1956-11-26

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council	
Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production	
Minister of Agriculture	
Minister of National Health and Welfare_____
Minister of National Revenue	
Minister of Labour	
Secretary of State for External Affairs	
Minister of Justice and Attorney General ... Minister of Public Works	
Minister of Veterans Affairs and Postmaster General	
Minister of Finance and Receiver General .. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys ...
Minister of Fisheries	
Minister of National Defence	
Solicitor General and Leader of the Government in the Senate	
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration_____
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources	
Minister of Transport	
Secretary of State	
Right Hon. Louis Stephen St. Laurent
Right Hon. Clarence Decatur Howe Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner Hon. Paul Joseph James Martin Hon. James J. McCann Hon. Milton Fowler Gregg Hon. Lester Bowles Pearson Hon. Stuart Sinclair Garson Hon. Robert Henry Winters
Hon. Hugues Lapointe Hon. Walter Edward Harris Hon. George Prudham Hon. James Sinclair Hon. Ralph Osborne Campney
Hon. William Ross Macdonald Hon. John Whitney Pickersgill
Hon. Jean Lesage
Hon. George Carlyle Marler
Hon. Roch Pinard
81537-A
iii

[Stage Direction]
To Minister of Agriculture	 To Minister of Fisheries 			Robert McCubbin, Esq., M.P. 	J. Watson MacNaught, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Labour 		
To Minister of Finance 			W. M. Benidickson, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Transport 			J. G. L. Langlois, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Defence Production		J. H. Dickey, Esq., M.P.
To Prime Minister 			W. G. Weir, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Veterans Affairs ..		C. E. Bennett, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of National Health and Welfare .. F. G. Robertson, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Public Works			Maurice Bourget, Esq., M.P.
To Postmaster General 			T. A. M. Kirk, Esq., M.P.
To Secretary of State for External Affairs

Lucien Cardin, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of National Defence	Paul Hellyer, Esq., M.P.
iv
[Stage Direction]
Speaker	Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin, Q.C., M.P.
Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees
of the Whole	William Alfred Robinson, Q.C., M.P.
Deputy Chairman of Committees
of the Whole	Edward T. Applewhaite, M.P.
Clerk of the House	Leon-J. Raymond, B.A., O.B.E.
Clerk Assistant	Thomas R. Montgomery
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel	Maurice P. Ollivier, Q.C., T.T.n
Second Clerk Assistant	j. Gordon Dubroy
Sergeant-at-Arms	Lieut.-Col. W. J. Franklin, M.C., V.D.
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms	Phileas Jeanvenne
Debates Reporting Branch-
English Section:
Editor	Thomas S. Hubbard
Assistant Editor		W. Warren Buskard
Parliamentary Reporters: E. L. Featherston, D. R. Butt, W. J. Clinton, N. L. Price, J. G. Robertson, Roger White.
Assistant to the	Editors	Miss M. E. Black
French Section:
Editor	Paul Frenette
Assistant Editor		Andre Naubert
Parliamentary Reporters	L. R. Guertin, R. Langlois
Indexing	Miss Y. Lavertu
Index and Reference Branch
Samuel C. Sager
81537-AJ

[Stage Direction]
Fourth Session (Special)-Twenty-second Parliament Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker
Aitken, Miss Margaret-York-Humber.
Anderson, Raymond Elmer-Norfolk.
Applewhaite, Edward T.-Skeena.
Argue, Hazen Robert-Assiniboia.
Arsenault, Bona-Bonaventure.
Ashbourne, Thomas Gordon William-Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.
Balcer, Leon-Trois-Rivieres.
Balcom, Samuel R.-Halifax.
Barnett, Thomas Spearman-Comox-Al-berni.
Batten, Herman M.-Humber-St. George's.
Beaudoin, Hon. L. Rene-Vaudreuil-Sou-langes.
Beaudry, Roland-St. James.
Bell, Thomas Miller-Saint John-Albert.
Benidickson, William Moore-Kenora-Rainy River.
Bennett, Colin Emerson-Grey North.
Bertrand, Lionel-Terrebonne.
Blackmore, John Horne-Lethbridge.
Blair, William Gourlay-Lanark.
Blanchette, Joseph Adeodat-Compton-Frontenac.
Boisvert, Maurice-Nicolet-Yamaska.
Boivin, Marcel-Shefford.
Bonnier, Joseph Arsene-St. Henry.
Boucher, Jean-Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie.
Bourget, Maurice-Levis.
Bourque, Romuald-Outremont-St. Jean.
Breton, Maurice-Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Brisson, Lomer-Saguenay.
Brooks, Alfred Johnson-Royal.
Brown, Donald Ferguson-Essex West.
Brown, James E.-Brantford.
Bruneau, Raymond-Glengarry-Prescott.
Bryce, William-Selkirk.
Bryson, Hugh Alexander-Humboldt-Melfort.
Buchanan, William Murdoch-Cape Breton North and Victoria.
Byrne, James A.-Kootenay East.
Cameron, Alan John Patrick-High Park.
Cameron, Colin-Nanaimo.
Campbell, Alexander Max.-The Battlefords.
Campney, Hon. Ralph Osborne-Vancouver Centre.
Cannon, Charles Arthur Dumoulin-lies de
la Madeleine.
Cardiff, Lewis Elston-Huron.
Cardin, L. J. Lucien-Richelieu-Vercheres. Caron, Alexis-Hull.
Carrick, Donald D.-Trinity.
Carter, Chesley William-Burin-Burgeo. Casselman, Arza Clair-Grenville-Dundas. Castleden, George Hugh-York ton.
vii

[Stage Direction]
viii
Cauchon, Robert-Beauharnois-Salaberry. Cavers, Harry Peter-Lincoln.
Charlton, John Alpheus-Brant-Haldimand. Churchill, Gordon-Winnipeg South Centre. Clark, Stuart Murray-Essex South. Cloutier, Armand-Drummond-Arthabaska. Coldwell, M. J.-Rosetown-Biggar.
Crestohl, Leon David-Cartier.
Dechene, Joseph Miville-Athabaska.
Decore, John-Vegreville.
Demers, Leopold-Laval.
Denis, Azellus-St. Denis.
Deschatelets, J. P.-Maisonneuve-Rosemont. Deslieres, Joseph Leon-Brome-Missisquoi. Dickey, John H.-Halifax.
Diefenbaker, John George-Prince Albert. Dinsdale, Walter Gilbert-Brandon-Souris. 1Drew, Hon. George A.-Carleton.
Dufresne, J. Wilfrid-Quebec West.
Dumas, Armand-Villeneuve.
Dupuis, Hector-St. Mary.
Ellis, Alfred Claude-Regina City.
Enfield, Frank A.-York-Scarborough.
Eudes, Raymond-Hochelaga.
Eyre, Karl Arliss-Timmins.
Fairclough, Mrs. Ellen L.-Hamilton West. Fairey, Francis Thrower-Victoria (B.C.). Ferguson, Julian Harcourt-Simcoe North. Fleming, Donald Methuen-Eglinton. Follwell, Frank S.-Hastings South. Fontaine, Joseph-St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. Forgie, James Moffat-Renfrew North. Fraser, Allan MacPherson-St. John's East. Fraser, Gordon Knapman-Peterborough.
Fulton, Edmund Davie-Kamloops.
Gagnon, Paul Edmond-Chicoutimi.
Gardiner, Right Hon. James G.-Melville. Garland, John Richard-Nipissing.
Garson, Hon. Stuart S.-Marquette. Gauthier, Andre-Lac St. Jean.
Gauthier, J. Leoda-Nickel Belt.
Gauthier, Pierre-Portneuf.
Gillis, Clarence-Cape Breton South. Gingras, Ernest O.-Richmond-Wolfe. Gingues, Maurice-Sherbrooke.
Girard, Fernand-Lapointe.
Goode, Thomas H.-Burnaby-Richmond. Gour, Joseph Omer-Russell.
Gourd, David-Chapleau.
Green, Howard Charles-Vancouver Quadra. Gregg, Hon. Milton F.-York-Sunbury.
Habel, Joseph A.-Cochrane.
Hahn, Frederick George J.-New Westminster.
Hamilton, John Borden-York West.
Hamilton, William McLean-Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
Hanna, Richard Francis Lionel-Edmonton-Strathcona.
Hansell, Ernest George-Macleod.
Hardie, Mervyn Arthur-Mackenzie River. Harkness, Douglas Scott-Calgary North. Harris, Hon. Walter Edward-Grey-Bruce. Harrison, John Hornby-Meadow Lake. Healy, Thomas Patrick-St. Ann.
Hees, George Harris-Broadview.
Hellyer, Paul Theodore-Davenport. Henderson, William James-Kingston. Henry, Charles-Rosedale.
Herridge, Herbert Wilfred-Kootenay West. Hodgson, Clayton Wesley-Victoria (Ont.)
'Resigned, Jan. 8, 1957.
LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS	IX
Hollingworth, Allan H.-York Centre. Holowach, Ambrose-Edmonton East. Hosking, Henry Alfred-Wellington South. Houck, Willlam Limburg-Niagara Falls. Howe, Right Hon. C. D.-Port Arthur. Howe, William Marvin-Wellington-Huron. Huffman, Edward Blake-Kent (Ont.). Hunter, John William Gordon-Parkdale.
James, John Mason-Durham.
Johnson, Willis Merwyn-Kindersley. Johnston, Charles Edward-Bow River. Jones, Owen L.-Okanagan Boundary. Jutras, Rene Norbert-Provencher.
Kickham, Thomas Joseph-Kings.
Kirk, James Ralph-Antigonish-Guys-borough.
Kirk, Thomas Andrew Murray-Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare.
Knight, Robert Ross-Saskatoon.
Knowles, Stanley Howard-Winnipeg North Centre.
LaCroix, Wilfrid-Quebec-Montmorency.
Laflamme, Ovide-Bellechasse.
Lafontaine, Joseph-Megantic.
Langlois, J. G. Leopold-Gaspe.
Langlois, Joseph-Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
Lapointe, Hon. Hugues-Lotbiniere.
Lavigne, Albert-Stormont.
Leboe, Bert Raymond-Cariboo.
Leduc, Edgar-Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. Leduc, Rodolphe-Gatineau.
Leduc, Yves-Verdun.
Lefrancois, J. Eugene-Laurier.
Legare, Gerard-Rimouski.
Lennard, Frank Exton-Wentworth.
Lesage, Hon. Jean-Montmagny-L'Islet.
Low, Solon Earl-Peace River.
Lusby, Azel Randolph-Cumberland.
Macdonnell, James MacKerras-Greenwood.
MacEachen, Allan Joseph-Inverness-Richmond.
MacInnis, Angus-Vancouver-Kingsway.
Mackenzie, Hugh Alexander-Lambton-Kent.
MacLean, J. Angus-Queens.
MacNaught, John Watson-Prince.
Macnaughton, Alan Aylesworth-Mount-Royal.
McBain, James Alexander-Elgin.
McCann, Hon. James Joseph-Renfrew South.
McCubbin, Robert-Middlesex West.
McCulloch, Henry Byron-Pictou.
McCullough, Edward George-Moose Mountain.
McDonald, Wilfred Kennedy-Parry Sound-Muskoka.
McGregor, Robert Henry-York East.
McIlraith, George James-Ottawa West.
McIvor, Daniel-Fort William.
McLeod, George William-Okanagan-Revelstoke.
McMillan, William H.-Welland.
McWilliam, George Roy-Northumberland-Miramichi
Maltais, Auguste-Charlevoix.
Mang, Henry Philip-Qu'Appelle.
Marler, Hon. George C.-St. Antoine-West-mount.
Martin, Hon. Paul-Essex East.
Masse, Arthur-Kamouraska.
Matheson, Neil Alexander-Queens.
Menard, J. Armand-St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville.

[Stage Direction]
Meunier, J. Adrien-Papineau.
Michaud, Herv£ J.-Kent (N.B.).
Michener, Roland-St. Paul's.
Mitchell, David Rodger-Sudbury.
Mitchell, Robert Weld-London.
Monette, Marcel-Mercier.
Monteith, Jay Waldo-Perth.
Montgomery, Gage Workman-Victoria-Carleton.
Murphy, Henry J.-Westmorland.
Murphy, Joseph Warner-Lamb ton West.
Nesbitt, Wallace Bickford-Oxford. Nicholson, Alexander M.-Mackenzie. Nickle, Carl Olof-Calgary South.
Nixon, George Ewart-Algoma West.
Nowlan, George Clyde-Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
Pallett, John Cameron-Peel.
Patterson, Alexander Bell-Fraser Valley.
Pearkes, George Randolph-Esquimalt-Saanich.
Pearson, Hon. L. B.-Algoma East.
Perron, Robert-Dorchester.
Philpott, Elmore-Vancouver South.
Pickersgill, Hon. John W.-Bonavista-Twillingate.
Pinard, Hon. Roch-Chambly-Rouville.
Pommer, William Albert-Lisgar.
Poulin, Raoul-Beauce.
Power, Frank G.-Quebec South.
Power, James Augustine-St. John's West.
Proudfoot, John Hugh-Pontiac-Temisca-mingue.
Prudham, Hon. George-Edmonton West. Purdy, Gordon Timlin-Colchester-Hants.
Quelch, Victor-Acadia.
Ratelle, J. George-Lafontaine.
Rea, Charles E.-Spadina.
Regier, Erhart-Burnaby-Coquitlam.
Reinke, Russell Earl-Hamilton South.
Richard, Jean Thomas-Ottawa East.
Richard, Joseph Adolphe-St. Maurice-Lafleche.
Richardson, Claude S.-St. Lawrence-St. George.
Roberge, Louis Edouard-Stanstead.
Robertson, Frederick Greystock-Northumberland (Ont.).
Robichaud, Hedard J.-Gloucester.
Robinson, Andrew E.-Bruce.
Robinson, William Alfred-Simcoe East.
Rochefort, Joseph I.-Champlain.
Rouleau, Guy-Dollard.
Rowe, Hon. William Earl-Dufferin-Simcoe.
Roy, Gustave-Labelle.
St. Laurent, Jean Paul-Temiscouata.
St. Laurent, Right Hon. Louis S.-Quebec East.
Schneider, Norman C.-Waterloo North.
Shaw, Frederick Davis-Red Deer.
Shipley, Mrs. Ann-Timiskaming.
Simmons, James Aubrey-Yukon.
Sinclair, Hon. James-Coast-Capilano.
Small, Robert Hardy

Danforth.
Smith, James Alexander-Battle River-Camrose.
Smith, John Eachern-York North.
Stanton, Hayden-Leeds.
Starr, Michael-Ontario.
Stewart, Alistair McLeod-Winnipeg North. Stick, Leonard T.-Trinity-Conception. Stuart, Andrew Wesley-Charlotte.

[Stage Direction]
xi
Studer, Irvin William-Swift Current-Maple Creek.
Thatcher, Wilbert Ross-Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
Thibault, L£andre-Matapedia-Matane.
Thomas, Ray-Wetaskiwin.
"Trainor, Owen C.-Winnipeg South.
Tucker, Walter A.-Rosthern.
Tustin, George James-Prince Edward-Lennox.
Valois, Philippe-Argenteuil-Two Mountains.
Van Horne, Joseph Charles-Restigouche-Madawaska.
Viau, Fernand-St. Boniface.
Villeneuve, Georges-Roberval.
Vincent, Auguste-Longueuil.
Weaver, George Dyer-Churchill.
Weir, William Gilbert-Portage-Neepawa.
Weselak, Anton Bernard-Springfield.
White, Arthur W. A.-Waterloo South.
White, George Stanley-Hastings-Frontenac.
White, Harry Oliver-Middlesex East.
Winch, Harold Edward-Vancouver East.
Winters, Hon. Robert H.-Queens-Lunen-burg.
Wylie, William Duncan-Medicine Hat. Yuill, Charles-Jasper-Edson.
Zaplitny, Fred S.-Dauphin.
2Died, November 28. 1956.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUENCIES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Fourth Session (Special)-Twenty-second Parliament
Acadia-Quelch, Victor.
Algoma East-Pearson, Hon. L. B.
Algoma West-Nixon, George Ewart.
Antigonish-Guysborough-Kirk, James Ralph.
Argenteuil-Two Mountains-Valois, Philippe.
Assiniboia-Argue, Hazen Robert. Athabaska,-Dechene, Joseph Miville.
Battle River-Camrose-Smith, James Alexander.
Beauce-Poulin, Raoul.
Beauharnois-Salaberry-Cauchon, Robert.
Bellechasse-Laflamme, Ovide.
Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere- Langlois, Joseph.
Bonaventure-Arsenault, Bona.
Bonavista-Twillingate-Pickersgill, Hon. John W.
Bow River-Johnston, Charles Edward. Brandon-Souris-Dinsdale, Walter Gilbert. Brantford-Brown, James E. Brant-Haldimand-Charlton, John Alpheus. Broadview-Hees, George Harris. Brome-Missisquoi-Deslieres, Joseph Leon. Bruce-Robinson, Andrew E.
Burin-Burgeo-Carter, Chesley William. Burnaby-Coquitlam-Regier, Erhart. Burnaby-Richmond-Goode, Thomas H.
Calgary North-Harkness, Douglas Scott. Calgary South-Nickle, Carl Olof.
Cape Breton North and Victoria-Buchanan, William Murdoch.
Cape Breton South-Gillis, Clarence.
Cariboo-Leboe, Bert Raymond.
Carleton-1Drew, Hon. George A.
Cartier-Crestohl, Leon David.
Chambly-Rouville-Pinard, Hon. Roch.
Champlain-Rochefort, Joseph I.
Chapleau-Gourd, David.
Charlevoix-Maltais, Auguste.
Charlotte-Stuart, Andrew Wesley.
Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie- Boucher, Jean.
Chicoutimi-Gagnon, Paul Edmond.
Churchill-Weaver, George Dyer.
Coast-Capilano-Sinclair, Hon. James.
Cochrane-Habel, Joseph A.
Colchester-Hants-Purdy, Gordon Timlin.
Comox-Alberni-Barnett, Thomas Speakman.
Compton-Frontenac-Blanchette, Joseph Adeodat.
Cumberland-Lusby, Azel Randolph.
Danforth-Small, Robert Hardy.
Dauphin-Zaplitny, Fred S.
Davenport-Hellyer, Paul Theodore.
Digby-Annapolis-Kings-Nowlan, George Clyde.
Dollard-Rouleau, Guy.
Dorchester-Perron, Robert.
Drummond-Arthabaska-Cloutier, Armand.
xiii
'Hon. George A. Drew resigned Jan. 8, 1957.

[Stage Direction]
Dufferin-Simcoe-Rowe, Hon. William Earl. Durham-James, John Mason.
Edmonton East-Holowach, Ambrose.
Edmonton-Strathcona-Hanna, Richard Francis L.
Edmonton West-Prudham, Hon. George.
Eglinton-Fleming, Donald Methuen.
Elgin-McBain, James Alexander.
Esquimalt-Saanich-Pearkes, George Randolph.
Essex East-Martin, Hon. Paul.
Essex South-Clark, Stuart Murray.
Essex West-Brown, Donald Ferguson.
Fort William-Mclvor, Daniel.
Fraser Valley-Patterson, Alexander Bell.
Gaspe-Langlois, J. G. Leopold.
Gatineau-Leduc, Rodolphe.
Glengarry-Prescott-Bruneau, Raymond.
Gloucester-Robichaud, Hedard J.
Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador- Ashbourne, Thomas Gordon William.
Greenwood-Macdonnell, James MacKerras.
Grenville-Dundas-Casselman, Arza Clair.
Grey-Bruce-Harris, Hon. Walter Edward.
Grey North

Bennett, Colin Emerson.
Halifax-Dickey, John H.
Balcom, Samuel Rosborough.
Halton2 Hamilton East3
Hamilton South-Reinke, Russell Earl. Hamilton West-Fairclough, Mrs. Ellen L. Hastings-Frontenac-White, George Stanley. Hastings South-Follwell, Frank S.
High Park-Cameron, Alan John Patrick. Hochelaga-Eudes, Raymond.
Hull-Caron, Alexis.
Humber-St. George's-Batten, Herman N.
Humboldt-Melfort-Bryson, Hugh Alexander.
Huron-Cardiff, Lewis Elston.
Iles de la Madeleine-Cannon, Charles Arthur Dumoulin.
Inverness-Richmond-MacEachen, Allen Joseph.
Jacques Cartier-Lasalle-Leduc, Edgar.
Jasper-Edson-Yuill, Charles.
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-Breton, Maurice.	____________________
Kamloops-Fulton, Edmund Davie.
Kamouraska-Masse, Arthur.
Kenora-Rainy River-Benidickson, William Moore.
Kent (N.B.)-Michaud, Herve J.
Kent (Ont.)-Huffman, Edward Blake. Kindersley-Johnson, Willis Merwyn.
Kings-Kickham, Thomas Joseph.
Kingston-Henderson, William James. Kootenay East-Byrne, James A. Kootenay West-Herridge, Herbert Wilfred.
Labelle-Roy, Gustave.
Lac St. Jean-Gauthier, Andre.
Lafontaine-Ratelle, J. George.
Lambton-Kent-MacKenzie, Hugh Alexander.
Lambton West-Murphy, Joseph Warner. Lanark-Blair, William Gourlay.
Lapointe-Girard, Fernand.
Laurier-Lefrangois, J. Eugene.
Laval-Demers, Leopold.
Leeds-Stanton, Hayden.
Lethbridge-Blackmore, John Horne.
2Miss M. Sybil Bennett died November 12, 1956.
3Mr. Thomas H. Ross died November 20. 1956.

[Stage Direction]
Levis-Bourget, Maurice.
Lincoln-Cavers, Harry Peter.
Lisgar-Pommer, William Albert.
London-Mitchell, Robert Weld.
Longueuil-Vincent, Auguste.
Lotbiniere-Lapointe, Hon. Hugues.
Mackenzie-Nicholson, Alexander M.
Mackenzie River-Hardie, Mervyn Arthur.
Macleod-Hansell, Ernest George.
Maisonneuve-Rosemont-Deschatelets, J. P.
Marquette-Garson, Hon. Stuart S.
Matapedia-Matane-Thibault, Leandre.
Meadow Lake-Harrison, John Hornby.
Medicine Hat-Wylie, William Duncan.
Megantic-Lafontaine, Joseph.
Melville-Gardiner, Right Hon. James G.
Mercier-Monette, Marcel.
Middlesex East-White, Harry Oliver.
Middlesex West-McCubbin, Robert.
Montmagny-L'Islet-Lesage, Hon. Jean.
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Thatcher, Wilbert Ross.
Moose Mountain-McCullough, Edward G.
Mount-Royal-Macnaughton, Alan Ayles worth.
Nanaimo-Cameron, Colin.
New Westminster-Hahn, Frederick G. J.
Niagara Falls-Houck, William Limburg.
Nickel Belt-Gauthier, J. Leoda.
Nicolet-Yamaska-Boisvert, Maurice.
Nipissing-Garland, John Richard.
Norfolk-Anderson, Raymond Elmer.
Northumberland (Ont.)-Robertson, Frederick Greystock.
Northumberland-Miramichi-Me William, George Roy.
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Hamilton, William McLean.
Okanagan Boundary-Jones, Owen L.
Okanagan-Revelstoke-McLeod, George William.
Ontario-Starr, Michael.
Ottawa East-Richard, Jean Thomas. Ottawa West-Mcllraith, George James. Outremont-St. Jean-Bourque, Romuald. Oxford-Nesbitt, Wallace Bickford.
Papineau-Meunier, J. Adrien.
Parkdale-Hunter, John William Gordon.
Parry Sound-Muskoka-McDonald, Wilfred Kennedy.
Peace River-Low, Solon Earl.
Peel-Pallett, John Cameron.
Perth-Monteith, Jay Waldo.
Peterborough-Fraser, Gordon Knapman.
Pictou-McCulloch, Henry Byron.
Pontiac-Temiscamingue-Proudfoot, John Hugh.
Port Arthur-Howe, Right Hon. C. D.
Portage-Neepawa-Weir, William Gilbert.
Portneuf-Gauthier, Pierre.
Prince-MacNaught, John Watson.
Prince Albert-Diefenbaker, John George.
Prince Edward-Lennox-Tustin, George James.
Provencher-Jutras, Rene Norbert.
Qu'Appelle-Mang, Henry Philip.
Quebec East-St. Laurent, Right Hon.
Louis S.
Quebec-Montmorency-LaCroix, Wilfrid. Quebec South-Power, Frank G.
Quebec West-Dufresne, J. Wilfrid.
Queens-MacLean, J. Angus.
Matheson, Neil Alexander.
Queens-Lunenburg-Winters, Hon. Robert H. Red Reer-Shaw, Frederick Davis.

[Stage Direction]
Regina City-Ellis, Alfred Claude.
Renfrew North-Forgie, James Moffat.
Renfrew South-McCann, Hon. James Joseph.
Restigouche-Madawaska-Van Horne, Joseph Charles.
Richelieu-Vercheres-Cardin, L. J. Lucien. Richmond-Wolfe-Gingras, Ernest O. Rimouski-Legare, Gerard.
Roberval-Villeneuve, Georges.
Rosedale

Henry, Charles.
Rosetown-Biggar-Coldwell, M. J.
Rosthern-Tucker, Walter A.
Royal-Brooks, Alfred Johnson.
Russell-Gour, Joseph Omer.
Saguenay-Brisson, Lomer.
St. Ann-Healy, Thomas Patrick.
St. Antoine-Westmount-Marler, Hon. George C.
St. Boniface-Viau, Fernand.
St. Denis-Denis, Azellus.
St. Henry-Bonnier, Joseph Arsene.
St. Hyacinthe-Bagot-Fontaine, Joseph.
St. James-Beaudry, Roland.
St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville-Menard, Armand.
Saint John-Albert-Bell, Thomas Miller.
St. John's East-Fraser, Allan MacPherson.
St. John's West-Power, James Augustine.
St. Lawrence-St. George-Richardson, Claude S.
St. Mary-Dupuis, Hector.
St. Maurice-Lafleche-Richard, Joseph Adolphe.
St. Paul's-Michener, Roland.
Saskatoon-Knight, Robert Ross.
Selkirk-Bryce, William.
Shefford-Boivin, Marcel.
Mr. John Lome MacDougall died June 6, 1956.
Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare-Kirk, Thomas Andrew Murray.
Sherbrooke-Gingues, Maurice.
Simcoe East-Robinson, William Alfred.
Simcoe North-Ferguson, Julian Harcourt.
Skeena-Applewhaite, Edward T.
Spadina-Rea, Charles E.
Springfield-Weselak, Anton Bernard.
Stanstead-Roberge, Louis Edouard.
Stormont-Lavigne, Albert.
Sudbury-Mitchell, David Rodger.
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Studer, Irvin William.
Temiscouata-St. Laurent, Jean-Paul. Terrebonne-Bertrand, Lionel.
The Battlefords-Campbell, Alexander Max. Timiskaming-Shipley, Mrs. Ann.
Timmins-Eyre, Karl Arliss.
Trinity-Carrick, Donald D. Trinity-Conception-Stick, Leonard T. Trois-Rivieres-Balcer, Leon.
Vancouver-Burrard4
Vancouver Centre-Campney, Hon. Ralph Osborne.
Vancouver East-Winch, Harold Edward. Vancouver-Kingsway-Maclnnis, Angus. Vancouver Quadra-Green, Howard Charles Vancouver South-Philpott, Elmore.
Vaudreuil-Soulanges-Beaudoin, Hon. L. Rene.
Vegreville-Decore, John.
Verdun-Leduc, Yves.
Victoria (B.C.)-Fairey, Francis Thrower.
Victoria (Ont.)-Hodgson, Clayton Wesley.
Victoria-Carleton-Montgomery, Gage Workman.
Villeneuve-Dumas, Armand.

[Stage Direction]
xvii
Waterloo North-Schneider, Norman C.
Waterloo South-White, Arthur W. A.
Welland-McMillan, William H.
Wellington-Huron-Howe, William Marvin.
Wellington South-Hosking, Henry Alfred.
Wentworth-Lennard, Frank Exton.
Westmorland-Murphy, Henry J.
Wetaskiwin-Thomas, Ray.
Winnipeg North-Stewart, Alistair McLeod.
Winnipeg North Centre-Knowles, Stanley Howard.
Winnipeg South-5 6Trainor, Owen C.
Winnipeg South Centre-Churchill, Gordon. York Centre-Hollingworth, Allan H. York-East-McGregor, Robert Henry. York-Humber-Aitken, Miss Margaret.
York North-Smith, John Eachern. York-Scarborough-Enfield, Frank A.
York South6
York-Sunbury-Gregg, Hon. Milton F.
York West-Hamilton, John Borden. Yorkton-Castleden, George Hugh.
Yukon-Simmons, James Aubrey.
5Died November 28, 1956.
6Mr. Joseph William Noseworthy died March 31, 1956.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
%)ou$t of Commons! debates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable L. Rene Beaudoin
Monday, November 26, 1956

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued on the fourteenth day of August, 1956, met this day at Ottawa for the dispatch of business.

