1956-11-29

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns after returning from attending on the giving of royal assent to the proposed appropriation bill, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, January 8, 1957, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.


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


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Before the motion is put, hon. members will recollect that I suggested, when we entered upon the present debate, we should proceed with the debate as quickly as possible and get that part of the business done. I said also that if hon. members had any further business that they wished to bring before the house an opportunity should be given for them to do so. In my opinion there are pressing matters which hon. members might like to bring before the house. I am not going to deal with them at length, but I am going to say that I have come back from western Canada, after having visited my supporters in my own constituency, and I found a very serious situation on the prairies, both financially, as was mentioned in the house, and in the inability to deliver wheat in order to get the necessary funds.
I also found there was trouble with some farmers who had sent samples of barley, for example, which they hoped to have graded and expected to have graded as malting barley. When they sent a carload in after having been told from samples forwarded that it was malting barley they found it was not, and they lost their wheat quota rights, and that has tended to increase the difficulties in my constituency.
I do not want to interfere with the current debate, but I also wish to say there are certain matters in the mining and other areas
that should receive some consideration in this house before we adjourn. I want to see this business that we are engaged in concluded but I think that I must, on behalf of those associated with me at least, oppose the adjournment of the house when this debate is finished so that any members who have business to bring before the house may do so as quickly as possible, not spending any more time than is necessary; but these matters should receive the consideration of the house before we adjourn and consequently I feel constrained to oppose the motion at this time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am sorry that the hon. gentleman feels he should oppose the motion. This session was called for one purpose and one purpose only and the proposal is the kind of proposal that was made during the years when there was hot war going on, but it is made because the situation is one about which there is great anxiety, and one about which no certainty as to what the future events may be is possible at this time.
I think it would be the desire of the majority of the house, when it has dealt with this business, to adjourn and then have the regular session started as early in the new year as possible when there will be ample opportunity for different matters of interest to be brought to the attention of the house. Even if we sat constantly I am sure that there are hon. members who would feel at all times that there were things of interest that they could talk about, but I do not think at this time it would be the desire of the house to make this into anything but an urgent special session for the purpose of dealing with those matters that were indicated in the speech from the throne.
I am sorry that I cannot acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. member that the motion be not proceeded with. It is our feeling that it would be the desire of a majority of the members of the house to dispose of this business and then wait until the next regular session, which I stated yesterday it was our intention to have open immediately this one was prorogued, if this motion is adopted. There would then be a speech from the throne in the ordinary way dealing with everything that the government felt it was necessary to deal with at an ordinary annual session of the Canadian parliament.

Business of the House


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acling Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find myself in agreement with the Prime Minister. This session was called for a specific purpose, and it seems to me it would be unfortunate if it were allowed at this stage to be interrupted. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the motion to go into supply would be the more appropriate place for a departure from the plans the Prime Minister has announced. I think even that would be unfortunate. There are problems and there will be problems from time to time such as the serious problem which exists in western Canada, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pointed out. Notwithstanding that, I think we are here for a specific purpose and in all fairness and from a national point of view I think it is still more critical than the somewhat more local problem which, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, could be dealt with at a later stage.


Mr. Mclvor:: Good boy.


Major James William Coldwell: Might I suggest to the hon. gentleman that I did not suggest an interruption of this debate, but when this debate is concluded an opportunity should be presented to deal with these matters.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance if we are not right in assuming it will require a motion to go into supply before the appropriation can be dealt with? Would that not be the case?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No, I do not think so. We have now reached that period in the week when we can go into supply without question put.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But you have not called any department yet and they can only be called subject to unanimous consent.


Walter Edward Harris: No, this is an estimate supplementary to this year's estimates that have been already tabled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But this is a new session.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, but this is an estimate supplementary to the 1956-57 estimates, and I believe we can go into supply without question put.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have received a telegram asking me to ascertain if the Minister of Agriculture can give us a report as to the position of this government on the request of the British Columbia fruit industry for a joint dominion-provincial royal commission. I might say the telegram indicates that there is some reluctance on the part of this government to grant such a commission. I hope the minister will be able to correct that understanding and that the request will be granted.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I understand that the minister of agriculture for British Columbia is on his way to Ottawa to discuss the question. I would hesitate to make an answer to the question until he has been here. Up to the moment we have suggested that we think, if a royal commission is to be appointed, it should be appointed by the provincial government.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As a supplementary question, may I ask whether that means the minister's present inclination is that there should not be federal participation or merely that the request should come from the provincial government?


James Garfield Gardiner: The position we have taken up to the present is that if a royal commission is going to be appointed to examine into this industry in British Columbia it should be appointed by the provincial government, but we have undertaken to place all of our experts and our information at their disposal if they undertake to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is a question which, of course, enters into consideration of the other question, but there would be some difficulty in having one operate that way.


Mr. Jones:: Do I understand that the minister has not definitely turned down the request of the B.C. tree fruit growers? I understood you had turned them down, but now I understand you are going to consider the matter when the application is formally made.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had definitely turned down the request that a royal commission be appointed by the federal government, and suggested if there was going to be one it should be appointed by the province. Now, the suggestion, which I understand the minister is coming here to discuss, is that we should appoint a commission jointly. We have not given final consideration to that until we hear what the minister has to say.



PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, based on a Vancouver Province dispatch that Premier Bennett had gleefully announced that the federal cabinet had approved a $10,400,000 grant to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in British Columbia. My question is, when did the cabinet approve this grant?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I have not seen that dispatch. There must be some misunderstanding about it because there has been no approval of any grants. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and I had an interview with Mr. Bennett on the 19th. We discussed the situation in British Columbia and we were delighted to hear the premier say that there was so much development going on there. He mentioned several projects that he thought should have federal assistance or federal consideration, and with respect to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway he was to see the Department of Transport and submit the request he was going to make to that department. I asked him to indicate from point to point where he wanted to ask for a subsidy,

Inquiries of the Ministry but there was no total figure arrived at. I understand that he did afterwards discuss the matter with the minister and the officials of the Department of Transport, but there is no recommendation as yet before the council.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice if he is aware that since the outbreak of the situation in the Suez a number of sugar companies in Canada have raised their prices on sugar six or seven times, amounting to around 75 cents per hundred pounds, and that from their price lists, a number of which I have in my hand, there is a strong suspicion that they are acting as a combine? Will the minister have this situation looked into? Would he like to have these price lists put into the hands of Mr. MacDonald?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: As a matter of routine, Mr. Speaker, the officers of the department keep movements of prices of the kind to which my hon. friend refers under observation. While I have not personally checked in that connection, I would be surprised if they had not already taken cognizance of the ones to which he refers. I have no objection to receiving the documents he has and turning them over to Mr. MacDonald.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall send them over.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him whether or not, in view of the present situation in Syria and Jordan, consideration has been given by the secretary general to an increase in the numbers of the emergency police force, and what requests, if any, have been received as to the allocation of members for that additional force?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In reply to the first part of his question, Mr. Speaker-my hon. friend asked this question the other day-the information received would not indicate that there is any change in the situation on the Syrian-Jordan border, certainly no deterioration, though it remains serious.

So far as the second part of this question is concerned, the United Nations force is being steadily built up. It has now reached a figure of something over 4,000 and, as I said the other day, 23 countries have offered contributions to it. The extension of the functions of that force to cover Jordan and Syrian borders will require, not a decision from the secretary general but a decision from the assembly of the United Nations.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert? Does the Canadian government believe that the United Nations emergency force should be extended because of the situation existing on the borders of Syria, Jordan and Israel, or does it not? Further, does the Canadian government believe that power should be given by the United Nations for such a force to intervene in that area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, a very good question. The force was set up to do a specific job, a very important and difficult one. The extension of the functions of the force to cover other areas raises also difficult and complicated questions, and might at this time interfere with the original functions that have been agreed on.
I would also point out there are United Nations truce observers on the border of Syria and Jordan at the present time, and when a statement was made at United Nations, I think it was last week, to the effect that there had been certain incidents on the Syrian border brought about by Israeli troops it was possible for the United Nations observer to report on the inaccuracy of this statement at once. Therefore, the borders have, at least, the advantage of observation by the United Nations. The extension of the function of this police force to cover borders where there has been up to the present time no major incident leading to war is an important matter and is now under consideration, but I cannot say anything more about it than that at the present moment.



REPORTED VETO BY EGYPT OF ENTRY OF FURTHER CANADIAN FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resfigouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is there anything to the rumour that Colonel Nasser has also objected to the Canadian government sending Royal typewriters to Egypt?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is too serious a matter for that kind of frivolous question.
While I am on my feet I might deal with a related and more serious question that was mentioned last night in the debate, that according to United Nations officials at Naples- this is a press dispatch-Colonel Nasser had exercised a veto on the further entry into Egypt of Canadian forces. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) brought this up. I have been in touch with the secretary general's office about it. There are only two United Nations officials at Naples, both junior officials, one in the administrative branch and the other in the public relations branch. Neither official has any authority whatever to make any such statement, if he did make it, and the statement would be inaccurate if it were made.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. What protection is provided for Canadian service personnel involved in the present police action under the United Nations in the Suez area?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what the hon. gentleman has in mind when he talks of protection.


George Hugh Castleden: Disabilities and pensions.


Ralph Osborne Campney: These are regular troops on active service, and they will get an overseas allowance, but otherwise they will remain as long as they are merely a police force certainly in the same condition as they would be in NATO countries or at home.



CALGARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser). The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) also spoke to me in the same connection in regard to the fire which took place at Camp Sarcee in Calgary on Tuesday afternoon. A board of inquiry is investigating there at the moment, but I should like to give the house such facts as have been so far ascertained.
The fire was caused by the explosion of an accumulation of gas from a leaking gas main.
Inquiries of the Ministry I am informed that this natural gas main had only recently been installed by the local gas company and was actually under test by them at the time.
Apparently, the gas escaping from the main accumulated for some time in the main part of the building, which was a tank hangar, but the explosion itself was touched off in the boiler room. There was no access between the two buildings, but one was adjacent to the other. A violent explosion occurred in the boiler room, which is a concrete building, and it demolished that building and allowed the gas to fill the tank hangar, which burst into a mass of flames. The building was destroyed. It was valued at approximately $155,000. At the time of the fire there were 14 tanks in the hangar and six others outside. A soldier managed to move one tank from inside the building and the six outside were also removed to a safe area. However, the 13 remaining tanks in the hangar, together with other items of tools and equipment, were damaged though the extent of the damage will not be known until it is fully assessed. One civilian fireman stoker suffered burns, but there were no casualties.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: May I ask the
Minister of Finance a question? Is the government suing the gas company for damages?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member will have to wait and see when the facts have been established.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister indicate when the five-day 40-hour week will be extended to civilian cleaners and helpers at camps Shilo and Rivers?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will have to look into the question. I am not aware just what the conditions are at these two camps. I know we are progressively bringing in the five-day week, but I will look into it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I ask the minister a supplementary question? Is he aware that the present policy operating in connection with cleaners and helpers is contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work for classified civil servants, as laid down by government policy?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY



INQUIRY AS TO GRANTING RUNNING RIGHTS OVER THE HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboidi-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister. Is it the intention of the government to introduce a measure at the next session of parliament that will give the C.P.R. running rights over the Hudson Bay Railway, thereby facilitating the movement of grain from C.P.R. points?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: May I take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker?



REFERENCE TO ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PENSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister any report to make on the matter having to do with certain retired employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway which was raised in this house on June 15 by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) and supported by several other members in various parties? The minister will recall that he pledged on that occasion he would do anything he could to achieve the objectives of those of us who spoke on the matter. Has he any report to make at this time?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I recall the discussion concerning the personnel my hon. friend refers to but I have no further report than that which I made last session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask if the minister is still working on the matter?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In his absence, perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce is able to supply the information. In view of the resignation of the transport controller, to be effective at the close of navigation, which will be in a very few days, can the minister announce who his successor will be or, if not, when he will be appointed?
[Mr. Campney.l


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to make that announcement but I will call the attention of the Minister of Transport to the question.



REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATE ON MONEY BORROWED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday?



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Can the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether the conversion of steel plate into the construction of oil tankers will reduce the supply available for pipe, and thus further delay the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what the pipe situation will be over the next two years, which is the time required to complete the trans-Canada pipe line. It is my understanding that the pipe for next year's work is definitely under contract and I look for no early interruption in the supply.



TRANS-MOUNTAIN LINE  REQUEST FOR STATE- MENT ON EXPLOSION AT JASPER PUMP STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the international importance of the movement of oil from North American fields to tide water at the present time, can he comment on the explosion and fire yesterday at the Jasper pump station of the TransMountain pipe line in Alberta? Specifically, to what extent has this explosion curtailed the flow of oil to the Pacific coast through this line in Alberta? How long will such curtailment apply, and how soon will permanent pumping stations with greater capacity be completed at the location of this explosion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the government has no information on the subject. Personally, I had not heard that the explosion had taken

place. Trans-Mountain is a privately-owned pipe line. However, I will try to obtain such information as the government has and answer the question tomorrow.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Legare for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.
Mr. D. S. Harknsss (Calgary Norlh):: Mr. Speaker, I had almost completed my remarks last night but was in the midst of pointing out that we in this house during this debate have really had no information in regard to the composition, the total numbers or the functions of this United Nations police force which is a matter on which I think the entire Canadian public would like to have more information. It is a matter concerning which there is a good deal of confusion and I would hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of National Defence might be able to give us the latest information concerning the points and tell us exactly what the situation is.
As far as one is able to make out from various newspaper accounts, the functions of this United Nations force which the minister a moment ago said were important functions are to police the canal zone and to police a strip of border territory between Israel and Egypt, a strip along the Israeli-Egyptian border.
I notice in today's paper a reported statement by Mr. Hammarskjold which says:
Hammarskjold said the "provisional" target for size of the force is two combat brigades totalling some 6,000 men.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, if that is the total size of the force envisaged it would appear to be very inadequate to carry out these two functions of policing the canal zone and policing the border strip between Israel and Egypt.
Also, as far as I can see, the composition of this force is almost entirely an infantry force. I think perhaps infantry might be able to do the policing in the Suez canal zone fairly readily but I would submit that as far as maintaining the border strip through that desert country is concerned infantry would be very poorly adapted for that purpose. I would hope that some other sort of force would be provided.
The ideal force, I believe, would be a reconnaissance regiment. Canada, of course, does not have a reconnaissance regiment so
The Address-Mr. Harkness cannot help out from that point of view, but if there is no reconnaissance regiment available then I should think the need might be met by providing a jeep force.
The Queen's Own Rifles is an extremely good regiment. I went to say goodbye to them before they left Calgary. They departed full of high spirits and with extremely good morale. I have seen them on parade on several occasions and they are an excellent unit from every point of view. I think it is extremely unfortunate that they have been sitting in Halifax for the past three weeks kicking their heels and not knowing what is the definite situation-


An hon. Member:: They are better off there than' in Calgary.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -which is not going to help the morale of the army and the other defence force generally.
In any event a regiment of that sort could be supplied with jeeps somewhat along the lines of those which were used by the jeep forces of the special air service force and the special boat service force during the last war. They were provided with jeeps which were mounted with twin heavy machine guns. They carried four men each and made deep penetrations behind the enemy lines. As a result of this twin machine gun armament they had an extraordinarily heavy fire power and were really in a position to take on anything except armour. They did extremely good work and I believe a force of that sort could be quite readily provided. There are plenty of jeeps and there are plenty of machine guns, and in lieu of a "Recce" regiment, in other words, a light armoured force, I think this government should do everything possible to ensure that the border force between Israel and Egypt is supplied with jeeps of this nature so that they are mobile and can do the job properly.
I do not think anything except a mobile force which is able to travel more or less anywhere-and this is one of the great advantages of jeeps, they can get through almost any type of country-is capable of doing the job properly. Therefore, I put this thought out for the consideration of the government and would hope something along that line might be done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the world situation today and the dangerous implications that become more and more apparent in the Middle East and the actions being taken by the U.S.S.R. in various parts of Europe, no debate I have participated in since coming to this house has been, in my opinion, fraught with greater consequences

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker than the one now before this house. While there are various matters, economic and otherwise, in this country that require attention I felt a few moments ago during the vote, and I feel now, that our devotion at this time should be to the spiritual things and to the maintenance of freedom. Economic matters will receive their proper attention when the regular session begins in January.
Having said that, I must point out that I view the world situation as a perilous one: too perilous to be treated in a flamboyant or reckless manner, too dangerous to permit of our placing ourselves in the position of being judges of the action taken by Britain, France and Israel.


An hon. Member:: And Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: We are all in the position of not being able to judge without being judged ourselves. In less than a month -yes, it is within the month-the world has witnessed days of magnificent nobility in Hungary, and treachery in Egypt. There have been vast opportunities for the forces of freedom to be united rather than disunited. Someone has said that within those days relations in the world have shifted and sagged among the free nations, and have stretched and strained. One of the results of the events of the last four weeks has been a division and disarrangement of the old alliance between Britain and the commonwealth, France and the United States, which holds a fearful prospect unless mutual confidence and infinite compassion once more restore that trust and that common dedication to freedom which in the last four weeks has been so seriously strained.
We have seen nobility in Poland and Hungary. The chromium surface of communism has been punctured. We know now that the protestations of Khrushchev and Bulganin were designed merely to achieve an interim purpose. Once more it appears that Stalinism is in the saddle and that the frightful fear of an international war has been rendered greater than any of us could have anticipated a few months ago.
The U.S.S.R. has engaged in a massive conspiracy with Nasser to take over the Middle East. Judge not that ye be not judged is as necessary today in our thinking as it was when those words were spoken. There was no international force. Last evening the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to a speech which I made in this house in 1945 in which I suggested, as did all those who were in any way interested in the establishment of the rule of law, the setting up of an international

force, designed not for a given purpose in one area of the world but one that would in fact be available to prevent aggression and wrongdoing in any part of the world.
The dreams of 1945 have been dissipated in the light of the experience of eleven years. Blame it on the veto if you will, but mankind with all its experience of the frightful carnage in world war II did not learn its lesson. An international force powerful enough to prevent aggression anywhere in the world became a delusion and hopeless dream. As I listened to my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) speaking the other day I thought of the opening day in San Francisco in 1945 when we met in that hall which had been dedicated to the memory of those who had died in the first great war. Over the doorway of that hall was this superscription:	This
monument eloquent of hopes realized and dreams come true.
Those dreams have not come true. The dreams of an international force had not come true when the conspiracy took place in the Middle East. Let no one say that the U.S.S.R. was not preparing with Nasser to undermine and to destroy every vestige of British and French power in Africa as well as in the Middle East. Over in the Sinai peninsula were found concrete runways to handle jet planes, pillboxes, vast underground garages for tanks and trucks, and fuel dumps. They were not constructed by the Egyptians.
As I said a moment ago, one of the most serious things that we face is the division between us of the free world. Interestingly enough, the one country which comes out of this with new prestige is the U.S.S.R. When Bulganin threatened to use missiles in massive retaliation it was only a matter of a day or two before the United Nations acted and brought about this temporary force. We will never learn. We did not believe Hitler when he wrote "Mein Kampf". Churchill did, and he stood alone in the British House of Commons. He warned the people that Hitler meant what he said.
How many in this house read "The Philosophy of the Revolution" by Colonel Nasser? He sets forth in line after line and page after page his purpose and philosophy and what he intends to do. It is a small book. It will not take you very long to read it. It starts with the principle in his mind created by his fearful hatred of things British. He tells us that as he watched British planes flying overhead his prayer always was, "O Almighty God, may disaster overtake the English." He starts out that way, and then he sets out in this book his plan. Read it and understand what is happening today in the Middle East. He says

that the source of strength of Egypt in the Middle East is her geographical and strategic position which embraces the crossroads of the world, the thoroughfare of traders and the passageway of armies. He says:
There remains the third source-oil-a sinew of material civilization without which all its machines would cease to function. The great factories producing every kind of goods; all the instruments of land, sea and air communications; all the weapons of war, from the mechanical bird above the clouds to the submarine beneath the waves-without oil, all would turn back to naked metal, covered with rust, incapable of motion or use.
He says in effect that his main ambition is to take over the Middle East and then, having dene that, to take over Africa, to mobilize the people of the Moslem world. There are 80 million in Indonesia; 50 million in China; millions in Malaya, Siam and Burma; 100 million in Pakistan; more than 100 million in the Middle East and 40 million in the Soviet union. There is the blueprint.
Never has anyone written in so few words so terrible a prospect for mankind. I speak only from my own interpretation of it. When I read of Khrushchev saying "We will bury you," as he speaks of the free nations, when I hear Bulganin threatening missile warfare and the sending of so-called volunteers from Russia and China, I ask myself this. What must we do? What course shall we follow? Whatever action we take, upon that we will be judged. We cannot secure an international force such as was dreamed of at San Francisco. Within this time and generation, as I see it, we will have to be restricted to international forces, temporary in their character, meeting local situations as they arise.
What would the U.S.S.R. have done with the instruments that it made available to Egypt if it had waited until the United Nations would act? As reported in the New York Times, here are some of the weapons that have been delivered to Egypt recently: At least 50 Il'yushin bombers, 100 MIG fighters, 300 medium and heavy tanks, a substantial number of T-34's, the largest tanks there are, between 400 and 500 field anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, several rocket launchers, mines, radar and wireless telegraphic equipment, two destroyers, four minesweepers, 15 to 20 motor torpedo boats.
Where do I stand, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this force? One gives the deepest thought to these things, and I stand where I stood on the 31st of January in this house. At that time there was an interruption on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare when objection was being raised to the fatuous policy on the part of the government of supplying Egypt with one type of armament and Israel with another. What I said was as a result of having seen these
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker tenuous lines that separate the Arab lands from Israel. As far as I could see, the only immediate hope was to set up an international force to protect and assure the boundaries and at that time, as found at page 723, I said:
I suggest to my hon. friend who interrupted that one of the things he can do, with his influence in the United Nations, is to see to it that something in the nature of an international force is established to the end that this dangerous situation shall be obliterated. If it is not, and war breaks out there, we shall have war all over the world . . .
I am glad that that part of my statement was not correct, for in every generation war has seen a march of conquerors. It is almost like a beaten road to war. The Secretary of State for External Affairs answered me the next day, as found at page 777 of Hansard, and he indicated that such a force would not be effective because there was no permanent boundary line. I say to my hon. friend today that if what was done on November 2 had been brought before the United Nations earlier the tragic beginnings of this situation as Israel marched might have been averted. It is one of the ifs of history, but I say that I made that suggestion in the attitude I have always tried to assume in parliament. As a member of the opposition I have my own responsibilities to present those things which I believe will be of some benefit. The view was held in Jordan, the view was held in Israel that such a force would be effective.
What has Canada done since then? Well, I read the records of the United Nations where Canada is forever speaking on resolutions but lacking resolution and displaying no definiteness. I say to my hon. friend that last Saturday was an example when the vote took place in the United Nations, a repetitious vote, on the motion to order Britain and France out of the Middle East. I read with pride in the press that my hon. friend had made such a strong and bitter castigation of the U.S.S.R. that Shepilov shook, that the members of the assembly were silent, and finally they applauded. Magnificent! But then Canada abstained. Speaking on resolutions, lacking resolution!
What about the last three weeks? Are we going to place Britain and France in the same position as the U.S.S.R. with its attitudes, its actions, its cruelty, its tyranny in Hungary in the last three weeks? According to information there has been a reshuffling of Soviet forces in western Poland and a concentration of Russian troops in East Germany on the Oder river and along the Austrian border. The strait-jacket of tyranny is to be restored to the puppet states under the control of the U.S.S.R.
I am not here to castigate but I say to the Prime Minister that his words of the

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker other day struck in me the reaction that injudicious annoyance with the questions of the moment-at a time when judicious and judicial calm should have been expected from him-had led him to utter these words, as found at page 20 of Hansard on November 26:
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.
The only reference in the preceding paragraph is to Britain and to France. I am scandalized, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister saw fit to condemn Britain and France to the same bag in which the U.S.S.R. was placed. I shall say no more about that because I do not wish to use words which later on I would have to repent, as I feel the Prime Minister will have to repent in the days ahead. No matter how one may judge, placing those three in a common position is, to say the least, not in keeping with the fact that two of them represent the motherlands of Canada, that those two have for generations preserved freedom and within our generation have done that very thing. I do not think this government has had any realization of events internationally in their proper perspective; or if it has, it has kept that information from parliament. We in the opposition have not been consulted. That is one of the complaints in Britain. After all, when our future is at stake and freedom stands challenged, surely these eighteen feet that separate us do not demand that we be kept in the dark.
I go back to January 11 of this year when the question arose as to whether aircraft were being shipped to Egypt and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he was unable to say whether any had been shipped. While he spoke the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Defence, who must have known, sat silent. On January 16 the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich asked whether any military equipment for the Middle East was being shipped by a designated transport and the minister said in effect that he was unable to say. On January 17 the Secretary of State for External Affairs admitted that aircraft had been shipped but he said that the reason that he did not give a proper answer the other day was the use of the word "recently". From now on, three months is not recently in an international calendar. Later on, the Prime Minister said that the decision to permit the shipment of arms had been made

by the cabinet in June, 1955. On January 20 the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that the export was authorized by an order in council of July 7. The next day he said that there was no such order in council. Mr. Speaker, here was a serious situation. This was parliament, entitled to receive information and receiving selective information. A few days later the Prime Minister completed the picture by saying that the matter was never before the cabinet in June, July or at any other time.
Something is wrong, Mr. Speaker, when on a matter affecting freedom in the world a cabinet furnishes information of that kind: misinformation, no information. I sometimes wonder why it is that things like that should exist. If the proposal for a United Nations emergency force had been advanced before the U.N. not on November 2 but earlier when hon. members in this house who have travelled in the Middle East knew it should be, how different things might have been.
I am not going to quarrel with the Prime Minister over his refusal to produce the telegram with respect to which the press reported that scorching words had been used. But, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister's words the other day, when he threw Britain, France and the U.S.S.R. into a common bag, represented judicial calm, I should like to see that telegram. In order to be able to answer the question whether that telegram should be produced, the right hon. gentleman did not ask the British government or Sir Anthony Eden whether that telegram could be produced. Oh, no. I want to read this message -which is found at page 23 of Hansard- because it is obvious that the wording of the request for consideration of the possible demand by myself and others is couched in the phraseology of one who realizes that the demand could not be accepted. Just listen to this:
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.
All, Mr. Speaker? Not all; one. The No. 1 communication when danger challenged, is the one asked for; the request was not for the day to day confidential communications but for the one of advice, if you will; the one of challenge, if you will; the one of condemnation, if you will. For, Mr. Speaker, that is the telegram that was sent on behalf of Canada. That is the one that was

demanded, not the day to day communications. Certainly no one would ask for the production of all of the correspondence. But only the one was referred to and only the one was asked for.
We now come to the question of an international force. I think that this is a step in the right direction. I think it is something that is ad hoc to a particular situation. I think it represents the first time that the United Nations, since the uniting-for-peace resolution, has established the beginning of a principle which, since the days of Grotius to which my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred yesterday, has been the dream and the hope of mankind.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said today that Nasser has nothing to say as to the identity of the force. Well, one of the U.N. officials said so. My hon. friend says he had no authority. It is impossible for anyone to follow the kaleidoscopic changes and alterations that took place in a matter of two weeks over the Queen's Own. What happened? Was this letter from General Burns an escape hatch for the government? Did they suggest to him in any way, after consultation, such a letter? I read from a press dispatch which says that the government is embarrassed. I have not seen any evidence of that in the last couple of days but this was back on November 20.
The federal cabinet, admittedly embarrassed, met today to make its decision on the dispatch of Canadian troops to Egypt . . .
Then, there is a reference to the letter from General Burns, and it says:
The General's letter was written in close consultation with the Canadian government. It is accepted here that it is meant to provide a facesaving out from the embarrassing position of having had the proposed contribution of the Queen's Own Rifles turned down by Egypt's veto.
I need hardly say that this comes from one who enjoys the confidence of the government. I refer to Mr. Robert Taylor of the Toronto Star. He seldom does anything to embarrass. Here is what the New York Times said in regard to this question. At any time the Egyptian government desires it withdrawn, the force will be withdrawn immediately. Then the article goes on:
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] Egyptian approval was necessary in the choice of countries that would participate in the force. In addition, Egyptian approval was required as to where the force would be stationed and when it would arrive, . . .
They have accepted the police force to ensure that the British and French and Israeli troops leave the country and that is all.
My hon. friend indicates that he does not agree with that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is not true.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


John George Diefenbaker: I may say that is quoted from a reputable writer in the New York Times. I say this, sir, that if it is not true it is surprising how this force has followed the course that Nasser would want it to follow. As a member of the profession of law, Mr. Speaker, I ask what kind of police force would you consider it when a thug would be able to determine the personnel of the force, the beat on which it operates, its tenure of office and the time when it would conclude its operations? I should like further enlightenment from the minister in connection with this force and the role it is to play, because if in fact these statements are correct then this force does not meet the need of the moment. It does not establish the beginnings of that international rule of law which was referred to by Selwyn Lloyd in the British House of Commons when he said:
Law and order cannot be maintained in any country without policemen. A burglar is not deterred because society's property owners pass a resolution condemning housebreaking. Unlawful wounding is not stopped because the victims may all condemn violence. So it is in international society. We have to face the facts, and the fact is that collective security under the United Nations has only once in a real crisis proved effective and that was in Korea in 1950, and then only because of an accident that Russia was absent from the security council.
I say this, sir, I believe that with halting and faltering steps this international force, if the conscience of the free world will give it the power that Nasser does not want it to have, may well prove the beginnings of a new era. History tells but one story, Mr. Speaker, and that is in every few hundred years man has feared the avalanches that would destroy freedom, but always when it is darkest the stars are brightest. I say to the Prime Minister that the references to supermen, regardless of what the situation might be, and the condemnation of those nations which have stood for freedom for generations should not have fallen from the lips of a man who enjoys the respect the Prime Minister does. I say this not in anger; I say it in the deepest feeling of sorrow, that Canada should have permitted the use of words which cannot hurt those against whom they are directed but will raise the hopes of communists everywhere in the world and bring solace to the Khrushchevs and Bulganins. That is the position in which Canada is.
Now, I have said all I am going to say in that direction, except that as one who believes in the responsibility of an opposition I have one suggestion to make, a major one, and one or two others. I am going to say to the Minister of Immigration that I am glad he is taking the course he is and going over to Austria. By his presence he will let them

The Address-Mr. Yuill know that the free world still has a conscience; that while we cannot help them with military force, we can let them know that those who live in slavery are not forgotten. I am not going to add anything that would detract from what I have said. I think it is something that merits the approval of Canadians as a whole. I have always tried to follow that course in this house.
A step has been taken, in co-operation with the premier of Ontario, Mr. Frost, whereby the federal and provincial governments join together in so far as Ontario is concerned to bring to this country those who did their part in their day and generation to maintain that flickering flame of freedom. I believe that. Now, I come to Canada's responsibility as I see it. The relations between Britain, the United States, Canada and the nations of the free world need to be reconstructed; for, Mr. Speaker, we have started on our first step to international suicide. My suggestion may be worthless, but it is offered for what it may be worth. It is this. In 1943 the free world was in fear, and a conference took place in the citadel in the city of Quebec which brought together the leaders of the free world. Out of the determinations there arrived at, the free world started its march upwards to ultimate victory. We cannot afford to allow our ranks to be divided now.
I see references made to the fact that the United States intends to hold over Britain and France the promise of oil if they obediently do what the United Nations ask. I hope that that is not true. We want no clubs over the sources of freedom. I see in the press-and after all that is where we get our information-that in the United States, where they had an armistice on foreign affairs and responsibility during an election, there are some who believe that a meeting between the prime ministers of Britain and France and the president of the United States should not take place at this time because it would place the United States in an impossible position. Sir, I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will let them know that the embarrassing position in which the United States will be placed as a result-and I know of none-will be as nothing compared with the perilous position of Canada and the free world unless something of this nature is done once more to heal the wounds of disagreement.
I mentioned the Quebec conference. Will the Prime Minister of Canada, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs, take the lead at this time and invite the leaders of those nations to a second Quebec conference? Bring together the leading members of the commonwealth here in Canada. Let the pres-
CMr. Diefenbaker.]
ident of the United States come here, as did President Roosevelt in the days of war, and also the prime ministers of France and Britain. Let them meet in that ancient citadel, representative of the contribution made to Canada's freedom by those of the French race and also representing Canada in the home of the two races, now joined together and almost alone. Let them meet without malice, without vituperative statements and without words of grandiloquent content, and in that city lay the foundations for once more reestablishing in the free world a unity which, unless it is achieved and achieved immediately, may result in irreparable harm; indeed, its lack has already caused results that cannot but have been a solace to the hearts of communists everywhere in the world.
Our responsibility at this time, as I see it, is to join together. I quote from an article which appeared yesterday in the New York Times. It ends in this way:
We cannot be so insane as not to see how much this would damage our own position.
Mr. Sulzberger was referring to disunity. He goes on:
Traditional friendship and ideological sympathies apart, we must recognize that alliances are based on mutual interest. This mutual interest remains.
I believe it does. I believe that before the ledger of freedom in the unity of the free world becomes too much a debit we should bring together this conference and that Canada, in her enviable position, should bring about that determination which resulted from the first Quebec conference. If that is done, mankind everywhere in the free world will once more look forward to the future not with the fear that so many thinking men and women have today, but with that faith in spiritual things without which we cannot survive.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words I should like to say in this debate before the vote is taken. I assure you that I am not going to take up very much time, but what I have to say is of very great importance to me and to those whom I represent.
We are here in this special session to consider ways and means of preventing the outbreak of a third world war starting in the Middle East and to earnestly seek for every possible effective means of bringing peace to the world. As the leader of this party has said, we refuse to play politics with this most serious matter in this grave world situation. However I think it is our duty to speak about this situation as we see it and to make whatever proposals we can make that might help to achieve the end we all so earnestly desire.

So far, little or no criticism has been levelled at the state of Israel for her attack on Egypt, which was the immediate cause of the present grave situation in the Middle East. We realize that Israel has been the victim of a long series of provocations. She has also been guilty over the years of a long series of retaliation. No matter how serious the provocation may have been, the fact remains that Israel did attack Egypt and occupied Egyptian territory, the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza strip. It is true that Israel agreed to a cease-fire and to removal of her troops from Egyptian territory. I think that the fulfilment of that agreement would be the first step toward a settlement of the whole problem in the Middle East.
I strongly suggest that while the emergency police force is being established in the canal zone Canada use her influence in the United Nations to induce Israel to evacuate all the Egyptian territory which her troops occupied in the recent military campaign. Israel should show her good intentions by immediate compliance with that request. She should withdraw to within the armistice lines and stay there until such time as the boundary disputes between Israel and the Arab states have been settled. If in the collective wisdom of the United Nations permanent boundaries are established which award some extra territory to the state of Israel then Israel's position at least would be legalized. However, in view of the great tension in the Middle East and the suspicion and intrigue that abounds there, there is no doubt in my mind that the place to start to find a settlement is to have Israel move back within the territory designated in the armistice agreement.
By that I do not mean to say this would solve all the problems. It would solve only one, namely the bitterness and suspicion engendered by Israel's attack and their occupation of Egyptian territory, but it would be a good starting place and from there I think the United Nations must use every means at its disposal to help bring about a peaceful settlement of all the outstanding problems between the state of Israel and the Arab states.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could call it one o'clock.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Bell:: What are you in a hurry for?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked that I call it one o'clock.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is all right; I am prepared to continue.
The Address-Mr. Fulton Mr. Speaker: I would ask if that is the sense of the house that we should call it one o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall not detain the house at any length with the remarks I have to make because what was required to be said has been said and most magnificently by the various spokesmen for the Conservative party who have preceded me. Before I conclude, I shall be emphasizing only one or two particular aspects of what they said.
My main reason for speaking in this debate just before the vote is taken is to say a word or two with regard to the question of Hungarian refugees. I believe I was the first to make the concrete suggestion that Canada should offer immediate and unrestricted asylum to these Hungarian patriots who have been made homeless as a result of their battle for freedom, which is our battle. I do not want to let this occasion go by without emphasizing my own views and the views of my party, nor do I want to omit to say what I think it is proper for every member of the opposition or every politician who regards himself as having constructive criticism to offer, and that is that now at last we welcome and support the statements which have been made by the government with respect to its present policy on the admission of these Hungarian refugees.
We are glad that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is going to Austria and we hope his trip will be successful and will clear the way for the speedier dealing with the plight of those who have been made homeless and their ready and immediate admission to Canada and the reception arrangements that are required to be made here after they have arrived. I think it is proper to say that although we support this action and welcome it nevertheless we do have a residual regret that it was some two or three weeks after the situation first arose before the government officially came around to adopting and announcing a really generous policy of unrestricted asylum to these people.
There is little if anything that we can do in a physical sense to assist in the real struggle for freedom in these countries suffering under the iron yoke of communism,

The Address-Mr. Fulton nevertheless there is much we can do over and above the passage of resolutions to show that we really mean it when we say that our hearts and minds are with them in their struggles. A magnificent gesture of generosity is required from countries such as Canada and others to do everything which can be done within their power. We can do it because we have the opportunity, we have the resources and we know the benefits that have come to our country from the admission of these people.
Therefore our gesture should be unrestricted and generous so as to show these people that we really mean it when we say to them: You have been made homeless by your struggle for freedom and your participation in that battle which is our battle; you have been made homeless but there is a home for you, and if you are willing to come we will bring you. We support and welcome the statements that have been made by the minister. We wish him a safe and successful voyage with good results in the work that he will be undertaking to clear the way for the admission of these people to Canada and their reception when they arrive.
As to the other matters which have been before the house in connection with external affairs and the policy of the government in connection with the Suez crisis, our position has been clearly and imaginatively stated by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) and magnificently summarized in the speech made today by the chairman of our caucus committee on external affairs, the hon. member for Prince Albert. I do not think there is anything that can be added to what they have said.
For myself I should like to emphasize particularly the view .which the hon. member for Prince Albert expanded on in his speech, that is the urgent necessity of Canadian leaders bending every effort toward bringing the commonwealth back together and showing that Canada's interest in it and Canada's readiness to support it is more than a mere passing gesture, but that we realize that in this situation which we find today, where we are engaged in a struggle for the freedom of civilization as we understand it, we cannot be just judges and non-participants; we must participate and therefore we must make our contribution to the commonwealth and our position within the commonwealth clear and meaningful so that no one may mistake it whether they be our friends or our enemies.
We feel that very strongly. While we do not wish to be carping, while we want at this stage to be constructive, we feel nevertheless the deepest sense of regret that some of the policies of the Canadian government, in the


last few months particularly, have been the reverse of what I have just described. Unfortunately they have contributed to the loosening of those ties.
The other thing which the hon. member for Prince Albert and this party emphasized is the urgent necessity of restoring the partnership between the commonwealth and the United States. We are all convinced that there is no more important matter concerning the western world and the free world than the steps to be taken in that regard. We feel that having made our position as a member of the commonwealth clear we must then say to the United States:	Let us restore this
partnership on the basis that our position is understood, that we have made our position clear, that we know where our friends are. This is not a matter of sentiment, this is a matter of self-interest. We invite you to understand our position and the position of our friends and to return to full partnership and friendship with us.
As has been so often stated previously, Canada's prime role is to act as a bridge between the east and the west, on the one hand, and between the United Kingdom and the United States, on the other. Those two bridges must be restored and the chasm which has been opening up must be bridged once more.
We have in our amendment indicated in what way we think the government must accept a full measure of responsibility for the collapse of those bridges. We shall by our vote on our amendment take our stand on that position. But in so far as the position has been summarized by our spokesman, our acting leader, and concluded and summarized by the chairman of our committee on external affairs, the Conservative party stands by that position and there remains nothing to add.
However, I think it proper to say that I have been authorized by my colleagues to say that when the vote on our amendment is disposed of, and on that we intend to make our position unequivocally clear, we shall support the motion for the address itself. We do think that this is a time for an imaginative and positive gesture such as was suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert.
We do say, and this is within the confines of the remarks I have just made, that we want to indicate also our support for the principles upon which the United Nations was built, and that is that there should be an effective police force. I think it is useless to talk about those who loosely violate the charter because we must remember that one of the basic principles of the United Nations has not yet been fulfilled, and that was the creation of an effective police force.

Because we believe in that we will support the main motion which calls for provision being made by vote 235 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, for the purpose of meeting costs incurred for the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force, and to authorize the necessary provisions for the relief of the victims of the recent tragic events in Hungary.
We do support those two propositions and we welcomed the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that the passages of these people would be paid in full. As a result we believe that the appropriation should be increased.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would not mind my clarifying that point. It is not intended that any part of this appropriation be used for those passages. The passages will be paid for out of the appropriations of my department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is welcome news. However, we are doubtful whether the provisions now being made will in fact go as far as the Canadian people would want to go in providing relief for these people.
It is because of the views I have expressed, Mr. Speaker, and because we believe, both with respect to the support for the Hungarian refugees and other people participating in the fight for freedom and with respect to the necessity to restore commonwealth unity and the western world's unity, that there is a most urgent need for imaginative and positive gestures that we have taken the position we have and rest on the amendment we have moved. But when that is disposed of we will be supporting the main motion.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister) moved:
That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
738.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, assistance to the victims of the recent tragic events in Hungary, $1,000,000.
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
739.	To provide expressly that vote 235 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, be used for the purpose of meeting costs incurred for the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force, and to authorize payment from that vote, subject to approval of the treasury board, of contributions to the United Nations for defraying expenses incurred by it in respect of its operations to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East, $1.
Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, there is today, at
this very moment, as we are all well aware, a very grave crisis existing in the Middle East. It is growing day by day. How can we, in Canada, help to resolve it? There is, for the moment, a cease-fire in effect. The shooting has been stopped. How can we help to keep it that way? There is also building up in that area a United Nations police force which is being formed to halt the killing. How can we best help strengthen that force?
There is a growing determination amongst the nations that we should get at the root causes of this conflict. How, in Canada, can we assist in doing so? These are the important considerations we must keep before us. You may say that the steps taken by the United Nations up to date have been halting, diffident and slow, and that I would
IMr. Fulton.)
grant you, but they are steps in the right direction and they are quickening. Today the Right Hon. Selwyn Lloyd, in a very conciliatory speech which he made in the House of Commons in London said:
The United Nations force has now been constituted and is growing in numbers, and I pay tribute to the speed with which the secretary general and his advisers have acted. By December 1, there will be about 2,700 men in Egypt, and within 14 days there should be 4,400, among which will be some 700 Canadian troops.
We must, I believe, in Canada continue to do all that we can to persuade other people to walk with us along the highway to an honourable and enduring peace. We must assist afflicted nations wherever we can. Like it or not, we must in all honesty ask ourselves this question; if the United Nations fail, how can we hope to find a way to a world without war?
By now, every Canadian knows what this government in recent weeks and in the name of sanity and humanity has tried very hard to do, and with some success, surely. It has been, as is the policy of this government, to work wholeheartedly and imaginatively with the United Nations in its efforts to stop the fighting in Egypt and to create conditions which will prevent its recurrence. I should like, as one who has worked very closely with him in the last few weeks, to pay my personal tribute to my fellow cabinet minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) because I have had opportunity in that time to realize the patience, the zeal and the effectiveness with which he has represented us at the United Nations.
I suspect that hon. members would like me to outline to them what the Department of National Defence and the armed forces have been doing during recent weeks to support the government's policy, and this I shall endeavour to do. What I shall say, with the information already given to hon. members, will I hope provide sufficient background for the discussion of the defence appropriation now before the committee.
This appropriation, as hon. members will have noted, is purely nominal in amount for the simple reason that it is not yet possible to predict with any accuracy what Canada's contribution to the cost of the United Nations emergency force will be, nor the extent to which these costs will be borne by the United Nations. I shall have occasion to revert to this phase of the matter later.
Approval by hon. members of the nominal defence appropriation will of course be tantamount to approval in broad outline of the actions that the government has thus far taken. The decisions that we in the government have come to after most serious thought

and consideration are now before each member for his consideration. In coming to these decisions which we have taken we have at all times been very conscious, as have our military advisers, of the dangers inherent in sending a relatively small and lightly armed force into an area where so recently there has been much fighting and destruction.
So, from the very first we in the government have been fully conscious as to the sombre and challenging task facing the United Nations and ourselves: the urgent need is to try to secure the peace by establishing quickly -while there is still time-and with the necessary co-operation of the Middle East combatants, the first international police force of its kind ever to be organized in this war-torn world. To pioneer for peace, to try to find new ways to stop war, to be resolute not to kill but to stop the killing-surely there is no more honourable task for Canadian service men to take on. The proposition to which this government is dedicated, and which I believe all Canadians will endorse, is that it is better to run risks for peace than to be faced with war's certain casualties and chaos.
It has been very evident, I think, to all of us that a general war under conditions obtaining today is in all conscience unthinkable. Surely, then, it is the job of the defence department to assist, by every means in its power, those who would discourage war and assert the claims of peace. That is what we are endeavouring to do under the aegis of the United Nations at this very moment.
May I now briefly review, in three stages, the chronology of military events affecting Canada as they have occurred since the Prime Minister announced on November 4 that the Canadian government was ready to recommend Canadian participation in the United Nations police force proposed the previous day by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if it was thought that Canada could play a useful role.
Studies were at once instituted by our departmental officials and our service chiefs in anticipation of a call for a Canadian contribution to this force. From these studies and fi om the second and final report of the Secretary General of the United Nations made on November 6 and recommending self-contained units of battalion strength for the United Nations emergency force, we concluded at a meeting of senior service officers and government officials who met with me on November 6 that Canada's contribution might be an infantry battalion group.
As a result of the studies and consultations leading to that recommendation, the Prime
Supply-National Defence Minister, on November 7-the very day on which the United Nations resolution establishing the United Nations emergency force was passed and self-contained battalions were formally called for by the United Nations council-announced the government's offer of a contribution to that force of a battalion group of 1,000 men or more, to be supported by its own mobile base of Her Majesty's Canadian ship Magnificent. This offer, the Frime Minister noted, was subject to any re-arrangement made necessary after consultation with the commander of the force, Major-General Burns.
This Canadian contingent, of battalion strength, was to be augmented by technical and administrative units to make it selfsupporting. The Prime Minister said that Canada was prepared to airlift the group to the Middle East, and send the Magnificent to transport vehicles and stores, and to act as a temporary mobile Canadian base for rations, medical supplies, ammunition, fuel and limited accommodation stores, until more permanent base arrangements could be made ashore. It was indicated that the Magnificent would also provide a small base hospital, serve as a force headquarters and provide communications between the force and Canada.
The provision of this mobile base was an important consideration because one does not send troops off to foreign lands-at least I would not want that responsibility-until one knows how they are going to be supplied and cared for, and none of these things had then been decided.
The next day I announced the immediate organization of a battalion group, to be composed of the first battalion Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, located at Calgary, with signals, engineers, army service corps, ordnance and other supporting units, the numbers of which I gave the day before yesterday in answer to a question of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. In the announcement which I made,
I said:
It is emphasized that the preparation and movement of this force is being taken now without first having had the benefit of consultation with Major-General Burns, the United Nations commander, and it is possible that the type and organization of the Canadian contribution may have to be changed at a later date. However it is considered essential to take all possible steps to have the Canadian contribution ready and available for movement overseas within the shortest possible time.
The following day, November 9, General Burns confirmed officially that the initial form of the force should be independent military groups made self-supporting by having their own signals, transport, engineer, medical and other services. Here I might interject, perhaps, that as a result of Canada's policy

Supply-National Defence of having substantial forces in being, fully trained, well equipped and operationally ready, this plan presented no particular problem.
Incidentally, also, I might say that, of the various battalions available, the first Queen's Own was selected because it was in line for overseas service, and the competence and training state of its personnel made it generally suitable for the job to be done.
While I am dealing with that I would like to answer some of the derogatory remarks, if I may use those words, made about the 1st Queen's Own by the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) which I must say coming from him surprised me. In those remarks the hon. member pretty clearly intimated that this battalion was not in his opinion qualified for the service which had been allocated to it.
The fact is that the first battalion of the 1st Queen's Own Regiment is a very fine, well trained unit, well organized and well led. There were no untrained men in the battalion even though some of them, as is always the case, have been moved into the battalion within the past few months. No battalion in peace time on short notice can move without certain things being done. The first battalion was on short notice and was ordered to report to Halifax by air.
When that order was received, as would be the case in any battalion moving on short notice, there were certain men in the 1st Queen's Own not available for these reasons: Some were below immediate medical standards, others were under 18 years of age, there were some under 21 years of age and married who would not be able to claim their marriage allowance and there were a few who had less than six months to serve and who had indicated they did not wish to reengage. There were also a few compassionate cases, there were some on leave who could not be reached in time, there were some on courses. There were four, I think, absent without leave. Generally speaking there were a total of 127 in these categories, as would be the case in any battalion ordered to make a quick move. These probably will ultimately be doing what we might call "the housekeeping" for the 1st Queen's Own at their home station in Calgary during the battalion's absence.
In order to bring the battalion up to strength quickly, and in fact up to almost 100 over peacetime strength, certain personnel- I think about 240 which was the number mentioned by my hon. friend-were drafted from the first battalion to the second battalion. We must remember these are both battalions of the same regiment.
[Mr. Campney.l


Mr. Pearkes:: Do you not mean they were drafted from the second battalion to the first battalion?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, I am sorry. Men were drafted from the second battalion to the first battalion. These two battalions, of course, belong to the same regiment and being sister battalions the men required could be supplied quickly. Very little time will be taken in bringing the 2nd Queen's Own up to strength again. I think there are approximately between two and three hundred at the regimental depot of the two battalions in Calgary. No other units were asked to supply drafts. The whole battalion is a Queen's Own battalion and it is approximately 100 over peacetime strength. Therefore, if you take the 96 which I think is the exact figure by which it is over strength, all of whom went to Halifax, and if you take off the 127, you pretty well account for the transfer to it of the men from the 2nd Queen's Own.
One other point raised by the hon. member when he spoke was his statement to the effect it has always been the practice in the past that the men who are under 19 should not be sent out of Canada. Well, I think the hon. member is in error in that regard. So far as I know, it has always been the practice, certainly ever since I have been familiar with the department, that men over 18 have gone to the NATO force in Europe. It is true that in active warfare such as Korea where they went out as combatant troops the age was 19. It is left pretty much to the exigencies of the situation into which they are going. In this case the same rule was applied to the police force troops as was applied in the case of our troops going to NATO.
The hon. member wanted to know how many of these men were under 19. As a matter of fact, there were 99 in the first Queen's Own and 65 in the 2nd Queen's Own. Service abroad can take place any time after 18 years of age. I think the set-up of the 1st Queen's Own was a normal set-up and on short notice the force that was required was provided quickly and without any confusion. The hon. gentleman said that these men were hurriedly brought from the 2nd Queen's Own to the 1st Queen's Own. If he means by "hurriedly" in point of time that is quite correct, but I can assure him there was no confusion or difficulty in the matter. It was achieved very quickly and smoothly.
I might say that consideration was given briefly to airlifting to the Middle East a battalion from the brigade group in Germany but this proved entirely unnecessary and for obvious reasons we would have been reluctant under existing circumstances to weaken our NATO forces in Europe.

