmon fingerlings. Most people in New Brunswick understand exactly what a salmon fingerling is.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We had no idea that you were trying to sell salmon fingerlings for such a low price.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works arising out of the answer given to the house yesterday by the Minister of Finance to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). In view of the admission by the Minister of Finance yesterday that recent increases in
Inquiries of the Ministry the interest rate have had a serious effect on home construction in Canada, will the Minister of Public Works assure the house that necessary legislative action will be taken at the next session to encourage an increase in home construction in Canada.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to that is that the government does not announce matters of policy until decisions are made, and when they are made they are announced in the appropriate manner.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is the minister now prepared to admit that home construction has fallen off in Canada, which is something he would not admit a few months ago in this house?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared tc predict that this year will see the higher level of house completions in Canada's history.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Last spring-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Has anything been done by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with reference to an indication he gave last spring that action would be taken to divert aircraft engine repair work to McLennan's foundry at Campbellton to prevent that industry from being wiped out and to provide more employment in that area, which is a depressed area at the present time in regard to employment?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, aircraft repair work in that locality is distributed in accordance with business practice. I have not heard anything recently about McLennan's foundry but I presume that firm gets the same chance at the aircraft repair work that any other maritime firm obtains.



STATEMENT AS TO USE BY CANADIAN INDIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare I wish to answer some questions

Inquiries of the Ministry that were asked on November 27 by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell). They have to do with a drug that is known as peyote.
The first question was as follows:
Has the Department of National Health and Welfare received any indication that the use of peyote is spreading among Canadian Indians?
The answer is that the Department of National Health and Welfare has received reports which would indicate increasing use of peyote in parts of northern Saskatchewan and Alberta. Its use seems to be diminishing in southern Manitoba.
The second question was:
Does the department consider peyote to be a dangerous substance?
The answer is yes. Peyote buttons contain at least nine alkaloids which in large quantities can be harmful and indeed have caused deaths among the Indian population.
The third question was:
Are steps being considered to ban the importation of peyote buttons into Canada, or to otherwise control it?
The answer is that peyote has been declared a drug and as such must be accurately labelled in conformity with the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act. Some shipments of peyote have been seized and returned to the shippers because of improper labelling. The food and drug directorate have intensified their efforts to enforce compliance with the Food and Drugs Act and regulations with respect to the correct labelling of peyote. The situation is being carefully watched.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the minister's prophesied and apparently hoped-for drought in western Canada. Will the minister recommend to his colleagues an immediate start on the South Saskatchewan river development project to take care of this prophesied situation?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have never prophesied a drought in western Canada and I pray that one will not occur, but the fact is that we do have droughts out there occasionally. The only kind of drought we are prophesying and praying for in Saskatchewan at the present time is a drought of C.C.F. votes.
The South Saskatchewan river dam is in very good hands and is being given consideration.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now taking steps to prevent a repetition of the 7,000 delays in settling unemployment insurance claims in northern New Brunswick last year and would he make sure that this will not occur again?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and reply when my estimates are before the house.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration if he is in a position to report to the house on the results of the conference held yesterday in connection with Hungarian refugees. If not, will a report be made to the house in the near future?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as it would take some little time to deal with this matter perhaps it would be preferable to do so when the estimate for Hungarian relief is before the house, I hope later today. There is one thing I should like to say and that is that it was a good conference and there was excellent indication of co-operation from everyone, including the representative of the Ontario government who was there. In that context perhaps I should explain that the only reason a representative of the Ontario government was invited and not representatives from other governments was that the Ontario government had directly approached the federal government with respect to this matter. We would hope to get the same kind of enthusiastic co-operation from all provincial governments that we received from Ontario, particularly in connection with the reception, care and maintenance of these people and the providing of whatever assistance in medical care may be required.
If there are any provincial governments prepared to co-operate in this matter I would be delighted to hear from them as to precisely what they are prepared to do.



SMALL LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government given any consideration to further amending the Bank Act to eliminate to some extent the hardship which now exists with respect to the person borrowing under $200 due to the amendments passed last year?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend would permit me to correct him. The amendments last session were to the Small Loans Act, not to the Bank Act. If I understand his question, it is based on the possibility that a borrower would not be able to borrow from a small loans company.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: The trouble is that a man borrowing a small amount must pay interest by the month; he cannot borrow for two or three months or so, as farmers would like to borrow. He must come back at the end of each month and renew his note.


Walter Edward Harris: That is true only if he borrows from a small loans company, so-called. He can borrow from a bank, if the bank chooses to lend to him, for one month or six months. There has been no change whatever in the practice of banking nor has there been any change in the practice of borrowing through a small loans company. There was an alteration made in the interest rate to be charged by small loans companies.
While I am not sure that there are any small loans companies in the area represented by my hon. friend, I am sure the banks in that area would still lend to a farmer on a normal promissory note for whatever term might be agreeable, assuming that the credit of the farmer was satisfactory.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I understand that the money can be borrowed only by the month and that the interest must be paid at the end of each month; I understand that the loan cannot be made for five or six months.


Walter Edward Harris: I have not been informed about that. If my hon. friend has a case relating to a chartered bank I would be glad if he would give me the details so I can look into it.



THE BANK ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Palleft (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the report correct that it
The Address-Mr. Dufresne is the government's intention to introduce legislation at the next session to amend the Bank Act to raise consumer interest rates? If that report is correct, will the government reconsider its intention?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne is the place where the intentions of the government with respect to legislation are normally disclosed, although, of course, they are disclosed in public announcements in the meantime. I would not want to make any answer beforehand, for reasons which I think will be obvious to everyone. However, consumer credit is one of the matters that is under constant consideration, having in mind present conditions. I would not want to go beyond that.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING UNFAVOURABLE BALANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What steps are being taken or are under consideration to correct Canada's very unfavourable trade balance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No steps are being taken. Until we see harmful effects from the unfavourable trade balance, we are not prepared to cut off supplies of capital goods which make the present expansion program in this country possible.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, November 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Legare for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.
(Translation):
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, last night at 10 o'clock, before I resumed my seat on adjournment, the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Dupuis), who apparently does not wish to take part in this important debate, for reasons of discipline, perhaps, or for other reasons upon which I do not have to pass judgment, has asked me to tell the house what I thought of the Anglo-French intervention in the Middle East and more particularly, I suppose, in the Suez canal area.
As I am not in the habit of shirking questions that are put to me, and being a member of a political party in which due respect is

The Address-Mr. Dufresne held for differences of opinion I will give my honourable friend the benefit of my personal opinion in the matter.
Britain and France decided to intervene after Israel had invaded Egyptian territory. Some people consider that action as an aggression because, they contend, it is contrary to the principles of the United Nations charter, which condemns aggression against any nation by one or several countries, whatever be the purpose of that violation. On that point, and if it is truly an aggression, personally I therefore find it impossible to approve the action of Britain and France. On the other hand, however, events have shown that the intervention of Britain and of France in that conflict,-an intervention which I would call preventive,-aimed at preserving and protecting the vital interests, not only of the two great powers concerned, but also of all the nations of the western hemisphere.
By now, we all know something that we did not know at the time of the Anglo-French intervention. The Russians had already built up in Egypt a very considerable amount of war material, ready for use as soon as Soviet troops could be rushed to the scene to take over the control of Suez, thus dealing a mortal blow to the economic life of all the nations of the western hemisphere.
We are now aware of the true situation, and it is obvious that if England and France had not taken action, all this vital area would by now have fallen into the hands of the Russians, aided and abetted by their faithful servant, president Nasser of Egypt.
One by one, all the Arab states would have had no choice but to submit to the infernal dictatorship of the Kremlin. My statements are surely borne out by this morning's news. As the United Nations could not tolerate such an invasion and, knowing that Moscow is bent on world domination and wishes to enslave people by resorting to the most despicable means,-the facts are there to prove it,-we would have had to face a third world war, even more dreadful than the first two, a war which not only would have caused untold destruction but would have doubtless annihilated mankind.
If on the one hand I cannot approve the violation of a pact which forbids all form of aggression, on the other hand, being acquainted with the facts and aware of the fatal results which would have inevitably followed without this intervention, I will refrain from berating or even criticizing the action taken by England and France, in the Middle East, in such circumstances.
I would have liked, however, to have access to the sources of information available to the government through the United Nations. I

would have hastened to warn the United Nations, whose noble task it is to preserve world peace, and I would have used all my influence, as a member of that important world organization, to prevent any aggression from either side.
In conclusion, I will simply add this:	I
leave to the future and to history the task of passing judgment on the countries concerned.
Reverting to the matter I was discussing yesterday just before adjournment, I said I was glad that the parliament of Canada had been called into a special session to discuss the situation in Hungary and to offer a generous contribution to help that valiant nation.
The amount of one million dollars which we are being asked to vote for this purpose is certainly not exaggerated. It seems far more appropriate than the amount originally suggested.
There is no one here, I am quite sure, who will refuse to help this courageous people. While it will not benefit those who laid down their lives for liberty, we must not forget that, because of their sacrifice, widows and orphans are left behind, and that Christian charity, no less than a simple sense of duty, makes it imperative that we extend a helping hand to them.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) informed us yesterday of the terms of a letter which he had written to premier Bulganin, of Russia. I am not sure whether he did this in his own name or in that of the government which he heads. It would seem to me to be far more important, in the present circumstances, now that the house is gathered together to discuss this most difficult and serious matter, for us to adopt a resolution to condemn the barbarous conduct of the Russians, in Budapest more particularly.
Last week, at the Palace of Chaillot, in Paris, the fifteen member nations of NATO unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the inhuman treatment meted out by the Russians to the unfortunate Hungarian people. I would like to acquaint the house with this resolution.
Whereas the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty have asserted their determination "to safeguard the freedom of their peoples, their common heritage and their civilization, based on principles of democracy, individual freedom and the rule of law"; and
Whereas the events which occurred in Hungary in the course of the last few weeks have demonstrated conclusively that the Soviet union will not hesitate to use force to crush human liberty;
By this resolution, the second Conference of Parliamentarians of the member states of NATO;
1. Express their profound indignation at the use of brutal force against the Hungarian people who sought to govern itself according to the best traditions of human liberty;

2. Assert their conviction that, because of these measures, the unity and solidarity of member states of NATO are more essential than ever for the maintenance of peace and collective security against all aggression.
Mr. Speaker, because various standing orders of the house have been suspended for this special session, I am prevented from moving a similar resolution. But if the right hon. Prime Minister so chose, he might move the resolution himself, asking the house to pass it, and it would certainly be unanimously carried. This would once more prove that the Canadian parliament is determined to rebuke those who, by every means, would destroy human freedoms. I hope the right hon. Prime Minister will accede to my request, and I thank him in advance for doing so.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the few remarks I had to make and, before resuming my seat, I would like to know the position of the right hon. Prime Minister with regard to the resolution I just read out to him, and of which I have sent him copies in French and English.
(Text) :


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a few words in connection with these extremely important matters which are before this house and, as a matter of fact, before the country and the world today. I think that this is the third special session that I have attended since I first came to parliament in 1935. Our first special session had to do with the second world war. The second one had to do with a railway strike which was settled in a very short time. This third one has to do with another military matter which is greatly disturbing not only us but all other sections of the world today.
I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Legare) and the seconder (Mr. Weselak) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The speeches were short. They were to the point and, from their point of view I would say, very good. The speech from the throne itself was very short, as was to be expected. While it was very short, it was very important. It dealt first with the international situation connected with hostilities in the Middle East and secondly with the situation in Hungary. Both of these situations are connected. They are the results of the work of our communist friends in different parts of the world. As a matter of fact, the trouble in all parts of the world today I think could be very well left on the doorstep of
The Address-Mr. Brooks Russia and the communists throughout the world. I hope, before this debate is over, we will hear more opinions from members in all sections of this house. There seems to be quite a difference of opinion in Canada, and I think the House of Commons is the sounding board upon which these opinions should be expressed and where definite decisions should be made so the people of this country may feel their best interests are being looked after. I hope that we may have an expression of opinion on the situation from our sister province of Newfoundland, because I do believe the people of that island are becoming quite disillusioned with the situation they have found here in Canada since they first joined.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I say this is a very important debate. It is a very delicate situation. I cannot help but express disappointment in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day. We look to the Prime Minister, who is our leader in matters of this kind, to give us a lead. We look to him to lay down definite policies. We look to him to review a situation of this kind, not with prejudice but coolly and collectedly, so that the people of the country may know just what is taking place. But, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, we heard first a long dissertation from the Prime Minister concerning the name of the battalion which has been selected to be sent to the Far East. There is no one in this country who objects in any way to the name of the battalion that is being sent. The Queen's Own Rifles is an old and honoured battalion, one of the finest battalions that Canada has ever produced. We know of its record down through the years; its splendid record in the first great war and in Hong Kong in the second war. So far as the people of Canada were concerned, there was no necessity tc speak with reference to the Queen's Own.
Nor do I believe, Mr. Speaker, there was any necessity for the Prime Minister to indulge in what was a gratuitous criticism- no question about it-of Great Britain and France for the action they have taken. As some of the newspapers have said, I believe the people of Canada felt that if the Prime Minister did not agree he could have, more in sorrow than in anger, spoken his mind and given the people of Canada his opinion. It is very unfortunate now that not only this

The Address-Mr. Brooks country but all the countries of the world today, after having passed through two world wars, are faced with the possibility of another. We recall that we were told the first great war was a war to end wars. Then, along came the second world war, almost as devastating as the first. Now, again the peoples of the world fear that they are under the shadow of the sword.
I think, Mr. Speaker, so far as the situation with regard to Great Britain and France is concerned, there has been a lot of misunderstanding-possibly that is an understatement. There has been a great deal of muddled thinking, not only in sections of this country but, more important, in the great country to the south of us. When Britain and France intervened in the Israel-Egypt fight, their announced goal at that time was to protect the Suez canal. I believe every reasonable man or woman in this country believes that today. The purpose was to protect it against war's destructiveness by occupying the canal area and using this line as a means of keeping the warring armies of Egypt and Israel apart until, as it was hoped, the United Nations was capable of taking over the policing of that area. This was their avowed intention. I believe that people will understand that was the reason they went there when all this muddled thinking and misunderstanding in the United States, Canada and other parts of the world is cleared away and the facts are known.
President Eisenhower himself, speaking of the Middle East some time ago, described it as the region most strategically vital on the face of the earth. It is the lifeline, not only of Great Britain and France but of practically all the nations of Europe. Great Britain and France saw that their lifeline was in real danger and they acted quickly, as they had to do, because there was no United Nations force to take over at the time.
Why is this area so important? Well, geography explains that to us. The Middle East is the crossroads of the world. It has been, not only for the past few years but for hundreds of years, one of the most important sections of the world. In addition to being the crossroads of the world it is where Europeans, Africans and Asians meet. It is also the greatest producer of oil in the world today. The economy of any country would die if it did not have access to oil. Great Britain depends to a great extent on the oil that she gets from the Middle East. The life of France depends on it to an even greater extent. Italy, Belgium and all these small countries depend on the oil that they get from the Middle East. These are the reasons
why it is so important. As a matter of fact, we are told that there are more oil possibilities in the Middle East than in all the rest of the world put together. If this supply were cut off, these nations would be left in serious trouble.



THE LATE OWEN C. TRAINOR

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that under the circumstances the hon. gentleman who has the floor will allow me to make a sad announcement to the house. Another of our colleagues has just passed away in his room in this building as a consequence of a heart attack. Dr. Trainor was a gentleman who had the respect of all his fellow members in this house, and I am sure as to all those who had occasion to have personal contacts with him their real affection as well as their respect. I think we should, as a mark of our deep sense of loss, suspend even this debate notwithstanding the urgency of the matters we are considering until at least the end of the afternoon, and not resume consideration of our business until eight o'clock this evening. If I have the unanimous approval of hon. members I will move:
That this house do now rise and do not meet again until eight o'clock this evening.
I do that as a mark of our sense of deep loss and of our very sincere sympathy with the late doctor's family. I do so move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Mr, M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that we entirely agree with what the Prime Minister has suggested. We join in the feeling of loss and sorrow that he has expressed.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: We would like to support the Prime Minister's motion. I think it is only right that we adjourn until eight o'clock this evening as a mark of respect for our departed colleague. At the same time I should like to express our sense of shock and sorrow at the passing of this good man.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a great shock to the whole house and we in this party feel it very keenly that another of our members has passed on with such tragic suddenness. We certainly agree with the mark of respect the Prime Minister has indicated we should show at this time.
Dr. Trainor has been one of our colleagues and a close friend. Even when his health was not very good he insisted on being here to try to devote his full energies to our common cause in this session. We all join the Prime Minister in extending keen sympathy
[Mr. Brooks.l

The late Owen C. Trainor
to his family. I am sure everyone feels his	AFTER RECESS
loss keenly and I think the Prime Minister's
idea of adjourning until eight o'clock out The house resumed at eight o clock, of respect to our departed colleague is a
good one.	IMMIGRATION


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do wish to say to the Acting Leader of the Opposition that we extend to him and to all the members of his party who were perhaps more closely associated with the late Dr. Trainor than the other members of the house the deep sympathy which we feel for them as well as for his wife, his son and all his friends both inside and outside this chamber.


Hon. Siuarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister from the province from which Dr. Trainor came, I think I should express the very deep sense of grief which all of the members from our province in this house especially feel at his sudden passing. Dr. Trainor held a prominent medical administrative position in our city of Winnipeg and had not only the respect of all of the members of his profession and all of the members of his own party, but the respect of all citizens as well. He was very efficient in his administrative and medical work and was universally beloved and respected by people in all walks of life and of all political beliefs. I am sure that we who knew him perhaps a little better than those from other provinces have a special reason for feeling very badly at the news that I heard only three or four minutes ago from my colleague the Minister of National Revenue. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing the doctor personally, I think, have a special feeling of sympathy for the members of his family in their sudden loss.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps as a member from the city of Winnipeg I might add just a word. It will be a shock to the citizens of our city to learn that Dr. Trainor has passed on this morning. He was indeed, as the Minister of Justice has said, highly respected in Winnipeg and we feel very deeply his loss at this time.
I should like on behalf of the people of Winnipeg-I am sure I can do it on this occasion-as well as on behalf of all of the members of the group with which I am associated in this house, to express our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Trainor and to Dr. Trainor, the son of our late colleague.
Motion agreed to and the house rose at 11.58 a.m.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF FREE PASSAGE FOR HUNGARIAN REFUGEES

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if I could have leave to revert to motions I should like to make a brief statement about Hungarian refugees.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to revert to motions at this time in order to make the statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other evening when I spoke on the address I reported to the house everything which the government had decided to do up to that time; but this afternoon the government had an opportunity, for tragic reasons, to give further consideration to this question, and it was decided that as almost all these refugees have nothing with them, have nothing they can bring with them except the clothes they are wearing, and as many of them have little or no money, it was not reasonable to expect them to try to establish themselves in this country with a debt over their heads at the very start.
It has therefore been decided by the government not to make the assisted passage a loan but to make it free. This policy, of course, will also apply to those who have already arrived and to those who are en route and who have given an undertaking to make repayment.
I think perhaps I should also tell hon. members the government decided this afternoon, in order to be quite satisfied everything was being done that could and should be done to move as quickly as possible to Canada those Hungarian refugees who wish to come here, that it might be desirable for a member of the government to go to Vienna to see that everything was being done that could be done. I am proposing therefore to leave on Friday afternoon, and I expect to be in Vienna on Saturday.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Legare for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Brooks
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker,
I will now continue my remarks where I left off this morning. My speech, as all hon. members know, was interrupted by the adjournment of the house due to the tragic death of my dear friend and colleague Owen Trairior, and I wish to join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) and others in their words of sympathy and condolence to Mrs. Trainor and the members of the family.
Before proceeding with the remarks I intended to make I would like to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) and the government on the announcement they have made. It seems to me a very obvious attitude for the government to take. As the minister has said, these people have no money; and to expect them to pay their passage to Canada without assistance would be asking of them something which would be impossible. I am glad they are having free passage and I assume, Mr. Speaker, our government is doing the same for them as the United States and every other government that is receiving Hungarian refugees.
We hope the visit of the minister to Vienna will assist in moving them more rapidly to this country. Our ministers have a habit of travelling; they travel all over the world on the slightest provocation, but if this visit will really assist the Hungarian refugees and expedite their passage to this country I am sure we in the opposition have no objection at all to the minister leaving the house. No doubt we will miss him somewhat, nevertheless if he is doing some good in Vienna we will be very pleased indeed.


An hon. Member:: Let him stay there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what is called
praising with faint damns, is it not?


William Earl Rowe: They are in the air most of
the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not so faint at that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: At the time of the adjournment this morning, Mr. Speaker, I had spoken of what I considered the muddled thinking and the great misunderstanding and confusion that existed in the world and among certain of the western nations regarding Great Britain and France and the readiness which we regretted on the part of certain quarters to assume that two of the oldest and most honourable nations of the world, France and Great Britain, had committed an act of naked aggression; two nations which I suppose have done more to promote civilization in this

world and have done more in past years to assist smaller nations than any other two nations in the world. I think that attitude is to be greatly regretted.
I was also speaking of the importance of the Middle East to the western world and particularly to Europe. I had mentioned the fact that today oil was the very lifeblood of the industry today not only of Great Britain and France but all the nations of Europe. I had spoken of the fact that the Suez canal was, is and has been the lifeline of the European nations. I said we realized the great anxiety that existed on the part of these nations in considering that this lifeline might have been endangered.
As well as the importance of the Middle East to the western world, I think it might be well to speak of the explosive situation that exists in that particular part of the universe in its attitude toward other parts of the world. There is no great unity among the Arab nations and there has been no great stabilizing factor in the Middle East since British troops were withdrawn from the canal zone a few years ago. Someone has said, and I believe it is a fact, that the only unity there is in the Arab world today is their unity in the hatred they have of the Israeli nation, so it is no wonder that nations are very much concerned over the situation we find today.
Now, what has been the policy of Great Britain in the past regarding the Middle East? For many years Great Britain has been the stabilizing factor in the Arab world. Great Britain understood the situation. Great Britain, as Churchill said not so long ago, has had a long and honourable association with the Arab nations. It was Great Britain in the first world war that relieved these nations of practical bondage under the Ottoman empire. The soldiers of Great Britain fought for the freedom of the Arab nations. It was Great Britain which helped to set up these nations, provided protection for them and saw that there was some established form of government in the six or seven nations which were created at that time.
As far as Egypt is concerned, we speak about the proposed Aswan dam. Hon. members know that at her own expense Great Britain built not one dam but five or six dams in that country not only for irrigation but also for the development of industry. She helped to build railways in different parts of the country and bridges across the Nile. She spent her money freely for the assistance of those people. That has been the policy of the British government for many years as far as the Middle East is concerned.

What happened when Great Britain left? A vacuum was created and there was no nation which could control not only the Arab nations but any other nation which tried to exploit the area. The fact that she moved out created a danger to all the nations in the Arab world. She was asked to move out, and she was guaranteed that when she did there would be some force in the area to take over and control the situation.
What has been United States policy? As we know, today the United States is the leading nation of the western world. We all have great respect and regard for the United States, because they are our neighbours, they are the same people as we are. But we know also that the United States has had little experience as a leading nation; she lacks knowledge and understanding. After the British were moved out of this area the policy of the United States was to arm the Arabs. We were told that by arming the Arabs they would be able to protect not only their own interests but the interests of all other nations in that section.
What has been the result? In 1954 a delegation consisting of 20 men from every walk of life in the United States visited Arabia, Egypt and all the Middle Eastern countries to see what was going on, and when they came back they made a report to President Eisenhower. They said it had been a great mistake for the United States and other nations to ask Great Britain to leave, because when she had left the only stabilizing influence in that area had gone with her. They went on to say that it was a great mistake for the United States to think that by arming the Arab nations they could take the place of the forces which had been there before. I have here a book which I am sure most hon. members have read and which is entitled "Security and the Middle East". This book contains the recommendations made to President Eisenhower, among which were the following:
There are no stable governments in the Arab world. Most important, no Arab population can be counted on to support the west . .	. arms are
certain to be used either to put down internal rebellion or to attack Israel.
How true that has turned out to be. As I said a few moments ago, the only unity to be found among the Arab nations was their hatred of Israel, the only nation which the western world could count upon as its friend. That has been the policy of the United States up to the present time. I should like to read, if I may, an article which appeared recently in the New York Times. Dealing with the policy of the United States it said:
Our policy in the Middle East for some years has been weak, tentative, groping. From the moment Nasser made his arms deal with the Soviet union
The Address-Mr. Brooks in September, 1955, it should have been clear that he was a great danger to the democratic west.
The situation has been especially clear for a few weeks. It is not being cynical to say that moral principles and the laudable desire to "let the United Nations do it" have clouded the issues. The realities of power politics were what everyone should have kept his eyes on. Russia is not being moral. Russia does not give a hoot about the United Nations.
There could have been no truer statement than that.
They saw their opening in the Middle East and they went for it. If they succeed in controlling the Persian gulf oil fields and the Suez canal- even just by denying them to us-the Soviet union is going to be a greater world power than the United States. This is simple geography, economics and, above all, power politics. Nothing succeeds like success in this game. If we cannot protect the Middle East from the Russian communists, the free world will lose much of Africa and Asia. We should have no illusions on this score.
That is taken from the New York Times, one of the four great newspapers in the world. The article concludes:
The Russians respect strength. So do the Egyptians. So do the Arabs. At least as far as the Russians and President Nasser are concerned, we can safely say they respect nothing else. We have this strength. Let us be prepared to use it and make the Russians understand that we are so prepared. That will almost surely stop the "volunteers" for Egypt. That is the way to keep the peace if-as we all must suppose-the Russians really want peace.
That has been the policy of the United States. That is the criticism which their own people make of that policy. What has been the Russian policy? The Russians have never contributed anything to the advance of the Arab nations. They have until recently stood on the outside. What have they been doing in recent years? They have been supplying them with arms. Israel captured $50 million worth Russian arms in the recent fighting. Russia has also sent to Egypt and other Arab nations hundreds of mechanics and technicians to instruct in the use of those arms. With a rate of illiteracy as high as 80 or 90 per cent the Arab people were not able to operate the tanks and other technical weapons which must be used in a war today, and Russia has been supplying these people. Russia for some time has been stirring up trouble among the Arab nations in the Middle East. Russia is backing Syria today as she backed Egypt. That is the condition which France and Great Britain found in those countries a few weeks ago.
I have tried to point out the conditions which existed in the Middle East after Great Britain was forced out some two or three years ago. At that time Great Britain maintained a force of 80,000 men to protect the Suez canal. As I say, the

The Address-Mr. Brooks recommendations to President Eisenhower by 20 leading men in the United States suggested that it had been a great mistake tor the United States and other countries to insist upon Great Britain moving out. It left a vacuum, and as they point out nature abhors a vacuum. We are up against this position today, that there is no stable influence there. The United Nations and some of the western nations are insisting that Great Britain and France move out. Great Britain and France have said that they are prepared to move out, that all they want is some stable influence there to take their place when they leave. They realize, as I am sure all members of this house must realize and as the civilized world today must realize, that if there is no stable influence there Russia will come in and the vacuum will be filled by the communists.
We turn to the United Nations. It has a tremendous job. It is a tremendous problem that is being faced. I listened to the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday, and I must say that I enjoyed his speech much more than I did the Prime Minister's. I feel that if the minister did not make so many trips to Ottawa for advice from the government we would probably get better results from the United Nations as far as Canada is concerned.
However, be that as it may, the United Nations has voted to send a police force to the Middle East. How large is this force to be? I listened to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), and I was very much taken with his arguments. We cannot just send a force there composed of a few foot soldiers. As the hon. member pointed out, it must be a balanced force. Surely the United Nations appreciated the situation. That is a term that all military men will understand. Those responsible must have looked at the situation and tried to determine how large and what type of force would be necessary to police the Middle East. That should have been done and surely it was done. If it was not the failure to do so was a serious shortcoming on the part of the people dealing with this situation.
I would expect that the secretary general, Mr. Hammarskjold, who went to Egypt, on his return would have gone into this situation very thoroughly with the military advisers connected with the United Nations. I would expect that the secretary general when he came back to the United Nations would have gone into the matter thoroughly with General Burns, a Canadian general of whom we are very proud, a man I know well and with whom I have been associated in connection with veterans affairs and other

matters on numerous occasions. Surely General Burns was asked what forces he considered necessary for the patrolling and police duties required in the Middle East.
If General Burns has been told, surely the Minister of National Defence has been told what is required from Canada. We have not yet heard from one member of the government what the requirements of the United Nations force may be and how large it will be. Surely the House of Commons, sitting in special session at this time, is entitled to this information. We should be told whether a force of 6,000, 10,000 or 20,000 men is required from the contributing nations. Surely we should be told by our own Minister of National Defence whether Canada should supply an armoured force, whether we should supply a regiment or just what it is that Canada is supposed to supply.
We know that nations such as Norway, Sweden, Colombia, Canada, New Zealand and so on have volunteered to supply men. These men speak different languages and come from many countries. Surely General Burns will have some trouble in controlling a force of this kind. These men are going into a desert. Canadian soldiers are going to a country entirely different from any country they have ever gone to before. That is also true of the Norwegians, the Swedes and all these people. We should know whether we are getting the type of men for the police force who are best suited for the particular land to which they are going. We know that Great Britain and France have had a hundred years or more experience in training for fighting or police work, whatever you may call it, in the desert But the Norwegians, Swedes and Canadians are men who come from a northern climate, and we are wondering whether they are the men best suited for this particular job.
These are things on which the United Nations must have been advised by Mr. Hammarskjold and General Burns; and if the United Nations were so advised, that information should have been passed on either by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence to this parliament which is being asked to vote money to send this force to the Middle East. It is not my intention to say anything more in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, there is someone
applauding.


William Earl Rowe: He does not like it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He does not say anything himself, so perhaps he is a little jealous of anyone else who does try to say something. We hope sincerely that the United Nations

can handle this situation. As I said a moment ago, it is a most difficult problem. I think we quite realize what the situation would have been in the Middle East if we had depended entirely upon the United Nations. It is about four weeks since the trouble started in the Middle East. We are told by the minister that in that time the United Nations has been able to get together
1,700	men and transport them to the Middle East.
We all want peace. I am sure that every nation in the world today is desirous of peace. We wish the United Nations or any other organization trying to correct such situations the very best in their endeavour to maintain peace throughout the world. I am sure the Arabs would be better off with peace. I am sure Israel would be better off with peace. For five years there has been no peace as far as that country is concerned. I am sure that Great Britain, the United States, yes, even the ordinary man in Russia and the satellite countries today, all peoples in the world; are anxious to have peace in the world. As I said a moment ago, I do wish the United Nations Godspeed in the effort it is making to maintain peace, but I think our government should tell the people of Canada just what is being done in order to assure peace in this section of the world.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this chamber we heard some words that have caused me very deep concern, and I am sure others were similarly affected. I refer to the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as recorded on page 51 of Hansard: "It is bad to be a chore boy of the United States." I do not think he meant the tense or wording of that phrase to be just as it is, namely "It is bad to be a chore boy of the United States". That is a direct admission that we are a chore boy, an admission that he has found it bad to be such a chore boy. Then he went on to say this:
It is equally bad to be a colonial chore boy running around shouting, "Ready, aye, ready".
As I said, I am concerned because I wonder what prompted such words and such thinking, or what thinking was behind those words. In that last sentence there must be some thought of incidents in which Canada has been a colonial chore boy. I would hate to think so, because I do not believe that in the history of this nation we have ever been forced to accept such a role. As I say, I was sorry to hear those words used, but it is possible that under the provocation and in the heat of the debate the meaning was not such as I have taken from them.
The Address-Mr. McLeod
I now wish to get on with the subject that we are down here to discuss. As our leader said the other night, we are not here to play politics. We feel that any effort seriously to embarrass or to defeat the government at this time would have no other effect than to delay a solution to the problem, something which I am sure we are all extremely anxious to see brought about. In seeking that solution I will say right off the bat that we believe the solution offered is the only alternative to the situation that exists at the present time in the Middle East. But that situation, Mr. Speaker, we believe can be attributed in no small measure to bungling on the part of this government and of the government of the United States.
We support the government in the matter of its Hungarian relief policy. We are glad to see that the amount given out earlier to the press as $200,000 has been increased to $1 million. But we still realize that that is a meagre amount from a country so wealthy as is this one. In fact I believe it just amounts to about 20 cents on every $1,000 that our government will collect by way of taxes and so on over the next year. I was also glad to hear, just a few moments ago, the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that these refugees, if you want to call them such, will not be burdened with the expense of their transportation to this country.
As to this police force, as our leader said and as I have said, we support it strongly. We support a police force in this instance that is organized to control the disputed area of the Sinai peninsula and of the Suez canal. However, yesterday our Secretary of State for External Affairs envisioned a police force on a much different scale, namely a police force that would be permanently at the beck and call of the United Nations for service anywhere at any time without our immediate sanction.
With that type of police force, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that we are in complete disagreement. It is not our belief that we should surrender our sovereignty and give up absolute control in such an important matter as this. Therefore before we would commit ourselves to such a widened service for the force, we would want to be further consulted; and I am confident that it should be the parliament of Canada that should make the decision with respect to any future change that might be deemed necessary.
To get on from that matter, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we strongly support the British commonwealth of nations and believe that this country must make every effort to

The Address-Mr. McLeod heal the breach that has been caused by what I assert was too hasty action on our part in the present crisis. When everything is known of the situation that exists as between Egypt and the powers of Britain and France, I think possibly there will be a different decision and a different thought in the minds of some of the leaders of the world. I have a great deal of confidence in the years of diplomatic tact that Britain has shown over past generations in bringing various parts of her empire to the stage where self-government was possible. At the same time, this same empire was the great stabilizing influence for peace in the world. The leader of the C.C.F. pointed out this fact the other evening and did it very well. I therefore need not elaborate further.
I have a great deal of respect for the close relationship that has existed for generations between Britain and Canada. We owe a great deal to Britain, Mr. Speaker, and we have on every occasion until the present done our best to acknowledge that debt. But I feel that now something has happened. What is behind this rift that has occurred? In common with many other people in the world at the present time I think we are safe in believing that the British commonwealth is on the brink of disaster. I lay the blame in large measure on the policies of this government in the present crisis. We have switched our course in order to tie in with United States policies set up by-and I hate to use the word when it comes to describing diplomatic agents and people learned in international diplomacy- a bunch of amateurs. We have committed ourselves to follow the United States pathway and to follow United States policies that express such confusion and vacillation as I am sure have not been expressed in the approach to any great international problem by any other leading power of the world at any time.
I am not making that statement on the strength of my own observations. I am borne out by many statements by United States students of world affairs. I have here an article by Walter Lippmann. It is headed "U.S. Appeasement Failed. Nasser 'Forced' Conflict". We see used in that heading the words "U.S. Appeasement Failed". Along with every other member of this house I hate that word "appeasement". How the Americans scoffed and sneered a few years ago when an Englishman, with an umbrella on his arm, made the trip to Munich, and has ever since then been branded as the great appeaser of all time. The thinking at that time found great fault with this method of appeasing dictators. Today, according to Mr. 
Lippmann, the whole policy which they have followed in this crisis has been branded as one of appeasement.
What has happened in this great nation to the south to cause that change of heart? Today, when Britain is backing away from appeasement we find this nation, possibly the most powerful in the world, willing to go hat in hand to one of the dictators of the world in an effort to try and appease, to find a settlement by accepting dictates from that dictator. I could back up this statement, Mr. Speaker, by editorials which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post. This magazine has written very strongly of the blunderings in United States foreign policy. However, I do want to put on the record a few words by Ernest K. Lindley, a writer in Newsweek, the issue of November 26, 1956. In an article entitled, "Our Stand in the Crisis", he has this to say. He has reviewed the situation and then he concludes with these words:
As this brief outline suggests, our government's policy in the Middle Eastern crisis is not yet completely clear.
Remember, this is as late as November 26.
In the first shock of the Israeli-French-British actions it was coloured by anger. It overlooked, momentarily, the aggressive ambitions and actions of Nasser. It seemed to lose sight of what should have been one of our primary objectives: To keep the Russians out. Second and third thoughts have moved our policy toward a somewhat better balance.
Hoover-
This is a reference to the under-secretary in the United States, and these are his words:
"We have a chance for a fresh start". This applies also to American policy in the Middle East, which cannot be cleared of responsibility for the dangerous mess. Our wavering course after Nasser's seizure of the canal led directly to the present crisis.
This is an indictment, Mr. Speaker, by a keen student of international affairs published in one of the leading magazines of the United States. The United States policy stands condemned in the United States by many of her own experienced students of international and world affairs, yet she seems to chart the course that this Canadian government chooses to follow and the Canadian people are asking why.
In his speech yesterday our Secretary of State for External Affairs tried to excuse the lack of United States interest by referring to the Panama canal. These words appear at page 52 of Hansard for November 27, 1956:
The vital importance of the Suez to western Europe is perhaps not appreciated in Washington, and it might have been better appreciated there if this situation could have been related by them to the Panama canal.

I am sure we are safe in asking ourselves what the actions of the United States would have been had they been faced in Panama with a situation similar to that with which the British were faced in Suez. I believe that is not an excuse for United States taking the attitude which it has taken. If the United States is going to assume the importance of the No. 1 nation, both militarily and financially, in the world, she has to have an outlook that embraces the world and not just the Panama canal. She has to see the Suez as well.
It is this problem with which we are faced, and the job that faces us now is to try to get a permanent solution of the Arab-Israel problem. This has to be done. I have an editorial here from the Vancouver Sun of November 20 and the heading is, "Curb Nasser Now". I think we are all agreed that so long as Nasser is allowed to dictate policies, even telling the members who are contributing to the police force what sort of technicians, what sort of troops and even what shall be the names of their regiments, we will not get very far in settling these questions.
Then, following the settlement of this great question, the one problem which concerns me greatly is the necessity for rebuilding and straightening out the twisted framework of the commonwealth of nations. I should like to read a very few sentences from an editorial in the Vancouver Sun of November 14, 1956:
Canadians ought to follow the example of those Britons who appear to be doing some quiet thinking about the future of the commonwealth as a result of the Anglo-French military action In Egypt.
Then a little farther down it says:
But no matter what time tells in this regard we have to worry about whether the commonwealth will ever be the same.
It is that, Mr. Speaker, which is causing a lot of concern to good Canadian citizens. This is advice that the government must heed. I must admit that there is a place in this world for the United Nations. We need the United Nations, and it could be a wonderful instrument for the preservation of peace and sanity in the world. But let us not forget the wonderful power for peace and good will the commonwealth has been, and let us bend every effort to repair the breaches that exist today.
I have drawn attention to the changes that have taken place in the composition of the British Empire. These changes have come about by evolution and not by revolution. We were, within the memory of many in this chamber, a colony of Great Britain, although we were not a colony that had to do the
The Address-Mr. Knowles bidding of Great Britain. At that time one of the greatest Canadians, I believe, used a few well chosen words to express our position in that empire. I believe you all remember them. They were, "Daughter am I in my mother's house but mistress in my own". Those words were true while we were a part of that great British Empire. Today, through evolution, we have become a part of the great British commonwealth of nations. We are no longer a daughter in our mother's house but rather, Mr. Speaker, we could say, "Sister am I in my sister's house, but mistress in my own".
Let us foster such a spirit and such a feeling, so this great commonwealth can continue to be an association of nations working together in harmony and peace and being the great bulwark of freedom they have been in the past. I say to this government that in the achievement of this spirit lies the greatest problem we have to face at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I wish at the outset to express our wholehearted approval of the announcement made at eight o'clock this evening by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning further steps the government of Canada is prepared to take to assist Hungarian refugees. We believe that in taking these further steps the government is simply giving expression to what is in the hearts of the Canadian people. I think this is a time to congratulate the Canadian people on the ways in which they have expressed their desire that everything possible be done to assist these refugees; indeed, I think the press of Canada is to be congratulated on the campaign it has carried on during the past few weeks urging the Canadian government to open its heart so far as the Hungarian refugees are concerned.
In relation to the situation in the Middle East which has brought us to this special session of parliament, Mr. Speaker, it seems to us in this group that there are two purposes to which this House of Commons should address itself. In the first place we feel that we, the representatives of the Canadian people, should be indicating very clearly good, solid and strong Canadian support for the efforts which our Canadian representatives at the United Nations have made to establish the rule of law and achieve peace in the Middle East.
The second purpose to which we feel this House of Commons should address itself is that of making it clear to the government of this country that there is still a great deal more to be done, and if we feel that there is much more to be done, particularly at

The Address-Mr. Knowles the United Nations, it seems to us that we should get this debate over as soon as we can so the Secretary of State for External Affairs might get back to New York and get on with the job.
We offer no apology for supporting, on occasion, policies brought before parliament by the government, even though we may oppose that government. When, in our view, the government brings before this house something that is wrong, something that is detrimental to the interests of Canada, we say so. Indeed, we do more than say so; we do everything we can to block the government when it proposes something that we believe is wrong. That is our duty on occasions such as that. But by the same token, Mr. Speaker, when the government lays before the House of Commons policies which we believe are right, despite our being in political opposition, we should support those policies. We feel, indeed, that any party that expects to have its integrity respected in the country should follow that course and should put aside party bickering, should set aside partisan interests, and support the government when the government brings down policies which are correct, which are in the interests of Canadian people and which are designed to further peace in the world.
On this occasion, however, there is more at stake than the integrity of the political parties that make up this House of Commons. We feel that at the present time the very strength, the very authority of the United Nations is at stake. We are satisfied that with good Canadian leadership at New York in recent weeks the United Nations has staked out a correct course. The United Nations has shown that it has authority; but, Mr. Speaker, when the person who gave a lead to the United Nations, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs, comes back to his own parliament and finds here bickering and opposition, carping criticism, such as we have had the last three days, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that tends to weaken the strength and the authority of the United Nations.
There has been talk in this House of Commons during the last few days about appeasing Nasser; there have been suggestions that Canada was putting itself in the position of being humiliated before this dictator of Egypt. Well, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if Colonel Nasser is today standing up and talking big, one of the reasons is that he is aware of the fact that the person who in the United Nations proposed a policy which the United Nations is now seeking to implement is having difficulty getting full support for that policy

back in the Canadian House of Commons. I suggest that if my friends to the right, the members of the Progressive Conservative party, want to talk strong to Nasser, as they say they do, one of the ways to do it is for Canada to speak with a united voice in support of United Nations action at this time. I believe that in doing so we would be giving expression to the views of the vast majority of the Canadian people.
The Canadian people are satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the best that was possible was done at the United Nations at the beginning of this month. Canada played a good part there; our leaders played an effective role on behalf of the people of Canada. As one who on many occasions, on most occasions, in this house, opposes the government because of the wrong policies it brings forth and because of its many failures, it seems to me on this occasion we should be giving the government all the support we possibly can.


Mr. Fulton:: We do not agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is also talk in this session, Mr. Speaker, about the commonwealth of nations, and the suggestion is being made that somehow or other Canada has done something to weaken the position, to weaken the authority, of the commonwealth of nations. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the very opposite is the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This government has been doing that for five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After all, if in recent weeks, there has been any strain put upon the ties that bind the commonwealth together, that strain was not created by Canada. Indeed, I would say that strain was not created by the British people. It was created by a decision taken by the present government of the United Kingdom. In the view of most of the nations of the world, in the view of many people, a wrong decision was made by the Eden government when a decision was made to disregard the rule of law and to take the law into that government's own hands.
What did Canada do in that situation? Did Canada take steps that weakened the position of the commonwealth? On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, it seems to us that what Canada did was to save the moral authority of the commonwealth. What Canada did was to speak out with a clear conscience for the maintenance of the rule of law by taking such steps as could be taken to get back to the rule of law, to mend the breach that had been created; and because of that stand it seems to me that in the end the commonwealth will

be stronger and not weaker because the truth has been spoken by representatives of this country.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if our friends to the right want to strengthen the commonwealth of nations, as they avow to be their purpose, they should stand behind the attempts made by the representatives of Canada to speak with moral authority on an occasion such as that which we are experiencing at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all agree that the situation in the Middle East is so complex we cannot begin to analyse it or assess blame amongst those to whom blame might be attached. There is no doubt but that some blame is due to all parties to the present situation. Some blame certainly is due to the governments of the United Kingdom and France. Some blame must be attached to the state of Israel. Some real blame must be attached to the United States for its policies in the Middle East over a long period of time. Considerable blame must be attached to Egypt and to what Nasser has done, and blame must be attached also to what the government in Canada has done, and I would even attach some blame to some of the parties in this house.


An hon. Member:: What about Russia?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I remind my friends to the right that on February 1, after we had presented to the house a subamendment which asked that before arms were shipped to the Middle East the government should make sure peace in that area would be guaranteed either by the United Nations or by the three parties signatory to the tripartite agreement, my friends in the Progressive Conservative party, as well as those in all parties but ours, voted against it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What else did you have attached to it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have given you the whole of the subamendment we presented to the house. The only other matter before the house at the time was the amendment moved by my friends of the Progressive Conservative party.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You wanted to strike out our amendment.


An hon. Member:: Be quiet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; we added ours to yours. Even after one has assessed the present situation in the Middle East, even after one has given his particular interpretation as to who is to blame, let it be crystal clear that the whole of that situation, bad as it is, is not
The Address-Mr. Knowles a patch on the horror and the tyranny that is being perpetrated on the people of Hungary by the U.S.S.R.
Nevertheless, what the United Nations was confronted with when it met in New York at the end of October and early in November was the fact of open hostilities in the Suez area and in the Sinai desert, and what the United Nations had to cope with was that situation; and it was in that context that the Canadian decision was taken that the time had come to establish the rule of law in international affairs.
I confess to some amazement at my friends to the right in the Progressive Conservative party in their inability to follow those of us who feel the rule of law is something that should be maintained at all costs. In this House of Commons earlier in this year 1956 our friends in the Progressive Conservative party and we in this party felt that the rule of law was being abrogated in this house. We felt that a certain gentleman across the way was so anxious to get through a certain policy he believed to be right that nothing else mattered. The Progressive Conservatives who joined with us then in saying that it was not only important what you do but that the way in which you do it also matters, now stand up and defend the policies of another government on the ground that even though they had to by-pass the United Nations at the time the thing they were trying to do was all right in itself. They now argue that the end justifies the means. That is a different tune from the one they sang here in May and June of this year, when in their view and in ours the rule of law was being abrogated in this house.
My same friends to the right have been vocal with those of us in this group and in the group to the left and the group across the way down through the years in taking the position, particularly since the end of world war II, that the only hope of world peace lay in the establishment of the rule of law in international affairs.
I have been interested in reading some of the speeches that have been made by my friends to the right and in particular I have been interested in reading some of the speeches made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I find that on two or three occasions he has referred to the dream of Grotius. I confess I had forgotten who Grotius was and I had to look him up. It is a very interesting reference which the hon. member has made. He has expressed in referring to the dream of Grotius the view of all hon. members in the house that the only hope of world peace is in collective

The Address-Mr. Knowles security, in establishing the rule of law and establishing it so firmly that everybody must be expected to follow it, establishing it so that it will be clearly recognized that the only way to deal with breaches of the peace is by collective action.
That view has been expressed in this house academically when we have been debating external affairs. It was expressed very strongly when we were debating the sending of a delegation to the San Francisco conference in the early part of 1945. It was also expressed when we gave support to the joining of the United Nations by Canada, and it was expressed again in 1950 when we were confronted with the necessity of contributing to the United Nations force in Korea.
As I read the records of this house there has been unity on this question of collective security, the rule of law, and implementing that idea in supporting police action by the United Nations down to the present time. We reach now the most critical case the United Nations has ever had. We reach now a time when the United Nations needs the support back home of the countries represented at the United Nations, and in this short special session we have been confronted with something less than the complete support that we thought and hoped we would have for this policy.
We looked and hoped for this support, as I say, because of the stand all parties in this house have taken across the years. And so, Mr. Speaker, we feel as I said at the start that one of the purposes to which this house should be addressing itself in this special session is making it clear that the Canadian people are behind this policy of the rule of law by collective action in world affairs. I hope that even yet there will be voices of support from the only party in this house that seems to be opposing the government on this occasion, the Progressive Conservative party. My friends to the left, like ourselves, are supporting the government's policy even though we may have suggestions to make and criticisms to offer. The only party that is opposing the government is the Progressive Conservative party, which has moved an amendment which represents a vote of nonconfidence in the very policies we are down here to discuss. But I hope that even yet voices in the party to the right will recognize the fact that it would be far better for the peace of the world if they would join in supporting this good Canadian policy at this time.


Mr, Nesbitt:: There would have been no rule of law if the Russians had got into Egypt.


An hon. Member:: Why not cross to the other side of the house, Stanley?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says there would have been no rule of law if the Russians had gone into Egypt and he is perfectly right; but, Mr. Speaker, if the Russians-


An hon. Member:: They are in there now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -had moved into the dispute between Israel and Egypt and taken the law into their own hands we would have said, "This is in violation of the rule of law; this must not be tolerated." It would have been said in much stronger terms than those in which it was said in this case. I think the government is to be commended for the moderation that was used in describing the action of the British and French, and commended at the same time for taking a strong stand in the setting up of an international police force to go into the Suez area.


Edmund Davie Fulton: About six months too late, that is all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the start, we feel there is another purpose to which parliament should be addressing itself in this session. We should be reminding the government in the clearest terms we can that the job has only been started, that in terms of securing peace in the Middle East, in terms of securing peace in the world, there is a great deal yet to be done.
I remind the minister and the house of the points that have already been laid before parliament by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). We feel, for example, if I may use the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the momentum generated recently at the United Nations should not be lost but should be used to carry on to the winning of a political settlement of the issues in the Middle East. That political settlement must include a recognition by the Arab states of the existence of Israel. It must include a peace treaty between those states and Israel, with the clear understanding that all have a right to live in that area.
We feel too that the time has come when consideration should be given to extending the United Nations police force to the other borders of Israel on which there is at the moment real concern. Indeed the news today suggests that there is concern as to what is happening in Syria. Even as last January and February, we urged that the United Nations should do something about the trouble between Egypt and Israel, so we now urge that

the United Nations should move in with a police force before trouble happens, rather than after, between Israel and the bordering countries of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, so that the peace of the world may be saved even before it is broken further at this time.
I hope that because of the gravity of the present situation our insistence that this be done will be given greater attention by the government than was our urging last January that an international police force be put in between Israel and Egypt.
I would remind the house as well of the points made by those who have spoken already on behalf of this group, that real and serious consideration must be given to the solving of the social and economic problems which obtain in the Middle East, such as the resettlement of the refugees and other issues. These problems simply must be solved. We know that the problem of the refugees, the problem of a political settlement and the other economic problems, such as the raising of the standards of living in that area, the settlement of the Suez canal issue and others, all hang together. That is why we advocate most strongly something in the nature of an international T.V.A. on the Nile river to develop the Aswan dam and generally bring about an improved use of the waters of the Nile so as to increase the standards of living of the people in that country. That is why we also advocate something in the nature of an international oil authority so that the tremendous resources of oil to be found in that part of the world, oil which the rest of the world needs and wants and is willing to pay for, may bring back to the people in that area something in the way of increased and improved living standards.
We say there should be a political settlement. We say the problem of the refugees should be solved. But we say also you are not going to solve these problems until you improve economic conditions. This is a package deal. These matters all hang together. Because these other things are important in the achieving of a political settlement we urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he gets back to New York, back to the United Nations, which I hope will be soon, to put the same vigour into an attack on these problems which he put into his efforts to get an international police force set up and moved into that part of the world at this time.
We feel also that at this time when the world has accepted with some sense of satisfaction the idea of an emergency force being organized, further efforts should be made to get a permanent international police force established. My hon. friends to the left
The Address

Mr. Knowles seem to be concerned lest such a police force be made up of national components which would be beyond the immediate control of the nations concerned. That as a matter of fact was a problem which was thrashed out at the time of the San Francisco conference, and I do not think there is any question that it can be solved.
Even if you do have to have some sort of continuing national control over the various component parts, what we should have in existence is an international police force which would be ready to move whenever there was trouble, rather than have to go through this procedure of setting up an emergency force every time something like that occurs. I am reminded of a speech made by the hon. member for Prince Albert, I think in 1945 just prior to the time of the San Francisco conference, when he referred to the strategic position of Canada's airfields and suggested that we should make our air bases available to the United Nations so that United Nations troops could be stationed at our airfields in Canada and moved quickly to any spot in the world where trouble might break out.
That was an idealistic expression with which I agreed at the time and with which I still agree. In fact we are fast getting to the point-this is the view of this group- where we do need a police force, not one to be got together after trouble has broken out but one available, on the job and ready to move in whenever the United Nations decides that trouble has broken out or may develop. I submit that such a force would not only be able to deal with trouble when it broke out but the very fact that there was such a force ready to move would in many instances prevent trouble breaking out at all.
So we urge upon the government that the Secretary of State for External Affairs be sent back to New York just as soon as possible to go to work on these items of unfinished business which are just as important as the job which has been done already in getting an emergency force set up and sent to the Middle East.
When we get into committee of supply, which we hope will be soon, there are a few questions we would like to ask the government. Since there has been this delay perhaps I might state two or three of them now so the answers can be prepared and given to us when the time comes. We are interested in the fact that although it is obviously going to cost many millions of dollars for Canada to send this force to the Middle East, we are being asked to vote toward that purpose only the sum of one dollar. I know what a dollar item is, it is a matter of legislation.

The Address-Mr. Knowles By voting that dollar we agree to give the government authority to use some of the money which we voted for defence last session, the $1,775 million, for this purpose. I think the Minister of National Defence at some point in this week's session will have to explain to us how it was that only a few months ago he insisted that that figure was the result of accurate budgeting. We did not believe it at the time, but now when many millions of dollars are needed to move these Canadian troops to the Middle East the extra money does not have to be provided, it is already there in the $1,775 million we voted. I think we should have some explanation this session as to how national defence budgeting is done.
We also want to know where the contribution which Canada will be making, as we presume she will be making, to the United Nations for United Nations expenses on behalf of the troops in the Middle East is to come from. We would also like to know where the money will come from that will be paid by Canada toward the expense of clearing the Suez canal. We would also like to know just how the expenses of the Middle East force are to be paid as between the pay and allowances of our soldiers and the other general expenses. Are they to be paid directly by the Department of National Defence or are they to be paid by means of contributions to the United Nations, the United Nations in turn paying those expenses?
We feel also that during this session the Prime Minister should give us the same kind of assurance he gave quite categorically in 1950 regarding the part parliament would play in the dispatch of troops to different areas. In 1950 when parliament gave its approval to the dispatch of troops to Korea the Prime Minister made it very clear that if it became necessary to send troops to any area not mentioned in the then existing order in council the section of the National Defence Act would apply and parliament would be called within a 10-day period.
It seems to us that we should have that same assurance at this time, that if it becomes necessary to send troops to any other area parliament will be called. I think the government should also have our assurance that if it is necessary to do that, parliament will give its support to the sending of Canadian troops wherever they are needed for international action to preserve the peace of the world.
These are questions, Mr. Speaker, that we can put to the government when we get into committee of supply on the two items that are before us. I simply say now that we feel

that basically our job in this session is twofold; on the one hand to make clear our support on behalf of the people of Canada of the steps the government has taken thus far and, on the other hand, to make it clear to the government that the people of Canada expect the government to go on and finish the job. If the government fails to take steps to try to solve these other problems, social, economic and political, the efforts made thus far may well have been in vain. On the other hand, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the people of Canada can play some part in getting a solution to these political, social and economic problems, mankind may perchance even yet look forward to the winning of peace in the Middle East and to the achieving of peace and human accord throughout the world.
(Translation) :


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have heard several more or less violent speeches from both sides of the house which shows the importance of this serious matter.
I do not intend to speak at length and I will only make a few brief remarks.
I want to say at the outset that I am in favour of an international police force as long as it is adequate and reasonable. However, I find quite ludicrous the panic shown by our government in asking that the United Nations set up such a force.
During the past three weeks we have heard all sorts of statements, which differed one from the other to the point that they were sometimes contradictory. Our leaders should not panic everytime some incident occurs in the Middle East.
One must be realistic and one must recognize that tension is always existing in that part of the world.
At the present time, one can see that the Arab countries and Israel are spying on each other and getting ready for war, as they are only separated by artificial borders. Moreover, it is from that same part of the world that Nasser, the dictator, not only supports the Algerian rebels, but rouses their feelings and encourages them to slaughter the French settlers in Algeria. As long as this stratagem goes on, one must not be surprised to see the great western nations like Britain and France lose patience and take unfortunate decisions. We must not forget either that Russia will continue to supply arms to Egypt and to take all the possible means to spread its influence in that part of the West so rich in oil, a product which is among the most important in today's world.

This international force will no doubt have a difficult task but it is nevertheless necessary. That force should have been set up long ago. As a matter of fact I remember that our former leader (Mr. Drew) had more than once urged the government to use its influence in the United Nations to bring about the setting up of such an international police force. We have now come to regret that the government has so long delayed asking the United Nations to set up this force. We have the impression that the present situation could have been avoided in this way.
However, as I was saying a moment ago, even though this international police force is necessary, I still feel that the way the government has been acting is not calculated to make this force popular in this country. There have been fumblings of all kinds and when action did come from the United Nations we have soon become aware of the activity of those people, either in the government or in the general staff-I really do not know who would like to see this country doing more than anybody else, in a military way, and take part in every conflict, whatever our responsibilities. There is no doubt that they are probably responsible for the great confusion there was about, for instance, the men of the Queen's Own Rifles who were flown from Calgary to Halifax, accompanied by an extraordinary amount of publicity. It could be seen on television, or read about in the papers where every soldier made a statement.
The aircraft carrier, H.M.C.S. Magnificent, was called back from Europe in a rush. It had no sooner reached Halifax that a team of workers got aboard to convert it for the transport of troops. In spite of all that panic and hesitation, the aircraft carrier, as well as the Queen's Own Rifles battalion, are still in Halifax and no one knows when they will leave to become part of the international force. The only one who did not lose his head in these circumstances was probably General Burns and, apparently, he was not consulted or was allegedly consulted after all sorts of decisions had been made, on which he threw cold water.
Then one day the people of Canada learn that president Nasser does not accept the presence of Canadian soldiers because they wear on their shoulders a flash likely to lead to confusion and to give to understand that we are a colony of England. The next day we are told that it is not president Nasser but none other than Mr. Hammarskjold who had said that. Some other day, it might well be General Burns or even the government. This evening, Canadian newspapers report that a Canadian major back from Naples
The Address-Mr. Balcer made the statement that, failing Nasser's permission, the Queen's Own Rifles battalion could not proceed to Suez.
Mr. Speaker, there is another thing which cannot make the United Nations international police force as popular in Canada as might be desired. It is a fact that, out of a complement of 6,000 men immediately Canada promises to send 2,500. It is no longer an international police force if Canada takes over the command and provides contingents far greater than those of any other country. It is a little surprising to note that this international force, whose setting up has been approved by a huge majority of the member states of the United Nations, has troops from only six or seven countries.
I am of the opinion that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) should advise his delegation to insist that this international force be made international in fact and not only in name.
No doubt, we must support the United Nations. It is the sole guarantee the smaller nations have against the larger ones. It is also the best way for us to obtain peace and ensure it for generations to come.
We must give it means of imposing respect; that is why personally I am in favour of an international police force. Nevertheless, Canada's contribution should be well set in advance and should not be offered blindly. All the Canadians who will be members of that international force should be well armed, well equipped and, more particularly, well trained. We must be assured that if they have to stop Russian volunteers or others from crossing the borders, they will not be exposed to irreparable losses.
Therefore, the government has the responsibility of proceeding with due caution, that is, it should not send our troops over there blindly, but only after a thorough inquiry into all the ramifications of the situation. It should also make a thorough study of all the needs of our troops and of the part they will be called upon to play in that international force.
Mr. Speaker, there is another matter about which I would like to say a few words and it is this: during this debate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) spoke quite violently against the great western nations. He levelled severe criticisms at the leaders of some great European countries. He spoke about colonialism in no uncertain terms.
I feel however that is the time for his government to pass from word to deed. I submit that the government, which claims that our country is independent, should avail itself of the opportunity offered by our contribution to the United Nations force to give Canada

The Address-Mr. Harkness its own national flag. I make this request as was done by a member of the other house, who once sat next to me in this house and who pointed out yesterday the humiliating situation in which Canada finds itself. Like him, I feel that it is humiliating for Canada to have throughout the world troops which cannot be identified by their own flag.
Mr. Speaker, in 1948, the convention of the Conservative party adopted a resolution to that effect. That was eight years ago and we are still waiting for the government to implement the convention's recommendation. We hope that it will receive favourably hon. senator Fournier's suggestion and that it will avail itself of Canada's participation in the United Nations police force to accede to our request.
(Text):


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of confused thinking with regard to the Middle East situation and the world situation generally. I think it was very well illustrated by the speech we heard a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In my opinion, at least, he paid no attention to the basic realities of the world situation, particularly those of the situation which has existed in the Middle East for the past several weeks and, as a matter of fact, for the past several months.
A great deal of the confused thinking which has arisen in regard to the present world crisis I think has sprung from a sense of shock. When the Israelis made their attack, followed by the intervention of Britain and France, I think most people in this country and in the United States and a large number in England experienced a considerable sense of shock. That shock was due to the fact, I think, that they did not know what the situation was, that they had not thought the thing through.
Most of us have had at the back of our minds for a number of years-ever since the last war-the thought that the United Nations was going to protect us from the outbreak of a third world war and was going to maintain peace. The fact that the United Nations apparently had been by-passed or disregarded by these countries consequently shocked people. It also shocked them to think that the United Nations had not been able to preserve peace; and particularly I think it shocked them when they realized that, as Mr. Eden said in effect, the reason the United Nations had been by-passed was that they were not capable of taking effective action in the Middle East under the circumstances which existed.
The feelings aroused as a result were feelings of considerable emotional strain. I do not wonder that feelings of that sort were aroused, and I do not wonder that they have caused a good deal of confused thinking. However, in my opinion they have served to obscure the basic realities of the world situation.
The fact which we must keep in mind in considering the present world crisis and the whole world situation is that which has been with us ever since shortly after the last war, namely that the world is divided into two great power blocs; Russia and her satellites on one side and the free world on the other side. A struggle has been going on between those two power blocs, with Russia and her supporters attempting by every means possible to increase her influence and power throughout the world with the ultimate object, of course, of destroying the western world and its free way of life. That is the basic fact and the one which, in my opinion, we must keep at the back of our minds in considering the present situation in the Middle East and the present world situation; but I am much afraid that it is a fact which has not been kept in mind.
Over the radio some time ago, when this thing was started, someone said that the NATO countries have too much to lose to quarrel seriously amongst themselves. I think that was a true statement. By quarrelling amongst themselves the NATO countries, the free nations of the western world, merely play into the hands of Russia. If the rift which has developed amongst the western nations continues and widens I think we can say goodbye to any hopes we may have of preventing a third world war and of our peoples in the west maintaining the way of life which we have known. In other words, we might as well throw in the sponge if we begin to fight amongst ourselves.
It seems to me that has been the great tragedy of this present situation, and that is the thing I have failed to understand with regard to the attitude of and the policy followed by the United States. It has seemed to me that the United States has completely lost sight of this basic fact. Their policy has been almost incredible in view of what the basic situation is and what they have known it is, and in view of the actions they took in Korea and elsewhere. Their policy certainly filled me with surprise and consternation.
Then when I found Canada tagging along in their wake and following essentially the same policy that the United States was following, I thought so disastrously, it was horrifying. I found it much more difficult to believe than what the United States was

