April 30, 1974

NDP

Elias (Eli) Nesdoly

New Democratic Party

Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing legislation to provide for a National Cattle Marketing Board which would operate in concert with a cattle marketing board established by any province.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the above notice of motion appeared on the order paper over my name on March 7. In view of the serious situation that we have had with regard to cattle in this country in the last year, and more recently with regard to pork products, it seems to me it is about time that our country rationalized the whole system of handling products which are derived from cattle, hogs and sheep. In other words, perhaps the motion should be extended to include a national meat products marketing board.

I realize that before the government could act on this suggestion the provinces would have to agree to delegate powers to the federal government, or the federal government could pass enabling legislation on which the prov-

April 30, 1974

Cattle Marketing Board

inces might then act. Perhaps some members would say that this would be another intrusion into the free enterprise system, another example of socialist planning. Perhaps many cattlemen would not agree with this motion. But I point out that when prices are not stable cattlemen become very concerned. I, myself, am particularly concerned about the small beef producer, the one who raises 50 or 100 head of cattle. He is the one who is usually caught in a pinch when there is price instability. In fact in our so-called free enterprise system everything the producer buys is bought at an administered price. No one can tell me that the ordinary forces of supply and demand are really operating.

Some two or three years ago when farm income was at extremely low levels farmers were not buying any new farm machinery, or very little. They did not have the money. Farm implement agencies were experiencing difficulties. Farm implement manufacturers were having difficulties. But the prices of tractors and other implements required by farmers did not go down in accordance with the reduced demand. The same is true with respect to many other materials required by farmers.

I should mention that an integral part of a successful meat products policy or of a cattle marketing board should be a feed grains policy that would enable farmers to produce at a profit animals that are consumed for meat. At the present time, livestock producers are experiencing a disastrous period of price instability, a large measure of which can be directly attributed to the ill-conceived feed grains policy of the past year which has been very destructive and disorderly for producers of cattle, hogs and sheep. The government has moved from crisis to crisis in a series of somewhat disjointed and unrelated moves. Let me summarize these very briefly.

First the United States imposed price ceilings on finished beef. Then, Canada applied export permit regulations in August of last year. This was followed by the United States consumer boycott on beef, which resulted in a build up of finished cattle in the United States. Then, higher Canadian prices attracted heavier U.S. imports. Of course, this was affected by export controls on Canadian cattle going into the United States and, as a result, Canadian market prices slumped sharply in September.

The import duty on U.S. cattle was re-imposed last fall to protect beef prices to producers in Canada. This import duty did little to stop the flow of beef from the United States and, as a result, a special 3 cents per pound surtax on live cattle and a 6 cents per pound surtax on processed beef was applied last November. I believe that this surtax slowed down imports.

The surtax was phased out in January and February, and imports again flooded in, forcing cattle prices to new low levels, with little or no price relief evident for consumers. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), on March 15, introduced a beef subsidy program of 7 cents per pound for Grade A cattle and market prices to producers promptly dropped by amounts equal to or almost equivalent to the subsidy within a matter of days. The next step came when the subsidy was altered to 5 cents per pound, and extended to lower grades of cattle. The final step came when the minister required certification from U.S. health

officials guaranteeing that U.S. imported cattle and beef had not been administered the growth hormone DES.

With imports of U.S. beef almost shut off, market prices are again rising in Canada, at least for beef. In the last several days the minister reduced the subsidy to 3 cents per pound, I suppose having the ultimate aim of eliminating the subsidy completely. The results of the federal government's attempt to stabilize beef prices to both producers and consumers through tariff manipulation have been largely unsuccessful, because control of the market and prices has rested elsewhere. As a consequence, for the last ten months price patterns for livestock have been extremely unstable.

Basically, I have no quarrel with the beef subsidy program. However, I must point out that there should have been a number of safeguards put in place when the beef subsidy program was introduced. First, there should have been a floor price for producers, related to costs of production. Second, direct payments should have been made to the producers. Third, some restrictions, or control methods should have been designed to prevent the packing companies from making effective confiscation of the subsidies. In view of the way that all the programs were handled, I am of the opinion that they represented a measure of desperation rather than a firm commitment to stabilize prices. I have no argument with the banning of the importation of DES cattle from the United States. But what happens when the United States ceases using DES in its cattle? Has the government got a plan to stabilize meat prices both to the consumer and producer at that time?

It should be mentioned also that the economic loss problems encountered by producers of cattle, hogs and sheep over the past year could in large measure be traced back to the introduction of a feed grains policy that legalized an open market and an exploitive system of pricing in that area of Canada where the Canadian Wheat Board retains jurisdiction for orderly marketing. The intent of the policy, introduced on the pretext of creating equity, was to permit exploitation of grain producers by buyers outside the Canadian Wheat Board area on the same basis as had been practised within the Canadian Wheat Board area. However, it seems to me that this policy backfired on the government because world market conditions for grain were too high to permit profitable production of livestock based on open market prices. The federal government abrogated its responsibility for keeping its own house in order by exposing the producers of cattle and hogs to forces which in effect had been imposed upon grain producers in the prairie region and, which it was to be hoped, had gone forever. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these forces are returning with the open market introduced for feed grains.

It seems to me that a rational and orderly marketing system for feed grains could establish a true cost-price relationship for the cattle industry, under which a program of price stabilization could function. The four western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have hog marketing boards. In Saskatchewan in particular, with the subsidy or floor price available there, the hog producer has been cushioned from any harmful effects. However, it should be mentioned that in reply to a question yesterday about disastrously low pork

April 30, 1974

prices, the Minister of Agriculture indicated that Ontario should establish a hog marketing board such as the other provinces have.

I think the minister is being rather contradictory. In a speech a few days ago he said that Saskatchewan's hog support program was ill-advised because it placed Saskatchewan in a favoured position and disrupted hog production and marketing in Canada as a whole. If this is the case why doesn't the minister come up quickly with a cattle marketing board or, better still, with a meat products marketing board which would be responsible for the marketing of all red meats? Subsidy programs for prices can only work properly if they are national in scope so that producers, in fact, in one region are not economically disadvantaged as compared with producers in other regions. The only advantages they would have are the natural advantages. Farmers on the prairies have many natural advantages since they can grow most of their feedstuffs and there are vast areas of grasslands available as well.

In my opinion, a national meat marketing board would have the following main functions: (a) It could act as a regulatory body or agency with the authority to issue import permits and export permits. With this authority it would be capable of restricting large packers from bringing in huge numbers of cattle in order to lower the returns on meat products to producers in this country. After all, the only thing that the packers are concerned with is the profit motive and nothing else, regardless of how they disturb the rest of the economy, (b) I would suggest that a national meat products marketing board could also regulate profit margins; in fact, it could regulate the price of the product right from the producer to the retailer to the consumer, as is done with some milk products in Canada today in the highly regulated dairy industry; (c) if a subsidy is to be given to the producer, this authority or marketing board could make sure that it goes directly to the producer rather than to the scions of middlemen in between.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission acts as a body which very closely regulates and supervises the buying and selling of dairy products in Canada. As a result, despite difficulties the dairy farmers may have had, they have still had a greater sense of security than the hog producers and beef producers in the last year. A national hog marketing and cattle marketing board, or a national meat products board would put more order into our red meats industry, and I maintain that it should lead to stabilized and fair prices to both the producer and the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, this would help particularly the hundreds and thousands of farmers from Newfoundland to British Columbia who keep a herd of 50 or 100 head of cattle or who produce 200, 300 or 500 pigs per year. I am thinking of the family farm operation, which is a way of life, by means of which the family, can make a fairly decent living if they get a fair price for their products. I think this is a necessary step toward preserving the family farm and the smaller farm enterprises.

Cattle Marketing Board

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Léopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):

Mr. Speaker, the motion debated this afternoon states that the government should consider passing legislation to establish a national cattle marketing board. Even though I am glad of the opportunity to discuss agriculture in the House, I have some serious doubts as to the validity of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will long remember the evening of December 31, 1971, when the House sat to give second and third reading to the bill entitled: "An Act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council", better know perhaps as Bill C-176.

One of the amendments considered that evening had been moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It is recorded on page 10880 of Hansard and reads as follows:

That Bill C-176, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by adding the following to subclause (c) of clause 2 at line 17, page 1:

"except cattle and calves and products of beef and veal".

The purpose was to exclude cattle and calves from the part of the bill concerning the control of supplies. The motion was not put that evening since the government moved an amendment to paragraph (c) of clause 2, which read as follows:

"(c) "farm product" for the purpose of Part I, means any natural products of agriculture and any part of any such product and, for the purpose of the other provisions of this act, means

(i) eggs, and poultry, and any part of any such product, and

(ii) any other natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product in respect of which the Governor in Council is satisfied, as a result of declarations by provincial governments following plebiscites, or otherwise, that the majority of the producers thereof in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency under section 17 with powers relating to that product;

That is why, Mr. Speaker, there is now a legislation providing for the establishment of a national cattle marketing agency. Rather than wasting the valuable time of the House, I would suggest to the hon. member as well as to the producers who are interested to refer to sections 18 and 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.

However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that a request for the creation of such an agency should come from the cattle breeders themselves, and before such agency is established, the governor in council must be satisfied that a majority of the producers of each of the farm products in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency, in accordance with section 17.

Sections 7 and 17 describe the procedure to be followed in order to determine the producers' wishes concerning the establishment of a national agency. Although there is a legislation to that effect, beef producers with whom I am in touch keep suggesting that they doubt an agency is necessary. Should there be a major change in this situation, I would be quite willing to see that this provision of the act is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that up to now, the government has given every opportunity and all the means required to

April 30, 1974

Cattle Marketing Board

the farmers who wish to avail themselves of the marketing act. They have everything they need at their disposal to set up those marketing agencies.

If the Canadian people want the farmers to increase their production, they must see to it that farm incomes are higher. The federal government took important steps in that direction last year. When food prices skyrocketed, the government did not apply price controls.

We are now discussing two types of stabilization programs. One concerns price stabilization, and we can achieve that with programs such as those coming under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. In order to meet present needs, we would update that act by extending it to more products and by raising the support level.

The other type concerns income stabilization which can be achieved through the creation of a common fund. The producers, the federal government and the provinces could deposit money into it, and producers could draw from it whenever the total revenue for a particular product is lower than a given level. Both types of programs could be designed so as to include the production costs factor.

It is the intention of the federal government to take important steps in order to establish our agriculture on a sound long term basis. The minister introduced a new farm credit legislation to enable us to help young farmers get started and to promote farm expansion and the purchase of still better farm equipment.

The minister also wishes to set up price and income stabilization programs so as to encourage farmers to invest for the future, with the guarantee that they will not go bankrupt tomorrow as it happened in the past, when an increased production had created short-term surpluses.

In addition, the minister wants to set up a cattle-insurance program, similar to our crop-insurance program, so that society can share some of the risks taken by the farmers when they increase their cattle production to meet the growing consumer demand, not only in Canada but also abroad.

Finally, the federal government is in the process of implementing a new national feed grains policy that will ensure equal treatment to all farmers, both producers and buyers, wherever they may be in Canada.

But what may be more important than all measures put forward is that the federal government did not intervene in the control of agricultural prices. Some countries have tried it with little success: not one more cow reached the market, not one more bushel of grain was produced and efficiency did not improve by 1 per cent. Those controls have had nothing but negative results wherever they were tried out. In the U.S.A., food price controls led farmers to gas their one-day old chicks rather than lose thousands of dollars in feeding them for the market. Farmers did not ship their cattle to the meat markets, which resulted in problems in the beef industry that are still being felt today. Food price controls have had such disastrous results that they overflowed the American boundaries, upset our markets and the income of our farmers who were getting ready to increase their production in an orderly fashion.

Canadian consumers paid current prices for their food and, in return, the farmers are responding today by maximizing their returns and their production.

In the next months, the federal government will take positive measures to insure the future of the Canadian farmers and of our farming industry. The Minister of Agriculture intends to bring down a legislation that will guarantee prices and incomes stability for the farmers, in order that they may invest capital in the farming business and increase production without worrying about a temporary excess that might disrupt the market and cause prices to decline. The consumer cannot ask the farmers to invest today to increase production if that will lead them to bankruptcy tomorrow.

The Minister of Agriculture has in mind legislation that will improve federal credit programs for the farmers and specially the young ones who want to take up farming or continue to work on the family farm.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has announced more generous compensation for farmers whose diseased cattle are condemned to slaughter under the Epizootic Diseases Act. This second increase in less than a year reflects the changes in the market value of the cattle. The change which will come into force immediately will boost maximum compensation from $300 to $450 for bure-bred animals and from $150 to $200 for the others. The compensation is added to the amount producers receive for the sale of their cattle to the slaughter house. When he made this announcement, the Minister of Agriculture insisted on the importance given by his department to the strict measures aimed at controlling cattle diseases.

Many countries envy Canada the excellent bill of health of its livestock. This is the result of stringent measures applied for quite a number of years as a means of security both for the producer, through the excellent condition of his livestock, and the consumer, through a constant supply of wholesome foodstuffs.

This is one of the reasons why last year Canada could export livestock and beef to over a hundred countries.

Moreover, the minister has announced that, effective April 7, foreign countries exporting to Canada cattle, lamb or sheep, either live or slaughtered, will have to submit a document certifying that these animals and meats have not received the DES treatment.

These documents will somehow guarantee that the imported meat complies with Canadian regulations; it has also been made necessary following the most recent changes governing the use of DES outside Canada. The only exceptions which have been authorized concern the shipments made before April 9, and animals for cattle raising purposes, the hon. Minister of Agriculture added.

During the Conference on Western Economic Opportunities held last summer in Calgary, the minister indicated that Canada was moving from a national policy on feed grains to a nationally co-ordinated policy on the livestock industry. We said the same thing in the Speech from the Throne sometime ago.

Any study of the meat industry in Canada should attach great importance to people as well as public and private organizations instead of relying on statistics.

Here is what the minister considers our objectives should be. Producers should have in mind maximum growth. He is considering a large expansion program for

April 30, 1974

meat and meat products. That market is expanding in North America, Europe, Japan and everywhere where the national standard of living is above the thresold of poverty. Producers in Canada have the tremendous possibility of increasing that production and meeting that demand. So one of the objectives would be to set up a range of government programs and policies which would allow them to produce more and reach those markets. The minister further thinks that producers should protect themselves against anything that could cut the ground from under their feet. He supposes that the first thing that comes to mind when he says protection is some form of protection against cheap imports. However, that is not exactly what he means but rather that protection against disease is the all important point. He means protection through research against the possibility of the meat industry in another part of the world overtaking us by developing new production and marketing methods. He further means protection against prices and saw-toothed production which would eliminate any chance of extending our market in the long run.

A third objective would be the greatest freedom possible for producers. In other words, a strategy could not be accepted even if it could produce the greatest benefits, the biggest markets and the most efficient production if it were to turn producers into slaves of the economy.

In view of those objectives the next step is to assess the situation as it now exists. We have the healthiest herd in the world thanks to the work of the Animal Health Branch. That gives us access to a greater export market than any other country in the v'orld. That also makes the cattle industry more efficient. Part of that policy includes a government program to import the best breeding cattle through our maximum security quarantine stations.

We have some excellent farmers and, what is more, they are the best farmers in the world. We also have evidence of the superiority of our stock breeders either exporters of pure-bred dairy cattle, beef cattle, pigs and poultry, or exporters of meat.

Our animal industry is competitive, and our exporters can prove that too. With our resources we can expect a major share of the expanding world market. We have land, water, energy, technology, money and business know-how, which all compare favourably with those in most of the other nations.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's motion is included in Bill C-176, and we are waiting for a request from the farmers to implement it.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin

Liberal

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, I would have gladly yielded to my colleague from Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), but I had already advised the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken that I wanted to make a few comments on the motion now before us and which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing legislation to provide for a National Cattle Marketing

Cattle Marketing Board

Board which would operate in concert with a Cattle Marketing Board established by any province.

Once again, parts of the French version are vague. I think we can say "par la province" or "par toute province", as we say "by any province" in English.

However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) covered the subject very well, when he said that the legislation now in the statutes is essentially permissive allowing as it does the setting up of any kind of agency to look after the marketing of agricultural products.

Therefore I would not elaborate on the very pertinent comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. This is, however, in my opinion an excellent opportunity for any dedicated member to speak on matters of particular concern to him or to his rural constituents. As I said time and again, Mr. Speaker, I represent an area in Canada, an area in the province of New Brunswick where high scale production of potatoes is conducted. When we debated some years ago the act establishing the National Farm Products Marketing Council, I addressed the House a few times to support government action toward the institution of agencies for marketing agricultural products. It gives me pleasure to mention that on the current board sits a former minister of agriculture for New Brunswick who, during our frequent meetings, keeps me informed of the council's work.

For me, as a member of parliament, it is a way of finding out about the council as such.

A moment ago I was speaking about potatoes and I think that it may be possible to establish parallels with cattle, a subject that particularly worries the sponsor of today's bill. In New Brunswick, potato farming is, for all practical purposes, more or less disorganized.

In the potato industry, the producers are not properly organized. Some belong to the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture and others to the National Farmers' Union. However, the shippers have much to say about potato marketing. Obviously, they do not cover the whole field.

In principle, I support the motion under study, but I hope that, if one day, the question of the establishment of a potato marketing agency comes up, the hon. member will return the favour and support any measure towards this.

To come back to what the parliamentary secretary said, the proposal made today by the sponsor of the motion is already covered by the law establishing the Canadian Farm Products Marketing Council. Perhaps the Standing Orders of the House might allow, on occasion, hon. members to answer the arguments that we, on this side, bring up to contradict the sponsors of some motions. Maybe this would enable us to reach some compromise whereby it would be possible to pass some motions which are excellent and very useful and intend mainly to improve the standard of living of farmers across the country.

Mr. Speaker, if I may return to my "potatoes", if you will permit me the expression, I regret the absence at the national level of a potato marketing board. I think that the responsibility for the establishment of such an agency-

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. member indicated, a moment ago, that he would revert to his "potatoes", but I

April 30, 197'

Cattle Marketing Board

think that if he followed the rules he would rather revert to his cattle, because I believe that cattle, or more precisely the establishment of a National Cattle Marketing Board, is under consideration. The hon. member has undoubtedly a more enthusiastic concern for potatoes than for cattle, but I would invite him, now that he has spoken of farm matters that concern more particularly his constituency, to give his attention to the motion now under consideration.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin

Liberal

Mr. Corbin:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this point of order. Sometimes we are carried away in the heat of the debate and we get too easily into digressions. It might be interesting for all the honourable members to know that potatoes are being found to have great qualities and research is currently being conducted for feeding cattle with potatoes in areas that do not produce enough feed grain.

For all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker, I want to follow your advice. I think I have pointed out a few points with respect to the study of this motion and I would like now to resume my seat to allow other colleagues to speak in this important debate.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):

Mr. Speaker, your comments to my colleague, the previous speaker, referring to meat and potatoes were very good. Perhaps the only thing left out was the gravy. I like a bit of gravy on my meat and potatoes. *

Be that as it may, those of us who were here in the last parliament will remember distinctly the long debate on Bill C-176, to establish a national farm products marketing agency. One of the factors around which the debate centred in a very hot and real way was that in the original bill there was some reference to cattle and cattle products. Those sections of the legislation were bitterly opposed by many people. There was a misunderstanding. Even though there were references to cattle and cattle products in the bill, there was no intention on the part of the government to apply its provisions to cattle. Later it was made very clear that any commodity group which wanted to be part of national farm products marketing legislation would have to take a plebiscite. A majority of the producers of any particular commodity would have to be satisfied before they could avail themselves of that particular legislation which is now the law of the land. It permits any commodity group to become part of the national marketing legislation if that is the desire of those producers. I want to reiterate on behalf of the cattlemen in my part of the country that it is still their view that they do not wish to become part of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. If at some time in the future they want to do so, they will so signify. Right now they are adamantly opposed to becoming part of the arrangements under this act. I was in touch with them only yesterday, and again today, and that is their view. I did not contact the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, but the president of that Association, Mr. Gordon Parkes, is from my constituency, from a town called Cache Creek.

To give an indication of the feeling of Canadian cattlemen toward the famous Bill C-176, I should like to read what was said at the time the bill was going through the last parliament. This was at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture held in Edmonton on February 4, 1971. Mr. Charlie Gracey, the Secretary-Manager of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, was the witness at the time, and this is what he had to say:

Beef producers have no need for Bill C-176 and reject it both on philosophical and economic grounds. We would like to emphasize that our opposition to this bill is not simply negative thinking on the part of the beef producers. We recognize, as do the producers of other commodities, that considerable problems do exist. We differ from many other organizations, however, in that beef producer groups across Canada are actively engaged in solving problems within the present structure.

I should like to refer the hon. member who introduced this motion to sections 18 and 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. These sections clarify beyond doubt the opportunities available to commodity groups to take part in the arrangements made under that legislation. I should like to stress that the pressure for an agency must come in the first place from the cattlemen themselves, and that before an agency can be established the governor in council must be satisfied that the majority of producers are in favour of the establishment of an agency. Sections 17(1) and 17(2) spell out the procedures to be followed.

There are others, Mr. Speaker, who wish to participate in this debate. My hon. friend from Bruce (Mr. Whicher) is champing at the bit-

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Oh no, he's not!

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):

He is a great cattleman as well. I just want to repeat on behalf of the cattlemen of British Columbia whom I have contacted that they do not want any part of this legislation.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Ross Mackenzie Whicher

Liberal

Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks made by the last speaker, but he was not completely truthful when he indicated I was looking forward with anticipation to taking part in this debate.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

You did not

want to speak at all.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Ross Mackenzie Whicher

Liberal

Mr. Whicher:

Frankly, I think everything has already been said as to why this bill should not pass. With great respect to the member of the New Democratic Party who brought it forward- incidentally, he is a valued member of the agriculture committee and I agree with him on most questions of an agricultural nature-I have to say I disagree with the measure he has recommended to us this afternoon.

As a matter of fact, if I had my way I would sit down and let a vote be called. I should like to see how members of the New Democratic Party vote on this bill, because if they voted for it they would lose the respect of 98 per cent of the cattlemen across Canada. I say this because, as the parliamentary secretary has so ably pointed out, the cattlemen simply do not want a marketing board to be established.

April 30, 1974

Being somewhat political by nature, if I had not virtually been told to say something this afternoon I would sit down and let the vote go ahead, because I imagine this would place the NDP House leader in a very difficult position, a position in which he does not very often find himself. If he does get away with it today, it is through no fault of mine.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NDP

Elias (Eli) Nesdoly

New Democratic Party

Mr. Nesdoly:

A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that 20 years ago in Saskatchewan a vote was taken on the issue of a cattle marketing board. Forty-seven per cent voted for it and 53 per cent against. It is the 47 per cent, the little guys, I am worried about.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

What point of order is that?

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Ross Mackenzie Whicher

Liberal

Mr. Whicher:

All I can say is that in the past 20 years the cattlemen of Saskatchewan have obviously smartened up a good deal. If the vote were taken today it would not be as close as it was 20 years ago.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NDP

Stanley Howard Knowles (N.D.P. House Leader)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

They have too much money.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Ross Mackenzie Whicher

Liberal

Mr. Whicher:

The hon. member did not participate in the debates on Bill C-176, though I see members of the official opposition sitting over there who did. They were very active and effect was given to many of the amendments they advocated, resulting in the improvement of the bill, I believe. I hope the present government or any future government will not force any band of farmers, whatever they produce, to join an organization in whose affairs they do not wish to become involved.

It has been shown this afternoon that under the terms of what was Bill C-176 the cattlemen have every opportunity to do what the hon. member suggests they should be forced to do. What he is saying is that legislation should be passed to set up a national cattle marketing board. He does not promise there will be a vote or anything else. He just says that the government, acting in a dictatorial fashion, should set up a board. Well, Mr. Speaker there are rumours floating around the building these days, and I hope that the motion presented by the New Democratic Party gets wide circulation across Canada through members representing rural constituencies, because I think many people would take a dim view of the fact that such a motion has been introduced. It might be regarded as a friendly gesture in the hon. member's constituency, but if it is, it is the only constituency I know in which the cattlemen would like such a board.

I come from an area in which there are large numbers of cattle. I do not want to get into a friendly scrap with my friends from Alberta because possibly there are places in Alberta where there are as many cattle as in the constituency I represent. Be that as it may, we call ourselves the beef capital of Canada. And I do not know any cattlemen, not one, who would appreciate hearing hon. members of the New Democratic Party say to them: "You must be subject to a national cattle marketing board; you have no say about it."

The cattlemen have been given every opportunity to get a board established if they wished. Under the terms of Bill C-176, as I understand it, if the appropriate steps are followed the government has no alternative but to set up

Cattle Marketing Board

an agency in any way they desire. Surely we have not reached the stage in Canada when we are going to force the cabinet or anybody else, labour unions, school teachers or firemen, in Vancouver or wherever they may be, to join something they do not wish to join.

These are the things I most respectfully wanted to point out to my hon. friend, who I presume brought this motion forward with every good intention. I have made many mistakes in my political life and I suggest that my hon. friend has made at least one, and that one has been demonstrated in the presentation of this motion this afternoon.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
LIB

Florian Côté

Liberal

Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):

Mr. Speaker, when I read the bill introduced by my colleague from Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly), I told myself: surely he did not consult with the members of his party who participated two years ago in the stormy debate on Bill C-176 to prepare that Bill. The principles which he has laid out this afternoon are described in the same bill.

But when 1 read the speech on the Cattle Marketing Board, I told myself: there is certainly going to be a heated discussion between 5 and 6 Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats, because the battle, in 1971-72 opposed two philosophies: on the one hand a desire to impose marketing boards too directly, and on the other hand, an attempt to reject my Progressive Conservative friends' position concerning these marketing boards. Between the two stood the government trying to make the marketing boards operative within as mush a diplomatic way as possible. And this was done by presenting the bill in the following manner. First, it was discussed with the people responsible for the local marketing boards in each of the provinces, who then decided in a democratic way, with the people responsible for the marketing boards at the provincial level, what decisions should be referred to the federal Department of Agriculture. Following that decision or that local decision, which was not arbitrary but which came from the grass roots

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NDP

Elias (Eli) Nesdoly

New Democratic Party

Mr. Nesdoly:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. The hon. member wants to ask a question to the hon. member for Richelieu.

The hon. member may ask his question.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CATTLE MARKETING BOARD
Permalink

April 30, 1974