Mr. Boulanger:

Mr. Speaker, it is important we should know the exact meaning of each term in the bill.

If we refer to the bill, we note that in the explanatory notes reference is made to "mustard seed", while in section 2 of the bill reference is made to "rapeseed".

I do not know whether "rapeseed" means "mustard seed", and I should like to know what is the difference between the two.

(Text):

Mr. Churchill:

I am not closing the debate-just answering a question. I did suggest that it would be more appropriate to ask this question during the committee stage, but the hon. member persists in raising it on second reading. If he would look at the act as it now stands and read the amendment as it is given here, I think he would understand what is intended. We end up in clause 3 by striking out the heading "rapeseed" and substituting two schedules, schedule A dealing with domestic mustard seed and schedule B dealing with rapeseed. So the situation is perfectly clear.

Mr. Marlin (Essex East):

Clear as mud.

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tisdale):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to be the last man to delay the passing of this bill, because as early as 1960 I was trying to get a similar bill through the house. Only on January 22 a similar bill of mine received second reading here, but since the hour for voting expired at six o'clock it never came to a vote.

Mr. Peters:

It was a lot better bill, too. It made more sense.

Mr. Rapp:

This bill was one of the three rapeseed bills I have introduced to the house since I came down here in 1958 and it is also the third bill which the government and the House of Commons have approved. The bill before us this afternoon is an important one because its purpose is to revise the statutory grades of mustard seed and rapeseed. It is in conformity with the suggestions of the board of grain commissioners and also in conformity with the recommendations of the chief grain inspector of that board. As I said at that time, Canada is well known in the world for its high quality of grain, and having this bill will keep the grades of rapeseed pure and clean. We 26207-1-182

Canada Grain Act

shall now have these grains for which, in due time, Canada will gain an enviable reputation abroad. I am pleased that this bill has received the approval of the other members of the house and it is my hope that the approval of parliament will speedily be given to it.

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):

Mr. Speaker, I believe the government would have been well advised to accept the bill introduced by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale which would have accomplished in a clearer way what the government seeks to accomplish by this bill. It may be a case of a private member having more time to work on it and a better understanding of what is required than the government has in its position.

In examining the schedule I am wondering if any consideration had been given to the fact that, although rapeseed has been highly developed both in western and eastern Canada, mustard seed in eastern Canada is considered a noxious weed difficult to eradicate. Where mustard seed is grown on a commercial basis, what will be done to protect those areas where it is designated as a weed, one difficult to control?

In the explanatory notes to the bill I see no requirement to take out seeds similar to mustard seed. These may be part of the screenings we are handling in eastern Canada. This may be an important factor in eastern Canada with respect to poultry feed.

A few weeks ago in this house we had discussions concerning the fact that rapeseed and mustard seed could not be brought under the terms of the wheat board for sale purposes because these classifications are not contained in the Canada Grain Act. Will these commodities now be brought under the terms of the Canadian wheat board for sale and export?

Mr. Churchill:

The answer to that is that this is for grading purposes under the board of grain commissioners.

Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):

Mr. Speaker, it remains to make but a few observations on this bill, because when a similar bill was brought in on other occasions by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale I said I felt the proposal should be supported on its merits. As the hon. gentleman has previously attested, he received support for his proposal from hon. members of the Liberal party.

It will be recalled when the matter was last before us under that hon. gentleman's auspices we urged the government then to accept the responsibility which it is now belatedly assuming. The government has finally brought forward a bill, not on its own initiative but as a result of the prodding from

Canada Grain Act

members of the Liberal party who urged the government to put in statutory form what had been recommended by one of its own supporters, and which was actually embodied in one of the measures before us.

The Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Browne) seems to be displeased by that statement, but that is the fact. If he will look at Hansard he will find that it is the case, as will be attested to by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale.

We pointed out on earlier occasions that the board of grain commissioners had investigated the situation and had recommended what is now before the house. We said that in those circumstances the government could not escape responsibility of either accepting or rejecting those recommendations. In the former case it would be clear, we said, that the government should bring in legislation rather than leave the responsibility to a private member.

The government now comes forward with a bill which was introduced in the Senate on March 28. This bill comes as a result, first of all, of the example set by a private member of the government party, and particularly as a result of the prodding given the government by the Liberal party in urging hon. gentlemen opposite to take an initiative which they should have taken in the first instance.

When the bill was discussed on one other occasion some hon. members supporting the minister took the position that it was undesirable to add mustard seed to the wheat board bill. Certainly that should not be done, it was argued, until such time as the schedule to the grain act had been modified in accordance with what is being done today. We now have the situation that mustard seed is being put in the Canada Grain Act as well as in the Canadian Wheat Board Act where it was put some few weeks ago. It seems to me that those hon. gentlemen who took that position previously did a disservice to the mustard seed growers of Canada as a result of the attitude they adopted.

I have risen primarily at this moment for the purpose of reminding the government of something that has grieved the Acting Minister of Justice. I have risen to say that the government is now doing what the opposition urged it should do and what the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale took the initiative in doing. The action of the government in deciding to have the board of grain commissioners look into the matter, and the board having made its recommendation, placed an obligation on the shoulders of the government to itself bring in this legislation, and it has done so, belatedly.

[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, will the minister explain why reference is made to mustard seed in the explanation of the bill and to rapeseed in the bill itself?

Mr. Churchill:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can explain that. I have in my hand volume 1 of the 1952 statutes. Schedule 1 begins on page 61 and runs over to page 74. It is amended on page 74 by adding the heading and grade requirements set forth in schedule A to this bill. This means that in advance of the reference to rapeseed and the schedule now appearing on page 74 would come reference to domestic mustard seed, schedule A, and that would be followed by schedule B which relates to rapeseed.

I grant that it is a little confusing as paragraphs 2 and 3 presently read, but what it amounts to is striking out rapeseed on the small schedule that is there now and inserting the new schedules A and B relating to mustard seed and rapeseed.

Mr. Peters:

Is any consideration being given to this problem of the difference in the maintaining of the planting of this grain and of the seed, particularly mustard seed, and the effect it will have in some parts of Canada? With the designation of mustard as a weed, the conflict will be apparent. Is there protection taken where this conflict arises? In other words, the screenings being brought into certain areas will contain a certain amount of mustard seed which will be domestic, whether it is one of the classifications of oriental, Canada western, Canada western yellow or one of the other designations. In other words, certain types of seeds to which we refer are domesticated, or I presume they are domesticated. Is this control also to be over the other ones that are not domesticated? Is any protection given, or is any consideration being given, to the situation in which there could be a conflict between the wild varieties and the domesticated varieties?

Mr. Churchill:

This has been going on for some time. I refer to the production of mustard seed. I have the figures here for 1957 and up to 1962. Any conflict that may appear in the mind of the hon. member now must have arisen in the past. I would consider that the board of grain commissioners would use their customary discretion and caution in seeing that the mustard seed which is delivered to them or which might come into

their possession for sampling would be carefully looked after and not dispersed. The mustard seed which goes into commercial use would be treated in the same way as are other seeds which go into commercial use. I grant that in some areas of Canada mustard is a noxious weed and that people are much more concerned with getting rid of it than with increasing the production of it. The number of acres seeded to mustard in 1961-62 is 142,000 acres. It is not a very large number of acres when you consider the millions of acres that are seeded to wheat, oats and barley.

Mr. Peters:

I was just inquiring. There must be a section of the Canada Grain Act, as it is a national act, which gives consideration to the provincial weed laws and the interprovincial movement of grain and which obviously would not be in the section we are discussing at the present time. I was concerned only with the conflict that may arise because of the fact that this is probably the first really commercialized product which could be classified as Canadian grown and which would have this particular feature. Others that may be put in eventually would be such things as poppy seed or something of that nature that may have a similar application. There may be provisions already that would not be contrary to or in conflict with provincial restrictions of movement. By putting this matter under the Canada Grain Act we may upset that. I am not asking the minister to give a decision on it now. I would trust that this matter be given consideration. It may be that a regulation would be satisfactory prohibiting the text of the Canada Grain Act, which we want, from working an undue hardship on some of the provinces that are trying to control this weed in its wild state.

Mr. Rapp:

In order to help the hon. member for Timiskaming, may I say that the schedule here deals with tame mustard. If he wishes to come over here I could show him samples of it. What he is worried about is wild mustard. Wild mustard is classified as a weed in the Canada Grain Act. But in schedule A domestic mustard means tame mustard.

Mr. Martin (Essex East):

You had better send those samples over to the hon. member.

Mr. Peters:

My point here is that tame mustard will be as bad a weed in eastern Canada as is wild mustard if it is growing in places in which you do not want it to grow. It will not make any difference what the grade happens to be. I believe the minister understands the problem to which I have reference. It is only with regard to protection where it 26207-1-182J

Health Insurance

would interfere with provincial weed control in certain areas where this matter has been a problem.