doing. In my opinion neither country seemed to appreciate the extreme foolishness of weakening the bond which held the NATO countries together and which held the whole western world together. I think what is needed more than anything else at the present time is that the United States government and the Canadian government wake up to that situation and take steps which are likely to correct it, rather than ones which are going to make it worse as I think has been done to a large extent so far.
One of the basic facts we also have to keep in mind is that the strength of NATO depends upon the strength of the individual members of that alliance. The two most important members, from the point of view of size and numbers of people, after the United States, are Great Britain and France. If the western world is to remain sufficiently strong to counter the Russian threat and to maintain the peace, to maintain the western way of life, those two countries have to remain strong economically. They cannot remain strong economically if they are cut off from one of the sinews of their economic strength, the oil supply in the Middle East.
That oil supply has been threatened for months. Britain, France and all western European countries are completely dependent on that oil supply. Now for three weeks it has been not completely cut off but partially cut off. What has been the effect? Already in most of these countries gasoline rationing is in operation, or plans have been made to put it into operation rapidly. A slow-down of the whole economy has started. It is essential, as I say, that the economic strength of Britain, France and all western Europe be maintained if the western world is to maintain its strength. In order to maintain that oil supply there must be a guaranteed free passage through the Suez canal. We find Britain and France in a position where they were threatened, both as to the source of the oil and as to the means of getting it through the Suez canal and into their countries. Under those circumstances, of course, they followed the first law of any nation, the law of self-preservation.
It seems to me that the United States has not, up to this time, realized that. Apparently the Canadian government has not realized it. The fact that that is the situation, and a considerable number of people, newspaper corn-81537-9
The Address-Mr. Harkness mentators on foreign affairs in the United States, have recognized it, as is apparent by the articles that have appeared in newspapers and magazines in the United States for some time past. The last article I read which demonstrated that fact was in yesterday morning's Gazette by the Alsop brothers. I will quote only a few short paragraphs from it. It starts this way:
The central point that has virtually escaped notice in the present crisis is that the several strains already felt by the western alliance are downright trifling, are really nothing, compared to the strains that lie ahead.
That is what I particularly fear in the present situation. There have been considerable strains. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the strains were such that the commonwealth was in danger of falling apart at one time not so many days ago. These commentators, the Alsop brothers, go on in this article to document the strains that have been felt so far and say that they are nothing compared to the strains which are in sight as a result of the whole Middle Eastern situation if things are allowed to continue more or less drifting along. A little farther down in the article they say:
But then American diplomacy and Soviet threats combined to transform Nasser's great military defeat into a great political victory.
The effect in Transjordan was instantaneous and electrical.
The writers continue by citing the effect in the rest of the Middle East, and how that reaction will destroy the source of oil and the economic strength of Great Britain in western Europe. Then they go on to point this out:
Then too, if all Britain's Middle Eastern oil sources are lost, it will cost Britain just about $1 billion a year. The shaky British balance of payment cannot conceivably stand this further drain. If the oil goes, Britain will go bankrupt. After declaring bankruptcy, Britain will have to abandon her NATO and other strategic commitments and will go out of business as a serious world power. But how is American policy going to be adjusted to cover the loss of western strength caused by British bankruptcy?
I would urge this government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to keep these basic facts in mind and to use all the influence they have with the United States government to modify their present policy and work out a settlement which will make it possible to preserve NATO strength and the strength of western Europe. Otherwise I see nothing but disaster ahead.

The Address-Mr. Harkness
It is of no use for people to say, as many have said, that Britain should have taken this whole matter to the United Nations. She took it to the United Nations innumerable times. I saw in a newspaper yesterday, whether or not it is true I do not know, that this Middle Eastern question had been raised 200 times in the last five or six months. In any event, whether or not that is true, it has certainly been raised time after time and nothing was done about it. The situation was deteriorating all the time. Now it is not good enough for the majority of the nations, and particularly it is not good enough for a country which by its strength and size must be the leader of the free western world, the United States, to say that the strict letter of the United Nations charter has been broken and therefore we must condemn this action; we must take punitive measures, because that is what they amount to.
When you are fighting a battle of any kind -and there is no doubt there is a battle going on between the western powers and Russia and her allies-the main thing is to win the battle. You may lose a hill here or a trench there, but you should not focus your attention on one small phase of the matter but should keep the over-all picture in mind and try to arrange things so your basic strength is conserved. So far as I can see this has not been done.
I have some hope that the action which was taken by the British and French in the Middle East will be the means of revivifying and putting some teeth into the United Nations. The provision of a police force is, I think, all to the good. I hope the police force will be successful. God knows, up to the present time the United Nations has had no effective means of enforcing any decision it may have made, except for that period during the Korean war. If a general war in the Middle East is to be prevented, so far as I can see there has to be a police force which is effective, and certainly that is not the kind of police force which is envisaged at the present time.
The headline in tonight's newspaper reads, "Syrian Crisis Mounts". This whole area is in an extremely explosive state, and unless decisive action is taken, or there are threats of action, particularly by the United States, the whole situation is going to blow up. When that happens, of course, anything might happen. A third world war might be upon us before we know it. Therefore I think this is not the time to be splitting hairs over

whether a certain regulation or the general covenant of the United Nations was broken or was not broken. The thing to do is to try and take some action to prevent a third world war developing, and I think such a war is threatening. In other words, what the United Nations must do, I think what the NATO countries as a whole must do-and I would hope that the NATO countries and the countries of the Baghdad pact would all act together in this thing-is to take some steps for a permanent settlement in the Middle East.
So far nothing has been done about a permanent settlement in the Middle East. The festering sore which has existed there for the last seven or eight years has not been touched. As far as the United Nations is concerned there have been no proposals there to try to make a permanent settlement, to get any permanent agreement between the Arab nations on the one side and Israel on the other as to what the borders will be, to get any recognition of those borders or any definite solution to the numerous problems which exist there. The police force will not do it, no matter how strong the police force may be; but the police force, if it is strong enough, might prevent any further war developing, if it is got in there rapidly.
But the only way in which you will get a sufficient police force in there now is to have it supplied by the larger nations which have forces in being and are willing to put them in. I do not think you can get anything like sufficient numbers of troops in there, sufficiently well organized, on short notice by the method which is being followed of getting 50 troops from Colombia, 150 from Norway, and so on. I am not condemning that. It is all very well, but it is not sufficient for the purpose of a police force only as between the Israeli and Egyptian powers alone, let alone to look after the whole situation in the Middle East.
This extremely ominous Russian build-up of arms in Syria and in other parts of the Middle East is such as to make it quite clear that Russia and her satellites-and remember, they are members of the United Nations and therefore you cannot expect the United Nations by anything like any sort of unani-ous or semi-unanimous vote to take any real measure to stop this sort of thing-are building up arms to such serious proportions that it is apparent to almost everyone that Russia is going to cause a general blow-up there if she can possibly do so. The whole situation there is extremely unstable, as was stated in this article. The action which has been taken so far by the United Nations has really served to save Nasser from military defeat

and to re-establish him in a strong position in Egypt and amongst the Arab countries generally, and thus it has served to encourage the Arab countries in their belligerence. I think it has also served to encourage Russia to shoot in more and more arms with good hopes of stirring up more and more trouble in that area.
As far as the United Nations police force which has already been sent into Egypt is concerned, the composition and numbers of that force we have not had. The Minister of National Defence told us that Canada had allocated something like 2,400 soldiers and airmen. As far as the force is concerned, of that number only something like 300 army personnel and about 500 or 600 air force personnel have gone over. In other words the bulk of our commitment has not gone into Egypt at all, and quite a few of the army personnel have not gone to Egypt either. They have remained right in Naples. I ste again a headline in tonight's paper-in spite of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said about not allowing Nasser to dictate who went into Egypt, how long they stayed or when they came out-something along that line. This is one, but there have been two or three others along the same line. The one tonight reads:
Q.O.R. need Nasser O.K. before sailing
Official of UN does not expect action unless he changes mind.
This article is dated Naples, Italy, November 28, and reads in part as follows:
A United Nations official said today that Canada's Queen's Own Rifles are not likely to sail for the Middle East unless President Nasser of Egypt changes his mind.
This is believed to be the first time that a United Nations official has admitted that the Canadian battalion is being kept out of Egypt on Nasser's say-so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no senior United Nations official at Naples.


William Earl Rowe: Is there a junior one there?


Douglas Scott Harkness: All I can do is to read the article which is written by Dave McIntosh,
The Address-Mr. Harkness a Canadian reporter, who is at Naples and who apparently received this information. The article goes on to tell us about various statements by a Canadian officer, as follows:
Meanwhile, the first Canadian officer to return to Naples-
And so forth. I presume he is the man of whom they are speaking. In any event, this is not the only statement of this sort which has appeared in the newspapers in the last two or three days. I have another one from a paper of a few days earlier, which reads along the same line. This is from the Ottawa Citizen for Tuesday, November 27. The article is dated from Naples and reads in part as follows:
Canadian army officers in Italy say they doubt that the Queen's Own Rifles will ever be sent to the Middle East.
The officers say there have been suggestions the battalion should remove its shoulder patches to satisfy the Egyptians, but add that the morale of Canadian soldiers has already suffered enough. The only Canadian soldiers here not sent on to Egypt are members of the Queen's Own.
In spite of all these denials we have had from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I do not think there is any doubt that in effect Colonel Nasser has been dictating who is to make up the police force, when they come in, where they go, and so on. A police force of that kind is not going to be effective; it is not going to be able to do the job.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Harkness the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Green:: What is the business for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: I suppose I should give the same answer I gave last night, Mr. Speaker, that we always have hopes that tomorrow we will get into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
81537-9J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 29, 1956