Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):

Madam Speaker, I thank you for having given me the floor. Unfortunately, the hon. member across the way has left me very little time, barely 45 or 65 seconds, to participate in the debate.

Several members, from both sides of the House, would have liked to take part in it, I believe. Though I have very little time, I should still like to emphasize one point which was raised a while ago by one of the previous speakers, and that is in part the role played by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in the egg question.

Members have suggested that the Minister of Agriculture should have intervened unilaterally and imposed recommendations to the Egg Marketing Agency. As far as I am concerned, I feel that this is an unusual way of looking at federal-provincial relations in this country. To think that a federal minister should interfere with a federal-provincial agreement, signed by all the Ministers of Agriculture in Canada, strikes me as pure arrogance. Had that occurred, such a unilateral intervention on the part of the Minister of Agriculture would have been denounced.

Quite the contrary, in that case he did what he had to do; he met and consulted with his provincial colleagues in July and November of that year, and they agreed on a plan of action to try and put some order in the house. And finally it is very important to show that that marketing agency can work to meet the need of both consumers and farmers in Canada.

I think for my part that underlying the committee report was the fact that it recognized the true role the marketing agency must play within the Canadian economy. How else can we make sure farmers of this country have adequate incomes so they will continue to produce the kind of quality commodities we are used to receiving in Canada? Professor Ford who appeared before the committee had no other mechanism whatever to suggest to replace the marketing agency.

February 17, 1975

So, instead of looking at false problems the committee made recommendations. It determined who was responsible for the agency's problems. It submitted certain findings but agreed that in the final analysis the Minister of Agriculture did what he had to do.

Before attacking the Minister of Agriculture it is worth noting that no recommendations were ever made in that regard before the committee but they rather preferred to wait to do so in this House. No attempt was made to convince the committee-as they should have done as members-of what was suggested here tonight in this House.

Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):

Mr. Speaker, I also have a supplementary for the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Public Works.

Oral Questions

In view of the slowness of negotiations and the small priority the riparian provinces seem to give to the solution of that serious problem, particularly to the urgent need for a new bridge for the security of those using it and for the economic life of the region, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to take the necessary measures to guarantee the population that the bridge will certainly be constructed in the near future?

Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.

Since there are still over a hundred farmers at Ste. Scholastique whose expropriation cases have not yet been settled, can the Minister of Public Works say to the House whether he intends to accept the recommendations of the conciliation board as made at the end of December at the request of the expropriated, and settle all cases outstanding according to the recommendations made by the board?

Mr. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):

Mr. Speaker, on December 16 last, I had the honour of tabling the report of the Special House Committee on Egg Marketing. I should like to draw the attention of the House on a mistake that was made in the printed version of the report, in Issue No. 16 of the proceedings of the committee.

The administrative chart shown on page 9 of Issue No. 16 is not consistent with the original I tabled on December 16 last. It seems to indicate that the position held by the Minister of Agriculture of Canada (Mr. Whelan) comes under the provincial governments. Obviously the situation is not such.

I therefore ask that a revised copy be distributed to correct the printing error and make Issue No. 16 consistent with the report tabled in the House.

Mr. Fox:

It seems that members are leaving the House right now, which reduces the possibility for us of having a quorum.