November 26, 1956

LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):

We will answer that when the point is made.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
PC

William Earl Rowe (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rowe:

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

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Coldwell:

I do not know whether a motion is required for that.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):

I think there should be something on record because

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

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):

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

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
PC

William Earl Rowe (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rowe:

That is very good.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):

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

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

May I be allowed to point out to the house that the Clerk has indicated to me that if paragraph No. 3 of the original motion is not agreed upon, the 15 notices of motion that have been received will have to be printed tomorrow and the same situation would apply to private members' bills. Paragraph No. 3 of the motion reads as follows:

That the provisions of standing orders 15, 41, 71 and 93 providing for the introduction, printing and consideration of notices of motions and bills by private members be suspended.

I merely want to pass on this information to the house in case it wishes to deal with it.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
LIB

Louis Stephen St-Laurent (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East):

If that can be added to this motion, paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be dealt with tomorrow.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
LIB

Louis-René Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

By leave, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moves, seconded by Mr. Harris, that the following changes be made in the procedure of the house for the present session:

1. That the house shall sit every day except Sunday, and that standing orders 2 and 6 be suspended in relation thereto.

2. That, until the proceedings on the proposed appropriation bill have been disposed of, the daily hours of sitting shall be 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., and 8.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.; government orders shall have precedence of all other business except the daily routine of business, notices of motions for the production of papers, and questions; and that the provisions of standing orders 2, 6 and 15 be suspended in relation thereto.

3. That the provisions of standing orders 15, 41, 71 and 93 providing for the introduction, printing and consideration of notices of motions and bills by private members be suspended.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   HOURS OF SITTING AND SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS
Permalink

Motion agreed to. The Address-Mr. Legare SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK


The house proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session. (Translation):


LIB

Gérard Légaré

Liberal

Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):

Mr. Speaker, I felt greatly honoured in being invited by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The invitation came to me in New York at the very time when the General Assembly was considering the situation in the Middle East. In my own name and in the name of all my constituents, I want to express my very sincere appreciation to him.

The session which is starting today is and will remain a historical one. It is the result of serious unforeseen and regrettable events that took place during the last few weeks and which, I am sorry to say, still darken the international horizon.

Those events are of a different nature and cannot be compared; on the one hand, there is military action by three states which, because they foresaw trouble and a further deterioration of an already upsetting situation, decided upon an emergency operation; on the other hand, we have an almighty state bent upon the wholesale butchery of a defenseless people in order to maintain the control it has been exerting too long now, with total disregard for the most elementary rules of law and justice.

Could Canada, which, though an autonomous country, is interdependent with all nations seeking peace, the establishment of a reign of justice and the respect of individual rights, dissociate itself from those events?

Could the Canadian government remain unconcerned by the suffering and the tortures of a whole nation which, wearied of oppression and persecution, was seeking freedom?

I say no, and that for two reasons.

When the invasion of Egypt occurred, followed by the armed intervention of the French and British forces, Russia offered to send thousands of volunteers to support president Nasser.

The whole world shuddered at the thought that we might be on the threshold of another vast and terrible world conflict.

Urgently called in special session, the United Nations Organizations seemed falter-

8 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Legare ing in its efforts to ensure peace. And at that moment of extreme anguish-and the C.B.C. enabled us to witness its most pathetic moments-our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) put forth a motion advocating the setting up and the sending of an international police force to bring about and supervise the cessation of hostilities.

Without depriving the hon. minister of the great share of credit to which he is entitled- and I add that he enjoys everywhere a reputation which all diplomats envy him and which honours us

I must say that the proposal for an international police force, of a peace mission to which Canada could participate, had been studied and approved previously by the right hon. Prime Minister and the cabinet and that it was submitted to the United Nations with their assent.

That proposal, one of capital importance at that crucial moment, the only practical one submitted to the confused assembly, received the approval of the vast majority of members of the United Nations. It led to the cease-fire and we are now witnessing the gradual withdrawal of the occupation forces.

All powers, great and small, the world press and even some hon. members to my left who, through force of habit, almost always hold opinions different from ours, have accepted with much enthusiasm the idea of a United Nations police force.

I could quote many opinions of people who warmly welcomed this proposal but I will be satisfied with quoting what the president of Morocco said about this:

The creation of that police force will remain one of humanity's greatest achievements.

I feel I should point out that this police force, to which we have the privilege of contributing, has been put under the United Nations and will take its orders from the United Nations only. Canada is represented on the advisory committee of seven members which sets its terms of reference and which has laid that condition.

The American delegate to the world organization, Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, expressed his feelings in these terms:

The whole matter is a collective responsibility of the General Assembly. No single government can dictate terms for its solution.

It has already been made quite clear that this force is not a fighting force and that it is clearly meant to ensure and maintain peace. If ever the United Nations were to subscribe to the idea of an international army-an idea which has been long advocated-then, and then only, should we pause to consider its advantages or its drawbacks.

May I repeat what was said last week by the commander of this peaceful United Nations mission, that great Canadian, General Burns:

Egypt has accepted the presence of United Nations forces on its territory and must therefore accept the Canadians that are part of it.

He was answering a rumour according to which Colonel Nasser had objected to Canada's part in this police action.

Our participation in this action stems primarily from our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations, and then, principally because of the moral responsibility incumbent upon all nations to work towards the maintenance of peace and security.

Mr. Speaker, quite different but highly humanitarian considerations call for our participation in relieving the Hungarian people. More than 60,000 refugees have fled the Soviet hordes, thousands of wounded moan in the ruins of Budapest, while an unknown number of young men have been deported to Siberia in railway cars sealed against any attempt to escape.

The United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for refugees, Mr. James Read, who came back from Austria last week, stated last Friday before a United Nations committee:

I have seen Hungarian refugees, men, women and children, poorly clad, shivering from the cold, their faces emaciated from privations and sleepless nights, who could still smile because they had just recovered freedom.

For the past several days, the United Nations secretariat has been receiving offers of assistance for this sorely tried people which has given evidence of unparalleled heroism. Millions of dollars will be required. Moreover, several countries have agreed to accept refugees. Canada's spontaneous contribution greatly honours us and I congratulate the government which is now asking Canadian parliament to ratify it.

I also wish to congratulate the government and more particularly the Department of External Affairs for their valuable co-operation in all the activities of the United Nations Organization and its specialized agencies. Our country undoubtedly exerts a deep influence upon that organization. May I add this: When the representative of a country goes to the rostrum at the General Assembly of the United Nations, he is not customarily applauded. Last Friday, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada ascended the rostrum to reply to the abusive language of the representative of the Soviet union, the public gallery burst into applause.

We therefore find that the popularity enjoyed by the present government in Canada extends into the international field. We find its cause in the government's constant endeav-

our to promote universal peace and the improvement of social and economic conditions everywhere and for all.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak), I have the honour to propose:

That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:

To His Excellency the Right Honourable Vincent

Massey, C.H., Governor General and Commanderin-Chief of Canada.

May it please Your Excellency:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.

(Text):

Topic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK
Permalink
LIB

Anton Bernard Weselak

Liberal

Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):

Mr. Speaker, when the message of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) inquiring whether I would second the address in reply to the speech from the throne was relayed to me at the United Nations in New York, realizing the gravity of the present situation and the serious threat to world peace, I could not help but feel grateful that I could in Canada help initiate this debate and assist in the opening of this special session of the Canadian House of Commons which has been called for the purpose of carrying through and assisting in the work of the United Nations, work designed to avert war in the Middle East where world peace is seriously threatened; a session also called for the purpose of assisting refugees from a region in Europe from which my own ancestors came to Canada and from which many of my constituents and their parents also came to Canada. They came here to find opportunity and freedom which they have found and now value so highly.

I therefore thank the Prime Minister and his cabinet for the honour bestowed upon me, and, through me, on the people of the constituency of Springfield.

To the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) who has had the honour of moving this address I tender my heartiest congratulations upon his splendid presentation.

Having witnessed for the past two weeks the proceedings of the general assembly of the United Nations as a member of the Canadian delegation, I cannot refrain from attempting to impress upon this house the gravity and seriousness of the problems facing the assembly, and their complexity.

I feel satisfied that the United Nations has in the past month stopped a major conflict in the Middle East. This was not easily accomplished. Hon. members will recall that in the emergency sessions of the security council and the general assembly held late in October 81537-2

The Address-Mr. Weselak and early this month, England and France opposed resolutions of the security council calling for a cease fire and for prompt withdrawal of all troops, and subsequently in the general assembly, against a large majority of the members, voted against a similar resolution.

