Mr. HERRIDGE:

We won the war by

international agreements.

Mr. REID:

That does not enter into the picture. It is a question that can be debated at another time. Be that as it may, I repeat we have only to read the history of international agreements and what has taken place-I leave out the war for the moment-and ask ourselves what has really been accomplished.

I notice that when we come to fish and forest products we find that they are placed under agriculture. There is no more important food in the world to-day than fishery products. There is no more controversial subject among nations to-day than fishery products; because, as many hon. members realize, prior to the war with Germany and Japan the Japanese government had fishing boats along the Pacific which were a source of irritation. The Japanese, of all people, were not preservers of food products. There are only two countries in the world that have set out to preserve and conserve and build up the fisheries, namely, the United States and Canada. Personally I

should like to see fisheries predominantly mentioned in the constitution .of this organization, because if they are to deal with the conservation of natural resources, especially the natural resources of the sea outside of the three-mile limit, they are going to run into a controversial question among the various nations that are gathered together when they begin to talk of fishing and of fishing rights outside the three-mile limit. I intend to deal with that later.

I rose particularly to ask this question. If my memory serves me rightly, there were many signatories to the league of nations, but very few nations paid their contributions. If nations that are signatories to this agrement do not pay, who is to be responsible for the expenses? That is a practical question, and I should like an answer.

Mr. GARDINER:

I think the only answer that can be given is the one that is found in the articles which are on the desk of every hon. member. Section XVIII reads as follows:

1. Subject to the provisions of article XXV, the director general shall submit to the conference an annual budget covering the anticipated expenses of the organization. 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.

2. Each member nation shall, upon its acceptance of this constitution, pay as its first contribution its proportion of the annual budget for the current financial year.

So for one year it will be taken care of: these thirty nations who have indicated their acceptance must send their money along with their membership.

3. The financial year of the organization shall be July 1 to June 30 unless the conference should otherwise determine.

As I said a moment ago, as far as I know no real penalties can be imposed in an organization of this kind, but it is assumed that these nations will carry out their obligation, which is that having made the first payment they will continue to make the four additional payments. Then if at the end of that time they are not satisfied with the way the money has been expended or with the activities of the organization generally, any nation can give twelve months' notice that it is withdrawing, the definite understanding being, as stated here, that it will pay its fees for twelve months. I quite agree that if some of the greater nations were to say, "Well, we are out of this thing," they could blow it to pieces in the interval. But I do not believe anyone anticipates this happening, and I

United Nations Food Agreement

would expect that the terms here laid down will be carried out. We must remember that forty-four nations met and set up this interim commission. The interim commission drew up these articles of constitution, and those who have come into the organization have agreed to this constitution. They have all said they are prepared to make these payments, and, barring unforeseen accidents such as none of us expect at the moment, I believe the payments will be made.

Mr. GREEN:

This food and agriculture organization of the united nations is to have certain jurisdiction over fisheries and forestry, and I think it would be very helpful if the Minister of Fisheries would make a statement to the committee outlining generally the effect of the organization on Canadian fisheries, and if the Minister of Mines and Resources would do the same in respect to forestry.

Dealing first with fisheries, questions such as this come to mind. We have certain conventions between Canada and other nations; for example, there is the whaling convention, which I think is a multilateral agreement, and we have conventions between Canada and the United States, as the hon. member for New Wetsminster ha3 said. For instance, we have a convention under which was set up the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission, of which the hon. member for New Westminster is a distinguished and very useful member. I believe the Minister of Fisheries should tell us just what will be the effect of this new organization as far as the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission is concerned. Which organization is to be preeminent in the fisheries field? These are questions that come to mind, and I think they should be carefully considered by hon. members of the committee.

In the first report to the governments of the united nations made by the interim commission on food and agriculture, the present body which will pass out of exitsence when the new food and agriculture organization is set up, we find on page 16 certain statements with regard to fisheries. For instance it says that the plan is to encourage systematic exploration for virgin marine resources, and to evaluate the possibilities for their development. Does this mean that this international organization can send men into our coastal waters or into waters beyond the three-mile limit, to which the hon. member for New Westminster referred, in order to make these explorations? That, too, I think is an important question to the Canadian people. Reference is also made to the new organization performing certain functions in relation

to credit. What is the idea? To whom is this credit to be given? Is it to be given to the fisheries industry in certain nations? Would credit be available to the fisheries industry of Canada, or what is the plan?

Then with regard to forestry, it does seem to me that the delegates who drew up this convention were a little over-anxious to obtain powers. They have included forestry in agriculture, though someone had to stretch his or her imagination a bit in order to do so. From what the Minister of Agriculture said last evening when I questioned him on this subject, I am quite sure he feels that they went rather far. The problems of forestry, speaking of forestry in the accepted sense; the problems of getting out lumber and the problems of the associated industries, are so different from those of agriculture that there is really no connection whatever between them. Yet this international organization is given very wide powers over forestry; and the unfortunate part of it is that this has not been done directly by calling this a food, agriculture and forestry organization. The only place in which we find forestry mentioned in the whole convention is in article XViI, which says that the term "agriculture" includes forestry and primary forest products. I am quite sure the provincial governments of Canada and the people engaged in the forest industries do not realize that such extensive powers are being given to this international organization. Last evening the minister said the provinces had not been consulted about that control, and I do suggest that the Canadian delegates should try to have an amendment put through deleting the words "forestry and primary forest products." Unfortunately we cannot change it here. As I understand it we have to take the whole convention or none at all; we cannot qualify our acceptance of it, and I would not be in favour of attempting to do so. But I do suggest that the ministry give consideration to having the Canadian delegate or delegates propose that an amendment be put through removing jurisdiction over forestry.

I believe it would :be helpful if the committee could be given a statement now by the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Mines and Resources, who are the ministers concerned.

Mr. GARDINER:

I have just suggested to the ministers mentioned that if they care to make statements it will be quite all right, but I should like to say a word in regard to the general statements that have been made. I think some hon. members are reading far too much into this constitution. No powers are given to anyone to provide credits. No powers are given to anyone to do any of these

United, Nations Food Agreement

particular things. The powers given are to explore the possibilities in different countries and under different forms, then to make recommendations to the governments of the different countries as to what they think would be a good way to provide credits. They do not undertake themselves to provide any credits. They do not undertake to determine finally anything that is to be done in connection with any of these matters. They simply say, "We are going to study them all and, after a full study, we are going to make certain recommendations to the different members as to how we think they can solve some of their problems." Then it is up to the nation itself to find ways and means of putting such recommendations into effect, or to decide not to adopt them at all. Having said that, I think the ministers will be prepared to say a word.

Mr. GREEN:

I think the minister is not entirely correct. Let us, for example, take paragraph 54 of the first report to which I referred. It states:

It should also perform functions in relation to credit which will be needed for the development, expansion and rehabilitation of many fisheries enterprises, similar to the functions suggested elsewhere in this report in connection with agriculture.

Then, in the convention itself we find this in article I, paragraph 2:

The organization shall promote and, where appropriate, shall recommend-

The minister will see there is both the power to promote and the power to recommend. Then at a later point in the paragraph we find this:

(c) The conservation of natural resources and the adoption of improved methods of agriculture production.

This, of course, also means fisheries and forestry production, under the defining article. Then it refers to-

(d) The improvement of the processing, marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products;-

Which of course means fisheries and forestry products.

Then it also provides in paragraph 3 of article I:

3. It shall also be the function of the organization:

(a) To furnish such technical assistance as governments may request;

(b) To organize, in cooperation with the governments concerned such missions as may be needed to assist them to fulfil the obligations arising from their acceptance of the recommendations of the united nations conference on food and agriculture;

And then:

(c) Generally to take all necessary and appropriate action to implement the purposes of the organization as set forth in the preamble.

So that I think it was the intention of those who drew up the constitution that this international body would go a good deal farther than merely making recommendations, as the minister has suggested. At this time I am not arguing whether that is a good or a bad thing; but it is the fact. In any event the constitution can be read in that way.

Mr. GLEN:

In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver South, as to why forestry was brought into the constitution, may I say that some of the reasons are given as follows:

In the attainment of freedom from want, shelter is the complement of food. Wood is the largest single item in the provision of shelter.

Forestry is a form of land use complementary to agriculture. Forests regulate stream flow and thus stabilize water tables and prevent erosion. They also have a modifying effect on climatic extremes, which is favourable to agriculture.

In many sections of the world the farm woodlot makes an important contribution to farm income, besides providing for the farmers' fuel requirements.

In connection with the world situation today, investigations being made in Germany disclose that apparently in that country processes have been developed in connection with the making of sugar from wood. These are some of the considerations which were in the minds of those who framed the convention when they included forestry.

I believe those reasons are given very fully and completely, and they have already been set out by the Minister of Agriculture. I would refer the committee particularly to page 16 of the first report to the governments of the united nations by the interim commission on food and agriculture. We will find there the reason why forestry was included in agriculture. In paragraph 56 we find this:

56. Forests occupy approximately 22 per cent of the land surface of the earth. They play so important a part in the conservation and building up of soil and water resources that it is impossible to plan conservation measures on any extensive scale without including forest management-and frequently afforestation-in the plans. In most countries forestry and farming or grazing constitute possible alternative uses of much of the land, and a significant part of the forest land in many countries is owned or operated by farmers. Indeed, forests are perennial crops, natural or man-made, and their products compete with or supplement other farm products for certain important uses. Farmers are among the larger users of forest products, especially for fuel, buildings, and equipment.

Mr. GREEN:

We all use forest products

for fuel, buildings and equipment.

United Nations Food Agreement

Mr. GLEN:

Yes, that is so. The paragraph continues:

For these reasons many countries include forestry as a part of agriculture in their governmental organization.

Paragraphs 57 and 58 read as follows:

57. World forest supplies have been altered by the war. New supply problems have been created and new uses developed. In some countries progress in improved methods of forest management and utilization is being made at a faster rate than ever before. Thus there are now especially urgent reasons to consider forestry in "world terms and to take concerted action to bring about more efficient growing, processing, and distribution of forest products, the balancing of production and distribution with needs on a world scale, and the prevention of disastrous overuse of forest resources in some countries while those of other countries go to waste for lack of effective demand, to the end that the world's forest resources may make their full contribution to the needs and the well-being of the people of every nation.

58. As in the case of food and other agricultural products discussed in this Report, these objectives would be accomplished through international cooperation in bringing all branches of science to bear upon the biological, technological, economic, social, and other problems involved in the production, distribution, and use of primary forest products; in establishing a factual basis upon which nations, individually and in concert, could build policies and programmes; in helping to work out such programmes; and in promoting widespread education and public understanding of forestry problems. The organization's work in forestry would thus closely parallel that in other fields.

The hon. member for Vancouver South is concerned about the effect that may have upon Canada. I refer him to article IV of the constitution, and the functions set out therein. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are of importance in this connection, and particularly paragraph 4 which states that:

The conference shall make rules laying down the procedure to be followed to secure:

fa) proper consultation with governments and adequate technical preparation prior to [DOT]consideration by the conference of proposed recommendations and conventions;

These are the words to which my hon. friend referred when he was speaking a few moments ago. Then paragraph (b) of article IV continues:

Proper consultation with governments in regard to relations between the organization and national institutions or private persons.

And then follow paragraphs 5 and 6, which are most important:

5. The conference may make recommendations to any public international organization regarding any matter pertaining to the purpose of the organization.

6. The conference may by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast agree to discharge any other functions consistent with the purposes of the organization which may be assigned to it by governments or provided for by any arrangement between the organization and any [DOT]other public international organization.

If I read this convention, correctly, any conclusions that are based upon these recommendations are not binding upon any country unless that country through its recognized form of government shall accede to them. I fail to see what danger there could be in the recommendations, and in their including forestry, if they have to be ratified and approved by the government of Canada. It seems to me that article IV meets the objection raised by the hon. member.

Mr. GREEN:

What about the provincial governments? They are primarily concerned.

Mr. GLEN:

My personal view would be that the dominion government certainly would not come to any conclusions in connection with including forestry within the definition of agriculture without consultation with the provinces. In fact we are doing that to-day. All matters concerned with natural resources of the dominion are considered after consultation and cooperation with the provinces.

Mr. GREEN:

That is one complaint. It is not being done with regard to forestry. The dominion government has not consulted any provincial governments about the fact that the convention covers forestry. The Minister of Agriculture said that last night.

Mr. GARDINER:

The constitution of the dominion settles that point.

Mr. GLEN:

I am quite sure that any recommendation that will be made at this conference will have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the dominion, and any action would be taken only after consultation with the provinces. Otherwise we could not get unanimity of opinion; there would be no unanimous consent with regard to any of the proposals affecting all the provinces. These proposals will affect not only individual provinces, but all of them. I do not think the hon. member need be alarmed that the rights and privileges of the parliament of Canada are likely to be infringed upon by commitments made at the international organization which would be binding on Canada without any reference to the jurisdiction and powers of parliament.

Mr. GREEN:

I may be wrong, but I venture the guess that the Department of Mines and Resources, which is the department responsible for forestry in so far as the dominion government is concerned, has had very little to do with this convention or with the negotiations that led up to the submission of this convention. Forestry is one of the major industries of Canada, and surely steps should be taken to see that some of the Canadian delegates understand the forestry

United Nations Food Agreement

industry of this country and that proper provisions are made to protect it. If some international direction or assistance is to be given to forestry, perhaps it would be wiser to set up another international organization which would have that as its main job. I am afraid the two objectives cannot be met by the one international organization. I would ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to give consideration to these two suggestions: first, that Canada should have delegates or representatives who understand forestry, and, second, that a separate international organization be set up to deal with forestry.

Mr. GARDINER:

The gentleman who has been nominated to represent us, and whose nomination will go forward immediately this legislation is passed, is Mr. D. Roy Cameron, dominion forester. He is one of the delegates to the conference who has been appointed by the minister, and he will deal with forestry as related to the production of food.

Mr. GREEN:

It does not say that.

Mr. GARDINER:

That is really what it is, as is indicated in the document quoted from, and it is being discussed from that point of view. I agree with the minister when he says that no matter what is discussed, the recommendations will be referred to the national government of Canada. Then if the matter involves provincial jurisdiction, it would require to be referred by the government of Canada to the provinces. It could not be done any other way under our jurisdiction. The terms used in the articles are "legally," "constitutionally" and so on. The matters will be dealt with in whatever is the proper manner.

Mr. BRIDGES:

Mr. Chairman, little did I think when I left Germany on the first day of May last that I would be called upon within a few months to stand up in the House of Commons to answer questions regarding such an important bill as this. Surely I can say, to use the words of another, that the whirligig of political fortune has hurled me into high office in a very short time.

The hon. member for Vancouver South was kind enough to advise me this morning that he was going to ask some questions along the lines of those he has already asked. I appreciate his courtesy. So far as the bill is concerned, the preamble to the constitution'-I do not intend to read it all-sets out four purposes, as follows:

(1) Raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples under their respective jurisdictions,

(2) securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products,

(3) bettering the conditions of rural populations, and

(4) thus contributing toward an expanding world economy.

It can be seen that these functions are phrased in very general language, are idealistic in their nature, and there can be no doubt that everyone in the world, not alone in Canada, would welcome their achievement.

So far as fisheries are concerned, it is realized that these broad idealistic conceptions must be reduced to something which can be practically applied to the bettering of the livelihood of fishermen, which is in turn tied up with the welfare of the people to whom they sell their goods.

It is felt that before such practical aims can be realized there must be a full and free interchange of thought and consideration on the part of any and all nations that will be affected. The food and agriculture organization furnishes a means of bringing together the experts in fisheries marketing and nutrition to consider the problem and to explore for the terms in which practical approaches may be recommended to their respective governments.

Under the interim commission, certain interchanges of ideas between the nations signatory to the final act of the Hot Springs conference have already taken place, and so far as fisheries go there have been certain recommendations made which will be considered at the Quebec conference.

It is realized that an approach to the fishery problem from the international point of view will have to be slow and that there will be many difficult and contentious problems to discuss. It is felt, however, there are certain of these in which there can be obtained measures of agreement; they are:

1. The developing of comparable statistics by fish producing and consuming nations which must be the basis for any intelligent consideration of the position of any nation in its economy, and it is expected that one of the aims of the organization will be to form a clearing house of world statistics.

2. It is also expected that they would act to collect, analyse, and disseminate world information relating to fisheries and fisheries products.

3. It is expected that it would foster the improvement of education relating to the fisheries and the spread of knowledge of fisheries science and practice.

4. It is also expected that it would play a very important part in bringing the fisheries nations of the world together with respect to

98S

United Nations Food Agreement

the conservation of fisheries in international waters. A very large percentage of the thirty-seven billion pounds of fish that are yielded annually by the world come from international waters where every nation has a right to fish, and it is highly essential that nations come together in such a way as to see that the limited resources of the sea are not exhausted or wiped out. It is expected that from the deliberations which will occur under the food and agriculture organization certain recommendations will be made to governments concerning the desirability of their coming to an agreement, one with the other, with respect to conservation on the high seas. The existing agreements between nations-I think this is what my friend is most interested in- would, of course, continue to be effective, such agreements as are embodied in the various fisheries treaties between the United States and Canada, and which have meant so much benefit to our two peoples. It is the hope and the purpose of the food and agriculture organization to bring nations of the world together to consider whether an expansion of this method of approach to a common fisheries problem would be desirable and possible of recommendation to their respective governments.

I can go further and say that before we can arrive at a practical way of realizing the ideals and objectives as set forth in this bill there must be international discussion, and the purpose of this organization is to provide the means for that international discussion. I think we should all keep in mind that this organization-I think I am right in this; if not, the Minister of Justice can correct me- can only make recommendations to their respective governments for their consideration. This organization cannot bind their respective governments.

I do not know whether I have answered in their entirety the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South, but I think I have dealt with what he has in mind in so far as existing international agreements are concerned. I think I am correct in saying, although I am not an authority on international law, that the present agreements will be paramount over any other agreements that may be made at a later date.

Mr. GREEN:

Did the minister say that the present agreements would be paramount, or the new organization?