Mr. GARDINER:

I think the answer to the question is to be found in articles XII and XIII of the schedule to the bill. Article XII reads:

1. In order to provide for close cooperation between the organization and other public international organizations with related responsibilities, the conference may, subject to the provisions of Article XIII, enter into agreements with the competent authorities of such organizations defining the distribution of responsibilities and methods of cooperation.

They may do that. Then the second paragraph reads:

2. The director-general may, subject to any decisions of the conference, enter into agreements -with other public international organizations for the maintenance of common services, for common arrangements in regard to recruitment, training, conditions of service, and other related matters, and for interchanges of staff. That is, they may cooperate in administration. Article XIII reads:

1. The organization shall, in accordance with the procedure provided for in the following

paragraph, constitute a part of any general international organization to which may be entrusted the coordination of the activities of international organizations with specialized responsibilities.

2. Arrangements for defining the relations between the organization and any such general organization shall be subject to the approval of the conference. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article XX.

That does make provision for this organization working in cooperation with any other world organization in order to bring about the objective set out in these articles.

Mr. LOW:

Yes, all of which, it seems to me, indicates that it was unfortunate that someone from the Social Credit group was not down there to make sure whether this food and agricultural commission was or was not designed to be a part of the united nations charter.

Mr. COLDWELL:

You should have joined us. But there was trouble trying to get the I.L.O. organization recognized.

Mr. LOW:

I do not doubt that there was a lot of trouble; I can understand that. May I set my hon. friends' minds at rest by saying that I am not attempting here to discuss the united nations charter. I quite realize that that will come up in due course, and I realize the impropriety of bringing it up here, except that I am trying to establish whether this is one of the specialized agencies mentioned and closely related to the united nations charter. Of course the united nations charter has not yet been adopted so far as Canada is concerned. I have now before me article 57 of chapter 9 of the united nations charter, which reads:

The various specialized agencies established by intergovernmental agreement and having wide international responsibilities, as defined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, educational, health, and related fields shall be brought into relationship with the united nations in accordance with the provisions of article 63.

That is the reason I asked the question.

Growing out of that is another question which I think it is wise for us to consider and upon which we ought to have some information. This question arose in my mind as a result of something said by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) last evening as reported in Hansard, page 969, and immediately following the quotation which I placed on Hansard a moment ago. He said this:

At San Francisco, Argentina was admitted as a signatory to the charter. I must say I did not approve that, and I am sorry Canada cast her vote in favour of it, but I am not going into that matter now.

United, Nations Food Agreement

In my thinking that indicates that there may be some penalty-or perhaps I should modify that and say, some disadvantage- which might accrue to a nation if it fails to become a member of this permanent world commission. What I wish to ask is, what penalty or disadvantage would accrue to Canada in her efforts, first, to raise the standard of living of her own people, and second, to extend help towards needy countries, if she should not become a member?

Mr. GARDINER. Mr. Chairman, I have not been able to read into the articles of this constitution any suggestion that anyone is going to inflict penalties on anybody. That is not the intention of this kind of arrangement. It is simply that a group of nations are asked to come together and try by discussion to find some way in which they can help one another and help the world. I do not see that any harm can come out of that. I do not think any country is going to be punished if it does not attend, and nobody is likely to be penalized if he does attend. Simply an effort is being made on the part of a group of nations to help one another and help themselves while they help one another. I do not think there is any penalty which Canada would incur by being out, other than -we might not get all the benefits of cooperation if we were to stay out, and I imagine that any other nation which stayed out would suffer from the same absence of benefits.

Mr. COLDWELL:

May I say that the

hon. member for Peace River is reading something into the remarks I made last night regarding Argentina which should not be read into them. I felt sorry that Canada cast her vote in favour of the admission of Argentina, because of the situation in that country. It was a fascist power under a dictatorship, with all the leading democrats in goal, including outstanding professors and newspaper men, with a police controlled press, and all the rest of it and I thought it was rather a pity that Canada recognized Argentina as among the peace-loving nations. But I realized that there -was probably another side to 'the argument; and while I feel very strongly about it still, there are others who feel just as strongly that there would be considerable advantage to the world organization and to the hemisphere in bringing Argentina in. That, I believe, was the point of view of the United States State Department, and I think it was the view which prevailed in our

own delegation. On balance I feel very strongly that it should not have been done-but not in the sense in which the hon. gentleman raises the question on this particular bill.

Mr. LOW:

Just in that connection I wish

it to be made perfectly clear that my point would have been the same had the nation in question been Bulgaria or any other state. The point was simply that there seemed to be some indication in that action that there might be a disadvantage or penalty or something of the kind, active or passive, which would grow out of not becoming a member. I did not want to impute any motives to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I do not wish to have

something read into my words which should not be read into them. I think the Minister of Agriculture has given the answer-that there is advantage in cooperation.

Mr. LOW:

Another question grows out of

this. I do not wish to cut anybody else out of the discussion, but I do want to know these things. Has the minister assured himself that if Canada should fail to satisfy the permanent commission that she has done her best to put into effect any of the commission's recommendations, some other agency under the united nations charter will not be called upon to invoke sanctions of one kind or another which will or might contribute to the ruination of our whole economy, and with it, the solidarity of the British empire?

Mr. GARDINER:

I am not going to try

to predict what will be included in all the articles which may be drawn up in an attempt to bring about a friendly relationship among the nations of the world, but I feel confident that no group of men meeting for the purpose of trying to bring about better relationships among the world's peoples would inflict upon the world ideas of that kind. I do not anticipate any such thing, and it is certainly not to be found in this document. Nothing in this constitution would make it possible for anyone to dictate to anyone else, and it is this document that we are dealing with at the moment.

Mr. LOW:

That may be correct, but we

must not overlook the point that this may become an agency under the united nations charter, and if it does become an agency, we have to consider the possibilities which should arise in that event. I will not labour the point at this stage. I have one other question. Has the minister assured himself that this measure is not a step towards a world coupon or rationing system? I asked the question yesterday, and with the answer to it I will let my case rest.

United Nations Food Agreement

Mr. GARDINER:

Well, I am convinced, myself, that it is not.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

There is one question to which I did not get an answer yesterday, no doubt through inadvertence on the part of the minister. It had to do with the Argentine, which was mentioned here again this afternoon, and which is not a member of the signatory countries or among those which were represented when the constitution was drawn. Yesterday the minister pointed out the position in which Argentina stands by reason of her tremendous export potentialities-a position of danger as far as concerns any international organization designed to adopt international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements, which is referred to as one of the functions of the organization.

I asked whether the Argentine had made any application, and the minister's answer was in the negative. One question I asked to which he has not given an answer is this: if the Argentine-necessary as it is to the success of any hemispheric or world organization respecting agricultural production-makes an application for membership in this organization, what will Canada's vote be? What consideration is being given to the attitude which Canada's delegation to the Quebec conference should take? As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar points out, there was some division of opinion, and the Prime Minister, casting a vote on behalf of Canada, did so in favour of the admission of Argentina. I for one agreed with the stand taken by the Prime Minister, for two reasons. One was the necessity of mobilizing the support of all the South American and Central American republics at the united nations conference, thus assuring in return their support to Soviet Russia having three representatives. Second, *the United States had agreed at Chapultepec, Mexico City, to the admission of Argentina provided that it did certain things and declared war on Germany. Besides, Canada was in this position: had she voted against the admission of Argentina she would have been the only nation in North or South America that had done so, and instead of being the interpreter as between Great Britain and the United States, both of whom were supporting Argentina's application for admission, she would have found herself not the instrument joining these two nations together but actually the very reverse.

While I feel very strongly, as does the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, that Argentina's whole attitude throughout the period of the war was one destructive of the united nations, nevertheless, now that this nation is a mem-

ber of the united nations, everything should be done to support her application, provided that she makes an application to become a member under this constitution.

As it requires a two-thirds majority for any nation who was not a member at the time of the Hot Springs conference to become a member of this organization, will the minister tell us whether or not the Canadian delegation will in fact support Argentina's application in that regard?

Mr. GARDINER:

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Lake Centre has given the best reasons that I can think of why delegates should not go to the conference instructed. The reasons which he gave-and I am not stating that they are the reasons which were in the minds of the delegates who were there; I am not in a position to know- for the vote that was cast at San Francisco by Canada would necessitate the delegates being in possession of all the facts, as they were at that time and at that place.

I believe that any delegate going to this conference must be just as free to consider all the facts as they then are as were the other delegates. I would hope that the thirty nations, which have indicated their intention of meeting at a certain place to discuss our different problems, are not going to be tied up before they hear those problems discussed from one another's point of view, and that the decision will be reached only after they are discussed and when all the facts are known.

Since the hon. member for Lake Centre is still satisfied with the vote cast at San Francisco after all the facts were heard, I am sure that he will be just as well satisfied with any vote that will be cast by representatives of Canada at any conference that is held under this set of articles. I am not stating here or anywhere else on behalf either of myself as Minister of Agriculture or of the government, and I do not think any other member of the government would state, that this goverment is going to commit its delegates, in advance of the application being made, as to how the delegates should vote.

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

Does the minister admit that unless Argentina is a member of this organization it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to establish international relationships in regard to agricultural production and the like that will be effective all over the world?

Mr. GARDINER:

I would say this; the more nations that are great producers of agricultural products, as Argentina is, that come into this conference the better it will be for all of us.

United Nations Food Agreement

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:

And the greater

the prospects for success.

Mr. GARDINER:

The more that come in, the easier it will be to get the arrangements that we are all looking forward to in this conference. As to what the proper time is for nations to come in, that will pretty much be decided by those who make their applications; and the members of the conference will have to consider the applications on their merits as they are made. If two-thirds of them vote to allow them to enter, they will enter.

Mr. COLDWELL:

Conditions too have

changed to some extent, because lately the dictator Peron has been overthrown, and the people who were imprisoned because of their progressive and democratic views have been largely liberated. We may find an entirely different Argentina government from the gov-erment that was in power at the time of the San Francisco conference.

Mr. GRAYDON:

There is an election in

April.

Mr. REID:

There is one more question I should like to put to the Minister of Agriculture, but before doing so may I say that while I believe every hon. member agrees with the object of this agreement and the setting up of this organization, I for one, Mr. Chairman, am not so sanguine of its outcome. I ask any hon. member to read over the international agreements, and the story of international agreements, of the past few years, and then ask himself what has been accomplished to date that is really worth while.