1957-01-30

[Stage Direction]
ON 1955-56 crop
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the house that there will be an interim payment on the 1955-56 pool account for wheat. The payment decided upon will be 10 cents per bushel on all grades of wheat, except milling grades of Durum wheat. On milling grades of Durum wheat the interim payment will be 25 cents per bushel.
In reaching this decision in regard to an interim payment, the government has been guided by a statement of the position of the 1955-56 wheat account, as prepared by the Canadian wheat board. This statement indicates that the selling of wheat in the pool is well advanced and the account is in a surplus position on all grades of wheat delivered to the board by producers between August 1, 1955 and July 31, 1956. These deliveries amounted to 352.2 million bushels. The extent of the interim payment is based upon the recommendation of the wheat board.
The interim payment will provide for the distribution of approximately $37,300,000 to producers who delivered wheat to the pool in the year ending July 31 last.
In its main features, the interim payment which I am announcing is similar to the interim payment on the 1954-55 pool which I announced in the house on February 2, 1956, except that it is larger. The main difference is that, in the case of the 1955-56 pool, the interim payment of 10 cents per bushel will apply to all grades of wheat with the exception of milling grades of Durums; whereas in the case of the 1954-55 pool an interim payment was not possible on No. 5, No. 6 and feed wheat and some other grades. On some grades the interim payment a year ago was 5 cents per bushel.
I expect that the wheat board will be able to commence issuing interim payment cheques from the 1955-56 pool on about the same date as a year ago; the actual mailing of cheques to producers will commence about the middle of February or shortly thereafter.
It is not possible, of course, at this time to state definitely when the final payment will be made on the 1955-56 crop but on the basis of the information now available it would appear that an announcement of a final payment should be possible at about the same date as last year, during next May.
ILater:!



ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SHIPMENTS THROUGH VANCOUVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister explain to the house why, when only the ports of Vancouver and New Westminster are open for grain shipments, every encouragement is not given by government policy for grain shipments westward and why Vancouver is discriminated against when other ports are open for ship transportation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would point out to my hon. friend that shipments through the port of Vancouver are 60 per cent higher this year than they were at this time last year and that shipments of grain through that port are taking place at such a rate that stocks in the port are down almost to the vanishing point, despite the best that both railroads can do by way of hauling grain across the mountains. If my hon. friend will find some way by which we can load more boats per week than we are loading now we would be glad to go after more business for that port. At the moment it is working to absolute capacity.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question. I base my information on correspondence between the minister and the city council indicating that because of certain action that port was being discriminated against. They contended that they can still handle more grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know. Perhaps the hon. member would ask the city of Vancouver to let me know how the port can handle more grain than it is handling today. I know there are boats at every berth and more boats waiting in the stream, and that has been the situation since early autumn.

Questions



CANADA-UNITED STATES  SUGGESTED CO-ORDINATED PROGRAM OF DISPOSAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement by Herbert Hughes, president of the national association of wheat growers in the United States, in which he advocates a co-ordinated program for the disposal of surplus Canadian and United States wheat by barter and/or special measures? Will Canada consider approaching the United States government with a view to establishing such a co-ordinated program?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me a copy of the article in question. We do attempt to work closely with the disposal agencies of the United States-without too much success, I may say-but we will continue to see that whenever parallel action is possible it is followed.



STARRED QUESTIONS


PENSIONS


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Has the government obtained, since February 8, 1956, any statistical information on the transferability of pension rights by employees moving from one employment to another? If so, how many industrial pension plans in Canada provide for such transferability of an employee's pension rights?
2.	Is the government taking any steps, or studying the possibility of taking such steps, to encourage and facilitate the mobility or transferability of pension rights, (a) with respect to employees in private industry; (b) with respect to employees in the public service?
3.	Is the government now studying the possibility of a government sponsored national industrial pension plan, into which various industrial pension plans might be integrated, to facilitate retention of pension rights by persons who move from one employment to another?
4.	What studies are being made by the government of any other ways of facilitating the mobility or transferability of pension rights? What are the results to date of any such studies?
5.	Has the government received representations for the establishment of a national industrial pension plan? If so, what reply has the government made to such representations?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to question No. 1 no additional information to that contained in my answer to question 66, reported on page 992 of Hansard of February 8, 1956, has been obtained by the government.
Question No. 2: In addition to the answer provided last year to part 3 of the above

question No. 66, a study is being undertaken of the effects of pension plans on the employment of older workers, including questions of transferability and mobility of pension credits.
Question No. 3: The question referred to in 2 above will assist in evaluating the desirability of facilitating the retention of pension credits by persons who move from one employment to another.
No. 4 is answered by No. 2 above.
No. 5: The Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour have included such proposals in their memoranda to the cabinet. It has been suggested that the implications of various proposals such as those included in the memoranda might be discussed further by representatives of the central labour federations with appropriate departments of government.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2
Mr. Knowles:: Is the government considering the introduction of an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to permit persons who have qualified for the pension paid thereunder to continue to receive the said pension even if they subsequently move to another country, (a) on account of health; (b) for other reasons?
Mr. Robertson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
As this question deals with a matter of government policy any proposed legislation would be announced by the government at the appropriate time.



SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL, VANCOUVER  POOL

Mr. Goode: 1.	Has the government made an investigation into the need of a heated pool for patients at Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver?
2.	If so, what was the result of the investigation?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: In answer to this starred question may I say that following approval of funds for preliminary work in connection with new construction at Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver, the architects were asked to prepare plans and the over-all planning for additional construction will include the study of the need of making provision for a therapeutic pool. As soon as detailed plans and estimated costs are available a decision will be made.



HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION, CAMPBELLTON, N. B.   FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Robichaud: Has any assistance been given recently by the federal government toward the construction of additional hospital accommodation in Campbellton, New Brunswick?

Mr. Robertson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of National Health and Welfare:
Yes. Within the past fortnight approval has been given by the federal government to the granting of assistance under the national health program toward the cost of an addition to the Hotel Dieu de St. Joseph which will accommodate over 70 beds and additional bassinets. Approximately $95,200 will be available to the hospital for this purpose.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West): 1.	What lawyers or legal firms were employed by any department of the federal government during the year 1956?
2.	If any lawyer or legal firms employed by any department of the federal government during the year 1956 received more than $1,000, what are their names and what were the amounts paid in each case?


FEDERAL ADVERTISING EXPENDITURES, 1956
Mr. Murphy (Lambton West): 1.	What was the amount spent in advertising by each department of the federal government in the year 1956?
2.	What firms or advertising agencies were used and what was the amount paid each such firm or agency?


SARNIA, ONT.-FEDERAL PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Mr. Murphy (Lambton West): What was the amount paid to the city of Sarnia by the federal government in each of the years 1951 to 1956 inclusive, in lieu of taxes?


FEDERAL VESSEL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Mr. Bell: 1.	In the last ten years, for all government vessel construction over $100,000, was there any difference as between the final cost and the amount of the original tender?
2.	If so, what amount in each instance?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): 1.	Did the Department of National Defence have any fires during the year 1956?
2.	If so, what was (a) the total number of fires; (b) the total fire loss?
3.	In all cases where the loss exceeded $1,000, what was (a) the location; (b) the service; (c) the cause; (d) the extent of the fire loss?
4.	Was an official inquiry held in each case?
5.	If so, what were the findings?



PUBLIC SERVICE, REGINA  40-HOUR WEEK

Mr. Ellis: 1. Are any employees of the federal government in the city of Regina working on a 40-hour week required to work any part of these 40 hours on a sixth or seventh day in any week? If so, how many?
Orders for Returns
2. What is the classification of such employees and what reason is given for not providing for a five-day work week?



DOMINION COAL COMPANY


Mr. Gillis: 1.	How much money was paid the Dominion Coal Company for the calendar year 1956, by way of
(a)	subvention on the movement of coal; (b) subsidy; (c) drawback; (d) on exported coal?
2.	How much money was paid the Sydney and Louisburg Railway, by way of (a) subvention;
(b)	rebate under the Maritime Freight Rates Act?



MARITIME PROVINCES


Mr. Gillis: How many cars or trucks have the navy, army, air force and Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the maritime provinces?



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE, ONTARIO

Mr. Brown (Essex Wesi): 1.	How many persons between the ages of 65 and 70 years, (a) male; (b) female, were there in the province of Ontario, as of December 31, in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956?
2.	How many persons in the province of Ontario in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, were receiving old age assistance?
3.	How many persons in each of the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, in the province of Ontario, (a) male; (b) female, have been rejected in their application for old age assistance?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Goode:
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the provincial government of British Columbia, the New Westminster harbour board and the federal government, in 1956 and 1957, regarding an alleged cessation of planning and actual work on the Deas island tunnel across the main channel of the Fraser river.
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I do not think the hon. member would expect us to table correspondence between the provincial government of British Columbia and the New Westminster harbour board, but subject to the usual reservations I shall be glad to have the correspondence between this government and the government of British Columbia and the New Westminster harbour board tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservation indicated by the Minister of Public Works, the motion will carry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade

Inquiries of the Ministry and Commerce and ask him whether the governor in council has passed an order in council during the last few days certifying the financing of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is correct, we have.


John George Diefenbaker: On what date was that order in council passed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Friday of last week.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the minister whether the passing of that order in council before the transport board had a chance to make an impartial decision on this question was not improper action on the part of the government and something designed to influence the transport board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The board of transport commissioners make their own decisions as they are a judicial body, and the government makes its decisions. A decision was necessary to facilitate the documentation of the financing of the pipe line and at the appropriate stage that particular decision is made. Ample evidence was provided to the government and the government made its decision.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce following the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition? Will the minister table the order in council to which reference has been made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is certainly no objection to tabling it. I understand that such things are done as a matter of routine by the privy council office, but I will make sure that that particular order is tabled this afternoon.


Howard Charles Green: Why was it not left to the board of transport commissioners to make a decision without their being influenced by an order in council?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was nothing to stop the government making a decision. The hearing of the board of transport commissioners was set for February 1, when the matter will be heard before the board, but that does not prevent the government taking independent action, because this is a decision that the financing has been completed; it is a matter of fact, not a matter for the board of transport commissioners to determine for the government.


John George Diefenbaker: If it is a matter of fact, what is the use of the board of transport

commissioners? The matter will be submitted to them at the end of this week. What right has the government to prejudge a matter such as this, which lies within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the matter lies within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners in its administration of the Pipe Lines Act; the matter before the government is in connection with the obligation of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to build their part of the pipe line, and the obligation of the crown corporation to build the northern Ontario section.



TRANS-CANADA PIPE LINES    ACTION OF GOVERNMENT ON FINANCING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Noire Dame de
Grace): Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house what course of action the government will follow if the board of transport commissioners, at its next hearing, finds that the financing of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has not been completed?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would call that a hypothetical question. The answer is that, after the board of transport commissioners brings down its findings, the government will consider the situation and take appropriate action.


John George Diefenbaker: If I might ask a supplementary question, is that not exactly what has taken place here? The cabinet, first having ditched parliament last summer, now invades the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners and by anticipation attempts to influence its inclusive authority to decide.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am glad to note that the opposition, who have violently opposed the pipe-line project throughout its history, are now opposed to admitting that the pipe line is financed.


John George Diefenbaker: We are opposed to the government interfering with the board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two separate contractual relationships: one is the contractual relationship between the government and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and so far as that contractual relationship is concerned a decision of the government was required and has been made. There is a quite different relationship between the board of transport commissioners and the company. The question there is as to whether the board

Inquiries of the Ministry of transport commissioners is prepared to Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public give final approval to the route and to the Works): Mr. Speaker, no official decision has building of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines?	as yet been arrived at but we are contemplating the possibility of building a new building Mr. Diefenbaker: And the financing.	on that sjte


Clarence Decatur Howe: The route
approval depends on the financing.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, of course.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And that no doubt will be considered. The date of the hearing before the board of transport commissioners was set two months ago. There seems to be no particular reason to expedite that hearing but it will take place and the decision will be rendered. Whether or not the board of transport commissioners is going to be influenced by a decision of the government is a matter for the board to decide.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister advise the house whether it is his intention to recommend changes in regulations or legislation that come completely within federal jurisdiction and responsibility relative to recommendations made in the Fauteux report and the report of the joint committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries? If not, why not?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, this is the type of question of which one would like to have notice and I think I will ask my hon. friend to permit this question to stand as notice since there appears to be a catch in it.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. On Thursday last I asked the minister if he could say what was going to be done with the old post office building in Peterborough. I should like now to ask the minister if he can tell us what is going to be done and if that building is going to be torn down to make way for a government office building to house other departments of government in Peterborough?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: We certainly need it.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Would the minister indicate whether federal labour regulations and laws apply to employees of persons who have federal mail contracts, and if so has such an employer in the New Westminster or Vancouver metropolitan area been given permission to work his employees for 50 hours per week?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, such a service contract does not come within the federal legislation of my department but I understand the Postmaster General exercises certain supervision over these matters, and if the hon. member will send details of what he has in mind to him or to me, we will look into it.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What steps have been taken by his department to prevent a recurrence this spring of serious flooding on the Assi-niboine river in the Kamsack area of Saskatchewan?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Assiniboine
river in the province of Saskatchewan and the province of Manitoba is within the P.F.R.A. area, and there are quite a number of possible dam sites in the head waters of the Assiniboine river. Those have all been investigated by the engineers of P.F.R.A. and I understood that P.F.R.A. engineers and officials met representatives of the councils of municipalities in the vicinity of Kamsack at Kamsack last week and discussed the whole question of the advisability of constructing dams there for stock watering and what the effect would be upon flooding.


George Hugh Castleden: Then I take it that nothing has been done.

Inquiries of the Ministry


James Garfield Gardiner: All that it is necessary to do in order to find out whether or not you can do anything has been done.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on a statement he made at a meeting he addressed in York Centre the other evening as reported in the Montreal Gazette. The statement is as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member be good enough to put his question without reading the statement?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, the question will not make sense without reading the statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it is not the type of
question that should be asked at this time.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I may not
read the words on which I base my question?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Later:!


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I hope I now have this question in more orthodox form, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Finance think the governor of the Bank of Canada, which is seeking to control inflation, may regard the minister, in the words of the daily press, as something resembling public enemy No. 1 for not practising what he preaches when he said:
It seems clear that the only relief from a situation in which there is strong competition for money would be more saving which would release more real resources for use by those borrowers whose present needs are not being fully met.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I have never asked the governor of the Bank of Canada what he thought about me. If he had any strong opinions, I am sure he would express them about me and about the policies of the government. I do not think I need to answer the rest of the question.
[Later:!



ALLEGED REMARKS OF MINISTER ON POSTPONEMENT OF FEDERAL PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Was the minister correctly reported

in the press as having said in Toronto on Monday that the federal government was postponing some of its projects and perhaps small business should do the same? If so, would the minister inform the house what projects the government has decided to postpone and why?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the reports that have been made and if my hon. friend has not seen a copy of the notes I used on that occasion I will be glad to send them to him. I was not referring to anything other than capital outlay in the part of the speech that I presume got into the press in this form. What I said was that the government had reviewed its 1957-58 estimates having in mind the inflationary tendencies particularly in the capital outlay area and that as a result of that review we had in fact cut them down by-I did not use the figure-$105 million, so that the capital outlay of the government is that much less in this coming year than it has been in the past year and that is, I think, the example I was speaking of and that I hoped others might follow.
[Later:!



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS-ADMINISTRATION OF REGULATIONS AS RELATED TO ACREAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister say whether through instructions to the banks or by way of regulation farmers who have less than 300 acres of cultivated acreage have been turned down when applying for farm improvement loans?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether any farmer who has less than 300 acres has been turned down for any reason such as his credit rating or the necessity of the particular purpose set out in his application. I do not think that because a farmer has less than 300 acres that would in itself be a reason why he should not get a loan.


Edward George McCullough: A supplementary question. Can the minister give the house assurance that bankers are not justified in denying farmers loans simply because they have not 300 acres or more under cultivation?


Walter Edward Harris: Before I give assurance may I inquire if my hon. friend knows of any case where that was the reason?


Edward George McCullough: Definitely I do.


Walter Edward Harris: I would be glad if the hon. member would help the government of Canada by giving us notice of such cases.



CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF MUNICIPALITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether or not it is intended to call a conference of the three levels of government in Canada in order to discuss the acute financial problems facing the municipalities? The Prime Minister will recall that such a request was urgently made by the federation of mayors and municipalities in its latest submission to the government.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: No, sir, the Prime Minister is not prepared to give any assurance that the federal government will call a conference of members of that level of government, which are agencies of the provincial governments. The position that has always been taken is that municipal authorities are agents of the provincial governments, and that if the provincial governments wished to have them represented in our conferences there would be no objection, but that we had no jurisdiction at all over such authorities.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the developments in Kashmir, will the right hon. gentleman consider making a full statement to the house as to the negotiations or representations or exchanges between the government of Canada and other commonwealth governments with respect to this matter at this time and negotiations in the past?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. Delicate negotiations are going on now in many capitals in reference to that matter and I do not think it would help them at all to make a statement on what has taken place in the past or what part Canada is endeavouring to take at the present time. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the matter is being considered in an
Inquiries of the Ministry atmosphere of attempting on all sides to reach a solution that will ease the situation that has unfortunately existed with regard to that part of the subcontinent of Asia since the establishment of the republic of India and the commonwealth of Pakistan.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the representative from India to the United Nations made a disclosure in the United Nations assembly, as reported in the British press of January 25, of the text of discussions on that subject that took place in a commonwealth prime ministers meeting in 1949? It was in the light of that fact that I asked if this House of Commons and this country may be informed of what had been the discussions and what the background of the present position is.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that the representative of India made a seven-hour speech in the general assembly. I must confess that I have not had time to read it all. I know what attempts are being made, about which confidential dispatches are being exchanged daily-and perhaps more frequently than daily-as the negotiations progress. I hope it will not be long before a statement of some improvement in the situation can be made.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) but in his absence I should like to direct it to the Prime Minister if he would not mind dealing with it. In view of the fact that provincial legislatures are now beginning their sessions and that their budget preparations are already well advanced, does the Prime Minister not think it would be most unfair to the provinces to delay further any announcement the government may have to make with regard to old age pension increases?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what effect old age pension increases might have on provincial budgets but the government has reached no decision in respect of the question the hon. gentleman suggests. As soon as a decision is reached-if one is reached-it will be announced in the house.

Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF INDUSTRIAL
[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 taken note of the request of the Canadian Labour Congress in its recent brief to the cabinet for an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act to provide that the certification of a bargaining unit shall be binding on any employer to whom work is transferred, so that the practice of by-passing collective agreements might be stopped? Will consideration be given to such an amendment at this session of parliament?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I noted carefully the representations made by the Canadian Labour Congress and the legislative committee of the railway brotherhood when they met with the government last week. These matters are being carefully looked into. Consequently it would be too early to answer the latter part of my hon. friend's question.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary Souih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In the light of the dramatic flow of the milk of human kindness that stemmed from the minister's personal mission to Vienna to assist Hungarian refugees from communism, is the minister prepared to undertake a new personal mission dramatically to assist victims of bureaucratic aggression, by journeying to the Hobbema Indian reserve in Alberta for a first-hand investigation of the case of 118 Indian men, women and children dispossessed of their right to live on the land that has been their home for several generations?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I think it would be quite wrong for a minister of the crown to attempt to substitute himself for a court of law when parliament has decided that a question should go before the court.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If full-blooded Indians in Canada can be deprived of the legal right to call themselves Indians because of the white man's law passed by this


government, can there be any security for a Canadian of any racial extraction protecting his rights to legally continue to be a Canadian?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, no full-blooded Indian can be deprived of his rights as an Indian by any statute of which I am aware that has been passed by this parliament.


An hon. Member:: You had better read the Indian Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I understand that the time for appeal has nearly expired. Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration advise if it would be possible to extend that time and if so would he consider extending the time allowed for the filing of an appeal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any reason to attempt to consider that hypothetical question until the time has expired. An appeal can be lodged up until February 6 and for the life of me I cannot understand why it' has not been lodged already.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister quite satisfied that there are ample funds available to the Indians for the lodging of an appeal, and is he prepared to help them in that regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, no funds whatever are required. I am quite satisfied that, if an appeal is made by the aggrieved persons, any judge before whom it came would give the fullest possible consideration to the case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about counsel?



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I apologize for not giving him notice, but 1 can assure him I am not trying to formulate policy on the basis of answers to questions. Can the minister tell the house when the representatives of Canada and the United States, who are going to discuss certain mutual problems with respect to the development of international rivers, will meet?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister why there has been such a long delay?


Jean Lesage: There has not been such a long delay, Mr. Speaker, because these discussions could only start sometime after the United States elections. We are not the only party to the discussions. There are two parties. On the one hand there are our representatives in Washington, and on the other there are the authorities of the United States. At the present time I cannot say more than that the discussions are going on with a view to fixing the date.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Will the
Minister of Labour advise the house whether or not he is considering amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in line with the suggestions submitted in the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress during the present session of parliament?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Speaker.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Have the parcel postmen in New Westminster and South Burnaby who received a letter of dismissal effective January 31, 1957, been reinstated? If not, what future plans has the post office for parcel post delivery in the New Westminster area?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, in order to properly answer this question and a similar inquiry which I received from the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode), I should point out that the men who are employed to deliver parcel post in the two localities mentioned by the hon. member are not employees of the Post Office Department. Parcel post delivery is done under a contract entered into by the post office and individual contractors and I would presume that the men to whom my hon. friend refers are employees of such a contractor-


Erhart Regier: Oh no, they are employees of the post office.


Hugues Lapointe: I am sorry, but that is the case. However, if my hon. friend refers to certain individual contractors who received
Inquiries of the Ministry notice that the temporary arrangement under which they were making parcel post deliveries was to be terminated as of the 31st of January, 1957, these instructions have been suspended.


Frederick George Hahn: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General following the one asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). It arises out of a letter which I wrote him on December 15 and a question which appeared on the order paper. Does the Postmaster General consider that a contractor who has had a contract for 24 years is a temporary contractor? For how long is the temporary suspension of the letter of notice of dismissal to last-a 24-year period?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, that question covers a lot of ground. When I referred in my earlier answer to a temporary agreement, may I say that what determines whether a contract is temporary or not is the fact of its being made for a set period of time. I am informed that none of the contractors referred to had any other arrangement with the Post Office Department than a temporary agreement to do the work at a certain rate per day, which agreement could be terminated any time by the Post Office Department. They are not employees of the department, they are individual contractors.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of a statement made yesterday by federal experts suggesting that a drastic revision of the Maritime Freight Rates Act will take place, and in the light of a further statement that suggestions should come from the seaboard provinces, will the Prime Minister say now or later exactly how these suggestions should be made by the maritime provinces?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I know of no statements made by expert officials. I do know that for some months the situation has been under investigation by officials of the Department of Transport for the purpose of securing accurate information as to what has been in fact the operation of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. As soon as that investigation is completed the matter will receive very serious consideration. It was brought to my attention by the former premier of Nova

Inquiries of the Ministry Scotia some months ago and I told him that the investigation was toeing made but that there would be no attempt to arrive at a decision until we had at least the preliminary report of the Gordon commission but that we were having the investigation made so that time might be saved in giving proper consideration to the problem as soon as we had received the Gordon commission report and had the data which I think it would be very advisable to have before us in arriving at an answer to the question as to whether or not the act is operating as it was intended to operate.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that most of the information seems to be presently available, would the Prime Minister assure the house that action will be taken and legislation drafted this session on this very important issue?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not assure this house that there will be legislation until we have the information before us and have studied it and have come to the conclusion that legislation is required to make the act produce the effects that were intended when it was adopted.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the welcome announcement of the interim payment will the minister recommend to his colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) the immediate appointment of a transport controller to direct box cars to the marketing points that ended the crop year with a very low quota and have a very small payment so that they will not suffer now because of this?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is well aware of what happened in the meetings of the committee on agriculture during the last session which in my opinion has made the position of transport controller completely untenable. Whatever recommendation I may make to my colleague, I cannot mention the name of any man who would accept that position and go before that committee in the capacity of transport controller.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not aware that these marketing points that ended with a very low quota are still on a very

low quota owing to the failure of this government to appoint a transport controller?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Miller Bell: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence in the light of his statement made yesterday with respect to the Princess Louise's Hussars. Will the government give further consideration to retaining the old designation, of the militia unit at least?


Mr. Paul Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: I have no comment to make on that subject, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can I have an indication that the question will be taken up by the department?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will take the question as notice, and refer it to the minister, if I may.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: rise, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. On page 686 of Hansard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in referring to the Hungarian refugees, said he had figures regarding ages, marital status, and breakdown of occupations. I notice that the tables given in Hansard apply only to occupations and marital status. I wonder if that is an oversight, or whether the minister may yet table the ages in an appendix to Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, it was an oversight. When I looked at the table and handed it in to Hansard I thought it included the ages; it was only when I read Hansard afterwards, as the hon. gentleman has done, that I discovered it did not. I will see whether there is a table giving the ages, and if so, I will be glad to give it to the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact

Supply-External Affairs
that this session is getting on, with the end not weeks away, is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate to the house, either today or at an early date, what other legislation the government intends to introduce apart from what is already on the order paper?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I will have inquiries made. I know there is one piece of legislation that it is intended to introduce and which is not yet ready, but I hope it may be ready for our consideration at a very early date. That is the measure dealing with the federal district commission. I will inquire whether there are other measures that are in preparation, and try to inform the house at as early a date as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister say when the committee on estimates will be set up, and what particular departments of government will be investigated by that committee during the present session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will be glad to discuss that question with the hon. gentleman and the leaders of the other groups.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Loans, investments and advances-
545. Loan to the United Nations Organization to help finance the clearing of the Suez canal. $1,000,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, last evening the Minister of Finance said that later in the discussion he would give a detailed explanation of this item and would discuss it at length; at least this is what I gathered from the remarks which were reported in Hansard. He said he would make a brief explanation, and give a more detailed one later if it was desirable.


Walter Edward Harris: Read what I said about that at the conclusion of the session.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I have read the entire statement, and I think that the suggestion which was made by the minister at the beginning of his remarks was very proper, and that the house and the country deserve a better and more complete summary as to the reasons for this loan. After all, it brings into focus a number of questions of paramount interest at this time for the preservation of peace in the Middle East and, indeed, throughout the world, and I have a number of questions which I wish to ask the minister.
Is the loan going to be effective, in the opinion of the minister, in providing for the opening of the Suez canal? What assurance is there that if the canal is opened Nasser, who up to now has defied every order made by the United Nations, will allow free passage for the ships of all countries, including Israel? What are the provisions for repayment? What has the minister to say with regard to the apportionment of responsibility for the destruction which has been done to the canal? Will Nasser be required to pay for the damage which, after all, was mainly, if not entirely, caused by him, and voluntarily done? I think we ought also to know how an allocation was arrived at whereby Canada assumes a disproportionate share of the actual amount to be lent to the United Nations.
These are matters which are being discussed today in the United Nations. Indeed, as one looks back over the last two or three months, one can only conclude that in the sorry history of the situation in Suez this loan would never have been required had there not been vacillation and uncertainty on the part of the free world-an attitude which has had the result of elevating Nasser to a prominent position as the dictator of the Middle East, and as the predeterminator, according to his will and his whim, of the orders made by the United Nations.
All these things arise under this section. But as yet, the house has not been made aware of the stand which is being taken by Canada at the United Nations, or respecting the direction or order made by the United Nations requiring Israel immediately to evacuate the entire Gaza area as well as the area in the vicinity of the Gulf of Aqaba.
On June 19, the secretary general was instructed to make, within five days, a report as to whether or not Israel would withdraw to the armistice line and, strangely enough, the secretary general has interpreted his mandate as giving him no right to demand or provide guarantees which Israel is seeking before evacuating the small areas she now occupies-the greater portion of the areas occupied having long since been evacuated by Israel. I think we have the right to know what attitude Canada is taking in this regard.
Israel has asked for guarantees to prevent Egypt from resuming raids on her territory, and to end the blockade that is imposed by Egypt in direct contravention of the orders of the security council promulgated in 1951. The secretary general says that nothing can be done by the United Nations to provide a strong force, except by the consent of Egypt. Surely this house and the country have a

Supply-External Affairs right to know how long this system of blackmail by Nasser will be permitted to continue. He has been allowed to say what the conditions governing the force shall be; he has been allowed to determine the tenure of that force; he has taken it upon himself to say that when, in his opinion, the emergency force should be withdrawn, that force shall be withdrawn. And in the last three or four days he has made his threat that unless the Israelis leave the Gaza area unconditionally he will, or may, make the canal unusable; and that he may find it necessary to call in the so-called Russian volunteers.
Sir, what assurance have we that if the canal is cleared Nasser is going to resume the responsibility of a nation enjoying membership in the United Nations? You say: What connection has the emergency force with a loan to clear the canal? There can be no peace, no permanence, brought about by the clearing of the canal unless before it is done responsibility is accepted by Egypt for a discontinuance of its previous wrongful acts.
I ask the minister to set out in detail what plans the United Nations has, what stand our representative, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is taking on behalf of Canada, in order to assure that the United Nations will have its directives respected not only by Israel but also by the grave wrongdoer, Nasser, who has treated the orders of the United Nations as so many scraps of paper. This week the United Nations faces its greatest challenge. It will either go forward to new strength or it will be emasculated in the same manner in which the league of nations was destroyed by similar action and defiance by Mussolini.
Would the minister say whether or not in Canada's opinion the Israelis should unconditionally withdraw from the Gaza area before the United Nations emergency force marches in in order to prevent a repetition of the border raids and the guerrilla attacks that have continued for seven years? Unless the emergency force is accepted as an instrument that can be used anywhere to secure and maintain compliance with the United Nations directives, then it is simply a nebulous force devoid of capacity to act and totally unable to assure that the clearance of the canal will be continued and that the canal will be made open without any restrictions to the ships of all nations.
I ask the minister whether Canada has demanded in the United Nations or intends to demand that when the Israelis evacuate their points of occupation on the gulf of Aqaba the Egyptian blockade of Israeli ships will end and all nations will be assured of equality of opportunity to utilize the canal and its
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I

facilities. Sir, if the canal is to be cleared by the United Nations through loans provided by member countries within the United Nations, have we not the right to be assured that Nasser's sole control of the canal shall end? Otherwise this is just a stopgap, another act of appeasement to Nasser.
Remember that he has said that if at any time he does not wish to maintain the canal as an open waterway he has the right to say so. I doubt whether in the last century there has ever been an equal defiance of the conscience and will of the free world than has taken place in the last few weeks. When parliament is asked to vote for a loan we have a right to know the degree to which, in the opinion of those in the government with a full knowledge of the subject, the clearing of the canal will effectually assure freedom of ingress and egress to all nations. If the United Nations allows Egypt this week to flout its authority Nasser will have been established on an eminence as a dictator in the Middle East. The future will then be fraught with fear and foreboding and the U.S.S.R. will have used him as a pawn to bring about that which they have endeavoured to achieve for more than 300 years, namely, a control over the Middle East that until now has been denied them.
Nasser has become emboldened by the unconditional support he has received from the general assembly, and I ask the minister if the Israelis withdraw from these two strategic points, Gaza and the gulf, there will be assurances that in so far as Canada's representative at the United Nations is concerned every precaution will be taken to assure that the United Nations emergency force will occupy these two areas and prevent aggression on the part of Egypt in the gulf area and in the Gaza area-prevent aggression on the part of Arab terrorists as well as prevent any bands from Israel from attacking or raiding in that area. Certainly the situation seems most anomalous in that Nasser, having defied the United Nations over and over again, having refused to obey an order made in 1951 to assure that the canal should be open and that Israeli ships should have freedom to pass through the canal, now insists, as one who has himself defaulted, that the state of Israel, the last bastion of freedom in the Middle East, shall be divested of all hope of protecting itself.
I ask the minister this. What assurances have we that when the canal is cleared Nasser, who up to now has adopted an attitude of international brigandage, will become a law-abiding member of the United Nations and will assure all nations complete freedom in the use of the Suez canal?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, there are a few things I should like to say on the supplementary item now before us and I hope to deal strictly with the matter of the Suez canal itself. The Minister of Finance is asking the house for its authorization of a loan of $1 million for the clearance of the Suez canal. On the surface, and I think I can say almost fundamentally, we are in favour of the loan, but naturally a number of questions should be asked and answered before authorization is given.
The situation is very similar to what would exist if I approached you, Mr. Chairman, or any other member of the house and asked for a loan to rebuild a house that had been partially destroyed by fire. Naturally you would like to know how the building was going to be used and administered. We as members of the House of Commons are in the same position in asking questions on this estimate authorizing the granting of a loan. We all agree that the Suez canal must be cleared and reopened for all ship traffic, but when the government asks for authorization of a loan of $1 million then before such authorization is given we ask the government to give as full information as they possibly can on what their stand, position and policy are regarding the Suez canal once it has been cleared. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, if I were to ask you for a loan to rebuild a house or other building you would hesitate very much to lend me the money unless you knew the purpose for which the building was going to be used. You would hesitate very much unless you knew. You would not want it to be used as a bootlegging establishment, a house of ill fame or something not in the best interests of the community. The same thing applies with regard to the Suez canal, which is of such vital importance to all the world. When this government is asking us to authorize a loan for its clearance we should know the attitude of the government on the use that is going to be made of it once it is cleared.
I agree with a great many of the indications that have just been given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) with regard to Colonel Nasser himself. In my own humble estimation there is no question whatsoever that he has been overcome by his own verbosity, that he thinks he is now the rising, shining light of the Arab world and that he is developing an attitude-and one expressed in words-which is similar to that which was evident during the rise of Hitler in Germany. Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy cost the democratic world a great deal in money and in lives. We cannot see it happen again. Now, when it is 82715-51J
Supply-External Affairs in the embryonic stage, is the time for democratic countries in parliaments like ours to make our opinions known.
We in this group definitely are of the opinion that, as members of the United Nations, as one that is making a major contribution in the emergency force and one that is now being asked to make a loan for the clearance of the canal, this country through its government should at this time announce its view on its operation once it is cleared. I think it is only logical and reasonable to believe and to say that a waterway such as the Suez, canal, which is important to the entire world,, cannot be left under the domination and' subject to the whims of a would-be dictator or of one country. Surely it is reasonable-and logical, having the future in mind, to-ask the government whether, in asking for: this loan and in view of the other expenditures that this government is obliged to make, they are prepared to state that in the United Nations they are either going to put forward or support international control of an international waterway as is the Suez canal.
As the situation is at the present time, the only way in which it is possible to have international control of an international waterway such as the Suez canal is under the aegis of the United Nations. Hence the first question we should like to ask in considering the supplementary estimates is whether that is the attitude of the government and whether they will press it with everything they have in the United Nations and, in so doing, of course, give a guarantee that no country is going to be discriminated against. I would think it is obvious to all that in the re-opening of the Suez canal we cannot rely on the word of Nasser or on the word of Egypt as we have known them for quite a while past. They have indicated already over a period of five years that if they have viciousness against a certain country, they will use their control of the canal to block that country.
It was my privilege a few years ago, Mr. Chairman, to visit the state of Israel. I want to say that it was not only a pleasure but an inspiration in the time that I spent there to see a people dedicated to building a new country out of rock and sand, and they were doing it. In my estimation Israel today is the only democratic bulwark in that part of the world. It is therefore our responsibility and that of the United Nations to aid and to assist them. When in their great work, with their great objectives, they are blocked by the viciousness and dictatorship of one country, because of the Suez canal, I say that is an indication as to what some country or what some individual or persons like him would do
804	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs to any other country-be it Great Britain, France, Canada or any other country-it we happen to get into their bad graces.
The Suez canal is of such great importance that such a situation has been protracted too long as far as Israel is concerned. We cannot possibly put any country in the position of facing a similar danger in the future. I speak as one who has been in that part of the world and as one who I think realizes the importance of national waterways. That is why we ask, through you, the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister whether, in asking for authorization for a loan at this time, they will give us a guarantee-as I hope they will-or at least an indication of the position that the government is going to take on the internationalization of the operation and administration of the Suez canal and whether a demand will be made by this government that it shall be such that no country shall be discriminated against in its trading and international affairs because of the whim of a man, a government or one country. I am certain that if we can have some indication from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this matter, he will find that it will be accorded a great reception in this country -and that it will give the leadership required at this time in the United Nations on a matter of great importance.
We certainly support the objective, the purpose, of this loan but we feel that this information is important and imperative.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, this item we now have before us in the supplementary estimates calls to mind, of course, the whole tragic and humiliating history of the Suez problem, beginning possibly with the seizure by Egypt of this important waterway in violation of its treaty obligations. In fact, we could say that this tragic history goes back prior to that time when Egypt deliberately refused to fulfil its obligations in allowing passage of vessels of all nations through that canal. There are those who gloss over or even support the action by Egypt in nationalizing the Suez canal. They say she was in fact justified in taking over a canal located within the bounds of Egypt. But the fact remains that the treaty that was signed does not expire for approximately two years more. The action that was entered into at that time was in direct violation of that agreement.
I am sure we are all aware of the importance of this waterway to the economy of western Europe. I understand that approximately a half of the oil supplies of western Europe find their way through the Suez canal. The canal has been called the lifeline