Obviously Britain and France felt that they could not leave the Suez area until some other solution was found to protect and assure the passage of ships through the canal, which is so vital to their economy. At this stage it appeared as though the United Nations, facing a supreme test, had failed.

Canada had abstained from voting on the resolution, but in explaining her reason for so doing, the chairman of the Canadian delegation, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Pearson), suggested that a United Nations emergency force be established and that this force be sent to the Middle East to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities in accordance with the instructions received by it from time to time from the United Nations.

This suggestion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was immediately seized upon by members of the United Nations and he was urged to formulate and propose a resolution implementing his suggestion. This was done and the resolution received general acceptance and support and was supported by both England and France. The support given to this resolution is indicated by the fact that of a membership of 76, 57 voted in favour of the resolution, 19 abstained, and none were opposed.

This resolution was passed on November 4 and a cease fire went into effect on November 6. On November 7 the general assembly voted to set up immediately the international force to be known as the United Nations emergency force. An advisory committee of seven nations in which Canada was included was established to assist the secretary general in his efforts to solve the many problems which faced him in establishing this unique force, the first of its kind in world history. It is a tribute to Canada that Major General Burns has been appointed by the secretary general of the United Nations to assume command of this special force.

The matter of our contribution to the United Nations force as well as its functions and authority are solely matters for determination by the United Nations itself and are not matters for determination by any one country, group of countries or the recipient country. In our support of the United Nations we must accept its decisions in this respect. Our support of the United Nations must be such that we will in the interest of world

The Address-Mr. Weselak peace subordinate our own desires and willingly make such contributions as may be required of us by the secretary general of the United Nations.

The force being provided is not intended to be a fighting force but is intended to be a police force. It is being sent to the Middle East to create a favourable climate for negotiations which we hope will result in solution of the problems in the area and establish an enduring peace. The duration of the force's stay may well depend upon the progress made in this respect.

The force is now being assembled in Egypt. The British and French have agreed and are in the process of withdrawing their troops. Progress is being made toward clearing the canal, the opening of which to navigation is so important not only to the European countries but also to the Afro-Asian countries which, while the canal remains closed, are suffering great economic loss.

The United Nations, despite its appearance of power, is nevertheless a very fragile creature, still in its infancy. Its weapons have not been force, they have been those of world opinion dependent upon the good faith of its members and their national moral responsibility.

We in Canada who have been staunch supporters of the United Nations should be glad and thankful that in the crises which now exist, and which threaten world peace, the United Nations has been effective and we should with humility take pride in the role which Canada has played and the contribution she has made toward the solution of these difficult problems.

One cannot spend any length of time at the United Nations and not become consciously aware of the fact that there is general acceptance and recognition that Canada has played and is continuing to play a leading role in the solution of the Middle East problem. It is also accepted and recognized that a great deal of the progress made in this connection has been due to the untiring personal efforts of the chairman of the Canadian delegation, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who time and time again when serious differences arose between the nations affected acted as adviser and mediator to and between the parties.

Through his efforts these nations were brought together and their differences were overcome by consultation, discussion and compromise. We are deeply grateful for the efforts put forth by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs directed toward obtaining a solution to these complex and difficult problems.

I would now like to turn to another matter which has been referred to in the speech from the throne, namely the matter of assistance to Hungarian refugees. Five centuries ago the Hungarian hero, John Hunyadi, won freedom for his people by defeating the Turkish forces. The freedom so won and. the hope for its continuance has never died in the hearts of the Hungarian people. Since that time the people of Hungary and her neighbours have repeatedly risen against tyranny, and once again we see them rise in protest against Moscow-dominated communist oppression.

Russia and her satellites would have us believe that this uprising is a fascist resurgence of the old ruling class, a rebellion instigated from outside the country without the support of the common people of Hungary. This, however, is not the case. In the United Nations spokesmen for Austria, Belgium, France and other neighbouring countries who are well aware of what is going on in Hungary denied the Russian allegations, stated that the revolt is from within and is a revolt of the common worker, of the student and of other ordinary people.

The revolt began on October 23; it started as a peaceful demonstration of students and workers, demanding redress of their grievances. It became a revolution when bullets from men in the uniforms of the secret police and of the Soviet army indiscriminately slaughtered unarmed men, women and children. It appeared for a while as though the rebels had succeeded in their fight for freedom and self-determination. A provisional government was set up under Imre Nagy and plans were announced for free democratic elections.

