1945-10-11

Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: A few days ago the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked me a question regarding the reported cancellation of Canadian newsprint contracts by the United Kingdom authorities. I stated at the time that I would have the matter looked into, and I am now in a position to make this brief statement.
As a result of various representations which have been made through both government and industry channels, the United Kingdom authorities have agreed to accept a definite tonnage of Canadian newsprint during 1946. The tonnage specified is considerably less than the original contract amount, but is nevertheless a not inconsiderable volume. Delivery of the remainder of the contract amount is postponed. The settlement which has been arrived at is, under all the circumstances, a reasonable one, and is I believe .acceptable to the Canadian producers.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Will the minister please inform the house what the tonnage is that he refers to?


James Angus MacKinnon: I have not the figures before me.



CANADIAN ARMY


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: A week or ten days ago I gave an undertaking to my hon. friend the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that I would put on Hansard, as soon as I received them, the two editorials in the Maple Leaf which were made the subject of his question. I now have them. The other day I said

Canadian Army-"Maple Leaf"
I would table them but was advised that they would not be printed in Hansard. In order to carry out my undertaking I will therefore read them to-day.
The first appeared in the Maple Leaf oni September 19, and is entitled, "On this Repat Question the Maple Leaf Reveals . . . -"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The second appeared in the Maple Leaf for September 20, 1945, the following day, and is entitled, "To Continue . . .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hansard will reproduce the editorials.
(Editorial of September 19)
On This Repat Question the Maple Leaf Reveals . . .
There's no reason to entitle this piece "To Whom It May Concern" for it concerns the whole Canadian army, the Canadian government and the Canadian people and there's no "may" about it. It's the result of a Maple Leaf investigation on repat drafts that produced facts and figures adding up to something that shouldn't * happen to a soldier-and we mean fighting soldier.
The Maple Leafs investigation led from Nijmegen to No. 8 Repat Depot in England and involved the Saskatoon Light Infantry, support battalion with the First Canadian Infantry Division, first unit to go through the depot.
Here is the report:
"Really Boiling"
"Our draft is on the strength of 8 Repat Depot and in the same depot is the SLI. Started the investigation of two men with boxcar numbers on our draft by going to the records office and talked to ... on the PE. He had just been going over the SLI rolls and was really boiling. To start with, here's the point score of the draft:
Officers
Points	Number
131 and	over	
11121 to	130	
4111 to	120	
1101 to	110	
391 to	100	
4
Warrant Officers
131 and	over	
691 to	100	
1
S/Sgts. and Sgts.
131 and	over	
31121 to	130	
1111 to	120	
2101 to	110	
491 to	100	
181 to	90	
171 to	80	
1
Corporals
131 and	over	
10121 to	130	
3111 to	120	
5101 to	110	
481 to	90	
671 to	80	
5
L/Cpls. and Privates
131 and over	 48
121	to	130	
21111	to	120	
19101	to	110	
3191	to	100	
4081	to	90	
2471	to	80	
6361	to	70	
6651	to	60	
3450	and under (since taken off draft) .	7
The report continues: - "Okay so I can settle for most of that under the unit system of repat, but here is the dope that really hurts and don't think for a minute that many of the men in the U.K. here who are handling repat (plenty of them high-point men) aren't really burned about the whole deal:
Unit strength including rank of
corporal	 382
(no NRMA men above corporal)
NRMA strength (boxcar numbers).. 115 Percentage of NRMA	 30-1
(Report is that this is a little higher than non-unit drafts which normally run about 28 per cent at No. 8 Repat Depot.)
Taken at Random
Further -with the report: "Just to go a bit farther I asked to see the documents of some of the NRMA men to get a picture of their points and service. I "went through the documents-with an expert I might add. We took four cases, the first four we could find selected at random, and here you have it:
L85538 (old number L466249, number changed *when he w-ent active, see date below).
Pte. Usher, B. J.
Called up
TOS UK Went active TOS Europe 7 Garrison Battalion
SOS to SLI
9 Jun 42 (nonactive)
1 Jan 45 7 Mar 45 3 Jun 45 (sent to Europe after V-E day)
28 Jun 45
Point of interest: This man has seen no rpt no operational service and has a point score of 73.
L606762 Pte. Hazen, C. (still non-active)
Called up	12 Aug 42
TOS UK	10 Jan 45
SOS UK to 2 Garrison 24 May 45 (des-Battalion	patched to Europe)
SOS to SLI	28 Jun 45
Going home with the unit, no operational duty and point score of 67.
L608521 Pte. Maier, E. B. (still non-active) Called up	7 Jan 43
TOS UK	1 Feb 45
SOS UK (CIC X4	list)	16 May 45
SOS to SLI	9 Jun 45
Going home with unit, no operational duty and point score of 56.
L608710 Pte. Olsen, A. C. (still non-active) Called up	5 Jan 43
TOS UK	3 Jan 45
SOS UK (CIC X4	list)	18 May 45
SOS to SLI	21 May 45
No operational duty, point score 57.
"Have gone into this matter pretty thoroughly and any men with six figure numbers (above
Canadian Army-"Maple Leaf

600,000 at any rate) are definitely NRMA men. When they go active, and they could do so until after VE-Day, their number was changed as is the case with Usher.
"Something which bears an investigation and a good answer is how these men got posted to a First Division unit for return to Canada when they hadn't even left the U.K. on VE-Day. If this practice is being carried out by the reinforcement depots, which everything would lead me to suspect, then it's not good enough. There are a lot of fellows in L of C with high points who rate ahead of the NRMA men, of this category at least, who could be posted to units for return to Canada-not even taking into consideration the high point men from other active units who might like to have a look at Canada."
For Fighting Men
The Maple Leaf was established in Naples, in Italy, back in January, 1944, for Canadian Forces IN ACTION. The Maple Leaf has been produced for the soldiers, the fighting pien. The Maple Leaf has always done everything in its power to help the fighting men get a break. It's not stopping now.
This sort of business isn't funny. The men who volunteered to come overseas, who either went into action as volunteers or did their best as volunteers to see that the fighting men were equipped with the necessaries, deserve better treatment. This is an appeal on behalf of the volunteers who made this Canadian Army an army of which to be proud. All that is wanted is justice.	J.D.M.
(Editorial of September 20)
To Continue . . .
Men in garrison battalions, called up under the National Resources Mobilization Act, still non-active, but going home. The more we think about it, the less we like it. We like it even less than we did yesterday which was something considerably short of small huzza.
Let's get the picture straight:
These men were called up as far back as 1942. So they didn't go active. So maybe that's their business. Some blame the system, some the men. Some don't blame anybody. Some, on the other hand, think everything worked out just dandy. Some, on the other hand, wrist and elbow, still think Canadian men should never have gone overseas at all. It's a matter of opinion.
But, whatever the opinion, these men didn't come overseas until early in 1945. And they didn't come to Europe until after V-E day, after the shooting had stopped. And they came in garrison battalions. Those garrison battalions, if memory serves correctly, were slated for the occupation force.
And what happens? Some of the men in them, who have just come overseas, who have never fired a round anywhere but on the ranges, are steered into a First Canadian Infantry Division unit draft for HOME!
It may be said that they were specialists, tradesmen. If they were, all the more reason for holding them in Europe and releasing active specialists and tradesmen in L of C and CAOF with the necessary point score. It may be said that they weren't specialists, that tbey were just a bunch of guys. If they were, guard duty for a while with the CAOF on them would look good.
[Mr. Abbott. 1
It may be said that they were needed to fill up unit drafts. And it may be answered-has the need ever been THAT great? A good many gents with the points and shooting service would like to know.
It may be said that it's the "luck of the draw". And it may be answered that this is too serious a business to leave to chance, that there was no "luck of the draw" when men volunteered to come overseas and do something aDout a war that needed winning.
It may be said that it's the system, that's the way it's laid down, and that's the way it's got to be; that the men in charge of repat overseas are hamstrung, are doing their best in the face of policy. That is probably the real answer. But policy has been changed before and can be again.
This situation cannot be corrected too soon.



J. D. M. QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What was the total cost of the land purchased for the airports at. (a) Weyburn, Saskatchewan; (b) Halbrite, Saskatchewan?
2.	From what person or persons w'as the land purchased for the above named ports?
3.	What acreage was purchased for each?
4.	How much has been expended on the airport at Weyburn for, (a) surfacing highway; tb) draining airport; (c) constructing a water line from city of Weyburn to airfield?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1,	2 and 3.
Re airport at Weyburn
Name	Acreage	AmountL. J. Emery	160 acres	$ 3.500 00G. A. McCuaig	320 "	8.000 00E. C. Staveley	160 "	3.520 00J. Friedt, tenant	84 50G. A. McCuaig, crop damages	488 92H. Tracey, crop damages	488 92Total 	640 acres	$16,082 34For railway siding	Name	Acreage	AmountCredit Foncier Franco-	Canadien 	5-11 acres	$ 250 00Wevburn Security Co.	Ltd	0-33 "	25 00Total 	5-44 acres	$ 275 00Re airport at Halbrite	Name	Acreage	AmountE. Rubin 	380 acres	$ 7,500 004. (a) S3,505.97;	(b) $67,266.37; (c)	$22,962.79.	
Questions


INTERIM INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
Mr. ROSS (Souris):: 1.	When was the interim international wheat agreement concluded?
2.	When and where was the last international conference on wheat held?
3.	By whom was Canada represented?
4.	What countries sent representatives to the conference?
5.	What were the purposes of the conference, and what subjects were on the agenda?
6.	Upon what subjects, if any, was agreement achieved?
7.	Upon what subjects was it impossible to achieve agreement?
8.	What was the attitude of.Canada on each of these subjects?
9.	What nations took an attitude on any of these subjects, differing from the Canadian attitude, and what was the attitude of each such nation on each such subject?
10.	By what nations has the agreement been broken, and in what particulars has it been so broken ?
11.	When will the next international conference on wheat be held, and by whom will Canada be represented?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	A memorandum of agreement between the Argentine, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America to which a draft convention was attached, took effect on June 27, 1942.
2.	The International Wheat Council met in London on August 31 and September 1, 1945.
3.	R. V. Biddulph, European commissioner of the Canadian wheat board.
4.	Argentina, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
5.	6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. It has been agreed by the participating governments that the discussions in council are secret. Any disclosure by Canada of the information requested, without the concurrence of the other governments, would be a breach of confidence.
11. The next meeting of the council will be in January, 1946, unless a meeting is convened earlier. Canada's representative has not yet been appointed.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What was the total amount spent on advertising of family allowances to date?
2.	How much was spent in each province, (a) in the daily newspapers; (b) in the weekly newspapers ?
3.	How much was spent from May 1 to June 15, 1945?


Mr. CLAXTON:: 1. $83,041.42 on newspaper advertising to date.
2.	(a) Daily	(b) WeeklyPrince Edward	newspapers	newspapersIsland 	.. .$ 324 71	$ 212 76Nova Scotia 	... 2,075 16	2,719 11New Brunswick..	.... 1,116 91	1,447 14Quebec 	.... 2,279 90	4,243 05Ontario 	... 11,363 77	19,991 55Manitoba 	... 1,553 16	6,913 76Saskatchewan ...	.... 1,267 44	8,712 01Alberta 	.... 2,146 83	6,452 08British Columbia	and	Yukon 	.... 3,707 89	6,514 19$25,835 77	$57,205 653.	$37,452.20, included in the above.


ALASKA HIGHWAY
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Will that part of the Alaska highway which is in Canada be maintained and kept up by the government when said highway is surrendered to Canada by the United States?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The government is
continuing to give active consideration to this question and an announcement will be made at an appropriate time.


COAL-TORONTO
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action is being taken to supply the city of Toronto with anthracite coal this winter?
2.	What shortage is there in delivery of Canada's anthracite quota or allotment, (a) for the whole of Canada; (b) for Toronto and district?
3.	What is being done to secure further anthracite supply?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Arrangements have been made with the United States authorities to supply Canada with anthracite coal in exactly the same proportion as is being supplied in the United States. Anthracite coal is being distributed to Toronto and to all other consuming centres in Canada in equitable proportion to their past record of consumption.
2.	(a) Anthracite deliveries to the whole of Canada for the current coal year up to September 28, 1945, have been 92-8 per cent of quota or allotment.
(b) Anthracite deliveries to Toronto and district for the current coal year up to September 28, 1945, have been 94-4 per cent of quota or allotment.
3.	Representations are being made as necessary and advisable to the solid fuels administrator in Washington to maintain quota shipments. In view of the short supply from the
Questions

mines, however, Canada cannot expect a bigger percentage of available anthracite than is being supplied in the United States.


P.E.I. CAB FERRY SERVICE
Mr. McLURE:: 1.	What progress is being made in the construction of the new ear ferry steamer for the Borden-Tormentine service?
2.	When will this steamer be completed?
3.	What will be the name of this boat?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	The hull and car deck is about three-quarters finished, with the other steel work fabricated to the extent of about SO per cent of all steel.
The fabrication of machinery is about 40 per cent completed.
2.	In the late summer of 1946.
3.	Not yet determined.


Mr. McLURE:: 1.	Did a United States army engineer make a survey of Borden-Tormentine ferry during the summer of 1944?
2.	If so, has a report been submitted to the government ?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	No. A retired member of the United States corps of engineers was engaged in 1945 to review the previous reports on the Prince Edward Island car ferry terminal facilities and has submitted certain recommendations with reference to the Tormentine terminal works.
2.	No. The engineer's report is still under consideration by the Department of Transport.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. McGARRY:: 1.	WTere is the head office of the industrial development bank?
2.	How many branches are in operation and where located?
3.	Is there a branch office in the maritime provinces? If so, where is it located?
4.	How many loans have been made by the industrial development bank?
5.	WThat is the total of all loans?
6.	Of the loans made, how many were, (a) made to established industrial concerns; (b) to newr industrial firms; (c) to ex-service men?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	Ottawa.
2. Montreal-general	manager's office; Toronto and Vancouver.
3.	No.
4.	5 and 6. The Industrial Development Bank is not a branch of the Dominion government but a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada.
Section 29 (1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that "The bank shall, within twenty-one days following the end of

each calendar month, make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its assets and liabilities at the close of business on the last day of the preceding month." This statement as at August 31, 1945, appeared in the Canada Gazette of -September 22, 1945, and showed loans and investments (excluding dominion government securities) at 8711,965.87.
In addition, section 29 (2) provides that "The bank shall make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance at least once in its fiscal year or more frequently if so directed by the minister, in such form as he may prescribe, a classification of its loans and investments and of the loans guaranteed by it." Provision is made for the publication of this statement in the Canada Gazette following its receipt bv the minister.


GOVERNMENT-OWNED WAR PLANTS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Have any government-owned war plants been sold up to the present time?
2.	If so, how many and which ones are they?
3.	To whom have they been sold?
4.	What price did each plant bring?
5.	Are sales of any government-owned war plants pending at present?
6.	If so, how many plants does this involve and which ones are they?


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I suggest that this question be dropped? It was answered in part the other day by an answer to another question. If I need further information I will reword the question.
Question dropped.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK-PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. JAENICKE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the industrial development bank to establish branches in any of the cities or other communities of the three prairie provinces?
2.	If so, in which cities or communities, and when ?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. The policy of
the Industrial Development Bank in opening additional branches will be determined by the board of directors in light of the number and distribution of applications for loans received by the bank.


POST OFFICE-HEADS OF BRANCHES OR HIGHER
Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	What appointments have been made, since January 1, 1945, to the headquarters staff of the Post Office Department to positions of heads of branches or higher?
2.	What are the salaries paid to each such appointee?
3.	What are the qualifications and previous positions held of each such person?

Questions


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	Walter J. Turnbull appointed deputy postmaster general, 9 June, 1945; John A. Sullivan appointed associate deputy postmaster general, 9 June, 1945. (Retirement effective 15 November, 1945); W. D. Adamson appointed director, Public relations branch, 9 June, 1945.
2.	Walter J. Turnbull, $9,000 per annum; John A. Sullivan, $9,000 per annum; W. D. Adamson, $3,900 per annum.
3.	Walter J. Turnbull-21 years experience in Post Office Department. 9 years experience in office of Prime Minister; John A. Sullivan- 9 years experience in Post Office Department as deputy postmaster general; W. D. Adamson -Since 8 August 1940, private secretary to Postmaster General. Formerly news editor Ottawa Journal.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Who are the members of the national film board?
2.	What salary is paid to each such member?
3.	What are the qualifications of each such member, including a statement of their experience in film work?
4.	When does the term of office of each such member expire?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Hon. Dr. James J. McCann, Ottawa; Hon. Brooke Claxton, Ottawa; Dr. Georges Bouchard, Ottawa; Mr. J. F. MacNeill, K.C., Ottawa; Mr. M. M. MacLean, Ottawa; Mr. Donald Cameron, Edmonton; Mr. C. G. Cowan, Ottawa; Mr. Edmond Turcotte, Montreal.
2.	None.
3.	The members of the national film board are appointed under the terms of section 3 of the National Film Board Act, 1939, and subsequent amendments, which require that the national film board should consist of eight members qualified as follows: Hon. James J. McCann, M.D., Minister of National War Services; Hon. Brooke Claxton, Minister of National Health and Welfare; Dr. Georges Bouchard, Assistant deputy minister of agriculture; Mr. J. F. MacNeill, K.C., Law clerk of the Senate; Mr. M. M. MacLean, director, industrial relations branch, Department of Labour; Mr. Donald Cameron, director, department of extension, University of Alberta. Has been in charge of educational film work in Alberta since 1937. Director of national film society since 1938. Mr. C. G. Cowan, vice-president, British-American Bank Note Co. One of the organizers of national film society of which he has been director and vice-president since 1935. Mr. Edmond Turcotte, Editor in chief, Le Canada. One of the organizers and officers of Montreal branch of the national film society of which he has been director since 1941.
4.	Dr. Georges Bouchard: August 31, 1946; Mr. J. F. MacNeill, K.C.: November 11, 1945; Mr. M. M. MacLean: January 12, 1947; Mr. Donald Cameron: August 31, 1946; Mr. C. G. Cowan: August 31, 1948; Mr. Edmond Turcotte: September 1, 1947. Hon. James J. McCann and Hon. Brooke Claxton: at pleasure.


Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	What is the total number of employees of the national film board?
2.	What was the total number of employees of the national film board as of September 1. 1939?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	785.
2.	None at that date as the national film board which replaced the motion picture bureau did not begin functionng until late October 1939. The motion picture bureau consisted of some forty employees at that time.


DOMINION TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMISSION
Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: 1.	Who are the members of the dominion trade and industrial commission?
2.	What are the duties and responsibilities of the commission ?
3.	How many sittings of the commission have been held in each of the past four years?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Chief commissioner, H. B. McKinnon; temporary assistant chief commissioner, W. j'. Callaghan; commissioner, C. P. Hebert (overseas) .
2.	The duties and responsibilities of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission are set forth in sections 15 to 27, inclusive, of the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, 1935.
3.	The board does not hold sittings or public hearings in the same manner as the tariff board, but since 1942 the commission has dealt with forty-four cases. This number of cases, however, does not indicate the total number of complaints investigated by the commission. In a number of instances there were a large number of separate and distinct complaints which, in view of the fact that they were all of the same nature and against the same people, were included with the original complaint under the one case number. For example, in case number 233 there were seventy separate complaints investigated. To a lesser extent a like situation exists with respect to other case numbers.
Questions as Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	In the sugar stabilization fund, how much money was acquired from sources other than that of buying imports of raw cane sugar and reselling such raw cane sugar to the sugar refineries?
2.	From what other sources was such money acquired, and how much from each source in each of the years, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 to September 12?


DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Were any petitions for the disallowance of any acts of the Saskatchewan legislature filed with the Department of Justice during the tenures of office of Liberal administrations in that province?
2.	If so, what legislation was involved?
3.	Was the Saskatchewan Liberal government notified by the federal authority of the receipt and content of any such petition?
4.	Were any requests made by any petitioner for permission to make supplementary oral argument ?
5.	Was any such request granted?
6.	What action regarding the petitions, if any, was taken by the federal authority?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-APPOINTMENTS SINCE SEPTEMBER 1, 1939
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How many persons have been appointed to the Department of External Affairs since September 1, 1939?
2.	What are their names, indicating those that are temporary, and those that are permanent?
3.	What is the title of the position held by each and what, in detail, are the duties of such positions?
4.	By whom was each such person appointed?
5.	What salary is paid to each such person?


Mr. WHITE (Middlesex East):: 1.	What are the names of all persons holding the rank of commodore, or higher, who have been retired from the Royal Canadian Navy since January 1, 1943?
2.	What was the date of each such person's retirement?
3.	What annual pension or superannuation has been granted to each such person?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That standing order 15 in relation to the consideration of private and public bills on Fridays, and standing order 28 with regard to

Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question put, be suspended on Friday, October 12 instant, so that the budget may be brought down on that day by the Minister of Finance.
He said: This is purely a routine motion, in conformity with the previously expressed unanimous consent of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Labour. Has the government been informed of a threatened strike in the steel industry in sympathy with the automobile workers at Windsor, and if so, what steps are being taken to settle the dispute?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: The answer to the first part of
the question of my hon. friend is, no; we have no information whatsoever of the kind which apparently he has received or obtained.
I should like to make a brief statement, if I may, in reply to the leader of the opposition. I believe he wanted to speak of the Ford dispute, not a steel dispute, and I assume that is the purport of the question.


Mr. HARRIS (Danforth):: Go ahead.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for
Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) sent me notice of a question yesterday, but as we did not have orders of the day yesterday I was unable to reply to it. I think that I might now answer both questions at the same time.
The answer to the question of the hon. member for Cape Breton South is that the responsibility for bringing the strike of the Ford Motor company employees at Windsor to an end is one which must be assumed by the parties to the dispute. It is for the government to make available conciliation machinery by which assistance can be given to resolve such disputes. My department is ready at any moment to do so if the parties will take advantage of it. Up to the present moment it has not been possible to bring the parties into conference, but efforts in that direction are continuing.
It might be well if I were to give to the house the facts in connection with this strike. A board of conciliation had reported unanimously that the chief issue between the parties was the question of union security. The union demanded the application of the union shop principle as well as the check-off of

United Nations-Cultural Organization
union dues. Other questions such as increased wages, take-home pay, job security, et cetera, were brought before the board, but the board was unanimous in the view that such matters were required to be taken up with the regional war labour board for Ontario under the provisions of the wage control order. If, therefore, as some hon. members have suggested the Ford workers are on strike to obtain higher wages, and shorter hours of employment and similar improvements in conditions of employment, the way was open to them tc obtain consideration of such demands by the war labour boards under the wage control order. To the extent that they are on strike to obtain such demands, they are in violation of the provisions of the wage control orders.
However, be that as it may, the fact is that the Ford workers decided to strike, their objective being to force the Ford company to give them a contract which would be satisfactory, one which would include provision for the union shop and check-off. These were the issues which the board of conciliation said unanimously were "at the root of all the difficulties between the company and the union." The union concerned was not willing to wait to take their wage and other similar demands before the regional war labour board for Ontario, or to await the reply of the company to the recommendations made by the board of conciiation on the issues of union shop and check-off, but on the next day following consideration of that report called a strike of all the employees concerned. The union now is seeking further intervention by the government, and a demand has been made that the government take over the company's operations and appoint a controller.
The situation has been made more difficult by the fact that the picketing policy of the union has prevented officials and necessary office staff of the company from gaining access to their place of business, and by the withdrawal of the maintenance employees of the company-that is, the men engaged in the power houses. Such a policy makes conciliation practically impossible. I give these facts to the house because I feel that, both here and outside, attempts have been made to confuse the issue and to make it appear that there is a lack of effective government legislation to deal with the demands of the workers and to bring about a settlement of the dispute. This is wholly without foundation. There is no lack of effective legislation, and everything possible has been done by the Ontario Department of Labour and by the Dominion Department of Labour over the
past eighteen months to bring about a settlement of the dispute between the company and the union by conciliation.
May I close with this final word. I have this day wired the parties to the dispute, inviting them to attend a meeting in Toronto on Monday, October 15. I have also urged upon the union the desirability of giving company officials and necessary office employees access to their place of business prior to the meeting on Monday, which would remove an obstacle found by the company to attendance at a conference on a previous occasion, and I think would also create a condition which w'ould help make the conference a success. I have no advice as to whether or not the union will take this suggested action. It may mean that some hon. members will be asked for guidance by the union leaders, and if so I trust they will endorse my recommendation. At the proposed meeting would be representatives of the Dominion Department of Labour and also of the Ontario Department of Labour; arrangements already have been made to this effect.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: I understand that on behalf of the conference of allied ministers of education, the British government has extended invitations to all allied governments to be represented at a conference in London, England, beginning November 1 of this year, when the draft constitution to establish the educational and cultural organization of the united nations will be considered. Since Canada played an important part in the drafting of the chapter in the united nations charter relating to the social and economic council under which the educational council will be set up, and in view of the interest of this country in cultural cooperation among the nations, what steps have been taken to ensure adequate representation from Canada at the forthcoming conference, and, if we are to have representation, who will be the Canadian representatives?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): The Canadian government has been invited to be represented at the international conference mentioned by my hon. friend, which is to discuss the establishment of an educational and cultural organization related to the united nations organization. The conference will have before it a draft constitution, prepared by the con-
Far Eastern Commission

ference of allied ministers of education, and it is expected that this conference will be largely concerned with the consideration to be given to this draft. It is the intention of the government to accept the invitation for Canada to be represented at the conference. I hope, very shortly, to be able to announce the composition of the Canadian delegation.



FAR EASTERN COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Bracken: I should like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs if the government has received an invitation from the government of the United States to send a representative to the meeting of the allied advisory commission on Japan which is proposed to be held in Washington on October 23. If so, by whom will Canada be represented?
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I had a statement prepared to communicate to the house to-day which I think constitutes a very fitting answer to the question just submitted by the leader of the opposition. On October 8 the United States ambassador addressed a note to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs which read as follows:
Sir:
Acting under instructions from my government, I have the honour to convey to you the following message:
"The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China have agreed to the establishment of a far eastern advisory commission for the consideration of political matters connected with the fulfilment by Japan of its obligations under the instrument of surrender. It is the desire of these governments that the commission include representatives of certain other states *which have actively participated in the -war against Japan and which are principally interested in the area of the western Pacfic. A cordial invitation is extended to the government of Canada to participate in the commission."
Accept, sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.
The following reply has been sent to the United States ambassador to-day:
Excellencv,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of October 8th informing the government of Canada of the establishment of a far eastern advisory commission by agreement between the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China. I am happy to inform you that the government of
TMr. St. Laurent.]
Canada accepts, with pleasure, the invitation contained in your note to participate in the commission.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.
I should add that a further communication has been received from the United States ambassador, stating that the initial meeting of the far eastern advisory commission is to be held in Washington on October 23, and requesting the Canadian government to designate its representative. Mr. L. B. Pearson, Canadian ambassador to the United States, has been designated to represent the government of Canada at the initial meetings of the far eastern advisory commission.



REMEMBRANCE DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South):: Inquiries have come to the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), to me and no doubt to other hon. members, as to the continued observance of November 11 as Remembrance day. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if the government has some plans to suggest to the country for the observance of that day.


Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State):: The hon. member for Wellington South, the hon. member for Brantford City and to-day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) served me with notice that they intended to ask this question.
It is intended that Sunday, November 11, shall be observed in Canada this year as a day of remembrance of those who have died while serving the country during the two great wars. This is in accordance with the arrangements which have been made for observance in the United Kingdom, which arrangements have been approved by His Majesty the King.
It is desired, therefore, that two minutes' silence be observed throughout Canada between 11 a.m. and 11.02 a.m. on Sunday, November 11. It is also expected that arrangements will be made in local centres for such services or ceremonies of remembrance as may appear appropriate in each locality. The Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League contemplate arranging a national remembrance day ceremony at Ottawa at three o'clock on the afternoon of Sunday, November 11. The detail of the arrangements for this ceremony will be announced later.
In the question of the leader of the opposition which was sent to me this morning he asked as to the intended practice for subsequent years. What will be done in future

Surplus War Assets
years will be a matter for future consideration. Consideration will be given to the practice to be decided upon later in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and the decision will be made after full consultation by the Department of the Secretary of State with the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the ministers of the defence departments, together with representatives of soldier organizations of the two great wars.



SURPLUS WAR ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction) :: Mr. Speaker, because there has been criticism in respect of the destruction of war materials, I should like to make a statement in the hope of forestalling further criticism along the same lines.
As many hon. members are aware, following the first great war a number of accidents, some of which were fatal, resulted from the careless disposal of plants and equipment used for making explosives and filling shells. We are determined that no such unfortunate occurrence shall result from our disposal of the explosives and shell filling plants this time. For this reason, decontamination work is proceeding in all such plants prior to their being turned over to War Assets Corporation. This work is going forward under a decontamination committee of the Department of Munitions and Supply. This committee comprises a group of explosives experts. Their task is to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible consistent with safety, all machinery, equipment, buildings, and lumber shall be salvaged, and at the same time to ensure that no hazards remain.
No property is being destroyed without the express permission of this committee, and all salvageable materials after being thoroughly desensitized and freed of hazards will be turned over to War Assets Corporation for disposal.
So that hon. members may be made aware of the careful work being done by the decontamination committee and those under its control, and so that they may be assured that no salvageable material is being destroyed, I have asked the committee to arrange that newspaper men be permitted to visit a typical plant where they will see the decontamination methods being employed and vieiw the material being salvaged. They also will witness the destruction of a building which became so impregnated with dangerous explosives that no amount of decontamination could make it safe. This press party will visit the Bouchard 47696-59
works near Ste. Therese, Quebec, on Friday afternoon, October 12. I would welcome any hon. members, or any members of provincial legislatures, who might wish to accompany the party. The group will leave the Munitions and Supply office at 1155 Bishop Street, Montreal, in a chartered bus at 12.45 p.m., and will be returned to Montreal in the same bus.
At later dates, similar tours of the plants at Pickering, Ontario, and at Winnipeg, will be arranged, and should any hon. member of this house or of a provincial legislature wish to attend, he will be made welcome.



RESEARCH ENTERPRISES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction. Have any suggestions or reports been made to the minister by the administrators of Research Enterprises Limited as to the disposition of this property or its possible future use? If so, will the minister lay on the table of the house any documents or reports relating thereto?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Recommendations have been
made. They are made by officers of the department to the minister, and I regard them as confidential documents. It would be impossible to table them at this time, when the disposal of the plant, more or less along the lines of the recommendations, is under consideration. After the transaction is closed and the property has been dealt with I shall be glad to table all the relevant documents.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. May I refer to page 899 of Hansard where, under the heading "Motions for Papers" I find one in my name with reference to semipermanent wartime houses. The report of the discussion is in part as follows:
Mr. Fraser: I shall call the minister's office on that. Subject to the reservation mentioned, I should like the motion to pass.
Mr. Speaker: Dropped.
Mr. Fraser: No.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
My understanding was that the minister agreed the motion should pass, under the conditions mentioned.



United Nations Food Agreement


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend sent me a note in which he set out the express documents he wished to have. I am sending him those documents. I did not understand that the motion was to be dropped, but in any event he will get the documents. If he wishes to put it back, that can be done.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It will be all right with the minister if it passes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of bill No. 14, for carrying into effect the agreement for a food and agricultural organization of the united nations between Canada and certain other nations and authorities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the house was kind enough to agree that full discussion of this measure should come on the motion for second reading, rather than upon the resolution presented at that time. I said to the house on that occasion that I would give a review of the circumstances leading up to the presentation of the bill to the house, and that I would be prepared to listen to any discussion in which hon. members might wish to take part with regard to the measure itself or other matters pertaining to it.
Item No. 9 on today's order paper is one calling for the second reading of bill No. 14, an act for carrying into effect the agreement for a food and agricultural organization of the united nations between Canada and certain other nations and authorities. At this time I am moving second reading of the bill which I have before me and which, I believe, is in the hands of all hon. members.
The explanatory note to the bill sets out the real reason for its being brought to the house, it states:
The purpose of this bill is to enable the government of Canada to give effect to the agreement for a food and agriculture organization of the united nations which is to be signed and come into force when twenty nations have notified their acceptance of the constitution set out in the schedule to the bill. The method proposed is to empower the governor in council to do whatever may be proper and expedient for carrying out the provisions of the constitution, or any recommendations of the conference of the organization, or its committees, made pursuant to such provisions. It is also provided that all expenditures incurred in carrying out the agreement shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament.
I do not think I need go into detail to emphasize the importance of the measure now before us, but perhaps it would be proper
[Mr. Fraser.}
to give a historical review of the circumstances leading up to its introduction.
In the spring of 1943 a conference was called at Hot Springs, Virginia, by the then President of the United States, the late President Roosevelt. That meeting was attended by representatives of forty-four united nations. It was the first international conference to deal with post-war plans and development, and it seems fitting that the first conference held to carry into effect some of the principles set out in the Atlantic charter should be one having to do with food. Since agriculture is particularly related to the production of food products both in this countiy and elsewhere, this measure has been placed on the order paper under my name.
It has been shown that there is a need for improved nutritional conditions throughout the world. The benefits to be derived from improved nutrition in human welfare and international relations and in the interests of agriculture and other natural products industries is well recognized by all members of this house. The recommendations of the conference were to the effect that a permanent food and agriculture organization be established, and that in the meantime an interim commission be appointed to base upon the recommendations of the conference a constitution which could be submitted to the governments of the united nations, the adoption of which would result in the formation of a permanent organization. The chairman of that interim organization was Hon. L. B. Pearson. I think we in the Dominion of Canada have reason to be proud of the fact that Canada's representative was chosen as the first chairman of that organization.
Under the terms of the proposed constitution a maximum of twenty nations must become members before the organization can be formed. I have before me at this moment a list of the names of the nations which have signified their intention of becoming members. This list is composed of thirty names which I think should be placed upon Hansard. The following is the list of countries that have indicated their intention to accept the constitution of F.A.O.:
Australia
Belgium
China
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
France
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Iceland
India
Iraq
Liberia
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Paraguay
Philippines
Poland
Union of South Africa
United Kingdom United States Venezuela

United Nations Food Agreement
The organization will be an inter-governmental body. It will administer its own activities within the provisions of the constitution which are outlined in the schedule to this bill. There will be a director general appointed at the conference of the organization. An executive committee consisting of not less than nine and not more than fifteen members will be appointed by the conference and to which the conference may delegate powers. It will concern itself with studies of production and marketing problems as they relate to food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and it will endeavour to promote research work having to do with the solution of these problems. It will endeavour to render assistance to any government requesting such assistance. It will assemble and distribute official data and promote the development of information that can be coordinated internationally. It will serve the interests of both producers and consumers and function as an organization representing food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry in international deliberations with other international organizations of the united nations.
One matter that will be of interest to hon. members who are being asked to consent to this bill which will permit our taking part in the organization of this conference is the question of expense. I should like to set out the position in relation to the expenses of the organization. For the first year, when the organization is getting under way and when it will have only a small staff, F.A.O. will operate on a budget of $2,500,000. Any unspent balance will form a nucleus of a capital fund. The commission recommends that the average expenditures for the first five years should be estimated at about $5,000,000 yearly. A temporary apportionment of expenses has been recommended by the commission, and a division of the expenses among the different nations involved will be found at the end of the schedule to the bill which is before the house. No member nation will be asked to pay more than 25 per cent. The four major powers will assume 54-5 per cent of the total expenses. For the first year the United States will pay 25 per cent of the expenses, the United Kingdom 15 per cent, the Soviet Union 8 per cent, China 6-5 per cent and France 5-69 per cent. Canada is sixth in the list with 5-06 per cent. Provision is made for new members to the extent of two per cent of the total expenses. The contributions of liberated countries has been scaled down as a measure of temporary financial relief, but when world conditions 47696-59J
improve and they are able to pay more, the proportions allotted to some of the other countries will be reduced accordingly.
Those are the important facts in connection with the measure itself. The need for this measure being passed with as great dispatch as possible arises from the fact that the first meeting of the conference is to be held in Quebec, opening on Tuesday October 16. I assume that the nations that are mentioned as having already indicated their desire to be parties to the conference will be represented. We are sending a delegation representative of the government. A list of those who are to go will be available to members of the house as soon as the order in council appointing them is made complete. I should like to say to hon. members that those representatives will be largely officials of the departments of agriculture, fisheries and forestry under the Department of Mines and Resources and persons representing the health department or having to do with nutrition. The delegation will be made up largely of officials of the government taken from these different departments.
There will also be present as a representative of that organization the president of the farm federation, Mr. Hannam, as well as others who have been selected here and there to a limited extent. There are others who have been selected as delegates or as advisers to those who are delegates to the conference. This list will be made available at the earliest moment. As soon as it is placed before me it will be laid on the table so that it may be available to hon. members.
In addition to the officials of the departments, Hon. L. B. Pearson will be a delegate. I understand that the acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) will be there on Tuesday to open the meeting, and I have been asked to attend as a member of the government and as one of the delegates. My deputy will be a deputy representative of the government at that first meeting.
It is our desire to have this legislation passed in order that our membership in the conference may be made official along with others who will be gathered there and who have already taken suitable action in their own countries to make their position legal and official, and in order that we may be on the same footing as other delegations.
I would therefore move that the bill be given its second reading.
[Stage Direction]
United Nations Food Agreement
John Bracken: I wonder if the minister would answer one question before he sits down. The explanatory note to the bill contains this statement:
. . . the agreement for a food and agriculture organization of the united nations which is to be signed . . .
The second paragraph of the preamble contains these words:
And whereas Canada is transmitting an instrument of acceptance of the constitution to the interim commission . . .
There is a little confusion as to whether the government has transmitted that instrument of acceptance to the interim commission or whether that is to be done after this measure is passed.


Mr. GARDINER:: I understand that it has been prepared and will be forwarded as soon as the legislation is passed.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as he outlined the circumstances leading up to this proposal and gave a brief outline of the clauses of the bill. I am rising at this time to do two things: first, to commend the objective and the purpose of the measure, and second, to criticize the means by which the government is planning to set up and carry on this organization.
The bill provides for two things which were outlined by the minister: the carrying into effect of a certain agreement with respect to the food and agriculture organization of the united nations; and that all expenses in connection therewith shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament.
As I said, we on this side approve the objective of the bill, but we criticize the manner in which it is proposed to administer it. The first question which we have to try to understand is, what is the agreement? There was an agreement made at the Hot Springs conference, which is referred to in the report of the interim commission, but I gather-and I presume it is a fair interpretation-that the government means by the agreement the terms of the constitution set out in the schedule of the bill.
Arising out of the Hot Springs conference there was an agreement that steps should be taken to form a united nations organization to try to improve the standards of nutrition and the standards of living of all peoples, and an interim commission was appointed to prepare complete plans for a permanent organization for that purpose. The report of that interim commission was tabled in this house in the early days of the session. It set out the form of constitution, and that form of

constitution is now included as a schedule to this bill. I asked the Minister of Agriculture a moment ago what the government has done by way of advising with respect to the government's acceptance of the agreement, and the minister said that they have the acceptance ready to go and are awaiting the approval by parliament of this measure before the advice goes forward.
In this bill, as I read it, the government is asking that power be given to the governor in council to do all "such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution." The governor in council is to be given power by this bill to "make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary" to carry this agreement into effect or to carry out the constitution as outlined in the schedule to the bill; and further, to carry out recommendations of the organization, which may comprise forty-five or more nations in which Canada has only one vote; and power also to carry out the recommendations of any committees that the organization may set up. These are very wide powers which the government seeks in connection with this bill. Three questions arise which every member of this house, I am sure, will want to think about. First, what are the essential features of this agreement or of this constitution or of this bill? Secondly, what recommendations may come forward from the conference which it aids in setting up, and what recommendations may come forward from the committees that the conference may set up? The bill aims to give the government power to carry out not only the recommendations of the conference of the organization, but the recommendations of committees of the conference. As the bill now7 stands, it is giving the government power to do all these things.
Let me refer for a moment to one or two of the essential features of the bill. The schedule contains twenty-six articles, and I want to refer to two or three of them. First of all article XVIII, from which I quote:
Upon approval of a budget the total amount approved shall be allocated among the member nations in proportions determined, from time to time, by the conference. Each member nation undertakes, subject to the requirements of its constitutional procedure, to contribute to the organization promptly its share of the expenses so determined.
As the minister has pointed out, the budget proposed for the first year is two and a half million dollars, of which Canada is expected to contribute 5 "06 per cent, or something over $125,000 the first year. In another place, not

United Nations Food Agreement
in the bill but in the report of the interim commission, as the minister pointed out, this organization expects that the expenses will be $5,000,000 a year after the first year. If the percentage allocated to Canada remains the same, 5-06 per cent, our contribution will come to more than $250,000 a year. The conference is given power to alter by a two-thirds vote the percentage that each nation will pay, but in any event the government of Canada will be committed on the passage of this bill to that figure for five years. In other words when we pass this bill we are committing ourselves to an expenditure of something over one million dollars-5-06 per cent of $2,500,000 the first year and 5-06 per cent of $5,000,000 for each of four years-and we cannot get out of it until the end of five years. It is clear that we are asked to commit ourselves to that expenditure for five years. At the moment I am not criticizing that feature of the measure; I am just pointing out what it is that we are being asked to do under this bill.
I have said that by the passage of this bill the government will be in a position to carry out the recommendations of the conference of from forty to fifty nations which this bill makes possible, and will be empowered to carry out also the recommendations of the committees of that conference. I think, therefore, that we should inquire as to what powers the organization is being given under this bill. Something of that may be seen in the preamble to the bill and in the outline of the functions of the organization given on page 3 of the schedule. The preamble states:
The nations accepting this constitution, being determined to promote the common welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the purposes of:
raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples under their respective jurisdictions,
securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products,
bettering the condition of rural populations, and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy,
hereby establish the food and agriculture organization.
Then follows an outline of the functions of the food and agriculture organization once it is set up. Here is the outline in article I of the schedule:
1.	The organization shall collect, analyse, interpret, and disseminate information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture.
2.	The organization shall promote and, where appropriate, shall recommend national and international action with respect to:
(a) scientific, technological, social, and economic research relating to nutrition, food and agriculture;
(b)	the improvement of education and administration relating to nutrition, food and agriculture, and the spread of public knowledge of nutritional and agricultural science and practice;
(c)	the conservation of natural resources and the adoption of improved methods of agriculture production;
(d)	the improvement of the processing, marketing, and distribution of food and agricultural products;
(e)	the adoption of policies for the provision of adequate agricultural credit, national and international;
(f)	the adoption of international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements.
There are even wider powers, because:
It shall also be the function of the organization:
(b) to organize, in cooperation with the governments concerned, such missions as may be needed to assist them to fulfil the obligations. . . .
And so on. I need not read it all. I have read sufficient to show, what the bill clearly indicates, that the purposes of the organization are very wide, as are the powers we are giving the government to carry out the recommendations of the organization.
I have outlined briefly the purposes of this permanent food and agriculture organization. I have shown something of their functions as set out in the bill and something of the powers being granted the government with respect to it, and I have said that we favour the objectives both of the conference and of this measure. I have said also that we object to the manner in which the government is proceeding to carry it out.
Three questions are raised in my mind, and, I am sure, will be raised in the minds of other members of the house: What is the need in Canada for this measure? What obligation does it place upon Canada, and what advantages will Canada derive from it?
With respect to the advantage to Canada, I do not think that anyone will question the advantage of trying to improve the nutritional standard of the Canadian people and of others. I have here a statement with respect to nutritional standards in Canada and in other countries, and I shall apply myself closely to it so that I can get through in two or three minutes.
With the coming of the new knowledge of nutrition we now know that inadequate diets, either in quantity or in quality, or in both, are responsible for much of present-day disease, sickness and lack of general good health. We now know also that even in such high standard of living countries as Canada and the United States, malnutrition and undernourishment are surprisingly widespread. Before the war the Canadian council of nutrition

United Nations Food Agreement
made a number of food surveys in the cities and rural areas. All these studies showed that a high percentage of the people were inadequately nourished. A shocking situation was revealed, for of the families not on relief, who were earning under $1,500 a year, 77 per cent had a diet too low in total calories; 80 per cent had diets deficient in calcium; 70 per cent had diets deficient in iron. The vitamin situation was then as bad; 61 per cent were deficient in vitamin A, 92 per cent were deficient in vitamin B and 60 per cent were deficient in vitamin C.
A former under-secretary of the United States department of agriculture stated that at least one-fourth of the people in that country who were not on relief had poor diets, and that three-fourths of the total population did not have fully satisfactory diets-and this in spite of the fact that that great nation is probably one of the best fed countries in the whole world.
With respect to Great Britain, the situation is not dissimilar. In 1939 a well known scientist, Sir Jdhn Orr, stated1 that the diet of at least fifty per cent of Britain's population fell short of a desirable standard of nutrition.
In Europe responsible authorities have drawn attention to the fact that prior to the war 80,000,000 people of the rural population of that continent were normally living on the verge of destitution, and that from 30 million to 40 million were permanently underfed. One of these authorities, Mr. F. L. McDougall, in 1935 said that if Europe were to raise its fluid milk consumption to a desirable standard it wrould be necessary to double the number of milch cows on the continent.
No statistical data are available to show the state of normal undernourishment and normal semi-starvation which is the every-day state of millions in Asia, but enough is known about periodic famines and the high death rates in such countries as India, China and Arabia to indicate that destitution and hunger to a degree are either always present or just around the corner for untold millions. So much for the need of an institution of this kind, not only for the benefit of our own country but for the benefit of other countries as well.
What obligations does this place upon Canada? First, by article XI, we are required to report to the organization the measures we take to try to carry out its purposes. Other countries are required to do the same. Then we are required to grant certain privileges and immunities to the organization -immunity from suit and exemptions from taxation. That will be found in article XV,
clause 2. We are required to pay at the moment 5-06 per cent of the cost, the total of which after the first year, it is estimated, will be around $5,000,000 a year, and we are required to do that for five years. After being in for four years we can give notice if we want to get out, but we have to pay for the fifth year before we can get out.
What are the advantages to Canada for that contribution of more than $1,000,000, and for other contributions by way of cooperation, which we shall make? We shall gain the experience of other countries through an international organization which one might call a little league of nations within the limited jurisdiction of food and agriculture. We shall no doubt receive some stimulus to the improvement of our standards of nutrition in this country. There will probably be some improvement in international understanding, probably some increase in the stability of our export trade and our domestic trade, and probably also some increased demand for our own products. As other nations begin to grow what we call protective foods, there will probably be demands for a greater amount of the agricultural products which we produce.
It may be asked, what means are to be employed by this international organization, in which we shall have only one vote and to which we shall contribute over a million dollars, to accomplish these ends? As I read the bill, it seems to me that the efforts are to be directed along three lines: research, the dissemination of already existing knowledge, and the exchange of services. I am sure that every hon. member will support the organization in such approaches to the objectives in this bill.
I believe that scientific research is the key which will unlock the door to greater production, greater consumption, and a higher standard of living among our people.
With respect to the dissemination of already known information, one of the lamentable facts in our society is that there is so much known information and so little of it which gets to the rank and file of our people. As one student has well put it, the accumulation of information far exceeds the assimilation of it by the people. To the extent, therefore, to which this organization succeeds in spreading already existing knowledge in Canada and outside of Canada, it will be doing good service.
The third means they propose to use to accomplish their ends is the exchange of services. In that way knowledge accumulated in one country, another country need not go to the expense of obtaining. There is an exchange of knowledge gained and duplication

United Nations Food Agreement
of effort is lessened. One of the great advantages to Canada of being a neighbour of the United States is that through the last two or three generations we have been able to draw upon the lessons they have learned from their researches and their experiments.
How does the organization propose to use these potential aids to progress? By applying them to five things. You see them in the outline of the functions of the organization: by raising the standards of nutrition, by increasing production, by increasing consumption, by improving distribution, and, in addition, in the conservation and development of our resources.
I cannot take time to-day-it is not necessary, before this house-to point out what great gains can be made in each of these directions. We know that the standard of nutrition can be raised, and as a preventive of illness and as a humanitarian objective it ought to be raised.
With respect to increasing production, one of the serious features of our economy in the past was the danger of surpluses; those who produced the world's food often produced a surplus, and they were frequently impoverished in the process. It is said that if every person in the world were adequately fed we would have to double our production. Well, if the nutrition of the world can be raised, let us hope that the threat of poverty to the people who in the past have raised the world's food will be banished. As our Social Credit friends to the far left here have often said in recent years, one of the weaknesses of our economy is the lack of purchasing power. With that I wholly agree. With the low wages we have had. with unemployment, with low prices for agricultural products, there has not been the purchasing power for farmers or for the workers who produced the things which farmers buy. So there has not been the necessary consumption of agricultural products. We have thus been able under that system to produce more than we could consume. Let us then bring all the research which can be brought to bear on solving the problem of increasing consumption, chiefly by increasing purchasing power.
Then comes the question of improving distribution. Reference is made to transportation, and the preservation of food by quick freezing and otherwise. Let me take a minute to tell the house of something I saw in France last January with respect to the effect of poor transportation on the nutrition and comfort of a country. They told us that four thousand of their bridges had been destroyed by bombing during the war, and that only some twelve hundred had been repaired. In France a good deal of transportation is by canals. They told
us that whereas they had had ten thousand ships carrying their goods, at that time only
4.500	were in operation, and only 900 available for interior transport. They told us that before the war they had 15,000 locomotives, and that after liberation there were only 1,200 fit to use, and even when we were there only
4.500	were in operation.
What was the result? In one part of France they had coal mines, and in Paris they were freezing because the allowance to each household was only a few pounds a week. In parts of France they grow sugar beets, but because these could not be hauled to sugar factories there was a shortage of sugar in Paris. In the outlying parts of France there were potatoes in large quantities, but in the absence of transportation facilities to move them there was a serious shortage in Paris.
These are typical of the kind of problem that this international organization is proposing to attack. It is the kind of thing we in Canada have been attacking alone, but now it is proposed that in cooperation with other countries, it shall be tackled jointly. What is Canada's answer to be to the Hot Springs conference? Personally I dislike the growth and expansion of bodies accountable to no responsible democratic assembly. They are apt to become little dictators within the jurisdiction given them. But to-day we are living in a world different from the world of a few years ago. We are living in a world which day by day is growing smaller, in which potential dangers increase daily, in which there are half a hundred nations separated by national boundaries, by national laws and by national traditions. In such a world Canada, like other nations, must make a choice. In such a world I think, and I am sure this house thinks, we must make some concession to internationalism. There must be some continuing approach to world understanding. There must be the maximum cultivation of good will. So we support the principle and the objective of this measure.
Under this proposal Canada will give directly more than a million dollars, and will make other contributions by way of cooperation with these other countries. Our return on this investment will be indirect, perhaps invisible; it may be that we will never be able to measure it. What the net result will be no man can tell. We could do a great deal with a million dollars toward improving the nutritional standards of the Canadian people, but as an investment in a healthier human race it is probable that we shall receive an even larger dividend. By this measure we are casting our bread upon the international waters, hoping it will return

United Nations Food Agreement
manyfold. We do this as an investment in good will; we do it as an act of faith, hoping it will contribute to an expanding world economy, to a healthier human race, and to a more peaceful world.
From what I have said, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will gather that we are wholeheartedly in support of the purposes of this measure. I come now to the parts in connection with which I have some criticism to offer.
Portions of section 2 seem to have been copied verbatim from the statute ratifying certain treaties of peace in 1919, but that makes no difference to my criticism. In this measure we are giving too wide powers to the government, pow'ers wider than they need. The other measure referred to was an act to terminate a war. Whatver justification there may have been in 1919 does not exist now for surrendering the rights of parliament and giving the government a blank cheque to do as much or as little as it chooses in assisting in the setting up of this organization.
This bill should be meticulously examined in committee of the whole. Some of its clauses are objectionable for a number of reasons, some of which I shall mention. Section 2 of the bill provides that the governor in council may make such appointments as may be necessary. This is an intrusion upon the Civil Service Act. Surely the time has come when we should call a halt to making appointments outside that act. The government should discontinue the practice of seeking the power of appointment by the cabinet at the expense of the civil service commission. Too often in the past as new instruments of government have been created the power of appointment has been vested in the governor in council, which in fact means in the political minister, whoever he may be, in charge of the administration of the act. If the practice continues at the same rate as in the past, appointments under the Civil Service Act in accordance with the merit principle will become the exception rather than the rule.
Section 2 provides also that the governor in council may-
-establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution.
That is, he may do what he considers necessary to carry out the recommendations of a body of forty-five nations, on which we are represented by only one vote, or for carrying out the recommendations of committees appointed by that organization. That is a most sweeping power to vest in a government. It is highly objectionable in principle; it is likely in practice to be a serious derogation
[Mr Bracken.]
from the legislative rights of parliament, and there is no restriction as to time. Sweeping powers of this kind may have some justification in war time, but they have none now, and they are not needed to carry out the constitution or the principles of this bill.
Section 2 also provides that the money shall be paid out of moneys provided by parliament. I believe that provision should be qualified by inserting after the words "provided by parliament" the words "for this purpose". Then each year we would know what votes, other than the amounts being now approved, were required by the government.
Section 3 requires a report of operations under the act to be laid before parliament "as soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal year". The phrase quoted is highly objectionable. It permits the Secretary of State for External Affairs to determine in his sole discretion when it is practicable to prepare and present this report. There is no limiting factor whatever. Other acts passed at the last session of parliament and in previous sessions indicate a more correct procedure in this respect. For example in the family allowance act, chapter 40 of the statutes of 1944, section 15 reads:
The minister shall submit to parliament within fifteen days of the commencement of the first session of parliament in each year a report of expenditures and administration in connection with this act during the previous fiscal year.
Likewise the Exports Credits Insurance Act, chapter 39 of the statutes of 1944, provides in section 26 as follows:
The Minister of Finance shall report to parliament on the operation of part 2 of this act within thirty days after the end of each fiscal year or, if parliament be not then sitting, within thirty days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
In the same way the Industrial Development Bank Act, which is chapter 44 of the statutes of last year, provides in section 29 that the president of the bank shall transmit to the Minister of Finance a full report within ten weeks after the end of each fiscal year. It is then provided that this report shall be laid before parliament within fourteen days if parliament is then sitting or, if parliament is not sitting, within fourteen days after the commencement of the next session. The appropriation act customarily has this clause:
A detailed account of the sums expended under the authority of this act shall be laid before the House of Commons of Canada during the first fifteen days of the then next session of parliament.

United Nations Food Agreement
These sections indicate what is the correct procedure in a measure of this kind, and I would suggest that section 3 should be amended to provide something like the following:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs shall prepare and lay before parliament a report of operations under this act within thirty days after the end of each fiscal year or, if parliament be not then sitting, within thirty days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
My last point by way of criticism is this. The bill should contain a provision requiring all orders in council to be laid before parliament. That is not required in the present bill. I would suggest that a clause be inserted in the bill as follows:
A copy of all orders in council passed pursuant to this act shall be laid before parliament forthwith after the passage thereof if parliament be then sitting or, if parliament be in Teeess, then within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.
We want to facilitate in every way the passing of this bill. We support whole-heartedly the objective of the measure. We do not think, however, that the government needs the wide powers contained in sections 2 and 3, and we respectfully suggest that the government consider some limitation upon those powers.


Mr. P. E. WRIGHT (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on this very important measure I want my first words to be a tribute to the work of the representatives Canada sent to the Hot Springs conference, where this measure originated. The contribution of those who went there to represent Canada was outstanding; and in appreciation of their contribution the Hon. L. B. Pearson, our respresentative at Washington, was. made chairman of the interim committee which was given the job of drafting the present constitution. Mr. Pearson did a good job on that committee, and Canadians can be proud of some of our representatives abroad.
I believe there are few in the house who will make any objection to the purpose of the measure. So far as I can see, the objective is to bring into operation one of the freedoms set out in the Atlantic charter, 

freedom from want. There was a time in the world's history when it was thought that that could not be accomplished. Back in 1798 Robert Malthus, a prominent British economist, in an essay on food, propounded what has since been known throughout the world as the Malthusian theory, which stated, in effect, that we would always have want, and that the pressure of population against the available food supplies would always remain. To-day, however, a 47696-60
hundred and fifty years later, we realize that that theory is not sound, in at least so far as the western hemisphere is concerned. We have shown that through modern technical development and improvement in our agricultural methods and equipment, and through the greater use of fertilizers, we can secure freedom from want. The objective of the bill is to spread that freedom from want to other parts of the world, and surely there can be no objection to anything of that kind.
From a purely selfish point of view, Canada is keenly interested. We realize the significance of our interest when we remember that of the ten per cent of the world's food supplies exported, Canada supplies an amount entirely out of proportion to her population. If the measure will raise the nutritional standards of the- world, it will mean greater markets for Canadian food. The success of the legislation now before us to a great extent will depend upon the individual nations which have joined the conference, and upon whether they will be prepared to carry into effect some of the recommendations which undoubtedly will be made by the organization when it is established.
I cannot altogether agree with some of the deductions made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken). I find difficulty in reading into the bill anything in the nature of dictatorship, or anything which would suggest that the organization would have power to force its decisions upon members adhering to the constitution. As I read them, their powers are only by way of recommendations which they would make to the governments joining the organization.


John Bracken: Has the hon. member
read the provision respecting expenses?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes, I have read that provision, but I would point out that the amount of money we are being called upon to contribute is but a very small part of our budget. If we can raise the nutritional standards of the world and secure better markets for our agricultural products, I am convinced our bread cast upon the waters will return a hundredfold. In my view this is one of the best investments Canada could make, and I cannot see how we are committing ourselves to anything which in the future might cause us to regret our action. My one criticism would be that we have been late in taking action. As a matter of fact at the last session I suggested that we should then have ratified this constitution. Even from the purely selfish point of view, Canada should have been among the first instead of among the last of the united nations to effect ratification. If



United Nations Food Agreement
through this measure we can raise the nutritional standards of the world, we shall have accomplished something.
According to reports presented to the interim committee, if we are to have freedom from want, it would appear necessary to increase the food supplies of the world. I was surprised to read that, even to give a minimum nutritional standard to the peoples of the world, the total world's food production should be doubled. The suggestion is made that the production of cereals should be expanded 50 per cent, of meats 90 per cent, of milk and other dairy products 125 per cent, of vegetable oils 125 per cent and of fruits and vegetables 100 per cent. It will be necessary to produce more food per acre, and eventually to bring under cultivation every acre which can be developed economically, if we are to have freedom from want.
This organization has gathered statistics on nutrition, production and distribution, and is making them available to all nations so that they can increase not only their production but also their consumption of foods. I do not think any hon. member would object to that programme.
Some recommendations made to the interim committee I should have liked to see carried into the constitution. The original document drafted at Hot Springs made certain definite recommendations which it was expected the interim committee would draft into the constitution. One of the recommendations, having to do with the distribution of foodstuffs, was that cooperative organizations throughout the world should be used to a large degree in the process of distribution. Speaking of the cooperative movement, it is pointed out that the United States conference on food and agriculture has recommended the strengthening and expanding of the cooperative system in rural and urban areas. While I have not readily at hand the refer-5nce respecting cooperative organizations, I do know that their recommendations were definite, and that they emphasized that those organizations were taking an important part in the collection and distribution of foodstuffs.
We have large cooperatives in western Canada such as the wheat pools, and there are large consumer cooperatives in Great Britain handling the distribution of foodstuffs. They recommended that these organizations should be encouraged and given a greater place in the collection and distribution of food throughout the world. That recommendation has not been carried forward into the constitution, at least in any direct way. It

might be considered that it was implied, but I would have liked to see it in a more definite form.
Another thing to which I should like to direct the attention of the house is that as in the nineteen thirties, in certain sections of the world the production of food at the present time is under quota. In Canada and in certain other areas which produce wheat we have more or less come to an agreement that we will restrict the production of this essential food to the amount the market will absorb. I am not objecting to that, because under our present system it seems that that is the only way we can dispose of it, but I do want to say that any system based on that theory is wrong. In a world in which two-thirds of the population need more food, it seems ridiculous that we should have restricted the production of such an essential food as wheat. In the United States in the nineteen thirties they restricted the production of cotton, of corn, of hogs and other foods, and yet at the same time there were thousands of people in that country who were going without the necessary clothing, the necessary shoes and the necessary food to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Later they recognized the foolishness of that procedure and introduced the stamp plan for the distribution of food to those in the low income groups. I think the world should recognize that that is the most sensible thing to do. We should produce all the food we can and then see that it is distributed to the people who need it. If we want a world in which there will be permanent peace, I believe we will have to do that. You cannot have permanent peace in a world in which one part is restricting food production while another is starving to death. It is not Christianity, it is not economically sound, it is not common sense. It is one of the things I hope this organization will avoid. I hope they will make recommendations to the various governments to prevent it from taking place in the future.
Another matter on which this organization can make recommendations is agricultural credits. This has been one of the drawbacks to more efficient agricultural production throughout the world. The cost of credit for agricultural development, for the clearing of land, for obtaining proper equipment to work the land economically in order to get the best production, has been too great. The rates of interest charged throughout the world for agricultural credits have been unreasonable. In countries where agricultural credits have been made cheaper, there is greater production. I do not know whether

United Nations Food Agreement
it is correct, but I am told that in India and in other countries where small acreages are worked, very often the people engaged in agriculture pay rates of interest of eight, ten and fifteen per cent. The result is that they are always in poverty and there is never the necessary production to meet the needs of the people.
t In Canada in the past few years we have been able to reduce the cost of credit to agriculture, and I think it can be still further reduced. Any recommendations which this organization may be able to make with respect to the obtaining or making available of cheaper agricultural credits will be all to the good.
Another matter on which they could make recommendations is land tenure, the method under which we hold our land. We think that with our individual ownership in Canada we have attained the best method of land ownership, but there are drawbacks to this system. I have followed agriculture pretty closely for the last forty years, and it seems to me that with our present system of ownership we have reduced the fertility of our soil. I know that in Ontario very few farms are producing what they produced fifty years ago, and in western Canada we find that our per acre production is being reduced. If we are holding our own, it is simply because we have developed better types of grain, not because we are maintaining the fertility of the soil.
I am not satisfied that we know all that is to be known with respect to land tenure, and any recommendations of this organization with respect to it should be taken into consideration by this and other governments. In Great Britain they have a different system of the land tenure from what we have, and during the past hundred years they have practically doubled the per acre production on most of their land.


Mr. REID:: Because the law is laid down
as to what crops to grow.


Percy Ellis Wright: The law is not laid down
in Great Britain as to what crops they shall grow.


Thomas Reid: It is laid down by the landlord.


Percy Ellis Wright: That may be so in some sections.


Thomas Reid: All of Scotland is under that law.


Percy Ellis Wright: If that method of land tenure produces better results and more for the peoples of the world, then I say we should at least study it. I do not want anyone to 47696-60i
go away with the idea that I am opposing our present system of land tenure, bfit I do say that we should study the matter and find out if it is the best method. The production of the soil constitutes the wealth of any nation; make no mistake about that. If you deplete your soil, eventually the nation will go down. It is the basis of our very existence, the food which we eat.
Another matter to be considered is that of land conservation. Certainly we can learn a lot in Canada with respect to land conservation. You can drive through Ontario or Quebec or any of our older provinces and see hundreds of farms now vacant which at one time maintained a family.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And educated them too.


Percy Ellis Wright: And educated them, as my friend says. Those farms are vacant to-day because the fertility has been taken out of them. Competition became too keen and they could not produce enough to maintain a family. All these things can be studied by this organization and recommendations made.
The organization does not propose to standardize production or consumption throughout the world. There are entirely different methods that will have to be used in different countries. Such an organization as this is a step in the right direction and one which can be of great value to Canada. The money which we shall have to contribute to the expenses of the organization will be money well spent.
In conclusion I should like to quote what Mr. Appleby, the under-secretary of state of the United States, said with respect to this organization. After indicating that the organization was being developed for the purpose of obtaining a freedom-from-want programme in the world, he went on to say:
It can be achieved, as freedom from fear can be achieved, only by substituting international cooperation for the excessive international competition from which the world is suffering.
I agree one hundred per cent with that- that cooperation among the nations of the world is the solution of a great many of our problems of to-day. Believing that this organization is a step in that direction, I am prepared to support the passing of this bill.
Mr. SOLON E. LOW (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in moving the second reading of this bill, but I must say that his speech will be noted more for what it did not contain than for what it did. I think it would save valuable time and add much to the clarity and effectiveness of debate in the

United Nations Food Agreement
house if the minister in charge would make a detailed and comprehensive statement on any bill or resolution that he is moving. But the practice seems to have grown up in the house of throwing into the ring as innocent-looking a measure as possible and then letting the opposition groups fight over it. We on this side are left to guess as to the real meaning of many of the measures that come before us and have to hunt around for a "nigger in the wood-pile", being often left in complete ignorance of the background or intention behind the measure. If the opposition are set to fighting each other on the principles involved, as is so often the case, then it seems so much the better. All the while I have noticed that the minister concerned sits silent, laughing up his sleeve, while we blindly grope about for the main purpose behind a measure. Often it is only by sheer accident that we stumble upon its real substance, while all the time the minister is in full possession of all the facts, or should be if he is introducing the measure in full sincerity.
We have nothing before us in this case except what is contained in a perfectly innocent-looking bill, dressed up in high-sounding phrases, but with its real intent possibly obscured by the emotional appeal of a highly humanitarian purpose.
There is one other thing I should like to say while I am at it. The minister usually comes into a debate on a measure like this loaded to the ears with documents and schedules and arguments compiled by staffs of experts, accountants and researchers that are at his disposal, while we on this side are largely on our own. We have to do all our own research. We have to prepare all our own schedules, and we have to do it often with little help from the staffs in the various departments which are overloaded with work. That is very uneven competition. It should be in the public interest to have a full and effective debate on any one of these measures, especially one so important as the bill now before us. Therefore it should be the duty of the minister to give us something worth while to debate. The members of this house should also have available to them an adequate staff to assist in preparing material for these important debates, similar to what is allowed to members of congress of the United States. Surely we are no less important to our country than they are to theirs. I hope that that will be taken under advisement by the government. The practice now seems to be to let the various groups in the opposition bludgeon each other into insensibility almost, and then for the minister to come into the

debate at the last minute to close it, to apply the coup de grace and then away, and the measure is passed.
This bill carries into effect an agreement among nations which become parties to it through legislation. Neither the bill itself nor the schedule appended thereto in my opinion gives anything like a full expose of the terms of the agreement among the nations. Therefore I should like to examine for a few * moments some of the resolutions passed and recommendations made by the conference at Hot Springs, all of which are embodied in the pamphlet entitled "Final Act" of the united nations conference on food and agriculture. There are only seven or eight points that I wish to emphasize at this time. The first is found on page 29 of the pamphlet I have just mentioned. In article XXIV, headed "Achievement of an Economy of Abundance", it seems that the conference after great deliberation made a discovery of importance, for they say:
Whereas the first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty.
For the last twenty-six years, the leader and founder of this great movement of which I form a part has been pointing out to the world that the first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty. I refer to none other than Major Douglas, founder of the social credit movement.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I might phrase that sentence I have quoted in just a little different way. They say: "The first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty." I would put it this way: Good food means prosperity. That turns the thing right around. It would seem to me that in an enlightened age such as this the first duty of any government should be to see to it that every citizen is adequately nourished. Such things as arterial roads, new bridges, housing schemes and pleasure parks, and I might go so far as to say new wars, should take second place to providing every citizen in the land with adequate food of the proper kind. Yet we find that there never is lacking interest and also public money for the things which I have mentioned, roads, bridges and wars, to the total exclusion of the proper nourishment of the people. If proper methods were adopted it is my contention that everyone would have enough to eat, and when everyone has enough to eat I am sure that unemployment would not be a problem, and that diseases of all kinds would become very rare indeed.
One other thing which this report says interested me and is of importance. It is found on the same page, 29:
To maintain an equilibrium in balances of payments, and to achieve the orderly management of currencies and exchange.

United Nations Food Agreement
I wonder if they are referring here to a policy of foreign trade. If they are, I should like to say this about it. A policy of expanding foreign trade can never succeed in raising the standards of living of our own people in Canada if we persist in following the archaic foreign trade policies that have been followed by governments up to this time. This same idea seems to be emphasized on page 23 of the same booklet where they state, as the last subsection under article XV, "Long-term Production Policy":
That with a view to balancing production and consumption the permanent organization consider to what extent and by what means such reports might contribute to international collaboration both on a regional and on a world basis in the field of agricultural production.
That appears to me to relate to two things: First, distribution within the country, and, second, balancing exports with imports. It seems to me also that it might refer to action which would be taken within any nation to make sure that the people are so furnished with purchasing power that they can buy and consume all that that nation produces, if they wish to do so.
It might be interesting at this point to emphasize to the house what foreign trade really should amount to. I have under my hand an article appearing in the Reader's Digest, which is headed, "Stuff for Stuff, the Elemental Equation; a condensation from the forthcoming book, "To-morrow's Trade," by Stuart Chase." At page 67, column 1 he says:
Never let go the idea that stuff must be exchanged for stuff.
That is the policy of foreign trade which this group has always advocated. This article concludes with the following statement:
Let me repeat the commonsense formula. The stuff we produce as a nation, plus the stuff we import, less the stuff we export is the measure of our standard of living.
In approaching the problem that is before us, whether or not this bill should be passed by the house, we ought to keep that formula in mind, because unless we are prepared to adopt, along with our foreign trade, policies and measures which are designed to make it possible for the people to buy the goods when they are imported in exchange for our exports, we shall fail dismally in any effort we make to raise the standard of living of our own people.


Mr. HANSELL:: That is good stuff.


Mr. LOW:: This same point is also referred to briefly on page 13 of this "Final Act" of
the united nations conference on food and agriculture, under article I, paragraph 4. Here is the declaration:
The first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty.
It is useless to produce more food unless men and nations provide the markets to absorb it.
That is fundamental.
There must be an expansion of the whole world economy to provide the purchasing power sufficient to maintain an adequate diet for all.
I ask hon. members how they are going to set about seeing to it that every person in our nation has sufficient purchasing power to be able to balance production and consumption in our own land and thus raise the standard of living.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Ask the Minister of Agriculture that question.


Solon Earl Low: It has been amply demonstrated time and again that never has the productive enterprise in any country succeeded in distributing sufficient purchasing power to enable the products of that productive effort to be purchased by the people. I say further that there never can be a sufficient expansion of the whole world economy to guarantee a decent standard of living for everyone until full control of money policy is restored to the various sovereign parliaments of the nations. I refer particularly now to our own nation. We can never introduce a policy of expanding economy unless the government of Canada is prepared to see to it that no such condition as existed in the hungry thirties is ever present in our nation again, namely, the condition in which, when our boys were called up before the army medical boards, forty-four out of every 100 were turned back because they failed to make category A. This was owing to malnutrition born of poverty; and poverty arises out of the failure of our productive enterprise to distribute to our people sufficient purchasing power that they can buy back the goods which are produced.
I should like for a moment to refer to the Southampton chamber of commerce report of 1933 which further emphasizes the facts I have just stated. On page 7 of that report, in reference to the unemployed, such as there were at that time, and such as it seems to me there will be again unless we take extremely quick action to prevent it, I read the following:
Any consideration of the position of the unemployed is startlingly paradoxical. Either an unemployed person is without work because we are already producing sufficient without his services being required, in which case he is poor because there is an abundance of goods

United Nations Food Agreement
and services available; or he is in want because the available wealth is not sufficient to provide for the satisfaction of his needs, in which case it is difficult to explain away why his services are not being utilized to produce more. Thus, from whatever angle it is viewed, we have the situation of widespread industrial trade stagnation, with producers capable of production and millions in want of the very things which can be produced in abundance.
Then. I turn to page 9 of the same report. Speaking of industry, it says:
Industry performs a twofold function. It produces goods and distributes incomes in the process. The operation of the relations of monetary mechanism to production is along these lines:	(a) Industry makes its capital assets
and secures the money necessary to enable it to pay wages and salaries, buy raw material, and meet its overhead costs in the form of credit loans from the banking system, (b) In the process of producing goods it distributes wages, salaries, dividends and the profits which filter through as money incomes to the entire community, (c) The goods subsequently go on the market with price labels attached to them to include all costs of production. And (d) the community acquire goods in return for their money, which filters back through the productive system for the cancellation of credit loans originally created by the banking system. It should be noted that under this process industry is forced to charge into prices at least all its costs of production irrespective of any question of profit; otherwise it cannot liquidate its indebtedness to the banking system. Thus it will be seen that the creation of financial credits by banks results in the creation of a trail of costs attaching to the products of industry, and this trail of costs is created in the process of financial credits filtering through to the community as money incomes.
Then. I should like to record the final contusion of the committee on this matter, as minted on page 12:
The essential feature of this analysis is that, is a country becomes more highly industrialized, 10 it becomes increasingly impossible to distribute sufficient purchasing power to enable the community to buy the products of its industry or the money equivalent in products exchanged with other countries. This results in the country accumulating an unsalable surplus -unsalable in the sense that it cannot be bought at home and it cannot be exchanged for the products of other nations, as the purchasing power for the latter to be made available to the community simply does not exist.
That is the conclusion of that investigating committee of the Southampton chamber of commerce whose report was issued early in 1933.
Finally, I should like to refer to the declaration of the obligations of the governments of the various nations that entered into this food and agriculture agreement, as they are recorded on page 14 of the "Final Act" of the united nations conference on food and agriculture. Under section II, interim and per-

manent commissions for carrying out the recommendations of the united nations conference on food and agriculture, we find this:
The united nations conference on food and agriculture recommends:
(4) That the functions of the interim commission" be to formulate and to recommend for consideration by each member government or authority (i) to raise the levels of nutrition and standards of living of its own people.
In other words, to set its own house in order first, which I can assure the house is a worthwhile objective.
I maintain that, since the minister has brought this measure into the house and wishes to carry it into effect, Canada, by passing this bill through the house, is committing herself to raise the levels of the standards of living of its own people, is committing herself to balance production and consumption through setting up in Canada an expanding economy; and is committing herself to ensure distribution of sufficient purchasing power among all of the people of Canada so that an expanding economy may be made possible.
I maintain further, Mr. Speaker, that the minister or the government ought to give serious consideration to just how they can carry out the responsibilities which devolve upon them through the passing of this bill and the making of this agreement. It seems to me that without a certain fundamental and far-reaching change and reform in our financial system to supplement any programme of expanding world trade they have in mind, it will be simply impossible to cany into effect those things which are set out here as recommendations and which obviously will be objectives of the permanent commission which is set up. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture now approach the study of a sound and scientific system of finance to assist him to ensure that the commission does its work properly, and to see to it that Canada's standard of living is adequately raised and that nutritional values and so on are made possible to every one of our people. I am anxious that we succeed in setting our own house in order and raising the level of nutrition and standards of living of our people. At the same time I am very much concerned that while we are doing this we preserve the freedom of the individuals in this nation, because I fear that by some procedure, by some techniques under which the programme of the permanent commission might be put into effect, the people of this country could lose their individual freedom.
I do not want to detain the house much longer, but there are certain things which I

United Nations Food Agreement
should say in conclusion. I am not sure as yet what stand I should take when it comes to voting on this measure, because I feel that we have not yet sufficient information. It seems to me an obligation on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to inform us, and give us answers to questions such as these which I shall shortly ask. It might be possible for me to say something further in the committee stage and to ask these questions at that time again, but I am going to put them on record now as things which I must know before I can come to a decision whether this is a good measure or a bad one.
In the first place I should like to know the relation of the permanent commission, set up as part of bill No. 14, to TJNRRA and its activities. I think it is important that we should know that.
My second question: since individual countries which are signatories to the agreement thus far, as the minister read them this afternoon, have failed completely to achieve security for their peoples under the present financial system, I should like the minister to tell the house how these same countries can achieve security for their peoples by collective action, still operating under the same financial system.
Another question which I should like the minister to answer so that I can make up my vnind on the matter is this: why is it not possible for a country like Canada to set its own house in order without having to set up a permanent international commission to force them to do so? I wonder whether the government has come to the conclusion that it is necessary for the housewives on Elm street to form a permanent club among themselves by legislative action before each of the good ladies can proceed to feed her own children properly. And if they cannot cooperate on a voluntary basis, I ask the minister to make it plain what assurance he can give that by the introduction of compulsion the children will be any better fed.
Another question:	why would not an informal conference, operating on a purely voluntary basis and consisting of expert delegates sent by the governments of the world, be as effective in exchanging views, experience, and the rest relating to the production of food and to improved cultural methods, as the setting up of a permanent international commission and clothing it with great authority, such as is evidently the case here?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is purely voluntary.


Solon Earl Low: Well, we shall see. If the minister can assure us of that, good and well. Of course, I am sincerely seeking information.


James Garfield Gardiner: Purely voluntary, as will be seen from reading the constitution as set out in the schedule. It is purely voluntary in the first place as to whether a nation goes into it.


Solon Earl Low: That is right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then it binds itself to remain there for four years, and then it is a purely voluntary matter as to whether it goes out or not. It can give one year's notice to go out, and then it is purely voluntary as to whether that nation goes. I do not know that one can make it any more voluntary.


Solon Earl Low: That is all very well, but for four years we are under obligation to stay there; and when one looks carefully at the schedule, the constitution, he sees evidence that the international authority which is set up there is clothed with considerable power and authority.


James Garfield Gardiner: No authority to that.


Mr. JAQUES:: What is the good of it then?


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may be permitted to explain, I want to give the information asked for.


Solon Earl Low: Very good.


James Garfield Gardiner: The committee has
power to investigate, to conduct research, to make reports, but it has no authority to compel anyone to do anything. As was stated by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the only authority it has is to recommend to the governments of the different countries concerned what it thinks would help bring about just what my hon. friend has been speaking of; then the governments are entirely free to adopt such recommendations or otherwise. There is nothing compulsory about it.


Solon Earl Low: I am glad to have that assurance, but in referring to article V on page 5 of the schedule I find that subsection 4 provides:
The members of the executive committee shall exercise the powers delegated to them by the conference on behalf of the whole conference and not as representatives of their respective governments.
That seems the negation of the principle of responsible government. I am quite prepared, however, to accept the minister's statement on that point if later in committee he substantiates it.

United Nations Food Agreement
I come now to my fifth point. Does the minister believe that a permanent international food commission, set up by international agreement, will be in a better position to enforce its decisions and its dicta, if such there be? I am sure the minister will not mind answering that question in committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have just answered it.


Solon Earl Low: Sixth; does the minister think
the plans of an informal world food conference would not be of equal value; and if not, why not?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is about as
informal as one can make it, if we are to have people brought together to discuss anything.


Solon Earl Low: We shall just let hon. members make up their own minds on that point, and I am quite prepared to accept that statement until we are in committee.
I now come to my seventh question. Is this permanent world food and agricultural commission necessary because the government will not do what is right by Canadians without being forced by some external organization? I should like to have the answer to that question.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not force us.


Solon Earl Low: Or are they afraid the social
crediters will finally force them to do what is right in this country?
No. 8. Is this measure designed to set up one of the various "specialized agencies established by intergovernmental agreement and having wide international responsibilities," referred to in article 57 of chapter IX of the united nations charter? That also is very important, and I should like an answer to it before I can intelligently determine whether it is wise for me to support this bill.
No. 9. Is this conference and the commission growing out of it one of the brain children of Leo Pasvolsky, who wrote most of the San Francisco charter and the Bretton Woods agreement? I should like that information.
No. 10. What part in the origination of this scheme did Henry Morgenthau or Paul Warburg or Bernard Baruch have to play? These are important things for me to know.
No. 11. Has the minister assured himself that this measure is not one step, and an important step, toward a world coupon or rationing system? If it is, I might take one stand; if it is not, naturally I should like to know. Some months ago, I believe in 1944, the Financial Post did link up UNRRA with a possible world-rationing or coupon system.
No. 12. I wonder if the minister will say whether it is possible to solve a nation's prob-

Jem effectively by making it a global problem. My reaction to this bill will depend somewhat upon the answer to that question.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I find myself in sympathy with the objectives of this innocent-looking bill, but I wish to assure myself that it is as innocent as it appears. I wish to assure myself also that we are not putting ourselves into the absurd position of creating a force outside Canada to compel Canada to put her own house in order. When I am assured of these things I shall be able to advise my group exactly what stand to take, and we may have something more to say in the conftnittee stage.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to support the stand taken by my leader, that in so far as the objectives of this bill are concerned we give them our support, together with the constitution which is appended as a schedule to the bill itself. But we do raise strenuous objection to the form of this bill, and during the course of my remarks this afternoon I intend to point out that innocuous though this bill appears, it represents the furthest effort ever made in this parliament to emasculate parliamentary control with respect to a matter which must be subject to control by parliament.
To me this bill as it no.w stands represents very indifferent draftsmanship. It appears that someone, somewhere, simply copied a bill or bills passed by parliament in 1919 or 1920 with respect to the signing of peace with Turkey or Bulgaria, and attached this appendix without regard to the significance of the difference between those peace treaties and the constitution of the food and agricultural organization of the united nations. In certain sections this bill is identical with the bills which were passed to provide for peace after the last war with the governments of Turkey and Bulgaria. There is one exception, however; in those acts some control was left to parliament. In this act, if it is passed in the form in which it has been presented to the house, parliament will divest itself of powers such as it has not divested itself of in the past. In particular it will divest itself of the power to demand from the government full and complete information on international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements.
Before I conclude I intend to suggest that certain amendments, if made to this bill, will remove any objection we of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition have to this measure and will at the same time retain all the benefits

United Nations Food Agreement
which were reviewed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his opening
speech.
First as to the objectives. So far as we are concerned, the agreement arrived at at the food and agriculture conference which met at Hot Springs more than two years ago is, as it was then, a constructive one, representing an attempt on the part of the united nations then at war to translate their concepts of unity into practical performance; or, in the words of the Minister of Agriculture, to translate the concept of cooperation in conformity with the principles of the Atlantic charter.
It was a great and forward step. It united the various nations who not only agreed to the acceptance of this declaration for the production of food in common alliance for the period of the war, but as well made provision for the achievement of a common objective, that of raising the standard of living everywhere in the world, as was stated by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), the ultimate aim in the production of food being to equalize population food ratios throughout the world.
I have figures issued by the League of Nations in regard to the inequality of the distribution of food. They show that with 6-6 per cent of the world's population North America produced 18-9 per cent of the world's food. Europe, with 18-6 per cent of the world's population produced only 37-6 per cent of the world's food. These figures indicate that, on the whole, North America was better fed at the beginning of the war than was Europe. Then they show, too, that Europe and North America, representing one-quarter of mankind, produced over fifty per cent of the world's food, and consumed even more. Asia covering 53-2 per cent of the world's population consumed only 17-2 per cent of the food produced in the world.
Some cynic has said that before the war the Chinese were born in order to die of starvation-a terrible indictment against world inter-responsibilitv. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has stated that by raising the standard of living throughout the world we shall remove the danger or one of the reasons for war.
The McDougall memorandum to the League of Nations was presented to the President of the United States in the 1940's and upon its findings the basis upon which the wheat conference was called was founded, namely, that of equalizing permanently, through a permanent international organization, standards of living throughout the world.
The hon. member for Melfort has put certain figures on the record. I join with him in saying that, if the investigations made by
the League of Nations were correct, then we in Canada should do our part toward increasing the production of foodstuffs, provided that we believe that the principles in the declaration are to be carried into effect and that mankind throughout the world is to receive a greater amount of food and a higher standard of nutrition than has been received) before.
The McDougall memorandum, which influenced the then President of the United States very considerably, indicated that in order to ensure all sections of the population throughout the world having sufficient quantities of the right kinds of food, it would require in the United States of America-and this would apply to an even greater extent in Canada-an increase and expansion in production in the following orders of magnitude: cereals, by fifty per cent. I noticed that the hon. member for Melfort gave the figure as ten per cent. Apparently he obtained his statistics from a source other than the McDougall report. Then, to give further figures: Meat, ninety percent; milk and1 other dairy products, 125 per cent; vegetable oils, 125 per cent, and fruits and vegetables, 300 per cent.
The McDougall report concluded that only by such increases Could the world hope to attain nutritional equality and a sufficiency of food1 and have a proper expansion and distribution of food so that the dangers of war from this cause would be removed. This report influenced President Roosevelt, realizing as he did, as so often enunciated by him, that there can be peace only if the nations of the earth have an equal opportunity not only for security, but also for a degree of economic life the like of which the world has never known before. The report leads to the conclusion that the world could achieve a new basis of economic well-being, and the nations joined in the food conference agreed among themselves in informal discussions to act through a world food and agricultural organization to achieve that great objective.
For generations security has been the aim of mankind. Mr. Eden, when he was British foreign secretary, reviewed the situation; and what he said on that occasion is reported in British Hansard for July 6, 1943. After stating that the objective according to the declaration at Hot Springs, was to secure freedom from want of food everywhere in the world, he proceeded in part as follows:
... it is clear that freedom from want of food depends largely on matters outside the scope of purely agricultural or nutritional policy. This was fully recognized by the conference, which took account of the broad

United, Nations Food Agreement
questions of international security and economic expansion which, are the necessary background of sustained progress towards freedom from Want and a higher standard of living.
In other words, the bill before us to-day, in so far as the constitution is concerned, represents one of the great endeavours on the part of the united nations to secure peace and security through the established instruments which were fashioned at San Francisco, and to take measures to assure economic wellbeing by making each nation in the world responsible to equalize the opportunities for food to lesser fortunate nations throughout the world.
No one believes that this will be entirely successful. We are building-and building without the benefit of experience. We are building an idealistic future on the basis of circumstances as we find them to-day, and sometimes without regard to the realities of the future. But at least, so far as this constitution is concerned, as my leader indicated during his speech it represents something we must accept, however fragile the foundation upon which it may be built.
In looking over one of the speeches delivered in the British House of Commons by Richard Law, the then under-secretary for foreign affairs in Great Britain, I found words which represented to me the epitome of the attitude statesmen are taking, in the realization that men everywhere are taking new, uncertain steps and doing things which have not been done before to assure peace. We are trying to take them in cooperation with other nations, to the end that two wars in one generation shall not be followed by a third in the same generation, or, indeed, in generations to come.
This is what Mr. Richard Law said in regard to the Hot Springs conference:
At Hot -Springs we began a -process of pile driving. We drove one pile into the shifting sands upon which, in these days, our lives are founded. For my own part I am sure that this is the right method by which to approach the problems of reconstruction. We shall not find peace in a blueprint.
Those words are as true to-day as they were when they were uttered by Mr. Law, a man in whom, by reason of his Canadian ancestry, Canadians have a special interest. He continued:
If we tackle these problems one by one, if we drive one pile after, some of them may dissolve but some of them will last and we shall have in the end a stable foundation upon which to build the temple of peace.
We are accepting the great principles contained in the constitution which appears as an appendix to the bill, as a step in the direction of peace among all nations.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
I cannot understand why this important piece of legislation is brought down a few days before the convening of this conference at Quebec. Why was it not brought down last year? This constitution has been available for two years, but during those two years it has been embalmed in the records of some department of government and at the last moment it is brought out. I say that we will accept everything contained in the constitution provided that we have an opportunity to scrutinize with every care and attention the bill to which it is attached, intended to implement Canada's responsibility under this declaration.
Two years ago the nations whose names are to be found in annex II were cooperating, but are they cooperating to-day in so far as food production is concerned? If so, why is it that the international wheat agreement of 1942 is to-day in a position where apparently the parties to that agreement are unable to agree, or, to put it in the best fight, have not as yet been able to agree?
I hold no brief for Argentina the nation which did us so much harm during the dark days of the war. But Argentina has been accepted as a member of the united nations, having performed the acts she was required to perform under the act of Chapultepec. Argentina, one of the world's largest exporters of farm products, is not included among the member nations of this organization upon whom the responsibility will fall. When the Minister of Agriculture replies I ask him to let the house and this country know what attitude the government representatives are to take at the Conference with respect to Argentina; for unless something is done in this regard Argentina will act as a threat to agricultural equality and equilibrium all over the world. In my opinion, despite Argentina's attitude to the United Nations during the days of the war, we need her cooperation if the principles of this declaration are to be carried into effect.
As far as nutrition is concerned, I shall not go into detail. My leader dealt with that question in some degree, but I would point out that it is philanthropic philosophy that is contained in this constitution, the raising of living standards by the raising of the nutritional standards of the world. We know that the bureau of home economics in the United States has concluded that even in the dying days of the war, when nutritional standards were higher than they had been for years, thirty-five per cent of the population were still deficient in several essential nutrients.

United Nations Food Agreement
I accept the objectives of the constitution, noble as they are, but I intend to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make some material changes in the bill. I want to see Canada represented at the conference, but I would point out that this bill which is to implement the constitution abrogates the right of parliament for five years with regard to any matters connected with international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements. It will be said that that is a wide statement, but I make it after carefully reviewing the various sections of this bill.
We know what the powers of the international food organization will be. The minister stated very properly that those powers will not be mandatory, that they will be in the form of recommendations to Canada and other nations, merely recommending to Canada, as one of the signatories, to carry them into effect. Supposing the delegates representing Canada at the conference next week come to a certain arrangement, and there is nothing to indicate that such arrangement will not be arrived at behind closed doors; then what happens? Let me read the exact words of the declaration, showing the matters the organization will be empowered to deal with, which are:
(f) the adoption of international policies with respect to agricultural commodity arrangements.
(e) the adoption of policies for the provision of adequate agricultural credit, national and international.
As provided for in the constitution, a majority of the nations may come to a certain decision. Where does Canada come in? Parliament will never find out what has been done, with the bill as it now stands for there is not one provision which will enable parliament to know what is going on. I read the pertinent section, which states:
The governor in council may make such [DOT]appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution set out in the schedule to this act or any recommendations of the conference of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, or of its committees, made pursuant to such provisions.
In other words, we are asked to empower the governor in council to pass orders in council ratifying or carrying out any of the recommendations made by the conference set up under the provisions of this constitution.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only to establish the offices necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a fair interruption, but listen to the words, because it is not only to establish offices:
The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the . . . recommendations of the conference. . . .


James Garfield Gardiner: Provisions of the
constitution.


John George Diefenbaker: "Conference" is the word. I am reading from the copy of the bill that has been given to me.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know what copy the hon. member has, but mine says "constitution."


John George Diefenbaker: Everyone seems to have a different copy. I am reading from the one that was handed to me. We are even more in the dark than we were if we are using different copies.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never seen more than the one copy, and that is the one I have in my hand.


John George Diefenbaker: Listen to the words:
The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution set out in the schedule to this act or any recommendations of the conference of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, or of its committees, made pursuant to such provisions.
That section, is too wide. It is opening the door to irresponsible government by order in council, to which I raise the most strenuous objections. I am going to ask the minister to have the bill redrafted so that parliament will have something more than a photographic copy of an act made upon declaration of peace between Bulgaria and Turkey and Canada after the last war. Bring it up to date. So far as I am concerned, and I think I speak also for the members of this party, we believe that the time has come to deny the placing of these tremendous powers, untrammeled by parliament, in the hands of the government.


James Garfield Gardiner: On that point-


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Mr. Speaker-


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend, I am sure, does not want to misrepresent the facts. Let him read subsection 2 of section 2, which provides that all the expenditures must be referred to parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. But I am not dealing with expenditures. I am dealing with the carrying into effect of recommendations.

United Nations Food Agreement
Certainly the government could not make expenditures without coming to parliament to get the moneys. I certainly do not contend that we had arrived at that stage. I am dealing with section 2, subsection 1, which gives the governor in council power to enter into any arrangement with an international organization set up under the provisions of this constitution. Was it an oversight that there is no provision in the bill at all that the orders in council shall be brought before parliament? Every other bill that has been introduced during the last year, as was pointed out by my leader, makes provision for the tabling of the orders in council. But not this one.


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will allow me, we are quite prepared to accept an amendment to that effect, that the orders in council be produced in the house or that a time be set under this section when a return shall be made to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: We have one thing now; we are to know what has been done by the governor in council after he has done it.
Next I say that the governor in council should not have placed in his hands the power, behind the backs of the people of Canada, to carry out the recommendations, whatever they may be, of any international organization without their being submitted to parliament, and I intend, when the opportunity comes, to bring in amendments to that effect: first, to bring in an amendment which will require the approval of parliament within a reasonable time of any decisions made by this international organization and accepted by the governor in council. We required, too, knowledge of and publicity for the orders that are made. But that demand is now done away with by the minister's promise to have the orders in council tabled.
I think any person who looks at this bill reasonably will agree, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will be as desirous as any member that parliament must retain the power to decide economic matters which will affect this nation over a period of five years. I feel that we are getting to a point in this country where, unless a stop is put to this type of legislation, we may very well see the day when as a result of the setting up of boards and commissions and the like, no longer when writing official letters will board members and commissioners sign themselves as they did before the war, "Your obedient servant", but they will be able to say to us, "Your omnipotent master". Against that trend I absolutely protest. Why do I criticize order

in council government? I criticize it because I have consistently taken that stand, supported by certain other members of the house. I believe that the time has come in this country when unnecessary boards and unnecessary controls must cease to exist. We are in this position, that we of the Progressive Conservative party alone, except for the assistance of hon. members in other parts of the house, take that stand1 because my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party cannot take that stand. They will not oppose these things; they accept these things, the setting up of boards, government by order in council, and the like, because in order to carry into effect the socialistic set-up which they believe necessary for the economic welfare of this country they would be bound to intensify far and beyond anything we have to-day the boards and controls already existing. That is the reason why they invariably support these things.


Mr. IRVINE:: I hope the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. I do not think there is any connection at all between the point he is making and socialism.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we are constituted differently. I see quite an apt connection between the two points. I am going to ask my hon. friends on the government side of the house also to give me support in the request that I am making. I am not going to deal with ancient history. I am not going to place before the house some of the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1920, although I have them under my hand. 'Certainly no man was ever more critical of order in council government in 1919 and 1920 than the present Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Three years after the war.


John George Diefenbaker: That was the stand he took, and I am asking hon. members on the other side of the house to stand up now for the rights of parliament and demand that this bill be amended to restore to parliament the right to determine the economic future of this country.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is for the second reading of bill No. 14, which deals with a very important subject. I would point out that if the motion carries, the principle df

United Nations Food Agreement
the bill is adopted, and it seldom happens that the principle will be revised in committee. Once we adopt the motion for the second reading of the bill the principle has been accepted by parliament. The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) before six o'clock referred to the matter of orders in council in connection with the bills which are before parliament. In addition to bill No. 14 there is a complementary measure extending the powers granted after the war in a national . emergency. They relate to the same principle, namely, the reestablishment of many of the controls which the people have put up with during the war. Many of the rights and privileges of parliament were given up in order that the war might be prosecuted to a successful conclusion, and all classes of the population were glad to cooperate with the government.
As regards the particular matter which is before us to-night, when I saw the war coming a few years ago, in the sessions of 1937 and 193S I urged upon the government the importance of taking steps to meet the serious menace of the U-boats on the Atlantic, especially in view of the fact that there were five million more mouths to feed in England than there were when war broke out in 1914. I also pointed out the great loss in tonnage that had taken place and that shipping had not kept pace with the progress of events, so that we were not in a position to meet an emergency. I urged on the government at that time the establishment of a system of food reservoirs in England to take care of 200,000,000 bushels of wheat and packaged commodities, canned goods and things of that sort. I may have been a prophet preaching in vain to those who were advocating pacifism at that time. I quote the prophet Jeremiah who said, "Where are now your prophets that prophesied unto you, saying, the king of Babylon shall not come against you, nor against this land," but he did. War came; the mother country was attacked, and the loss of southern ports just around the corner meant that Britain was nearly starved out by U-boats in her darkest hour. I had urged on the government for years, when I saw that war was coming, that we should have a proper system of storage reservoirs in Britain by which we could meet any emergency; but as a Conservative sitting on this side my proposals were opposed. There will come a day when the hon. gentleman who rose in his place last week and criticized not only the Progressive Conservative party but a good many public men in this country who have done a great deal for the empire will have to give an answer for the attitude he has taken. I was very much disappointed that
steps had not been taken before the war came. The whole north American continent, both the United States and Canada, may thank providence that we escaped the horrors of war on our own soil.
I have always got along very well with the members from the province of Quebec, have urged that the principle of confederation is each for all and all for each, the old Cornish battle-cry, because what is for the good of one province is for the benefit of all. Where would the people of the maritime provinces have been; where would the people of Quebec, Ontario and other provinces have been, if it had not been for the mother country and sea protection in this war? V* hat would have happened to our farmers? The people in eastern Canada might have found themselves confronted with internment camps, the loud speaker, the whip, the gestapo police, the tramping of feet, the brutal savagery of the axis powers. Hundreds of thousands of the population in the eastern provinces might have been carted off to work in Germany. That was the position of affairs which this country faced, and I urged upon the government the necessity for taking steps to provide some sort of food reservoir for Britain and our allies over there.
I admit that Canada did make a great contribution to the war. That contribution has been referred to by Mr. Churchill and others who have spoken of the magnificent part played by the farmers of this country throughout the war. I have no criticism of that programme at all; I am in accord with it. The people of this dominion expect the government of the day to do everything they possibly can to get all the food shipped to the mother country and the sufferers in Europe that can be provided.
I have before me the British white paper dealing with the Hot Springs conference, because I want to get the facts right. The matter was brought up in the House of Commons in England on July 6, 1943, when Mr. Anthony Eden, British Foreign Secretary, gave an account of what had taken place in connection with food at the conference which was held in Hot Springs, Virginia, from May 18 to June 3. That conference was attended by the representatives of forty-four nations, and a large number of those who have endorsed the food and agriculture organization of the united nations participated. Canada's contribution under the schedule to Bill No. 14 is to be 5-06 per cent; Australia's, 3-33; New Zealand's, 1-15; South Africa's, 2-31; Russia's, 8; the United Kingdom's, 15, and the United States', 25 per cent.

United Nations Food Agreement
I was disappointed at the replies I received when I inquired about this conference at the time. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made a statement to-day; and while I do not agree with the method that has been adopted I do agree, and I believe the house is unanimous in the view, that the government should do everything possible to make a success of this food undertaking. Since the house started, all parties have been working in a fine spirit of unity in order to find the solution of all our social and economic problems and as set out in bill No. 14.
Section 3 of the bill reads:
As soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal year the Secretary of State for External Aifairs shall prepare and lay before parliament a report of operations under this act.
The trouble is that we have been thinking too much in terms of "external affairs," with the result that we are more than two years behind the mother country in the adoption of proposals which would have led to an improved agriculture and food situation. What did they do in the mother country? The Hot Springs conference, as I have said, was attended by forty-four nations, and on July 6, 1943, the British government got out a white paper in which there appeared all the resolutions passed at the conference. The three objects of the conference were: first, to raise the level of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples in the respective jurisdictions; the second was to secure improvements in the efficiency of production and distribution of food and of agricultural products; and the third object of the forty-four nations was to better the conditions of rural populations, thus contributing toward an expanding world economy. On the same day on which Mr. Eden made his statement in the British House of Commons, July 6, 1943, we should have had a corresponding statement here the same day. We have lost more than two years by not adopting up-to-date methods in dealing with this subject. Let me quote what Mr. Eden, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, said that day.
His Majesty's government have no hesitation in accepting the resolutions and the obligation to give effect to them in so far as they apply to_ the conditions in the United Kingdom. They will also gladly cooperate with other governments in seeking ways to give effect to those resolutions which call for concerted action. They will commend the resolutions to the governments of His Majesty's colonies, dependencies and overseas territories.
The main object of the conference was to secure an abundant supply of the right kind of food for all mankind. World-wide investigations show, states the conference report,

that the diets consumed by the greater part of mankind are nutritionally unsatisfactory. The white paper continues:
Nutrition therefore becomes a primary concern of governments everywhere. To give conscious planned direction to mankind's need for food in the modern sense each nation should develop a national food and nutrition policy to the full fruition of which related social and economic policies will need to be adopted.
In my opinion that is correct. A famous Conservative, Mr. Disraeli, said that the first concern of the nation should be the health of the people. Speaking at Edinburgh in 1867 to the farmers of that district, he said:
In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is, not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether the change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.
He went on to say, that "power has only one duty, to secure the social welfare of the people." That was the utterance of a great humanitarian, Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, a prime minister of the mother country. His principles have been carried out by his successors, including the government of which Hon. Mr. Hudson was recently a member.
All men are consumers of food, the report says, and more than two-thirds of them are producers of it. Clearly, therefore, the nutrition policy and the agricultural policy of the nations must be considered interdependent. If the nutritional needs of mankind are to be satisfied, a vast increase in agricultural production will be necessary throughout the world; and producers must know not only what they have to do, but also that their labours will secure for them an adequate livelihood.
The conference supported this bill No. 14. It does not refer, however, to the method or manner of controls through orders in council. The conference indicated its conviction that the types of food needed to improve people's diets and health are in many cases those produced by methods of farming best calculated to keep the soil productive and to increase and stabilize the returns of the farmers. In short, better nutrition means better farming.
There is a summary of these main resolutions in the white paper. The first deals with intention:	governments should declare to
their own people their intention to secure more and better food for the people.
Next, post-war shortage, which was known in this house three or four years ago to be a practical certainty. The summary states that it was agreed that the period1 following the liberation of occupied countries would be one

United Nations Food Agreement
of excessive scarcity. Governments, therefore, should work together to produce more food, especially cereals and other foods which promote energy and satisfy hunger, and to prevent, speculative and violent fluctuations in prices.
Immediate measures. The white paper says that while the ultimate objective must be a world in which all are fed adequately for good health, it will be necessary as a practical measure to concentrate on intermediate objectives which can be advanced as conditions improve.
The next clause of the resolutions of the food conference adopted in Britain relates to research, a matter which I urged on the minister back in 1938 in connection with reservoirs of food for the mother country. We should have taken full advantage of science and research. At that time the British medical association was meeting in London, and they pointed out that grain and canned and other goods could be stored at suitable food reservoirs in Great Britain for emergency purposes. The Hot Springs conference suggests that all nations should train scientific workers and rural leaders for service in agriculture and promote technical efficiency among producers by means of education and research. The nations should exchange with each other factual information and statistics regarding food and agriculture.
A world-wide economy is the subject of another resolution. A balanced worldi-wide expansion of economic activity must be achieved to secure freedom from want, since it is no use producing the food if the standard of living of the people is too low for them to buy it.
A permanent international organization such as is set out in bill No. 14 is proposed1, to collect and disseminate information and statistics regarding food and agriculture.
The British Minister of Agriculture, Mr. R. S. Hudson, with whom I once had some correspondence in reference to a food reservoir, said, speaking in the House of Commons on the same day that Mr. Eden announced the government's acceptance of the conference resolutions:
The recent conference at Hot Springs was attended by forty-four nations. That conference passed several resolutions which I think will prove to be of the greatest significance for agriculture throughout the world. These resolutions were passed unanimously. No delegations entered any reservations at all. Incidentally, it was the occasion of considerable tribute being paid to the British delegation under the leadership of the under secretary of state for foreign affairs.
That was Mr. Eden. On the subject of post-war food scarcities, the minister remarked:
One of the most striking facts which emerged from that conference was the general agreement that immediately after the war the world would be faced with an acute shortage of food, and that this shortage would cover not only actual foodstuffs, but would also cover methods of transportation, and methods of production, such as fertilizers, machinery, draft animals, petrol and so forth.
The British Minister of Agriculture continued:
It is, I think, clear that the industry of agriculture, at all events in this country, will have to remain fully mobilized for a period after the war which cannot be determined to-day. . . . What is clear, and what all the nations gathered at Hot Springs were clear and agreed about, is that, taking the world as a whole, there will undoubtedly be a severe shortage of live stock and live stock products, of oils and fats, and it is highly likely, difficult as it may seem to believe, that there will be an actual shortage of bread grains and of rice. The reasons for this shortage are obvious. A large part of the agriculture of Europe, Russia and Asia has been thrown into disorder and it will take a considerable period for those countries and those continents to get on their feet again.
It will be noticed that Russia has been called upon for a contribution of only eight per cent, which I think is very fair.
As to the production programmes:
The conference at Hot Springs recommended that all countries should plan their production programmes on a realistic basis and should concentrate on measures to relieve hunger in the first instance, even at the expense of putting nutritional improvements of diet second. They pointed out that it was necessary to concentrate on foodstuffs for direct human consumption. . . .
The conference also said that those countries, like ourselves, which have already increased food production during the war, must maintain that increased production and if possible increase it.
Speaking of the British policy, the minister said that they agreed with the resolutions re food production, and added:
We consider that the best contribution we can make to the food problems of the world is to continue producing from our own soil, food for as large a proportion as we can for as long as that process proves to be necessary.
For nearly a hundred years Britain has been dependent for her food supply very largely on imports from abroad. As a result of the government's recent policy they have expanded their own food production about seventy per cent since the war broke out, and have made a great contribution to the progress and security which the British farmer at present enjoys.

United. Nations Food Agreement
As to security for the farmer, I will read just one or two more sentences of this report:
What are the economic risks to which the farmer is subjected? In the first place, he is subject to wide fluctuations in prices, with the subsequent ups and down in the returns ... to fluctuations in employment, and to fluctuations in outputs, due to weather and outbreaks of disease. Clearly,- the more mixed farming you get, the less is your danger from those fluctuations, because you spread your risks over a greater number of products.
The conference stressed the point that all these economic and biological dangers can be greatly diminished by the adoption of systems of mixed rotational farming.
The minister goes on to say, referring to certain sections of hostile urban and politico-economic opinion:
Is it too much to hope that those people will note that forty-four nations, assembled at Hot Springs, unanimously decided that it was in the general interests of mankind that agriculture should be based on sound fundamental principles, and those fundamental principles involve the maintenance of soil fertility and a system of mixed . . . farming.
The last resolution which is referred to deals with price stability:
There is another resolution to which I should, in fairness, call attention, which says that increasing opportunities should be afforded for supplying consumption needs at prices fair to both producers and consumers alike, to prevent serious economic and social dislocation.
The resolution states that excessive shortterm movements in prices of food and agricultural products are an obstacle to the orderly development of production, that extreme fluctuations of prices of food and agricultural products increase inflationary and also deflationary tendencies, and that these tendencies harm producers and consumers alike.
As to the world policy which has been decided upon for agriculture, this resolution sets out-and we are a party to it when we pass this bill-that the Hot Springs resolution definitely pointed the way to a world policy for agriculture, first of all for the short-term period of acute shortage and then a new period of gradual adjustment; then finally, they laid down the basic principles on which a practical policy for a well balanced agriculture could be carried out throughout the world. If these policies outlined at Hot Springs are followed and put into effect in each country according to its different economic conditions we shall, I think, have gone a long way along the road to solving the problems which faced primary producers throughout the world in pre-war days.
This interim commission was formed at the Hot Springs conference to formulate and recommend for consideration by each member

government or authority a specific plan for a permanent organization in the field of food and agriculture, and the commission's first report has been published in the form of a white paper, in 1945. The British government's instrument of acceptance is signed by Mr. Eden and dated December 14, 1944. That is the policy laid down there. In 1943 Mr. Churchill said:
Abundant food has brought our 47.000,000 Britons into the world. Here they are, and they must find their living. It is absolutely certain we shall have to grow a larger proportion of our food at home. During the war immense advances have been made by the agricultural industry. The position of the farmers has been improved; the position of the labourers immeasurably improved. The efficient agricultural landlord has an important part to play. I hope to see a vigorous revival of healthy village life on the basis of these higher wages and of improved housing after the war, and what with the modern methods of locomotion and the modern amusements of the cinema and the wireless, to wdiich will soon be added television, life in the country and on the land ought to compete in attractiveness with life in the great cities.
So that they have increased their production by seventy per cent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the method the government has adopted in this case; that is, the method of carrying on by order in council, even after the war is over. As you know there was a great deal of criticism in this country during the war because of the way government was carried on by order in council. Knowing it was for the war, however, the people gladly gave up many of their rights and privileges which it took hundreds of years to secure. This matter was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre. One of the great contributions the mother country has made to the history of the world and to civilization is the ideal of a community of free men governing themselves through a free parliament, such as we had in Canada before the war started. To-day, however, we almost take for granted many of the liberties which have been given to us during the last three hundred years. Let us think of the great struggle that was carried on to secure those rights and privileges. Remember the struggle carried on by the barons against King John. After all is said and done, it was the armed strength of the barons that made magna charta possible. Now, however, under measures like this we are giving up some of the liberties and privileges won at such great cost.

United Nations Food Agreement


Mr. SPEAKER:: I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to paragraph 118 under standing order 12, which reads:
Silence is required to be observed in both houses. In the Commons, all members should be silent, or should converse only in whisper.


Thomas Langton Church: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this connection I would refer to the Book of Revelations, to quote a verse which is relevant to this discussion:
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
We in this House of Commons are rapidly losing the crown referred to and our control over the expenditures of the government. If it goes on much longer I do not want to be a member of parliament, because I do not want to see my rights and privileges taken away, and the institutions to which I have referred forgotten and abandoned. Men suffered at the stake to win these liberties for us, and we must not lightly drop them. This House of Commons is the court of last resort for the grievances of the people, and tihe private member is the connecting link between the government of the day and the electors. When he ceases to function, as he has had to cease functioning in this house during the war, free parliaments and parliamentary government is at an end.
With all due respect I repeat that I object to the method and manner by which this particular measure is to be carried into effect by orders in council. I do not believe it is necessary. The minister would be far better off to support the high court of parliament, as they have done in the mother country, and put a sum of money in the estimates to be passed each year. Heaven knows that in a rich country like Canada, where we had no invasion, where no buildings were destroyed and no damage done, we are in a very favourable position. We should have had in reservoirs overseas before the war 200,000,000 bushels of grain, instead of limiting acreage and things like that when we knew well before the war that all the grain, live stock, dairy products and other commodities we could produce would be required to feed the poor, long-suffering people in the devastated areas of Europe if war came.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, the measure before us is one of the highest importance, not only because of the provisions of the agreement but also because of the implications of both the agreement and the bill. It should be a matter of the greatest satisfaction that Canada had such a leading part to play in the negotiation of this agreement. Canada was ably represented
by Mr. Lester Pearson, and we should take great pride in the fact that a young diplomat from this young country played a leading and most creditable part in the negotiation of this international agreement.
I urge that this instrument is worthy of unanimous ratification by this parliament, and I need mention only two reasons. In the first place this agreement should receive the greatest possible support because it is based upon humanitarian considerations. The feeding of the hungry in all parts of the world is and must be of concern to the people of this enlightened, Christian land. It is something of which we as Canadians should be proud that we can take a very important part in that great work. In the next place this agreement ought to command the widest support because it represents an important step in the field of international relations. It is an agreement among nations. We in Canada are looking for opportunities to assist in giving leadership throughout the world in relations between nations. Here we have the field of the production of foodstuffs in which Canada holds a position of leadership. Therefore it is only right and proper that in the negotiating an agreement and in implementing of an agreement in relation to the feeding of the peoples of the world Canada should have a leading part.	_
In the past we have done much for which we might reproach ourselves. Let it not be forgotten that we, along with some of the other food producing nations of the world, in days not so long removed, were busy reducing production and in some cases destroying foodstuffs at a time when millions of people throughout the world starved. Surely we have taken a step, a long step, from that discreditable situation. This agreement offers an opportunity to take a long step away from that discreditable episode of our past.
Let it not be thought that in helping to raise the standard of living among other nations of the world we are doing anything to reduce the standard of living of our own people-far from it. The surest guarantee of the betterment of the standard of living of our own people will be the betterment of the standard of living of those vast millions of people the world over who to-day have not enough to eat.
Can we ponder what it would mean to Canada, in safeguarding our standard of living, if the hungry millions of Asia, who some day may be competing with us for the world's markets, had as high a standard of living as we have?
The real hope for Canada, both in respect of her international trade and in respect of

United Nations Food Agreement
the maintenance of the standard of living of her people at home, lies in this urgent need- and perhaps in other respects as well-that we must help other nations to raise their standard of living. This measure gives an opportunity to Canada to help in that worthy cause.
I suggest that measures of this type are the kind upon which we should like and ought to see parliament expressing its views in unanimous terms. It is a matter of disappointment, therefore, that the bill now before us presents this agreement in such a way that those of us who are determined to oppose arbitrary measures find that iwe must criticize the bill and criticize it strongly. It would have been so much better, I suggest, both for the effect at home and for the effect abroad, had it been possible to put this agreement before parliament for simple ratification, without at the same time introducing sections which are calculated to give the government the most sweeping powers, powers which a self-respecting parliament in a time like this cannot transfer to a cabinet.
It is a matter of disappointment that we have not the opportunity, as the bill stands to-night, to express ourselves unanimously in support of the ratification of the measure. There are one or two things which might properly be said to the government at this time, and which might prevent a repetition in connection with later measures which will come before the house.
Our experience in Canada in recent years with government by order in council has put at least those of us who sit on this side of the house, on our guard with respect to arbitrary measures. It has not served to allay our fears or our suspicions when, in the five and one-half weeks parliament has been in session, the government has continued to legislate by order in council and apparently under the authority of the War Measures Act with reference to subjects which have no connection whatsoever with the war.
It is against that background that we propose to survey all the measures the government introduces at this session. The government might as well understand right now that we propose to bring critical views to bear upon those government measures. I repeat that we are on our guard against arbitrary measures. We have had so much bureaucracy in recent years that we are on our guard against the creation of more of it, or the perpetuation of existing bureaucracy.
It is no comfort to the house to have the government point to some measures which were passed in parliaments of other years and which contain language similar to that found

in section 2 of the bill. That is no comfort. It may be that the parliament which was in session when those measures were adopted was a parliament which felt that the government of that day, on its assurances and on its record, could be entrusted with certain powers to proceed by way of orders in council to implement the provisions of international treaties.
That situation does not obtain at the present time. Our position on this side of the house is that there shall be the strictest scrutiny applied to government measures, and the strongest opposition voiced to anything which proposes the extension of the powers of the government to legislate by order in council.
I suggest that, above all other kinds of measures with which we may have to deal in this parliament, measures affecting international relations ought to be kept squarely within the ambit of the powers of parliament, and that those in relation to international agreements ought not to seek to take from parliament and vest in a cabinet powers which normally would be exercised by parliament itself.
The reason for that position is obvious. Here we are dealing, not with something which affects only our own citizens, but with something which affects our relations with other nations of the world, some of the leading nations of the world. Our relations with those nations may be affected by the course followed with respect to the agreement with which we are attempting to deal in the measure before us to-night.
In these circumstances, if Canada means to fulfil her obligations and to fulfil the pledges contained in her international agreements, it is vital that such measures should command the most widespread support within Canada and within parliament. Above all other measures they should be the last to seek to take from parliament powers which are properly vested in parliament. How else can we ensure that solid foundation of public support and that necessary measure of success for these international agreements, and the permanence of international relations which we mean to seek?
Very briefly, I wish to compare this measure with one or two others which were adopted in earlier parliaments. I suggest that the comparison will be decidedly to the disadvantage of the present measure. I draw attention, in the first place, to the fact that in this measure we are not being invited to ratify in express terms the international agreement. We are not being asked to ratify the agreement. Let no one think that there is one section in the bill which is, in express terms, a ratification of the agreement, because that is not so.

United Nations Food Agreement
We are told, as a matter of information, in the preamble of the bill that Canada is transmitting an instrument of acceptance. This house and parliament are not being called upon for ratification of the agreement. We are told, in effect, that the government has already transmitted, or is going to transmit ratification of the agreement on behalf of this country. All we are called upon to do is to put into the hands of the government certain very broad powers. That is what this bill contemplates and provides, and therefore I think that when approaching the bill the house ought to be put on its guard. It would have -been very much more proper if the government, in submitting this measure, had chosen to follow the very useful precedent which is to be found in the statute which provided for the ratification of the protocol accepting the statute of the permanent court of international justice, which statute was enacted in April, 1921, as chapter 46 of the statutes of that year. There we had a similar situation. A bill was brought to parliament to deal with the protocol for adoption of the statute for the permanent court of international justice, and parliament was given an opportunity to ratify it. This is how section one of that statute reads:
The governor in council is authorized-
Mark you, authorized by parliament.
-to advise that His Majesty be humbly moved to ratify on behalf of Canada the said protocol of the sixteenth day of December, 1920, in the manner thereby stipulated.
Parliament of that day was given an opportunity to authorize the cabinet of that day to advise His Majesty to sign the agreement. Not so in the year 1945. In the amendments which we of the official opposition propose to introduce in committee that situation will be taken care of and there will be given to this parliament an opportunity which the government has not given in introducing this measure, to pass on this agreement in plain and express terms, to say whether we approve and ratify it or whether we do not.
There is another phase of the matter which I do not intend to deal with at any length because it was so ably dealt with this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Section 2 of this bill is a most extraordinary piece of draftsmanship. Certainly the draftsman of this legislation was schooled in the school of bureaucracy which has flourished at Ottawa in recent years, because this is on all fours with the kind of legislation which has been ground out by parliament in recent years. Under that section the governor in council is authorized, not only to make appointments, establish offices, pass orders in
council and do whatever things may appear to him to be necessary to carry out the provisions of the constitution; he is to be granted those powers in connection with the recommendations of the conference of the food and agricultural organization.
This conference has not yet met to make recommendations. In other words, we are being asked to say to the government: although there are no recommendations in existence and may not be for months, we clothe you with power to ratify recommendations that we have not seen, that have not been born as yet. Not only is that being done in connection with recommendations of the conference, it is being done in connection with recommendations of its committees. Think of that! This parliament is being asked to commit such an act of abdication as will vest in the government the broadest powers to proceed by order in council and do all kinds of things to carry out the provisions of this agreement as well as to carry out the recommendations of the conference and, further, to carry out the recommendations of the committees of the conference which have not even been established. These recommendations have not been made and may not be made for months, but this parliament is being asked to give the government power to ratify these things before they are even born. That is government, 1945 edition. We hope there will be an opportunity to correct some of the short-comings in this measure when we proceed to committee stage.
This afternoon mention was made by my leader and the hon. member for Lake Centre of features of this bill which seem to be designed to ensure secrecy about whatever acts the government may do in pursuance of the powers it is asking to have vested in it by section 2 of the bill. We had some intimation from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that there may be some measure of relief in store for parliament in that respect and we certainly trust that is so. It would have been much better if the government, in directing the drafting of this measure, had chosen again to follow a worthy precedent to be found in chapter 49 of the statutes of 1922, an act for carrying into effect the treaties of peace between His Majesty and Hungary and Turkey. That measure contains these words which one will search the present measure in vain to find:
Any order in council made under this act . . . shall be laid before parliament as soon as may be after it is made. . . .
One can search throughout this measure in vain for anything which even suggests the faintest obligation on the part of the

United Nations Food Agreement
government to table these orders in council or to make them public when they are passed. We are not prepared to accept any bland assurances that that is to be expected, because we have had a great deal of that kind of secrecy which has attached itself to legislation by order in council. We hope, before this measure reaches third reading, to see it so amended that it will give parliament power to ratify this measure or at least to authorize the government to advise His Majesty to ratify the measure. We hope that it will not be left to the government to ratify the measure and then parliament simply come along and be given the glorious distinction of being permitted merely to authorize the government to carry out the measure.
In the second place we want to see an amendment introduced which will compel the tabling and publication of orders in council when they are made. Not only that; we want to see that there is no permanence given to orders in council or the measures the government may take in pursuance of the powers conferred by this bill. They must have a limited duration. In that and in no other way can parliament maintain and ensure its proper control over the implementing of this important agreement.
I have one observation to make in conclusion. I hope we are not to be offered by the government a sort of sop corresponding in form to a section of the National Housing Act of 1944, to which reference will be made in this parliament if something is not done soon in pursuance to the section to which I refer. Section 30 of that act reads:
As soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year, the minister shall prepare a report with regard to the administration of this act and the loans made thereunder during the preceding calendar year and the report shall be laid before parliament forthwith or. if parliament be not then in session, within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
It is not enough to have legislation which apparently requires the government to bring in a report, the sort of thing that is contemplated by section 3 of the bill. There have been two sessions of parliament in 1945 and the government is still in default under section 30 of the National Housing Act, because there has as yet been no report on the 1944 administration. The government was in default fifteen days after the opening of the first session of this year. The matter has been brought up several times this session and we still have not had a report. Is that kind of record going to give this parliament any confidence that it can

expect a frank and full and complete and immediate disclosure by the government of all its acts in pursuance of the provisions of this measure? All we have to rely on is legislation in the terms of section 3 and that is not good enough. In the light of the experience of parliament in recent years that is not nearly good enough. The government may just as well take notice right now that we on this side intend to fight arbitrary measures to the limit. No matter how anxious we may be to further a measure, if it is couched in terms which seem to us to vest in the government arbitrary powers, we will criticize it and resist it to the limit.


Mr. E. G. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise wtih a great deal of pleasure to speak in favour of this bill with which I am in sympathy. The bill, which is to establish an agricultural organization of the united nations, recognizes one great thing, namely, that to-day many nations of the world believe in a world citizenship. Such a bill would never have come before this parliament twenty-five years ago, but since then we have passed through one of the most crucial stages in the world's history and have fought a global war. The bill recognizes that to-day all countries have a responsibility to other countries throughout the world and must have regard to the rights and needs of other peoples. I consider this a Christian responsibility.
There has been a good deal of discussion of the bill and some controversy has developed over the maintenance of controls, but the very fact that we live in a country where we are more fortunate than peoples in other parts of the world does impose upon us a definite responsibility. It is not enough to put on paper or even to inaugurate a system of world organization unless we are ready to make fundamental changes, and in the few moments at my disposal I shall mention some fundamental changes which I believe are necessary.
One of the big questions which this parliament has to decide is whether we are to have a high or a low income in Canada. During the war, in 1943, we had a gross income of $8,800,000,000, and according to the bureau of statistics that is about sixty-eight per cent over the 1926-29 level. There has been some intimation from members of the cabinet that in order to have full employment or anywhere near it in this country labour would have to take a cut-back of from twenty-five to forty per cent. We have also been told by various ministers that agriculture must be satisfied with lower returns for its products. I should like to quote what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said, as reported at page 425

United Nations Food Agreement
of Hansard, in outlining to the house the measures which this government has taken for the stability of agriculture. He said:
May I say in conclusion that we have made exactly the same kind of arrangement with regard to cattle. That contract extends down to December 31, 1946. There is no one in Canada who needs to have any fear that the price will be cut in the marketing of these live stock products bet wet'll now and the end of 1946, below the minimum which the contract establishes, if the stock is marketed orderly and the plants operate at capacity.
The farmer in western Canada has already experienced a decrease in cattle prices. So I say that to-day we have no safeguard against falling prices. We have been told that we have unemployment insurance and family allowances, but after all the sacrifices the Canadian people made in war I do not think they will be satisfied with that kind of floor under our Canadian economy, and so I am going to submit that we need a fundamental change. We have had in this country a government which does not believe in planning. They have said so themselves. Yet through the sheer necessity of planning to meet our war commitments we have been able to increase our natural production from around three billions to approximately nine billions of dollars. Therefore I maintain that if we launch upon a system of high income in Canada we can maintain a high level of income for all our people. The fight is not between the farmer and labour, because we in this group have shown to the people that we are interdependent. We have shown that if we can take the resources of this country and can put our people to work on them we can produce a wealth of things. What we produce on our farms and in our factories represents wealth and the social services that we can provide for ourselves. What we export in the way of surpluses means that we thereby build up credits or else we import. The fact is, as it has been in the past, that unless we import as much as we export, the Canadian people are short by just that amount of foodstuffs and other commodities. The first thing we should realize, and as a farmer from western Canada I certainly realize it, is that a larger income in the hands of the workers means a larger consumption of the products of the farm. More purchasing power in the hands of the workers means that they will buy more butter, cheese, eggs, pork and other farm products. Those of us who live in western Canada need farm machinery and various other goods. Therefore to-day we should start our factories going, producing the machinery that is required by the western ;farmer and by farmers all over Canada.
One of the first things we must do in order to establish Canadian domestic economy on a sound basis is to establish it on a high income basis. Then we can meet our Christian commitments, if you like, to the united nations. We can join with the other nations who are willing to recognize their responsibilities to all countries of the world to-day to feed and clothe the starving and destitute who are less fortunate than ourselves. Surely we realize to-day that it is much cheaper and much better to share than to hoard surpluses which may lead us into another war. The leader of this group said at one time, not what Napoleon said, that an army marches on its stomach, but that armies march when their stomachs are empty. I am in agreement with that. When we have starving millions in Europe and Asia, unless we do something about it we shall have trouble.
I should like to read into the record something regarding the lack of stability in this country and the need for some sort of planning. Some of the opposition members have criticized the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and one hon. member said that we would not agree with what he was saying when he was decrying the fact that this bill would necessitate orders in council, involving a lack of power on the part of this parliament. Let me say that we have never at any time said anything against democracy. We believe in democracy and in the rights of this parliament. At the same time we recognize that orders in council, and some of the actions of the cabinet, produce what one might call "funny" things. Certainly we do not want any situation to exist such as has been described in my own constituency. A certain man went everywhere looking for underwear in the middle of the winter. He went to every town within his reach and all he could get was one suit. He needed underclothing and so did his son, but it happened that the father's shoulders were cold while most of the son's trouble was in his lower extremities, and so they cut the suit in two, each using one-half of it. That is not what we want. We want carefully considered planning so that what we have done for war we can do for peace.
In closing, let me say that I heartily endorse the principle of this responsibility which the bill recognizes.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: I wish to make a few observations on the bill before the house. In the first place, it appears to be allinclusive, but because it has a direct relationship to agriculture I feel that it commends itself to our serious consideration.

United Nations Food Agreement
I look upon agriculture as one of the great basic industries of the country, an industry from which we derive much of our wealth. In fact, it is the one dependable source of real wealth we have in Canada. I am thinking now of our basic industries-agriculture, forestry, fishery and our mines. The bill has a direct relationship to each of these, and therefore I think that since it has these potentialities it should receive the favourable consideration of hon. members.
Then, too, its human character must not be overlooked. It will indeed play an important part in contributing to the solution of a great problem, that of distributing our agricultural products to the distant corners of the earth, particularly if those whose names appear at the end of the bill become members of this great organization. So I say that a bill which seeks to introduce some measure whereby we can in an orderly fashion distribute the products of our fields, our forests and our streams will indeed play an important part in the future economy of the nations.
I feel, however, that a certain amount of criticism can be offered and I have listened with interest to the observations made by my colleagues who have preceded me. I have recognized, in the limited time it has been my privilege to serve in this house, a tendency to introduce measures at a time when the element of haste is always attendant upon their presentation. Indeed, this is no exception to the rule, inasmuch as I think this has happened time and again. As a matter of fact, this bill is brought in for second reading on the very eve of royal assent, so that we are in a position where we must deal with a measure far-reaching in its import, having possibly great effects; and yet I doubt whether we have the time to consider properly the various articles of the agreement.
I should like to see some provision in the oill requiring that the various signatories or representatives of the countries involved

I suppose it must be approached in its broadest application-shall have to report to their respective governments so that the peoples' representatives may have an opportunity to view and review the contributions being made by the various members of the organization.
Do we realize that in our haste, from our lack of consideration, we may be delegating to some authority responsibilities which are primarily ours and which we may not easily reclaim? I have always taken strong exception to anything savouring of totalitarianism, and yet the very provisions of the bill seem, in my opinion, to be -rather far-reaching, because we become members of the organization for a period of five years, or, to be more

precise, four years with one year's notice in the case of withdrawal. I say, therefore, that we may be delegating authority to some organization which we shall no longer be able to control.
As a matter of fact, I believe that a commitment for five years is too long; it savours of the closed shop, which was debated in this house recently. I should like to know from the minister when he replies what was the basis of assessment in determining the contribution to be made by the various nations. In annex II to the bill, giving the budget for the first financial year, I read:
The provisional budget for the first financial year shall be a sum of 2.500.000 U.S. dollars, the unspent balance of which shall constitute the nucleus of a capital fund.
This sum shall be contributed by the member nations in the following proportions.
Then the different percentages are set out, and if my arithmetic is correct, Canada's contribution will be $126,500; Great Britain's, $375,000; and the United States' $625,000. Then it appears to be intimated that the over-all total required in the next year will be $5 million. While I do not find fault with that, I should like some explanation from the minister and an opportunity to go into the matter more thoroughly.


Mr. G. H. CASTLEDEN (Yorkton):: I had not intended to rise on this second reading, since we are discussing only the principle of the -bill, but in view of some of the statements which have been made, probably the position of the members of our party should be made clear.
First, since this bill aims to establish on an international level some controls whereby people throughout the world may be properly fed, we support the principle, as, I believe, do hon. members in every part of the house. A start has been made in real cooperation between the various peoples. Nations must learn to cooperate and look upon one another as brothers. Causes of wars are very closely related to problems of want. This international conference aims to do away with want. Modern science as exemplified in the atomic bomb has made it abundantly clear that, unless the world can end wTars, wars will end us.
This conference also aims to do away with some obstacles which in the past have prevented the rank and file everywhere from receiving proper food. That is a great objective. We support these aims 100 per cent.
During the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) this afternoon, he gave some figures which demonstrated the tremendous extent of malnutrition and undernourishment. I wondered whether he had

United Nations Food Agreement
made any analysis of the causes of this condition. We in this great country of ours, composing nearly half a continent and containing only eleven and a half million people, and one of the greatest food producers in the world, find these conditions of malnutrition and want here at home. Coming from the western prairies, I have seen instances which illustrate this. A boy about twelve or thirteen years of age came to town and. walked into a store with five or six pounds of butter which, by herding, feeding and milking cows, he had helped to produce. He was selling that butter. From his appearance one could see that he was undernourished. I asked him if he ever ate any butter, and he said, "no." "In fact," he said, "we have to sell our butter." I said, "Why?" "Well," he said, "I am sent into town this afternoon with this butter which we have produced, and the purpose of selling it is to buy machinery repairs." The prices of the things which the farmer must buy lie beyond his control. When he comes to purchase some commodity he must pay what he is told is the price, but when he comes to sell something he is told1 the price at which it shall be sold, and the incomes of those who actually produce the wealth of the nation are so low that they cannot afford adequate food. As has been said this afternoon, the cause of malnutrition and undernourishment is poverty; and I contend that this conference will have to make some basic changes in the world economy before it will succeed in feeding the worlds peoples. We support that objective.
The statement was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group could not oppose the setting up of boards by orders in council. I deny that statement completely. This group has been maintaining that orders in council should never be used in peace time for establishing arbitrarily any boards. If any group in ithis house stands for democracy it is the CC.F. group, the one group whose programme and policy and party are based on democratic annual conferences.


Thomas Reid: Since when? Your party are more dictatorial in British Columbia than anybody else.


George Hugh Castleden: You can tell your
little story later. We have listened to you for many years. When did you hold your last convention, 1919?


Thomas Reid: I do not need any convention.


James Horace King: Order.


Thomas Reid: lit is just a waste of time.


George Hugh Castleden: Section 2 of this bill as it stands should be opposed by every person who objects to the granting of unlimited powers by order in council in the hands of the government. That section states:
(1) The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution set out in the schedule to this act or any recommendations of the conference of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, or of its committees made pursuant to such provisions.
How can we be satisfied with the carrying out by order in council of any recommendation which may be presented by future organizations and future councils over which we have no control? We believe that under war conditions orders in council may be necessary, but whatever boards are set up and whatever actions are taken by order in council require to be ratified by this parliament. I wanted to make that point clear.


James Horace King: If there is no other hon. member who wishes to speak on this motion, the mover, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will have the floor, but it is understood that, as the mover, he will close the debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I wish in the
first place to thank all hon. members who have spoken for having taken the position that all are interested in seeing that this organization is established as soon as possible. Some have even gone so far as to criticize us for not having set it up at an earlier date. With regard to that I can only say that I have before me at the moment the resolution passed by the United States under the heading "Joint resolution providing for membership of the United States in the food and agricultural organizations of the United Nations." Then follows a resolution in five short sections, approved July 31, 1945. That is, the nation which is responsible for a greater part of the expense than any other nation involved, namely twenty-five per cent. The next largest contributor, the United Kingdom, is responsible for fifteen per cent. The United Kingdom, the second largest contributor to the expenses of the organization did not, so far as I have been able to find, pass legislation with regard to this matter. The British government apparently has much greater authority than the parliament of Canada has ever seen fit to give to the government of Canada; and I am not critical of the parliament of Canada when I make that statement. My understanding is that



United Nations Food Agreement
bill by order in council, without its first being passed upon by the House of Commons, in carrying out the recommendation made by this organization at any time.
I think all hon. members will agree that if we are to be a party to the conference, then provision ought to be made in the bill, and it ought to be understood, that in so far as making provision for the actual administration costs is concerned, we are to pay our share in accordance with the constitution which was set up. Are we to say to the other nations that are going into the organization at the present time that we are not prepared for the four years ahead of us to pay our share of the administration costs which have been set up in t>'e articles which constitute the constitution I am sure hon. members would not wish so to state.
I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), that the sum of money set up is a small sum, compared with the great amount of good which could come to Canada and to other nations of the world through the expenditure of $126,500 in the first year and a sum no greater than $253,000 in the years thereafter.
From what I have heard this afternoon and this evening I think the house will be quite prepared to have the undertaking given that that amount of money is available. I understand the intention of the house, and particularly that of the official opposition is that they do not desire to have any money made available by the government of Canada for the carrying out of the recommendations which may be made by the conference, in order to assist in any undertaking which they think should be proceeded with, without its first being passed upon by the parliament of Canada.
My understanding, too, is that they feel that when orders in council are passed they should be placed upon the table of the house at as early a day as possible. I think hon. members who have sat here during the ten years in which I have been a member will agree that in no case has the government refused to bring down orders in council and place them upon the table of the house, except in those comparatively few cases during the war period, when that was not possible. But as soon as it did become possible, under the conditions of war then existing, such orders in council were always placed upon the table of the house.
We have no reason whatsoever for taking any different action in connection with this particular matter. In so far as reports are concerned, we are quite prepared to have the section which deals with the making of returns
[Mr. Gardiner.)
to the house changed to read in almost any way hon. members of the opposition may desire to have it read. But in my own opinion -and that may not be worth much-I think it is much stronger mow than it would be if we were to insert the terms suggested during the discussion.
For example, it says:
As soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall prepare and lay before parliament a report of operations under this act.
My understanding of the requirement related to most of the reports which have to do with my own department is that I must lay on the table of the house within fifteen days after the opening of the next session of parliament the last report brought out. Sometimes that is almost twelve months away. It may be six months, eight months or a longer period of time. But this section says:
As soon as practicable after the close of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall prepare and lay before parliament a report of operations under this act.
I believe the house, under that section, could hold the department to bringing down a report just as soon as it is available. If someone wishes to suggest that the report should be down within fifteen days from the opening of the next session, I do not know why hon. members on this side of the house should object to it. Again I say we are in the hands of the committee, and without any difficulty we can draft these sections to satisfy everyone who is in the house. I want all hon. members to feel free to make suggestions when we are in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Powers of governor in council to carry out agreement.


John Bracken: I am sure the members of the committee have listened with interest to the remarks of the mover of this bill. Personally I wish to compliment him upon the attitude he has taken. Those of us on this side of the committee have to take the bill as we received it, and we criticized it because it did not provide for the presenting of a report or that orders in council be presented. We felt that section 2 gave wider powers than were necessary. I think the Minister of Agriculture has taken a fair attitude with respect to those criticisms. The hon. member (Mr. Diefenbaker) who sits behind me will have some amendments to

United Nations Food Agreement
offer. These will be offered on their merits. I am sure that hon. members will look upon them, not as party measures but simply as amendments carrying out the suggestions which have been made. If they are considered on their merits we will accept the judgment of the committee with respect to them.


Thomas Reid: The budget for the financial year is set out in the schedule and at the end is given the percentages which will be contributed by the different nations. Canada's contribution is to be 5-06 per cent; Australia's is to be 3-33 per cent; Russia's, 8 per cent; the United Kingdom, 15 per cent, and the United States ' of America, 25 per cent. How were those percentages arrived at? Why has a country such as Russia, which is as large as the United States, been asked to contribute only 8 per cent as against our five per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only answer I can give is that these matters were all discussed very fully by the representatives of all the nations who were present at the conference. In reply to something said a few moments ago by the hon. member for Broadview, I may say that the questions we discussed this afternoon were discussed in our own agriculture committee and in this house shortly after he Hot Springs gathering. I assume that the representatives of the forty-four nations who were at that conference came to the conclusion that these proportions were what should be asked from each of the nations gathered there at that time. Our representative, along with the others, agreed to the proportions. The United States bears the highest proportion of 25 per cent; the United Kingdom, 15 per cent; the U.S.S.R., 8 per cent; France, 5-69 per cent; China, 6-5 per cent, and then we come in with 5-06 per cent. The only answer I can give is that this was agreed to at the conference at Hot Springs and that we are committed to it by the suggestions that have been made.


Thomas Reid: That does not answer my question. I think the committee is entitled to know just how these percentages were arrived at. There must have been some basis. Take China with 6-5 per cent. China has a large population but very little to give at the present time. The percentage for India is 4-25 per cent, while Canada's is 5-06 per cent, as against 8 per cent for Russia.


John Bracken: Perhaps the hon. member for New Westminster would refer to section 129 of the first report of the interim commis-47696-61i
sion where there is an explanation of the allocation of the costs. Perhaps that will supplement the minister's answer.


Mr. GREEN:: The constitution of this-international organization describes it as the food and agriculture organization of the united nations. In the preamble to bill No. 14 now before the committee we find the words:
... to prepare a plan for a permanent international organization for food and agriculture. . . .
I point out that the reference there also is-to food and agriculture; the same words are-used throughout in both the constitution and the bill. However, in article XVI of the constitution we find:
In this constitution the term "agriculture"' and its derivatives include fisheries, marine products, forestry, and primary forestry products.
It would seem that by including forestry and forestry products the constitution goes far beyond what the public believe to be the purposes of this organization; that is, to dleal with food and agriculture. It may be that careful consideration has been given to the extent of that definition, but this is of great importance to my province of British Columbia because forestry is our major industry. The provincial government deals primarily with that industry and the federal government has very little power over it. I should like to know whether this matter of including forestry and forestry products has been discussed with the provincial governments and why it is the constitution is so broad.


James Garfield Gardiner: When the proposals
came back from Hot Springs I raised the same question, and that was some two years ago. When the proposals came back this time I raised the same question. I am forced to the conclusion, by the explanations I got and by doing a little further thinking, that avery considerable part of the food of the world comes from what might be called, forestry. If we think in terms of coconuts, bananas, oranges and all the different fruits-that come from tree production; when we think of blights that attack trees and realize-that they attack fruit trees as well as ordinary forest trees, that is apparent. It is the-same staffs and individuals in all countries who deal with all matters that have to do-with the destruction of insects that destroy trees and plants and- everything of that kind..
I think that is the chief reason why forestry' is brought in under this measure. Measures-must be taken to protect food, and it was-thought proper to extend the activities to' forestry in its other meaning, as well as

United Nations Food Agreement
forestry as related to food. The question of fisheries is self-evident because it is food practically altogether.


Howard Charles Green: Have there been any discussions with the provincial governments concerning the fact that this constitution covers forestry and forestry products which to the layman means primarily lumber and logs and not fruit trees?


James Garfield Gardiner: The discussions with the provincial governments have been related only to food, but I think I am correct in saying that the discussions vdiich will take place at this conference will be much broader because of the questions which the hon. member for Vancouver South knows have been put so often in the house in relation to the different insects that attack forest life in British Columbia and elsewhere. But it will be more definitely related to their effects upon food.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister will refer to sections 56, 57, 58 and 59 of the first report of the interim commission he will see that whoever drew up this report had in mind going a good deal further than just dealing with pests, and I suggest to the ministry that careful consideration should be given to these suggestions as to what can be done by this international organization with regard to our forests. I think there is a great deal of doubt whether it is wise to go that far.


Mr. FERGUSON:: The amount of expenditure in support of a very worthy cause is nothing compared with that what we expect the returns will be, but when the sponsor of this bill was asked an important question, why a country of twelve millions of people should be paying five per cent against Russia's eight per cent-Russia, a countiy of one hundred and seventy millions of people-he told us that this subject was discussed in committees and in this house, and it did not seem to strike him that this was not a fair apportionment. He could not give a satisfactory answer. I think that point should be looked into before the bill is passed.


James Garfield Gardiner: Probably I ought to
read the section referred to by the leader of the opposition since hon. members, seem to desire full information. It reads as follows:
The commission has found it difficult to devise a wholly satisfactory scale of apportionment of expenses.
They seem to have had the same thought in mind as the hon. member, that it was difficult to apportion the expenses. They went on to say:
It has considered whether such a scale might be formulated, based on such factors as capacity to pay modified, e.g., by the desirability of
IMr. Gardiner.]
maximum and minimum limits to contributions, the importance of agricultural production, national income, foreign trade, etc. If this could have been done and if world conditions were normal, such a scale might have been adopted by the conference for an indefinite period, or, at least, for the five-year period referred to above. The abnormal circumstances created by war and enemy occupation, however, and the impossibility of knowing when they will terminate, render it impossible to formulate a scale which is likely to be regarded as satisfactory except for a very short period. During the first or second year the conference probably will wish to consider, in the light of the conditions then prevailing, the equity of the scale which the commission now recommends. This scale, recommended for temporary use, is based upon a relationship among the member nations growing out of that accepted by them in respect of pre-war international organizations, but adjusted as follows:
(a)	the assumption of 54-5 per cent of the allocations by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China.
I explained to the house in my opening remarks this afternoon that these four nations should not be asked to pay more than 54-5 per cent. Then (b):
(b)	The scaling down of the allocations, as a measure of temporary financial relief, for those countries that are occupied by the enemy, or that have, in consequence of the war, suffered from major economic disasters.
I do not think that there is any country that has suffered from more major economic and other disasters than Russia, and that may account for the fact that they determined on eight per cent as her contribution. They go on:
(c)	the placing of certain countries on a uniform minimum allocation.
The result of (b) and (c) has been substantially to increase the temporary allocations to the remaining countries. When world conditions improve, the proportions allocated to these countries will have to be correspondingly reduced.
Those are the reasons they give. I gave that in general terms myself a few moments ago.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What kind of committee is Canada going to set up to collect these foodstuffs in this country to be sent to other countries? Under Mutual Aid there was a committee that looked after the purchases and designated the firms to sell the stuff or give it to the other countries. What is in mind here?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under Mutual Aid what happened ini regard to food products was this. We entered into agreements, practically all with Britain, to take our surplus foods and utilize them in any way they thought fit in the prosecution of the war in Europe. That in general terms related to our surplus foods. The means taken were not to bring together

United Nations Food Agreement
aH these different products through any organization set up by us. We simply said to the people who were in the business, in connection with meat, for example, the packing plants, the drovers, and everybody else interested in bringing live stock together at certain places to have it processed: you just go ahead with the job as you did before, gather all this food in and have it processed and put in such a form that we can take it and have it delivered at certain ports. Then Britain gent her ships and took it away. That was the process followed in war. I do not expect that we shall require to follow any different procedure during the transition period covered by the next four or five years.
I should like to refer to a remark which was made a few moments ago to the effect that the government is for the first time planning. I think hon. members on both sides will agree when I say that we have never had a government in Canada that did not plan. It did not make any difference whether it was a Conservative or a Liberal government-and they have all been one or the other-we never had at any time a government that did not believe in planning. Every government has planned. This government has planned. We have done our planning all through this war, just as we did before the war. Some may differ as to the results we obtained from the planning, but all will agree that all governments have planned. For the period immediately following the war our plan has been that which was set out in what we call the floor price legislation passed by the last parliament. Under that legislation we say that so long as the people who are engaged in business can find markets for our products at reasonable prices, we are not going to interfere with them at all. That to all intents and purposes is what we say. We say that if the wheat board as now constituted, or some other organization if at some future time some government decides that wheat should be marketed in some other way and sets up an organization for the purpose, privately or through government, is able to find markets where the prices compare reasonably with the prices we have obtained, we shall not interfere. But if they are not able to do that; for example, if there are people starving in some parts of the world who are not able to pay for surplus food products that we are not able to dispose of, we say to them: We want that surplus disposed of in certain ways. They may say to us: We can handle that for you but we cannot handle it at a loss or we would go out of business. Then under the terms of that legislation we say to them: Well, you proceed to deliver the goods where they are required, and we will utilize the $200
million fund that has been made available under the legislation to take care of the difference between what you receive and what it was necessary to pay in order to maintain the price levels we think proper in this country. That is the method which I think would be followed in order to see to it that some of these countries, if conditions are such that they cannot pay, would be provided for. We would probably provide for some of their needs in some such way or through arranging credits with them under which they could buy our products under certain set prices.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said he
would call in all producers. That is what was done under Mutual Aid. Under Mutual Aid you called in producers and you asked companies to submit prices although they had never even produced the goods. They had never produced the goods, had never even shipped to Britain, and I know that in the case of rolled oats you called in the different companies and some companies quoted prices although they had never shipped one ounce of rolled oats to Britain. They were asked to tender and they did tender and received contracts. Rolled oats were shipped to Britain, and instead of the government allowing one firm that had shipped to Britain practically all the rolled oats

packaged rolled oats-which Britain ever used, they allowed firms that had never sent over any to send inferior oats. To-day we in Canada have lost the British trade for these rolled oats. I will not mention the name, but one firm spent over $3 million in advertising before the war. They advertised their rolled oats in Britain, every sign board being plastered with their name, so that the people in Britain knew their product and knew there was nothing better in the world. But this government allowed other oats to go over and gave that firm a very small portion of the contract. That is what I am afraid of now under this arrangement, that we may lose other markets for other goods unless a great deal more consideration is given to the manufacturer and also the producer of food products here in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I used the phrase
"called in"-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think those are the
words.


James Garfield Gardiner: -I did not intend to use that phrase or to give that impression. What I thought I said was that we called upon those who were in the business to continue to purchase and supply products. I am quite sure the hon. member for Peter-

United Nations Food Agreement
Sborough West will agree with me when I say that the government would be very much criticized if we started going around the country picking out different companies and asking them either to submit prices or to do certain things in relation to supplying food products. What we actually do is to submit the proposition to the people of the country generally. We say, we want everyone to assist in supplying food who can possibly assist. It may be true that a company may express its intention of trying to supply a product although probably it had never supplied it before, but I cannot think of many cases where that happened during war time. Take, for example, in connection with bacon products, which is the big item that has been handled in that way. We have a considerable number of packing plants in Canada but only a proportion of them, somewhat more than half of them, did supply bacon for Britain, and there was always a controversy as between two groups, as to whether those who were supplying only the home market and those who were supplying both the home market and the British market were getting equal treatment under the different regulations we had. Nevertheless they have gone on throughout the war, some of them without supplying bacon to Britain at all and others supplying the greater part of their product. As regards the company referred to, and I think I know which it is, their trouble was quite a different one. I do not remember their ever having made a complaint to me- and they discussed the situation with me many times-that they had difficulties with anyone in Canada who had supplied a product from here, but I understand that they had difficulties with some persons or some organizations who were supplying oatmeal on the other side, and they thought that market which had been built up by them in Britain was being utilized under war conditions by someone else who was supplying the product. My understanding was that that was a company not in Canada but elsewhere. I believe that difficulty was overcome in the latter part of the war. It developed only somewhere in the middle of it. A similar difficulty has arisen since the war was over, but that has nothing to do with any company in Canada, I understand, but with the desire of some organizations in Britain to have control of that market, if I understand the matter correctly. I would only say with regard to the direct question, that it would be very diffii-cult for us to go around the country selecting concerns and saying, you are better at this than somebody else and therefore you do it. rMr. Gardiner.]
We must say to anyone who wishes to enter the trade that he can enter, but we must insist that he provide a commodity which is up to the standard.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the point I was
trying to make, that the government should insist that we send over only the very best so that we can retain the markets we have already established, especially in bacon. The minister is just as much afraid as the farmers in Canada that Denmark will try to steal that trade from us again.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. There is one question he did not answer, and I should like to ask him a question before I propose to take advantage of the invitation he has given for suggestions regarding amendments. I asked him a question regarding the Argentine in view of the fact that that nation is one of the world's largest exporters of food products, and without that nation as a member of the nations comprised within this agreement, there might be obvious difficulties. The minister indicated that any nation could voluntarily assume membership in this organization, but that is not the position at all. Article II provides in subsection 2:
Additional members may be admitted to the organization by a vote concurred in by a two-thirds majority of all the members of the conference and upon acceptance of this constitution as in force at the time of admission.
I wish to ask the minister now, first, has Argentina given any indication of its desire to join in this conference? Second, if so, what is to be the attitude of the Canadian government toward such application? After the minister has answered that, if I may, I intend to suggest an amendment to paragraph 2.


James Garfield Gardiner: I tried to answer it in making my reply. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Lake Centre was in the house at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I was here.


James Garfield Gardiner: I take from his remarks, then, that he does not accept as a complete answer the suggestion that I presume the Argentine could have made application when the forty-four nations met. It is not within my memory as to whether it did or did not at that particular time.


John George Diefenbaker: Has it done so
since?


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that it
has, since. I would assume that if the Argentine had expressed the desire to be there at that time, or had been there, it would have

United Nations Food Agreement
been considered along with others. My statement a few minutes ago was that a nation would have voluntarily to indicate its desire to come in before anyone would expect them to come; there would be and could be no compulsion used. But I can understand why they might wish to have acceptance of a nation depend upon a two-thirds vote. I assume they anticipate that, as time goes on, some of the nations which we have been recently fighting will make application, and that others associated with them will make application. They may want to consider all the circumstances concerning those cases at that time, as to whether they shall admit them or not, and they may believe that they should have a two-thirds majority in order to bring that about. But I am sorry I cannot give any definite answer as to whether the Argentine did ask to be admitted, or as to whether it has asked since.


Mr. QUELCH:: Under the agreement, every nation participating undertakes to maintain a high standard of living internally. That is one point of which I am very strongly in favour. How do we interpret that in Canada? Under the government's policy we are to try to maintain a high degree of employment, but I think we also realize that there are bound to be in this countiy a number of people unemployed, people who will not be covered by unemployment insurance. Just how does the minister interpret "high standard of living" in regard to such people? Are special measures to be adopted to ensure that every individual in Canada is able to obtain sufficient food to give him a decent standard of living? Is it the intention, for instance, to adopt such a procedure as the United States adopted under the food stamp plan? Is some measure of that kind contemplated?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not refer to some remarks which were made this afternoon with regard to the United States plan, and the other evening when we were discussing another matter I did not do so, because I hesitate at this moment to discuss United States plans as compared with our own. But I should like to point out, in view of the fact that the question is definitely raised, that under the United States plan as now operating, the parity price plan we discussed the other evening, upon part of which the resolution was based, ninety per cent of parity is provided for only on condition that certain provisions made for the limiting of production are agreed to and carried into effect by the persons who are involved, which means that there is a definite plan made for limiting
production, in spite of what was said this afternoon to the effect that that idea has been dropped.
In Australia, on the other hand-and again I am speaking from memory and I would not want to give the exact figures-the price provided for wheat, for example, is something over seventy cents a bushel at the delivery point on the first 3,000 bushels, but if more than 3,000 bushels are delivered it is just something over fifty cents, I think fifty-three or fifty-four cents.
In other words, in quite a number of nations definite provisions are made that the prices established are established only on limited amounts, and there is no provision for the inducement of unlimited production. I think this country is one of the few exceptions to that. I think, in spite of what has been said, it is the only real exception among the nations which produce surpluses. We have never placed a restriction upon the amount of our product which can be sold. We have on occasion attempted to persuade our people by giving them acreage payments to shift from the production of one food product to another; but we have always said, in any regulations we have made with regard to the delivery of quotas-five bushels per acre for this month and ten for the next, and so on- those are there because of either a shortage of storage space or a lack of markets for the time being for the product. But we have never placed any limitation upon the price which is to be obtained for the product, provided that more of it is produced in a particular year than we have suggested it might be wise to produce. So, the other day, after it had been definitely said in this house last session that farmers would be permitted to deliver only fourteen bushels to the acre, when it was discovered that a market could be found or storage could be found somewhere in Canada for all the wheat they could deliver, that restriction was removed, and farmers who grow thirty or forty bushels to the acre can deliver it all this year.
That is the policy we have been following. It is the policy, I submit, which we said last session1-and1 I hope we shall be able to carry it out-we intended to continue. For example, I do not feel that we would be dealing justly with people, whether farmers or others, Lf we had said to them, during the three or four year period we have just come through, yes, you have had big crops; you have had fine crops or you have had a big production1, and we limited the amount that you could obtain for each unit of your production; but now that the war is over, if you have big production we are only going to take a fraction of it at a price similar to the price you got

United Nations Food Agreement
before. The interpretation we placed upon our obligations in the last session was to the effect that the production during that period, as well as the price, must be still taken into consideration in the period after the war in establishing a reasonable return.
Our method of dealing with this situation has been this. Take butter as an illustration. The ceiling price of butter is thirty-five cents. Farmers in Canada cannot produce butter at thirty-five cents. We have been paying the farmer a subsidy on butter of from eight to ten cents a pound butterfat. It is all very well to say that this is a subsidy to the farmer, but the real consideration that was given was that consumers, under the present wage scales, and with the returns which they were obtaining during the last three years of the war, could not afford to pay more than thirty-five cents a pound for their butter. Therefore, we said, the price is to be thirty-five cents. I am speaking now on the basis of wholesale price at Montreal. Then we took the money out of the treasury to make possible the sale of the product at thirty-five cents. As a result of that, we in Canada are eating forty million pounds more butter a year than we were eating before the war; and we have had to ration butter, not because we are short of butter as compared with the period before the war, but in order to say to the fellow who used to put butter on his potatoes and everything else he was eating and thought he could afford to do so, you will have to forgo some of these luxuries in order to let every child in this country get a proportion of the butter. That is the principle on which we have been proceeding. I submit it is the principle on which we should proceed during this period in order to see to it that our own people are properly fed with the products we produce in this country.


Victor Quelch: I appreciate the minister's reply, but he did not answer the question I asked. Under this agreement we pledge ourselves to give the people of Canada a high standard of living. I am quite in accord with the minister that we can provide a high standard of living, that we can produce enough food for that, but this is what I am interested in. Do we merely mean a high standard on an average, or are we going to guarantee that every person in Canada has a high standard of living, at least in so far as food is concerned? If that is the intention, then what does the government plan to do in regard to people in this country who may be unemployed, who do not come under unemployment insurance, who have no purchasing power and therefore are not in a position to buy the food that is in abundance in this country ? I asked the minister whether it

was the intention, for instance, to adopt the United States food stamp plan they had before the war. What I want to know is whether this guarantee means we are going to maintain a high standard of living merely based upon the average, or whether that high standard of living is to be given to every individual in this country.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only reason I did not definitely answer the question with regard to the stamp programme is that I do not want to condemn anything the Americans are doing.


Victor Quelch: Or any other plan.


James Garfield Gardiner: I believe the plan I have just outlined will better meet our conditions than any stamp plan they have had in the United States; but the stamp plan may meet their conditions better than anything we have had here. I am not discussing United States conditions; I am discussing Canadian conditions. I think under Canadian conditions we have fed our people;-and when I say "we" I mean all the people of Canada-just as well as those of any nation on the allied side during this war period, and I believe we shall be able to continue to do so in future.


Major James William Coldwell: I imagine the hon. member for Acadia was not thinking particularly of the war period but rather of the near and actual starvation which existed in this country before the war and which may exist again after the war, and what the commitments were in that regard.
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that we shall be going through this schedule clause by clause when we come to the preamble, where it is mentioned, because I think we should understand what we are doing. We are making some definite commitments both in regard to our own country and in regard to other nations, and I think we should realize that these must be more than words. Under the united nations charter adopted at San Francisco not only nutrition but full employment is pledged by every nation signing that charter.
What I really rose to ask was this, following the question raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Under article XIII of the agreement this is provided:
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 actiivties of international organizations with specialized responsibiilties.
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 provision of article XX . . .

Then, it goes on to deal with the matter of amendment. What I was wondering was this. I take it that the general international organization is the united nations international organization which was established at San Francisco. Under that charter we have set up the social and economic council, and that social and economic council provides that certain specialized bodies shall be set up, of which it is anticipated this will be one. 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. However, Argentina was admitted by the conference as a member nation. She accepts the charter drawn up. The charter includes a provision for the establishment of a social and economic council, of which there are to be specialized agencies. If one of the specialized agencies is this food and agriculture council, would it not follow that Argentina would be brought into this organization through membership in the social and economic council and in the united nations organization itself? That is what I was going to ask. Can the minister tell us whether that is so, whether that would follow?


James Garfield Gardiner: When I was answering the other question it occurred to me that this might be involved in the decision made at San Francisco, but I would not like to undertake to answer that question. The Minister of Justice was at San Francisco; I dio not know whether he would care to answer it. I would not like to undertake to say that Argentina would come in automatically because of anything done at San Francisco. From reading these articles I would- judge that she would have to obtain admission through a two-thirds vote of those already in.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: That is the way it appears; yet if there is a specialized agency within the social and economic council, which is one of the chapters of the charter, and the nations agreed to the whole charter, can a nation exclude itself from one of the specialized agencies? That is the point I had in mind.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not feel competent to answer that.


Major James William Coldwell: I cannot answer the question myself, and I do not know whether the Minister of Justice would care to do so.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not attempt to answer the question, but it would appear to me that this organization is being set up 47696-62
United Nations Food Agreement
now in accordance with the terms of this constitution; and the united nations charter has not yet come into operation. When it does come into operation it will be dealing with the food and agriculture organization as an entity existing under its own constitution, and then some modifications may have to be made in order to adopt- the food- and agriculture organization as the specialized agency provided for under the united nations charter. I think, though, that for the time being this organization will come into existence if twenty nations file their acceptance; and from the time twenty nations will have filed their acceptance it will be an autonomous body. Then, because its members also will be members of the united nations, if it becomes the specialized agency there may have to be some modification in the constitution.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, that is provided for in the constitution itself.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes; but when it does in fact become integrated in the special agencies under the united nations, some modification may -have to be made as a result of the terms of the charter adopted at San Francisco.


John George Diefenbaker: We are now dealing with section 2, which -is the operative section; and the gravamen of my remarks this afternoon was directed to the power there given to the governor in council to-
. . . make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution set out in the schedule to this act or any recommendations of the conference of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, or of its committees, made pursuant to such provisions.
I am not going to repeat the arguments advanced this afternoon. In this section as it now stands there is in effect an abdication by parliament of the right to deal with any decisions or recommendations made by the conference and the food and agriculture organization When it is set up. The point I was making this afternoon was that matters concerned with the future of agriculture and agricultural and economic relationships for a period of five years should -be submitted to parliament. I therefore submit a suggested amendment to section 2. Subsection 2 I think expresses the general feeling of the committee. Subsection 1 is the operative section, and, indeed, is the only section in the whole bill that affords any opportunity to approve the constitution, although there is



United Nations Food Agreement
no reference therein to that fact. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton:
That section two, subsection (1) be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
"2. (1) The constitution of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations as set out in the schedule to this act is hereby approved."
That subsection simply amounts to this, that it affords a direct operative approval by parliament of the constitution of the food and agriculture organization.
When speaking a while ago, the minister said that he desired, and what the government desired was that this house should unanimously approve the constitution. By using direct words to that effect I submit we attain that desire.
Then, so far as subsection 2 of section 2 is concerned, I move that the following be substituted therefor:
The governor in council may do such things as are necessary to carry out the provisions of the said constitution, subject to the approval of parliament within six months thereafter.
In other words, when recommendations are made by the nations comprising the conference of the food and agriculture organization, or by any of its committees, such matters shall be subject to the approval of parliament within six months.


Major James William Coldwell: Does that mean that the recommendations could not be acted upon for six months?


John George Diefenbaker: No.


The CHAIRMAN:: May I point out that the hon. member cannot put two amendments to the committee at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct. I was simply giving the whole picture. I realize full well the truth of what the Chairman has said. However, I wished to give the whole picture at once so that the purpose of my amendments would be before the committee. The first amendment is the one I now move.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I understood that it was one amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It is an amendment to strike out subsection 1 of section two, and to substitute the two provisions the hon. member read.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I do not think there can be any objection to the first part of that provision. While in my view it may not be

absolutely necessary, once again this should appear to the Canadian people and to the people of the world at large as the action of the Canadian people through its representatives in parliament. As such it should be in such form as to deserve the hearty support of all members of parliament. There may appear to a good many to be some merit in a categorical declaration that the terms of the charter are approved by parliament. The first portion of the amendment would imply that.
Then, as to the second portion, I know the hon. member wishes to have something operative, and wishes Canada to become a member of the organization and to be recognized by the other members of the organization as having done so.
I would fear that the qualifying words: "subject to the approval of parliament within six months thereafter," would make it appear that Canada was accepting in an irrevocable way, because in order to adhere to the charter, instruments of acceptance have to be filed by the government. If that filing of the instrument of acceptance by the government was subject to approval within six months it might be regarded that in the meantime it was not an irrevocable acceptance.
I do not think the hon. member would wish any doubt to become possible as to the validity of the action taken by the government of Canada to make Canada a party of the organization. Moreover the terms used by the hon. member would, I suggest, be too restrictive. Under the charter, all that is necessary at a conference would be one member. Only one representative of a member can vote at the conference, and all that would be necessary to carry out the terms of the constitution would be to have one person there representing Canada.
It is intended, and I think this would be in accordance with the desire of all hon. members, that the delegate be accompanied by proper advisers. That is not necessary under the terms of the constitution, but I think the powers of the governor in council should be such as to do things mentioned in the preamble, such things as are expedient or proper to carry out the purposes of the constitution.
I would fear that with the language suggested by the hon. member it would have to be determined that the thing which was covered by an order in council was necessary, before it could be recognized as valid. I do not think the hon. member would wish to go that far. I suggest it is preferable that recommendations from the conference or from the committees require to be approved by parliament before being acted upon. That would be so under

United Nations Food Agreement
the bill as drafted, in respect of everything requiring the expenditure of money. Before any money could be used to implement a recommendation, it would have to be appropriated by parliament.
But one can conceive that there might be recommendations which would not imply the expenditure of public money. If it were felt that such recommendations should be implemented by this country, they might have to be implemented by provincial legislatures, or they might be such as could be implemented by the dominion parliament. I think in any event they should be subject to the action of the proper legislative body, before being acted upon.
I do not think there would intervene any such delay as would be prejudicial to the effective operation of the organization; for after all, according to its constitution this is not an organization to collect and distribute food. It is an organization to gather statistical information and to make recommendations for the more efficient production and distribution of food. But it is not the instrument that would do the work. When such recommendations are made, if they imply imposing obligations upon Canadian citizens, then it is my personal view that it would be quite proper that they should have to go before the body competent to legislate, whether it be a provincial legislature or this parliament. Certainly we can anticipate that there would be recommendations requiring the action of provincial legislatures.
Mr. DIEFENBAKEiR: That is just what the bill as now constituted does not protect.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Does not in terms
protect. But this parliament cannot give to the governor in council the right to do things that parliament itself would not have jurisdiction to do. Whatever delegation is made can only be of powers that are within the control of the one who makes the delegation. On that point I do not think there should be any quarrel between one group and another in this committee. I think we are all concerned with having this food and agriculture organization work to the best possible advantage for mankind generally and it probably would be sufficient to avoid any inconvenience that might result from delay to have the governor in council empowered to do the things proper or expedient to carry out the terms of the constitution. That may involve doing more than the language submitted by the hon. member would cover.
He uses the words "such things as are necessary," but once again all that is necessary for the conference would be the attendance 47696-62J
of one member for Canada. That certainly would not be taking Canada's proper place in the conference. The delegate authorized to vote for Canada at any international conference should have with him quite a large group of technical advisers. What we are contemplating is a delegation that might amount to as many as thirty advisers to the official delegate. I think the language used in the statute should be broad enough to allow the things that are appropriate and expedient to carry out the terms and purposes of the constitution to be done.
I submit to the hon. member that if the language used in the bill were retained and cut off after the words "schedule to this act" in line 24, which would delete the words "or any recommendations of the conference of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, or of its committees, made pursuant to such provision," taking the first part of his amendment as subsection 1 and having the language down to the words "schedule of the act" as subsection 2, and then numbering the present subsection 2 as subsection 3, we would have something that would correspond with what appears to be the unanimous desire of this committee; that is, that the governor in council do not go beyond performing the things which are proper and expedient to give effect to the constitution and that if there are any recommendations which have to be implemented, requiring the authority of law, whether it be provincial or federal, they go to the legislative body which by the constitution has the right to make law in that regard.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the minister has agreed with the contention I raised, that, as this section stood it conveyed too great power to the governor in council. He suggests-that that portion of section 2, subsection lr which would empower the governor in council by order in council to carry out "any recommendations of the conference of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations, or of its committees, made pursuant to such provisions," be deleted. I think the section with the deletion of the portion referred to by the minister would be satisfactory. As it was originally drafted, it conveyed powers far and beyond any ever conveyed to a governor in council at any time. In view of the statement the minister has made I am agreeable to the amendment he suggests, provided that a later section-I take it this will be done, according to the Minister of Agriculture-it is provided that any orders in council made pursuant to section 2, subsection 1. if amended in the manner suggested by the Minister of Justice, will be tabled and made available to parliament.

United, Nations Food Agreement
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If I understand the hon. member correctly, he still wishes the first part of his amendment retained.


John George Diefenbaker: I understood the minister accepted it.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: There can be no objection to that. It is a positive declaration by the house, and there may be many who would find merit in having that expressly declared in the bill. That would be subsection 1 of section 2. What is here, down t-o the words "schedule to this act" would be subsection 2 of section 2 and the present subsection 2 would become subsection 3 of section 2.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


William Ross Macdonald: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre is before the committee, but he has intimated that he will accept the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice. Is the hon. member for Lake Centre withdrawing his amendment?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. We are getting together and accommodating ourselves to the suggestions.


James Garfield Gardiner: One of you move it and the other second it.


William Ross Macdonald: It is moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), seconded by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That section 2 (1) be stricken out and the following substituted therefor:
"2. (1) The constitution of the food and agriculture organization of the united nations as set out in thq schedule to this act is hereby approved.
2. (2) The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution set out in the schedule of this act." And that subsection 2 be renumbered as subsection 3.


John Bracken: Now that the lawyers have agreed as to how this section should appear, I, as a layman, would like to ask a question because it does not seem to cover one of the criticisms I have. Let me read section 2, subsection 2, as now proposed by the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Lake Centre. It reads:
The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council and do such things as appear to him to be necessary

But it does not stop there. It says:
-as appears to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution.
One of the provisions of the constitution is that this food and agriculture organization

may determine its own budget and may determine the portion of that budget that Canada will pay, and we have only one man on that organization. One of the reasons why I criticized this set-up was that by this bill we are approving the constitution. The constitution allows that organization to determine its own budget and to determine the portion Canada will pay. Then we are asked to give power to the governor in>
council to do all such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the constitution.
I ask this question of the Minister of Justice:	Are we not committing ourselves
now to further expenses than the 5-06 per cent of the present suggested budget in case the organization should ask for more? Does the minister get my point?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The leader of the
opposition has not overlooked the next subsection, which reads:
All expenditures incurred in carrying out the provisions of subsection 1-
That will now be subsection 2:
-of this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by parliament.
There is a requirement, in order to have the money available to the extent contemplated by the constitution, that it be appropriated by parliament, and if the hon. gentleman will look at article XVIII, which is the article under which the members undertake to contribute, he will see that it provides:
Each member nation undertakes, subject to the requirements of its constitutional procedure, to contribute to the organization promptly its share of the expenses so determined.


John Bracken: That is the very point,
as determined by these people, and they may raise the proportion we are now required to pay. Under this arrangement we are subscribing to that, and it is only after that, that we are requested to provide additional money.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The constitution is
before us. It requires us to accept it as it is and provides that the government undertakes, subject to the requirements of its constitutional procedure, to pay its share of the expenses, and in the authorization that is being given to file an instrument of acceptance there is this subsection 3 which provides that no expenditure by Canada can be made unless parliament appropriates the money. We place . ourselves in a position where by filing the instrument of acceptance, whatever we may do here, we engage the honour of the Canadian nation to comply with the provisions of the constitution. It does not matter what we put into our statute. By filing the instrument of acceptance, that is what we undertake. We

United, Nations Food Agreement
undertake it, or the government of Canada undertakes it, subject to the requirements of its constitutional procedure, and one of the requirements of its constitutional procedure is that the government cannot dispose of money that has not been voted by parliament.


Major James William Coldwell: But we have assumed
a debt of honour, and I think any parliament will agree to pay.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would hope so.


Major James William Coldwell: The only recourse that we have, it seems to me, is under article XIX, which provides that if we are dissatisfied with the amount required from Canada, then four years from now, having had the experience, we may give notice of withdrawal from the organization at the end of the five years.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	There is this moral
recourse as well. There is the implied declaration that the present budget is to be $2,500,000, and that it may go to $5,000,000, and if it were carried beyond that by action of which we disapproved we would have valid grounds for wishing to withdraw. But whatever we put into the legislation being considered by the committee at the present time, if it amounts to authority to the government of Canada to file an instrument of acceptance, we have to take the constitution as written and we assume on behalf of Canada a debt of honour to have parliament appropriate enough money to carry out the obligations implied.


Major James William Coldwell: In other words, this
has been agreed to by the nations and we cannot amend the constitution. We must either accept or reject it. That is the position.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Yes, and if we file
an instrument of acceptance we accept it and undertake to have parliament appropriate the money required to implement that obligation.


George Hugh Castleden: I agree with what
has been said as to complying with the constitution, but we may have gone too far with the amendment. By what clause in this bill have we power to implement recommendations that may come from the committees?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The governor in
council would not have the power to implement the recommendations, and I do not think it is the feeling of the committee that the governor in council should have that power. I think it is the feeling of the committees that when the recommendations come they should be like the recommendation, for
example, of the international labour organization. They should require legislative action by the proper legislative body and that is what the amendment provides. I do not think the amendment cuts that down at all. It merely says that it will take the recommendations; then the legislative body competent to deal with them will consider them and, if they are thought to be proper, will enact the required legislation.


John Bracken: I do not wish to labour
this point any farther. Nobody has raised any question about approving the constitution. There has been no question of that.. The only question is what the constitution does or what it means and what this organization may do under it. I think the Minister of Justice will agree that that body can determine the size of its own budget, can determine the percentage we pay, and may raise it, and the governor in council has power to do all such things as are necessary to carry that out. But if the Minister of Justice is satisfied I accept his word. But we are voting blindly to that extent. We may have to do it. But the point I wish to make is that we do not want the government to commit us further than the figures given, $2,500,000 the first year and $5,000,000 later on, with Canada's contribution being at the rate of 5-06 per cent, because if we were committed further, this committee will have been misled.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	If there was an appropriation bill being suggested there would no doubt be limitations inserted, as was done in the United States, where by joint resolution of the two houses of congress an express limitation was put on their contribution. They said that their obligations could not go beyond one million and a quarter.


John Bracken: There is no limitation
like that here.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Our appropriation
is not being made by this legislation. This legislation requires that there be further action by parliament to appropriate the money to be expended.


John Bracken: Can the minister state what the appropriation will be for the coming year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the United States provision itself limits it. It is definitely stated that their proportion is twenty-five per cent,, and that twenty-five per cent cannot exceed a certain figure. That in itself limits the-amount which can be spent by the whole organization.
Labour Conditions


John Bracken: We should not be tied by something they do.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are tied by it under these provisions.


John Horne Blackmore: The leader of the opposition said there was no question whether we would accept the constitution. I am giving notice now that there is a question whether we ought to accept the constitution. We have to find out now whether the advantages we can derive from accepting the constitution are such as to recompense us for the dangers which we are likely to run into by accepting the constitution. I do not believe that the Minister of Agriculture or anyone else in this house to-day has shown us specifically any advantage which we can derive, either directly or indirectly, from accepting the constitution. If he can, I shall certainly be a ready listener. The problem which confronts us is, first of all, how to produce the goods, and second, how to distribute them. We have not been shown how we can produce goods any better or distribute them any better by accepting the constitution.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, October 12, 1945.