or the jugular vein of the economy of western Europe. I may say that the effects of the stoppage of the oil shipments were felt in France within a very few days after the canal was closed. Some of us had the opportunity of attending the NATO parliamentary conference, and we wondered just why it was that our hotel rooms were as cold as they were. Those who had a little time to spare and could not find other ways of occupying that time would remain in their rooms but they found they were too cold. Upon inquiring we were advised by the management of the hotel that oil was in short supply. They had placed their order as usual but had only received about 50 per cent of their regular supply. Rationing was going into effect and many homes were altogether without fuel. The people in that section were facing a very dreary and difficult period because of the stoppage of oil supplies through Suez.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the disgraceful display of bad temper, recrimination and retaliation over this situation has done nothing to establish confidence and goodwill amongst the nations of the free world. I would suggest, rather, that it has shaken the foundations of the free world in a very severe manner. We can understand how a situation like this could bring even the allies to a position where there are serious differences of opinion separating them. I was interested in reading a statement by the former president of the United States, Mr. Truman. In analysing the situation he said that interest in our own interests and in the interests of peace in the world should dictate that we never again allow ourselves to become separated from our allies.
There are many different phases that we must look at in connection with this particular item in our estimates, an item of $1 million to assist in the work of clearing the Suez canal. I say that before we even go that far there should be, as other speakers have suggested, some consideration given to the future status and use of that important waterway. Is the future use going to be dependent upon the whims of this sawdust Caesar as he has been called who, though defeated and discredited, has emerged as a god before whom Mr. Hammarskjold and the United Nations are bowing. A very interesting article appears in Saturday Night of January 5 with reference to this matter. Speaking of Mr. Hammarskjold it says:
. . . Dag Hammarskjold, who has found the greasy Nasser too slippery for him. But Hammarskjold, although giving an appearance of dickering with the Egyptian dictator, has really been more of a messenger boy running between United States and Cairo.

A little farther down the article states:
Nasser, with the compliance of Hammarskjold (who referred to British crews of salvage vessels, as "enemy aliens") and the U.N., has managed to make low comedy of the Canadian resolution.
They are speaking now of the emergency force.
It is intolerable that a defeated and discredited dictator can impose conditions on an international police force. If he gets away with it (and so far he has), the UNEF idea is as dead as a pickled herring.
Possibly these are very strong words, Mr. Chairman, but I would suggest there may be more than a little truth in that article. I would suggest there must be a recognition of certain very important facts in a discussion of this matter. There is more to it than just an item in the estimates. I would suggest that the whole Middle East situation is tied up in a very real way with this action that is now proposed in clearing the canal.
The question of control has been raised. Who is going to control the canal after it is cleared? Prior to the nationalization of the canal it was operated by the Suez canal company. Then, Mr. Nasser got peeved and retaliated by taking over the canal and saying he was going to use it and operate it in the interests of Egypt. After the clearance of the canal, who is going to operate it? Mr. Nasser said he may find it necessary even now, unless his conditions are met, to halt the clearing operations. Apparently the United Nations, and some of our governments who are giving such complete support to the United Nations in this matter, are willing to let him dictate the terms. Whoever operates the canal, I would suggest that there must be a guarantee of the freedom of navigation for ships of all nations. This clause was in the agreement which was violated by Egypt in the refusal to allow passage of Israeli ships.
I recall back in the fall of 1954, when I had the privilege of being at the United Nations, a particular incident was under consideration at that time known as the Bat Galin incident. It was a matter of considerable concern at that time, but the principle involved was that the Egyptian authorities refused passage to Israeli vessels and on this occasion took possession of one. I would suggest as well that some attention should be given to the Soviet-Egyptian intentions. When I was speaking a few days ago I referred to an article written by James Cromwell, former United States minister to Canada. With reference to this particular matter of Soviet intentions, he had this to say:
The president was in a tough spot because of the elections. Sir Anthony's handling of the far eastern situation has been of the utmost value to
Supply-External Affairs all free countries. The British and French uncovered, captured and destroyed millions of dollars worth of top Russian war material, stockpiled in the east.
In doing this they blocked Russia's program for conquest in the Middle East. They also revealed to the world Russian plans to gain control in the east.
I know many here will not agree with the reference to Sir Anthony Eden. I was not stressing that particular aspect at this time, but the indication by Mr. Cromwell that that action did reveal the extent of Soviet intentions and plans in that area.
Then, we should like to ask the question, where do we go from here? Has that danger been completely destroyed; has it evaporated or are we still faced with that same serious problem?
I should like to refer to Newsweek magazine of January 14, 1957 where on page 16 under the heading "Danger Signals" I read:
East Berlin-The word here is that Egypt's President Nasser soon will send a delegation to Czechoslovakia to arrange for a second big arms shipment, including tanks, armored cars, and spare parts. In addition, 500 Egyptian army officers will arrive around February 1 to train in heavy-tank operation and jet-fighters and bombers.
Reports in the newspapers these last few evenings have referred to the continued supply of Russian materials to those countries in the Middle East. What is going to happen? Is any thought at all being given to this matter? What action is being taken? What safeguards are being provided? I think these questions are also of importance when we are considering an item like the one which is presently before us.
There are other problems to be considered. There is the problem in relation to the gulf of Aqaba, border guarantees and the United Nations emergency force. But over and above all of these hovers the great problem of the political settlement of the entire Middle East situation. We should not forget that these are what might be described as minor aspects of the over-all problem of the Middle East and if we cannot find a solution to the major problem the others will not amount to much.
With regard to the policy of the United Nations I believe I speak for a great many Canadians when I say that I am personally disturbed about the way the United Nations and Mr. Hammarskjold as secretary-general have been carrying on negotiations, conversations and activities with respect to the situation in the Middle East. It would appear that the United Nations policy is made up of a series of curt orders to the friends of the western world, to those whom we call our allies, and a policy of appeasement and collaboration with Colonel Nasser of Egypt.

Supply-External Affairs
I would like to know what other nations are doing with regard to the request for assistance in the clearing of the canal. What is the Soviet union doing? What is India doing? What nations are participating in what we might call the preliminary advance for the purpose of clearing the canal? I think that information would be of assistance to us.
In conclusion I would like to pose a final question. On what is this advance being made? Is it an advance on a greater sum that we will be asked to contribute at a later date? I believe the Minister of Finance originally suggested it was a contribution and then he changed that expression and substituted the word "advance". He has suggested it is a loan. Well, just what is it? Is it, as I have already inquired, an advance on a larger contribution we will be asked to make at some future date? Will it be in the form of a loan? How will it be repaid and who is going to repay it? Someone has said it is just an item of $1 million. I suggest it is more than that because it relates to one of the greatest problems which confronts us at the present time.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, to go around in reverse order, I might answer the last question first. The hon. gentleman would like to know whether this is a loan or an advance and if we are likely to be called upon to advance more money at a later time. I wish I knew the answer to that question but no one does know it as the present moment. As I said last night, this is an advance to put the secretary general of the United Nations in funds for the purpose of paying the interim costs of the clearing of the canal. It is an item of $1 million out of a total of about $10 million that he thinks he should have at the earliest possible moment. He has asked certain countries who are in a position to contribute United States dollars, because this is the basis of our contribution to the United Nations, for that sum. The United States have already said they would contribute $5 million. Norway has intimated that she will contribute $1 million.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Advance.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, advance. We have spoken of the $1 million in the vote and several of the western European countries have also said they would give consideration to the matter and advise the secretary general very shortly as to the amount they would be able to advance. In fact, in all cases they have intimated that their government was favourably disposed to doing something to make up to $10 million.
As to the future, my understanding is that something like this will occur. The United


Nations will debate this matter at the current session and come to some conclusion either as to further interim financing or an assessment for the cost of the whole job and if that assessment is spread over all the members of the United Nations no doubt Canada will then be assessed for a sum of money. Whether it will be at the rate of our normal contribution of something between 3 and 4 per cent or whether it will be a different sum I would not be able to say at the present time, but if a further assessment is made of course we shall have credit for the $1 million on that assessment. On the other hand, if the secretary general feels that he can arrange the financing in some other way before the job is completed, in all probability he would then repay us the $1 million pending a final decision as to what our contribution ought to be in the end.
Now, to go back over the other questions-


Alexander Bell Patterson: I wonder if I could ask another question at this point. Is Egypt going to be required to contribute anything to the clearance project?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, the resolution has not been discussed before the United Nations. I would not be in a position either to say what the ultimate resolution would be or even to suggest the probability. I know a great many opinions have been expressed as to who might or might not be asked to pay for the cost, but at the present time I do not think any useful purpose would be served by our discussing that or expressing our own opinion at least for the time being.
The other discussions on this item ranged not only up and down the canal but off on to the mainland. I did not want to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that he was not in order when he was speaking of the Gaza strip and other aspects of the current dispute between Israel and the Arab countries. However, I would not want to pass over any of the remarks he has made without some very brief reference to every matter he mentioned, although I think we ought to confine the discussion to the canal as such and the clearing thereof.
I think our position with respect to the Gaza strip is quite simple. Eight years ago the United Nations established certain armistice lines which brought to an end the hostilities which were then proceeding. Since that time everyone has recognized that a political solution to all the problems in the Middle East and in particular the dispute over Israel is highly desirable. I am sure that everyone in Canada would feel that if the United Nations could bring out of its present meeting or even out of protracted negotiations

Supply-External Affairs
over several months solutions which have not been attempted in some parts at all during the eight years, then a contribution of that kind and a good deal more might be justified. Peace in the Middle East, in my view and I think in the view of the government of Canada, depends on getting a political solution to these things which have been left in an uncertain state since 1948.
There is no question in my mind about the view the people of Canada would take about that settlement and that it ought to result in a recognition of the state of Israel by the Arab countries surrounding that state. We then ought to go ahead with our economic life without all the great expense to which all those countries have been put over the years in maintaining military establishments and thereby draining what might be a prosperous world of some of its means for improving the standard of living of the people.
The Gaza strip is not an issue in the vote before us. I can only say that we recognize it is one of the more current difficulties and it is hoped that the present negotiations going on at the United Nations will find some means of assuring that there will not be any form of chaos or lack of authority in that area during the course of the negotiations which might extend for some months.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to assure the committee that Nasser will be a law-abiding member of the United Nations. I am afraid that I am not in a position to sign any note of that kind.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not ask you that.


Walter Edward Harris: That was the concluding
appeal, that the government give assurance that Nasser would become a law-abiding member of the United Nations.


Mr. Hodgson:: Why not?