Then what happened? Overwhelming Soviet forces with tanks and planes, with a ruthlessness repugnant to even the most hardened, crushed, killed and smashed the Hungarian patriots and brought forward a small clique of traitors headed by Janos Kadar as its puppet government of the people of Hungary.

The result of the savagery with which the Soviet forces quelled the revolt has been the flight for their lives of over 70,000 people to Austria and to other parts of the free world. Cardinal Mindszenty, primate of Austria, who was released from imprisonment by the short Nagy regime has once again had to flee and now finds refuge in the United States embassy in Budapest.

Irrefutable evidence obtained by Canada, the United States and other countries discloses that Hungarians by the thousands are being shipped east to Siberia in sealed box

cars in trains with Soviet crews. The displacement of a nation and its replanting by Soviet communist indoctrinated nationals once again becomes the order of the day.

Russia and her satellites categorically deny such deportations. Yet in spite of two resolutions of the general assembly passed by overwhelming majorities the present Hungarian government and the Soviet refuse to permit the secretary general of the United Nations or his representatives entry into Hungary to verify the facts. If what Russia says is true, what has she to fear by the entry of a United Nations observer?

Even the Polish and Yugoslav governments have refused to support the Soviet opposition to United Nations observers in Hungary. The failure of Poland to vote for the Russian stand is particularly significant in view of the fact that this is the first time in the history of the United Nations that Poland has failed to support Russia with her vote.

World opinion was expressed in the United Nations when the assembly by a vote of 55 members out of 79 with abstentions called for a withdrawal of Russian troops from Hungary, for a stop to deportations and for the furnishing of aid and relief to refugees. Russia not only refused to accept the resolution but moved an amendment which would have required all nations to return refugees to Hungary where no doubt swift Soviet justice would have been their lot.

The heroic people of Hungary have paid and are paying a terrible price in their fight for freedom. They have however shown the free world what the Soviet interpretation of the words "peaceful coexistence", so freely used by them in recent months, actually mean in the Soviet mind. Obviously one can only coexist peacefully if one accepts the dictates of the Soviet from Moscow and accepts Soviet dictatorship. Hungary has found this out to her sorrow.

We of the free world who have the priceless freedom for which so many Hungarian patriots have so recently died because of their courage and their struggle for the principle we value so highly owe a debt to these people which we must acknowledge by pressing in every forum of world opinion the battle for Hungarian freedom, by using every political and economic weapon against the Soviet oppressor, and by providing relief and asylum to the tens of thousands of refugees who have escaped.

I am sure the hon. members of this house will agree with me when I say that Austria deserves the warm-hearted commendation of the people of Canada for the charitable manner in which she has taken to her these unfortunate refugees. Austria was indeed

The Address-Mr. Rowe fortunate when at the termination of hostilities following the last world war she was occupied by the four powers. As a result of this occupation democratic free elections were held in Austria, she gained her independence and has since fortunately been able to maintain her neutrality. Austria has become the haven for refugees from almost all parts of central Europe, particularly of peoples fleeing Soviet oppression. She is not a large or over-wealthy country, yet she has not closed her borders to anyone and in the flight from Hungary alone, as I have said before, she has accepted over 70,000 refugees. In addition to these recent refugees she has within her borders roughly 120,000 other refugees. The situation in Austria is becoming very critical. I am pleased to see that in the speech from the throne this matter is also to be considered by this House of Commons.

In conclusion I have the honour and take pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare).

Topic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK
Permalink
PC

William Earl Rowe (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Acting Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare) and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak) who have just moved and seconded the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They have spoken rather briefly and despite their eloquence have not offered much by way of clarification of the confusion and uncertainty which seems to hang over the Canadian people as to this country's position in the United Nations and our contributions in the Near East.

I know that the people of this country and hon. members of this house, especially members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, were shocked over the last week end on two different counts. The first was the strange attitude taken by the United States of America in the United Nations when despite the rather vigorous attitude of Canada's representatives the week before we had the almost embarrassing silence on Saturday night in connection with the issue then before the United Nations. As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak), some of the British and French troops have been moved from the Near East, but I understood that when the cease-fire agreement was concluded the one main and fundamental condition of that agreement was that there was to be an effective police force in the Near East before the British and French troops would move. Yet now they are asked to move forthwith. As Hon. Solon Low has said-*

Topic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

81537-2*

12 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Rowe

Topic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK
Permalink
PC

William Earl Rowe (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rowe:

Hon. Selwyn Lloyd-I am getting great names confused-"forthwith" perhaps did not mean forthwith.

Conditions of course are very critical. Conditions during the last few years have changed a great deal. In the past number of years our security has more or less depended on firm alliances. For many years the most intimate alliance so far as we are concerned has been that of Great Britain and the British Commonwealth. That more or less recognized unwritten unity has, I believe, often prevented trouble. Such alliances have been based on mutual trust. They were limited to clear objectives and no one distrusted the other in carrying out those objectives. It would have been unheard of in years past for one ally to make a public statement against the action taken by another for its own security. It would indeed have been unheard of for a Canadian prime minister or Canadian cabinet minister to repudiate the British in public for action taken which in this instance has now been generally justified and has in reality meant perhaps the saving for the time being of the Middle East.

Right Hon. Mr. Eden, Prime Minister of Great Britain, has said that the British-French invasion of Egypt has blocked a communist plot in the Middle East, a plot which would have led to "the loss of countless lives and more other evils than we can even estimate." The record of the last few years truly gives us more reason to trust the Prime Minister of Britain than President Nasser of Egypt.

We are of course committed now to the United Nations and all its wide areas of operation. While there are grave differences of opinion in the United Nations organization, nevertheless all who are honestly striving and struggling for world peace are earnestly hoping that the worthy intentions and aspirations of that organization may not be sacrificed by abandoning the basic principles behind its creation. The fundamental and most important of these principles to prevent aggression and preserve peace was the principle of collective action. The United Nations organization of today seems at times to be united in name only.

Events are happening in Poland and Hungary that give us cause to believe that the Soviet domination of their huge empire is going to be maintained by force. The retreat from Stalinism so much advertised lately has been merely a farce and a fraud. Russia is back again to the regime of Stalin. She is also an important member of the United Nations, ever ready to veto any move that may restrain her devious plans.

This makes us wonder just what the United States and Canada are doing at the United Nations to enable us to maintain our security against aggression. Let it be understood at the beginning that this problem, of course, is universal. The other day when the British Prime Minister was repudiated by our Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) this thought occurred to me. What sort of situation are we going to drift into if the organization we are asking to do something will not actually do it and if some nation such as Britain or France takes a move to protect a vital sector of our economy, an important zone in the area of dispute, and is going to be repudiated by its closest friends? It would mean that we very soon would have no action at all except action by the enemy dictators.

We talk, Mr. Speaker, about the Middle East reverting to a normal situation in the next six months. Why, Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all. The problem is far wider than that. We are forgetting Soviet Russia's plans. What more profitable place is there for Russia to strike than in the Middle East? She would be able to play a double role. She would have the commanding power over a vital resource and she could strengthen her popularity, position, influence and so forth in the Arab world.

We know now that the supplies she sent to Egypt were much greater than Egypt needed, and while they were for Egypt they were really serving Russia's devious plan. We are faced with a form of treachery that has never before confronted us and the hand that directs that treachery votes in the same way that Canada does in the United Nations as one of the so-called peacemakers of the world.

Surely we are not going to make any distinction between troops going from Russia as part of the Russian army and troops going as volunteers. Playing along with such cunning devices simply enables Russia step by step to make a mockery of the United Nations. Who volunteers in Russia or does anything there unless they are told to by the Russian dictators?

What is the present situation as of today? The Prime Minister has said that our troops are going to the Middle East to maintain an armistice between the Israelis and the Arabs and also between the Russians and the French and the British. This raises some interesting questions. If Britain and France refuse to take out their troops, what is the position of our government and our troops? We do not know at the moment how this police force will function. We do riot even know where it is going and how long it is going

to stay. Britain, France and Israel should not be asked to withdraw their troops without any guarantee of the settlement of the Suez question and not until Egypt reaches a permanent political settlement with Israel. They should not be asked to move out of the Near East until an effective police force is established, which was a condition of the cease-fire agreement.

The Nasser government has made considerable headway towards turning a military defeat into a political victory. This has been made possible by the unfair criticism and the unnecessary compromises of the United Nations and, I might say, by our Canadian statesmen and those of the United States.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK
Permalink
PC

Julian Harcourt Ferguson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Ferguson:

Who said he is a statesman?

Topic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK
Permalink
PC

William Earl Rowe (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rowe:

They have encouraged our

enemies and so embarrassed our friends. Now President Nasser insists upon what would in effect be a return to the political status before the invasion. President Nasser regards the United Nations police force solely as an instrument to force the invaders to go home. Surely it was never proposed for any such purpose.

This house and the country are entitled to know if they are only going to police the evacuation of British and French troops and then move out when demanded by President Nasser. If the United Nations yields to this request, our troops should not leave Canada because such a plan would be likely to do more harm than good.

Russia's objective is, and has been all along, to exploit this crisis and to carve out a position for itself in the Middle East. The recent action that the United Nations has taken was not, as in the case of Korea, by a decision of the veto-bound Security Council but on the recommendation of the General Assembly backed by some threescore nations, including the United States. It used the last reserve power that the United Nations has and that makes it vitally important that it must not fail now if it is going to live effectively in the future.

But what are the results by which success or failure may be judged? The immediate mission is to prevent the further outbreak of war, of course, but this is of no use in itself alone. What is the use of Britain and France agreeing to a cease-fire or a withdrawal of troops with no assurance or guarantee of a settlement in the Middle East? What is the use of Israel withdrawing troops if Russia is to be free at any time to put its power behind Egypt and the Arab world, who collectively boast they will wipe

The Address-Mr. Rowe out the state of Israel and eliminate all British and French influence in the whole Suez region and Mediterranean area?

If our Canadian troops are to be used as1-part of UN police forces, it is our duty to see that they are given a possible function toward a sound objective. We must never ask them merely to clear a course and police a route for Colonel Nasser and his Russian comrades to pursue quietly and cunningly toward the diabolical purpose they have so boldly emphasized.

During the last session of parliament repeated requests were made by the opposition for information on Canada's interest in the-Mediterranean crisis. Such requests were-made by the hon. member for Prince Albert, and others. Such requests produced only-evasive answers from the Prime Minister and from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Despite our membership in the commonwealth, in the United Nations and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we were willing to allow a solution to the crisis to be worked out at one of the conferences called in London. When asked particularly whether Canada's official stand followed the United Kingdom and France or the United States, the Secretary of State for External Affairs on August 6, so reported at page 7047 of Hansard, said this:

i must also deprecate, in a friendly way, the implication of my hon. friend's question that there is necessarily any difference of policy in this between the United States on the one hand and the United Kingdom and France on the other. 1 hope that at the conference in question the three governments will be able to work closely together and that at this conference, as in all other matters and this is a question of the most vital importance to Canada-the closest co-operation inside the com-

JboIlTivultH ??d closest co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States will be reflected once again.

At that date, as evidence that the government had certainly not given careful consideration to the policy to be followed if the Suez canal crisis increased, there is the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) on August 3 in Vancouver:

This is primarily a European matter. It is not a matter which particularly concerns Canada. We have no oil there. We don't use the canal for shipping.

Surely we may say that this was a most disturbing and unsatisfactory attitude on the government's part when a crisis threatening the very peace of the world had burst upon us. Since the government apparently failed to take note of international political realities, perhaps I may briefly summarize the international factors which should have led them to reach a clear decision on where Canada's

14 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Rowe interest lay in the crisis and particularly what action was called for on their part.

As a member of the commonwealth and as the geographical neighbour of the United States, our membership after the first war in the League of Nations and after the second war in the United Nations, of course extended the security system so that the possible area of operations in which we might become involved was greatly extended. As we all know, we took part in United Nations action to preserve the Korean republic. We have for some years furnished observers to the truce teams in Kashmir and in Palestine. While not directly arising out of our membership in the United Nations, Canada has had an important part in manning the truce supervisory commissions in Indo-China.

Since the second world war, when the menace to world peace of nazi Germany was removed, the principal threat to world peace and security has come from the aggressive activities of the Soviet Union and its associated states including communist China. Our decision to take part in UN action in Korea was part of our realization that the security of the free world depended upon successful collective action to curtail world communism. The prompt and decisive action taken at that time by the United Nations force, including troops from Canada, the United Kingdom and other commonwealth countries, was a frank and wise recognition of the menace of communist aggression. While it was started by the United States with the approval of the United Nations as a whole, it was the only semblance of constructive action since the second world war.

Since the accession to power in Egypt of Colonel Nasser and his regime, we have received many disturbing reports of the growth of Soviet influence in Egypt and the Mediterranean area. Last year armaments, including aircraft from the Soviet Union and from Czechoslovakia, were made available to Colonel Nasser, as well as technical experts from Russia to instruct the Egyptians in the use of this equipment. Our government was probably not the only one to turn a blind eye to the great dangers to world security arising from the increase of Soviet influence in the Middle East. However, after the revelations at the beginning of the last session of parliament, we must regretfully conclude that our government's main concern in the Middle East was to unload surplus Canadian war material on the countries there. In the light of the developments during the past few weeks, this is surely a shocking commentary on the lack of thought, foresight or decision

our government gave to the steadily increasing crisis in the Middle East. No wonder this government, while extending their long trips among peoples abroad, are losing the confidence of our people at home.

It is these facts also which make us so anxious regarding the security of Canada against aggression. Our government appears to have been influenced almost exclusively by the administration in Washington, both in its comments and in its actions in the Middle East crisis. Had the policy of the United States been wiser and more vigorous than our own this might not have been so unfortunate. In this event, however, the United States government seems to have committed a series of blunders in the Middle East which finally left the United Kingdom and French governments with no alternative but to bring force to bear in the Middle East, if their interest in that vital area was not to be given up in the face of rising Soviet power there. Surely our government would not deny that the Soviet union has been aiming at control of the whole Middle East through its policy toward Egypt and the Arab countries and through its consistently unfriendly attitude to the state of Israel.

Right Hon. Winston Churchill, with all his experience in international crises, only a few days ago had this to say:

I am a patron of the United Nations association in this country, but I cannot agree that their rebuke to this government was either wise or helpful.

Would they have preferred us to flounder in impotence and see the whole Middle East gradually slip into chaos and Russian domination?

As time passes, I hope that the association will see with clearer eyes the true interests of the United Nations and the whole world.

These remarks might apply with equal force and indeed with some embarrassment to the government which sits to your right, Mr. Speaker.

If our government had been following the course of events in the Middle East, as we would expect it to do, it would surely not have been as "distressed and dismayed" as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said it was when he gave his press conference on October 31. An ostrich raising its head from the sand might have felt the regret and shocked surprise which apparently rent our cabinet. I do not think a well-informed government, conscious of the implications of Soviet strength in the Middle East, would have been so surprised.

Whatever the division of opinion within the cabinet as a result of the British and French ultimatum to Egypt and Israel on October 30, the idea put forward by the opposition through the hon. member for

Prince Albert ten months ago in this house was hastily revived at last in the proposal to send an international emergency force to the danger area, even though it was merely scoffed off ten months ago. I submit it might have been better to organize it ten months ago than to wait until after the trouble had occurred.

I believe there is no disagreement among us regarding the desirability of forming a UN police force to police the Suez canal area pending a final settlement both between Egypt and Israel and also concerning the international status of the Suez canal. This party has over and over again emphasized the importance of the underlying and fundamental principle of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations. We have been on record to that effect time and time again. In the United Nations we need more than platitudes or bluffing. We need more action.

Canada was one of the first countries to offer troops for the UN emergency force and, as we all know, the Queen's Own Rifles were hurriedly prepared for service in the troubled region. As Canadians I believe we were all proud to know that one of our oldest regiments was to have the privilege of forming part of the emergency force. For ten days we were treated to news stories and radio and television reports on the Queen's Own Rifles preparing for action. Meanwhile, the cabinet and members of parliament like myself were ready on very short notice to come to Ottawa for a special session of parliament to deal with our participation in the emergency force. I think, however, that it would have been preferable for the government to have secured the approval of parliament before the Canadian contingent left our shores for the Middle East. Having regard to the very dangerous situation in which the Canadians will find themselves in the Suez canal area, surely the approval of the people, through their parliamentary representatives, ought to have been sought. The government has taken it upon itself to commit some of our Canadian forces to the international emergency force without explaining in detail to Canadians the extent of the obligations to which they are committed.

I believe it is true that as yet most of them are administrative forces. According to all reports the administrative force is about 10 times the number of troops that has been mentioned. However, perhaps the pen might be mightier than the sword at this stage.

Topic:   ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. GERARD LEGARE AND SECONDED BY MR. A. B. WESELAK
Permalink

November 26, 1956