Supply-National Defence
Now may I deal for a moment with the second stage of the preparation made to accomplish the plan I outlined a few moments ago. It was clearly realized at this time that although we had General Burns' approval of the nature of our contribution before it could be actually dispatched, we must have the approval of the United Nations, the body under whose orders General Burns acts. Nevertheless, in view of the well understood urgency of the requirements, arrangements were immediately made to ready the units and details forming the basis of our promised contribution.
On November 12, to prepare the way for Canada's contribution, 35 army officers and men were sent ahead by air to Naples as an exploratory party to look into the situation there and to take care of all necessary preliminary planning and arangements for such Canadian troops as might follow.
On November 12, a Royal Canadian Air Force airlift began, concentrating at Longue Pointe, Quebec, the army personnel designated for duty in the service units for the 1st Queen's Own battalion.
The next day, November 13, the main body of the 1st Queen's Own started to move by R.C.A.F. planes to Halifax, in an airlift involving 877 personnel, which was completed in 67 hours.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) a day or two ago asked me about the cost of this airlift. It is extremely difficult, of course, to dissociate it from other costs of operating these planes in any event, but so far as can be determined for gas, oil and additional expenses of that nature the cost was approximately $29,000; that is, in addition to their normal duties.
In the meantime, the Magnificent had been recalled by the Navy at top speed from Scotland, warned to start refitting en route and be prepared for a quick turn-around. Breasting heavy seas, she arrived in Halifax on the evening of November 13, and by the afternoon of November 18 was extensively refitted, restocked and loaded, with steam up, ready for the order to transport to the Middle East nearly 1,000 service personnel with all their requisite jeeps, trucks, ambulances and other heavy equipment as well as several hundred tons of rations, petrol and other supplies.
The hon. member for Calgary North also asked me what it cost to refit the Magnificent for this particular duty. There will be an item in the estimates covering it. It is estimated to have cost about $50,000 although I cannot give the detailed figures at the moment.
Arrangements were also completed with the Royal Canadian Air Force to airlift the
250 officers and men of the servicing troops so that the whole contingent would arrive at Naples at about the same time, and if this move had gone forward on schedule all these troops would have been there early in the present week. But, just as all the military plans were being completed to carry out the operations to which I have referred, it became apparent that difficulties had developed between the United Nations and Egypt with respect to the composition, the duties to be performed, and other questions having to do with the United Nations Emergency force. While these difficulties were in process of being straightened out General Burns was also reviewing his situation and establishing an altered priority of requirements in order to get his force set up and operating. Fortunately the preparations that we in Canada had been making made it possible for us to meet his altered needs because we had always had in mind that this might occur. We were only trying to be ahead of the gun by getting what we thought was a proper contingent ready.
On Monday, November 19, with the endorsation of the secretary general of the United Nations, General Burns formally asked Canada to meet his priority need for an augmented transport squadron to provide air lift support from the staging base at Naples to points in Egypt. He had only three chartered Swiss airliners and the charter was expiring. There was a further priority need for sufficient service troops to make possible the establishment of his headquarters so that the international police force could start functioning.
Our answer to this request was immediately "yes", and then on November 19 for the first time, as I have said, with the specific approval of both the secretary general of the United Nations and of the United Nations commander we began the third stage of our efforts to support the emergency force.
435 transport squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Force from Namao, Alberta, was released from other duties and positioned at Downsview, Toronto, for immediate dispatch overseas with supporting ground crew, ground handling equipment and aircraft spare parts. 426 transport squadron of Montreal was ordered to prepare to assist 435 squadron in its move overseas and also to airlift to Naples the army service units which had been assembled at Longue Pointe, Quebec, originally to go overseas in support of the 1st Queen's Own.
On Tuesday, November 20, the cabinet met in the morning to formulate the necessary order in council, which was passed, and then the movements overseas were initiated immediately by the departure of a North Star

Supply-National Defence aircraft carrying an advance party headed by the air officer commanding, air transport command. Since that time successive flights have continued and as of yesterday 309 army personnel and 328 air force personnel, or 637 in all, are now in the Middle East. There may be others en route but I am not sure as to the exact number. However, that is the number actually overseas. The twelve North Stars of 426 transport squadron are now operating an airlift between Canada and Naples in support of the Canadian United Nations emergency force contingent.
The army personnel in the Middle East, when their airlift over is completed, will represent service elements so essential to the functioning of any force. The day before yesterday I indicated that the component elements were made up of the army service corps, signals, army medical corps, ordnance, R.C.E.M.E. and engineers.
The 328 Canadian Air Force personnel now in the Middle East will be increased as required to 599. They are made up of the air crew and ground crew for the twelve C-119 aircraft or flying boxcars of 435 transport squadron which on Sunday last took over the United Nations emergency force airlift responsibility across the Mediterranean for taking men and supplies from Naples via Crete to the United Nations emergency force base at Abu Suweir in Egypt.
The order in council which was passed on November 20 provided for the dispatch of up to 2,500 members of Canada's armed forces as this country's contribution to the United Nations emergency force organized "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East". In addition to the 637 army and air force personnel now with the United Nations emergency force overseas, and approximately 275 Royal Canadian Air Force personnel who are still available if required, there are 900 officers and men of the 1st Queen's Own at Halifax ready to go, by sea or air as required, and the 600 composing the reduced ship's company of the Magnificent. These elements of the three services which I have just mentioned make up roughly the 2,500 Canadians authorized for service with the United Nations emergency force.	,
I trust that the brief chronology which I have endeavoured to give hon. members and put on Hansard of events as they took place during the serious, uncertain, rapidly changing and unprecedented period through which we have just been passing will be sufficient to indicate how capably our armed forces have taken hold of each urgent demand made of them, and how insistent we have been because of the extreme gravity of the situation that there should be nothing dilatory, nothing hesitant, in our efforts to anticipate
[Mr. Campney.l
the needs of the United Nations emergency force.
While proud to be a part of this international force and being fully aware of the risks inherent in such an operation, Canada's concern has been and continues to be simply this: Within the limits that the government has defined to make whatever contribution the United Nations authorities assure us could best serve the interests of the emergency force and to make it available quickly. All else must be secondary to that.
What we have been dealing with is not a mere staff exercise to gather and move troops, but rather a dynamic and so far successful effort to help create an institution unique in the world's history, a United Nations police force designed by its international character specifically to discourage the outbreak of further fighting in the Middle East and thus make possible the hope of an enduring peace.
I should like here to interject a few personal observations arising out of this brief period of rather intensified activity in the Department of National Defence. A great deal of credit rightly accrues to the uniformed and civilian members of our staff for the whole hearted way in which they have pitched into the rush assignments given to them. I think they deserve the warm commendation of this house and this country for their efforts. I have been particularly impressed by the efficient and competent and decisive way in which the services have quickly planned and executed each order and each change necessitated by changing events.
Especially notable has been the team work of the services working together with a fine tri-service co-operation and esprit de corps with only one objective in mind: to do a job of which Canada can be proud. While our activities thus far have not been on a particularly large scale, yet they do represent the largest single operation of recent years to be carried out on a tri-service basis. This has been to me one of the most encouraging aspects of this matter, as I am sure it must be to my predecessor and former colleague, the Honourable Brooke Claxton, who did so much to initiate the tri-service concept in our service regulations.
By good organization and by good planning, by getting the necessary troops and transports prepared and strategically located, it proved possible in a few days to do the following.
First, to airlift from Canada to Italy and Egypt several hundred air force and army personnel and a substantial tonnage of army supplies, aircraft spares and ground handling equipment.
Second, to establish an airlift from Italy to Egypt.

Third, to establish an airlift from Canada to Italy to back up the Canadian contingent now serving in the United Nations emergency force.
Fourth, to establish just a few days ago, last Saturday, in Egypt, the first Canadian element of the emergency force that will serve there. At the moment there are just under 200 personnel at Abu Suweir Egypt.
This sort of achievement has been made possible by the policy, which has been energetically pursued over the past six years, of building sufficient forces in being, trained for immediate employment, and with the necessary equipment, transportation and ancillary services to bring them into effective action with a minimum of delay.
There has, I note, been some, though very little, I am glad to say, criticism of the changes in plans that from time to time have characterized some of our activities during these recent hectic days. Let me say that such changes were actuated only by a desire on our part to be ready at all times to act in accordance with the wishes of the United Nations. Every change that we made was made after prior approval by the United Nations, and every step that we took was similarly approved before it was made.
There was some criticism at one point in the debate with respect to whether we were working closely with General Burns, whether we knew what he had in mind, whether he knew what we could best supply and so on. When the force was bruited we immediately sent to New York three senior officers, specialists in their particular branches, and they are still in New York working with the United Nations staff. But we did more than that. When General Burns finally arrived in New York after considerable delay, we sent the chief of the general staff and the chief of the air staff to New York and they had long conferences with him on all problems confronting us. Therefore I think there is a meeting of minds as to what he has in view and as to what steps we should take, and I think the relationship is excellent and should be very helpful in the future.
There is one other thing. If in the face of unprecedented events, unprecedented confusion and very real danger to peace, the United Nations and the United Nations commander have seen fit from time to time, under these new and strange circumstances, to change their plans and their requests, let us try to realize their difficulties. Let us at least give them credit for the same earnestness of purpose that actuates our own actions and the same urgent desire to make progress in the great and vital work that we have undertaken together. On that phase of the matter I think I might very well quote from 81537-11
Supply-National Defence a recent editorial in the Ottawa Journal. It seems to me to sum up our position in this matter very closely. In an editorial that appeared in the Ottawa Journal on November 21 these words are found:
While it would have been satisfying to Canadian pride to have our pioneering suggestion for the peace-policy force followed by immediate Canadian battalion participation in that force, much more than the self esteem of individual nations is at stake. This is United Nations' business, not Canadian business or commonwealth or NATO business. It was not for Ottawa to set planes or ships or men in motion after she had made them available for the instructions of U.N. What Canada has undertaken to do, and must do, is serve in the way U.N. wishes.
May I now say a word about the expenditures which we will be looking at. Because of the defence expenditures and defence programs that it has so consistently supported and endorsed in recent years, this parliament can, I believe, feel gratified that when a testing time such as this has come Canada's armed forces have proved themselves to be decisive, efficient and effective.
With regard to the estimates now before you, as Canadian participation in the United Nations emergency force is to be provided from the regular navy, army and air force in being, the additional costs involved will be limited to those expenditures that may be required by reason of the employment of these forces in this particular role rather than in their normal peace-time role in Canada.
While some data are available from which these additional costs can be estimated, hon. members will realize that in large part they are at this time a matter of conjecture. In an effort, however, to have some appreciation of the possible costs involved in this operation I have had our officials concerned estimate, as best they could, the costs which might likely be incurred for the remainder of the fiscal year. These come all told to just under $5 million. I have asked them to prepare a breakdown of these expenses for the three services, and with the consent of the committee I should like to table this document. I have prepared copies which can be distributed immediately to all members. It may be useful in considering the estimates.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the hon. member asking leave to table or have printed?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I do not think it is necessary to print it unless the house wishes to have that done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have it in Hansard.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the wish of the committee that this be printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The breakdown is as follows:

Supply-National Defence



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
Royal Canadian Navy
Pay and allowances	
Travelling and removal expenses	
Gasoline, fuel oil and lubricants for ships, aircraft and mechanical equipment
Food supplies	
Naval stores	
Repairs and upkeep of equipment	
All other expenditures	
(3)
(5)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(17)
(22)
Canadian Army
Civil salaries and wages	
Pay and allowances	
Travelling and removal expenses	
Freight, express and cartage	
Postage	
Telephones, telegrams and other communication services. Printing of departmental reports and other publications...
Office stationery, supplies, equipment and furnishings...
Fuel for heating, cooking and power generating units	
Gasoline, fuel oil and lubricants for mechanical equipment
Food supplies	
Miscellaneous materials and supplies	
Medical and dental supplies	
Barrack, hospital and camp stores	
Construction of buildings and works	
Repairs and upkeep of buildings and works	
Rentals of land, buildings and works	
Major procurement of equipment-
Signal and wireless equipment	
Miscellaneous equipment	
Repairs and upkeep of equipment	
All other expenditures	
(1)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8) (9)
(ID
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16) (16) (17) (22)
Royal Canadian Air Force
Civil salaries and wages	
Pay and allowances	
Travelling and removal expenses	
Freight, express and cartage	
Postage	 * *
Telephones, telegrams, cables and other communication services Materials and supplies-
Fuel for heating, cooking and power generating units	
Aviation gasoline, oil and lubricants for aircraft	
Food supplies	
Acquisition of land, buildings and works	
Repair and upkeep of buildings and works	
Aircraft and engines	
Repair and upkeep and equipment	
Municipal and public utility services	
All other expenditures	
(1)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(13)
(14) (16) (17) (19) (22)
Total all services
[Stage Direction]
31.000
115.000
98.000
24.000
102.000
50.000
75.000
495,000
40.000
183.500
572.500
290.000
4.000
300.000
8.500
18.000
5.000
70.000
299.000
51.500
76.500
18.000 80,000
35.000
35.000
1.500
29.000
190.000
276.000
2,583,000
40.000
50.000
250.000
10.000 2,000
30.000
20.000
450.000
96.000
50.000
25.000
600.000
150.000
10.000
113.000
[Stage Direction]
Discussions are still taking place in the United Nations with respect to the payment of costs of the emergency force, and it is probable that some of these extra costs will be paid by the United Nations. In this event a supplementary contribution from Canada to the United Nations will undoubtedly be required but in any event the additional cost to Canada to the end of the current fiscal year should not, I feel, go beyond the figure I have mentioned. In the light of all the uncertainties surrounding the expenditures of defence moneys, there are no grounds at this time to seek authority for additional funds and that is why the appropriation now before the house, as I am sure hon. members will all realize, must be regarded as a purely nominal amount.
If, towards the end of the fiscal year, it is evident that as a result of the additional costs incurred in this operation the present defence appropriation will prove inadequate, a further supplementary estimate will be sought. I might add this word in regard to defence expenditures. To date they are running very close to our estimates so there is no significant margin of unused appropriations to be expected, but it is hoped that the margin will be sufficient to cover the additional expenditures incurred in connection with the emergency force.
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, we on this
side of the house, as has already been shown by our vote, believe it is desirable that Canada share with the other nations composing the United Nations in sending a force to the Middle East designed and prepared to prevent hostilities in that troubled part of the world and to carry out the general police duties to which it may be assigned. We share with the government the knowledge that the people of this country, as well the peoples of other countries, crave urgently for peace, and it does seem that here is an opportunity for Canada as well as for the United Nations to take positive steps in order to secure and maintain peace. Surely that has been one of the roles of the Canadian defence forces throughout the years, and today our design is not for aggressive war but to preserve peace and to allow the citizens of this land to live in peace.
That may have been the general concept of the defence forces some years ago but it has broadened now since we have become a member of this great international organization, the United Nations, as well as a very active member of a smaller grouping of nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I am perfectly convinced that the only way in which peace can be maintained is by some form of collective action.
81537-Hi
Supply-National Defence It is quite impossible in these days for any one country either to defend its own shores against an aggressor or to preserve the peace of the world by its own action. Therefore, realizing that collective action is necessary, we want to ensure that our contribution to that collective force is an effective and efficient one and that our troops will be taking part in an operation which has every reason to be successful.
I am also aware of the fact that the moral effect of a large number of nations sending their contingents for one particular purpose will, to a large extent, outbalance the lack of military cohesion which must exist, to a certain extent, in any international force. It would not be possible for Canada or for any other one country to send a properly balanced police force, with one country supplying the various arms which are required for that work, and to achieve the same moral effect as is to be achieved by a force composed of soldiers, sailors and airmen drawn from, as I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said, 22 nations. I should like to stress the moral effect of this collective security force.
Bearing that fact in mind, may I say that it is essential that whatever force is sent into this disturbed area must be sufficiently strong to carry out the tasks which are assigned to it, and within the various components it must be a sufficiently balanced force so that it will be capable of carrying out the various roles it may be called upon to carry out. I refer to roles such as the reconnaissance of distant approaches and so forth. During the course of the debate, we have endeavoured to find out what is the composition of this international force. That information has been denied to us. We have not been told what countries are supplying the troops. We have not been told what type of troops these various countries are supplying. In the previous remarks that I made I pointed out that, owing to the nature of the terrain in which our Canadian troops are likely to be stationed, it is essential that those troops be provided with the means of reconnaissance, with great flexibility and mobility. It is not essential that Canada supply all those types of troops but it is essential that some country supply them. It may be Canada's role to provide the base in the form of H.M.C.S. Magnificent; it may be Canada's role to provide the transport aircraft and it may be Canada's accepted role to provide an infantry battalion. An infantry battalion will be required in the forces which are being assembled. However, we should like to know that the infantry battalion Canada is supplying will have the support that any infantry

Supply-National Defence battalion may require in order to carry out the tasks which it may be called upon to perform.
With regard to the Queen's Own Rifles, may 1 say this. Because of my anxiety that these young Canadian soldiers should have reasonable protection, that they should be safeguarded when going into this dangerous country and serving in a terrain with which they are totally unfamiliar because they have had no training in desert warfare or even in how to live in desert country, I made certain inquiries. I was surprised that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) should have stooped to a low political trick in saying that I had made any derogatory remarks about the first battalion of the Queen's Own. The minister used words to the effect that he was surprised that I had made derogatory remarks.


Ralph Osborne Campney: He was.


George Randolph Pearkes: These are the remarks that I made, and I am reading from page 80 of Hansard:
... to my personal knowledge, by something over 240 men and some of those men had been in the unit for only a few short months, less than six months.
Today the Minister of National Defence confirmed the fact that there were 240 men or thereabouts who had been sent from the second battalion in order to make up the first battalion. He also said that some of these men had only a few months of training. I never used the word "untrained". The minister put that word into my mouth. It is not contained anywhere in my speech.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am quite content to let Hansard speak for itself.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did say that some men had only a few months' training. Then I went on to point out that many of these men had not reached their nineteenth birthday, that they were eighteen years of age. I did not know-and I said I did not know-how many there were. I asked the minister how many there were under nineteen years of age. The minister gave that answer this afternoon and, if I heard him correctly, the number amounted to a total of 165. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that 165 youths under 19 years of age in a battalion totalling 952. according to the figure which the minister gave me the day before yesterday, is a high percentage of young soldiers with onlv a few months of training. I never said that the regiment was unfit. I have seen these men in training. They are fine, healthy young Canadians. We have not got any better anywhere in this country or in any country. But it is only fair to them that they have

reasonable protection when they are being sent to a theatre in which conditions are so utterly different from those conditions under which they received their previous training. It was for that reason I spoke the other day and asked for assurances that everything was being done not only to safeguard our young men going into a different and dangerous operation, but also for their health.
I can only repeat that we believe Canada should make a contribution. I repeat that we believe it is essential that the force going to the Middle East should be sufficiently strong and well equipped so it has a reasonable chance to carry out, with a reasonable degree of safety, the very difficult assignment it has to perform. The difficulties which that force may experience cannot be emphasized too greatly. I understand, from what has been said here during this week, that even since we met the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated somewhat. There are indications that Russia has been sending more supplies into Syria, and perhaps also numbers of volunteers. While we devoutly hope that our Canadian contribution will only have to be employed in ordinary police duties, either in the desert or on the Suez canal, we must face up to the fact that if the situation deteriorates a great deal more then that force may have to fulfil its role as a military force and not a police force. I do not know whether it would be possible for the United Nations to withdraw those troops if the situation did deteriorate and active military operations became necessary. I do not think they could. Let us, therefore, take every precaution we possibly can to safeguard the lives of these young men who are sent out.
Another comment that I should like to make is this. This afternoon we were told that there would be a supply base and headquarters on the Magnificent. I believe the minister also said there would be a small base hospital. It seems to me rather unwise to place a hospital at headquarters, because if the situation did deteriorate then headquarters would be a very vulnerable point of attack. I would prefer to see the hospital placed elsewhere. Surely it would not be impossible to transport our casualties or injured from the immediate area, and to have a hospital established perhaps in Italy, Cyprus or some other place.
When I come to the question of expense, it is impossible for me to comment on the detailed expenditures. I have not even received the table yet, but my hon. friend on my left has a copy. I had to rise to speak before the page boy was able to deliver it to me. The estimates call for an expenditure of $1. It is obvious that this is
merely a nominal amount, and authorized funds being spent have already been voted for another purpose. As the minister has just indicated, he will be prepared to bring forward a supplementary estimate if that is necessary. He has given us an indication that the total amount to be spent on this contribution to the United Nations emergency force will be in the nature of some $5 million. That would appear to be a reasonable amount for the work which is being undertaken.
I should like the minister to tell us something of the accommodation which these troops are likely to have. We have had the experience of finding that providing accommodation in Europe for our Canadian forces has run into very large sums of money. There was a term coined for it, I think "infrastructure". I do not know whether that is to be applied to the type of expenditures which are to be made for the housekeeping of troops in the Suez. No doubt that will be explained in further detail, but we should like to know something about the accommodation that is to be provided.
There is one further question I should like to ask. Would the minister clear up the point? Suppose the United Nations emergency force is ordered to take part in operations other than those to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred this morning. Does the government consider it has authority to send those troops to some other theatre in the Middle East, or would it require additional grants of money or official permission from parliament in order to do that? I understand that we are sending these troops as part of the United Nations emergency force, purely and solely for employment in Egypt and the Suez district.


Owen Lewis Jones: Supply-National Defence see that they and their families are amply protected. I pass it on to the minister for his consideration.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks, but I would prefer to defer them if the minister wishes to answer any of the questions that have been raised.


Ralph Osborne Campney: One question was raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. He asked as to the composition of the United Nations emergency force. Of course we must all realize that this force is being built up gradually, and I can only give him its status as of now. It is not the complete force, but it may be of interest to him and other hon. members as well.
The elements so far are these: An air transport squadron from Canada, which I have already mentioned; service troops, engineers, signals and other specialized troops from Canada, which I have also already mentioned; a transport squadron from Sweden; ambulance company from Norway; supply platoons for handling rations, etc., from India; half a battalion from Colombia; half a battalion from Denmark; a similar number from Norway, which are combined into one battalion; half a battalion from Finland and half a battalion from Sweden, which are also combined into a battalion; a full battalion from India; and mechanized recon-naisance platoons and supporting elements from Yugoslavia, a total of 4,367. I think a few of the troops I have mentioned from India are in transit but have not yet arrived. That is as near as we can get the figures up to date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question. Perhaps either one of the ministers might also at this point answer one of the other questions put by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I think we all know from what the Prime Minister said in 1950 what the answer is, but I believe it would be well to have it on the record; namely, that if the government finds it necessary to commit troops in that area for any other purpose than that set out in the present order in council, another order in council will have to be issued and, according to section 33 of the National Defence Act, parliament will have to be called again. I think it might be well just to have that assurance made clear in the manner in which the Prime Minister made it in 1950. At the same time I feel that the government should have our assurance-and we of this group feel that way that if the United Nations does call for further commitments for international police action while parliament would have to meet


according to law, it would be prepared t( support such further action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the present force is operating under a United Nations resolution designed to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in Egypt. I had better read the exact words of the order in council:
Authority is hereby given for the maintenance on active service of officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force, not exceeding 2,500 in number at any one time, as a part of or in immediate support of an emergency international force organized by the United Nations to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East.
Now, if hostilities in the Middle East break out again or spread within the meaning of that order in council the government, under that order in council, would be authorized to use troops that Canada sent up to that number to supervise and secure the cessation of hostilities in some other part of the Middle East; but hostilities would have to cease first. That would not apply, of course, to the use of this force as a police force to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in other areas except the Middle East.


Mr. Winch:: That will include Jordan and Syria?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, but there have been no hostilities.


Harold Edward Winch: But if they do break out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If there were hostilities, say, between Jordan and Israel, and if the United Nations intervened and managed to bring about a cessation of those hostilities and the police force was required to supervise and secure the cessation of those hostilities, then this force could be used; but this force could not be used, as I understand it, under the order in council or under the United Nations resolution to bring about the cessation of hostilities itself.


George Randolph Pearkes: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us a more detailed definition of the Middle East? I was under the impression from the remarks he made earlier that this force was confined purely to police work along the boundary of Israel and Egypt and along the Suez. Now he has extended it to cover some rather vague terms, the Middle East.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, the functions of the United Nations force-I am not now talking about the order in council-as agreed to in the United Nations resolution, are specifically limited to the cessation of hostilities between Israel, the United Kingdom and France on the one hand and Egypt

on the other, and the United Nations resolution itself does not cover any area other than that which has already been the scene of hostilities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think this might be the appropriate time for me to repeat the request I made in speaking in the general debate, as to whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could give us anything further in regard to the total number which it is envisaged will be employed in this police force.
The Minister of National Defence has told us that to date there are about 4,000 people or some figure in that neighbourhood who have been promised. There have been various figures quoted in newspaper reports. The last one I saw in yesterday's or this morning's newspaper was 6,000. Mr. Hammarskjold said they were envisaging 6,000 people. Perhaps at this time the minister would have information as to what the total force to be employed there is envisaged to be and how they are going to be used.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the only information I have from the United Nations is that the secretary general and the commanding officer of the force do envisage an increase of the force up to 6,000 within a short period of time, that already there have been contributions offered to the force which would make possible that increase shortly. Whether it should be later increased to 8,000, 10,000 or even more will depend on the duties and the functions of the force after they have been ascertained in the light of the experience they will acquire while they are there. I am afraid that is all I can say at the present time, but there is no limit in the United Nations resolution as to what the force might be if it were required.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does that 6,000 include the 2,400 or 2,500 which Canada has committed, or is that only the Canadian contingent which is already there? In other words, is it exclusive of the Queen's Own?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, this morning I asked the United Nations secretary general, or rather his executive assistant because I was not able to get the secretary general, whether this figure I had seen in the telegram did envisage a further contribution from Canada within that period about which he was talking, within the next week or two, to build it up to 6,000, and I was assured that it did.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister while he is replying to this particular question, if it were found that
Supply-National Defence more than 6,000 were required to do the job who would make the decision about increasing the number?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, that is one of the questions it is difficult to answer categorically, and I know it must be unsatisfactory to hon. members of the house not to get categorical answers to questions of this kind. I also know hon. members appreciate that not only has there not been very much time to work out the answers but there has not been very much time even in which to work out some of the questions.
As it is at present envisaged the secretary general himself would receive from the commanding officer of the force a request for additional formations to do the job which the United Nations has asked him to do. If that which he had was not sufficient then the secretary general in the first instance would take up the request with the assembly advisory committee which was set up for the purpose of advising him. If the request for additional troops was not a very large one it might very well be possible to meet that request without any further steps being taken by applying to one or another of the countries that had indicated a desire to help but whose contributions had not been called for, or it might be possible to ask some other country. If it were a substantial increase it might be necessary to come back to the full assembly and ask for authority to increase the force by a certain number.


Solon Earl Low: Does the minister know whether the emergency force will occupy the whole of the canal zone, or is there some limitation already placed on the territory into which it will go?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There has been no decision reached, Mr. Chairman. That will have to be decided in the light of the circumstances. As I understand it there has been no actual limitation on the area which the force would occupy to carry out the functions that have been allocated to it.


Mr. Michener:: On the same subject of the constitution of the force, I understand there is a limitation in that the major powers are not free to serve on the force; that is, the United States-well, I am not sure about the United States-


An hon. Member:: Yes, all four.


Daniel Roland Michener: -but Russia, Great Britain and France. Perhaps the minister could say what specific limitation there is as to who may be associated with our troops in this force, whether there is any power to reject any force that is offered and, if so, who has
160	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence the power of rejection. In that case would it have to go to the assembly or could it be handled by the secretary general. I do not want to ask questions which are not capable of being answered, but I would like the minister to tell us how definite the arrangements are at the present time. I think it is important for the house to know just what troops our forces may be serving with and who has the say as to what will be the constitution of the force.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has pointed out there is, of course, a very important limitation placed on this force by the exclusion of the permanent members of the security council. That is indeed a limitation; but even with that exclusion there is a great deal of the world left from which to draw from the governments of the members of the United Nations who wish to make additional contributions. There is no other limitation in the offer of contributions to the United Nations for this purpose. Twenty-three governments have made offers up to the present time, and I think eight of these have been taken up. The offers are made to the secretary general and he has not refused any. He has accepted certain offers and he will draw on the others as he requires and as he thinks it is desirable to do so. He has, however, been given one general instruction by the assembly in this resolution, that his force should be to the maximum extent possible a balanced force.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Could I ask a supplementary question. I am not quite clear from the answer the minister gave exactly what Canada's contribution is going to be in the next week or two. The minister said that the 6,000 men who are envisaged as constituting this force within the next week or within a comparatively short period of time-I do not know exactly what length of time he mentioned-would include the 2,400 Canadians who have been committed to this task by the Canadian government. I take that to mean the Queen's Own are included in this 6,000 who will be committed within a week or two weeks or whatever length of time it was the minister mentioned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say exactly whether in the secretary general's calculations for an increase of say 1,500 or 2,000 in the next few weeks he has in mind the whole of the Queen's Own. I have been informed that he has in mind a further drawing on Canadian troops to make up the force to the figure he has in mind now for immediate use; and whether that will include


the use of all the Queen's Own I cannot say. I do know, however, and my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence will bear me out in this, that within the last 48 hours we have had another request from the secretary general passed on to him by the commanding officer for additional signal troops from Canada, and we are not quite sure whether we can fit that in within the Queen's Own and within the maximum of 2,500. That is what we are looking into at the moment.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The situation is essentially this, that as far as the Queen's Own are concerned you are still not in a position to know whether or not they are going to be employed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are standing by, Mr. Chairman, at the call of the secretary general and the commanding officer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. I began to think if I was too good natured I might not get on all afternoon.
We have voted along with the rest of the house for this emergency force, Mr. Chairman, and speaking for myself I am reminded of the feelings I had when I attended the United Nations some three years ago. When I came back I had two reactions. First of all, I felt I had never seen such frustration in my life. In the second place, I felt that if the United Nations did not exist already it should be invented immediately so as to keep people together, in the hope that while they are talking they will not be taking up arms against each other.
I hope no one will think I am at all facetious in dealing with this terribly serious situation. I would use an argument which I often used away back in the days of the league of nations. The same argument can be used today. When I hear people say that the United Nations is doing nothing at all, that it has never done anything, that it should be got rid of, my mind goes back to a famous cartoon during the first world war and which perhaps is not wholly inapplicable to the case today. This cartoon showed two men sitting in a deep shell hole. It was not a very comfortable shell hole because there was a lot of water in it. Shells were bursting all around and evidently the men were having quite a controversy. Then at last one of them said, "If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it".
As I say, I do not want anyone to think that I am being facetious about a dreadfully serious matter. I do feel and have always felt that we should do our best to keep the United Nations together. We should try never to become cynical about it. We should always hope, even when that hope seems hardest to

have, that it will continue. However, we must face the fact that people are having a great searching of hearts at this moment regarding this emergency force. An illustration was given of the criminal who was allowed to prescribe his own jailer and how long he would stay in jail and what he would do while there. I am not a bit surprised that people have that feeling in the face of the news reports of the last two weeks indicating what Mr. Nasser would have and what he would not have. I do not think the minister has been completely successful in satisfying us on this point. For myself I am still doubtful, and I suggest to the minister that it might be helpful to all concerned if he could give us a little more of the constitutional background, so to speak, of this force and what the assembly has power to do and what it has not power to do.
I understand that there is a difference between the force of 1950 which was set up by the security council and this one. I understand that this is a vastly different type of force. I understand that it has been set up under a resolution which operates only when all the parties, including the policed party, are in agreement. If that is so then I suggest we should know it, so we will not be expecting things of this force which it cannot do. Up to the moment it has perplexed me, and I think it has perplexed a number of other people.
There is just one other thing I wish to say. I want to refer to the imaginative suggestion made by my colleague the hon. member for Prince Albert in his speech today, when he suggested that we needed to do two things. First, we needed to pull the commonwealth together and, second, we needed to heal the breach between the United States and the commonwealth. I think we will all agree that those are two overwhelming problems which face us now. I should like to suggest two things to the minister, and they are not new.
I should like to suggest that although it may sound like a rather large order for one of our colleagues sitting here in the Canadian House of Commons to suggest that he should take the initiative, which would be a tremendous initiative, nevertheless I feel that Canada is in a very special position to do that. We have talked about ourselves, sometimes tiresomely, as being a bridge. I think Churchill used that term and I believe he was technically wrong. At any rate we do occupy a unique position in between these two nations. We talk the language of both Britain and the United States; we talk it both literally and metaphorically. They both know
Supply-National Defence us; they both like and respect us. Therefore I suggest to the minister that a great deal can be done.
I want to be frank with the minister. I feel that all of us in this house recognize the position he has made for us at the United Nations. He has been there a long time and has got to know everybody. I believe he has a tremendous influence. But like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I have always been just a little concerned as to where the minister stands with regard to the commonwealth. We are a little concerned whether he has been able to feature it, so to speak; whether he has been able to bring it into the forefront. I remember looking at a book written by the minister; I believe it was called "Democracy in Action". It consisted of a series of six lectures delivered at Princeton University. I remember a reviewer pointing out that he could hardly find the word "commonwealth" mentioned in the book. I hope I am not exaggerating, but-


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is a chapter on it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That was the impression left on the reviewer, and so far as my reading of the book was concerned it was the impression left on me. I feel the minister is keen about the commonwealth. But I think a lot of people in this country feel that perhaps he has not been able to give it the prominence in his speeches he would have liked. At any rate, without labouring the point further I just wish to go back to what I said at the outset and to add that the imaginative suggestion of the hon. member for Prince Albert is not airy, fairy nonsense. I think it is practical, and I believe there is no better source from which a move to that end could come than Canada and the Canadian minister of external affairs.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken yet in this debate and I shall take only a few minutes. What I have to say will be based on the statement made by the hon. member who has just spoken who said that we needed frankness. They have not been frank during this last week. We are dealing with only two issues. The first is whether we are prepared to support the action of the Canadian government in connection with the establishment of an emergency force, and the second is the matter of providing money for the relief of Hungarian refugees. We have been dealing with these matters from Monday up to the present time, when they could have been settled in two hours. In my estimation the time since Monday has been spent by the official opposition for the purposes of a Conservative convention and an election next June.

Supply-National Defence
If you have an emergency situation and must reach a decision during a critical time like this-I am a C.C.F.'er, not a Liberal- I do not think we should be asking for a breakdown of the money that is to be spent on freight, express, postage, telephones and telegrams. As members of parliament I think we would be stupid if we expected that kind of thing during a special session called to make emergency decisions.
As I said, I have not spoken before and intend to speak for only two or three minutes. All my years in politics have been spent in opposition, both in British Columbia and here. I believe there are times when we should forget completely our party and politics and be concerned only with decisions. This is such a time. There are occasions when responsibility must rest with the government. During my 23 years in opposition I have found myself in opposition to Liberals more than once, but on this occasion I am prepared to say I think Canada through the minister of external affairs has made a contribution which has meant a great deal to the world and to the preservation of the commonwealth.
We are wrong in this House of Commons to hold up the house on questions such as whether it is to be the Queen's Own Rifles, the Seaforth Highlanders or anybody else that is to go over to Egypt, or how they are to be equipped. The government has the responsibility and if it fails it will be charged in this house. But I say that because it has made the decision it is its responsibility. We have been discussing telephone charges and everything else on this sheet, and I say it is ridiculous and stupid. I hope that now we will stick strictly to the principle. Do we believe in the force? Yes. Do we believe in Hungarian aid? Yes. Then let us vote for these things and get on right now.


Mr. Quelch:: I wonder whether the Minister of National Defence could clarify the point raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary regarding the degree to which these men are covered by insurance. I understand they are not covered by the general insurance principle of the Pension Act. On the other hand, if these men suffer any form of disability while on duty they will be covered. But what about the man who may be off duty, who may perhaps be sightseeing and some friendly little Arab, we will say, sticks a knife in his back or drops a bomb on him? What is the situation then? Is he covered?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The general principle, and I do not think it has ever been varied, is that when service people are on duty-and 
there is always a question of fact in each case-they are covered and if they are not on duty they are just like anyone else employed in civilian life who is off duty, meets with an accident, gets into trouble or has an accident with his car. I do not think you should consider the liability in the case of the soldier who is off duty as being any different from that of any other person.


Victor Quelch: Surely that is a ridiculous suggestion. Surely you are not going to say that when you send a man into a situation like that existing in Egypt at the present time he is in exactly the same position as if he is wandering down a street in Canada. It is an entirely different situation. Just because a man may not actually be on duty surely is no reason to say that if one of the members of the Arab army or even an Israeli happens to stick a knife in his back there is no greater hazard than if he is walking down a street in Montreal. Surely that man should be covered fully the whole time he is there so far as any action by either the Arab army or the Israeli army is concerned. I can quite understand that if the soldier were run over by a civilian car there perhaps might be some responsibility on the part of the soldier because he was not more careful, but surely he should be covered if he suffers any disability as the result of any action of a member of the Arab army or the Jewish army.


Ralph Osborne Campney: You are dealing with incidents involving members of other forces. In that case the soldier would be taken care of. Certainly we have never had any difficulties, except in the very occasional case such as mentioned by the hon. member who spoke earlier, which has not been amicably adjusted. You have to consider the facts in all these cases. You just cannot say that everybody is covered or is not covered, but I have never been accused in our department of being unreasonable with regard to these cases, and I would be glad to look into the situation as to the police force. I presume the United Nations will be looking into it too, but I do not want to commit myself to a general principle in the face of conditions that are not yet clarified.


Solon Earl Low: Would the United Nations not have some responsibility in this case? I should like to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are looking into their responsibility as an organization now in respect of this international police force,

concerning which there is no precedent inside the United Nations or outside.


Mr. Blair:: I should like to get some information from the Minister of National Defence about the personnel of this police force going from Canada. In his discussion with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich he said that 165 members of the Queen's Own were in the 18-year old class. I think the number of Queen's Own personnel concerned is 952. Therefore we have 165 out of 952, which is a percentage of 17.3. I am disturbed by this percentage of 17.3. In previous wars in which we have had experience our troops were in a climate somewhat the same as that of Canada. The first two wars were in Europe, but conditions in desert warfare and so on are going to be entirely different.
There is no doubt, and let me be clear on this, that these 18-year olds will be brave, bold, venturesome and enthusiastic, but I think this is a very high percentage of 18-year olds. They comoose almost one-fifth of the number of the battalion. I say I find that somewhat disturbing.
I should also like to obtain some information from the minister as to the arrangements to look after these young Canadians. Apparently the Magnificent is going to serve as a base. Just what accommodation will there be on the Magnificent in their so-called sick bay? These men should have a base hospital. An hon. member mentioned that the establishment of a small base hospital next to headquarters is not a good thing. I fully agree with that. In the first war we saw something of what happened in that regard, and I think the minister has some knowledge of that event.
But let us assume there is a sick bay on the Magnificent and a small base hospital. You are going to have to take your convalescents out of there or the hospital will be full. Is there any hospital ship accommodation? Is there any way they can be moved to the mainland for convalescence in Cyprus, Crete or some place like that? We want to be sure that these young Canadians are going to get the very best of accommodation.
I should like to suggest to the minister that this expeditionary force should be handpicked physically. Let the medical officers go over the men and go over them again. If there are any tests that can show a man's stability or weaknesses, let those tests be used. I think it will pay dividends in the long run. I am anxious that this force be one of the best forces Canada can send because it is representing Canada, and I say again that I am disturbed that 17-3 per cent
Supply-National Defence of the Queen's Own are 18-year olds. I should like the minister to make a statement on this matter.


Ralph Osborne Campney: If I may say so, there is some confusion with regard to the treatment of persons who may become ill. When a contribution to the force from Canada was first envisaged nothing was known with respect to whether there were any medical facilities or base facilities to treat people who might become ill. The Magnificent was selected as a base temporarily because there were no such facilities so far as we knew available. In equipping the Magnificent we put in a small hospital as a temporary expedient.
I am advised-and this will answer the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich-that the troops are being very well looked after so far at Abu Suweir, and they have good quarters at Capodichino near Naples. The Norwegians are running a base hospital, and I am sure that the medical facilities that will be available on land will be adequate when the time comes when they are needed.
As to the number of younger soldiers, I am really not perturbed about that because we do try to get healthy young men who will make a career in the army. I can assure the hon. member they are very carefully looked after medically and in every other way, and that the medical examinations that have taken place are very thorough. I was in Egypt for six months in the first world war when I was not out of my teens. I certainly was looked after and I thrived on it.


William Gourlay Blair: You were not doing footwork; you were in the hospital.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I was doing a lot of footwork.


William Gourlay Blair: Yes, in the hospital.


Ralph Osborne Campney: In hospital and out of hospital. But seriously speaking, I agree with the hon. member that we must pay particular attention to health in that area. I think that is being very carefully looked after, and I am sure the hospitals will be land-based.
I might answer another question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I believe, regarding tropical clothing. We have made investigations into that matter, and I am assured that for the winter months the ordinary dress they are now wearing is the proper dress for troops in the Egyptian area. I might also say that the chief of the general staff advised me this morning that he had a report from the commander of the Canadian forces with regard to the situation in which the troops find themselves in Egypt, and that the amenities such as

Supply-National Defence movies, sport facilities and other matters are being very well looked after now. He told me there were no complaints and seemed to be no difficulties. We hope to keep it that way. I agree entirely that the welfare of the troops is just as important on police duty as it is on any other type of duty when the men are away from home.


Mr. Thomas:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue this discussion we had a moment ago with regard to the insurance coverage for the members of this special force. I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions on that subject. The first one is this. Under the present circumstances do the line insurance policies have in them a war clause which would bar the soldier from obtaining benefits if he were on foreign soil on what might be considered to be active service? I know that during the last war a great many of the insurance policies did not apply when the soldiers were overseas or outside of Canada anywhere, whether or not they were actually on active service.
That being the case, if it is true today I do not think the minister's statement applies, namely that a soldier in the special force should be treated in the same way as any other soldier; because the soldiers here in Canada, if they encounter a fatal accident or a disabling accident, can draw on an ordinary line accident or life policy. But if the war clause applies on a civilian insurance policy, these boys who are in Egypt may not be able to qualify for a pension or for an insurance payment in the event of death.
I would ask the minister whether or not that coverage does apply. Second, if it does not-and something was mentioned a few moments ago about the United Nations considering taking over the responsibilities-I would ask if either one of the ministers involved would press very strongly that the United Nations accept responsibility in the event of death or mutilation by accident. Third, I would urge upon the minister very strongly that if action is not taken by the United Nations, he reconsider his stand and make sure that these fellows are fully covered by some sort of accident or death policy.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad indeed to look into the situation, both from the point of view of our department and from the point of view of the United Nations. On the question of private insurance policies, whether or not they carry a war clause depends on the company policy of the company concerned. I have had both in my time. However, I think the point which has been raised is worthy of consideration, and I shall be glad to look into it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have listened closely to all the speeches in the debate delivered in English and I have read, as far as I can, all the speeches delivered in French. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs can go back tonight or tomorrow morning feeling that all sides of this house are backing him up in doing his duty in support of the United Nations. As I read the reports it came to me that Egypt is doing the same old trick the old Pharoah did when he was forced to allow Israel to walk into freedom. He changed his mind. The ancient enemy of Israel is now bobbing his head up again in order to try to wipe Israel off the earth. They will never be able to do it. It is practically something like that which has happened in Hungary. The devil appeared in another form committing murder. I am proud of those who have spoken in support of the United Nations in stopping this sort of thing. I am convinced that the United Nations is the instrument that is going to do the job. I feel sure that the minister can go back feeling that he has the support of this house and the people of Canada in doing his duty.


Daniel Roland Michener: As the hon. member who last spoke has said, we have unanimously approved the principle of this experiment in idealism, if I may call it that, or this venture which is breaking new ground. It seems to me that, as it has been explained, it depends basically on the consent of the parties involved, namely the consent of Britain, the consent of France, the consent of Israel, and the consent of Egypt. The proportions of the force which is being sent and of which our Canadian troops will form a part are such that they will be largely outnumbered by the military forces now in that area. The army of Israel is large and well equipped, and Egypt has substantial forces and substantial equipment. Hence this force is, as I see it, idealistic in the sense that it is adding some material force to moral opinion as expressed in the United Nations. It does not seem to be constituted to do much more.
I appreciate that it is a novel experiment. It is new. There is a great deal of uncertainty, and we are going into it with the knowledge that there is uncertainty. It may turn out well or it may not turn out well. It may turn out very badly. What we are trying to do in approving the estimates is to get as much information as we can at this time on the legal basis for this action and on the material factors that will exist wher the force is constituted there.
As I understand it-and I should like either of the ministers to correct me if I am wrong-there is nothing in the charter

of the United Nations under which this force is acting. There are in the charter provisions by which the United Nations can organize, mobilize and direct a military operation under the security council. But, as I understand it, this force is in no sense under the direction of the security council. In fact I think it is fairly certain that the security council would not authorize this action. It is under the direction of the assembly.
I am also informed that it is under the authority basically of a resolution of 1950, namely a resolution called the uniting for peace resolution. If the minister has not already, in the brief periods when I have been out of the house during the debate, given particulars with regard to that matter, I should be greatly interested, as I think would other hon. members, in knowing just what authority there is in this resolution to set up this force and how it will operate.
Some specific points which come to my mind as to its operation are these. It will be under the general direction of the assembly, as I understand it, and there is that resolution which lays down its terms of reference. It is to secure and to supervise the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East. At least those are the terms in the order in council; and I take it that they have been translated from the resolution of the assembly. That is under the general direction of the assembly. The officer of the assembly is the general secretary, Mr. Ham-marskjold; and he is also the officer of the security council. He is the general officer of the United Nations. I do not suppose one could envisage a difference of opinion between the assembly and the security council and contradictory commands to Mr. Hammar-skjold, but in any event he is the agent through whom the assembly must work. The chain of command, as I see it, will go to the commander of the forces as appointed, namely our Canadian General Burns.
What I want to know from the Minister of National Defence is whether he retains any control over these forces after they have been committed. What is the chain of command after these troops have been committed? The order in council, if I may draw attention to it, is a little equivocal in its expression. It says:
. . . not exceeding 2,500 in number at any one time, as part of or in immediate support of, an emergency international force ...
Perhaps the minister can tell us whether the force is committed as part of this international emergency force or whether it is in support of that force and remains under Canadian command to some extent, or whether it comes entirely under the command
Supply-National Defence of General Burns as the commanding officer of the general assembly? In any event I think the chain of command would be of interest because, if the government of Canada changed its mind about the success of this experiment and wished to withdraw, is it under any obligation or committal not to change its mind? In other words, are these forces committed entirely for the purpose specified in the order?
I appreciate that a small force of this kind can perform only a limited function. Many of us have said in this debate that we are hopeful that this is the beginning of a general settlement of the problem in that area. Certainly this force cannot be expected to do many of the things that have to be done in that area, and they are quite substantial. If the securing of the cessation of hostilities involves, first, the withdrawal of British and French forces from that area, then that is part of this forces' objectives; to see that those forces are withdrawn in accordance with the consent given by their country. It may involve the withdrawal of the Israeli forces, and that may come readily or it may come with a good deal of hesitation. What it involves with respect to the Egyptian forces it is rather difficult to see. I suppose it might involve letting them back into the Sinai peninsula, but that is not something that is at all clear.
If one gets to the point where the agreement on the cessation of hostilities is signed and carried out and this force is there, will it occupy the works and banks of the Suez canal and stand there in occupation pending political action by the assembly to deal with two very serious problems? One of these problems would be the settlement of the boundaries in the almost age-long dispute between Israel and Egypt, and the other would be some settlement of the problem of the Suez canal.
We are hopeful that this is a beginning in the direction of a settlement of these general questions. I appreciate that the house is only being asked to authorize funds to provide forces for the limited purpose of securing the cessation of hostilities. If more is required parliament will soon be in session again. In any event the government has authority, I assume, particularly under the National Defence Act, to do what we all hope can be done, if it can be done effectively; that is, to secure a much more general objective than the limited one for which this force is now being authorized.
I have asked rather a lot of questions and I have put a number of propositions. I do feel that in voting these funds we ought to

Supply-National Defence have as much information as we can secure concerning the legal basis on which this action rests, the chain of command, how far this operation has been forecast, and how the government considers that it is likely to operate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I am the last man in the committee who would desire to postpone action on this matter. Nevertheless, a good many questions have been asked of me, not only since we have been in committee but also some very important questions by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat. During the earlier discussion of this subject I was asked to enlighten the house in respect to several matters. One matter was the reason we had not previously taken action in regard to a United Nations police force in this particular area. Another was-and this has been brought up again by the hon. member for Greenwood- the relationship of our action to commonwealth unity. There were other important questions that were put to me at that time, and some have been put to me this afternoon, so I think I should crave the indulgence of the committee for a few minutes while I try to deal with these questions.
It was suggested this morning that we have not given parliament enough information in regard to recent United Nations actions or our policy in regard to United Nations actions in the past. So far as the first aspect of this question is concerned we have tried, I think, at this emergency session to deal with all the questions involved. There are matters upon which we have not been able to exchange information on a confidential basis with some of our friends opposite. I agree that in a time of emergency and crisis there should be the greatest possible exchange of information between the government and opposition leaders. It is a precedent that has been followed at times in the past, and it is a good one. If it has not been done on this occasion, the committee will understand that developments have moved very fast and we have been in the house almost constantly since the house was called.
I would point out, however, that there are observers in the Canadian delegation to the United Nations from all parts of this house. They sit in on our delegation meetings, and we hope they feel they are full members of the delegation in regard to the exchange of information. We do not, in our delegation meetings, hold anything back, I assure you, because of the fact that there are members of parliament from all parties. We are glad to have them there. I think the delegates have learned from these meetings practically


everything we were able to learn about developments at the assembly. Then, also, in regard to general information on these matters the committee on external affairs met for many days during last spring and early summer, when we had an opportunity of going over the whole question of the development of policy in regard to the Middle East.
The hon, member for Prince Albert asked particularly for enlightenment, as he put it, in regard to our previous attitude toward a United Nations emergency force for this particular area. I think he is satisfied with what I said earlier about our general attitude toward putting forces under the United Nations for general purposes and the difficulty of doing that under the security council organization as it is at present. I am sorry he is not able to be here this afternoon to decide whether or not what I am going to say about this matter is enlightenment. I would point out, and I have made a pretty careful survey of our record in this regard, that it was as early as 1953 that we discussed, with representatives of the United Kingdom government in the course of our diplomatic exchange of views, the possibility of replacing the truce supervisory organization in the Palestine area with a police force which would have greater powers, and greater authority, and be able to do things which the truce organization could not possibly do, thereby making the situation easier and making war more difficult.
At that time, in 1953, the matter also came up, though not in public discussion at the general assembly of the United Nations. We had previous discussions with the British and took the matter up with the secretary general, who had himself been considering it. We were told at that time that in his opinion it would not be a desirable move to make publicly at the United Nations general assembly.
That was in 1953. Then later, in 1955, when I happened to be in Cairo, I discussed this question with General Burns who came over from Jerusalem to see me, and we went over the question of the advisability of making a proposal at the next assembly-that would have been the assembly we are at now-for a United Nations force to patrol the boundary not only between Egypt and Israel, but between Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and Israel. On my return to Ottawa we brought this question up again when Sir Anthony Eden and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd visited us here, I think in January, 1956. We also took the question up in Paris with the French government. At that time the governments which I have mentioned, the British government and the French government, did not feel that this was a practicable proposition.

One reason they did not feel that way was that they themselves had been discussing it with the United States and the United States was hesitant about the wisdom at that time of trying to introduce a police force on the borders, with a demilitarized zone. Behind all this hesitation and objection, if you like, was the fact that-and this is quite contrary to what the hon. member for Prince Albert said this morning; I think he must have been misinformed on this matter-neither the government of Israel nor the government of any one of the Arab states was in favour of that kind of force. I can assure the committee we have received arguments from the government of Israel, which indicate why they did not favour that kind of force.
What it was thought might be done at that time was to increase the truce observation organization. That was done, and Canada did send additional officers to it. It was with that background that the discussion was introduced in the house here last January or February-I forget the exact date-by the hon. member for Prince Albert, and it was with that background that I expressed some hesitation as to whether it was a wise move to make at that time. But I did mention the matter again in the committee on external affairs when I was making my opening statement which, as any hon. members who are members of that committee know, is designed for the purpose of introducing matters for later and full consideration by the committee. I said at that time, on April 17, 1956:
The idea of an international force for Palestine- which a few weeks ago got a good deal of attention-
I was referring to the debate in the house. -does not appear now to be regarded on either side, the Jewish side or the Arab side, or by the others most concerned-
I meant the United Kingdom, the United States and the French governments,
-as practicable.
That was my statement to the committee, and no reference was made by any member of the committee to that matter subsequently. Therefore I assumed that they accepted that statement of the impracticability of this move at that time.
As I think I said on another occasion, what the three countries most concerned, the United Kingdom, the United States and France, apart from Israel and the Arab states, desired to do was to use the tripartite agreement for the purpose of preventing an outbreak in that area. And it is one of the unhappy aspects of this tragedy that this agreement fell by the wayside in the events of last summer.
Supply-National Defence
So much, then, for the origin of the idea of the United Nations force. There was an occasion, however, a few weeks ago, when a resolution of this kind, under the circumstances which then existed, could be taken up and made effective by the United Nations assembly, and that was done. But I would point out to my hon. friends opposite who have all, I think, without exception expressed themselves as being in favour of the idea of a United Nations force and even felt that it should have been in existence long before this crisis, that if the Canadian delegation had taken the action at the first meeting of the United Nations special assembly which some of them have suggested we should have taken, to support the United Kingdom and France in their efforts to prevent the consideration of this question at the United Nations assembly in that action, and if that support and that of other members of the assembly had been effective, there could have been no consideration of any United Nations force at this time, or possibly at any other time in the future.
I think that is a valid point to make, because when the Canadian delegation voted against the United Kingdom and France on that first measure before the assembly I was charged by some hon. members opposite as lining up with Russia and the United States. But if we had not defeated that move we would never have been able to introduce a resolution for a United Nations force, and when that resolution was first introduced it got-


Mr. Brooks:: Did not Great Britain and France ask for a United Nations force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I shall try to explain that. What I am talking about now is the first session of the special assembly of the United Nations after everything had collapsed in the security council. When that assembly met the first item before it was the putting of this Middle Eastern question from the security council on the agenda of the assembly. If it had not been put on the agenda we could not have discussed the question at all, and the special assembly would have dissolved and there would have been no opportunity to bring up the United Nations force proposal at that time. The United Kingdom and France, for reasons which they thought were quite good, did attempt to keep this matter off the agenda. A few days later, when the proposal was made for a United Nations force, it got a very large vote and no member of the assembly voted against it. But the United Kingdom and France again -and I am not criticizing, because they felt this to be the proper course for them to

Supply-National Defence follow-abstained with regard to the proposal for a United Nations force which they have subsequently found, I think, to be very helpful to them in the solution of the difficulties we are all in now. That abstention on their part, from their point of view, was a perfectly reasonable one, just as abstention on our part under certain circumstances seems to us also to be perfectly reasonable.
The hon. member for St. Paul's and others have asked me a good many questions about the functions of this force, how it is going to operate, what is the chain of command, and what is the relationship of this force to the government of the country in which it is operating. It is not easy to answer all these questions at the present time because the organization, the function and the principles under which the force is to operate, its relationship .not only to the government of the country in which it is operating but to the governments which have sent troops to the force-all these things we are now trying to work out. I assure my hon. friend that that work is certainly not completed. The force is operating under the resolution to which I referred earlier, which is now in effect and which authorizes it to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with all the terms of a previous resolution, the resolution which was passed two or three days before, and which in general does lay down the functions of the force.
Those functions under that earlier resolution were to bring about a cease-fire, and that has been done; to bring about the withdrawal of forces behind the armistice line; to desist from raids across the armistice line into neighbouring territory; to observe scrupulously the provisions of the armistice agreement, and to take steps to reopen the Suez canal and to restore and secure freedom of navigation.
The assembly has ordered all these things to be done, and the force itself is to police the doing of them. In line with certain principles and functions which have been approved by the assembly and which are put out in detail in a United Nations document which has been tabled, A-3302 of November 6, this is the final report of the secretary general on the plans for this emergency force, and especially paragraphs 6 to 12 which outline his idea of how it should function.
Now, it is of cardinal importance that in this functioning the force should be under United Nations control and not under the control or dictation of any one member of the United Nations, including Egypt. I tried to

make it as clear as I could the other day, and I have tried to make it clear at the United Nations general assembly, that we would not accept any other interpretation of the functions, the tasks and the duties of this force.
I know that in this debate some very hard and harsh words have been used against the dictator of Egypt, and I certainly am not here to defend him. But I think it is also well to remember there is a relationship between this force and the Arab peoples, and we certainly do not want to divide ourselves completely from the Arab peoples in these matters. Therefore we have to recognize, I think, that those peoples, especially the people in Egypt as represented for better or for worse by their government, do have a special relationship with a force which is operating in their territory. I can assure the committee again, however, if assurance is needed, that we would not accept any principle of action at the United Nations, or participate for long in any force, if that force is in danger of being controlled and dominated by the leader of the government of Egypt. That has already come up in the advisory committee of seven and it will come up again. I can give the committee an assurance that that is the stand we will take, and I am quite sure we will have the support of practically all the members of the committee in that stand and the support of the secretary general himself.
I have listened in previous discussions, Mr. Chairman, to a good many statements to the effect that the action of the United Kingdom and France has saved the world from Russian domination and control of the Middle East. Well, 1 am not going to go into that at this time, but there is another side to this question. We should also ask ourselves in considering all sides of the question whether the action that has been taken has weakened or strengthened the position of the U.S.S.R. in this area by giving the U.S.S.R. a special relationship to Egypt and to the Arab and Asian states, which has been illustrated by some of the alignments in the United Nations at this time. I do not for one minute criticize the motives of the governments of the United Kingdom and France in intervening in Egypt at this time. I may have thought their intervention was not wise, but I do not criticize their purposes.
It has been suggested, and this is one of the questions that was asked me in the previous debate, whether by our own actions in not aligning ourselves on all occasions at the United Nations with the United Kingdom and France we had not contributed to the weakening and division of the commonwealth and the weakening and division of the western coalition.

Mr. Chairman, I have just one thing to say about that. That division within the commonwealth resulting from the British action would have occurred whether or not we had voted on every occasion with the British delegation down there. We did not create the division. It certainly would have existed between the Asian members of the commonwealth and the other members whether or not we had lined up with those other members, and I think we have to be very careful when we talk about the unity of the commonwealth and co-operation within the commonwealth-and it is something we should not only talk about but should do what we can to bring about-never to forget there are three Asian members of that commonwealth. However, our efforts to bring them into closer association with the commonwealth and to keep them there surely should not mean that even within this association we have not got a very special relationship of intimacy and friendship with the old members of the commonwealth including above all our mother country in the commonwealth, the United Kingdom.
All I am trying to point out now is that our actions at the United Nations, criticize them if you like, did not bring about a division in the commonwealth. Indeed I am compelled to say that our actions and the attitude we adopted did help and are still helping to heal the divisions which are within the commonwealth at this time. If we had not taken the position we did take on these matters at the United Nations we would not have been in the position where we could have performed what I think to be a constructive role by bringing not only the members of the commonwealth closer together again, but, and this in some respects under the present circumstances is even more important, by bringing the United States, the British and the French closer together again.
No Canadian at the United Nations who has to get up and declare the policy of his government can feel anything but an agonizing regret when he finds himself on the other side of an issue from the representative of the United Kingdom. Over the years since we have had to take charge of our own foreign affairs we have had ample reason to respect and be grateful for the wisdom and experience of the United Kingdom at international conferences and in international matters, and over the years we have nearly always found ourselves in substantial agreement with the United Kingdom. At times we have been in agreement with the United Kingdom but not in agreement with the United States, but on this occasion in some of these measures before the United Nations
Supply-National Defence and indeed in respect of the original cause of this meeting of the United Nations we could not support 100 per cent the actions of the United Kingdom and France.
Believe me, Mr. Chairman, that does not mean we are weakening in any respect in our feeling of admiration, respect and affection for the mother country of the commonwealth. It was in that spirit, even when we disagreed at the United Nations, that we tried to be as helpful and constructive as possible, and to bring about a situation where disagreement would not be necessary in the future; I think, Mr. Chairman, that has happened. I am optimistic enough to believe that in so far as co-operation within the commonwealth and co-operation within the western coalition is concerned we have gone through the hardest of our experiences in the last two or three weeks, that the situation is changing and that we will come closer together again. The speech made this afternoon in the House of Commons in London by the foreign secretary of the government of the United Kingdom gives some indication, I believe, that this is true. We must all devoutly hope, and I am sure all hon. members of this house do hope, that it will be true. If there is anything any of us can do to bring about this work of restoration and reinvigoration within the commonwealth and within the western coalition all of us, I know, will be very proud indeed to do it.
The hon. member for Prince Albert said this morning when he made the interesting proposal that there should be a high level conference in Quebec to pursue this objective that Canada was in an enviable position in these matters, and that because of that position we have special privileges and special responsibilities.
I agree that we have in many respects an enviable position, but it is also a position of some responsibility. If it is enviable I venture to suggest that our actions at the United Nations in the last three weeks have not made it less enviable.
Leaving these controversial aspects of the question aside for the moment, I know I am speaking for every hon. member in the house when I say we can now look forward to the time when there will be a closer and more intimate relationship in the commonwealth, which includes three great nations of Asia, and in a western coalition which must have as its core the closest kind of co-operation and intimacy among the United States, the United Kingdom and France. That is the job for us to do from now on, and I hope we will all be able to pursue it so that we will

Supply-National Defence bring about a better state of affairs in the world than we have been experiencing in these last months.


Mr. Hansell:: I want to ask only a question or two, and perhaps I can ask the minister of external affairs my first question. On page 64 of Hansard of November 27 he is reported as having said:
Twenty-three nations have offered contributions to that force and eight of them including Canada, have seen their contributions embodied in the formations on the spot which are now working together under the United Nations blue flag of peace.
Could the minister enumerate the 23 nations and also indicate who the 8 are so that we can be brought up to date? I am interested in knowing how many of what are usually called the Russian satellite states are interested in this force.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The following eight countries have offered contributions which are now embodied in the United Nations emergency force in one form or another: Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, India, Norway, Sweden and Yugoslavia.
There are 15 countries which have offered contributions which have not yet been taken up, though they have not been rejected. If hon. members will follow this list carefully they will realize that the secretary general has a delicate and difficult task in bringing about what he called a balanced composition in the force. This may help to understand the delicacy of his relationship to the government of Egypt. In connection with the composition of this force, he is the man who with the advice of the advisory council and in the last analysis the full assembly determines the composition. He is trying to bring that about in a way which will secure the maximum co-operation from the government of the country in which the force is operating. The following are the countries which have not yet been asked by him to send forward contingents to this force. Afghanistan, Brazil, Burma, Ceylon, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines and Rumania.


Mrs. Fairclough:: As considerable latitude has been granted in the consideration of this item probably I could now put a question to the Minister of National Defence which I had intended to put earlier on the orders of the day, but was unable to do so. In view of the serious nature of the international situation at the present time will the minister say whether any further consideration has been given to the functioning of No. 424 Hamilton squadron stationed at Mount Hope? It may be said that there is very little relationship

between this matter and the item we are considering, but I think in the broad general sense there is.
Here are a group of people who are anxious to continue active flying. This matter has been in abeyance for some months now, but it is still a live issue in Hamilton. These people are still anxious to continue flying, and I should like to know whether any further consideration has been given by the minister to changing their present status. With the seriousness of the situation these men may well be needed.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have been giving further consideration to the matter in view of the representations which have been made, and I hope to indicate my decision within the next week or ten days.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question about the wording of the general assembly resolution in regard to the police force and the order in council passed by this government. It is stated that the purpose of the force is to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities. What exactly does "secure" mean under those circumstances? If hostilities broke out again, say between the Israelis and the Egyptians, the securing of the cessation of those hostilities might well involve fighting. Does "secure" mean that our troops will fight to stop any further outbreak of hostilities?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The words "secure and supervise", which appear in this resolution and which appear also in the report of the secretary general laying down the functions of the force, were put in deliberately in that form for the purpose of making sure that no impression was given by the wording that this force was a fighting force in the sense that the United Nations force in Korea was a fighting force.
I must confess that in the first draft of the secretary general's report, which was done early in the morning, the words were "enforce and supervise". However, that wording was caught and changed. If the word "enforce" had been left in it would have meant that they would have been under orders to take means to enforce the cease-fire. They are not under any such obligation. For instance, they are not acting under chapter VII of the charter. To secure and supervise merely means that they are to keep the peace.
If hostilities began again, then the matter would be in the hands of the United Nations assembly which would have to decide what action was to be taken. The force will take only such action as would be necessary to



195B

[Stage Direction]
defend itself against attack. I realize that anything is possible, but I think it is highly unlikely that even if hostilities resumed they would be directed against a force carrying the flag of the United Nations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: There is one question I should like to ask, and I ask it for information only. The minister may feel that he has given this information to the house, but I believe there is still some confusion about it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to a force in Egypt numbering 6,000 persons, and then he referred to Canada's maximum contribution of 2,500. Are those figures related to each other or does the 6,000 include only 1,000 of Canada's men? Perhaps the minister could answer this question by giving us the figures for each of the eight countries which are contributing to the force. I want to make it clear that I am asking this for information only and I have no criticism of any disparity that may exist as to numbers. We are glad that Canada is taking part in this important undertaking.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I find it difficult to be any more precise in this matter than I was a few minutes ago. I wish I had the text of the statement of the secretary general, because I am not sure whether there was a definite time limit in his statement, but as I understand it he announced that within a very short time he expected the force would reach a total of 6,000. That does not mean that two or three weeks after that time 3,000 or 4,000 more may not come, but he expects that 6,000 will be enough to do the job they have immediately in front of them. To show how difficult it is to forecast what that job will be, within the last 48 hours the general in command out there has decided that he needs to send a battalion into Port Said. If the British and French expeditionary forces had left Port Said last week he might have needed only two or three hundred there just for police purposes exclusively, and he might not have needed any a week after that.
The secretary general thinks that to take care of the situation he will need 6,000. That includes 700 Canadians. I understand from a telephone conversation with him this morning that there are 4,400 now. He wants to build that up immediately to 6,000 which will mean 1,600 more, and in those 1,600 additional troops he wants some more Canadians. We have not had details of what he wants. The 4,400 is made up roughly of 700 from Canada, a Swedish transport squadron of 21 -I do not know whether these figures have been given any place else-a Norwegian ambulance company of 206, a composite supply platoon from India of 190, 557 infantry from
Supply-National Defence Colombia, 388 from Denmark, 265 from Norway, 258 from Finland, 346 from Sweden, 714 from India and 765 from Yugoslavia.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would the Minister of National Defence advise us concerning the code of discipline under which these troops will be serving? Will the Canadians be governed by the Canadian code of military discipline? When punishment has to be dealt out, will the men involved be tried by their own commanding officers or a Canadian court, or will they have to be tried by an Egyptian court or by some international courtmartial? We would like to have some information as to the exercise of discipline and the protection of any of our men who may through some misfortune fall afoul of some commander from some other unit, or the laws of Egypt or elsewhere.


Ralph Osborne Campney: This matter is now under discussion in the United Nations. But it is our contention, and we are acting on this contention for the present and will continue to do so until there is any change, that our forces will be governed by Canadian law and discipline will be administered under our own Canadian system. As I say, the question is being reviewed now in the United Nations.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would that apply to any civil offence which might be alleged against a Canadian soldier?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes. We have taken the view that that should obtain. Whether or not we will maintain that, whether other courts of an international nature will be set up or what the final disposition will be I do not know, but as of now that is our contention.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to express the opinion that it is very desirable that we remain firm in that stand.


Ralph Osborne Campney: We feel quite strongly about it.


Ernest George Hansell: Might I ask the Minister of National Defence this question. In his opinion, what relationship will the present situation have to the military aspect of NATO? In other words, does the present situation indicate that the military aspect of NATO will be accelerated, or will there be less emphasis on this aspect of NATO? The particular reason I am asking this question is that I have had a civilian delegation wait upon me with regard to the future of the air training school at Claresholm, which is largely for the NATO forces. Evidently there is some feeling that the future of the air training school may not be too secure in that there may be a possibility of retrenchment

Supply-National Defence or even closing it down. Can the minister give me any information with respect to that matter?


Ralph Osborne Campney: With regard to the general effect on NATO of the present situation in the Middle East and throughout the world, my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I are going to the NATO council meeting at Paris the week after next, and that large subject will be discussed at considerable length. As to the question of NATO air training, which I think is what is in the hon. member's mind, I announced in the house during the consideration of my estimates last summer that we will have completed the intake for our NATO air training scheme next year. With the exception of certain limited training which we will be giving to personnel from Holland, Denmark and Norway, which countries have no air training schemes at all, we have now built up the aircrews of the NATO nations and we will only be providing training for these three countries.
This will mean that there will be some shrinking in our training facilities. There will be some changing over of some of them to active service conditions, the closing of some and a general revamping of our air training scheme to take care of our own training and that for the three nations I have mentioned. In that connection the location of our present air training schools will of course have to be considered.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a further question. Since there seems to be almost unanimous approval of this force in the United Nations, and since only a small number of members of the United Nations are making contributions to the force, has any provision been made for general contributions from the other nations that are not sending any troops in order to help pay for the cost of the troops that are being sent by the countries that are contributing? For instance, the minister said that General Burns is anxious to have more Canadians. I can understand that and I do not think the Canadian people will raise any objection to paying all the bills as far as the Canadians are concerned.
But it does seem to me that where there is such unanimity among the different nations respecting the sending of a United Nations force there should be some general contribution by the other nations of the world to help to pay for the troops that are being sent. Would the minister explain the situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter is now under consideration at the assembly. A resolution was passed the other day on the financing of the force. It must be remembered that the fact that a country does not appear in the list of 23 I have just mentioned does not mean that other countries will not be making contributions later. I think I am right in saying that the secretary general felt that he had enough countries on the list at the present time to meet the need that he saw immediately before him. We are not sure in the long run how many countries will be contributing. There is also the difficulty of a country offering a small contribution but there might be no particular place for such a contribution of 100 or 150 in the force at a given time. Nevertheless you would not wish to penalize that particular country.
Then there are countries which have refused to accept the force at all, and it is going to be hard to make them pay for it. The other day the secretary general got an authorization for $10 million, and some of the expenses of this force not attributable to any one country will be met out of that amount. Therefore the countries that do not send a contribution to the force will have to pay some proportion of the cost because they will contribute to that $10 million.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Might I ask the minister this further question. Is this force that is being sent at the present time more in the nature of a token force from the United Nations which they expect will be expanded later on from other nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Six thousand is a fairly respectable token for this particular job. I think it is in most people's minds down there that it may have to be expanded and that other countries may have to contribute.
I should not like to be too categorical on that matter at the present time. Nevertheless,
I think it is more than a token force at the present time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the
minister whether Russia will contribute toward this $10 million?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The other day when this resolution was up for decision at the United Nations assembly, Russia and its satellites all voted against it and said they would make no contribution to that $10 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether Canada is making a contribution toward this $10 million in addition to the contribution we are making by sending our troops? If so, out of what vote will such a contribution be made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter is now being discussed in New York, as to how this expenditure should be allocated to members of the United Nations and whether its members who make contributions in kind should be given credit against their contributions in money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether Canada will be making any contribution toward the cost of clearing the Suez canal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question. It is already included in the discussions going on as to how the $10 million will be used, and there is a great difference of opinion as to who should be responsible for the financing of the clearing of the canal.


Thomas Miller Bell: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. We all know that Canada now has available no merchant ships, but we have been told that it is possible to recall some in cases of emergency. I should like to ask the minister whether in this case inquiries were made about the possibility of getting troopships or other ships or whether it was just decided to use the Magnificent for convenience and in the desire to bring the navy in on the show. I would further appreciate knowing from the minister what he feels should be done in the future with regard to the need for merchant ships in defence circumstances.


Ralph Osborne Campney: Dealing with the hon. member's first question, may I say that no consideration was given to requisitioning ships, for two reasons. First, there was some thought that the force might have to move by air. Second, if it did not move by air it was felt, at the time this decision was taken, that the Magnificent's value as a mobile base and her availability made it unnecessary to consider merchant shipping.
With regard to the second question, as to the usefulness of merchant shipping and the merchant ship policy of the government and of the country, I think that is a rather large question to introduce into this particular matter. We all know the situation and we all know that in time of war ships are at a premium. Beyond that I do not think I would care to venture an opinion in the situation as it is today.


Daniel Roland Michener: Although I received many answers and am grateful for them, there is one more question which I think the Minister of National Defence might answer if he can. Do these Canadian forces pass exclusively under United Nations command when they join the force? If so, for how long are they committed?
Ways and Means


Ralph Osborne Campney: To answer the last question first, they are committed as long as we leave them with the United Nations force. We can bring them out any time we like. They are under our control ultimately. Second, with regard to committing them to the United Nations, the situation today is that they are committed to the United Nations for operational purposes. But so far and subject to any procedure which may be developed hereafter, they are administratively still under our own control.


Harold Edward Winch: Just so as to have this matter clear may I ask this question. Am I correct in thinking that the contribution of Canada to the emergency force is being paid for by Canada, and is subject perhaps to an arrangement afterwards with the United Nations; but now it is being paid for by Canada?


Ralph Osborne Campney: That is correct.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to ask the
Minister of National Defence how the gap is to be filled which will be left by the dispatch of this transport squadron to Naples for employment there to ferry troops and equipment to Egypt. As I understand it, that transport squadron was part of the air portability section of our airborne brigade. The airborne brigade was deficient in the number of aircraft available to transport it, in any event, and I have been somewhat worried as to what its situation would be now.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The situation is somewhat restricted by this immediate allocation to the United Nations force. It has led to some rearrangement, but we still have a substantial number of transport planes and for the time being-and I may say that we have on order
new and additional transport planes now______
we shall be able to get along without too much difficulty.
"Ehe Chairman: Shall the resolution carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.

Lester Bowles Pearson: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the

Ways and Means
public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1957, the sum of $1,000,001 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1:
Harold Edward Winch: Is the bill printed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I may ask the Prime Minister to make a brief statement at this point. While he had to be out this afternoon we had some discussion with the other two ministers concerning the order in council under which the troops have been sent abroad and the relationship of that order in council to section 33 of the National Defence Act. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will realize I am not reflecting on the answers he gave in asking for a statement from the Prime Minister, for it seemed to me there was a little bit of uncertainty as to what the exact situation would be. I wonder if the Prime Minister, either now or whenever we meet again later this day, would make a considered statement as to what could happen during this adjournment. In other words, can he tell us the circumstances under which other orders might be given to the troops without parliament having to be called, and the circumstances under which parliament would have to be called again?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think, Mr. Chairman, the situation is just as it was in 1950 and 1951. The order in council makes this emergency force available for service, under United Nations command, in the Middle East. If there were a requirement to have the area in which service would be required extended beyond that, we would still feel that we had to make a decision and that we had, within ten days from the time it was made, to call parliament. Parliament would be in being but the Speaker would have to give notice that it was necessary to have parliament meet within that period to determine whether or not there would be funds provided by parliament to implement that decision, because I think that is the test. We would not wish to have the funds that are being provided by this bill used for anything that would go beyond the scope of the order in council. Although there might be sufficient

money available to cover the additional expense, we would feel that the Canadian people would expect parliament to pass on the responsibilities taken by the government to make a decision that was beyond the one that was made in this order in council of November 20.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, if another order in council has to be issued regarding the troops or if further money is required, under either of those circumstances, parliament would have to be summoned?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Parliament would have to be summoned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Unless we are here.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It might
very well be that January 8 would be within the period provided by the statute, but if it were not within the 10-day period the Speaker would send notice that parliament was to meet on such and such a date at such an hour, as if it had adjourned regularly to that day.
While I am on my feet there was something I did wish to say, which I think was expressed in some of the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops and other hon. members and is summarized in a paragraph of an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of today. It reads:
Canada should have hut one major goal for its foreign policy these days, more important even than the doings of its troops in Egypt: that is the immediate improvement of commonwealth relations, of Anglo-American-French relations-but the greatest need of all is the reuniting of the principles and policies of the British and American governments.
I had intended to take the opportunity of saying that had been the goal we have been pursuing ever since the very first of these resolutions came before the United Nations, to work toward what we regard as almost essential for the peace and security of the free world; that is to say, the reliance on commonwealth relations and the reuniting of this alliance in an effective way between the United Kingdom, France and the United States; something that has, I think, been of immense value and without which there would be a void that would cause all of us deep anxiety. I think it is and should be the purpose of the Canadian government to put forth its very best efforts to the ends expressed in this last paragraph of this editorial in today's Ottawa Journal. Of course, that is what we have been trying to do.
We have felt that to do that we had to speak our considered views frankly to all our friends, in no "blistering" terms, I can assure the house, but in frank terms; and

that our dependence upon the combined actions of the members of the commonwealth, the members of the NATO organization, the members of that unwritten alliance that has been so useful to the world between Britain, France and the United States, could not necessarily require us to feel, in every instance, that everything done by every one of our allies was the wisest course and decision that could be taken. Under those circumstances, after the most careful consideration we could give the problem, we had to express frankly our views, not in a carping way at all but merely in an effort to have these views considered and serve as usefully as they could in harmonizing the joint action of all those whose goal is the same as our own.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we might have the usual recess and expect that when we meet at eight o'clock Your Honour will have received some information from His Excellency the Governor General or his deputy as to the hour at which it would suit his convenience to convoke us in the other chamber to have royal assent given to the appropriation bill.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House,
Ottawa, November 29, 1956
Sir:
X have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th November, at 8.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)
The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.
The Royal Assent BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might suggest that we should suspend this sitting until
8.30	p.m., and have the bell rung at that time so we would be here when the Black Rod raps on the door.
Mr. Speaker:: With the consent of the house, I shall leave the chair until 8.30.
At 8.05 p.m. the sitting was suspended until
8.30	p.m. this day.



SITTING RESUMED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8.30 p.m.

[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.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that he had addressed the Deputy Governor General as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1957.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
Whereupon, the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Governor General, did say:
In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

["This house stands adjourned until Tuesday, January 8, 1957, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, subject to call at an earlier time after due notice given by Mr. Speaker. May I assure you that notwithstanding how much I love you all I will not call you earlier than January 8 unless I have to. May I wish you a good trip back home and express the hope that you will not have to be called earlier, so you may enjoy a well-deserved rest, a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.", "Supply-Items Passed On motion of Mr. McCann the house adjourned at 9.16 o'clock p.m. until Tuesday, January 8, 1957, at eleven o'clock a.m.\n[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:"]
Mr. Speaker:: This house stands adjourned until Tuesday, January 8, 1957, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, subject to call at an earlier time after due notice given by Mr. Speaker. May I assure you that notwithstanding how much I love you all I will not call you earlier than January 8 unless I have to. May I wish you a good trip back home and express the hope that you will not have to be called earlier, so you may enjoy a well-deserved rest, a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Supply-Items Passed On motion of Mr. McCann the house adjourned at 9.16 o'clock p.m. until Tuesday, January 8, 1957, at eleven o'clock a.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



[Stage Direction]
B-General-
Terminable services-
738. To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, assistance to the victims of the recent tragic events in Hungary, $1,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Defence services-
739. To provide expressly that vote 235 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956, be used for the purpose of meeting costs incurred for the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force, and to authorize payment from that vote, subject to approval of the treasury board, of contributions to the United Nations for defraying expenses incurred by it in respect of its operations to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East, $1.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 8, 1957