Walter Edward Harris: It would be our desire that every member of the United Nations would be a law-abiding member thereof, but I do not think I should be expected to give any assurance of that kind. I do want to give the assurance that coupled with the vote of $1 million which I hope the committee will approve we will reiterate the position we have always taken on this matter, that is that the Suez canal shall be free to everyone without discrimination in its use. What form the operative part would take is still a matter of great concern and indeed may not be foreseen at the present time, but the United Nations resolution saying that this waterway shall be open to all users is not only endorsed by Canada but will be endorsed by Canada and insisted upon in so far as we have the ability to do so.
I do not think that I can answer in particular detail many of the other questions that have been asked. There was one question directly affecting the money side which I might refer to briefly. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know if there was to be an apportionment of the responsibility. He wanted to know also why it was that we were called upon, to use his own words, to make a disproportionately large contribution to the present financing. I think that is what he had in mind. If I have not explained that clearly I will repeat.
The appeal for immediate funds was made to those countries which in the opinion of the secretary general could most easily, both financially and legislatively, provide the money at the earliest possible moment. We recognize that one in ten is a larger contribution than we are called upon to make in almost any other phase of the United Nations. In most cases our percentage contribution is less. But it is for the very reason that this is not an assessment but rather merely an appeal for funds that the amount we are presently asking parliament to vote is larger than we would normally be expected to give.
I think the Leader of the Opposition also wanted me to say something about certain guarantees which were made back in 1951. All I can add to what I have said already is that I would hope that out of the present session of the United Nations will come an acceptatfle solution or at least some method of determining an acceptable solution which might not be precisely in the form of the guarantees of 1951 or those of 1948 but which would nevertheless be a means whereby these difficulties along the Israeli and Egyptian borders could be resolved.
Under these circumstances I regret that I cannot go further. I do appreciate the remarks that have been made by all speakers, each one of whom I think has admitted that we ought to do this, and that the economic advantage in clearing the canal and having trade resumed and costs reduced in Europe, in fact in Asia and all shipping countries, would be of great advantage and would be a real contribution to the resumption, not only of normal trade but of that feeling which gives rise in some cases to political settlements which otherwise would not be so easily reached. If I have omitted anything I shall be glad to attempt to answer what I have missed.


Mr. Michener:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a further question. It has been said already, and I think it is true, that all of us would welcome the clearing of the Suez canal and more particularly the assurance that it will be free for international use. These fund::

Supply-External Affairs which parliament is being asked to vote as a loan will presumably be spent under the direction of the assembly. Could the minister or his colleagues give us any information as to the debts which have been incurred for which this money is needed; who is doing the work; to whom this money will be paid for the clearing of the canal? We read in the press about what salvage boats and equipment are being used. Is British and French equipment being used and, if so, by what means? I think it would be helpful if we could have such information as the minister can give us as to the purposes for which this money is being spent currently and how the canal is being cleared.


Walter Edward Harris: The canal is being cleared by the United Nations.


Daniel Roland Michener: Is it being done under the direction of the assembly or has the security council anything to do with it?


Walter Edward Harris: It is under the direction of the assembly. Brigadier General Wheeler is in charge of the operation and has almost complete authority, if not complete authority, for that purpose. He is employing any persons or any construction or salvage companies that he can obtain. At that time, as I said last evening, it was hoped the work could be completed in three or four months. The expenditure which we are trying to provide will be used by the secretary general, as#trustee, through Brigadier Wheeler and the organization he has set up. I understand there will be some British ships and personnel being used to the best advantage in the work on the canal.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, in common with other members in this group we welcome the minister's statement, but in one phrase he used I think he said either too little or too much. I wish he would enlarge upon it. We all want to see the Suez canal open to all countries, and that is government policy, too; but supposing Colonel Nasser is not prepared to open it to all countries. Then, according to the minister's remarks, the freedom to use the canal might be "insisted upon". Would the hon. gentleman care to enlarge on that statement?


Walter Edward Harris: I thought it was clear, Mr. Chairman, that we have approved the United Nations resolution that there should be no discrimination in the use of the canal and that we would take the opportunity, when we remitted the $1 million, of emphasizing once again that we thought this should be the conclusion the assembly should reach in dealing with this resolution.

When I used the word "insist" I meant it only in that sense, the sense of repeating again the argument we have used. I was not suggesting any sanction in connection with the $1 million, because we shall be paying this over at the earliest possible moment, but I mean that in doing this we shall emphasize again our concern that the canal must be free to the ships of the nations concerned, and that the resolution heretofore passed should be insisted upon in the United Nations in any future discussion as to the use of the canal.


Frederick George Hahn: The Minister of Finance has indicated in his remarks that the United States, Norway and several west European countries have agreed to make loans. Is he in a position to tell us what amounts they will contribute, and what countries they are?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as I said, the only country which has actually given a figure is Norway, but the following countries are now engaged in the same processes as this house is engaged in, namely determining what they may do: Australia, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, West Germany and Italy. We have had some preliminary announcements from the Italian, Danish and Swedish governments that they were favourably inclined toward the proposal, but that is as far as I can go.


Mr. Pearkes:: How is it that the United Kingdom, France and Italy, who are most concerned with the results of these activities, have neither made nor been asked to make any contribution?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the hon. member will see that in some cases it is desirable that these things should be done by nations which, While interested in results, might not possibly be accused of having had any part in what brought about the discussions we are now undertaking.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has treated this question as though everything were lovely and there were no obstacles in the way of success. He implied that it was just a matter of a little persuasion and a little bit of delay until the canal is opened again and all the trouble would be at an end. In the meantime Canada is going to pass out a mere million dollars to bring about this result. One might almost be excused for thinking the ministers were putting up this million dollars themselves. That seems the attitude of the Canadian representatives on this question, they make big fellows of themselves by having Canada contribute what is obviously an amount far in excess of what she should contribute.


Walter Edward Harris: I carefully said, every time, that we are asking parliament to do this.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, "asking parliament to do it". There is no doubt about what the members sitting behind the minister and supporting him on this side of the house will do. The responsibility goes right back to the cabinet. Canada is advancing far more than her proper share, and I repeat that in effect the ministers are making good fellows of themselves at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. This situation is just not as simple as the minister has made it appear.
I have here an extract from the U.S. News and World Report of January 25, 1957, which has this to say with regard to the situation in Suez:
In that Middle East tangle, here are things to keep an eye on: Suez canal clearance is to be far enough along in March to let some ships through. One issue is whether Nasser will let British, French, Israeli ships go through.
Obviously that has not been settled yet. The minister said this afternoon that the government of Canada would press for the free use of the canal by all nations, but it is perfectly clear that this man Nasser has not yet agreed to that; in fact he has been making threats that if certain conditions are hot adhered to, British, French and Israeli ships will not be allowed to use the canal. The dispatch in the V.S. News goes on:
Another Issue: will tolls be paid to Nasser? Test may come with the first ship to try transit. The west is getting braced for this test. Price of clearing canal remains to be settled. U.S. has advanced $5 million. Others have hung back. Who will pay, and how much, are the questions. U.N. police force may have to take on more jobs. It may be asked to police Gaza strip and gulf of Aqaba. Israel now holds these strategic areas. Egypt claims them. U.N. will have its hands full with this dispute.
This house should be told what stand Canada is to take with regard to Egypt paying something toward the clearing of the canal. After all, who was it blocked the canal in the most malicious piece of sabotage in many years? Egypt deliberately blocked this canal, with the result that it will cost somewhere around $30 million or $40 million to clear it. However, there was hot one word from the government today to suggest that they believe Egypt should pay at least some of this amount, not a breath of any such suggestion. Canada is rustling around and raising $1 million. The Americans are putting in $5 million, and they should put up 15 times as much as Canada. There is no reason why we should pay one-fifth as much as the Americans for this or any other similar project.
Nasser, the man who has brought about most of this trouble by breaking his agree-
Supply-External Affairs ments and by flouting the resolutions of the United Nations through the months and the years, is to get off scot-free, while the people of Canada are being asked to pay the shot. That is exactly what I said would happen when I spoke during the session last November. It is perfectly clear that we have now reached that situation, and I think instead of the minister getting up in a wishy-washy way and trying to get this vote through on soapsuds, a representative of the government should get up and say exactly what Canada believes should be done; and it should be insisted that this man Nasser should pay at least a reasonable proportion of the cost of clearing the canal. It is all very well to expect the people to pay and pay and pay, regardless of who is at fault.
In this whole deal it seems that the democratic countries, the ones that will follow the rules laid down by the United Nations, are those who will get all the abuse and all the insults, and then have to pay the shot. That is the position we are facing in this parliament today; a few words of maudlin sympathy for Israel, while at New York the Canadian representative is insisting that Israel must get out of the Gaza strip and away from the gulf of Aqaba before anything can be done. Could there be any situation more ridiculous?
I come now to another point. I ask the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to give the house some definite assurance with regard to what is to happen to this United Nations emergency force. There is a statement in the press this morning. One thing about these dictators-Hitler was the same, an'd Mussolini was the same-they always tell us exactly what they are going to do, and we never believe them; we always think it is too bad to be true, and we bury our heads in the sand. Then we wake up to the fact that they have actually done what they said they were going to do. Here is what appeared in the press this morning under the heading, "UNEF Won't Stay".
Cairo-Deputy foreign minister Fattah Hassan-
He is an official of the Egyptian government.
-said in an interview that "the United Nations emergency force will not remain in Egypt after Israel has withdrawn from Egyptian territory". In the interview, published in the newspaper A1 Massaa, he said: "UNEF will not remain in Egypt after completion of the mission entrusted by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of all aggressors behind the armistice lines."
They have taken that stand from the start and the democratic nations have given in all the way through. We were led to believe when this force was first raised that it would be kept largely in the Suez canal area in order to see that there was free transit through

Supply-External Affairs the canal. We thought that the force was to act to bring about a final settlement of the question. But right through the piece Nasser has got everything he wished. He said that he would not have the force in the canal area and the troops had to go out into the Sinai desert. That is where they are now. He said he would not have the Queen's Own Rifles in Egypt and the Queen's Own Rifles went back to Calgary from Halifax, with alibis made by the Canadian Prime Minister and other members of the cabinet.
In the order in council passed on November 20, 1956, authorizing the sending of Canadian troops we find this paragraph:
And whereas member nations were invited to contribute self-contained battalion groups to which Canada agreed, as a result of which preparations were made to assemble such a force for dispatch in part by air and in part by H.M.C.S. Magnificent;
And so on. It was battalion groups that the United Nations wanted, but Nasser said there were not going to be any Canadian infantry troops and they were not sent. Every step has been dictated by Nasser. I think we are entitled to know now just what Canada is going to insist upon with regard to the United Nations emergency force. Is that force to remain in the Middle East until there has been a settlement of the boundary dispute between Israel and the Arab nations? Is it to go into the Gaza strip? Is it to go to the gulf of Aqaba? Is it to have any responsibility in the Suez canal area?
These are the sort of things the house should be told. If that is not the intention, then it is perfectly obvious what will happen. Israel, by the force of opinion built up by the nations that are opposed to her and want to see her wiped out, will be forced to get out of the Gaza strip and the gulf of Aqaba area. Then, following the same course that has been followed right through, Nasser will demand that the United Nations emergency force be withdrawn. The same nations that have been demanding that Israel withdraw will then demand that the United Nations emergency force withdraw and Nasser will be in complete control, built up to a position of dominance in that area far greater than Mussolini or Hitler ever achieved and built up primarily by the backing of the democratic nations, including Canada.
If that is the position that is to come about and if the Canadian government is going to sit back, do nothing about it and just let things drift, I suggest it will be a great tragedy. It will be out of line with the whole character and background of the Canadian people. The Canadian people are people who make their position known. They believe in taking a stand and making their

position known. I am sure they are not behind the government in the pussy-footing on this question, their policy of hanging back and trusting that everything will work out in the long run.
The Minister of Finance has not been able to give us any definite assurances, and I hope the Prime Minister of this country will rise from his seat this afternoon and assure the house and the country that Canada is going to take a determined stand to see that Nasser is not allowed to get away with any more of these dictatorial moves. Canada has taken a very large part in the United Nations emergency force, a part far in excess of what she was obliged to do. About one fifth of the troops in the force are from Canada even though none of them are infantry troops. I hope the Prime Minister will make it clear that Canada is going to insist that the United Nations emergency force remain in the Middle East until the question of boundaries has been finally settled and until free use of the Suez canal has been assured to all nations of the world.


Mr. Palleli:: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance who apparently is now taking the responsibility with respect to international affairs.


Walter Edward Harris: No, just supplementary
estimates.
Mr. Pallet!: I notice that the amount of the item is $1 million. In his statement the minister said that the fund was $10 million in United States funds. Is he saying to the house that it is $1 million in United States funds or should the correct figure be less than $1 million?


Walter Edward Harris: The $1 million will be Canadian funds translated into United States funds, with whatever result may come.
Mr. Pallet!: If that is the situation can the minister tell us what will happen to the difference of $40,000 odd? What will happen to that money?


Walter Edward Harris: Nothing. We have $40,000 to our credit on the advance.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon we have been trying to get some information on the question of what Canada's stand is going to be on this matter at the United Nations and so far we have not been able to get any information. A moment ago the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked the Prime Minister to let the house and the Canadian people know what attitude Canada is going to take on the question now

before the United Nations. Are we going to ask Israel to evacuate the Gaza strip and leave these islands and rocks in the gulf of Aqaba area without any assurance that the United Nations emergency force will move in and do its part to preserve the integrity of Israel?
I think we have a right to know that because all of this is intertwined with the situation on the Suez canal. This $1 million vote, this loan, simply underlines the degree of parliament's ignorance of what is going on or what stand is to be taken by Canada at the United Nations. In the last ten days or so the stand taken has been one of vacillating retreat from reality. What we have the right to know, and from the Prime Minister, I take it, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is what stand Canada is going to take.
The other day I asked a question on the orders of the day and I was not able to get any information at all. Is Canada going to stand idly by at a time when the authority of the United Nations has been challenged and disregarded by Nasser and demand unconditional withdrawal on the part of Israel while at the same time allowing Nasser to be an undischarged bankrupt with respect to his responsibilities to carry out the 1951 orders of the security council?
Mr. Chairman, what is happening in the Middle East today is almost a rewritten version of the retreats that were taken in 1936 in the league of nations and which ultimately and inevitably led to war. There is nothing more serious that can come before this parliament than a matter such as this. Nasser has simply defied everyone. He has defied the United Nations. He has laid down the terms. He has said, "These are the terms upon which a police force will operate against me". We ask what stand Canada is going to take. We are driven to find that stand on the basis of speeches made outside the House of Commons.
In the next two or three days decisions will be made. The United Nations assembly is adjourned in so far as a decision on this matter is concerned. We have a right, Mr. Chairman, to know what Canada intends to do. We are asked to vote a $1 million loan to help clear the canal and we have no assurance that when the canal is cleared, Nasser will not close it again. We have no promises. We have nothing except uncertainty. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Prime Minister to let the country know where Canada stands on this matter, for up to the present time the most discerning eye cannot follow the stand taken by Canada in the United Nations in this regard. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will now tell the house and the 82715-52J
Supply-External Affairs country what is going to be done to assure, first, the maintenance and continuance of the United Nations by assuring that its directions will be lived up to; and second, whether this is a unilateral responsibility to which any nation may object as Nasser has done.
What assurance has the secretary general received from Nasser that, when the canal is opened up, the ships of Israel and the ships of Britain and France will not be subjected to the type of intimidation that existed from July last until November? Unless we have some assurance like that, what we are doing today is simply postponing the day of responsibility by the simple expedient of lending $1 million, not knowing how it is going to be used or, when used, what the result is going to be. In addition, we have the right to know whether the United Nations emergency force is simply to be a body whose destination is determined by the wrongdoer, whose membership is to be determined-as it has been to date-by the wrongdoer and whose tour of duty is to be dependent on his whim. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Prime Minister clarify this situation. The present prospect holds dire fears for the preservation of peace not only in the Middle East but throughout the world.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman wishes to know what Canada's position is going to be. Canada's position has been stated in a speech of five and a half pages, a copy of which I obtained through a dispatch and of which mimeographed copies are said to have been sent by bag last night and which will be available. Summary reports of that speech have been made in the newspapers, and I do not think I shall attempt to read it into the record.


Howard Charles Green: Why not tell us in your own words?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. I am
not going to attempt to tell in my own words the contents of the speech.


Mr. McGregor:: You don't know how.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I did not
catch that last remark.


Robert Henry McGregor: I said that you don't know how.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will endeavour to get my place at the coming election and he will know how a lot better than any of those who have had responsibility for public affairs.


Robert Henry McGregor: I could do just as good as you do. You stand up there like a dummy and you will not even answer the questions.


The Chairman:: Order.

Supply-External Affairs


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not
going to attempt to speak if that is the attitude.


Robert Henry McGregor: You don't know how. I said that you don't know how.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member must realize that the hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent. Shall the resolution carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman. One does not want to annoy the Prime Minister, and interruptions do on occasion annoy him. Will he now proceed to tell the house and the country in summary-and if not in summary, then in detail-what the stand is so that members of parliament will not be obliged to wait for the daily press for statements made elsewhere in order to ascertain the course that Canada's government is taking? Would the Prime Minister do that?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not
going to attempt to repeat from memory the language used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I do not think it would be of much advantage to read it into the record at this time. It is a speech that was made publicly.


John George Diefenbaker: When was that?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec Easl: Yesterday morning. Copies may have arrived already. As soon as they arrive I will communicate to the hon. gentleman a mimeographed copy of the speech that was made there and in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated just what was the position he was taking as being the position of the Canadian government.


Robert Henry McGregor: After we vote the money.


John George Diefenbaker: Could the Prime Minister epitomize it? It is a simple question. Is Israel to be placed in a position that, having evacuated, the United Nations force is not to stand as a guardian against future guerrilla aggressions on the part of the Arabs?


Mr. St. Laurenl (Quebec Easl):: That is not the position taken by the Canadian government.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Excuse me, but may I interrupt both hon. members at this point in order to do what I perhaps should have done earlier. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, certain of these matters are inextricably intertwined and it has been extremely difficult for the chair this afternoon to determine the exact moment when we have departed perhaps too far from strict relevancy. I think hon. members will agree that I have been rather lenient in that respect. However, I think that any questions which are
[The Chairman.]
asked and any replies which are made should relate, as our rules require, to this particular item. I would therefore ask hon. members to direct their questions to this item which is as follows:
Loan to the United Nations Organization to help finance the clearing of the Suez canal.
I would also ask hon. members to whom the questions are being directed to give their answers having in mind the same strict ideas of relevancy. I would therefore ask hon. members on both sides to co-operate in trying to observe our ideas of relevancy when we are discussing what is, after all, an item in the supplementary estimates.


Howard Charles Green: Through you, Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is not a very satisfactory state of affairs if the House of Commons is compelled to find out what the stand of the Canadian government is either by getting a multigraphed handout a day or two after debate has taken place in this house on this question or by reading it in the newspapers the next day. If the Prime Minister does not wish to state the policy today in his own words, I think we are entitled to have him read into the record the speech that was made in New York by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


William Alfred Robinson: I presume the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has just risen to make further representations on the point of order which I was trying to elucidate. I would feel that any answers which were made to questions or any debate which took place at this time could only be relevant to the exact item under consideration. So long as we adhere to the rule of relevancy, which all hon. members well know, then we are proceeding in an orderly manner. Otherwise, I do not think it is appropriate to discuss certain questions at this time. This is an item in the supplementary estimates and we are, of course, governed by the rule of relevancy.


Howard Charles Green: On the point of order, I might say that the Minister of Finance has made a statement today and members on this side of the house have made statements. The debate has continued in the ordinary way, and in accordance with the rules of the house. Now, the Prime Minister has risen to reply and to make his position clear. I submit to Your Honour that surely it is in order for the Prime Minister to do that. I do not understand on what basis you could now rule that when it comes to the Prime Minister's reply he cannot reply because he will not be in order. If that is the case, it reduces the debates in this house to a farce. I suggest the Prime Minister has a right to reply. He has been in parliament for a long

time and is well able to decide what is relevant and what is not. I do not see why he should not be permitted to read into the record the speech which was made by his Secretary of State for External Affairs in New York.


Walter Edward Harris: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, you may remember that I opened my remarks by pointing out that the Leader of the Opposition had wandered farther afield than I thought he might have, but without my interruption, in reference to those things I felt were outside the scope of the vote. I did that out of courtesy, rather than interrupt him, but it does seem to me that, while I would not be the one to suggest the Prime Minister ought not to say what he feels is in the public interest, the point I made originally is the one you are trying to draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that any matters other than those connected with the canal are really outside the present issue. One of the two questions the Leader of the Opposition addressed to me more recently had to do with the situation in Israel, unconnected with the canal. I said that, subject to these remarks-*


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Walter Edward Harris: -the whole question of whether or not the UN force will take over the Gaza strip has nothing very much to do with the clearing of the canal.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the brevity of the answers that causes the curiosity of the opposition. Possibly I might ask the question this way, Mr. Chairman, without in any way agreeing that we are out of order in the questions we have asked. Will the Prime Minister tell us what stand the Secretary of State for External Affairs took yesterday at the United Nations with reference to the question of the canal, the protection of commerce on the canal, and the degree to which he insisted on assurances that when the canal is opened up Nasser will not again defy the United Nations and deny the free nations of the world the right to use the canal?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been dealing with that matter. We tried to get that information in parliament, but we could not get it. This is the first opportunity we have had to ascertain the facts. At the moment, I am directing my question to the Prime Minister as to the representations made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of Canada in connection with the canal matters. I ask him what stand is being taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of Canada in this very important matter?
Supply-External Affairs


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I think that without infringing the very wise interpretation of the rule you have stated it is probably possible to say why this vote is being recommended to the Canadian parliament. There was a resolution adopted, in which Canada participated with a large number of other members, giving authority to the secretary general of the United Nations to proceed as expeditiously as possible in organizing the work of clearing the canal. In doing that he made commitments, on behalf of the United Nations, to those who have been doing very efficient work up to the present time in clearing the canal.
This being the case, we thought that we should continue to lend our support to the conduct of the secretary general in trying to bring about a settlement of the mid-eastern problem in a manner that would avoid the outbreak of war again in that region. It is because we still have confidence in the efforts that are being made to that end by the secretary general that we decided to recommend to parliament that this advance of $1 million be made as an advance without any commitment as to who should ultimately have to pay the cost of that necessary job, or the job that seemed to us to be necessary, and bring about a situation where a political settlement would not go back to the situation prior to last October, but would be a situation that would make for peace in the area with some reasonable assurance of permanency. It therefore is not foreign to the reasons for recommending this vote to the house to envisage the possibility of this being helpful to the realization of the objectives of so many of the members of the United Nations.
Now, the stand that was taken yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of Canada was that, under the terms of the resolution that had been adopted, priority was to be given to the withdrawal from the areas that had been-I do not want to use the word in a sense that would imply blame in any way-occupied by Israeli troops. It was felt that was not enough to comply with the real effect of the resolution that had been adopted; it was not enough to bring about a situation that would be merely the restoration of what took place before the occupation of those areas by Israeli troops, but it had to be something that would prevent those areas from being used again for the threats to Israel to which they amounted, and the raids that were being manned from those areas. It was felt that was something that must be considered at the same time as the general assembly was considering the report made by the secretary general that Israeli troops had not made a withdrawal

Supply-External Affairs from the Gaza strip or from the shores of Aqaba; that possibly as a matter of the right priority the withdrawal should be required first but should be accompanied by measures that would assure that there would not be merely the restoration of the preoccupation condition, but that there would be such measures as would provide for the security of Israel in respect of the raids which formerly had been launched from the Gaza strip or the Sinai desert and also the assurance of free passage through the canal to all shipping. That is the theme which the Secretary of State for External Affairs developed in his speech yesterday and the hon. gentleman will see in some of the headlines in the Ottawa newspapers tonight that there is very substantial support for the attitude taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in that speech of yesterday morning.
The resolution that will follow is now being discussed. The hon. gentleman knows, as I do, that whatever we may feel our position to be, Canada cannot dictate what the resolutions adopted by the general assembly will be. There has to be an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership to carry a resolution and we know, and I am sure the hon. gentleman knows, that many discussions are taking place at this time between these various delegations to get the kind of resolution that will conform with the position expressed in the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday morning, and that will have the support of a two-thirds majority and that will reassert the statement that the Israeli troops should withdraw, but will be accompanied by further statements that immediately following the withdrawal such and such dispositions will be taken to prevent the situation from remaining no better than it was before the occupation of those areas.
The suggestion is being made in strong terms by a number of delegations that the United Nations emergency force should police that whole area for such period as might give time to bring about a settlement that will make for-I perhaps should not say permanent peace in the area but will make for stability-and for the removal of the Immediate threats of the resumption of hostilities.


Howard Charles Green: Would that be only with the consent of Egypt?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If Egypt resists, the only alternative would be a resumption of hostilities, and what is being attempted is to put such pressure upon all the parties that there will be something that will not require or will not be the occasion


for the resumption of hostilities. It is because we feel that the resumption of hostilities would be disturbing to the whole world including Canada that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing his best, as are many others, to bring about a situation where security can be achieved without a resumption of hostilities, and that can be achieved along the lines he has stated, the security of Israel against the raids that came from that area and the right of all nations to make use of the canal.
As to what will be the ultimate way in which the funds will be raised: Will it be an assessment against the members of the United Nations? That has been suggested and it does not seem to have very strong prospects of being the solution adopted. Another solution is extra or supplemental tolls paid by the users of the canal to provide through those supplemental tolls the amount that will have been expended to clear the canal and to make it open for shipping generally. These things cannot be brought to a head quickly. It has always been our experience in drafting, when several are concerned that not every mind envisages the proper way to express the proper ideas in the same fashion and in the same language, and these things take time. When you have to have two-thirds of 80 in favour in order to get an effective resolution, it takes some time and some negotiation to have them all agree that the proper words, the proper punctuation and the proper order of expressing the decisions are contained in the document submitted. That is work with respect to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had quite a lot of experience. I am not asking hon. members opposite to share that admiration but I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs has won much admiration from other delegations at the United Nations for what he has been able to do in that respect. To make a positive statement and say, "It must be this or we are not going to support it," is not apt to bring about the adoption of a resolution supported by a two-thirds majority of the 80 members of the assembly. That is the situation as it stands at the present time and I hope it will mature into a resolution that will have the required support from many quarters. I appreciate, of course, that it is rather unpalatable for hon. members of this house to have to learn what is being said or done elsewhere but it must be realized that it is the "elsewhere" that is the forum where the resolutions are going to be discussed and adopted.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, but it is Canada that is being bound by them, and Canada's parliament should know.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If Canada's parliament is to be told beforehand what will be the unalterable position of the Canadian delegation I would not expect Canada to participate in many resolutions the general effect of which may be of advantage, though not exactly in the line that originally would have been proposed by Canada.
I think the hon. gentleman will recognize that what I am saying will accord with what he himself has observed on more than one occasion when he has visited the assembly halls either of the security council or of the general assembly of the United Nations. The government is not in the same position in the United Nations as it is in the Canadian parliament. In the Canadian parliament it can put forward its proposal and if the proposal is not adopted the government stands defeated and another government is called in to take its place. At the United Nations that is not the situation. If the Canadian delegation takes a stand as an unalterable stand and it is not acceptable to a majority of two-thirds of the 80 members of the United Nations, the resolution is just not adopted. Under present conditions I think it would be a very sorry result for the United Nations. I hope hon. members will feel, as I do, that if this situation can be cleared up in a satisfactory way through the actions of the United Nations the prestige of that body will have been greatly enhanced and the confidence of the world at large in that body and its efficiency will have been greatly increased.
That is what we have been trying to do; that is what we have been trying to bring about. It is true that if this were to be a contribution or an assessment of what Canada might be expected to pay for the clearing of the Suez canal it would be out of proportion. It may be that our contribution to the United Nations force is out of proportion, but after all the general who has been chosen as the commander for the United Nations is a gentleman of Canadian citizenship for whom I think we all have admiration and whom we felt it would not be the desire of the Canadian people to let down in his efforts to discharge successfully the responsibilities that have been placed upon his shoulders by the United Nations. That is the reason this government has endeavoured to meet the requests made by General Bums as to the kind of assistance he would feel he should have from Canadian personnel with whom he was of course more familiar than he would be with personnel supplied by other nations. It was for that reason that there were these alterations made in the original plan. My hon. friends on the other side say that it is because it was at the dictation of Nasser.
Supply-External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: That is what Nasser says; that is admitted also in the United States.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are many who say it was at the dictation of Nasser but there are others who believed it was better to compromise than to resort to a resumption of fighting in that area. That was the alternative.
When you can bring a man like Nasser, whom I have never met and about whom I have had very conflicting appraisals by different persons, all of whom I think were speaking in perfectly good faith, to a kind of compromise that is tolerable and that will assist in reaching the final objective without the resumption of armed hostilities, that I think is an achievement.


Howard Charles Green: What compromise has he made as yet?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not
know that it would be of any value for me to attempt to go over the details of the discussions that have taken place with Nasser in regard to this situation. If the hon. gentleman feels it would have been better for the free countries to resort to armed force to impose their will as to what they thought would be the best solution, then I cannot agree with him. On some occasions that may be the only way in which results can be achieved, but when there is any other way, even though it may require a lot of negotiation and a lot of changed commas or words in a resolution, there is a real achievement when progress is accomplished without resort to the force of arms.
Up to the present considerable progress has been made. It may be that there should have been greater care exercised in the drafting of the original resolutions of November 2, 1956, but they do cover the whole area. It may be that because one paragraph came before another it makes it necessary to deal with what was in the preceding paragraph before dealing with what was in the next paragraph, but if they are all dealt with in the same document and by the same resolution I think the order in which they come in that document and in that resolution is not as important as the avoiding of the resumption of armed hostilities.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there is no one on this side of the house who would desire to see a resumption of armed conflict. In no question that was asked here this afternoon was there any possible suggestion that that would be the preferable course. What we are trying to do is to secure some information as to the stand being taken on behalf of the Canadian people with the objective in mind of securing peace in the Middle

Supply-External Affairs East. We advanced the idea that before there should be any evacuation on the part of Israeli troops from the Gaza strip and from the gulf of Aqaba, Israel had the right to an assurance that she would not be left unprotected. The Prime Minister has now said that the protection of Israel against the resumption of raids and guerrilla warfare is in the concept advanced yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As well as by the representative of the government of the United States who spoke before the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister
referred continually to the fact that this idea was suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As I read the record, and as the Prime Minister now says, it was first advanced by Henry Cabot Lodge, the representative of the United States.
There is one thing that has not been cleared up by the answer given by the Prime Minister. The secretary general of the United Nations appears to be under the impression that his mandate does not go beyond directing Israel to remove its forces. It does not permit him to suggest any further action that should be taken in order to maintain the integrity of Israel and preserve the Suez canal for the use of all nations.
Over and over again he has taken the stand that Nasser has to consent. Up to the present time Nasser has certainly dictated the course which has been followed. He says: These are the rules; this is the kind of force I will accept; these are the terms under which that force will operate. For any nations of the free world to accept his ipse dixit as the final decision and basis of settlement; for the nations to accept in their entirety his declarations may cause a temporary appeasement, but all history shows that those who thirst for blood are not appeased. In the speech yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs these words appear:
3. Empower the secretary general to deploy the emergency force into the vital areas as Israel pulls out-hut to consult both disputants before making such a move. The force thus would take over the duties of the old UN Palestine truce team but would extend them along the Aqaba gulf coast.
Now, I ask the Prime Minister this. Do the consultations which are being carried on with the disputants imply that both the disputants must consent to the force being used? Up to the present time Mr. Hammarskjold has taken a very firm stand that no action anticipated to be taken on Egyptian soil shall be taken without the consent of the government of Egypt. The Gaza area and part of the area on the gulf of Aqaba have been accepted as


Egyptian territory since 1948. Will it be necessary to have Nasser's consent as a condition for the moving in of the United Nations emergency force to patrol those areas? If it will not, I think the general plan will meet with universal approval of the people of this country, because that is what has been asked for; it is reasonable, and it is the only way in which there is any possibility of preserving peace in the Middle East.
On the other hand, if the means to be taken have to be acceptable to Nasser then those means cannot achieve peace. They may result in the continuance of a truce, or of an armistice, but there can be no peace in following the dictated determinations of Nasser. I therefore ask the Prime Minister this. Is it intended that the emergency force or the United Nations force, the truce administration or whatever you like to call it, will move in and will not require the consent of Nasser before doing so?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think this is a matter of semantics rather than a matter of politics. "Will they require the consent of Nasser to move in?" They will require that there be no armed opposition to their moving in, and that is in accord with what has been the pursuit of the United Nations since it was seized with this problem of bringing about a settlement that would not require force of arms for its achievement. It is not only the force of arms that acts upon the acquiescence of parties to a dispute. If the hon. gentleman will read the whole of the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs he will see that there is a dispute as to the legal situation with respect to the Gaza strip and the Aqaba shores, and the minister for external affairs recommends that the question be submitted to the international court for adjudication but that in the meantime both parties give assurances that there will be no attempt to make use of these areas for the resumption of active hostilities.


John George Diefenbaker: And enforced by the
emergency force?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The emergency force will be there to see to it that there is no resort to a resumption of armed hostilities.
The whole affair is very much made up of different scenes, if you will, of the same drama; and it is for that reason, Mr. Chairman, that I have ventured to mention things that do not deal obviously and directly with the recommendation of this vote to the House of Commons. This is only one of the scenes of the drama, and the main actors are not always those who first appear upon the public

stage. The hon. gentleman says the first public suggestion of this procedure was made by Hr. Lodge, and that is quite true. But the hon. gentleman also knows that there had been discussions behind the scenes for several days, and those discussions dealt not only with what should be proposed but also with who should make the proposals, so as to ensure that they might receive the widest possible acceptance.
The hon. gentleman knows, as I do, that the sponsorship of resolutions is frequently a matter which requires a great deal of discussion behind the scenes before it is agreed upon, and even now I hope the representative of India will find it possible to join in sponsorship of the resolutions that will be brought forward. I know there may be some wishful thinking with regard to that, but the hon. gentleman will see in the dispatches that a resolution is very apt to come about as something arising out of the atmosphere that develops, or will develop, among the delegations during this adjournment.
I do not think the hon. gentleman would imagine, and neither do I, that there were no resolutions ready when the adjournment was suggested, but it was felt that before bringing these forward it would be better to have this adjournment so they could be discussed in a forum where no one was taking a public stand from which a retreat would have involved loss of face.
I for my part-and my colleagues feel as I do-trust a great deal in the discretion and tact of our Secretary of State for External Affairs in the manoeuvres to which resort must be had in order to bring about something that proves acceptable to a two-thirds majority of the general assembly.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two about the purpose of this proposed loan of $1 million to the United Nations; and by way of introducing the remarks I wish to make, may I say I believe it is the common belief of the house that we are now being asked to vote this sum because of some prior action taken by the government of Canada.
We were here in November, when we debated at some length an action which was then fresh in our minds and which had just been instituted in the United Nations. I, for one, though regarding it hopefully and supporting the vote that was taken at that time in respect of the United Nations emergency force, raised some very serious questions and doubts which everyone must have had regarding the choice the Canadian government, along with other countries, made to remove the police action in the area from the
Supply-External Affairs hands of the French and British and place it under the direction of the assembly of the United Nations. That choice was made and that again has gone on under the direction of the general assembly. Today, in consequence of that choice and action, we are now providing funds as a loan to pay for one of the objectives which the United Nations assembly is trying to attain.
I agree that it is not an easy problem. Everyone here will agree that to lend $1 million to clear the Suez canal for traffic and, more important, to re-establish it as a channel of free international trade, is a worthy objective, and I am sure the government will secure the necessary vote. But the fact that we are voting the money, the fact that the government will have the money in its hands and will lend it and will be under responsibility to the house and the country to account for the expenditure and demonstrate as time goes on that the expenditure has produced a result that is worth while, also brings into issue the initial choice the government made in sponsoring in the United Nations the resolution to set up the emergency force. It also brings into issue the government's conduct in pursuing that choice at the United Nations, as our Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing at this very moment.
The Prime Minister raised the difficulty which we all see of obtaining a two-thirds majority. That must have been in the minds of the government when they undertook the course they are now following and undertook to put the responsibility for the solution of the Middle East problem in the hands of the assembly.
It is quite true that a two-thirds majority is needed for every resolution, that the assembly can only act by resolution, and that if that majority cannot be obtained the whole procedure, the whole course of this remedy, this police action, this attempt to solve the present issues in the Middle East, may be completely stultified. But that is something upon which the government has entered with its eyes open and knowing the consequences of using the general assembly for that purpose. We said at the time, and I repeat, that we were hopeful the choice made and the action we are taking today would lead to a more effective means of dealing with this kind of international problem where some exercise of authority, either by states in association or by the United Nations through an emergency force, is absolutely essential to the correction of disorder and to the correction of those who create the disorders.
I say we are hopeful it will lead to something, but let me say this, and this is the point I wish to make. The government has

Supply-External Affairs made a choice which has resulted in the action under way today, and the government is on trial in carrying through the consequences of that choice in the general assembly of the United Nations. The people of Canada will look to them to justify their conduct by success. Therefore what we have to see to in voting funds, and all we can see to, is that the government will not be content with anything less than the objective which has been so well stated today, a solution of these problems through action of the United Nations, a solution which does not depend on the consent of one of the parties, the consent of Nasser of Egypt or any consent which will nullify the solution of the three important problems respecting the Suez, the Israeli-Arab dispute and the question of the Arab refugees.
The latter two are not in dispute today, but the disposition of the canal problem is the object of this vote. I do suggest that the money will be wasted and the course of the government's action will be condemned in time by the people of the country unless they take a firm line at the United Nations and justify the choice they made some months ago. That can only be done by being insistent and convincing. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is a very tactful and convincing man. We hope he will succeed and that the general assembly will be effective in solving the problem. As I say, the government is on trial, the minister is on trial, and we are looking to them to justify the course which has been taken.


