Mr. Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska):
For several years, within my professional organization, I worked to see such a policy, such a measure implemented, as well as various policies about which I spoke during my election campaign, with regard to dairy farming and unemployment insurance.
But, in my opinion, the matter under consideration was the most important because as a farmer, and consequently as a buyer of feed grain from the western provinces, I suffered from those injustices in the handling of grain.
I suffered from the competition from feed producers because I was a director of a cooperative and I had, under the principles agreed to when the cooperative was created, to help those who had put their trust in me and buy grain accepted by the inspectors. Besides, at the same time, the feed producers had the chance to buy grain which had been rejected on the one hand, and which through another channel came into the hands of those who could compete with us. In his speech yesterday, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) dealt with a situation which can be applied to these grains-I followed his speech very closely and he was right to denounce the discrimination going on; I myself have been a victim of such discrimination.
Canadian Livestock. Feed Board
The grain had been rejected because it did not fully comply with the provisions of the act; in other words, instead of an 11 per cent content in proteins, the grain contained nonnutritive elements. Their protein content had been reduced to 8 or 9 per cent. An independent dealer had the opportunity to buy such grain of a somewhat lower quality and to mix it with some other products containing protein and thus increase the protein content of the grain, since the act authorizes the feed producer to add from 14 to 16 per cent of protein. Such tamperings are not too honest for you are still left with a percentage or a volume of non-digestible matter which cannot be digested by the animal, so that the value of this animal, when transformed into meat or milk, is not such that the buyer has his money's worth.
Mr. Speaker, fears expressed since yesterday are perhaps not too well founded. I have read the bill and it contains exactly what my professional association, the UCC, has been asking the government for years, and it is toward that end that we, in eastern Canada, have been working for so long at UCC's general conventions. This is why, after having read the bill, I find it meets requirements of the farmers. Sometimes, they may be justified in voicing apprehensions such as those which the previous speaker has just expressed but if the hon. member reads the text closely, his fears will be dismissed since the board may buy in any province, in the West, in the East or in Ontario, it does not matter.
Every aspect of the problem has been dealt with and I believe no one in this house would be justified in objecting to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to learn that the bill was being introduced just as I was coming into the house. I have only been here for a few days and it is precisely for this reason that I have been sent here. It is for this reason that I was elected on September 19. Contrary to what certain people who worked against me in my constituency may have thought, it is on the strength of my platform that I was elected, and I consider it to be of prime importance. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I will support it 100 per cent and I congratulate the hon. minister for his contribution in formulating this policy which is designed to help farmers in eastern Canada achieve their objectives.
Topic: CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD
Subtopic: ASSISTANCE IN STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS