Florian CÔTÉ

CÔTÉ, Florian

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Richelieu (Quebec)
Birth Date
May 17, 1929
Deceased Date
January 29, 2002
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Côté
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ff46e17c-284f-4404-b9f0-223f67a6addd&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
farmer

Parliamentary Career

September 19, 1966 - April 23, 1968
LIB
  Nicolet--Yamaska (Quebec)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
LIB
  Richelieu (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (August 30, 1968 - September 30, 1970)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
LIB
  Richelieu (Quebec)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
LIB
  Richelieu (Quebec)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 18)


March 14, 1975

Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have always been somewhat like the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) who, on starting his remarks, said he was a wise man. Like him, for many years, I have tried not to keep the House too long and simply repeat speeches to get my name into Hansard, to show that I had spoken or that I knew this or that.

So, I have been good, and today I did not even want to speak because, knowing the importance of this bill and the good results it can have, I would have liked to have seen it passed as soon as possible. But when the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) spoke a while ago, I said to myself: It is almost impossible to overlook all those

Agricultural Stabilization Act

remarks. Two things occurred to me: either he knows nothing about the administrative past of his own political party, or else the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) repeated each other. I then thought of putting a question to the hon. member for Mackenzie because his remarks were exactly contrary to the accusations of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) against the minister.

I agree with some hon. members that that bill will bring no fundamental change in the field of agriculture. I agree that the bill should be introduced as soon as possible, but I did not understand why one hon. member had followed another in such quick succession to study the bill until today, to then refuse to refer it immediately to the committee. One hon. member followed another hon. member simply to kill time, without listening to each other.

On this side of the House, not too much of an attempt was made to fight back. I was offended when it was explained that the minister was only running around. First of all, my good friend for Mackenzie said that, to improve the bill, the minister should stop running about. It may be that the minister explains the agricultural policy throughout Canada well enough to describe to the population the preparation of some changes in the policy, in the philosophy underlying the adaptation of certain measures, and that somewhat hurts the hon. member for Mackenzie.

That hon. member, whom I tried to listen to with the most possible wisdom said: the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) should do as he did in the milk industry in order that we realize that he is sincere about the measures concerning other farm commodities. What is amazing is that, last week, the hon. member for Crowfoot said: in agriculture, and especially in the milk industry, it is a total mess. Hon. members from eastern Canada should rise and scold the Minister of Agriculture. That is what the hon. member for Crowfoot was saying last week. On the other hand, the hon. member for Mackenzie is saying today that the minister should reorganize his policies along the same line as our dairy industry. There must certainly be a misunderstanding.

I suggest that the changes which this bill proposes, namely to use the average price over a five-year instead of a ten-year period, are important. What is still more important, however, is the adjustment on a yearly basis of base prices for farm products. I feel therefore that one and half or two years from now, we shall come closer to production costs. I do not want to take too much of the minister's time, but I want to make it clear that I did not agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming when he blamed the minister for providing the Canadian Dairy Commission with $140 million. In fact, he should check his figures, for these $140 million apply to last year only. He also blamed the government for establishing quota . ..

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
Full View Permalink

March 14, 1975

Mr. Cote:

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you consider it a question of privilege. So he just said $143 million, but he is completely wrong again. I will not tell him the exact amount, I shall let him search so that he will remember it. I do not want to criticize hon. members in any way. I just want to know what they tried to tell the House. They claim that with respect to administration the government introduced no reasonable policy. Everything is criticized. I just want to let them understand that they should at least back their criticisms with figures, to have something real at least. Then we shall have to confess that the government is wrong. But right now their criticism is unfounded.

I guess the hon. member for Timiskaming might listen to me. I am going to ask him another question, and he may refer to the official transcript of last week's debates. He was then blaming the government for introducing quotas, and he said that it had resulted in dismal failure for the dairy industry. Quotas were not imposed by the government, but by us farmers. I was a member of the Farmers Union then. We asked the government to fix quotas for the dairy industry in order to match production with consumption.

Mr. Speaker, this is what I had to say. A question was raised by an opposition member, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), and I appreciated that. If we had had on the bill such remarks as those made by the hon. member for Lisgar, I believe we would not have strolled about so long, and probably we could have referred the bill to the committee last week. I support his suggestions, and I would like to discuss them with him, because they apparently make a lot of sense.

Instead of being criticized for roaming across the country, the minister should be encouraged to continue his travels. Instead of hearing speeches, we could have gone through 5 or 6 bills, now before the House, to help the farm industry. Those 6 bills could be voted and the minister could go and inform the people, which the opposition will not do because they are not interested in explaining legislative items.

This bill deserves our support. It may need improvements from year to year, and I hope that in committee opposition members will not take all the time. I have noticed that opposition members have control over the time of the House, while we on the government side control only legislation. Time is controlled by the opposition. This prevents us from getting the bills into the book. Therefore, next week or the week after, when the bill is deferred to committee, I would ask opposition members if they would agree that two or three representatives from each party state their views, vote on amendments and carry the bill through as fast as possible.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
Full View Permalink

April 30, 1974

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
Full View Permalink

April 30, 1974

Mr. Cote:

I think so, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend is right, and this is what I am trying to explain to him. We should deal with all the other food products. Each provincial board should prepare the marketing of all foodstuffs, not only beef but also vegetables and other food products so that producers can become aware of the marketing of their own products.

This is why I would be disappointed to see this bill implemented arbitrarily, and I can see that my Progressive Conservative friends are in a very embarrassing position; earlier, when my hon. friend made his speech, they dozed. They just did not want to understand. They did not want to listen to the explanations given up to now because these were completely opposed to what they proposed. However, each time we discuss agricultural problems in this House, se are faced with the famous problem of marketing.

Those who questioned the government and harass the ministers are precisely the ones who denied the farmer the right to get marketing boards and to receive the help of the federal government. In fact, we are ready to assist them through Bill C-176 that have been presented precisely for that purpose. I wish I could have told several things to my hon. friend. Even though it is six o'clock I wish I could explain to him that it would put the farmer in a position directly opposite the one suggested by my Progressive Conservative friends. We should even not succeed in establishing it because the Progressive Conservatives would vote against us. It is bound to occur particularly under a minority government. When you wish to do a good deed you have to face a political party that, for the sake of its electoral interest, remain seated like my Progressive Conservative friends did this afternoon and so the governments cannot operate efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock and I resume my seat.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Full View Permalink

March 22, 1974

Mr. Cote:

Madame Speaker, it is understandable that no ministers were here to listen to the Minister of Agriculture, because within the party that governs the country the dairy policy and what it will become are common knowledge, while the opposition which does not know what the dairy industry is all about should at least listen to the member for Joliette.

For me, the motion of the hon. member for Joliette is like the oscillating piece of a clock that goes tick-tock. As the clock, the hon. member is making a little bit of noise. There has been no fundamental explanation of the motion nor of the way in which the people should consider the $2 increase that the hon. member has suggested. I thought at

[Mr. MacLean.1

one time that the motion might have been introduced to allow the hon. member for Joliette to make some kind of a stand. He knew government members were in a very good mood for it, knowing the situation and aware that the policy would be announced in the near future. The hon. member had to boost his credit somewhat, as with the motion on the French language which was introduced at the Progressive Conservative convention and put off indefinitely. That was a great disappointment to me because on a subject so important members of his party might have given him some support.

I will now turn to certain criticisms which were made. The hon. member for Joliette says that in the past five years this government failed to understand the needs and demands of farmers. Here again, he should have kept in closer touch with farmers and studied with more depth the explanations given by farm associations. He could also realize through the statistics that in the past five years the situation changed a great deal which I think is not yet enough for the farmer. At least the situation changed. Prices in five years rose from $4.98 to $7.16.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Full View Permalink