Mr.   Paiterson@: The Prime Minister indicated he would see that the Leader of the Opposition was provided with a copy of the recent speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether it would be possible for all members of the committee to obtain copies for their information.


John Cameron Pallett: We are voting here $1 million, a considerable sum of money; and in the light of the explanation advanced, part of which was conveyed to me at secondhand because it was necessary for me to be out of the house earlier this afternoon, it seems to me that many of the essential elements have not been fully explained. This item appears under a rather unusual heading, namely "Loans, Investments and Advances". As I understand it, a loan is something, usually money, that is given with the understanding that it will be returned. An investment is something into which you put your money in the hope that it will appreciate and bring some sort of return. An advance is a going forward.

I do not think it has been explained how the loan is to be secured. Originally there was a reported though not confirmed proposal put forward by some United States bankers under which they would advance to the United Nations the full amount of the money, not only the $10 million but the total sum of $50 million required to clear the canal. I understand that from their investigations they were not satisfied that there would be any enforceable obligation on the United Nations whereby that body would have to repay the money. That opinion was obtained by people in the investment business, but even in the face of that the representation is made to the house that this amount is in the nature of a loan and is an amount of money that will be returned. I think the Minister of Finance should assure us that there is an enforceable obligation under which the money will be repaid if the amount is in fact a loan. If it is a gift then the item should be clothed in the proper language and so described.
There is another thing I think we might reasonably consider. International loans generally bear interest. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation says that when the Canadian people borrow money for housing they must pay 6 per cent. There is no suggestion here that the Canadian people as a whole in going into a foreign market with their money, if you like, are going to receive any return by way of interest.
I remember well the Prime Minister saying last session that the Suez was no concern of ours, that we did not have any ships going through the canal, and why should we bother with anything going on in that area. Looking at the item in a rather cold-blooded fashion, and that is the way I think the Minister of Finance should look at a financial transaction, I think he might give us some indication whether there is to be any financial return. I am sure it would be of interest to his department and the people of the country as a whole.
This afternoon the Prime Minister made certain references to an address by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the United Nations. I thought it rather significant that he omitted any suggestion that the resolution proposed to the United Nations is not going to carry in its present form, and in all honesty I think it should have been said that it was not intended that it should carry in the form in which it was proposed. By the language used and by everything the Prime Minister said I think there is rather the suggestion that someone has come up with an answer. The Afro-Asian group will not subscribe to the proposal put forward by the Secretary of State

for External Affairs, and the Prime Minister well knows they will not.
Knowing that, I think he should go further and explain to us what steps Canada is taking in that regard. It is nice to refer to things that are to be done, but the motive behind the action should also be explained to this house. Let us go further and see what assurance can be taken from the assembly and what hope there is of ensuring the success of this assurance. How much more are we going to be asked for after this $1 million is spent? Is there then going to be another call made on the Canadian people? Can the Prime Minister assure us that all members of the United Nations are going to participate in this and that if the secretary general does reach some formula, all nations are going to support it? Or is this just $1 million tossed out in hope? If that is the situation, let us hear it.
As I recall it, I do not think any of the eastern countries have yet agreed, either by resolution, speech, communication or in any other way, that they are willing to participate in any United Nations levy in order to repay any money used in clearing the Suez canal. If that is the situation I think, with the greater facilities available to this government, we should be informed about this matter. Do not put something forward and then say, "Now pass it". We feel that we should hear who is going to be responsible for the repayment of this loan; whether all the members of the United Nations have agreed to subscribe to the formula that the secretary general may produce, and also whether there is any term on the loan and whether we have any assurance as to when, if ever, it will be repaid.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, in the course of the Prime Minister's remarks he said something about people hoping that the emergency force now stationed in the Middle East could prevent an outbreak of hostilities. I do not see that the present emergency force, being a lightly armed infantry force, could do anything to stop the opposing forces of Israel or Egypt if those two countries decided to engage in hostilities again, because those hostilities would be undertaken by armour, aeroplane and heavy equipment. The emergency force, I think in the words of the secretary general himself, is only an enlarged observer corps. The prevention of an outbreak of hostilities-and everyone is fervently hoping that such an outbreak will not occur-must be accomplished by other means.
Earlier the Prime Minister, in speaking of this loan which is for the clearing of the canal, indicated that it was one of the steps
Supply-External Affairs toward reaching a political settlement in the Middle East. He said, and I hope I copied down his words correctly, that it would be helpful to a realization of the objectives of so many members of the United Nations. It is in that light that we are considering this matter. If this is to be helpful to a realization of the objectives of members of the United Nations, we must be clear in our minds as to what those objectives are.
Mainly, of course, the objective is to ensure that there will not be an outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East, and that Israel and Egypt will not again enter upon war. But over the last eight years armed conflict of a sort has been going on between Egypt and Israel, with border raids and things of that nature. Resolutions of the United Nations have been ignored quite frequently by both sides. Certainly one of the great difficulties that Israel was experiencing with Egypt was the denial of passage through the canal to ships carrying the Israeli flag, and the prevention of ships destined for Israel from reaching the port at the top of the gulf of Aqaba. Unless that main problem is resolved, how can a cessation of hostilities between those two countries be assured?
At the present moment the United Nations is considering the problem and the Canadian representative has, according to the Ottawa Citizen, about to be presented to the United Nations a resolution which must be split into two parts now if there is any hope at all of having it passed. In today's issue of the Citizen it is stated:
. . . Canada and a number of other nations will introduce two resolutions later this week-
That is to be done in order to get over this difficulty of the one draft resolution of Canada, which apparently is not acceptable.
-the first reiterating the U.N. demand that Israel withdraw its troops from Gaza and the Aqaba gulf area and the second ordering immediate efforts to expand the role of the U.N. emergency force in maintaining an armistice on the Egyptian-Israeli border.
The difficulty is that those nations that are opposed to Israel are insisting that Israel withdraw her troops completely before any further action is taken. Yet unless further action is taken, what is the situation? Here is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the assembly debate, and this is within quotation marks in the newspaper. He was speaking about the situation that would result if there was any possibility of failure to pass the second resolution, namely the one to use the emergency force in those

Supply-External Affairs areas and on the Egyptian-Israeli border. If there is a failure there, he says, this will be the situation:
. . . this failure "will be a demonstration of the futility of this organization (the U.N.) that would have devastating effects" on world affairs.
Then he went on to say this, and this is summarized in the paper; these are not his direct words:
The Israelis would stay put; the Arabs would try to level sanctions on Israel through the U.N.; new outbreaks of violence might take place; soon the UNEF would be forced out of the Middle East and a novel international experiment killed.
Hence it all rests on an "if", Mr. Chairman, if the second proposed draft resolution is passed. If it is not passed, then there is the quandary. If the first one is passed and is agreed to by Israel, the Gaza strip will be evacuated of Israeli troops, the Aqaba gulf area will be cleared of Israeli troops, and the emergency force at that stage is not moving in. Unless it moves in the Egyptian forces will move in, and there will be a situation such as that which prevailed during the last eight years. Hence unless this second draft resolution passes the assembly, which resolution refers to the utilization of the emergency force, we will have achieved no solution to the problem in the Middle East.
It is quite obvious that the second draft resolution should have priority and should be passed before insistence is directed to Israel to withdraw her troops. Canada's position, which is being made a little bit clearer day by day and as this debate continues, seems not to have been very strong. It rests upon too many suppositions as to what might happen if something else is done. I would have preferred an insistence by Canada on a reversal of this order and the proper use of the emergency forces in these two disputed areas. If Canada is going to go along with these other nations and insist that Israel withdraw completely and then merely take a chance on the emergency force being used, I think we are in a very difficult position.
If the use of the emergency force depends, in the last analysis, on the consent of Nasser, experience in the past shows that such consent will not be forthcoming. To what has Nasser consented up to the moment? I do not know of any resolution of the United Nations to which he has given consent, unless he drafted the resolution himself and had it presented in a form that would be acceptable to him. What confidence can we place in any of these resolutions being accepted by Nasser? The situation, therefore, becomes even more involved and Canada's position should be made much clearer; that we stand firm on


the use of the emergency force, that novel international experiment. It was that with which we went along in the early part of December, a trial run of this international experiment, the use of an emergency force so that peace would prevail in a sensitive area of the world and so that during the period of peace a permanent political settlement might be made.
But this novel international experiment, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is very close to being a failure because of the grave difficulty in the United Nations at the present time as to how this force shall be used. Of course, back of it all is the yielding to Nasser's demands right from the end of October to the present day. A firm stand against Nasser should have been taken much earlier. Canada's offer to send the Queen's Own, rejected by Nasser, was an indication that there would be trouble in persuading the Egyptian dictator to do anything that might be asked of him by the United Nations. So the United Nations faces, I suppose, the most perilous moment in its history, and we are intensely interested in Canada's actions and activities under those circumstances.
It is for this reason that I think it would have been better if, earlier this afternoon, there had been a full disclosure by the government as to the instructions that had been given to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister seemed to imply, when he was speaking this afternoon, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in speaking yesterday to the assembly, had outlined the stand of the government of Canada. I would have liked to interrupt to ask the Prime Minister if he could not inform the house as to the instructions that had been given the minister prior to the delivery of that speech yesterday. This would have been helpful, rather than compelling us to go through a process of endeavouring to extract information from a reluctant government. The situation is much too serious for anything in the nature of failure to provide complete information.
If hostilities break out in the Middle East, immediately a thousand-odd Canadian soldiers are in danger. It was our interest in the safety of those soldiers that caused us on this side of the house to ask where they were located. I think we require even more information with regard to the protection that is afforded, particularly the Canadian troops who are the administration echelon of the emergency force. Are they in an exposed position? Are they protected by the infantry battalions that have been supplied by other

nations, or might they be unhappily sacrificed in any outbreak of hostilities? This concern must be in the minds of the Canadian people, and is certainly in the minds of the relatives of our soldiers who are overseas.
Under those circumstances we cannot, without careful consideration, enter into the voting of a million dollars to assist Nasser in clearing the canal which he blocked after the outbreak of hostilities, the canal from which he perhaps intends to derive a great deal of revenue. Why should we, without guarantees concerning the future, be so quick to assist Nasser in re-establishing his economic position in respect of the canal? Let us hear from him or from the proper sources as to
Supply-External Affairs what he intends to do to ensure that after clearance of the canal, assisted by our money, it will be free to international traffic without any hindrance whatever; that it will be free to the ships of Israel, and that the ships of Britain and France will not be prevented from making use of it. None of these assurances have been given, and something in the way of a definite assurance is required before we should be asked to vote such a large sum.
I see that it is six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions