Mr. Speaker, earlier today in the Chamber the hon. member for Skeena started to talk about the Liberal approach to managing and controlling all aspects of our economy. He referred to marketing boards that were set up by the Hon. Eugene Whelan.
It shows the lack of understanding of marketing boards of the member for Skeena. What was even more ironic was that he talked about the Liberal approach in the 1960s and 1970s. He should be aware that when Eugene Whelan became agriculture minister there were already over 108 marketing boards in existence in Canada, mostly provincial.
When the member talked about it being a Liberal policy, it is ironic that the provinces with a long history of Conservative governments also had a long history of marketing boards. There were 25 marketing boards in existence under the government of Bill Davis.
I want to ensure the member for Skeena knows what a marketing board is if in the future he wants to talk about it. I thought I would put on record that marketing boards vary in practice but the principle is very simple.
It is a system whereby producers, in this case the farmers in case the Reform Party does not know what those are, pool their products, decide on a cost price formula, when and how much to produce, how much to sell and at what price.
As was not understood by the member for Skeena, farmers have democratic control over a marketing board. They run it themselves. It is not forced on them. A marketing board for perishable products makes the most sense.
That is the difference. The member for Skeena did not understand that marketing boards are mainly for perishable products in Canada. Some products can be stored in a bin for years but that cannot be done with a pound of butter or meat. To produce a surplus of perishable products and assume that the market will take care of it is utter economic nonsense and wasteful.
“A marketing board is an efficient way of protecting domestic producers and assuring that there will always have a supply for domestic consumption”. The hon. member could have read that. It is a quote from a book published by Eugene Whelan, in case he has not had the time. It was given to him in 1993 to read.
He also talked about rotten eggs. Again it showed a lack of understanding of the industry. The incident he referred talked about the number of eggs spoiled. The number was quite small when one looks at the industry in context. It was only about a half of 1% of a year's production which under any circumstances is not bad for any perishable product. I challenge the member for Skeena to find another industry that did so well. It is quite impressive when we remember that we are dealing with a perishable product.
It is interesting to note that the person he referred to, Eugene Whelan, was not responsible for the storage facility but only for the legislation establishing the board. It is even more ironic that same person, Eugene Whelan, became the first agriculture minister in Canadian history not to have to subsidize the poultry industry. I thought that would be something the Reform Party would reward. I thought they would be happy to hear there was no subsidy under his leadership.
It is interesting how the Reform Party throws in comments and does not recognize the importance of marketing strategies or, in particular in this case, the difference between marketing boards for perishable products and the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is guaranteed for all farmers.
To end my comments today, I wanted to say that the only rotten egg in parliament today was the member for Skeena.