Mr. Speaker read a communication from the secretary to the Governor General, announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate chamber at 2.30 o'clock on this day for the purpose of formally opening the special session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker. His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber:

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the first time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that when the house did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both houses of parliament. To prevent mistakes, I have obtained a copy, which is as follows:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
You have been summoned at this time because ol the serious international situation arising out of
Hungary3 the Middle East and the events in
Members of the House of Commons:
You will be asked to provide expressly that the provision for defence expenditures in the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, be used for the purposes of Canada's participation in the United Nations emergency force for the Middle East in fulfilment of our country's obligations to the United Nations Organization under the charter. You will also be requested to authorize the provision of relief for the victims of the recent tragic events in Hungary.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May divine Providence continue to protect this nation, and to guide the parliament of Canada in all its deliberations.



TRIBUTES TO DECEASED MEMBERS


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, until quite recently we had reason to have high hopes that the then next session of parliament would open without having to deplore the passing of any hon. member of this house. Then it was with deep sorrow that we learned of the death of two of our esteemed colleagues, of Miss Sybil Bennett on November 12 and of Mr. Tom Ross on November 20.
Unfortunately Miss Bennett was in ill health practically from the beginning of her parliamentary career and only because of her courage, which can be truly called heroic, was she able to continue her public duties. When she returned to the chamber last May we were all hopeful that her health had been restored and that she would be able to take a more active part in our deliberations.
Miss Bennett, as we know, was descended on both sides of her family from United Empire Loyalist stock and she was proud of her ancestry. She was also justly pleased to have been related to a former prime minister of Canada, the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.
Miss Bennett was elected in the general election of 1953 for the constituency of Halton and when parliament met later that year we were all delighted to welcome another honourable lady member to our midst, particularly one who had earned such a fine

Tributes to Deceased Members reputation in our legal profession and as a citizen interested in the welfare of our fellow Canadians.
Tom Ross' death also grieved all his friends, and he had many, inside and outside this chamber. He was first elected to the House of Commons in the general election of 1940 to represent the constituency of Hamilton East and the record shows that since that time he has never been defeated at the polls. Tom Ross' mission in life was to make friends and this came quite easy to him because of his personality and because of his wide experience in public relations.
He was born in Woodstock, Ontario, where a good many new Canadians have settled, and because of his daily contact with them he had from the outset a genuine and sincere interest in their welfare in our country. The importance of their great contribution to the economic and cultural patrimony of Canada was encouraged by him and he never ceased to be their champion.
Although Tom Ross did not participate as often as a number of us in the debates in the house, his long experience in parliament made his services most valuable on numerous committees of the house and he always served both his country and constituents with the utmost devotion and sincerity.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak for all hon. members of the house in saying that these two hon. members will be remembered with genuine affection and respect and that we wish to extend our sincere sympathy to Mrs. Ross and to Mr. Arnold Bennett, the brother of the late hon. member for Halton.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I join the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in extending sympathy to the families and friends of the two deceased members. It had been my privilege to know them both for many years.
As the Prime Minister has so well said, Miss Bennett was very active in many activities in this country. Some years ago she was president of the Conservative women's association of Canada and I believe was the first lady to be made a K.C. at the bar. She was a member of the women's bar association and was highly regarded in her profession locally, being I believe the first woman to practise law in a rural district in Ontario.
As the Prime Minister has said, she showed a heroic courage even from the early days when she put herself through university until she attained such great distinction at the bar. During her last few years she suffered ill health but very few knew of this. I understand that those who

were closest to her in her immediate family and in her party activities in the riding never heard a word of complaint. Up to the hour she lost consciousness she showed a continuing interest in the affairs of her district. She was active in church work and in club and social activities in her community.
Miss Sybil Bennett will be missed greatly in the county of Halton. She will be missed especially in Georgetown where she practised; she will be missed by her brother and immediate relatives; she will be missed greatly by the party which she belonged to and served so well and so effectively.
I know that all members of this party and, as the Prime Minister has said, all members of the house will join in extending to her brother and her relatives our sincere sympathy and our appreciation of her loyal devotion to duty in this country.
I had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Tom Ross for many years, even before he became a member of the Canadian House of Commons in 1940. He was a most genial member who had many friends on both sides of the house. He was active in almost every activity around Hamilton and in many other places. He never missed an opportunity to speak on behalf of Hamilton, and his interest in sports and other activities marked him as one who was well known by young and old and whose company was enjoyed by a great many.
He will be missed greatly in this house and I know he will be missed greatly in the Hamilton district. I join with the Prime Minister in extending to Mrs. Ross and the members of the family, as well as to his riding and party, the deep sympathies of this party and I am sure of all members of this house.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said, I think we all hoped that at this session of parliament we might be spared having to record the passing of any of our members. We join of course with others in the house in the expressions of sympathy to the friends and relatives of Miss Bennett and to the family of Mr. Ross. We join too in the expression of sympathy to the Liberal party in the loss of one of its members and colleagues and to the Conservative party in the loss of a very charming lady in the person of Miss Bennett.
Mr. Ross, as has already been said, was known to all of us in the house as a very friendly member, always willing at any time to help anyone who needed his help. I wish to record our personal appreciation of the

manner in which he always greeted those of us who, though often disagreeing with him in the policies that he followed, none the less respected him very highly.
Miss Bennett was a newcomer to the house and she brought charm to it. As the Prime Minister has said, she came here in May suffering serious illness. I noted at the time that she looked ill and I inquired how she was. She said she was very much better. Consequently I was very sorry to learn of her passing. We join, Mr. Speaker, in the expressions of sympathy that have already been made by the Prime Minister and the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe).


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group would like to associate ourselves with the tributes that have been paid by previous speakers to these two former members of the house, our associates. I did not know Miss Bennett long. She was a newcomer to the house but it is quite evident that she was an eminent lady and one of great distinction who, as has been said, conducted herself here in a most charming manner. She was ill during most of the time that she was in the house and it was an inspiration to me to see how she bore her afflictions without complaint and how calm and patient she was in the face of her adversities. We feel that her passing was a distinct loss to the whole house and naturally our sympathies go out to the members of her family and her friends and to the Conservative party in the loss of such a fine supporter and member.
I was also exceedingly sorry to learn of the passing of my friend, Tom Ross. He was indeed a friendly fellow, one with great and wide interests. I think that Tom must have discovered the secret of diversified living because it was evident to me over the years I had known him that he believed that the whole secret of living was in being interested in one thing profoundly and in a thousand things well. Mr. Ross took a great interest in new members of the house and invited them one by one to visit his constituency. He had a double purpose. As I recall it, one was to teach members of the house the great things he believed and felt about his constituency and also at the same time to get acquainted with them and make them acquainted with his own people.
I enjoyed the privilege of a visit to his constituency. I enjoyed not only the things I saw but the very wonderful hospitality extended to me by both Mr. and Mrs. Ross.
I counted them amongst my great friends and, along with others, I wish to record my sorrow at his passing. I extend to Mrs. Ross our very warm sympathy and to the Liberal 81537-1J
Hon. George A. Drew
party our sympathy in the loss of a very devoted follower and a good member of parliament.



EXPRESSIONS OF REGRET AT ABSENCE OF FORMER LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, there is one other circumstance of this day which saddens us all, and that is the absence from his usual place in the house of the former leader of the official opposition. We were all very sorry to learn some several weeks ago that the state of the hon. gentleman's health was such that he proposed asking his followers to relieve him of the heavy responsibilities of leadership of that party. I make no comments upon that because the matter has not yet been considered by the members of that party, and I understand that it is to be considered at a relatively early date.
But I do want to put it on the records of the house that we were all shocked when we heard that there was going to be-not a cessation, we hoped, but an interruption in the service to the Canadian nation of Mr. George Drew. I hope it is only a temporary interruption and that circumstances will be such that he will have many more years when he can contribute, as he has contributed in the past, to the advancement of public affairs in this country. I am sure that I express the feelings of all my colleagues on this side of the house when I say to our hon. friends of the official opposition that we do sympathize with them in the circumstance that made it necessary for Mr. Drew to consider the course which he has proposed to submit to his followers.
It is unfortunate that in these trying days Mr. Drew is not the only one who has spent his energies to the very limit in the service of his fellow citizens. I am sure we were all saddened to hear that Sir Anthony Eden had also been constrained to take quite a long rest at a time when we all know how anxious he would have been to continue to share in the responsibility for the decisions that the world situation requires to be made at this time.
We rejoice that Mr. Drew is making such a splendid recovery. It was my privilege to see him for a few minutes the other day and to say to him that I sincerely hoped that he felt as well as he looked. That is my hope and the hope of all my colleagues for the future of the hon. gentleman, and we will certainly rejoice with all his friends in the other parties in this country when circumstances make it possible for him, without departing

Hon. George A. Drew
too severely from the recommendations of his medical advisers, to resume his activities in public life in Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that he was speaking on behalf of all those around him, his colleagues. I can assure him that when he expressed sympathy to the official opposition on the absence from the house for the time being at least of the leader of the opposition he was speaking for all of us in this chamber irrespective of where we sit.
Mr. Drew's ill health is of course a personal tragedy involving as it does a man occupying his position and rendering the service that he rendered. While I have often disagreed with him, none the less I regarded him as a brilliant oppositionist, one who was able to go very often to the heart of a problem and to discuss it from the point of view of those who surrounded him. I know this must be a very serious blow to them.
May I also say that I am not unmindful of the part that Mrs. Drew has played in the public affairs of this country and the blow it must have been to her at this particular time when she has been a charming hostess and a personality who did much to enhance the position of the leader of the opposition throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, we regret the circumstance. I too join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in hoping that Mr. Drew will be restored to complete health and strength and that he will be able to continue his services in some form or other to the people of Canada for many years to come.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the acting leader of the Conservative party will, before he speaks, allow me to say that with what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said concerning the leader of the opposition and also with what the leader of the C.C.F. party has said we heartily agree. We should like to have it known that we feel extremely sorry that it has been necessary for Mr. Drew to consider stepping down from his responsible position, one that has taken a tremendous toll of his health and strength. As has rightly been said, we are also mindful of the position that Mrs. Drew has occupied and of the contribution she has made to the work that Mr. Drew has done.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, as has been said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, little need be added, as the Prime Minis-

ter has spoken for all in the house. On behalf of the opposition I want to say that I appreciate the words of the Prime Minister and those of the members of the other parties who have spoken here today. Fortunately it seems to be one of the happy traditions of public life that there is an underlying sympathy with each other's problems. Mr. Drew and Mrs. Drew have given a great deal to the public life of Canada. No man could have been more devoted to duty. Since his early teens he has served this country in almost every capacity one could think of, including service overseas, municipal service, provincial premier and leader of the opposition in this house for some years. Despite the great apparent strength with which he was endowed by nature, as the years went by he seemed to put more into the service rather than what often appears to be less, as might be expected as we get into the twilight of our life.
Hon. George Drew had great energy and he devoted a great deal of it to the cause of public life in this country. I know that he and his wife will keenly appreciate the expressions of sympathy that have been voiced in this house by the Prime Minister and others, and I shall be glad to pass them on to them. I also join with the Prime Minister in hoping that Mr. Drew may be able to serve in other important capacities. I can also assure you, Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, that he is gaining his strength rapidly. He is looking well and, by all appearances, should soon be able to resume an important place in public life in Canada. I am sure his vast experience would fit him to discharge extremely important duties in the future. As the hon. member has said, I hope that he will for many years enjoy the strength to devote himself to public service as has always been his desire.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, there are not only things that cause us real sadness that are happening but we have or we were to have the pleasure-we will have it at another moment-of the presence of a distinguished commonwealth colleague. When he is here I am sure we will all rejoice in his presence. By leave of the house, and seconded by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe), may I now move:
That the speech of His Excellency the Governoi General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration later this day.
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to table copies, in English and in French, of order in council P.C. 1956/1712 of November 20, 1956, relating to Canada's participation in the United Nations emergency force for service in the Middle East.
(For text of order in council see page 105.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, with the speech from the throne and this order in council before the house I would beg leave to move-as it was my privilege to move at the special session we had in 1951-for certain relaxations of some of the rules of the house in order to deal with this matter. The motion, which is substantially similar to that which was accepted by the house in 1951, is as follows-


Mr. Knowles:: In 1950.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; in 1950. The motion is as follows:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 55, the house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and also into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
That Edward T. Applewhaite, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Skeena, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole house.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe):
That, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 55, this house will, at its next sitting, later this day, resolve itself-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. Would Your Honour be kind enough to strike out "later this day"? I think it would be at the next sitting of the house because that is an indefinite term which means when it can be reached after the sitting of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the motion will read
as follows:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of standing order 55, this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and also into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Then there is a second paragraph. Does the Prime Minister intend to make the two subject matters the object of one motion or are there supposed to be two different motions?
Business of the House


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If Your
Honour felt it was better to submit the paragraphs separately, I would have no objection to that course being followed. All that is desired is to have the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means set up so that a message from His Excellency with respect to the supply to be asked for may be referred to that committee to be dealt with by the committee when we can reach it in the due course of the proceedings.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I would understand that there should be notice of the motion. However, I do not think there will be much opposition to it. It is understood that it is merely setting up the committees?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: And it is understood that we
will proceed with the speech from the throne tomorrow?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, we
will proceed with the speech from the throne this afternoon. It is not the intention of the government to try to thwart the desire of any of the hon. members with respect to discussion of the speech from the throne. We had hoped that hon. members might find it more convenient to have the whole discussion on the estimate. But if that procedure is not agreeable, it is not our intention to force anybody's hand or mind in respect of that procedure.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister if that mean's that the government will not seek to resolve the house into committee of supply until the house has indicated that it has completed the debate on the address or unanimously agreed to some other course?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We will see what course the debate takes. I would hope it would not be necessary, on a speech from the throne the length of the one to which we have listened this afternoon, to have a 10-day debate. I would hope that would not be the case. There are things, I think, that are more serious at this time than the discussion of procedure. I think all hon. members will want to reach a point where a decision can be made as to whether or not the house is going to allow the government to carry out the decision implemented in the order in council that I have just tabled. We will see how things proceed. We do not intend to precipitate matters, and it will be our desire to proceed in a way that will meet what we apprehend is the wish of the

Business of the House
country, that parliament do, after proper consideration, pronounce itself upon the conduct of the government in making the order that has just been tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1957, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would make the other part of the motion I referred to a moment ago with respect to the rules of the house during this, what I think would be called, emergency or special session. It is as follows:
That the following changes he made in the procedure of the house for the present session:
1.	That the house shall sit every day except Sunday, and that standing orders 2 and 6 be suspended in relation thereto.
2.	That, until the proceedings on the proposed appropriation bill have been disposed of, the daily hours of sitting shall be 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., and 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.; government orders shall have precedence of all other business except the daily routine of business, notices of motions for the production of papers, and questions; and that the provisions of standing orders 2, 6 and 15 be suspended in relation thereto.
3.	That the provisions of standing orders 15, 41, 71 and 93 providing for the introduction, printing and consideration of notices of motions and bills by private members be suspended.
4.	That the provisions of standing order 42 requiring unanimous consent for a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity be suspended.
5.	That standing order 65 respecting the appointment of standing committees be suspended.
6.	That the provisions of standing orders 75 and 78. restricting bills to a separate reading in each sitting be suspended.
7.	That standing orders 81, 85 and 120 respecting the presentation of certain reports and the printing and distribution of a list of statutory documents be suspended.
That is the motion that was made at the special session when we were dealing with the railway strike and I think hon. gentlemen who were here will recall that we were able to deal in a reasonable and responsible fashion with the business that the house had to consider. I may say at this time that it is not the intention of the government, unless

of course something that has not been foreseen were to occur, to introduce any other legislation but this appropriation bill.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, this is rather a large order. It would appear to me that we might have until tomorrow to consider the motion, and take it as a notice of motion today.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If hon. gentlemen feel they would like to read it and make sure it does not go beyond what would appear to them to be reasonable, I would have no objection to the putting of the motion standing over until the opening of tomorrow morning's session.


Major James William Coldwell: We cannot sit tomorrow morning unless this is passed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is so, but possibly paragraphs 1 and 2 might be adopted, and paragraphs 3 and following left for further consideration. Paragraphs 1 and 2 have to do with sitting every day and the hours of sitting; that is all. Perhaps I could restrict my motion to those paragraphs 1 and 2 and have the consent of the house to present another motion with the remaining portion tomorrow morning.


Mr. Lennard:: Let it stand until tomorrow.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If we let it
stand until tomorrow, we cannot meet tomorrow morning.


Frank Exton Lennard: All right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman thinks it is all right, but I am under the impression the Canadian public would expect us to devote more time, while we are here, to considering these important matters.


William Earl Rowe: I do not want to hold up proceedings, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with the Prime Minister. In fact, I would even go farther and say that the Canadian public thought we should have met two weeks ago.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We will answer that when the point is made.


William Earl Rowe: In any event, I would agree, if other hon. members would agree, that we meet tomorrow morning by unanimous consent at eleven o'clock and leave this motion over until tomorrow. This would serve your purpose to meet tomorrow at eleven o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not know whether a motion is required for that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think there should be something on record because

I do not think we can just meet outside the time provided by the orders and competently deal with parliamentary business.


Major James William Coldwell: think the procedure that was suggested of moving a part of the motion relating to tomorrow morning would be appropriate, and I would be prepared to accept the entire motion because it is in line with the 1950 precedent. If there is any division, could we not have the motion setting the time of meeting tomorrow and then take the other part of the motion later tomorrow?


William Earl Rowe: That is very good.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Then I shall redraft the other paragraphs, which will be as I have read them into the record, but I will redraft them as a motion to be presented tomorrow morning.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to point out to the house that the Clerk has indicated to me that if paragraph No. 3 of the original motion is not agreed upon, the 15 notices of motion that have been received will have to be printed tomorrow and the same situation would apply to private members' bills. Paragraph No. 3 of the motion reads as follows:
That the provisions of standing orders 15, 41, 71 and 93 providing for the introduction, printing and consideration of notices of motions and bills by private members be suspended.
I merely want to pass on this information to the house in case it wishes to deal with it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If that can be added to this motion, paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be dealt with tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moves, seconded by Mr. Harris, that the following changes be made in the procedure of the house for the present session:
1.	That the house shall sit every day except Sunday, and that standing orders 2 and 6 be suspended in relation thereto.
2.	That, until the proceedings on the proposed appropriation bill have been disposed of, the daily hours of sitting shall be 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., and 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.; government orders shall have precedence of all other business except the daily routine of business, notices of motions for the production of papers, and questions; and that the provisions of standing orders 2, 6 and 15 be suspended in relation thereto.
3.	That the provisions of standing orders 15, 41, 71 and 93 providing for the introduction, printing and consideration of notices of motions and bills by private members be suspended.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Address-Mr. Legare SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
(Translation):
Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I felt greatly honoured in being invited by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The invitation came to me in New York at the very time when the General Assembly was considering the situation in the Middle East. In my own name and in the name of all my constituents, I want to express my very sincere appreciation to him.
The session which is starting today is and will remain a historical one. It is the result of serious unforeseen and regrettable events that took place during the last few weeks and which, I am sorry to say, still darken the international horizon.
Those events are of a different nature and cannot be compared; on the one hand, there is military action by three states which, because they foresaw trouble and a further deterioration of an already upsetting situation, decided upon an emergency operation; on the other hand, we have an almighty state bent upon the wholesale butchery of a defenseless people in order to maintain the control it has been exerting too long now, with total disregard for the most elementary rules of law and justice.
Could Canada, which, though an autonomous country, is interdependent with all nations seeking peace, the establishment of a reign of justice and the respect of individual rights, dissociate itself from those events?
Could the Canadian government remain unconcerned by the suffering and the tortures of a whole nation which, wearied of oppression and persecution, was seeking freedom?
I say no, and that for two reasons.
When the invasion of Egypt occurred, followed by the armed intervention of the French and British forces, Russia offered to send thousands of volunteers to support president Nasser.
The whole world shuddered at the thought that we might be on the threshold of another vast and terrible world conflict.
Urgently called in special session, the United Nations Organizations seemed falter-
8	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Legare ing in its efforts to ensure peace. And at that moment of extreme anguish-and the C.B.C. enabled us to witness its most pathetic moments-our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) put forth a motion advocating the setting up and the sending of an international police force to bring about and supervise the cessation of hostilities.
Without depriving the hon. minister of the great share of credit to which he is entitled- and I add that he enjoys everywhere a reputation which all diplomats envy him and which honours us

I must say that the proposal for an international police force, of a peace mission to which Canada could participate, had been studied and approved previously by the right hon. Prime Minister and the cabinet and that it was submitted to the United Nations with their assent.
That proposal, one of capital importance at that crucial moment, the only practical one submitted to the confused assembly, received the approval of the vast majority of members of the United Nations. It led to the cease-fire and we are now witnessing the gradual withdrawal of the occupation forces.
All powers, great and small, the world press and even some hon. members to my left who, through force of habit, almost always hold opinions different from ours, have accepted with much enthusiasm the idea of a United Nations police force.
I could quote many opinions of people who warmly welcomed this proposal but I will be satisfied with quoting what the president of Morocco said about this:
The creation of that police force will remain one of humanity's greatest achievements.
I feel I should point out that this police force, to which we have the privilege of contributing, has been put under the United Nations and will take its orders from the United Nations only. Canada is represented on the advisory committee of seven members which sets its terms of reference and which has laid that condition.
The American delegate to the world organization, Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, expressed his feelings in these terms:
The whole matter is a collective responsibility of the General Assembly. No single government can dictate terms for its solution.
It has already been made quite clear that this force is not a fighting force and that it is clearly meant to ensure and maintain peace. If ever the United Nations were to subscribe to the idea of an international army-an idea which has been long advocated-then, and then only, should we pause to consider its advantages or its drawbacks.

May I repeat what was said last week by the commander of this peaceful United Nations mission, that great Canadian, General Burns:
Egypt has accepted the presence of United Nations forces on its territory and must therefore accept the Canadians that are part of it.
He was answering a rumour according to which Colonel Nasser had objected to Canada's part in this police action.
Our participation in this action stems primarily from our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations, and then, principally because of the moral responsibility incumbent upon all nations to work towards the maintenance of peace and security.
Mr. Speaker, quite different but highly humanitarian considerations call for our participation in relieving the Hungarian people. More than 60,000 refugees have fled the Soviet hordes, thousands of wounded moan in the ruins of Budapest, while an unknown number of young men have been deported to Siberia in railway cars sealed against any attempt to escape.
The United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for refugees, Mr. James Read, who came back from Austria last week, stated last Friday before a United Nations committee:
I have seen Hungarian refugees, men, women and children, poorly clad, shivering from the cold, their faces emaciated from privations and sleepless nights, who could still smile because they had just recovered freedom.
For the past several days, the United Nations secretariat has been receiving offers of assistance for this sorely tried people which has given evidence of unparalleled heroism. Millions of dollars will be required. Moreover, several countries have agreed to accept refugees. Canada's spontaneous contribution greatly honours us and I congratulate the government which is now asking Canadian parliament to ratify it.
I also wish to congratulate the government and more particularly the Department of External Affairs for their valuable co-operation in all the activities of the United Nations Organization and its specialized agencies. Our country undoubtedly exerts a deep influence upon that organization. May I add this: When the representative of a country goes to the rostrum at the General Assembly of the United Nations, he is not customarily applauded. Last Friday, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada ascended the rostrum to reply to the abusive language of the representative of the Soviet union, the public gallery burst into applause.
We therefore find that the popularity enjoyed by the present government in Canada extends into the international field. We find its cause in the government's constant endeav-

our to promote universal peace and the improvement of social and economic conditions everywhere and for all.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak), I have the honour to propose:
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Vincent
Massey, C.H., Governor General and Commanderin-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
(Text):


Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, when the message of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) inquiring whether I would second the address in reply to the speech from the throne was relayed to me at the United Nations in New York, realizing the gravity of the present situation and the serious threat to world peace, I could not help but feel grateful that I could in Canada help initiate this debate and assist in the opening of this special session of the Canadian House of Commons which has been called for the purpose of carrying through and assisting in the work of the United Nations, work designed to avert war in the Middle East where world peace is seriously threatened; a session also called for the purpose of assisting refugees from a region in Europe from which my own ancestors came to Canada and from which many of my constituents and their parents also came to Canada. They came here to find opportunity and freedom which they have found and now value so highly.
I therefore thank the Prime Minister and his cabinet for the honour bestowed upon me, and, through me, on the people of the constituency of Springfield.
To the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) who has had the honour of moving this address I tender my heartiest congratulations upon his splendid presentation.
Having witnessed for the past two weeks the proceedings of the general assembly of the United Nations as a member of the Canadian delegation, I cannot refrain from attempting to impress upon this house the gravity and seriousness of the problems facing the assembly, and their complexity.
I feel satisfied that the United Nations has in the past month stopped a major conflict in the Middle East. This was not easily accomplished. Hon. members will recall that in the emergency sessions of the security council and the general assembly held late in October 81537-2
The Address-Mr. Weselak and early this month, England and France opposed resolutions of the security council calling for a cease fire and for prompt withdrawal of all troops, and subsequently in the general assembly, against a large majority of the members, voted against a similar resolution.
Obviously Britain and France felt that they could not leave the Suez area until some other solution was found to protect and assure the passage of ships through the canal, which is so vital to their economy. At this stage it appeared as though the United Nations, facing a supreme test, had failed.
Canada had abstained from voting on the resolution, but in explaining her reason for so doing, the chairman of the Canadian delegation, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Pearson), suggested that a United Nations emergency force be established and that this force be sent to the Middle East to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with the instructions received by it from time to time from the United Nations.
This suggestion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was immediately seized upon by members of the United Nations and he was urged to formulate and propose a resolution implementing his suggestion. This was done and the resolution received general acceptance and support and was supported by both England and France. The support given to this resolution is indicated by the fact that of a membership of 76, 57 voted in favour of the resolution, 19 abstained, and none were opposed.
This resolution was passed on November 4 and a cease fire went into effect on November 6. On November 7 the general assembly voted to set up immediately the international force to be known as the United Nations emergency force. An advisory committee of seven nations in which Canada was included was established to assist the secretary general in his efforts to solve the many problems which faced him in establishing this unique force, the first of its kind in world history. It is a tribute to Canada that Major General Burns has been appointed by the secretary general of the United Nations to assume command of this special force.
The matter of our contribution to the United Nations force as well as its functions and authority are solely matters for determination by the United Nations itself and are not matters for determination by any one country, group of countries or the recipient country. In our support of the United Nations we must accept its decisions in this respect. Our support of the United Nations must be such that we will in the interest of world

The Address-Mr. Weselak peace subordinate our own desires and willingly make such contributions as may be required of us by the secretary general of the United Nations.
The force being provided is not intended to be a fighting force but is intended to be a police force. It is being sent to the Middle East to create a favourable climate for negotiations which we hope will result in solution of the problems in the area and establish an enduring peace. The duration of the force's stay may well depend upon the progress made in this respect.
The force is now being assembled in Egypt. The British and French have agreed and are in the process of withdrawing their troops. Progress is being made toward clearing the canal, the opening of which to navigation is so important not only to the European countries but also to the Afro-Asian countries which, while the canal remains closed, are suffering great economic loss.
The United Nations, despite its appearance of power, is nevertheless a very fragile creature, still in its infancy. Its weapons have not been force, they have been those of world opinion dependent upon the good faith of its members and their national moral responsibility.
We in Canada who have been staunch supporters of the United Nations should be glad and thankful that in the crises which now exist, and which threaten world peace, the United Nations has been effective and we should with humility take pride in the role which Canada has played and the contribution she has made toward the solution of these difficult problems.
One cannot spend any length of time at the United Nations and not become consciously aware of the fact that there is general acceptance and recognition that Canada has played and is continuing to play a leading role in the solution of the Middle East problem. It is also accepted and recognized that a great deal of the progress made in this connection has been due to the untiring personal efforts of the chairman of the Canadian delegation, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who time and time again when serious differences arose between the nations affected acted as adviser and mediator to and between the parties.
Through his efforts these nations were brought together and their differences were overcome by consultation, discussion and compromise. We are deeply grateful for the efforts put forth by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs directed toward obtaining a solution to these complex and difficult problems.

I would now like to turn to another matter which has been referred to in the speech from the throne, namely the matter of assistance to Hungarian refugees. Five centuries ago the Hungarian hero, John Hunyadi, won freedom for his people by defeating the Turkish forces. The freedom so won and. the hope for its continuance has never died in the hearts of the Hungarian people. Since that time the people of Hungary and her neighbours have repeatedly risen against tyranny, and once again we see them rise in protest against Moscow-dominated communist oppression.
Russia and her satellites would have us believe that this uprising is a fascist resurgence of the old ruling class, a rebellion instigated from outside the country without the support of the common people of Hungary. This, however, is not the case. In the United Nations spokesmen for Austria, Belgium, France and other neighbouring countries who are well aware of what is going on in Hungary denied the Russian allegations, stated that the revolt is from within and is a revolt of the common worker, of the student and of other ordinary people.
The revolt began on October 23; it started as a peaceful demonstration of students and workers, demanding redress of their grievances. It became a revolution when bullets from men in the uniforms of the secret police and of the Soviet army indiscriminately slaughtered unarmed men, women and children. It appeared for a while as though the rebels had succeeded in their fight for freedom and self-determination. A provisional government was set up under Imre Nagy and plans were announced for free democratic elections.
Then what happened? Overwhelming Soviet forces with tanks and planes, with a ruthlessness repugnant to even the most hardened, crushed, killed and smashed the Hungarian patriots and brought forward a small clique of traitors headed by Janos Kadar as its puppet government of the people of Hungary.
The result of the savagery with which the Soviet forces quelled the revolt has been the flight for their lives of over 70,000 people to Austria and to other parts of the free world. Cardinal Mindszenty, primate of Austria, who was released from imprisonment by the short Nagy regime has once again had to flee and now finds refuge in the United States embassy in Budapest.
Irrefutable evidence obtained by Canada, the United States and other countries discloses that Hungarians by the thousands are being shipped east to Siberia in sealed box

cars in trains with Soviet crews. The displacement of a nation and its replanting by Soviet communist indoctrinated nationals once again becomes the order of the day.
Russia and her satellites categorically deny such deportations. Yet in spite of two resolutions of the general assembly passed by overwhelming majorities the present Hungarian government and the Soviet refuse to permit the secretary general of the United Nations or his representatives entry into Hungary to verify the facts. If what Russia says is true, what has she to fear by the entry of a United Nations observer?
Even the Polish and Yugoslav governments have refused to support the Soviet opposition to United Nations observers in Hungary. The failure of Poland to vote for the Russian stand is particularly significant in view of the fact that this is the first time in the history of the United Nations that Poland has failed to support Russia with her vote.
World opinion was expressed in the United Nations when the assembly by a vote of 55 members out of 79 with abstentions called for a withdrawal of Russian troops from Hungary, for a stop to deportations and for the furnishing of aid and relief to refugees. Russia not only refused to accept the resolution but moved an amendment which would have required all nations to return refugees to Hungary where no doubt swift Soviet justice would have been their lot.
The heroic people of Hungary have paid and are paying a terrible price in their fight for freedom. They have however shown the free world what the Soviet interpretation of the words "peaceful coexistence", so freely used by them in recent months, actually mean in the Soviet mind. Obviously one can only coexist peacefully if one accepts the dictates of the Soviet from Moscow and accepts Soviet dictatorship. Hungary has found this out to her sorrow.
We of the free world who have the priceless freedom for which so many Hungarian patriots have so recently died because of their courage and their struggle for the principle we value so highly owe a debt to these people which we must acknowledge by pressing in every forum of world opinion the battle for Hungarian freedom, by using every political and economic weapon against the Soviet oppressor, and by providing relief and asylum to the tens of thousands of refugees who have escaped.
I am sure the hon. members of this house will agree with me when I say that Austria deserves the warm-hearted commendation of the people of Canada for the charitable manner in which she has taken to her these unfortunate refugees. Austria was indeed
The Address-Mr. Rowe fortunate when at the termination of hostilities following the last world war she was occupied by the four powers. As a result of this occupation democratic free elections were held in Austria, she gained her independence and has since fortunately been able to maintain her neutrality. Austria has become the haven for refugees from almost all parts of central Europe, particularly of peoples fleeing Soviet oppression. She is not a large or over-wealthy country, yet she has not closed her borders to anyone and in the flight from Hungary alone, as I have said before, she has accepted over 70,000 refugees. In addition to these recent refugees she has within her borders roughly 120,000 other refugees. The situation in Austria is becoming very critical. I am pleased to see that in the speech from the throne this matter is also to be considered by this House of Commons.
In conclusion I have the honour and take pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare).


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak) who have just moved and seconded the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have spoken rather briefly and despite their eloquence have not offered much by way of clarification of the confusion and uncertainty which seems to hang over the Canadian people as to this country's position in the United Nations and our contributions in the Near East.
I know that the people of this country and hon. members of this house, especially members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, were shocked over the last week end on two different counts. The first was the strange attitude taken by the United States of America in the United Nations when despite the rather vigorous attitude of Canada's representatives the week before we had the almost embarrassing silence on Saturday night in connection with the issue then before the United Nations. As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak), some of the British and French troops have been moved from the Near East, but I understood that when the cease-fire agreement was concluded the one main and fundamental condition of that agreement was that there was to be an effective police force in the Near East before the British and French troops would move. Yet now they are asked to move forthwith. As Hon. Solon Low has said-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
81537-2*
12	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe


William Earl Rowe: Hon. Selwyn Lloyd-I am getting great names confused-"forthwith" perhaps did not mean forthwith.
Conditions of course are very critical. Conditions during the last few years have changed a great deal. In the past number of years our security has more or less depended on firm alliances. For many years the most intimate alliance so far as we are concerned has been that of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth. That more or less recognized unwritten unity has, I believe, often prevented trouble. Such alliances have been based on mutual trust. They were limited to clear objectives and no one distrusted the other in carrying out those objectives. It would have been unheard of in years past for one ally to make a public statement against the action taken by another for its own security. It would indeed have been unheard of for a Canadian prime minister or Canadian cabinet minister to repudiate the British in public for action taken which in this instance has now been generally justified and has in reality meant perhaps the saving for the time being of the Middle East.
Right Hon. Mr. Eden, Prime Minister of Great Britain, has said that the British-French invasion of Egypt has blocked a communist plot in the Middle East, a plot which would have led to "the loss of countless lives and more other evils than we can even estimate." The record of the last few years truly gives us more reason to trust the Prime Minister of Britain than President Nasser of Egypt.
We are of course committed now to the United Nations and all its wide areas of operation. While there are grave differences of opinion in the United Nations organization, nevertheless all who are honestly striving and struggling for world peace are earnestly hoping that the worthy intentions and aspirations of that organization may not be sacrificed by abandoning the basic principles behind its creation. The fundamental and most important of these principles to prevent aggression and preserve peace was the principle of collective action. The United Nations organization of today seems at times to be united in name only.
Events are happening in Poland and Hungary that give us cause to believe that the Soviet domination of their huge empire is going to be maintained by force. The retreat from Stalinism so much advertised lately has been merely a farce and a fraud. Russia is back again to the regime of Stalin. She is also an important member of the United Nations, ever ready to veto any move that may restrain her devious plans.


This makes us wonder just what the United States and Canada are doing at the United Nations to enable us to maintain our security against aggression. Let it be understood at the beginning that this problem, of course, is universal. The other day when the British Prime Minister was repudiated by our Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) this thought occurred to me. What sort of situation are we going to drift into if the organization we are asking to do something will not actually do it and if some nation such as Britain or France takes a move to protect a vital sector of our economy, an important zone in the area of dispute, and is going to be repudiated by its closest friends? It would mean that we very soon would have no action at all except action by the enemy dictators.
We talk, Mr. Speaker, about the Middle East reverting to a normal situation in the next six months. Why, Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all. The problem is far wider than that. We are forgetting Soviet Russia's plans. What more profitable place is there for Russia to strike than in the Middle East? She would be able to play a double role. She would have the commanding power over a vital resource and she could strengthen her popularity, position, influence and so forth in the Arab world.
We know now that the supplies she sent to Egypt were much greater than Egypt needed, and while they were for Egypt they were really serving Russia's devious plan. We are faced with a form of treachery that has never before confronted us and the hand that directs that treachery votes in the same way that Canada does in the United Nations as one of the so-called peacemakers of the world.
Surely we are not going to make any distinction between troops going from Russia as part of the Russian army and troops going as volunteers. Playing along with such cunning devices simply enables Russia step by step to make a mockery of the United Nations. Who volunteers in Russia or does anything there unless they are told to by the Russian dictators?
What is the present situation as of today? The Prime Minister has said that our troops are going to the Middle East to maintain an armistice between the Israelis and the Arabs and also between the Russians and the French and the British. This raises some interesting questions. If Britain and France refuse to take out their troops, what is the position of our government and our troops? We do not know at the moment how this police force will function. We do riot even know where it is going and how long it is going

to stay. Britain, France and Israel should not be asked to withdraw their troops without any guarantee of the settlement of the Suez question and not until Egypt reaches a permanent political settlement with Israel. They should not be asked to move out of the Near East until an effective police force is established, which was a condition of the cease-fire agreement.
The Nasser government has made considerable headway towards turning a military defeat into a political victory. This has been made possible by the unfair criticism and the unnecessary compromises of the United Nations and, I might say, by our Canadian statesmen and those of the United States.


Mr. Ferguson:: Who said he is a statesman?


William Earl Rowe: They have encouraged our
enemies and so embarrassed our friends. Now President Nasser insists upon what would in effect be a return to the political status before the invasion. President Nasser regards the United Nations police force solely as an instrument to force the invaders to go home. Surely it was never proposed for any such purpose.
This house and the country are entitled to know if they are only going to police the evacuation of British and French troops and then move out when demanded by President Nasser. If the United Nations yields to this request, our troops should not leave Canada because such a plan would be likely to do more harm than good.
Russia's objective is, and has been all along, to exploit this crisis and to carve out a position for itself in the Middle East. The recent action that the United Nations has taken was not, as in the case of Korea, by a decision of the veto-bound Security Council but on the recommendation of the General Assembly backed by some threescore nations, including the United States. It used the last reserve power that the United Nations has and that makes it vitally important that it must not fail now if it is going to live effectively in the future.
But what are the results by which success or failure may be judged? The immediate mission is to prevent the further outbreak of war, of course, but this is of no use in itself alone. What is the use of Britain and France agreeing to a cease-fire or a withdrawal of troops with no assurance or guarantee of a settlement in the Middle East? What is the use of Israel withdrawing troops if Russia is to be free at any time to put its power behind Egypt and the Arab world, who collectively boast they will wipe
The Address-Mr. Rowe out the state of Israel and eliminate all British and French influence in the whole Suez region and Mediterranean area?
If our Canadian troops are to be used as1-part of UN police forces, it is our duty to see that they are given a possible function toward a sound objective. We must never ask them merely to clear a course and police a route for Colonel Nasser and his Russian comrades to pursue quietly and cunningly toward the diabolical purpose they have so boldly emphasized.
During the last session of parliament repeated requests were made by the opposition for information on Canada's interest in the-Mediterranean crisis. Such requests were-made by the hon. member for Prince Albert, and others. Such requests produced only-evasive answers from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Despite our membership in the commonwealth, in the United Nations and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we were willing to allow a solution to the crisis to be worked out at one of the conferences called in London. When asked particularly whether Canada's official stand followed the United Kingdom and France or the United States, the Secretary of State for External Affairs on August 6, so reported at page 7047 of Hansard, said this:
i must also deprecate, in a friendly way, the implication of my hon. friend's question that there is necessarily any difference of policy in this between the United States on the one hand and the United Kingdom and France on the other. 1 hope that at the conference in question the three governments will be able to work closely together and that at this conference, as in all other matters and this is a question of the most vital importance to Canada-the closest co-operation inside the com-
JboIlTivultH ??d closest co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States will be reflected once again.
At that date, as evidence that the government had certainly not given careful consideration to the policy to be followed if the Suez canal crisis increased, there is the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) on August 3 in Vancouver:
This is primarily a European matter. It is not a matter which particularly concerns Canada. We have no oil there. We don't use the canal for shipping.
Surely we may say that this was a most disturbing and unsatisfactory attitude on the government's part when a crisis threatening the very peace of the world had burst upon us. Since the government apparently failed to take note of international political realities, perhaps I may briefly summarize the international factors which should have led them to reach a clear decision on where Canada's
14	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Rowe interest lay in the crisis and particularly what action was called for on their part.
As a member of the commonwealth and as the geographical neighbour of the United States, our membership after the first war in the League of Nations and after the second war in the United Nations, of course extended the security system so that the possible area of operations in which we might become involved was greatly extended. As we all know, we took part in United Nations action to preserve the Korean republic. We have for some years furnished observers to the truce teams in Kashmir and in Palestine. While not directly arising out of our membership in the United Nations, Canada has had an important part in manning the truce supervisory commissions in Indo-China.
Since the second world war, when the menace to world peace of nazi Germany was removed, the principal threat to world peace and security has come from the aggressive activities of the Soviet Union and its associated states including communist China. Our decision to take part in UN action in Korea was part of our realization that the security of the free world depended upon successful collective action to curtail world communism. The prompt and decisive action taken at that time by the United Nations force, including troops from Canada, the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries, was a frank and wise recognition of the menace of communist aggression. While it was started by the United States with the approval of the United Nations as a whole, it was the only semblance of constructive action since the second world war.
Since the accession to power in Egypt of Colonel Nasser and his regime, we have received many disturbing reports of the growth of Soviet influence in Egypt and the Mediterranean area. Last year armaments, including aircraft from the Soviet Union and from Czechoslovakia, were made available to Colonel Nasser, as well as technical experts from Russia to instruct the Egyptians in the use of this equipment. Our government was probably not the only one to turn a blind eye to the great dangers to world security arising from the increase of Soviet influence in the Middle East. However, after the revelations at the beginning of the last session of parliament, we must regretfully conclude that our government's main concern in the Middle East was to unload surplus Canadian war material on the countries there. In the light of the developments during the past few weeks, this is surely a shocking commentary on the lack of thought, foresight or decision


our government gave to the steadily increasing crisis in the Middle East. No wonder this government, while extending their long trips among peoples abroad, are losing the confidence of our people at home.
It is these facts also which make us so anxious regarding the security of Canada against aggression. Our government appears to have been influenced almost exclusively by the administration in Washington, both in its comments and in its actions in the Middle East crisis. Had the policy of the United States been wiser and more vigorous than our own this might not have been so unfortunate. In this event, however, the United States government seems to have committed a series of blunders in the Middle East which finally left the United Kingdom and French governments with no alternative but to bring force to bear in the Middle East, if their interest in that vital area was not to be given up in the face of rising Soviet power there. Surely our government would not deny that the Soviet union has been aiming at control of the whole Middle East through its policy toward Egypt and the Arab countries and through its consistently unfriendly attitude to the state of Israel.
Right Hon. Winston Churchill, with all his experience in international crises, only a few days ago had this to say:
I am a patron of the United Nations association in this country, but I cannot agree that their rebuke to this government was either wise or helpful.
Would they have preferred us to flounder in impotence and see the whole Middle East gradually slip into chaos and Russian domination?
As time passes, I hope that the association will see with clearer eyes the true interests of the United Nations and the whole world.
These remarks might apply with equal force and indeed with some embarrassment to the government which sits to your right, Mr. Speaker.
If our government had been following the course of events in the Middle East, as we would expect it to do, it would surely not have been as "distressed and dismayed" as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said it was when he gave his press conference on October 31. An ostrich raising its head from the sand might have felt the regret and shocked surprise which apparently rent our cabinet. I do not think a well-informed government, conscious of the implications of Soviet strength in the Middle East, would have been so surprised.
Whatever the division of opinion within the cabinet as a result of the British and French ultimatum to Egypt and Israel on October 30, the idea put forward by the opposition through the hon. member for

Prince Albert ten months ago in this house was hastily revived at last in the proposal to send an international emergency force to the danger area, even though it was merely scoffed off ten months ago. I submit it might have been better to organize it ten months ago than to wait until after the trouble had occurred.
I believe there is no disagreement among us regarding the desirability of forming a UN police force to police the Suez canal area pending a final settlement both between Egypt and Israel and also concerning the international status of the Suez canal. This party has over and over again emphasized the importance of the underlying and fundamental principle of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations. We have been on record to that effect time and time again. In the United Nations we need more than platitudes or bluffing. We need more action.
Canada was one of the first countries to offer troops for the UN emergency force and, as we all know, the Queen's Own Rifles were hurriedly prepared for service in the troubled region. As Canadians I believe we were all proud to know that one of our oldest regiments was to have the privilege of forming part of the emergency force. For ten days we were treated to news stories and radio and television reports on the Queen's Own Rifles preparing for action. Meanwhile, the cabinet and members of parliament like myself were ready on very short notice to come to Ottawa for a special session of parliament to deal with our participation in the emergency force. I think, however, that it would have been preferable for the government to have secured the approval of parliament before the Canadian contingent left our shores for the Middle East. Having regard to the very dangerous situation in which the Canadians will find themselves in the Suez canal area, surely the approval of the people, through their parliamentary representatives, ought to have been sought. The government has taken it upon itself to commit some of our Canadian forces to the international emergency force without explaining in detail to Canadians the extent of the obligations to which they are committed.
I believe it is true that as yet most of them are administrative forces. According to all reports the administrative force is about 10 times the number of troops that has been mentioned. However, perhaps the pen might be mightier than the sword at this stage.


Mr. Sinclair:: You know more about it than General Burns.
The Address-Mr. Rowe


William Earl Rowe: I am not disturbed by the hon. member's interruption, because later I shall listen to just how much he knows about it.
In any event, as we know, the Queen's Own Rifles were very hurriedly prepared. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that there was some mystification over the delay in securing final United Nations approval of our contribution. No statements were issued by the government to explain the delay or to warn that the sending of the Queen's Own Rifles might be dispensed with entirely. The very silence of the government, always so quick and ready to claim all things that are so great as their own invention, was disquieting.
When it was finally announced 10 days ago that Canada was sending an administrative staff to the United Nations force, there was considerable surprise throughout Canada. This surprise turned into anger and dismay when it became clear that the United Nations, through its secretary general, was allowing the Egyptian president Nasser to dictate or at least to exercise a veto over the exact composition of the United Nations emergency force. Surely the realization that Colonel Nasser was specifying what we might or might not contribute to the United Nations must have brought a feeling of humiliation and embarrassment to the members of this government.
Having ventured to lecture the United Kingdom and French governments on their behaviour in the Middle East crisis, we ourselves must feel abundantly ashamed of the weak and vacillating policy-or shall I say lack of policy-which the government has followed during the last month in one of the greatest crises which has faced world diplomacy in this century.
I believe it is the solemn duty of the opposition in this house to insist that the whole story of Canada's participation in the United Nations emergency force be told. Canada's pride has been wounded by pretense and evasion. Surely we have not stumbled and blundered into a position in which our contribution to the United Nations emergency force is no longer dependent upon our own generous instincts and desire to preserve peace in the world.
I do not wish to criticize the methods which have been followed by the United Nations secretary general, Mr. Hammarsk-jold, in his negotiations with the president of Egypt. My concern is with the fact that we have allowed ourselves to drift into our present position. Let not the government believe it can any longer deceive the Canadian people by creating a fancy halo around the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as if he had already saved the world's peace

The Address-Mr. Rowe and solved the Suez canal crisis. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than he does that the actions of our government and the claims to fame of our foreign minister have yet to create any practical results in this Middle East crisis.
The events in Hungary offer tragic proof that neither the United Nations nor moral opinion, despite the best hopes of all, can stop communist oppression and the brutalization of whole nations. It therefore follows that the most serious consequence of the developments abroad is that the western alliance, which is the only and best hope of the free world and the only real buttress against communist imperialism, is now endangered. The Prime Minister, according to the press, wrote an angry note to the Prime Minister of Britain. Whether this was approved by the cabinet or whether it was the Prime Minister's personal attitude or whether it was a fit of Irish temper, it has contributed very little and probably done a great deal of harm to the unity and harmony and trust that were essential to the maintenance of a vital alliance with a tried and trusted friend.
It is generally agreed that Russian foreign policy in the Middle East has been consistent, and its aspirations for domination in the Arab world are apparent. Egyptian foreign policy, if not consistent, has at least been understandable. They were willing to accept armaments and war machinery from any government. There can be no secret about Egypt's foreign policy so long as President Nasser heads that government. Like Hitler, Nasser has published in book form the aims and aspirations he has for Egypt. These include the elimination by any means of all British and French influence in the Near East and, as well, the elimination of the state of Israel.
In the case of "Mein Kampf" the western world refused to accept the implications and eventually paid the price of its folly. In the case of Nasser it can be said that the British and French have only done what all the wise men, after the fact, said that Britain and the other western democracies should have done when Hitler first began to carry out the policy he so clearly outlined in his own testament. Even the people of the United States-with the exception of those who are at Washington because I sometimes think those at Washington are like those in Ottawa, and do not always express exactly what the people of the country are thinking-are in substantial agreement that their own policy has been inconsistent. It was a representative of the United States government who gave Nasser his silver pistol. It was the United States government that withdrew promises of assistance in building the Aswan dam. It was the


United States government that prejudiced Britain's oil concessions in Iran to its own self interest.
One of the most shocking things about the developments in Europe and the Near East is that the Canadian government was obviously so ill-prepared for these events. Canada's role, according to the government, has been the interpreter and conciliator between Britain and the United States. It was supposed to be the bridge between these two countries. Instead, in this crisis it has at times almost resembled a chasm.
Since the beginning of this crisis the Canadian people have been consistently misinformed and misled. Whatever the virtue of the government's suggestion, which was originally from the opposition, that a United Nations police force be sent to the Near East, the resultant humiliation suffered by Canada is not easily justified. The Magnificent, that beautiful carrier, was brought home at such speed that the ship was damaged structurally. She was then dismantled and refitted as a troopship. The press of Canada and the television screens were constantly portraying soldiers marching and countermarching in this great national effort to keep peace in the world. Created as the United Nations police force, it now looks like a Nasser force composed of whatever elements he deems suitable to go where he tells them.
The last session of the House of Commons was dominated in the early stages by a debate as to whether or not the government was wise in dispatching to Egypt a few Harvard aircraft. During that debate it developed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was not sure that these aircraft could be armed or could be used as instruments of war. And now, in this session of the House of Commons, we are debating the matter of sending Canadian servicemen to Egypt, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not know, or has not told us, whether or not these men are going to be armed sufficiently to defend themselves, or whether or not they are needed; nor does he know exactly any of the conditions under which they will function; where they will be stationed, or how long they will be needed. The colour of their uniforms may not be acceptable to President Nasser. He does not like them called the Queen's Own Rifles.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, step by step, Colonel Nasser and his Russian friends have steadily tried to emasculate the value of the proposed United Nations police force. We condemn this government for not demanding that the United Nations accept a police force in fact as well as in theory. The United Nations

police force must be an effective force. An ineffective force might well only constitute an invitation to disaster to both its personnel and its purpose.
It now seems clear that Britain and France will not move all their troops out of this troubled area until they are sure such a police force is effective. Who, Mr. Speaker, should ask them to; and who should sit idly by representing Canada while the United States tells them to get out no matter whether or not there is a police force in there? These are issues, Mr. Speaker, that concern the lives and well-being of this country; these are matters on which Her Majesty's loyal opposition have chosen to take issue and to find out where we are coming from and where we are going. This government has not told us. Never have we seen such a complete example of smug complacency and almost humiliating silence as last Saturday night when we refused to vote.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is therefore a primary duty of this government, which sponsored a resolution at the United Nations, to demand that the police force sent to Egypt be in truth and in fact a police force that can maintain the peace. Anything less than that would be a repudiation of the basic principles upon which the United Nations was founded.
I have mentioned the dangers which the free world is facing in the Middle East through Soviet aggression there. I know I need not remind this house that Soviet activities in the Middle East are all part of a pattern with the tragic events which have been taking place in Hungary during the past few weeks. Soviet domination of all its satellite countries is maintained only by force. Those at the head of affairs in the Kremlin are following the practices of Stalin's regime to dominate and extend the Soviet empire. I do not think we need to have been in any doubt in regard to the seeming liberalization of the regime in the Soviet Union since Stalin's death. However, if we had vain hopes that the international cold war was coming to an end, we are cruelly reminded that nothing has changed.
We have joined with the great majority of members of the United Nations in condemning Soviet aggression in Hungary, and particularly the removal by Soviet troops of thousands of Hungarians who had dared to fight for the freedom and independence of their country from foreign rule. It may be that the expression of strong United Nations disapproval of Soviet acts in Hungary will produce an ameliorating effect on the men in the Kremlin, but so far the Soviet Union does not seem to have been much impressed by the United Nations condemnation of its actions.
The Address-Mr. Rowe No matter how strongly we have talked against them they have not even listened, and have only laughed at the suggestion.
I notice that our government has not been claiming very great credit for its role in helping Hungary through the United Nations. I do not know how it could. Having regard to the principles governing our security throughout the world in the past, surely we should realize that the interests of Canada in the Middle East and in Hungary are closely tied together. The attempt by the United Kingdom and France to limit Soviet expansion in the Middle East was crippled through what I believe to be the inept diplomacy of the United States in the role it played in the Suez canal crisis. Are we to expect that whenever some responsible nation such as the United Kingdom or France decides to make a move to protect a most vital sector of the western world from Soviet influence or aggression, it will run the risk of being condemned by the United States and probably Canada? Mr. Speaker, who are our friends? Whom do we trust? Whom do we doubt? This would mean that our action in the future will be limited to mere empty, loud protests, if you like, as in the case of the Hungarian tragedy, through the United Nations, leaving only the communist dictators free to act, ignoring entirely our counsel, advice and every covenant of the United Nations to which they so proudly claim the right to belong.
In the case of Hungary, we are being asked to contribute $100,000 to the United Nations emergency fund for Hungarian refugees.


Mr. Harris:: A million.


William Earl Rowe: One hundred million?


Mr. McCann:: One million.


Frank Exton Lennard: It was $100,000.


William Earl Rowe: I have it as $1 million but I said $100,000 by mistake. I certainly should not minimize it because at first it was intended to be $100,000, and then the government made the magnanimous suggestion to make it $1 million. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is still a paltry, shamefully low amount. In fact, if I had been the Minister of Finance I would have been afraid to discuss the difference between those two amounts because the Minister of Trade and Commerce has often said, "What's a million, anyway?" I would have hesitated. Are we to take it that this may be conscience money, in view of the amount being changed, paid by Canada because we seem to have failed to take any other real action of positive value in the crisis which has afflicted Hungary during the last few weeks?

The Address-Mr. Rowe
I understand that many countries have undertaken to accept a specific number of Hungarian refugees. In our own case, how have we agreed to accept Hungarian refugees? When one reads the statement made in Winnipeg on November 16 by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration it is clear that Hungarian refugees would have to pass the rather stringent medical requirements of the Canadian immigration regulations and also satisfy the examining inspectors in Austria that they had a "reasonable prospect" of being able to earn a living in this country. I do not think I need to comment further on the extent of this offer. This is offering nothing, Mr. Speaker, but an explanation of existing immigration regulations applicable to Hungarian people as if nothing had happened. I hope that voices will be raised in this house to urge the government to take a substantial bloc of refugees as our contribution toward the relief of the great sufferings of the Hungarian people in their noble struggle to free their ancient country. Anything less than this would be an insult to the people of Hungary and an embarrassment to people all across this dominion, because people from that country have contributed greatly to the development of this young country of Canada.
Many thousands of these brave people are today flooding Austria, those who are not shot and chopped down by the Russian army along the border, no doubt emphasizing the tragedy in that district. All one has to do is read the papers, and the contents of those papers are too terrible to repeat here. It should be within the knowledge of everyone here.
Austria is pleading with the world to assist her to take care of those people. They have sent out calls to the effect that they cannot take care of any more. Austria is a small country. Canada is a large country and can stand to take many more people. Canada has all too few people. Our whole immigration policy has fallen down in this respect. Surely there is a humanitarian way. We must not hesitate to co-operate with these people and take these refugees. Special regulations should be passed immediately independent of the regular Immigration Act. No country has more room and is more capable of accepting many thousands of these unfortunate people who, with their own relatives, fought such a valiant battle for freedom against cruel and terrible odds. We can do much more for their relief; indeed, Mr. Speaker, we could not have done less than we have to date.
During the centuries history has written of great men dying for great principles. Seldom, however, in the annals of such records has the steadfastness, courage and gallantry of

the common man been so heroically demonstrated. May I remind the government, no matter how complacent they may feel, that the spirit of this young country is not so dead as to be satisfied with their complacency and reluctance to rise to the ringing challenge for more adequate assistance to these poor people.
It is not my intention to delay this debate by speaking at great length. I do not look upon this as an issue concerning which we can come to parliament and rush in and rush out for the convenience of the government. This is a vital issue which touches the heart of every Canadian. It concerns the lives and hopes of these people and their children and their children yet unborn. I do not look upon this as a political issue, but Canada is disturbed, Canada is alarmed and Canada is shocked at the vacillation and complacency of this government in relation to this as well as many other matters. It is useless to hide behind the great shield of the United Nations. The United Nations is no stronger than the countries it embraces. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Canada has failed dismally in its representation at the United Nations.
I would be ashamed to stand in this house if in the United Nations I had seen the United States voting as they did to drive Britain and France out of the Mediterranean area. Britain and France did agree they would vacate the area when there was an adequate police force, but to turn around now and tell them to get out and leave the area on which their lifeline depends represents a strange attitude. That is not good enough for the senior member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
That the following he added to the address:
That this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers
(1)	have followed a course of gratuitous condemnation of the action of the United Kingdom and France which was designed to prevent a major war in the Suez area;
(2)	have meekly followed the unrealistic policies of the United States of America and have thereby encouraged a truculent and defiant attitude on the part of the Egyptian dictator;
(3)	have placed Canada in the humiliating position of accepting dictation from President Nasser;
(4)	have failed to take swift and adequate action to extend refuge to the patriots of Hungary and other lands under the cruel Russian yoke.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion that has just been read and have it considered as being proposed from the chair?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, in the speech we have just listened to we have heard lots of words. Fortunately there has been an amendment following that speech which does point up some specific facts upon which the official opposition wishes to take a stand different from that recommended by the government to this house.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Facts is the right word.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There had been previously some similar statements made outside the house and some similar statements made in several newspapers that were in strange contrast with the encomiums that were being heaped upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs by every country other than his own.
Before dealing specifically with the points that are suggested in this amendment to the motion for an address in response to the speech from the throne, I will take up one or two of the things that I was able to pinpoint in the avalanche of words that came from the hon. gentleman who is presently leading Her Majesty's official opposition.
One of them was that parliament should have been called earlier. Well, in order to answer that point I think it is sufficient to recall to those who know what is the constitutional requirement and the constitutional practice and what has always been the constitutional requirement and the constitutional practice. Those who were here in 1939 remember what was done at that time. Those who were here in 1950 when the defence act was amended will remember the discussions that took place at that time. Those who were here in 1950 will remember that it was referred to again in 1950 and in order to avoid the suggestion that I made about the speech we have just listened to, I would refer, for instance, to one paragraph of an intervention that was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when we were dealing with the Canadian Forces Act on September 8, 1950.
This is at page 494 of Hansard, the second column, and it reads as follows:
From what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has said tonight, and from what has been said previously by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and on other occasions by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I feel they are with me in this, so I do not think I have to argue it. I did think it was possible, however, that the house might be so preoccupied with other matters this session as not to get this issue right into the open and have it made perfectly clear. I hope before we leave-it could be now, or later in this debate, or later in the session, but certainly soon- it will be made perfectly clear just how the matter stands as to the responsibility of the government to
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent parliament, which is there all the time, but which is particularly clear and important in this matter of putting our forces on active service.
Well, when that suggestion-I will not say that challenge-was made, I immediately rose in my place and said:
I think the matter should be made perfectly clear at once, so there can be no misapprehension or uncomfortable feeling about it anywhere. When this bill is passed and becomes law it is the intention of the government to comply with the letter and spirit of section 33, in so far as its policy has been announced with respect to Korea.
Section 33 is the section that provides that if an order in council is passed, as the section authorizes in express terms, putting our forces on active service parliament, if it is not then in session, will be called within ten days to deal with the matter.
The intention of the government is that if any other service should be required of this special force, which of course is not being created solely because of the Korean incident, if any police action, for instance, that has a warlike character should be required of it elsewhere than Korea, the government would of course have to make its decision, but it would immediately call parliament, make that decision known and leave it to parliament to approve or disapprove of it. I think that is the only way the Canadian people would feel they were getting the protection they expect from their representatives.
And then further on page 495:
If anything else should be required at any future time in order to carry out similar commitments, the government of course would have to take the responsibility of making its decision, but would certainly have to place itself in the hands of parliament within the ten-day period for ratification or disapproval of that decision.
That has always been the constitutional requirement and the constitutional practice, that the government has to take the responsibility of making a decision and then put itself in the hands of parliament so that parliament may determine whether it will provide the funds to implement that decision or whether it will refuse to provide the funds and get another government to carry out the policies that parliament wants to have carried out. That has always been the position and that will always be the position so long as this party has the responsibility for public affairs in this country.
Just as soon as it was possible to make a concrete decision which we could submit to parliament we made that decision, and on the same day we recommended that His Excellency summon parliament. Parliament is here today because of that summons. We are here today in the hands of parliament, having taken that responsibility of making a concrete decision and asking parliament to authorize the use of public funds to implement that decision.
20	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent
It would have been a pretty strange position for us to take to have invited members of parliament to come down here without having taken our responsibility, and having them taunt us with being afraid to take the proper responsibility and of trying to get an indication from them as to what that decision should be. If that is the way hon. gentlemen on the other side, if and when they ever get the responsibility of government, intend to behave I think it will be a rather sorry spectacle for the Canadian people.
There has been some suggestion that Canada has been humiliated by Colonel Nasser. Canada has had no dealings whatsoever with Colonel Nasser. Canada has dealt with the United Nations and the United Nations in this instance have been represented by the secretary general and by another gentleman who is a very distinguished Canadian in whose patriotism as well as in whose wisdom this government has practically unlimited confidence. I refer to General Burns.
Originally there was this motion proposed which has been construed, and I think rightly so, as placing some blame on the Israelis, some blame on the French and some blame on the British for having taken the law into their own hands when what had to be dealt with was already before the security council of the United Nations. These gentlemen who utter these high-flown phrases seem to forget that the nations of the world signed the charter of the United Nations and thereby undertook to use peaceful means to settle possible disputes and not to resort to the use of force.
I have been scandalized more than once by the attitude of the larger powers, the big powers as we call them, who have all too frequently treated the charter of the United Nations as an instrument with which to regiment smaller nations and as an instrument which did not have to be considered when their own so-called vital interests were at stake. I have been told, with respect to the veto, that if the Russians had not insisted upon it the United States and the United Kingdom would have insisted upon it, because they could not allow this crowd of smaller nations to deal decisively with questions which concerned their vital interests.


An hon. Member:: Why should they?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because
the members of the smaller nations are human beings just as are their people; because the era when the supermen of Europe could govern the whole world has and is coming pretty close to an end.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Throwing Canada to the slaughterhouse.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would do better to listen than-I will not attempt to qualify them-to make that kind of remark. I think it would be better for his own reputation if he did.
It has been said that Canada has been humiliated by the action of Colonel Nasser and has been made to submit to the requirements of Colonel Nasser. That is just one of those wild assertions for which there is absolutely no foundation in fact. The original resolution provided that the United Nations in its efforts to make peace in the world would not start their efforts to make peace by making war. It was going to introduce a police force to supervise the observance of the cessation of hostilities, but it was going to do that with the consent of the country in which those forces were going to operate. It was not going to fight its way into that country. That was the resolution which was adopted without any opposition, although with a certain number of abstentions.
At that time the secretary general of the United Nations gave us the chance to participate in this force, and gave it to those who were willing and anxious, as we have been willing and anxious since 1945, to have a United Nations force ready to deal with recalcitrants in the fulfilment of their obligations under the charter. The suggestion was made that each nation should supply something like a battalion or other self-contained unit.
We consider that every battalion in the Canadian forces would feel it an honour to be called upon to perform this duty, but there was one battalion which was next in line in the rotation of service in connection with the Canadian contingent to the NATO forces in Europe, and that was the Queen's Own. It seemed to us that all the other battalions would recognize that that battalion, having been groomed and being on the point of being called upon to replace another battalion in Europe, would naturally be the one which we would consider and which we would think of first to take on this new duty in pursuit of the objectives of the United Nations. That battalion happened to be the Queen's Own Rifles. It was suggested, I am told, although we were not present at the negotiations, that Colonel Nasser said that that would be regarded by the Egyptians as being a battalion of the Queen of England.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Mr. Green:: What about the Queen of Canada?

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In my view nothing is wrong with it except it is the Queen of Canada's Own Rifles. No Colonel Nasser nor anything that is said here, unless it amounts to a successful vote of no confidence in this government, nor anything published in the papers which are trying to belittle the actions of Canada in this instance, is going to persuade us that we have no right to have that glorious battalion continue to be called the Queen's Own Rifles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No one is
going to make me admit that it is not the Queen of Canada's Own Rifles that bear that glorious title.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Now, we felt that the sending of a battalion over into the Sinai desert was not just the right thing to do for men who had the training and who were anxious to perform the service for which we were sending them there. We did not think we should dump 900 or 1,000 men into a desert and think they were going to be looked after properly and were going to be kept in fit condition to perform the services for which they were going there. So we decided at once that in readying the Queen's Own Rifles for that expedition there would be added supplementary forces that could ensure for them the establishment that would be necessary for them to carry out their functions properly and, to make assurance doubly sure, we said we would have the Magnificent loaded with provisions, that we would have a hospital unit on it and that it would serve as a floating base so our men would be sure that until proper army services were organized on a land base in Egypt there would be the possibility for them to get the right kind of treatment, the treatment necessary in order to enable them to fulfil their mission. It was pretty effectively demonstrated, in spite of what has been said by hon. gentlemen in some parts of the house about a lot of money having been spent on our forces with nothing to show for it, that within a very short time we were able to move everything required to put a battalion in the field, and indeed, we could put several battalions in the field if it were necessary to do so.
Whether that turned out to be the ultimate requirement of the commander of the United Nations force, we felt that something of that kind would be just as effective and as good an exercise as some of these simulated exercises that are constantly taking place to
keep men in readiness to take the field if the occasion should require, because in this case there was something real for which the need for activity was being undertaken.
During that time there were negotiations going on, and there was some suggestions with regard to the placing of infantrymen. This again is something we have by way of hearsay concerning Mr. Hammerskj old's discussion with the Egyptian authorities when he went over there to secure their consent to the operation of this police force in their territory. It was suggested that the only place infantrymen could go at that time would be to Port Said; that there they would be coming to a place where there were large numbers of United Kingdom troops wearing the same uniform worn by our men; that our men might be taken for reinforcements being brought in for the British troops there instead of a part of the police force of the United Nations, and that this might give rise to incidents which would, at the outset of this operation, be an unfortunate occurrence.
That was something that had to be considered by the secretary general and by the commander of the United Nations force, and when he arrived in New York we were immediately informed that he felt he did not have in Egypt a proper base to administer at once any considerably increased number of infantrymen, and that what would be most useful to him at first would be a group of 250 to 300 engineers and signallers whom he could use in organizing and establishing his base. He also said that another thing that was very urgently required was air transport. He had only three civilian planes chartered from Swiss owners, and they had thought they could make two round trips per day but had found they could only make one. He said that was holding up the organization of the effective force that should be and that will be on Egyptian territory. We did have the air transports.
Again I say that, even had the commanding officer not been a Canadian we might have said as others might have said, "Here is our contribution. Make the best possible use you can of it." But it so happens that the man who is going to have the responsibility of command, is of course a United Nations officer but is nevertheless a Canadian, a great Canadian who is regarded as such by the majority of our people, and we felt that it was our moral duty, in addition to our general duty to the United Nations, not to let that great Canadian down. We felt that if there were requirements he was not getting from others and which he needed to put himself in a position where he felt he could carry
22	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent out the responsibilities he was taking on, we should assist him in every way.
May I say here that he did not have to accept this responsibility. He has been working for the United Nations under pressure for quite a long time and did not have to accept this new responsibility, but he is not a man who has ever shirked anything put up to him as a duty that would be of service to his own countrymen and to the free nations of the world. He accepted the responsibility and we felt that we should do our best to see that he got everything required to enable him to discharge his responsibilities in the manner in which he felt they should be discharged.
The original resolution provided that there had to be consent of the government of the country where the United Nations force was going to operate. But that is all that requires the consent of the government of the country where the force is to operate. It is a United Nations operation. It is the United Nations that is going to determine the composition of the force going there. It is the United Nations that will determine where in that country the force will be stationed and when and how long it will be there.
Having accepted the condition in the resolution, it is our view, and I think the view of practically everyone at the United Nations, that the other modalities of the operation of this force are things to be determined, independently of Colonel Nasser or of anyone else in Egypt, by the United Nations on its responsibility to discharge the undertaking it has assumed in the interests of peace in the world.
The amendment before us reads in part as follows:
. . . this house regrets that Your Excellency's advisers (1) have followed a course of gratuitous condemnation of the action of the United Kingdom and France which was designed to prevent a major war in the Suez area . . .
There has been no gratuitous condemnation of the action of the United Kingdom. On the first resolution that was introduced by the United States and supported by a very large number of members of the United Nations, the Canadian delegation abstained and declared it was abstaining because it was an insufficient resolution. It provided merely for a cease-fire and nothing more. That was not good enough, because just as soon as that might become spent we would be back in the same position we were in before. There was abstention by the Canadian delegation because there was applied there something which hon. gentlemen opposite have very violently resented when it was applied here in a very modified form. The United Nations


assembly applied closure and determined that there would be three speakers supporting the resolution, three speakers opposing the resolution and that the vote would then be taken. As we were neither supporting nor opposing the resolution, we could not be one of those three; and there was no move to amend the resolution.


Mr. Fulton:: That is six times more generous than your form of closure. There were at least six speakers.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman has a queer idea of what is proper and what is generous. I leave his idea to be appreciated by those to whom he speaks elsewhere than in this house.
On that resolution there was no gratuitous or other condemnation by Canada but there has been an expression of regret that certain members of the United Nations had felt it necessary to take the law into their own hands when the matter was before the security council; and there was an expression of regret that what took place in the Middle East was used as a screen to obscure the horrible actions, the horrible international crimes, that were being committed in mid-Europe at the same time. Events in the Middle East made it more difficult to marshal world opinion in unanimous and vigorous condemnation of what was taking place in Hungary at that very moment.
That is what we regretted. We feel that there can come out of this situation one that will be better than that which existed previously. It is our hope and it has been our objective to get all those in the western alliance to which my hon. friend referred working together toward the common objective of a settlement of the mid-Eastern situation that will be lasting and that will involve the recognition of the existence of Israel as a state set up by the United Nations and something which the United Nations is in honour bound to defend and to see maintained. It is our hope that there will be some kind of a lasting settlement-I will not say a permanent one because permanence is rarely found iri any human activities or human achievements-though it is difficult to find with whom in all those Arab nations a settlement could be made that would take into account the real interests of the population of each of those countries. It is difficult to find anyone who can form the kind of a government which would take the over-all broad view of the interests of the whole population and not the interests of a small group of the population.
But difficult as it may be, we cannot expect that the North African nations or some

of the Asiatic nations will achieve in a decade the kind of democracy that it took many centuries for the United Kingdom, France and the other western democracies to achieve. You cannot bring about in that short order that which has been the product of not always successful and wise efforts, but of a process of trial and error that went on over a long period of time and brought about an attitude that changed the form of administration of the European countries from medieval feudalism to popular democracy; and it is not going to be easy to bring that about in any short time, though we possibly now move faster, especially in moving from one physical place to another, than we ever moved previously.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the Prime Minister allow a question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: He was answering my
friend with regard to the matter of whether or not gratuitous advice had been given. Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether he will reveal the communication that was sent to Sir Anthony Eden in the same way in which the President of the United States, some three hours after having done so, followed a similar course?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would be very happy to be able to reveal that correspondence. I noticed in the press the statement made by the hon. gentleman recently to the effect that he was going to ask for that correspondence.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I sent a message to Sir Anthony Eden dated November 21, asking him what would be the attitude of the United Kingdom government in the face of such a request, because a somewhat similar request had been made in the House of Commons at Westminster in respect of confidential correspondence with Ceylon and the answer had been that that correspondence could not be published. So I wrote a letter which perhaps I might read into the record together with the answer I received to that communication.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Has the Prime Minister consented to the reading of this second letter?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If the hon. gentleman does not want to hear them I am quite prepared to leave the matter at that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to hear them both.
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall read the two. They are as follows:
Message from the
Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent to the
Right Honourable Sir Anthony Eden
A leading member of the official opposition has stated publicly that, when our parliament meets in the near future, he proposes to ask for the tabling of one of the communications I addressed to you recently in reply to one of yours.
It is obvious that this correspondence between us could not be published piecemeal and that, if one of these confidential communications were published, they would all have to be published.
A similar question arose in our parliament some eight years ago about similar communications between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Mackenzie King regarding the international situation some seven years before that.
Mr. Attlee's government at that time took the view that such communications should not be published at any time because, as they said: "Such telegrams are framed on the basis that they will not be published and the whole system of full and frank communication between His Majesty's government would be prejudiced if telegrams of this nature had to be prepared on the basis that this rule might not eventually be observed".
I would be glad to know what would be your attitude now and the attitude of the government of the United Kingdom with respect to these confidential communications which have recently passed between us.
I would like to read this message and your reply to it into our record of debates for future reference whenever similar requests for publication of confidential communications may arise.
That was under date of November 21, 1956. The answer is as follows:
Message from the
Right Honourable Sir Anthony Eden to the
Right Honourable Louis S. St. Laurent
Thank you for your message and for consulting me about the possible publication of the confidential communications which have recently passed between us.
The United Kingdom government's view on such publication remains identical with that expressed by their predecessors on the occasion you mention in your letter. It is, we feel, essential, if there is to be that full intimate and frank exchange of minds between commonwealth governments on which alone policy can be based, that we should all of us be able to proceed on the basis that such correspondence shall be and remain confidential and shall not be published. That is the principle to which we in this country have consistently worked, and, as it happens, it was reiterated so lately as November 15, in answer to a parliamentary question in the House of Commons.
I am sure this is the only possible practice. November 23, 1956.
I am sorry, because statements have been made or at least have been reported to have been made, not only in this country but in the United Kingdom, suggesting that I had sent a blistering reply to Sir Anthony Eden. I am not free to disclose that correspondence.


John George Diefenbaker: You are not free to describe it, either, if it is confidential.

The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I beg the
hon. member's pardon?


John George Diefenbaker: You would not be free to describe it either, or give an ex parte explanation and so on.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, but I am
going to say that any such assertion is without the slightest shred of foundation in fact. I am going to say that that is official correspondence which is going to remain of record, and if and when hon. gentlemen opposite are in the position which we now occupy and they choose to look it up to see if I was telling the truth when I said there was no shred of foundation for such assertions about it, they will have corroboration of the assertion I am making here today.


James Sinclair: Would any other leader like to ask questions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The next paragraph of the amendment reads:
-have meekly followed the unrealistic policies of the United States of America and have thereby encouraged a truculent and defiant attitude on the part of the Egyptian dictator.
Well, on two occasions resolutions supported by the United States delegation have failed to get our support. If that is meekly following the unrealistic policies of the United States, then my understanding of words is not the same as the understanding of those who wrote this paragraph of the amendment to the motion for an address in reply.
The third paragraph reads:
-have placed Canada in the humiliating position of accepting dictation from President Nasser.
I believe I have dealt sufficiently with that to show that this is not a statement founded on fact, and whether there has been dictation to anybody from President Nasser there certainly has been none to us and there will certainly be none to us. The representations that have been made to our diplomatic representative in Egypt, whether they be sincere representations or not, are that Colonel Nasser was most anxious to maintain good will with the Canadian government and was most appreciative of the suggestions the Canadian government had made to deal with this situation. Whether or not that be true I do not know, but that is what he has said to our representative, who is not quite as gullible as this laughter from the other side of the house when I mention it would indicate.
The next paragraph reads:
-have failed to take swift and adequate action to extend refuge to the patriots of Hungary and other lands under the cruel Russian yoke.

I am now going to disclose some correspondence that was not confidential correspondence. When these events in Hungary were at their unfortunate height I asked to have the Russian ambassador call upon me. I had a message conveyed to him that I thought it would be in the interests of his country as well as in the interests of this country that he come and see me. He did. I told him what I thought of what was going on. I said: relations had been improving, you know, with your country. I had not met the two of your ministers who were over here but I had met one of them and I got a very favourable impression of the kind of man that your minister of fisheries, who came over here to repay the visit by our Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair), last year, happened to be. After all, I said, it is none of our business what kind of government you have in your country if that is the kind of government your people want, and it is none of your business to determine what kind of government there should be in any other country if that does not happen to be the kind of government the people of that country want.
I said I would be glad if he would convey the following message from me to Mr. Bulganin. It was dated November 13, and I make it public at the present time because it was only yesterday that an answer came from Mr. Bulganin. You will hear the answer in a moment and you will see, with that kind of answer, there is no reason for me not to disclose the representations with which I had attempted to have him comply. This is dated Ottawa, November 13, 1956:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I consider it my urgent duty to let you know that the people and the government of Canada have been profoundly shocked by the reports we have received of the actions your government has taken in Hungary during the last few weeks. We have made our attitude clear in the position taken by Canada in voting for the United Nations resolutions on this subject. I wish to add my plea not only for rapid compliance on the part of the Soviet government with these resolutions, but for a display even at this late date of moderation towards the unfortunate victims of these tragic events.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I speak for the whole people of Canada in expressing our horror at the suffering of the Hungarian people as a result of their efforts to obtain the freedom to choose their own type of government. It is not, however, my present purpose to attempt to pass judgment on the actions that have been taken but to ask you, in the name of humanity, to use your influence to alleviate the sufferings of the Hungarian people and to permit competent international agencies and organizations to help in the urgent work of distributing food and caring for the sick. In this humanitarian work the Canadian government and people are already giving material support wherever it is within their power to do so.
The government and people of Canada have no desire to influence the form of government chosen by the peoples of eastern Europe. Our only aim is
NOVEMBER 26, 1956	j
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent
that they should be free to do so, and that the governments so chosen should steer their own independent courses, respecting the equal rights of all their neighbours and bearing in mind only the needs and wishes of their own people in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations charter.
Yours sincerely,
(sgd) Louis S. St. Laurent.
Later I got this answer, dated November 24. This, of course, is a translation which, I am told, is an official translation.
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I have received your letter of November 13. The contents of your letter and also of your recent statements and of speeches of Canadian officials about situation in Hungary show that the Canadian government seem to have one-sided, tendentious and unobjective information about developments in Hungary and about position of Soviet union on this question.
I would like to note that revolutionary workers peasants government of Hungary have shown in their statements that reactionary forces inside Hungary with active support of certain circles outside tried to overturn peoples' democratic regime in the country and establish a Horthy-fascist regime. The inner patriotic forces of Hungary came out in defence of peoples' democratic regime asking for help of Soviet troops stationed in Hungary under the Warsaw treaty.
As concerning position of the Soviet government on question of relations of Soviet union with Hungary this has been fully set forth in "Declaration of Soviet government on foundation for development and further strengthening of friendship and co-operation between Soviet union and other socialist states", published on October 31, 1956.
In your letter Mr. Prime Minister you raise the question of Soviet government giving assistance to international organizations to make it possible for them to render assistance and help to Hungarian people in food and medicine. This question is fully within competence of Hungarian government. As far as we know government of the Hungarian peoples' republic has already positively solved this question and Hungarian government has formally informed secretary general of United Nations about this.
Yours sincerely,
N. A. Bulganin.
This last statement has been, I think, verified by representatives of the United Nations, who have recently informed us that representatives of the Red Cross would now be admitted within Hungary to distribute food and medical supplies to those in need of such food and medical supplies.
That answers this other matter raised by the hon. gentleman now leading the official opposition. He says that $200,000 was a paltry sum and that we have raised it from $200,000 to $1 million. The original recommendation was for $1 million, of which $100,000 was to go to the Red Cross and $100,000 to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees to be used in the alleviation of the sufferings of refugees once they became refugees outside of Hungary. But at that time we were not disposed to ask parliament to appropriate any of the taxpayers' money to be placed in the hands and under the control
of any communist controlled Hungarian government to be used for the support of whatever name they went by and whatever democratic qualifications they chose to give themselves. We have had some experience, but not much, in seeing how supplies from other countries have been used in communist countries as propaganda for the regime that was bringing about the misery that we and other free nations were seeking to alleviate. As soon as we heard that supplies could be distributed under proper auspices, we went back to the original sum of $1 million. The estimate that has been distributed, and that is now before the house, is for $1 million to be applied, subject to the decisions of treasury board, and that is so treasury board will be able to make absolutely sure that everything coming from the use of that $800,000-because $100,000 is going to the Red Cross for the use of refugees outside of Hungary and $100,000 is going to the United Nations high commissioner for refugees-will be expended either by the Red Cross or by a United Nations agency that will have our full confidence in its desire and its ability to see that the assistance goes to those who have really been the victims of the horrible crimes that have been perpetrated against that nation in the last few weeks, and to no others.
That is why the item reads:
To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, assistance to the victims of the recent tragic events in Hungary, $1 million.
Well, I have dealt at greater length with this matter than I expected and at greater length than either the hon. gentleman who spoke before I did or I expected would be appropriate on this occasion. But since we have found that it was not agreeable to some hon. members to proceed at once to have all this discussion on the estimates where questions could be put and answers given, well, it probably has to be at this time; but whether it be now, or whether it be on the estimates,
I hope it will be a decision of which the majority of the people in Canada would say that those who took part in it were able to rise above political partisanship in dealing with this question which is one of interest not only to our own free people but to the people of the whole free world.
I expect that there will be criticism as to the manner we have felt, in our lack of wisdom, to be the best way to do these things; but I hope there will be agreement that it is proper that we should discharge this obligation to the United Nations by an appropriate participation in the United Nations forces and that it is proper that we should do our best to see that the Canadian who has been chosen by the United Nations to
26	HOUSE OF
The Address-Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent be the commander of that force is not let down, if we can prevent him from being let down by supplying him with what he thinks he requires and that he is not apt to get from other contributors to this United Nations force.


Mr. Pallett:: Why not?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, why not? I hope there will not be any question of why not. I hope everyone will agree that this is what should be done by the Canadian people. I am expressing that hope here and I am rather inclined to believe that even the hon. gentleman would share that hope.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear; we hope so.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question for purposes of clarification?


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: One more.


John Cameron Pallett: "Why not" was meant in this way. Why would the other countries not contribute if it was a United Nations force?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Other countries are contributing but the suggestion was made that their contribution should be-and the original suggestion to us was that the contribution should be - in the form of a battalion, a unit that could serve as a unit. Now other things are required. I have heard some suggestion that we were arming our people with typewriters instead of arming them with machine guns. Well, I think those who have had any experience with the administration of a modern army know that a lot of administration work is required. The hon. gentleman, if he were over there, would find that the administrative forces that General Burns is asking for are not going to be sufficient to take care of 10 times the number of men he is going to have under his command, and I do not suspect General Burns of making extravagant requests. That has not been our experience with him. When he was deputy minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs I do not think it was the experience of representatives of veterans that he was extravagant in meeting the demands that were made for the improvement of assistance, pensions or the like, of veterans. He was realistic. I feel that he was fair, and I think he is going to be realistic and he is going to be fair in the way in which he administers this United Nations force.
I have already spoken too long. Before taking my place I do want to thank the mover (Mr. Legare) and the seconder (Mr. Weselak) of the address. I think they both made appropriate speeches, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe


(Mr. Rowe) and I have not been able to follow their good examples and compress our remarks into the space of about 15 minutes for each of us.
(Translation) :
I congratulate them most heartily and I regret that circumstances have not permitted me nor the honourable member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) to follow their example and discuss the important matter which now requires our attention, in the short space of time they found sufficient to express their opinion so impressively on the international situation as they saw it when they took part in the discussions of the General Assembly since it began its sittings on November 12 last.
(Text):


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, there are three clocks in the chamber and each of them shows a different time. My watch says it is nine minutes to six, and if the house wishes I shall proceed with my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Major James William Coldwell: If the house wishes me to call it six o'clock I will call it six o'clock in accordance with the clock on the government side of the house.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We will try to see that these clocks are in better harmony than perhaps we may find among ourselves in the course of the debate on this occasion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all aware that parliament is meeting today under the shadow of a great international crisis, perhaps a greater crisis than the world has witnessed since September, 1939. The issues involved today are of such a nature that they might bring about even a third world war and therefore one is constrained to ask oneself, what does the country expect of this parliament at the present time?
I think the people of this country expect that we should give unanimous and speedy approval to the further supplementary estimates that have been introduced this afternoon, and that this shall be done in order to meet the needs of our armed forces which are proceeding overseas and to meet the dreadful situation from which the refugees from Soviet terror in Hungary have fled.
I say this is what is expected of us. I do not think this country, nor indeed the nations

*who have followed the lead of Canada in supporting the United Nations force, expect that we shall enter into a debate which will be unreal in the circumstances under which *we meet today.
This afternoon I hoped that we might possibly follow the precedent that was established in 1950, when in a grave domestic crisis we set aside the debate on the address and proceeded immediately to examine the proposals submitted to the house by the government. I hoped that we might have followed the same procedure today, and perchance it is not too late even now to hope that this might be done, and then having examined the government's proposals and the appropriations placed before us, we could proceed with a debate if the house so wished following that procedure.
What the country expects, I say, is that we should give immediate and unanimous approval of the United Nations plan for a police force and Canada's participation in that force, and pass the appropriation as quickly as possible to bring relief to the refugees who have fled the terror in Hungary. Instead of that, this afternoon we had an amendment moved which makes declarations that in my opinion and in the opinion of those associated with me who have had an opportunity of examining them are unsupported by any relevant facts. This means that the debate is unreal. The amendment reveals no policy that will assist Canada or the world in the crisis in which we find ourselves, nor will it do anything to further the objectives that I believe the majority of the Canadian people have in mind.
Having said that, of course, I shall say immediately that we neither intend to support the amendment nor do we think it is worthy of our attempting to amend it by introducing a subamendment. Therefore I say, let us get down to the issues that are facing this house and the country at the present time. Let us agree to suspend debate and proceed tomorrow to examine the appropriations and pass them as rapidly as possible. True, the costs of the United Nations force may not be pressing because they can be met out of the appropriation we have already made, but the million dollars we propose to appropriate for Hungarian relief is a pressing matter. If, as the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) said this afternoon, the million dollar appropriation is inadequate to meet the needs, then I will say that delay and no appropriation is more inadequate to meet the needs of the present situation. A million dollars is a good start. I hope that if and when we meet again in January after the
The Address-Mr. Coldwell Christmas recess we find that the situation in Hungary requires a further appropriation-


Frank Exton Lennard: Why wait?


Major James William Coldwell: -by this house, we shall make it. One of the hon. members of the opposition says, "Why wait?" Well, the amendment introduced this afternoon means delay at the present time-


Frank Exton Lennard: Oh, it takes only 24 hours.


Major James William Coldwell: If it takes only 24 hours that is not as bad as I thought, but bad enough.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is not after Christmas.


Major James William Coldwell: In any event, a million dollar initial appropriation is worth supporting and passing as quickly as possible and this should be done not later than tomorrow, in my opinion. Let us all appreciate the urgency of the present situation as far as the refugees are concerned.
I am not going to say a great deal about the situation in Hungary, but I would like to mention one thing. When I landed in this country on October 27 after having been in Europe for some 11 weeks I learned for the first time what was happening in Hungary, and I immediately expressed my opinion in no uncertain terms. As a matter of fact I think what has happened in Hungary, the shooting down of unarmed and helpless people in the streets of Budapest, is scarcely paralleled in the history of the world, and it brands the Soviet union not only as an aggressor but as a cruel and more than dictatorial power.
We could not do anything to help the people of Hungary in their struggle for freedom in that country when they made the revolutionary move, but anything we can do now to relieve them either through the Red Cross or the United Nations should be undertaken by this country.
We are told that we have large surpluses accumulating this year, larger perhaps than they may appear when the next budget is brought down. We do have surpluses, and in my opinion no country is better able to undertake relief of this nature out of the blessings of Providence than is Canada at the present time. I think we should do everything we can to relieve the distress caused by the situation that has developed in Hungary. Nor should we overlook the fact when we are discussing it that this has arisen very largely because we have not had the machinery in the United Nations to deal with situations of this description as they might arise.
May I say that with all our broadcasting to these peoples in the satellite countries,

The Address-Mr. Coldwell perhaps in some instances they have given false hope that in the event of uprisings in those countries they would be assisted by planes and forces that might be flown in from outside. We know, of course, that was an impossibility under the circumstances, but I think in some instances they looked for support of that description.
I want to turn now to one or two other matters relating to the situation that has arisen in the Middle East. As I said a moment ago, I was in Great Britain for some eleven weeks. I was there during practically the whole of the time when the Suez controversy was rising and at its height. I had the opportunity of talking to many people of different shades of opinion, and I found that the statement that had been made by the leader of the opposition in the parliament of Britain on August 2 was a statement that was generally approved throughout the country. Let me quote what he said:
But we are, after all, members of the United Nations and signatories to its charter.
He was dealing then with a statement which had been made by the prime minister. It was not that the prime minister had foreshadowed the use of force but there had been considerable discussion in the United Kingdom regarding the use of force and so Mr. Gaitskell said.
But we are, after all, members of the United Nations and signatories to its charter. For many years we have steadfastly avoided any international action which would be in breach of international law and world public opinion. We must not, therefore, allow ourselves to get in a position where we might be denounced as aggressors in the security council, or where a majority of the assembly would be against us. If Colonel Nasser has done things that are wrong in the legal sense, the right step is to take him to the international court. Force is justified in certain events, but if there is anything he had done which would justify force at the moment, it is the one thing on which we have never used force-the stopping of Israeli's ships. It would be difficult to find, in what he has so far done, any legal justification for the use of force. What he may do in the future is another matter.
I think we were right to react sharply to this move. If nothing were done it would have serious consequences for all of us, and especially for the western powers. It is important that what we do should be done with the fullest possible co-operation with the other nations affected. We should try to settle this matter peacefully on the lines of the international commission which has been hinted at.
Hinted at, I may say, by the prime minister in the speech that preceded this one.
While force cannot be excluded, we must be sure that the circumstances justify it-that it is, if it is used, consistent with our pledges to the United Nations charter and not in conflict with them.
I think that statement at the time and for some weeks afterward expressed very clearly the sentiments of the British people. I would

have said that in the middle of October 70 per cent of the people of Britain were vociferously opposed to force. I found that unanimously so in the parts of the continent of Europe which I visited, and where I had the opportunity on several occasions of meeting people in responsible and high positions. There was unanimity, at least I thought, against the threats of force which were being made by some people in the United Kingdom.
Certainly that was so in the United Kingdom. Just look at the press of the United Kingdom. By no stretch of the imagination is the London Economist a Labour paper; it is pretty conservative in its general views; nor is the Observer, nor is the Spectator, nor is the Manchester Guardian, nor is the News Chronicle. They are middle of the road British Liberal papers. The press, except for the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Express, were almost unanimous in warning the British government against the use of force. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, in spite of public opinion, in spite of the opposition of almost the entire responsible press of Britain, the government, with the problem before the security council, took the action it did.
I regret that most sincerely because I have always thought that Britain having perhaps lost her status as a great imperial power, having lost her political influence to that extent in the world, there was one thing she could do in the future and that was to give moral leadership to the world. I believe that in making the move into the Suez at the time she did Great Britain largely forfeited that moral leadership which she had built up laboriously over a number of years.
When we look back over the last 20 or 30 years and see the manner in which British prestige had risen in Africa and Asia; the statesmanlike manner in which India became an independent country without the shedding of any blood, at least the blood of armies of Britain and India; when we look at the establishment of Burma as a free and independent nation; when we look at how Pakistan became a member of the commonwealth, and Ceylon; when we consider her record in recent years in the colonial areas and in Africa where some progress has been made in raising the standard of living and stopping the age-old exploitation of the people; then we find that at one fell swoop African and Asian opinions have been alienated and the prestige and moral leadership which Britain had built up in world affairs has been lost.
I owe my education and birth to the United Kingdom. Canada is my country and my first care, but if I have a second love it is

ior the land that gave me birth. I do not think I have ever felt more sorrowful than I felt as I watched the events following the adventure in the Suez area. There was not only the question of African and Asian opinion, there was the danger to the commonwealth. I was relieved when I read a few days ago that Nehru had refused in the Indian parliament to agree to a proposal that India should leave the commonwealth. I think it would have been a tragedy if India left the commonwealth, or if Pakistan or Ceylon withdrew.
This action has undermined the United Nations. As I have said on a number of occasions, it was with the deepest regret that I saw this action being undertaken in the manner in which it was. Certainly there was provocation, but that provocation should have been taken to the United Nations and pressed there. It is true also that the United States has some responsibility. I am not going into that at any length tonight because there is not sufficient time to do so. The changing and tortuous policies of the United States certainly contributed to what has happened in the Middle East.
It will be said that the genesis of the recent moves on the part of Britain and France was the attacks made by Israel on Egypt. As one who has been interested in following the chain of circumstances in Israel over the last several years I for one can understand the position in which that country found itself on October 29. As we know, this was the culmination of a long dispute. Israel had suffered considerable provocation, as we all know. Ever since 1948 Egypt along with the Arab states had refused to sign a peace treaty with Israel, countries regarded themselves as being in a continual state of war with Israel. Consequently Israel's security had been constantly and increasingly threatened by Egypt. Repeated Egyptian raids by small parties of commandos from the Gaza strip and from the Sinai peninsula had made life along the border virtually intolerable. Those of us who have had the opportunity of going there over the last several years know perfectly well that the country was in a state of continuous siege and that life for people who lived on the borders was indeed difficult. Repeated Egyptian raids by small parties of commandos, I say, over the Gaza strip had made the situation intolerable.
Egypt, as I have already noted, had blockaded Israel shipping in the canal and in the Aqaba gulf, and so there was provocation. None the less I am sorry that the action was taken because it did bring about a situation that today is causing grave concern all over
The Address-Mr. Coldwell the world. Britain and France issued their ultimatum and they launched their attack. As I said earlier, I believe this was in violation of the United Nations charter, and I have very good reason to believe that not only were the commonwealth prime ministers not notified of the intention but even the opposition in the United Kingdom was not taken into the confidence of the government prior to the event. At least I am fairly certain of this, that the considerations that are sometimes said to have existed but have never been made public were never conveyed to the opposition in Britain, and in the event of the development of danger of this description the normal practice in the United Kingdom was to take the opposition into the confidence of the government in order that the country might present a united front.
Well, what is the result of this? The very things that Britain feared have come about. The clash between the Egyptian and the Anglo-French forces has stopped passage through the canal and blocked the canal probably for months to come. Instead of protecting the canal, armed intervention has had the opposite and very unhappy result. I say "very unhappy result" because I am convinced that these results will be felt for some time in the economies not only of the United Kingdom and France but of the western European nations and of the world.
What have they gained? I think it can be said that nothing has been gained. I am not going to enter into the recriminations that have been prevalent in many quarters, in the press and so on, except to say that I think the results so far have been quite disastrous from the standpoint of the welfare of the whole world, and I believe that Russia, unfortunately, would have entered into Hungary willy-nilly. But I think the fact that there was this form of aggression in the Suez area helped to obscure the aggression in Hungary. I saw a cartoon in one of the British papers that was sent to me which showed a plane leaving for the Suez canal with Mr. Eden in flying garb beside it. Behind it was a tank heading in the opposite direction with Khrushchev standing beside it. Mr. Eden is saying "To Suez" and Mr. Khrushchev, looking around, is saying, "I am off, me too". I thought it illustrated to some extent the lever and argument that had been given to Russia in dealing with Hungary, though of course I am not making any comparison with respect to the loss of life or the manner and the cruelties of these two operations. They are not comparable, and I say that immediately. But at least it obscured the issue to a very considerable extent.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
I said I did not want to enter into recriminations. I want to say, however, before I come to something that I hope may be constructive, that we are very happy indeed that it was the Canadian representative in the person of our Secretary of State for External Affairs who proposed the establishment of the United Nations force. I think that is something about which every Canadian can indeed be proud and happy.


An hon. Member:: They are not.


Major James William Coldwell: Somebody in the official opposition-I did not get who it was-says that they are not. If there are Canadians who are not happy about it, then all I can say is that they do not share in the general opinion of people all across the world. Not only nations that voted for the condemnation of the Anglo-French action but Britain and France themselves are not unhappy that this United Nations force is to be established in order to bring about some measure of peace in the world.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: May I ask a question? Can you say one decent word about the country in which you were born?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is meant in all sincerity. You never have.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am very
proud of the fact I was born in the country where I was born.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Why did you not stay there?


Major James William Coldwell: I have many friends and
relations there and my only sorrow is that I think in this instance they were wrong. My opinion is shared by many millions of people in the United Kingdom.


Mr. Brooks:: They are getting fewer all the time.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Say something decent about them.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says they are getting fewer all the time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: As they learn the facts.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, if there has been a swing in public opinion in the United Kingdom behind what the government has done it was not indicated in the Chester by-election last week and, in the second place, it is not indicated in any other way.


Mr.. Brooks:: It is indicated in the very papers that you mentioned a while ago. Those papers are losing circulation.


Major James William Coldwell: If there has been a swing in public opinion I would suspect that the people of the United Kingdom, like the people of Canada, would rally behind the government in a crisis, and the official opposition should be doing that today in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why should they?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You did not want to help them with any soldiers in the last war.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member for Simcoe North to allow the hon. member who has the floor to make his speech without interruption.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid I cannot shout down the hon. member. I cannot enter into that competition. What I was going to say was that there are certain constructive things that I think Canada should now be endeavouring to place before the United Nations in order that this whole Middle Eastern situation may be cleaned up once and for all, over a period of time, of course, and peace established in that area. If there is, as we have, a cease-fire and a United Nations force there, then we should endeavour to suggest ways and means to prevent an outbreak in the future.
In the first place, we feel that the unstable conditions which led to the outbreak of fighting between Egypt and Israel are not confined to that section on the borders of Israel. The dangers of a similar outbreak occurring can be found on the frontiers with Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. We believe that some action should be taken now by the United Nations to extend police force action to those areas to provide an effective guarantee against the violation of peace there while a general settlement of the outstanding problems of the area is being arrived at. Let us not again be in the position of sending in a police force to stop the fighting after it has started.
That is the weak position in which we are today. If we had had a United Nations police force as was envisaged under the charter of the United Nations, that police force could have stepped in at any time there appeared to be the possibility of war in any area. We have not that force. We are building up a force now through the assembly instead of through the security council because the security council failed to act.
But, as I have said, we believe that this police force must be followed by some comprehensive economic settlement. A settlement must provide first of all for the recognition by the Arab states, including Egypt, of the state of Israel, and for the signing of

a peace treaty with Israel under which Israel's borders will be guaranteed. The blockade of Israel should be lifted and free passage through the canal, when passage is restored, should be available to Israeli shipping. We feel that no solution to the Suez canal problem can be achieved unless this is done.
We also realize that there are a good many other aspects of the economic situation in the Middle East. Egypt herself, with a population which is underfed and underprivileged, requires help in the irrigation of that area. As a matter of fact, I believe that the United Nations might consider setting up an international authority in agreement with the countries involved such as the Sudan and right down through Ethiopia, Egypt and so on, comparable to the Tennessee valley authority in the United States, in order to use the waters of that area for watering the desert and feeding the people of Egypt and the adjacent countryside just in the same way as I believe that, once peace is attained among Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, a similar authority might be set up to utilize the waters of the Jordan. Those of us who have seen the waters of the Jordan and know how they could be utilized if only an agreement could be reached among the nations along the river know perfectly well that the waters could be used to bring food, prosperity and so on to the people of that general area. Therefore we say that these are some of the things that need to be done.
Of course, underneath this whole situation to a large extent is the problem of oil; and that problem of oil is being borne in upon us today as never before. Today we realize the extent to which European industry depends upon oil from Saudi Arabia, from Kuwait and from the areas around the Red sea. There you have the largest supply of oil in the world available to the European countries. I do not think it is too much to hope that sooner or later these countries, through international organization, perhaps through the good offices of the United Nations, may be inclined to establish what we have sometimes suggested especially in connection with food in the world, namely a pool-I refer to an oil pool, not a food pool-the profits from which would go to the people to raise the standards of living in that area, and under which the countries would be guaranteed a supply of oil to utilize in the industrial areas where that oil is needed. There are in the Middle East areas where irrigation and conscious economic and social planning could raise the standards of living considerably. We therefore make some of these suggestions and place them before the Secretary
The Address-Mr. Coldwell of State for External Affairs and the government in the hope that on appropriate occasions, whenever the opportunities offer, they may be placed before international gatherings and consideration may be given to them.
I am not idealistic enough to believe that these things will be done in the course of a few weeks, a few months, or even a few years. In the history of the world things move slowly, but they move. If we are to have peace and justice in the world, then we must rely more and more on international associations, on collective security. For example, we have NATO. Because the security council failed to act we established NATO, which I believe has been a shield against a possible threat of war in another area.
So tonight, Mr. Speaker, while I have made some criticism, I am not without hope that the world will manage to get by this particular crisis without resort to arms and to a world-wide conflagration. I think no one wants such a world war. Russian machinations have upset large areas of the world, but I do not believe that even the Russians would consciously embark on a world war. We can denounce their propaganda; we can remain strong. But our strength will lie largely in the moral influence we can exercise over vast areas of the world, on the good will we can attain and maintain in those areas of the world, and on the extent to which we can assist in raising the standards of living and in removing the causes of unrest upon which communism thrives everywhere in the world.
So, Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to reiterate what I said at the beginning, namely that we have met together in a world crisis, that we have before us appropriations that will enable us to make a contribution in the two fields, first in that of the United Nations police force and second in that of the relief of the suffering which has been brought about by the terror inflicted upon the people of Hungary. May I say that not only must this appropriation be passed so we can give material aid, but that there is one other thing I think we should do. I think we should take all the refugees that we can possibly take into our country. We should let down the barriers. We should not do what we did in dealing with the refugees following the war, namely select only those who are of use to Canada. We should take our share of those who are older. We should take our share of those who are maimed, particularly those who suffered in the conflicts which occurred in the streets of Budapest and in the surrounding countryside. By doing that I think we shall be making a real contribution to the settlement of international disputes and to the welfare of mankind.
32	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Low


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be one of the most serious matters that has ever come before this assembly. I look upon the present situation as one that is fraught with grave danger, not only to our own country but to the other countries of the world. Because of the fact that this is a most serious time, I approach the present assignment with some diffidence. I would not want anything that I say to complicate matters, either for our own country or for the United Nations in the tremendous task that faces it at the present time.
I have just come back from about a month of speaking with people in different parts of Canada. I have had an opportunity of getting their views with regard to the world situation, and more particularly with regard to what has happened in the Middle East. I should like to explain briefly what I found the people thinking. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, when the situation became grave in the Middle East around November 1, I found the Canadian people dismayed and shocked. They were dismayed and shocked that it should be found necessary, in a day as serious as this, to have to assert rights and look after one's own affairs through the use of force. I found the Canadian people quite generally confused and very much worried.
However, as the days passed I believe that thinking clarified. The motives behind the various moves have become clearer, and as a consequence the Canadian people today, though they do look upon this as the gravest and most serious situation the world has faced in recent times, feel somewhat different from what they did on November 1. Although there are many vexatious domestic problems that face our Canadian people, problems demanding early solution, yet uppermost in their minds is the Middle East problem; the rape of Hungary and the bestiality of Russia; the about-face that we have seen that country make in these last few weeks. The people in all parts of Canada expected parliament, without delay, to get down to the business of taking action that is carefully calculated to bring peace to the Middle East, to provide the much-needed assistance to the oppressed and persecuted people of Hungary, and to do our utmost to relieve the suffering and uncertainties that have been heaped upon so many of these Hungarian patriots who have demonstrated that they love liberty more than they love life.
I contend that the eyes of the world are upon Canada today, and upon this parliament. Because the eyes of the world are upon us, I think our responsibilities are much heavier than they would be if that were not the case. As the nation that took the lead in moving


the resolution in the United Nations to set up an international police force, the actions of this parliament are being watched with more than common interest and expectation. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me to have been better for this parliament to show by actions, not by millions of meaningless words, that we do indeed want fast, effective action to provide a solid foundation for peace and security in the years ahead. I think this is no time for playing politics. This is a time for statesmanlike soul searching and truth seeking of the most intensive kind. In my judgment we ought to be setting party politics aside in an effort to find the maximum of common ground for swift action in the interests of our own country and of all mankind.
My colleagues and I firmly believe that the only way out of the present confused, dangerous and complicated set of circumstances is to seek earnestly for God's guidance to enable us, the parliament of Canada, to find what is right; and then to have the courage to do it when we find it. If ever there was a time in man's knowledge when vision and understanding have to be buttressed by faith and humility, I think that time is now. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention at this session to carp or to be unduly critical or to strain to find fault. We want to be critical where that is required in the interests of good government and good business, but certainly we are not going to inject party political manoeuvring into these proceedings, because this is not the time for it.
Some criticism has been levelled at the government regarding the calling of parliament. Where do we stand in that regard? I said nearly three weeks ago, when the Middle Eastern situation developed into a dangerous and tense situation, that I thought Canada should call parliament just as quickly as it might be possible after it became known what the United Nations wanted of us. I believe we should never have committed our forces to serve in any part of the world, and dispatched them to that theatre of war, without first calling parliament and getting the approval of the representatives of the people. However, Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister did call parliament in time so we can give careful consideration to what the United Nations has asked of us, and so we can get all the information we require in order to make a solid decision. We can either approve or we can withhold approval. My own judgment is that there can be little criticism levelled at the government on the ground of not having called parliament earlier than it did.

There are some criticisms that can be levelled at the government in connection with their actions to date. I think it would be unwise for us to withhold them. As I said before, it is not political criticism that I want to level. I think it is a pity that the government did not find it possible to provide Britain and France with moral backing when they intervened in the Middle East. I said so on the very day that Britain and France intervened; on a day when I heard around me in this building on the part of the people who had access to knowledge and understanding and should have known better, a great deal of fuzzy and emotional reasoning. I was surprised at the amount of it; and the criticism that was levelled at Britain and France seemed to me to border on the severe and the bitter.
Well, this afternoon the Prime Minister said that his government was critical of Britain and France. I am not sure he used the word "critical", but at any rate it amounted to that. It amounted to criticism of Britain, France and Israel because, he said, they had signed the charter of the United Nations agreeing not to take the law into their own hands. I think that is true. Is it not also true that the United Nations signatories pledged themselves to speedy intervention to stop aggression wherever it raised its head? Have they done it? When there seemed to be no hope whatever that they would do so or were equipped to do so, then under the circumstances the question arose what other alternative was left to Britain and France? I think we have to keep that in our minds as we proceed.
What has the United Nations done to clear away the problems and the provocations, indeed the aggressions, in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker? I remind the members of this assembly that the United Nations did nothing until Britain and France moved to protect their interests and to keep Israel and Egypt apart. It seemed to take a shock to move the United Nations to take any action that was worth while. I would not brand Britain and France as aggressors; I would hesitate to do that. I would have to measure most carefully the motives of those two countries against the provocations, the long line of provocations, they have suffered; and then I would have to be very careful in my assessment of the situation before I could possibly brand them as aggressors, as many have done.
Rather than blame those countries I believe we should seek for the fundamental causes of deterioration in the world situation, and in the Middle Eastern situation that is our immediate concern now in the weaknesses and the frailties of the United Nations. The 81537-3
The Address-Mr. Low Prime Minister said this afternoon that he believed what was happening in the Middle East was used as a shield by Russia to cover its horrible rape of Hungary. I remind the Prime Minister that the Russian turn-about from her decision to remove her troops from Hungary came only when western solidarity was shattered by the bitter and angry rebuke of Britain and France, first by the United States followed by the United Nations. It was only when Russia saw that solidarity had broken down that she decided to move in and to take advantage of it. She has always done so.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has warned us time and again that that is exactly what Russia will do, and he has appealed to us, therefore, to work for the solidarity of the western nations in the hope that through strength we could stop Russia's advance. That is the only thing she understands. But here Canada was rebuking Britain and France, placing ourselves on the side of Russia and following a very foolish United States when she was locked in the throes of an election, when she could not do anything effective. We allowed ourselves to help the U.S. shatter western solidarity, the very thing we ought to have been buttressing and bolstering with all our strength.
I repeat, the weaknesses and the vacillations of the United Nations have caused the free world, step by step, year after year, to retreat steadily before a completely aggressive Russian imperialism, one that will not be stopped except by a show of solid force. We are going to have to meet it at some time. I cannot understand, therefore, why we should continue to feel that we should have to put off the evil day. I can understand, Mr. Speaker, why men would not want to loose their grip on the hope for peace in this atomic age.
Of course, too, Mr. Speaker, I contend there are things that are more to be feared than death, and one of them is the loss of our liberty. Are we going to stand by inactive and watch the Hungarians and the Poles give us demonstration after demonstration of the love of freedom which the free world ought to be showing? I think we are guided by fear, allowing ourselves constantly to be bereft of faith. It seems to me that this ought to be a warning to us all.
Well, where do we stand with regard to the proposal of the government of Canada to provide a unit of approximately battalion strength to the emergency police force for the Middle East? I think, Mr. Speaker, it was the only alternative that could be found to action by individual nations, and I have to

The Address-Mr. Low give the Secretary of State for External Affairs credit for having suggested that the United Nations set up a police force for emergency action in the Middle East.
I see that it is designated as an emergency force for action in the Middle East, and therefore is specifically assigned to that area. Well, that is exactly the way we would want it.
I think we must agree that collective action of that kind is to be preferred to unilateral action, or action by any small group of nations outside the United Nations, and I said so, I think, on November 1 when I made a statement to the press. I said I thought we should be giving moral backing to Britain and France on their intervention, but immediately the United Nations should take this matter up and find an effective alternative. When they did find it I felt that Britain, France, Israel and Canada should go along with that alternative. I had in mind a police force.
That is the attitude we have toward the police force, but there is one thing I do want to say in regard to such a force. I would warn the government of Canada never to part with the right to commit or to withdraw such forces, according to their discretion; never to grant to the United Nations the actual sovereignty over this force, and as long as you do that you are going to have our support. But if you ever do part with the sovereignty over them, the right to commit them and the right to say whether they shall be sent to any other theatre of war, then, believe me, we are going to take exception to it. But we do think we must go along with the present proposal, and we have no criticism except what I have recited.
We would like to see bolder action. We do not want to see this debate extended too long. We would like to see the thing done and get the force committed when the United Nations commander wants to have them.
So far as the Queen's Own regiment is concerned, I do hope that Mr. Nasser will not be too critical. I hope it will be possible for him to accept the Queen's Own regiment. I think it was the one in rotation that was the best equipped and ready to go, and therefore should go to the east. I have no criticism of what has been done in that regard.
So far as Mr. Nasser is concerned, I want to warn the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his colleague the Minister of National Defence, that Mr. Nasser should not be allowed to dictate the terms, not by any means. I think Mr. Hammarskjold should be stiffened up in that regard. I am just a little bit afraid, from what I have read about his negotiations thus far, that he has been a little too timorously diffident about dealing with Mr. Nasser.

If the United Nations is going to set up a police force in Egypt, then they ought to set it up and get it in there at once. They should say "This is the way it is going to be handled", and it should be stationed along the entire length of the canal. It should stay there until the difficulties over the canal have been settled and some international supervision has been settled that will be satisfactory to the shipping nations of the world. Until such time as a right good start has been made on a complete solution of the outstanding problems between Israel and the Arab nations in the east, I say it should not be withdrawn.
But there is one other thing, Mr. Speaker, that we should be careful about. The United Nations should be prepared to allow Britain and France to retain their forces in Egypt until such time as the United Nations police force has been completely established there and put in full possession of the canal zone. Nothing else can possibly solve the difficulty. Whether or not Mr. Nasser likes it completely, we have to remember that about all the United Nations has done thus far has been to buttress Nasser's threatening position. That is about all, and he is coming off the victor and he is beginning to feel that he is the victor. Therefore let us be mighty careful about it. I am not satisfied that 6,000 men, as has been suggested, is a large enough force. My own feeling is that it would require not less than 18,000 or 20,000 men to do the job as it ought to be done, so let us not be thinking in terms of a mere 6,000.
May I suggest that Canada as a member of the United Nations must bear some responsibility for allowing the Middle East situation to drift along as it has, with no really serious effort being made to solve the outstanding problems between Israel and the Arab countries. May I remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that in 1947 Canada went along with an insistent United States leading a half reluctant United Nations. I use the word "reluctant" for the reason that about half of them were taking a stand against the establishment of Israel under the circumstances which then existed and half of them were more or less willing to go along. It was a difficult situation, I know, but Canada went along with an insistent United States in 1947 in establishing Israel without granting the people in that area the right to selfdetermination. I would also remind the house that the right to self-determination is the very cornerstone upon which the principles of the United Nations are based.
When Israel was established Canada went along with it and, of course, we angered the

Arab states right then and there and they determined they were going to destroy Israel. When we did go along with the establishment of Israel I say it was the responsibility of the United Nations to see the thing through, and when I say that I mean this. When trouble arose between Israel and Egypt and the other Arab nations in 1948 and the war of extermination, from the point of view of the Arabs, was visited upon Israel, the United Nations left the problems hanging straight in the air, left them dangling. Nothing whatever was done to bring to a sensible conclusion the outstanding problems and points of dispute between those nations.
There were four main points of dispute, and I think they have been mentioned here today. You will remember that in 1947 Egypt took the position that Israel should never be allowed to have a vessel pass through the Suez canal, and they never have since that time. That was a direct violation of the international convention of 1888. Although it was not right, nothing was done about it. What did the other nations do to see that Israel had a fair chance to use the canal? They did nothing. This situation drifted from bad to worse.
What did they do concerning the question of the armistice lines? Some of the silliest lines were drawn by the armistice commission of that day, and they have just been allowed to stand there. For instance, armistice lines were drawn that divided the city of Jerusalem into two parts in such a fashion that the Jewish university on Mount Scopus was included in Jordan. I could name a score of other very foolish things that were done in connection with armistice lines, but nothing has been done to settle these outstanding problems and they have been a source of irritation since 1947.
What has been done about finding a solution to the refugee problem? Originally approximately 700,000 or 750,000 Arabs were either thrown out of Israel or went out because of fear, or were urged to go out because of propaganda. They found themselves in refugee camps on the site of the ancient city of Jericho and in the Gaza strip. They have just been sitting there demoralized for all these years. Nothing has been done to settle these people permanently.
Finally, what has been done about the necessary economic build-up of the Arab states where the standard of living is so low? What has been done about finding a solution to the Jordan waters problem? All these problems need to be given very careful consideration, and until they are settled there can be no hope for peace in the Middle East.
81537-3J
The Address-Mr. Low
I hope the police force we are envisioning here today will be set up quickly and sent into position, and will stay there policing that area and keeping the peace until a right good start has been made toward finding a permanent solution to these problems. I think Canada should be prepared to go along with the efforts of the United Nations in finding a possible solution for these problems.
It was fortunate, in my judgment, that something happened to shock the United Nations into action at the time these events occurred, because since that time we have discovered a terrific Russian build-up in the area. We know what are her long-range ideas. Russia needs oil. Russia's vast industrialization program makes her need imperative. She wants the oil in the Middle East. The oil in Baku and other areas accessible to her is not going to be sufficient for her needs. At the same time Russia wants to weaken NATO and destroy it if possible. One of the best ways to accomplish this is to cut off the oil supply from the Middle East. I think there is no question about that at all.
It was fortunate in the extreme that the intelligence of Israel, Great Britain and France indicated the fact of the Russian build-up; and something has happened, it seems to me, which in the long run will be of great benefit to the world.
Let me say very quickly a few words about Hungary. I think we ought to be doing everything we possibly can to relieve the suffering of those Hungarian people who have been dislocated and driven from their homes, and who are suffering for want of food and medical supplies. I think Canada should open her doors wide to these people.
This is one thing-and I address my remarks to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-that could have been handled more effectively. I think we should have sent into the areas around the borders of Hungary receiving teams that could have quickly given help to any of these refugees who found their way across the borders of Hungary. They should have been brought into this country, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar mentioned, under a completely open-door policy. These people are patriots and in the eyes of the world they have given a demonstration such as few people in the world have given. We should move to their aid as quickly as we possibly can.
As has already been said, the million dollar appropriation for assistance to Hungary is a good start. I think we should be prepared to give much more when it is required. I believe, however, a word of warning is

The Address-Mr. Low necessary. I believe the free nations of the world have to be extremely careful in the future in how they encourage the hope of assistance to the peoples behind the iron curtain, and not offer hope that is premature. There is much evidence today that the Hungarian patriots were led to believe they would receive help and they were looking for it, as some of them have stated since they came to Canada. They did not know from where this help would come, but they were certain that it would come.
It is a terrible thing to lead them to believe that help will be extended when we have no machinery through which to extend it. Just as quickly as we can get such machinery we ought to get it and have it ready to send into countries like Hungary. I believe the long-range shortwave broadcasts were mainly responsible for premature hope, and I think we have to be very careful in that regard in future.
In conclusion I would like to sum up how I view the situation at the present time and in doing so I cannot find better words than those which were used by Selwyn Lloyd. These are the words he used:
British American differences over the Middle East should not be taken too tragically.
I think that is right.
On the other hand, it would be equally wrong to minimize them and pretend that there is not a job to be done in restoring the intimacy of our alliance.
The crisis may have created a situation of great opportunity which may not recur again. A war has been rapidly stopped; an international force has been created; the Russian penetration has been unmasked. The situation can be turned to good account by the free world. Whatever may be the thought of the past let us, the United States and the countries of the commonwealth, now press forward with firmness together and with resolution, to use that opportunity and to preserve the gains. Thus our friendship and co-operation will once more prove the great hope of the world.
The history of Britain and France has been one of a long succession of demonstrations of sacrifice and noble ideals devoted to the achievement of justice and freedom in this world. I have not lost faith in those countries as yet, and I think we ought to be doing everything we can to bolster their determination once more to re-establish the solidarity of the free world wherever we possibly can.
I would have preferred to have spoken after the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence had given us their views and the background of this whole matter. There are a lot of things we do not know. Because I have had to speak before they came on I should like to reserve my right to speak again when the resolution which doubtless the Minister of
IMr. Low.]

Finance (Mr. Harris) will bring in is before us. I wish at that time to ask a number of questions.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) for concluding his speech in the way he did because he gave me a peg on which to hang mine. I may say that I am going to leave all questions of high policy to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and other people who are better able than I to discuss these matters. But there is one part of the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe which has a direct relation to one of the functions of government for which I am responsible to this house. The fourth part of that amendment reads:
(4) have failed to take swift and adequate action to extend refuge to the patriots of Hungary and other lands under the cruel Russian yoke.
I am going to try, as objectively and dispassionately as I can, to explain the situation as it has been reported to me and as I understand it what is the precise problem. I shall try as precisely as I can to indicate what the government of Canada has so far done about it.
As hon. members know, the Russians moved against Hungary on Sunday, November 4, and they began shooting down people in a frightful manner, not only in Budapest but all over Hungary. Almost immediately there was a stream of refugees across the Austrian border, a stream which has not ceased to flow, a stream which with every day that passes is creating more difficult problems for the government of Austria. Austria has improvised camps for the temporary relief of these refugees, and it is their desire to get the people out of those camps and moved to some other country just as quickly as possible. It is not that they are not hospitable, it is simply that they want to use their limited resources in order to take care of the new people who are crossing the border.
On the morning of November 6 I issued instructions to our office in Vienna that priority was to be given to applications from these Hungarian refugees, that any such applications were to be processed at once, and that if there were other things the Austrian government wanted us to do in order to help in this matter our officers were to let us know what they were. They were to advise as quickly as they could how much extra staff would be required, and they were given full authority to engage any local help that was necessary. They were told that we would transfer staff from any other

office in Europe without delay, and regardless of whether it impeded other operations, in order to cope with whatever flow of refugees there might be.
I think anyone who has stopped to reflect on this matter for two minutes will realize that in the first week or for the most of the first ten days of this movement of refugees very few of them would be thinking about crossing the Atlantic or going to Australia. They were thinking about where they would get their next meal, they were thinking about what had happened to the other members of their families who had not escaped, they were wondering what was going on in Hungary and whether the revolution from which they had hoped so much, was going to be crushed or whether in fact a situation would be created which would enable them to go back to Hungary. I think the majority of them are still preoccupied mainly with those considerations.
But within a week there was an increasing number of people who decided that the best thing to do would be to go to Canada, the United States or Australia, at least to settle down for a while because there was not much hope in Hungary. We discussed with the Austrian government whether we should send teams into the camps and they asked us not to do so. They said, "You cannot send people across the Atlantic or to Australia unless they want to go". That means you have to ask questions and delay their movement. It does no great harm to anyone to be sent to Switzerland, Sweden, Germany or some other adjacent country from which he could go back home without too much trouble and where he can remain while he makes up his mind. They told us that they wanted to move these people from the camps, as quickly as possible, to other countries, where other countries had offered refuge. They told us that what they wanted was to have the United States, Canada and Australia deal promptly with those people who had indicated that they were interested in going to one of those countries. They told us that they would send such people to us, and that is the way the thing has been proceeding so far.
We indicated on the morning of November 6 that not only was priority to be given to whatever applicants there were, not only was the staff to be increased to handle whatever flow there was, but that anyone who wanted to come and who was physically in position to come would be given assisted passage without regard to what means he had. That was the case and it has remained the case. We did not inquire whether the loan would be paid back. We hope it will be paid back in due course, because I believe most of
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill these people are going to have little difficulty in getting established in Canada in the next few months.
I also made it clear in Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver or wherever anyone asked me about it that any responsible individual or organization in Canada was at liberty to sponsor immigrants, either people they might know about or simply to make facilities available for people whom they did not know. This would include people who were not able to look after themselves and even people who were in need of medical treatment. I also said that if some of these people required medical treatment and therefore could not by law be admitted to this country as immigrants, I would use the powers that parliament gave to the minister under the Immigration Act and admit these people for treatment wherever, whenever and as often as arrangements could be made for that treatment. I also said that every application to any immigration office anywhere in Canada by Hungarians or Hungarian-Canadians for specific people was to be received and every possible effort was to be made to locate these people if there was a reasonable prospect of their being among the refugees or if there was any prospect of their getting here in any other way.
I have been in very close touch with the situation in Vienna. We get reports every day. We have been in telephonic communication three or four times, and the one thing I have been most insistent about is that the flow must not be stopped, that as many cases as come along are to be dealt with regardless of whether that involves not filling out forms, whether it involves cutting out X-rays, whether it involves doing away with almost any other kind of red tape, if you like to call it that, or normal procedure. Every one of these procedures is useful in settling people here and if they are not carried out the problems when they get here are going to be greater, but we will have to cope with them when they do get here. That is the view I have taken, that the main thing to do is to keep the stream flowing. So far there has been no difficulty about doing that.
It also became quite apparent to me when I got back from the Pacific coast at the beginning of last week that the numbers were reaching proportions that were going to be well beyond the capacity of normal transportation to deal with. I took steps at once to get in touch with Canadian Pacific Airlines, Trans-Canada Air Lines and the shipping companies to see what special arrangements could be made, and I announced on Friday that an airlift was being organized. I may say that we got every aircraft that C.P.A. or
38	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill T.C.A. could make available, and I announced that publicly. It was given to the newspapers. Some of them did not see fit to give the announcement very much prominence. Perhaps this is not objective, but I do confess that I was a little surprised to read in the Globe and Mail on Saturday that somebody ought to establish an airlift, and because the federal government would not do it somebody else should. Actually I think we are getting every aircraft we know anything about on which we can lay our hands. We have been able to make arrangements with another air line-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I should indulge in advertising.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can you not give information?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We also canvassed the
possibility through Trans-Canada Air Lines and the steamship companies of getting enough space to deal with this problem either by air or by sea. On Saturday we learned that between 300 and 400 passengers could be taken on a ship sailing from Bremen at the end of this week, and I gave directions that the whole of the space was to be taken at once. That space will all be filled at the end of the week.
I was a little concerned lest the officer in charge in Vienna was going to be so harassed by the day to day business of the office that he would not be able to look ahead and try to meet the problems that might arise two or three days hence. In consequence I have sent one of the senior officers of the admissions branch of the department to Vienna. He will be there before the middle of the week and he has blanket authority to do everything that is necessary to see that there is no stoppage of this flow.
Of course one can never be sure that all these things will synchronize perfectly, but I have very high hopes that we will be able to take all the people who show any interest in coming to Canada and that in one way or another without too much delay we will be able to find some transportation to bring them here. This is not the problem that worries me. The problem that worries me and that ought to worry every responsible member of the house and every Canadian who is properly concerned about this problem is what is going to happen to these people when they arrive. It is very easy, as the hon. member for Peace River says, to say that we will throw the doors wide open and let anybody into the country, but I hope everybody who advocates that course will be just as anxious to see that some responsible


person is willing to look after these people 20 years from now if we get some of the kind of people who need care for that long.
That is the kind of problem that anyone who has any sense of responsibility has to think about and think about seriously when he is tearing up human beings by the roots and moving them to some other place. I intend to follow the advice of the hon. member for Peace River. I intend, and I have the authority of my colleagues to go ahead and do this, to let in the people who want to come here, and we intend to try to distribute them across the country to the best of our ability. I am very pleased that Canadian Pacific Airlines are going to have their flights direct to Vancouver. I think that is a very good thing. When I was in Vancouver the other day I found there was a good deal of complaint that immigrants, because it cost more to get there, never got there, though that is not borne out by the statistics. But I felt that here was one occasion when we would get some of them to British Columbia first.
I have also arranged a meeting between the social agencies that are concerned about immigration and the officials of my department tomorrow to try to co-ordinate reception, because it just cannot be left to purely local efforts any longer. It can this week, but I think by next week the numbers are going to be so great that there will have to be a lot more organization than there now is.
In that connection I may say that I was very gratified this morning to have a telephone call from the office of the premier of Ontario and subsequently a telephone call from the minister of planning and development of Ontario, the department that interests itself, and quite properly under the constitution, in immigration in so far as it comes within provincial jurisdiction. I told them what we were doing and indicated some of the ways in which I thought they could be most helpful. I told Mr. Nickle, the minister, that I would send him a telegram to confirm what I had said, and as it contains a certain amount of information that is of general interest I think I might perhaps read the text of it to the house. It reads as follows:
In confirmation of our telephone conversation, I thank the Ontario government for their offer of co-operation in the transportation to Canada and reception here of Hungarian refugees. The federal government, as I announced publicly last Friday, has already organized an airlift through Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Airlines and we are negotiating for additional air transport. We also have arranged for a ship to sail from Bremen next week end with about 300 refugees.
I am told it will be considerably more than 300.

Where help will be most urgently needed is in reception of Hungarians on arrival in Canada, shelter and care pending settlement and medical care for those who may require it. This last is particularly important in view of relaxation of normal medical examinations in Vienna. We will especially welcome co-operation of the Ontario government in these fields and you are invited to send a representative of your department to a conference in Ottawa tomorrow with my officials and the social agencies on these problems.
Before coming into the house this evening I was advised that the deputy minister of Mr. Nickle's department will be here tomorrow for that meeting. Up to now I myself have not made any specific approach to any provincial government with one exception. The premier of British Columbia called on me the other day about another matter and at that time I took advantage-perhaps that is the right term to use-of his visit to tell him that I was not only the superintendent general of Indian affairs but also the minister of immigration and that in that capacity I expected to present the provincial authorities and the local authorities in British Columbia with some problems that I hoped they would do their share to meet.


An hon. Member:: They will.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Bennett assured me- and he said I could say so publicly; otherwise I would not be saying it-that they would do their share. Personally I hope they will do a little more than their share because they are so obviously wealthier than any of the rest of us. But at least if they do their share it will be a great help.
In that connection I think, at the risk of seeming to be sentimental, I should like to tell the house of something that happened in Vancouver a week ago Saturday afternoon. I undertook to receive the executive of the native brotherhood of British Columbia. I also agreed at four o'clock that afternoon to receive a delegation of Hungarian Canadians who wanted to discuss this refugee problem. The two appointments slightly overlapped and I could see, through the glazed doors of the office, that the Hungarians had arrived before the meeting with the Indians was quite over. I said to the Indians that these Hungarian Canadians were coming to talk to me about the unfortunate refugees in Vienna and I thought it would be a rather nice thing if I brought them in before the Indians left so that the Indians could express their sympathy to these people. They came in and this happened very pleasantly.
Then that meeting ended and I started my discussion with the Hungarians. Within five minutes there was a knock on the door and the president and one of the other officers of the native brotherhood came in and said,
The Address-Mr. Pickersgill "Mr. Pickersgill, there is one more thing we want to talk to you about". I started to excuse myself to go out and they said, "No; we do not want to go out. We have had a meeting out in the hall and we thought we should not just use words to express our feelings". They put $50 on the table. I am confident that if other Canadians-all the rest of us who are descendants of immigrants or immigrants themselves-do as much as these Indians, who are not very wealthy, did that day, and if we do our full share to help solve this problem, we shall have no trouble in this country in absorbing all those Hungarians who are willing-and many of them will not be-to come to Canada in the winter.
For my part I think in due course the problem in Vienna will resolve itself, but that there will be another problem after that one. Many of these people who have gone to Germany, to England, to France or to other countries to go into refugee camps are not going to want to stay there. As time goes on and as this most imjnediate problem in Austria is alleviated, I think the next step we will want to take is to arrange to send teams into these camps and do what we can to get those people to come here also.
I do not want to conceal from the house my opinion, and the opinion upon which the government intend to proceed next year with our immigration policy, namely that we are going to need all the people we can get next year in order to get done the essential work that ought to be done in this country. I am not at all worried about the able-bodied people, the people who are able to take any kind of work and are willing to do it, and who are able to support themselves. But, as I said before, I am somewhat worried about those who are going to come because of the policy we have undertaken and who, over the years, are going to be problems for themselves and for us. I do say that I will welcome, as will my department and the government and, as I am sure all of us will, every offer of co-operation; and by offer I mean a tangible, concrete offer on the line, with details about what is proposed to be done and not just vague expressions to the effect that the government ought to do something. We will do everything we can, but I do not want to be responsible for bringing to Canada people who are going to have to live for very long in our immigration halls. Handsome as they are, I do not think they are going to be very much happier in immigration halls than they would be in relief camps on the other side of the Atlantic.
As I said in Vancouver, I am all for bringing to Canada all of these people who will

The Address-Mr. Green be better off and happier here. But the government alone cannot make them better oft and happier. We are going to bring here as many as want to come and for whom we can provide transportation, but we are going to need all the help we can get from everyone able to help us if this thing is to be a real success and a credit to Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, before going on with the main portion of my speech this evening I should like to say a word about the speech which has just been made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). I hope he will not feel that he is doing everything that could be done to get these patriots from Hungary to Canada. After all, the actions of these people have aroused great sympathy in the minds and the hearts of the Canadian people from coast to coast. Furthermore, by their actions in Hungary they have shown that they would make excellent Canadian citizens. We cannot have too many citizens of this kind who have known the tragedies of communism and who are prepared to stand up and fight against it. I hope the minister will have a further look at his plans. For example, why should not Canada extend an invitation to these refugees right in Austria, pointing out to them the advantages of coming to Canada? From his remarks I took it that the minister was just worrying about getting out those people who happen to ask about coming to Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman is not trying to be unfair. I said that we were asked by the Austrian government not to go into the camps. As long as that is the view of the Austrian government we will not go into the camps; but the day the Austrian government invites us to go there, or the next day, I will send a team there.


Howard Charles Green: I have one other suggestion which perhaps the minister will take a little more kindly. It seems to me that it would be possible for him, with the co-operation of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), to set _ up some scheme of rehabilitation under which these patriots coming to Canada can be assisted to learn skills which will fit them into our industrial life,-and possibly also into our agricultural life.
Then I should like to say a word about the speech by the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well). Unfortunately I was not able to hear that speech, but I understand that he largely followed the line of the Labour party in the United Kingdom which, of course, is what we expect in this house from his party on these questions. I understand also that he


said the people of Great Britain were overwhelmingly opposed to the policies followed by the Eden government. It so happens that I have here a dispatch to the Vancouver Sun from my neighbour, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), who was in the United Kingdom last week. This is in the issue of November 20, and here is what he had to say on that point. I do not always vouch for his accuracy, but probably in this case he is nearly right. He said:
Several factors have tended to push the Suez crisis out of the picture here.
That is in England.
The cease-fire in Egypt changed the public attitude in the twinkling of an eye. Instead of being damned up hill and down dale by half the nation as the man who got Britain into a war, Eden was and is increasingly hailed as the man whose timely action prevented the third world war.
I hope the member for Vancouver South will take the same stand when he speaks in this debate. Then he went on to say:
Several staunch supporters of the Labour party have told me privately that they think the Prime Minister did the right thing in the circumstances.
Feelings on these questions raised by the Suez crisis, Mr. Speaker, are running very deep in Canada, far deeper I believe than the government has the slightest conception. Listening to the Prime Minister I could not help but think he has been living in some other land altogether so far as public reaction to these issues is concerned, and particularly reaction to the attitude of the Canadian government.
This attitude has come as a great shock to millions of Canadian people. In Vancouver the story broke in the headlines on October 31, and I must admit that even I was shocked, although the stand taken was just in line with the stand this government has been taking for the last 10 years. It has been going steadily in the direction of the stand taken on this occasion. This time they happened to get caught. The>
spoke off the cuff before they had a nice, cover-up explanation prepared. Here we have the headlines, "Canada Turns Her Back on U.K."-it should have been the U.K. and France-"Supports U.S.". This is a dispatch by Mr. Leiterman and it begins this way:
With a wrench that will make history, Canada turned her back on Great Britain Tuesday night . . .
Then he went on to point out the ill-concealed annoyance shown by the minister for external affairs when he was interviewed on this particular day. Mr. Leiterman had this to say:
Mr. Pearson had three possible courses. He could have supported Britain. He could have

supported the U.S. or he could, like Australia in the security council, have abstained and said nothing at all.
Hesitantly, almost as if surprised at his own boldness he chose in effect to desert Britain and "associate" Canada with the United States.
That was on October 31.


Mr. Pearson:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he tell me to what he is referring in reading that newspaper, what vote?


Howard Charles Green: I am referring to a report of a press conference or an interview by the minister with the press, and the date of the report in the Vancouver Province is October 31. This was only the beginning. The minister went down to the United Nations, I believe it was on November 2, after the United Kingdom and France had vetoed the resolution brought into the security council, and he voted with Russia and the United States against the United Kingdom and France to put this question on the agenda of the assembly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Everybody else did, too.


Howard Charles Green: Let the minister and the government laugh it off. This afternoon the Prime Minister was very careful not to refer to that. He had not a word to say about that particular vote. He talked about-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: He very firmly approves of that vote.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That does not make it right.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: And the fact that you say it is wrong does not make it wrong.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister had an opportunity to make his speech this afternoon, and perhaps he will allow me to make mine.
This afternoon the Prime Minister said that when the vote came up about the cease-fire, then Canada abstained. He did not explain that while the minister for external affairs abstained, in his speech the minister showed very clearly that he was condemning the United Kingdom and France. The Prime Minister should have made that clear. This has been the course followed by this government right down through the piece since this serious situation first arose.
Again, just two days ago in the assembly of the United Nations when the second resolution about the cease-fire was under discussion the minister got up and said that this was all wrong, there had already been a resolution passed and the United Kingdom, France and Israel were complying with it. They had already taken steps to comply with that resolution and this second resolution 81537-4
The Address-Mr. Green should not be passed. Then the Canadian government did not have the courage to get up and vote against it. Only the United Kingdom, France, Israel, Australia and New Zealand voted against that foolish and provocative resolution. The Canadian government, representing the land of courageous people, did not have the backbone to get up and vote against that resolution; they were so busy currying favour with the United States.
The feature of the speech the Prime Minister delivered today, Mr. Speaker, was the anger, almost the hatred he showed in his remarks. I wish the Canadian people could have been here to watch him.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: So do I.


Howard Charles Green: He made a violent attack on the big nations.


Mr. Garson:: It is too bad they cannot hear you.


Howard Charles Green: He talked about the use of the veto. The veto was written into the United Nations charter because the big nations have to carry a great deal of responsibility. But the Prime Minister pushed that aside and talked about the life of a person in a small nation being as valuable as in a big nation.


Mr. Hosking:: Is that not true?


Howard Charles Green: It is just dragging a red herring across the trail. Then he went on to talk about the United Kingdom and France taking the law into their own hands, and in effect the Prime Minister lumped the United Kingdom and France with Russia in his condemnation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: How silly can you be?


Howard Charles Green: Then he made this amazing statement. He said, "The era of supermen in Europe is coming to an end". I suppose he considers that all the supermen are in the Canadian government. If they are not all in the Canadian government, then I presume the opinion of this same Prime Minister is that they are in the United States government. Here you have the prime minister of France and Prime Minister Eden of the United Kingdom. They do not claim to be supermen. I am amazed at the Prime Minister of Canada making slurring remarks of that kind this afternoon. Those men in the United Kingdom and France are simply doing the best they can for their people; they are trying to give good leadership. I suppose the Prime Minister of Canada sneers at Sir Winston Churchill as a superman and includes him in his nasty, biting remarks this afternoon. His whole attitude this afternoon was one of bitterness.

The Address-Mr. Green


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have one doing that right now.


Howard Charles Green: The Uncle Louis kissing babies went out the window this afternoon; so smug, so full of self-righteousness, so hypocritical.
Where was Canada earlier this year when this question was blowing up? This government was washing its hands of the whole problem. Now young Canadians are going to have to go to the Middle East, perhaps to fight in the Middle East, perhaps to stand up against young men from Great Britain and France. There is the situation we may be facing in the near future; yet this spring and summer the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister took the position, well, the Suez is a long way off; Canada is not concerned. They did nothing about it, nothing to try to solve the problem. All the time President Nasser was openly boasting that he was out to destroy Israel and to drive the United Kingdom and France out of the Middle East. He was fomenting trouble in North Africa for the French. The Canadian government was not interested at all.
Then he seized the canal. He had no right to do it. That action was taken in direct and violent breach of the treaty. The United Kingdom and France moved their troops into the Mediterranean area at that time. The Canadian government knew it; the whole world knew it. These two nations had to act to save their own national existence. What did Canada do? I hold in my hand a press dispatch of July 28, headed, "Canada Plans No Move On Suez Canal". The dispatch goes on to say:
Canada is making no representations in the Egyptian nationalization of the Suez canal, External Affairs Minister Pearson told the Journal.
The subject was brought up in the house by the Leader of the Opposition on July 30. He asked the Prime Minister this question;
In view of the developments over the week end, has the government given consideration to the advisability of presenting a formal protest to Egypt which would indicate the position of this government in relation to the events which have taken place there in a manner that is not merely a question of reporting, but would constitute a direct representation from this government?
And here is the answer of this Prime Minister, who is so full of indignation today, reported at page 6655 of Hansard. Here is his answer at that time:
The matter has, of course, been under consideration, but we have not decided yet to submit any formal protest.
I do not believe any formal protest was ever submitted. The United States took the same attitude at that time. I hold in my hand a statement by Defence Secretary Wilson. It is quoted on August 8, and reads as follows:
Defence Secretary Wilson today described the Suez situation as a "relatively small thing".
The article goes on:
At another point, a reporter asked Wilson if he looked upon the Suez crisis as a minor upset. He replied: "You described it well".
That was Canada and the United States just a few months ago, absolutely failing to take any stand to try to clear up the situation in the Suez at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Green the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue with the debate tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 27, 1956


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows: Government House. Ottawa 7th January, 1957
Members of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament. I thank you sincerely for this address.
Vincent Massey.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, January 8, 1957
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at 11.00 a.m. today, the 8th January, 1957, for the purpose of proroguing the special session of the twenty-second parliament.
X have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative).



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication notifying me of a vacancy which has occurred in the representation, as follows:
Of Hon. George A. Drew, member for the electoral district of Carleton, by resignation.
Accordingly, I addressed my warrant to the chief electoral officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
The Deputy Governor General was pleased to close the fourth (special) session of the twenty-second parliament of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
Developments in the international situation were fortunately such that it was not necessary to resume the session which I now bring to a close.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision you have made for the purposes of Canada's participation in the United Nations emergency force in fulfilment of our country's obligations to the United Nations Organization under the charter and for relief for the victims of the recent tragic events in Hungary.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
May Providence continue to bless and protect this nation.
This concluded the fourth (special) session of the twenty-second parliament.


[Stage Direction]
November 26th 1956 to January 8th 1957

[Stage Direction]
Address in reply to Governor General's speech, 7-42, 48-104, 111-4, 115-31, 139-48 Acknowledgment of by Governor General, 177
Adjourning debate until United Nations Emergency Force and Hungarian relief are dealt with, 27
Consideration later this day, M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East), agreed to, 4 Motion for consideration
Moved by Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski), 7-9; seconded by Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield), 9-11, agreed to, 148 Amendment (Mr. Rowe), 18, negatived on division, 147-8 Speakers, Messieurs:
Balcer, 126-8; Brooks, 113-4, 116-9 Churchill, 97-102; Coldwell, 26-31
Diefenbaker, 139-44; Dinsdale, 93-7; Dufresne, 102-4, 111-3
Fleming, 66-73; Fulton, 145-7
Girard, 92-3; Green, 40-2, 49-51
Hamilton (York West), 81-3; Harkness, 128-31, 139
Knowles, 121-6
Legare (mover), 7-9; Low, 32-6 McLeod, 119-21; Michener, 83-7 Nesbitt, 87-90
Pearkes, 77-81; Pearson, 51-66; Pickersgill, 36-40, 147; Poulin, 90-2 Rowe, 11-8, amdt., 18
St. Laurent (Quebec East), 19-26; Stewart (Winnipeg North), 73-7 Weselak (seconder), 9-11 Yuill, 144-5
Motion (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East) for engrossing and presentation, agreed to, 148
Adjournments, see under House of Commons
Applewtaaite, Mr. E. T. (Skeena)
Appointment as deputy chairman, 5-6
Appropriation Bill see Supply Bill
Argue, Mr. H. R. (Assiniboia)
Grain, delivery quotas, 46
Grain, interim payment on 1955 crop, 45
Prairies, cash shortage on, 107
Armament exports
Middle East, to, 14, 16, 88-9, 91, 98, 141-2 C.C.F. amendment at last session, 123
Army, see Canadian forces
Austria, assistance to Hungarian refugees, 11
Balcer, Mr. L£on (Trois Rivieres)
Address in reply, 126-8 National flag, 128
United Nations Emergency Force, 126-8
Bandaranaike, Hon. S.W.R.D., Prime Minister of Ceylon, 43
Bank Act, amending re consumer interest rates, 111
Bank of Canada, see Interest rates
Beaudoin, Hon. L. Ren£, see Speaker
Bell, Mr. Thomas M. (Saint John-Albert)
United Nations Emergency Force, need of merchant ships, 173
Bennett, the late Miss Sybil, member for Halton, tributes to, 1-3
Bills, suspension of standing orders respecting, 6-7, 43-4
Bills, Public
1.	Oaths of office. Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East)
2.	Supply (further supplementary). Mr. Harris See also those titles

[Stage Direction]
Blair, Mr. W. G. (Lanark)
United Nations Emergency Force, medical facilities, 163 Box cars (grain)
Supply to low-quota points, appointment of Transport Controller, 46
British Columbia, request for royal commission to investigate fruit industry, 135
Brooks, Mr. A. J. (Royal)
Address in reply, 1134, 116-9 Hungarian situation, 116 United Nations Emergency Force, 118-9, 172 Middle East situation, 113-4, 116-8
Bryson, Mr. H. A. (Humboldt-Melfort)
Grain handling, interest rate on money borrowed for, 107, 138 Hudson Bay Railway, C.P.R. running rights over, 138
Calgary, Alta., fire at Camp Sarcee, see Canadian forces
Campbell, Mr. A. M. (The Battlefords)
Peyote buttons, 46
Campney, Hon. R. O. (Minister of National Defence)
Camps Shilo and Rivers, working hours of civilians, 137 Fire damage at Camp Sarcee in Calgary, 108, 137 Middle East situation, effect on NATO, 171-2 United Nations Emergency Force, 158 Canadian participation, background, 149-53 Code of discipline, 171
Composition of Canadian units, type of uniform, 44, 163-4 Control of, 173
Defence appropriation, estimated cost tabled, 148-9, 153-5 Disability protection, overseas allowance, 137 Insurance coverage, 162, 164 Medical facilities, 163
Transport squadron, 173	__ ____
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Coverage of UN special sessions, 7, 74 Hungarian uprising, references to, 73 Middle East situation, references to, 92
Canadian forces
Air force, NATO training facilities, closing down Claresholm school, 171-2 Air force, No. 424 City of Hamilton squadron, disbanding, 170
Air transport squadron on Middle East duty, effect on airborne brigade portability 173 Death or disability compensation, 157, 162 Fire at Camp Sarcee in Calgary, 108, 137 Overseas, repatriating, 91-2
Placing on active service, parliamentary approval for, 15, 19-20, 32 Preparedness, air transport, return of dependents abroad, 83	'
See also United Nations Emergency Force-Canadian units
Canadian Pacific Railway
Pensioners on less than $60, 138 Running rights over Hudson Bay Railway, 138
Cardiff, Mr. L. E. (Huron)
SmaU Loans Act, 111
Castleden, Mr. G. H. (Yorkton)
United Nations Emergency Force, pensions, disabilities, 137
Ceylon, visit of prime minister to Canada, see Visitors to Canada
Churchill, Mr. Gordon (Winnipeg South Centre)
Address in reply, 97-102 Commonwealth of Nations. 101-2 Middle East situation, 97-9 United Nations, 99-100
iv

[Stage Direction]
Churchill, Mr. Gordon-Cont.
United Nations Emergency Force, 102
Cold well, Mr. M. J. (Rosetown-Biggar)
Address in reply, 26-31	.
Adjournment until Jan. 8th 1957, M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East), 133-4
Bennett, the late Miss Sybil and the late Thomas H. Ross, tribute to, 2-3
Drew, Hon. George, absence from House, 4
Hungary, situation in, relief, refugees, 27-31
Middle East situation, 28-31
Prairie farmers, economic situation, 133
Trainor, the late Owen C., tribute to, 114
United Nations Emergency Force, 27, 30-1
Collective security, see under United Nations Committees, standing, suspension of S.O. 65 respecting, 43-4
Commonwealth of Nations
Attitude of Prime Minister to, 70, 81, 101, 174-5
Middle East situation affecting, 12, 28-9, 55, 60, 95-6, 108-9, 120-3, 146, 168-9 Pearson, Mr., on, 101-2, 161, 168-9
Crestohl, Mr. L. D. (Cartier)
Egypt, threat to Jewish community, 108
Defence contracts, aircraft repairs for McLennan's Foundry, Campbellton, N.B., 109 Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House appointed, 5-6
Dierenbaker, Mr. J. G. (Prince Albert)
Address in reply, 139-44 Hungary, relief, refugees, 143-4 Middle East situation , 140-3
Krishna Menon's statement on Commonwealth, 108 Quebec conference to promote western unity, calling, 144 United Nations Emergency Force, 143
Increasing to meet Jordan-Syria situation, 65, 136
Dinsdale, Mr. W. G. (Brandon-Souris)
Address in reply, 93-7		
Camps Shilo and Rivers, working hours of civilian cleaners, 137 Middle East situation, 93-7
Address in reply, amendment (Mr. Rowe), negatived: yeas, 36; nays, 171, 147-8 Adjournment until Jan. 8th 1957, M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East), agreed to: yeas, 170; nays, 32, 134
Drew, Hon. George A. (Carleton)
Absence from House, 3-4 Resignation from House, 177
Drugs and medicaments	...
Peyote buttons, spreading use by Indians, taking steps, 4b, 1U9-1U
Dufresne, Mr. Wilfrid (Quebec West)
Address in reply, 102-4, 111-3
Egypt, Anglo-French and Israeli invasion of, 111-2
Hungarian situation, 102-3, 112-3
Egypt
British assistance to, 116 Foreign policy, 16, 52, 140 Invasion of, see under Middle East
Jewish community, threat to, Canadian representations on, 108 Suez Canal, see that heading,
Ellis, Mr. Claude (Regina City)
Housing construction and interest rates, 109﻿INDEX-SPECIAL SESSION-1956-57
[Stage Direction]
Estimates
Further supplementary, 1956-57, presented and referred to committee of supply, 6
External Affairs Department
Estimates, further supplementary, 148
Fairclough, Mrs. Ellen L. (Hamilton West)
No. 424 Hamilton squadron, status of, 170
Farmers, cash shortage on prairies, 107, 133
Ferguson, Mr. J. H. (Simcoe North)
Interest rate increases, effect on housing, 48
Financial policy, see Interest rates
Fish
Salmon destruction by sprayers, court case, 109
Flag, National, 128
Fleming, Mr. Donald M. (Eglinton)
Address in reply, 66-73 House adjournment plans, 107 Hungarian relief, refugees, 72-3
Middle East situation, UN action, U.S. responsibility, 69-71 Trade relations with U.K., 45 United Nations Emergency Force, 72
Fraser, Mr. G. K. (Peterborough)
Fire at Camp Sarcee in Calgary, 108, 137 United Nations Emergency Force, 172
Fruit industry, royal commission to investigate B.C. industry, 135
Fulton, Mr. E. D. (Kamloops)
Address in reply, 145-7
Commonwealth of Nations, 146
Fruit industry of B.C., royal commission for, 135
Hungarian situation, relief, refugees, 145-6
Supply procedure, 134
United Nations Emergency Force, 146-7
Gardiner, Right Hon. J. G. (Minister of Agriculture)
Fruit industry of B.C., request for royal commission, 135 Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, extending application of, 48
Garson, Hon. Stuart S. (Minister of Justice)
Sugar, alleged combine, 136
Trainor, the late Owen C., tribute to, 115
Girard, Mr. Fernand (Lapointe)
Address in reply, 92-3
Egypt, Anglo-French and Israeli invasion of, 92-3 United Nations Emergency Force, 92
Goode, Mr. T. H. (Bumaby-Richmond)
Pacific Great Eastern Railway, federal grant, 135
Government contracts, see Defence contracts
Grain
Interest rate on moneys borrowed for handling and movement, 107, 138 Pool of 1955-56, early interim payment on, 45-6 See also Box cars (grain)
Green, Mr. Howard C. (Vancouver-Quadra)
Address in reply, 40-2, 49-51 Hungarian refugees, 40 Middle East situation, 40-2, 49-51 United Nations Emergency Force, 51, 136
vi

[Stage Direction]
Hamilton, Mr. John B. (York West)
Address in reply, 81-3
United Nations Emergency Force, 82-3	-
Hamilton, Mr. W. M. (Notre Dame de Grace)
Trans-Canada pipe line, pipe supply and tanker construction, 138
Hansell, Mr. E. G. (Macleod)
Middle East situation, effect on NATO, 171
United Nations Emergency Force, countries contributing, 170
Harmless, Mr. D. S. (Calgary North)
Address in reply, 128-31, 139 Middle East situation, 128-31
United Nations Emergency Force, 45, 131, 139, 159, 170, 173
Harris, Hon. W. E. (Minister of Finance)
Bank Act, consumer credit, 111 Bank of Canada, discount rate, 47-8
Estimates, further supplementary, 1956-57, presented and referred to committee of supply, 6
Grain handling, interest rate on money borrowed for, 107
Japan, visit of trade minister to, 108
Small Loans Act, 111
Supply bill, further supplementary, 174
Supply committee without question put, 134
House of Commons
Adjournment
In tribute to the late Owen C. Trainor, 114-5
M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East) that House do stand adjourned until Jan. 8th 1957, 133-5, agreed to on division, 134-5
Standing orders suspended with respect to sittings, unanimous consent, bills, committees, etc., 6-7, 43-4
See also Members of Parliament; Parliamentary procedure Housing, interest rates, legislative action, 109
Howe, Rignt Hon. C. D. (Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production)
McLennan's Foundry, aircraft repairs by, 109
Trade balance, 111
Trade relations with U. K., 45
Trans-Canada pipe line, pipe supply, 138
Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line, reported explosion, 138-9
Hudson Bay Railway, running rights for C.P.R. over, 138
Hungarian refugees
Immigration to Canada, 18, 72-3 Chest X-rays, 45
Conference, Ontario representation, 110 Free passage, 115-6, 121, 147 Open-door policy, 31, 35 Pickersgill, Mr., on, 36-40 Visit to Austria, 115, 143-6 Plight of, 8, 10-1
Hungarian relief, 8, 17, 27, 35, 92, 112, 119, 162 British Columbia Indians, contribution, 39 Distribution of, 25
Hungary
Deportations to Siberia, 10-1, 17, 103
Fight for freedom, Russian military action against, 7, 10, 16-8, 27, 32, 51-2, 70, 91-3, 103, 123
NATO condemnation of Russia, 112-3 Obscured by invasion of Egypt, 22, 29, 33, 92 Parliament condemning Russia, 112-3
Representations by Prime Minister to Premier Bulganin, and reply, 24-5, 96, 101 Promises to liberate by force, inadvisability, 52

[Stage Direction]
Vil
Hungary-Cont.
UN observers refused entry, 11 Interest rates, Bank of Canada rates, result of increase, 46-8 International relations
Canada's position between Britain and United States, 16, 96, 161 "Chore-boy", 51, 119
Western alliance and Middle East situation, 83-4, 86-7, 95-7, 140, 146 Pearson, Mr., on, 64-5, 168-9 St. Laurent, Mr. (Quebec East), on, 174-5 Second Quebec conference suggested, 144, 169 See also Middle East; North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Israel-Arab relations, see Middle East
Japan, visit of trade minister to, 107-8
Johnson, Mr. W. M. (Kindersley)
Grain, box car allocation, transport controller, 46, 138 South Saskatchewan River project, 48, 110
Jones, Mr. O. L. (Okanagan Boundary)
Fruit industry of B.C., royal commission for, 135	,
United Nations Emergency Force, insurance coverage, 157-8 Veteran fruit farmers, frost damage in B.C., 108
Knowles, Mr. Stanley (Winnipeg North Centre)
Address in reply, 121-6
Canadian Pacific Railway, pensioners, 138
House of Commons, suspension of certain standing orders, M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East), 43
Hungarian refugees, 121
Middle East situation, need of collective security, 121-5 Old age pensions, increasing, 46 Sugar, alleged combine, 136 Trainor, the late Owen C., tribute to, 115 United Nations Emergency Force, 124-6, 158, 171, 172-3 Order in council, 48, 174
Lapointe, Hon. Hugues (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Postmaster General)
Veteran fruit farmers in B.C., frost damage, 108
L6gar£, Mr. Gerard (Rimouski)
Address in reply (mover), 7-9 Hungary, refugees, relief, 8 United Nations Emergency Force, 7
Loans, hardship on borrowers of small amounts, 111
Low, Mr. Solon E. (Peace River)
Address in reply, 32-6
Bennett, the late Miss Sybil, and the late Thomas H. Ross, tribute to, 3 Drew, Hon. George, absence from House, 4 Hungary, refugees, relief, 35-6 Middle East, action of Britain, France, Israel, 32-5 Trainor, the late Owen C., tribute to, 114 United Nations Emergency Force, 32-5 Area limitations, 159
Macdonnell, Mr. J. M. (Greenwood)
Bank of Canada, influence on interest rates, 47 Commonwealth of Nations, 161
United Nations Emergency Force, constitutional background, 160-1
Manpower, need for survey of, 83
Marler, Hon. George C. (Minister of Transport)
Transport Controller, 46
vui

[Stage Direction]
McCann, Hon. J. J. (Minister of National Revenue)
Peyote buttons, 109-10
Mclvor, Mr. Daniel (Fort William)
Japan, visit of trade minister to, 107 United Nations, support of, 164
McLennan's Foundry, Campbellton, N.B., aircraft repair contracts for, 109
McLeod, Mr. G. W. (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Address in reply, 119-21 Hungarian relief, 119 Middle East situation, 119-21 United Nations Emergency Force, 119
Members of Parliament
Deceased, Bennett, Miss Sybil (Halton), 1-3; Ross, Thomas, H. (Hamilton East), 1-3;
Trainor, O. C. (Winnipeg South), 114-5 Resigned, Drew, Hon. George A. (Carleton), 177
Michener, Mr. Roland (St. Paul's)
Address in reply, 83-7 NATO, importance of, 83-4
United Nations Emergency Force, 84-7, 159, 164-6, 173 Middle East
Anglo-French and Israeli invasion of Egypt, 7, 9-18, 20, 22-4, 28-30, 33-6, 40, 49-53,
75-	6, 84-6, 91-4, 113-4, 116, 120, 122-4, 126, 128 Advantages from, 36, 69, 82
Canada's attitude to, 12-8, 22, 24, 33, 49-56, 67-71, 88, 114 Fleming, Mr., on, 54, 68
Influenced by United States, 18, 50-1, 71, 120, 129 Churchill, Sir Winston, on, 14 Commonwealth nations not consulted, 53
Correspondence between Prime Minister and Sir Anthony Eden, 16, 23-4, 101, 142 Opinion in Britain on, 28, 40
Prevented communist coup, 12-4, 17, 35, 50, 69, 90-1, 94-5, 112, 140, 168 United States attitude to, 11-2, 18, 33, 89, 121, 128-9 See also International relations-Western alliance Withdrawal of invading troops, 10-3, 17-8 , 34 , 59-60 , 70 , 79, 145 Arab-Israel relations, 29, 34-5, 42, 53, 75, 88-9, 94, 116-7, 126 United Nations and, 97-9, 130 Britain's policies in, 116-8 Information, adequacy, 98-9, 166
Nile and Jordan irrigation projects, UN assistance suggested, 31, 76-7, 125 Oil profits, using to raise standards of living, 31, 77, 125 Palestine refugees, 76-7, 125 Pearson, Mr., statement of, 52-66
Suez Canal and Arab-Israeli boundary questions, settling, 13, 22-3, 29-31, 35, 54, 64,
76-	7, 82, 87, 124-5, 130, 165 Syria-Jordan situation, 65, 124-5, 130, 136, 156
United Nations social and economic rehabilitation of suggested, 76 White paper should have been prepared on, 97 See also Egypt; Suez Canal
National Defence Department
Civilian cleaners at camps Shilo and Rivers, working conditions, 137 Estimates, further supplementary, 148-73
Nesbitt, Mr. W. B. (Oxford)
Address in reply, 87-90 Egypt, Canadian arms shipments to, 88-9 Middle East situation, 87-90 Western colonialism, 89-90
Nickle, Mr. Carl O. (Calgary South)
Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line, explosion at Jasper pump station, 138
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Discussions at latest conference, 83-4 Maintaining, 98, 103

[Stage Direction]
ix
North Atlantic Treaty Organization-Cont.
Middle East situation threat to, 16, 98, 128-9 See also International relations-Western alliance Military force, use by UN suggested, 84-7 Remarks of retiring General Gruenther, 91
Nowlan, Mr. G. C. (Digby-Annapolis-Kings)
Apple industry, royal commission for, 135
Oaths of Office Bill-No. 1 Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) lr., 1
Old age pensions, increasing, 46
Pacific Great Eastern Railway, federal grant considered, 135-6
Palestine refugees, see under Middle East
Pallett, Mr. John (Peel)
Bank Act, 111
Parliament
Calling before committing troops to Middle East, 15, 19-20, 32, 66 Reconvening if required by changes in regard to United Nations Emergency Force. 87 126, 157-8, 174
Parliament Buildings, Commons chamber clocks showing different times, 26 Parliamentary procedure
Address in reply, consideration later this day, M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East), agreed to, 4
Suspension of certain standing orders with respect to sittings, notices of motions, bills unanimous consent, etc., 6-7, 43-4
Pearkes, Mr. G. R. (Esquimalt-Saanich)
Address in reply, 77-81
United Nations Emergency Force, 44, 77-81, 155-7 Code of discipline, 171
Pearson, Hon. L. B. (Secretary of State for External Affairs)
Address in reply, 51-66 Commonwealth of Nations, 168-9 Egypt's Jews, inquiry re treatment of, 108 Hungary, situation in, 51-2 Middle East situation, 52-3
Canadian policy, 53-5, 166, 168-9 Strain on Commonwealth, 60, 108-9 Quebec conference, 169
United Nations Emergency Force, 61-5, 159, 160, 168, 170-3 Additional commitments, 158-9 Area limitations, 159-60 Background of, 57-8, 166-7
Increasing to meet Jordan-Syria situation, 65, 136
Insurance coverage, 162-3
Objections of Egypt, 137
Order in council covering, 170-1
Under UN control, 168
United Nations sessions concerning Middle East, 56 Ways and means, M. for committee, 173
Peyote buttons, see under Drugs and medicaments
Pickersgill, Hon. J. W. (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Address in reply, 36-40, 147
Hungarian refugees, immigration policy, 36-40, 110, 147 Chest X-rays, 45 Peyote buttons, 46 Poulin, Mr. Raoul (Beauce)
Address in reply, 90-2 Hungarian relief, 91-2 United Nations Emergency Force, 90-1

[Stage Direction]
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, extending, 48
Prairie farmers, cash shortage, see Farmers
Procedure, Parliamentary, see Parliamentary procedure
"Quebec conference", calling to strengthen western unity, 144, 169
Quelch, Mr. Victor (Acadia)
United Nations Emergency Force, insurance coverage, 162
Radar stations, DEW Line, obtaining clearance from United States for visits to, 50
Regier, Mr. Erhart (Burnaby-Coquitlam)
Interest rate increases, effect on municipalities, federal policy, 46-7
Ross, the late Thomas H., member for Hamilton East, tributes to, 1-3
Rowe, Hon. W. Earl (Dufferin-Simcoe)
Address in reply, amdt., 11-8
Adjournment until Jan. 8th 1957, M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East), 134 Bennett, the late Miss Sybil, and the late Thomas H. Ross, tribute to, 2 Drew, Hon. George, absence from House, 4
House of Commons, suspension of certain standing orders, 6, 43
Hungarian refugees, relief, 17-8
Interest rates, lowering by next June, 48
Middle East situation, United Nations action, 12-7
Trainor, the late Owen C., tribute to, 114-5
Royal Assent, 175
Russia
Arms exports to Egypt and Middle East, 12, 14, 49, 65-6, 88, 90, 117, 130-1, 141
Middle East, intervention in, 12-4, 17, 35, 52, 65, 76, 117-8, 126-7, 156
Offer to send volunteers to Egypt, 7, 12, 60
"Peaceful coexistence", idea of, 11, 52
Policy of conquest through fear, 102
Satellites
Effect of free nations' broadcasts on, 27-8, 36 Moving towards freedom, 52
Refugees from, assistance for, 18, 24 See also Hungarian refugees Stalinism, return to, 12, 52, 140-1 Treaties and agreements, breaking, 100
St. Laurent, Right Hon. L. S. (Prime Minister)
Address in reply, 19-26
Consideration later this day, M., 4 Motion for engrossing and presentation, 148 Adjournment until Jan. 8th 1957, M., 133
Bennett, the late Miss Sybil, and the late Thomas H. Ross, tribute to, 1-2
Deputy chairman of committees of the whole, M. for appointment of Mr. Applewhaite, 5-6
Drew, Hon. George, absence from House, 3-4
Hungary, Soviet action, refugees, relief, 24-5
Middle East situation, correspondence with Sir Anthony Eden, 23-4
Oaths of office bill, 1
Old age pension, increasing, 46
Pacific Great Eastern Railway, subsidy, 135-6
Parliament, calling, constitutional practice, 19-20, 174
Prairie farmers alleged cash shortage, 107
Supply and Ways and Means, M. for committees, 5-6
Suspension of standing orders with respect to sittings, notices of motions, bills, etc., M., 6-7, 43
Trainor, the late Owen C., tribute to, 114-5 United Nations Charter, attitude of large powers to, 20 United Nations Emergency Force, 20-6 Order in council, 5, 48, 174 Western unity, Commonwealth relations, 174-5
Sinclair, Hon. Janies (Minister of Fisheries)
Fish destruction by sprayers, court case, 109

[Stage Direction]
xi
Small Loans Act, amending. 111
South Saskatchewan River project, constructing dam, 48, 110
Speaker (Hon L. Rene Beaudoin)
Address in Reply, acknowledgment by Governor General, 177 Greetings to Hon. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, 43
Vacancy through resignation of Hon. George A. Drew (Carleton), 177
Special orders, see Parliamentary procedure
Stewart, Mr. Alistair (Winnipeg North)
Address in reply, 73-7
Middle East situation, 74-7
United Nations Emergency Force, uniforms, 44
Suez Canal
Association of users, 82 Blockage, 29, 49, 85 Clearing, 10, 49, 60, 126, 173 Egypt's nationalization of, 98
Canada's attitude on, 13, 42, 49, 52, 68 Dealing with in UN security council, 53 Operation, United Nations assistance, 76 See also under Middle East
Sugar, alleged combine, 136
Supply
External affairs, 148
Going into without question put, 134
M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East) for House to resolve itself into committee of, agreed to, 5-6 National defence, 148-73
Supply Bill
Bill No. 2 (further supplementary estimates) for granting.for fiscal year ending
March 31st 1957, sum of $1,000,001-Mr. Harris res., 173-4; lr., 2r., 174; com., 174-5; 3r., 175; R.A., 175
Thomas, Mr. Ray (Wetaskiwin)
United Nations Emergency Force, insurance coverage, 164
Throne speech, debate on, see Address in reply
Trade
Balance of trade, 111
United Kingdom, with, effect of closer U.K.-European relations, 45
Trainor, Mr. O.C. (Winnipeg South)
Death of, tributes from members, 114-5
Trans-Canada pipe line
Pipe supply, effect of tanker construction, 138
Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company, explosion at Jasper pump station, 138 Transport Controller, 46, 138
Unemployment insurance, claims in northern New Brunswick, 110 United Kingdom, trade with, see Trade United Nations
Aggressors not deterred by, 33, 70, 72, 75, 99-100 Canada's position in, 8, 10
Charter, treating as "instrument to regiment smaller nations", 20, 41, 70, 142-3 Collective security under, 74-5, 94-7, 99-100, 102, 123-4, 127, 143, 155 General assembly, closure in, 22 Hungary, resolutions on, 11, 17, 52, 101

[Stage Direction]
xii
United Nations- Cont.
Middle East, resolutions on, 9, 11, 17-8, 20, 58-60, 89-90, 121-3
Canada's vote, 17 , 22 , 24 , 40-1, 49-50 , 52 , 54-6 , 59-60 , 96, 100-1, 141, 167-9 Police force
Establishment, 57-8, 69-70, 86, 90, 95, 125, 140-3, 146, 166-7
Using NATO for, suggested, 84-7
See also United Nations Emergency Force
United Nations Emergency Force
Appointment of Major General Bums as commander, 9, 21-2 Canadian participation, 8-10, 12-5 , 22 , 25-6 , 33-4 , 62-4 , 91-2, 155-6, 162, 171 Order in council P.C. 1956-1712, tabled, 5, text, 105, 174 Canadian units
Accommodations for, 157
Airlift of Queen's Own Rifles and refitting Magnificent, cost, 44-5, 151 Armoured jeeps, 139
Brigade group from NATO considered, 150 Campney, Mr., on, 148-55 Composition of, 44, 79-80, 150-3
Expenditures on, payment procedure, etc., 126, 153-7, 173 Insurance for troops, 157-8, 162-4
Mobility, training, supplies and equipment, 77-81, 83, 156 Pensions and allowances, 137
Queen's Own Rifles, 80, 113, 149-50, 156, 160, 163 Delay in sending, 15, 20-1, 63-4, 127, 139 Uniforms, 44, 163 Welfare and recreation, 163-4 Chain of command, 165, 168 Code of discipline, 171
Complement of 18,000 or 20,000 men suggested, 34
Composition, functions and operation, 20-2, 61-5, 77-87, 90, 102, 118-9, 127, 130, 139, 153, 155-6, 158-61, 164-5, 168, 170 Advisory committee on, 59
Effect of Syria-Jordan situation on, 65, 124-5, 136, 157
Egypt's attitude, 8, 15-20, 24, 34, 51, 62, 71-2, 93, 121-2, 127, 131, 136-7, 143, 168 "Secure and supervise", significance of terms, 170-1 Costs, sharing, 172-3
Magnificent, using as troopship, 16, 21, 127, 149, 151-2, 155-6, 163 Hospital accommodation, 149, 156, 163 In lieu of merchant ships, 173 Stripping of armament, 80
National sovereignty over units of, maintaining, 34, 119, 125, 173 Nations contributing to, 170-1 Proposals of Mr. Pearson, 8-9, 56-9 Remarks of Mr. Krishna Menon, 108-9 Stationing in Middle East until disputes are settled, 34-5
United States
Middle East policies, 16-8, 29, 50, 71, 89, 94-5, 98, 117, 119-20
Vacancies in House, see Members of Parliament
Van Home, Mr. J. C. (Restigouche-Madawaska)
Fish destruction by air spraying, 109 Interest rate increases, effect on maritimes, 47 McLennan's Foundry, aircraft repairs by, 109 Unemployment insurance claims, 110
United Nations Emergency Force, Nasser objections to Canadian units, 136 Veterans, frost damage to B.C. fruit farmers, 108 Visitors to Canada
Bandaranaike, Hon. S.W.R.D., Prime Minister of Ceylon, 43 Ways and Means Committee
M. (Mr. St. Laurent, Quebec East) for House to resolve itself into, agreed to, 5-6 M. (Mr. Pearson) for House to resolve itself into, 173
Weselak, Mr. A. B. (Springfield)
Address in reply (seconder), 9-11 Hungary, Soviet actions, refugees, 10-1

[Stage Direction]
xiii
Weselak, Mr. A. B.-Cont.
United Nations Emergency Force, Middle East, 9-10
Wheat, see Grain
White, Mr. H. O. (Middlesex East)
Trade balance, 111
Winch, Mr. Harold E. (Vancouver East)
United Nations Emergency Force, 161-2, 173
Winters, Hon. Robert H. (Minister of Public Works) Housing, 109
YuUl, Mr. Charles (Jasper-Edson)
Address in reply, 144-5
Middle East, Israeli invasion of, 145
Zaplitny, Mr. F. S. (Dauphin)
Hungary, conference re refugees, 110
Prairie farm rehabilitation, wider application of, 48


[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council	
Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production	
Minister of Agriculture	
Minister of National Health and Welfare_____
Minister of National Revenue	
Minister of Labour	
Secretary of State for External Affairs	
Minister of Justice and Attorney General ... Minister of Public Works	
Minister of Veterans Affairs and Postmaster General	
Minister of Finance and Receiver General .. Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys ...
Minister of Fisheries	
Minister of National Defence	
Solicitor General and Leader of the Government in the Senate	
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration_____
Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources	
Minister of Transport	
Secretary of State	
Right Hon. Louis Stephen St. Laurent
Right Hon. Clarence Decatur Howe Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner Hon. Paul Joseph James Martin Hon. James J. McCann Hon. Milton Fowler Gregg Hon. Lester Bowles Pearson Hon. Stuart Sinclair Garson Hon. Robert Henry Winters
Hon. Hugues Lapointe Hon. Walter Edward Harris Hon. George Prudham Hon. James Sinclair Hon. Ralph Osborne Campney
Hon. William Ross Macdonald Hon. John Whitney Pickersgill
Hon. Jean Lesage
Hon. George Carlyle Marler
Hon. Roch Pinard
81537-A
iii

[Stage Direction]
To Minister of Agriculture	 To Minister of Fisheries 			Robert McCubbin, Esq., M.P. 	J. Watson MacNaught, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Labour 		
To Minister of Finance 			W. M. Benidickson, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Transport 			J. G. L. Langlois, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Defence Production		J. H. Dickey, Esq., M.P.
To Prime Minister 			W. G. Weir, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Veterans Affairs ..		C. E. Bennett, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of National Health and Welfare .. F. G. Robertson, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of Public Works			Maurice Bourget, Esq., M.P.
To Postmaster General 			T. A. M. Kirk, Esq., M.P.
To Secretary of State for External Affairs

Lucien Cardin, Esq., M.P.
To Minister of National Defence	Paul Hellyer, Esq., M.P.
iv
[Stage Direction]
Speaker	Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin, Q.C., M.P.
Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees
of the Whole	William Alfred Robinson, Q.C., M.P.
Deputy Chairman of Committees
of the Whole	Edward T. Applewhaite, M.P.
Clerk of the House	Leon-J. Raymond, B.A., O.B.E.
Clerk Assistant	Thomas R. Montgomery
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel	Maurice P. Ollivier, Q.C., T.T.n
Second Clerk Assistant	j. Gordon Dubroy
Sergeant-at-Arms	Lieut.-Col. W. J. Franklin, M.C., V.D.
Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms	Phileas Jeanvenne
Debates Reporting Branch-
English Section:
Editor	Thomas S. Hubbard
Assistant Editor		W. Warren Buskard
Parliamentary Reporters: E. L. Featherston, D. R. Butt, W. J. Clinton, N. L. Price, J. G. Robertson, Roger White.
Assistant to the	Editors	Miss M. E. Black
French Section:
Editor	Paul Frenette
Assistant Editor		Andre Naubert
Parliamentary Reporters	L. R. Guertin, R. Langlois
Indexing	Miss Y. Lavertu
Index and Reference Branch
Samuel C. Sager
81537-AJ

[Stage Direction]
Fourth Session (Special)-Twenty-second Parliament Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker
Aitken, Miss Margaret-York-Humber.
Anderson, Raymond Elmer-Norfolk.
Applewhaite, Edward T.-Skeena.
Argue, Hazen Robert-Assiniboia.
Arsenault, Bona-Bonaventure.
Ashbourne, Thomas Gordon William-Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.
Balcer, Leon-Trois-Rivieres.
Balcom, Samuel R.-Halifax.
Barnett, Thomas Spearman-Comox-Al-berni.
Batten, Herman M.-Humber-St. George's.
Beaudoin, Hon. L. Rene-Vaudreuil-Sou-langes.
Beaudry, Roland-St. James.
Bell, Thomas Miller-Saint John-Albert.
Benidickson, William Moore-Kenora-Rainy River.
Bennett, Colin Emerson-Grey North.
Bertrand, Lionel-Terrebonne.
Blackmore, John Horne-Lethbridge.
Blair, William Gourlay-Lanark.
Blanchette, Joseph Adeodat-Compton-Frontenac.
Boisvert, Maurice-Nicolet-Yamaska.
Boivin, Marcel-Shefford.
Bonnier, Joseph Arsene-St. Henry.
Boucher, Jean-Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie.
Bourget, Maurice-Levis.
Bourque, Romuald-Outremont-St. Jean.
Breton, Maurice-Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Brisson, Lomer-Saguenay.
Brooks, Alfred Johnson-Royal.
Brown, Donald Ferguson-Essex West.
Brown, James E.-Brantford.
Bruneau, Raymond-Glengarry-Prescott.
Bryce, William-Selkirk.
Bryson, Hugh Alexander-Humboldt-Melfort.
Buchanan, William Murdoch-Cape Breton North and Victoria.
Byrne, James A.-Kootenay East.
Cameron, Alan John Patrick-High Park.
Cameron, Colin-Nanaimo.
Campbell, Alexander Max.-The Battlefords.
Campney, Hon. Ralph Osborne-Vancouver Centre.
Cannon, Charles Arthur Dumoulin-lies de
la Madeleine.
Cardiff, Lewis Elston-Huron.
Cardin, L. J. Lucien-Richelieu-Vercheres. Caron, Alexis-Hull.
Carrick, Donald D.-Trinity.
Carter, Chesley William-Burin-Burgeo. Casselman, Arza Clair-Grenville-Dundas. Castleden, George Hugh-York ton.
vii

[Stage Direction]
viii
Cauchon, Robert-Beauharnois-Salaberry. Cavers, Harry Peter-Lincoln.
Charlton, John Alpheus-Brant-Haldimand. Churchill, Gordon-Winnipeg South Centre. Clark, Stuart Murray-Essex South. Cloutier, Armand-Drummond-Arthabaska. Coldwell, M. J.-Rosetown-Biggar.
Crestohl, Leon David-Cartier.
Dechene, Joseph Miville-Athabaska.
Decore, John-Vegreville.
Demers, Leopold-Laval.
Denis, Azellus-St. Denis.
Deschatelets, J. P.-Maisonneuve-Rosemont. Deslieres, Joseph Leon-Brome-Missisquoi. Dickey, John H.-Halifax.
Diefenbaker, John George-Prince Albert. Dinsdale, Walter Gilbert-Brandon-Souris. 1Drew, Hon. George A.-Carleton.
Dufresne, J. Wilfrid-Quebec West.
Dumas, Armand-Villeneuve.
Dupuis, Hector-St. Mary.
Ellis, Alfred Claude-Regina City.
Enfield, Frank A.-York-Scarborough.
Eudes, Raymond-Hochelaga.
Eyre, Karl Arliss-Timmins.
Fairclough, Mrs. Ellen L.-Hamilton West. Fairey, Francis Thrower-Victoria (B.C.). Ferguson, Julian Harcourt-Simcoe North. Fleming, Donald Methuen-Eglinton. Follwell, Frank S.-Hastings South. Fontaine, Joseph-St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. Forgie, James Moffat-Renfrew North. Fraser, Allan MacPherson-St. John's East. Fraser, Gordon Knapman-Peterborough.
Fulton, Edmund Davie-Kamloops.
Gagnon, Paul Edmond-Chicoutimi.
Gardiner, Right Hon. James G.-Melville. Garland, John Richard-Nipissing.
Garson, Hon. Stuart S.-Marquette. Gauthier, Andre-Lac St. Jean.
Gauthier, J. Leoda-Nickel Belt.
Gauthier, Pierre-Portneuf.
Gillis, Clarence-Cape Breton South. Gingras, Ernest O.-Richmond-Wolfe. Gingues, Maurice-Sherbrooke.
Girard, Fernand-Lapointe.
Goode, Thomas H.-Burnaby-Richmond. Gour, Joseph Omer-Russell.
Gourd, David-Chapleau.
Green, Howard Charles-Vancouver Quadra. Gregg, Hon. Milton F.-York-Sunbury.
Habel, Joseph A.-Cochrane.
Hahn, Frederick George J.-New Westminster.
Hamilton, John Borden-York West.
Hamilton, William McLean-Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
Hanna, Richard Francis Lionel-Edmonton-Strathcona.
Hansell, Ernest George-Macleod.
Hardie, Mervyn Arthur-Mackenzie River. Harkness, Douglas Scott-Calgary North. Harris, Hon. Walter Edward-Grey-Bruce. Harrison, John Hornby-Meadow Lake. Healy, Thomas Patrick-St. Ann.
Hees, George Harris-Broadview.
Hellyer, Paul Theodore-Davenport. Henderson, William James-Kingston. Henry, Charles-Rosedale.
Herridge, Herbert Wilfred-Kootenay West. Hodgson, Clayton Wesley-Victoria (Ont.)
'Resigned, Jan. 8, 1957.
LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS	IX
Hollingworth, Allan H.-York Centre. Holowach, Ambrose-Edmonton East. Hosking, Henry Alfred-Wellington South. Houck, Willlam Limburg-Niagara Falls. Howe, Right Hon. C. D.-Port Arthur. Howe, William Marvin-Wellington-Huron. Huffman, Edward Blake-Kent (Ont.). Hunter, John William Gordon-Parkdale.
James, John Mason-Durham.
Johnson, Willis Merwyn-Kindersley. Johnston, Charles Edward-Bow River. Jones, Owen L.-Okanagan Boundary. Jutras, Rene Norbert-Provencher.
Kickham, Thomas Joseph-Kings.
Kirk, James Ralph-Antigonish-Guys-borough.
Kirk, Thomas Andrew Murray-Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare.
Knight, Robert Ross-Saskatoon.
Knowles, Stanley Howard-Winnipeg North Centre.
LaCroix, Wilfrid-Quebec-Montmorency.
Laflamme, Ovide-Bellechasse.
Lafontaine, Joseph-Megantic.
Langlois, J. G. Leopold-Gaspe.
Langlois, Joseph-Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
Lapointe, Hon. Hugues-Lotbiniere.
Lavigne, Albert-Stormont.
Leboe, Bert Raymond-Cariboo.
Leduc, Edgar-Jacques Cartier-Lasalle. Leduc, Rodolphe-Gatineau.
Leduc, Yves-Verdun.
Lefrancois, J. Eugene-Laurier.
Legare, Gerard-Rimouski.
Lennard, Frank Exton-Wentworth.
Lesage, Hon. Jean-Montmagny-L'Islet.
Low, Solon Earl-Peace River.
Lusby, Azel Randolph-Cumberland.
Macdonnell, James MacKerras-Greenwood.
MacEachen, Allan Joseph-Inverness-Richmond.
MacInnis, Angus-Vancouver-Kingsway.
Mackenzie, Hugh Alexander-Lambton-Kent.
MacLean, J. Angus-Queens.
MacNaught, John Watson-Prince.
Macnaughton, Alan Aylesworth-Mount-Royal.
McBain, James Alexander-Elgin.
McCann, Hon. James Joseph-Renfrew South.
McCubbin, Robert-Middlesex West.
McCulloch, Henry Byron-Pictou.
McCullough, Edward George-Moose Mountain.
McDonald, Wilfred Kennedy-Parry Sound-Muskoka.
McGregor, Robert Henry-York East.
McIlraith, George James-Ottawa West.
McIvor, Daniel-Fort William.
McLeod, George William-Okanagan-Revelstoke.
McMillan, William H.-Welland.
McWilliam, George Roy-Northumberland-Miramichi
Maltais, Auguste-Charlevoix.
Mang, Henry Philip-Qu'Appelle.
Marler, Hon. George C.-St. Antoine-West-mount.
Martin, Hon. Paul-Essex East.
Masse, Arthur-Kamouraska.
Matheson, Neil Alexander-Queens.
Menard, J. Armand-St. Jean-Iberville-Na-pierville.

[Stage Direction]
Meunier, J. Adrien-Papineau.
Michaud, Herv£ J.-Kent (N.B.).
Michener, Roland-St. Paul's.
Mitchell, David Rodger-Sudbury.
Mitchell, Robert Weld-London.
Monette, Marcel-Mercier.
Monteith, Jay Waldo-Perth.
Montgomery, Gage Workman-Victoria-Carleton.
Murphy, Henry J.-Westmorland.
Murphy, Joseph Warner-Lamb ton West.
Nesbitt, Wallace Bickford-Oxford. Nicholson, Alexander M.-Mackenzie. Nickle, Carl Olof-Calgary South.
Nixon, George Ewart-Algoma West.
Nowlan, George Clyde-Digby-Annapolis-Kings.
Pallett, John Cameron-Peel.
Patterson, Alexander Bell-Fraser Valley.
Pearkes, George Randolph-Esquimalt-Saanich.
Pearson, Hon. L. B.-Algoma East.
Perron, Robert-Dorchester.
Philpott, Elmore-Vancouver South.
Pickersgill, Hon. John W.-Bonavista-Twillingate.
Pinard, Hon. Roch-Chambly-Rouville.
Pommer, William Albert-Lisgar.
Poulin, Raoul-Beauce.
Power, Frank G.-Quebec South.
Power, James Augustine-St. John's West.
Proudfoot, John Hugh-Pontiac-Temisca-mingue.
Prudham, Hon. George-Edmonton West. Purdy, Gordon Timlin-Colchester-Hants.
Quelch, Victor-Acadia.
Ratelle, J. George-Lafontaine.
Rea, Charles E.-Spadina.
Regier, Erhart-Burnaby-Coquitlam.
Reinke, Russell Earl-Hamilton South.
Richard, Jean Thomas-Ottawa East.
Richard, Joseph Adolphe-St. Maurice-Lafleche.
Richardson, Claude S.-St. Lawrence-St. George.
Roberge, Louis Edouard-Stanstead.
Robertson, Frederick Greystock-Northumberland (Ont.).
Robichaud, Hedard J.-Gloucester.
Robinson, Andrew E.-Bruce.
Robinson, William Alfred-Simcoe East.
Rochefort, Joseph I.-Champlain.
Rouleau, Guy-Dollard.
Rowe, Hon. William Earl-Dufferin-Simcoe.
Roy, Gustave-Labelle.
St. Laurent, Jean Paul-Temiscouata.
St. Laurent, Right Hon. Louis S.-Quebec East.
Schneider, Norman C.-Waterloo North.
Shaw, Frederick Davis-Red Deer.
Shipley, Mrs. Ann-Timiskaming.
Simmons, James Aubrey-Yukon.
Sinclair, Hon. James-Coast-Capilano.
Small, Robert Hardy

Danforth.
Smith, James Alexander-Battle River-Camrose.
Smith, John Eachern-York North.
Stanton, Hayden-Leeds.
Starr, Michael-Ontario.
Stewart, Alistair McLeod-Winnipeg North. Stick, Leonard T.-Trinity-Conception. Stuart, Andrew Wesley-Charlotte.

[Stage Direction]
xi
Studer, Irvin William-Swift Current-Maple Creek.
Thatcher, Wilbert Ross-Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
Thibault, L£andre-Matapedia-Matane.
Thomas, Ray-Wetaskiwin.
"Trainor, Owen C.-Winnipeg South.
Tucker, Walter A.-Rosthern.
Tustin, George James-Prince Edward-Lennox.
Valois, Philippe-Argenteuil-Two Mountains.
Van Horne, Joseph Charles-Restigouche-Madawaska.
Viau, Fernand-St. Boniface.
Villeneuve, Georges-Roberval.
Vincent, Auguste-Longueuil.
Weaver, George Dyer-Churchill.
Weir, William Gilbert-Portage-Neepawa.
Weselak, Anton Bernard-Springfield.
White, Arthur W. A.-Waterloo South.
White, George Stanley-Hastings-Frontenac.
White, Harry Oliver-Middlesex East.
Winch, Harold Edward-Vancouver East.
Winters, Hon. Robert H.-Queens-Lunen-burg.
Wylie, William Duncan-Medicine Hat. Yuill, Charles-Jasper-Edson.
Zaplitny, Fred S.-Dauphin.
2Died, November 28. 1956.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUENCIES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Fourth Session (Special)-Twenty-second Parliament
Acadia-Quelch, Victor.
Algoma East-Pearson, Hon. L. B.
Algoma West-Nixon, George Ewart.
Antigonish-Guysborough-Kirk, James Ralph.
Argenteuil-Two Mountains-Valois, Philippe.
Assiniboia-Argue, Hazen Robert. Athabaska,-Dechene, Joseph Miville.
Battle River-Camrose-Smith, James Alexander.
Beauce-Poulin, Raoul.
Beauharnois-Salaberry-Cauchon, Robert.
Bellechasse-Laflamme, Ovide.
Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere- Langlois, Joseph.
Bonaventure-Arsenault, Bona.
Bonavista-Twillingate-Pickersgill, Hon. John W.
Bow River-Johnston, Charles Edward. Brandon-Souris-Dinsdale, Walter Gilbert. Brantford-Brown, James E. Brant-Haldimand-Charlton, John Alpheus. Broadview-Hees, George Harris. Brome-Missisquoi-Deslieres, Joseph Leon. Bruce-Robinson, Andrew E.
Burin-Burgeo-Carter, Chesley William. Burnaby-Coquitlam-Regier, Erhart. Burnaby-Richmond-Goode, Thomas H.
Calgary North-Harkness, Douglas Scott. Calgary South-Nickle, Carl Olof.
Cape Breton North and Victoria-Buchanan, William Murdoch.
Cape Breton South-Gillis, Clarence.
Cariboo-Leboe, Bert Raymond.
Carleton-1Drew, Hon. George A.
Cartier-Crestohl, Leon David.
Chambly-Rouville-Pinard, Hon. Roch.
Champlain-Rochefort, Joseph I.
Chapleau-Gourd, David.
Charlevoix-Maltais, Auguste.
Charlotte-Stuart, Andrew Wesley.
Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie- Boucher, Jean.
Chicoutimi-Gagnon, Paul Edmond.
Churchill-Weaver, George Dyer.
Coast-Capilano-Sinclair, Hon. James.
Cochrane-Habel, Joseph A.
Colchester-Hants-Purdy, Gordon Timlin.
Comox-Alberni-Barnett, Thomas Speakman.
Compton-Frontenac-Blanchette, Joseph Adeodat.
Cumberland-Lusby, Azel Randolph.
Danforth-Small, Robert Hardy.
Dauphin-Zaplitny, Fred S.
Davenport-Hellyer, Paul Theodore.
Digby-Annapolis-Kings-Nowlan, George Clyde.
Dollard-Rouleau, Guy.
Dorchester-Perron, Robert.
Drummond-Arthabaska-Cloutier, Armand.
xiii
'Hon. George A. Drew resigned Jan. 8, 1957.

[Stage Direction]
Dufferin-Simcoe-Rowe, Hon. William Earl. Durham-James, John Mason.
Edmonton East-Holowach, Ambrose.
Edmonton-Strathcona-Hanna, Richard Francis L.
Edmonton West-Prudham, Hon. George.
Eglinton-Fleming, Donald Methuen.
Elgin-McBain, James Alexander.
Esquimalt-Saanich-Pearkes, George Randolph.
Essex East-Martin, Hon. Paul.
Essex South-Clark, Stuart Murray.
Essex West-Brown, Donald Ferguson.
Fort William-Mclvor, Daniel.
Fraser Valley-Patterson, Alexander Bell.
Gaspe-Langlois, J. G. Leopold.
Gatineau-Leduc, Rodolphe.
Glengarry-Prescott-Bruneau, Raymond.
Gloucester-Robichaud, Hedard J.
Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador- Ashbourne, Thomas Gordon William.
Greenwood-Macdonnell, James MacKerras.
Grenville-Dundas-Casselman, Arza Clair.
Grey-Bruce-Harris, Hon. Walter Edward.
Grey North

Bennett, Colin Emerson.
Halifax-Dickey, John H.
Balcom, Samuel Rosborough.
Halton2 Hamilton East3
Hamilton South-Reinke, Russell Earl. Hamilton West-Fairclough, Mrs. Ellen L. Hastings-Frontenac-White, George Stanley. Hastings South-Follwell, Frank S.
High Park-Cameron, Alan John Patrick. Hochelaga-Eudes, Raymond.
Hull-Caron, Alexis.
Humber-St. George's-Batten, Herman N.
Humboldt-Melfort-Bryson, Hugh Alexander.
Huron-Cardiff, Lewis Elston.
Iles de la Madeleine-Cannon, Charles Arthur Dumoulin.
Inverness-Richmond-MacEachen, Allen Joseph.
Jacques Cartier-Lasalle-Leduc, Edgar.
Jasper-Edson-Yuill, Charles.
Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm-Breton, Maurice.	____________________
Kamloops-Fulton, Edmund Davie.
Kamouraska-Masse, Arthur.
Kenora-Rainy River-Benidickson, William Moore.
Kent (N.B.)-Michaud, Herve J.
Kent (Ont.)-Huffman, Edward Blake. Kindersley-Johnson, Willis Merwyn.
Kings-Kickham, Thomas Joseph.
Kingston-Henderson, William James. Kootenay East-Byrne, James A. Kootenay West-Herridge, Herbert Wilfred.
Labelle-Roy, Gustave.
Lac St. Jean-Gauthier, Andre.
Lafontaine-Ratelle, J. George.
Lambton-Kent-MacKenzie, Hugh Alexander.
Lambton West-Murphy, Joseph Warner. Lanark-Blair, William Gourlay.
Lapointe-Girard, Fernand.
Laurier-Lefrangois, J. Eugene.
Laval-Demers, Leopold.
Leeds-Stanton, Hayden.
Lethbridge-Blackmore, John Horne.
2Miss M. Sybil Bennett died November 12, 1956.
3Mr. Thomas H. Ross died November 20. 1956.

[Stage Direction]
Levis-Bourget, Maurice.
Lincoln-Cavers, Harry Peter.
Lisgar-Pommer, William Albert.
London-Mitchell, Robert Weld.
Longueuil-Vincent, Auguste.
Lotbiniere-Lapointe, Hon. Hugues.
Mackenzie-Nicholson, Alexander M.
Mackenzie River-Hardie, Mervyn Arthur.
Macleod-Hansell, Ernest George.
Maisonneuve-Rosemont-Deschatelets, J. P.
Marquette-Garson, Hon. Stuart S.
Matapedia-Matane-Thibault, Leandre.
Meadow Lake-Harrison, John Hornby.
Medicine Hat-Wylie, William Duncan.
Megantic-Lafontaine, Joseph.
Melville-Gardiner, Right Hon. James G.
Mercier-Monette, Marcel.
Middlesex East-White, Harry Oliver.
Middlesex West-McCubbin, Robert.
Montmagny-L'Islet-Lesage, Hon. Jean.
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Thatcher, Wilbert Ross.
Moose Mountain-McCullough, Edward G.
Mount-Royal-Macnaughton, Alan Ayles worth.
Nanaimo-Cameron, Colin.
New Westminster-Hahn, Frederick G. J.
Niagara Falls-Houck, William Limburg.
Nickel Belt-Gauthier, J. Leoda.
Nicolet-Yamaska-Boisvert, Maurice.
Nipissing-Garland, John Richard.
Norfolk-Anderson, Raymond Elmer.
Northumberland (Ont.)-Robertson, Frederick Greystock.
Northumberland-Miramichi-Me William, George Roy.
Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Hamilton, William McLean.
Okanagan Boundary-Jones, Owen L.
Okanagan-Revelstoke-McLeod, George William.
Ontario-Starr, Michael.
Ottawa East-Richard, Jean Thomas. Ottawa West-Mcllraith, George James. Outremont-St. Jean-Bourque, Romuald. Oxford-Nesbitt, Wallace Bickford.
Papineau-Meunier, J. Adrien.
Parkdale-Hunter, John William Gordon.
Parry Sound-Muskoka-McDonald, Wilfred Kennedy.
Peace River-Low, Solon Earl.
Peel-Pallett, John Cameron.
Perth-Monteith, Jay Waldo.
Peterborough-Fraser, Gordon Knapman.
Pictou-McCulloch, Henry Byron.
Pontiac-Temiscamingue-Proudfoot, John Hugh.
Port Arthur-Howe, Right Hon. C. D.
Portage-Neepawa-Weir, William Gilbert.
Portneuf-Gauthier, Pierre.
Prince-MacNaught, John Watson.
Prince Albert-Diefenbaker, John George.
Prince Edward-Lennox-Tustin, George James.
Provencher-Jutras, Rene Norbert.
Qu'Appelle-Mang, Henry Philip.
Quebec East-St. Laurent, Right Hon.
Louis S.
Quebec-Montmorency-LaCroix, Wilfrid. Quebec South-Power, Frank G.
Quebec West-Dufresne, J. Wilfrid.
Queens-MacLean, J. Angus.
Matheson, Neil Alexander.
Queens-Lunenburg-Winters, Hon. Robert H. Red Reer-Shaw, Frederick Davis.

[Stage Direction]
Regina City-Ellis, Alfred Claude.
Renfrew North-Forgie, James Moffat.
Renfrew South-McCann, Hon. James Joseph.
Restigouche-Madawaska-Van Horne, Joseph Charles.
Richelieu-Vercheres-Cardin, L. J. Lucien. Richmond-Wolfe-Gingras, Ernest O. Rimouski-Legare, Gerard.
Roberval-Villeneuve, Georges.
Rosedale

Henry, Charles.
Rosetown-Biggar-Coldwell, M. J.
Rosthern-Tucker, Walter A.
Royal-Brooks, Alfred Johnson.
Russell-Gour, Joseph Omer.
Saguenay-Brisson, Lomer.
St. Ann-Healy, Thomas Patrick.
St. Antoine-Westmount-Marler, Hon. George C.
St. Boniface-Viau, Fernand.
St. Denis-Denis, Azellus.
St. Henry-Bonnier, Joseph Arsene.
St. Hyacinthe-Bagot-Fontaine, Joseph.
St. James-Beaudry, Roland.
St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville-Menard, Armand.
Saint John-Albert-Bell, Thomas Miller.
St. John's East-Fraser, Allan MacPherson.
St. John's West-Power, James Augustine.
St. Lawrence-St. George-Richardson, Claude S.
St. Mary-Dupuis, Hector.
St. Maurice-Lafleche-Richard, Joseph Adolphe.
St. Paul's-Michener, Roland.
Saskatoon-Knight, Robert Ross.
Selkirk-Bryce, William.
Shefford-Boivin, Marcel.
Mr. John Lome MacDougall died June 6, 1956.
Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare-Kirk, Thomas Andrew Murray.
Sherbrooke-Gingues, Maurice.
Simcoe East-Robinson, William Alfred.
Simcoe North-Ferguson, Julian Harcourt.
Skeena-Applewhaite, Edward T.
Spadina-Rea, Charles E.
Springfield-Weselak, Anton Bernard.
Stanstead-Roberge, Louis Edouard.
Stormont-Lavigne, Albert.
Sudbury-Mitchell, David Rodger.
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Studer, Irvin William.
Temiscouata-St. Laurent, Jean-Paul. Terrebonne-Bertrand, Lionel.
The Battlefords-Campbell, Alexander Max. Timiskaming-Shipley, Mrs. Ann.
Timmins-Eyre, Karl Arliss.
Trinity-Carrick, Donald D. Trinity-Conception-Stick, Leonard T. Trois-Rivieres-Balcer, Leon.
Vancouver-Burrard4
Vancouver Centre-Campney, Hon. Ralph Osborne.
Vancouver East-Winch, Harold Edward. Vancouver-Kingsway-Maclnnis, Angus. Vancouver Quadra-Green, Howard Charles Vancouver South-Philpott, Elmore.
Vaudreuil-Soulanges-Beaudoin, Hon. L. Rene.
Vegreville-Decore, John.
Verdun-Leduc, Yves.
Victoria (B.C.)-Fairey, Francis Thrower.
Victoria (Ont.)-Hodgson, Clayton Wesley.
Victoria-Carleton-Montgomery, Gage Workman.
Villeneuve-Dumas, Armand.

[Stage Direction]
xvii
Waterloo North-Schneider, Norman C.
Waterloo South-White, Arthur W. A.
Welland-McMillan, William H.
Wellington-Huron-Howe, William Marvin.
Wellington South-Hosking, Henry Alfred.
Wentworth-Lennard, Frank Exton.
Westmorland-Murphy, Henry J.
Wetaskiwin-Thomas, Ray.
Winnipeg North-Stewart, Alistair McLeod.
Winnipeg North Centre-Knowles, Stanley Howard.
Winnipeg South-5 6Trainor, Owen C.
Winnipeg South Centre-Churchill, Gordon. York Centre-Hollingworth, Allan H. York-East-McGregor, Robert Henry. York-Humber-Aitken, Miss Margaret.
York North-Smith, John Eachern. York-Scarborough-Enfield, Frank A.
York South6
York-Sunbury-Gregg, Hon. Milton F.
York West-Hamilton, John Borden. Yorkton-Castleden, George Hugh.
Yukon-Simmons, James Aubrey.
5Died November 28, 1956.
6Mr. Joseph William Noseworthy died March 31, 1956.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
%)ou$t of Commons! debates
[Stage Direction]
Speaker: The Honourable L. Rene Beaudoin
Monday, November 26, 1956

[Stage Direction]
The parliament which had been prorogued on the fourteenth day of August, 1956, met this day at Ottawa for the dispatch of business.

Mr. Speaker read a communication from the secretary to the Governor General, announcing that His Excellency the Governor General would proceed to the Senate chamber at 2.30 o'clock on this day for the purpose of formally opening the special session of the dominion parliament.
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker. His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And the house being returned to the Commons chamber: