I was prompted to put down two questions, which appeared on the Order Paper to-day, because I felt that the House would be concerned to have full and frank information when we were going to legislate on an important branch of agriculture, and in view of the fact that legislation dealing with this industry, for which the Minister was responsible, might be written down as a failure, I felt that the House would be anxious to ensure that the problem should now be constructively handled. For that reason I pressed the Minister to publish the report of the Departmental committee he set up. In view of the importance of this matter we should be clear as to what the Committee of Inquiry on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy stated. On page 91, paragraph 314 of their report they state:—
"The survey which we carried out in the course of our inquiry clearly indicated, however, that there are a number of important problems affecting agriculture which should be examined and reported upon. We do not believe that it would be possible for a part-time body, such as this committee, to carry out the investigations we have in mind. We consider that a small full-time body would be more suitable for the purpose, and we accordingly recommend the setting up of a body to be known as the agricultural inquiry and advisory council, consisting of a chairman and two permanent members, with powers to co-opt from time to time, subject to Ministerial sanction, other persons with technical or special knowledge of the particular subjects delegated to the council for investigation and report."
A number of subject are set out, the second one being "the processing and marketing of pigs and bacon." I do not think it could be interpreted that the intention was to have a Departmental committee whose report would not be published. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister, when he says that the investigations made by the Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy were of an informal nature. In the second minority report made by Dr. Kennedy he states: "Responsible witnesses have given it as their opinion that no scheme of reorganisation or control will be effective while the existing system of ownership is maintained." We are rather puzzled by the Minister's attitude. It will be observed from the White Paper dealing with the reorganisation of the pigs and bacon industry that, having dealt with the history of the industry in recent years, the report sets out certain objectives which should be aimed at if the future of this important industry was to be secured. On page 10, there is set out Government policy for the implementation of these objectives. If the Minister for Agriculture wants this House to be helpful in regard to legislation for a new plan for the reorganisation of the pig and bacon industry he should be frank with the House and put all the facts before it. I submit that the House is definitely entitled to that information. I do not think it is fair to the committee merely to present their recommendations and say that is Government policy, as far as the type of machinery that is necessary to achieve these objectives.
A number of commissions were set up and they concerned themselves with this problem. In 1938, there was a committee of agriculture which made definite recommendations. Then we had the Vocational Commission which also made recommendations. There was also the Second Minority Report on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy which made definite recommendations. The Minister set up a Departmental committee, ignoring completely the recommendations made by various commissions that sat in public. He bases his plans on a secret document —one that he has refused to publish or to make available to the House. I want to know if the Minister still persists in refusing to publish the report of this Departmental committee.
I take it that the report was a reasoned one, and that the members gave reasons why it was necessary to set out the objectives that appear on page 9 of the White Paper. I take it they made certain definite recommendations. When replying to my questions the Minister stated that the answer to the first part was in the affirmative, that the committee's objectives in the White Paper were correct, but that with regard to the second part such recommendations as were made in the report of the Departmental committee referred to, were in the nature of advice tendered in the course of day to day duties by officers of his Department and he did not propose to publish the terms of the committee's reports.
Why not? Why should not the House be entitled to full information about this matter? If the Minister thought that the committee was a suitable and capable one to examine the problem, particularly in the light of the history of that branch of agriculture, I am sure he realises the importance of ensuring that the plans he is going to implement by legislation are plans that will bear fruit. If we are not able to do it at this stage I am afraid there is no future for the pig industry.
When the Minister is about to bring in a Bill surely the House is entitled to know the reasons for his proposals, and on what grounds these proposals were made. The House is entitled to know whether the Minister has departed from the recommendations made by the committee, and, if so, why he has done so. Is there anything in the report of which the Minister is ashamed? Does he disagree with the committee's recommendations? Is the House expected to make decisions with regard to legislation, dealing not merely with the pig industry but with the bacon industry, and which, so far as we can gather from the White Paper, is to be very drastic, and to give drastic dictatorial powers to a particular body?
Is the House not to be told whether or not that is necessary, whether the scheme of amalgamation and the closing down of certain industries is necessary, to what extent redundancy has occurred, whether any examination has been made by the committee, and, if so, to what extent, and on what they base the conclusion at which they arrived? Surely if we are to do our business properly, we are entitled to all that information, and, if the Minister intends to persist in the attitude he has taken up, we are entitled to hear why he has adopted that attitude and why he has departed from the recommendation of the Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy that a permanent body be set up to deal with these matters.
Reading that paragraph any reasonable man would come to the conclusion that that body would be one which would sit in public, a body before which any section of the industry could go and tender their views and a body of which the report would be available to the public, as well as the evidence submitted to it. If the House and the country are to be asked to make up their mind on such a matter as this, we are entitled to all the information available. The Minister's attitude is: "A document has been presented to me. I refuse to make that document available to the House, but I expect the House to agree with the proposals in the Bill I am submitting." That is a shocking attitude for the Minister to adopt. He argues that this is a Departmental committee. Why should it be a Departmental committee?
In the second question to-day, I asked the Minister if he was prepared to publish the names of the witnesses who gave evidence before this Committee on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy and to publish the evidence, and he says that these witnesses were not informed that their evidence would be published and that the examination was of a more or less informal nature. I do not think anybody reading Dr. Kennedy's report could come to the conclusion that it was of an informal nature. He says:—
"Responsible witnesses have given it as their opinion that no scheme of reorganisation or control will be effective while the existing system of ownership is maintained."
Why is it that the committee did not report on this important branch of agriculture? A considerable amount of evidence was submitted. Why did they pass over that branch of agriculture? Were they told not to deal with the pig industry? Why all this secrecy, if the Minister is anxious, as I presume he is, to solve this problem in respect of which he has failed three or four times already? Even before the emergency, the pig population showed a downward trend, and, during the emergency, there was a steep fall in the number of pigs. I do not blame the Minister for that, but he knows very well that, even before the emergency, the condition of the industry was not satisfactory.
If the Minister expects the House to be helpful in framing legislation which is to be useful and beneficial to the industry, he is taking up a very wrong attitude in refusing to make all the facts and all the information available to the House. I take it that, if this committee did its work properly, it submitted a reasoned report, but, in this White Paper, no reasons are given for the proposals set out on the last page. The Minister is treating the House in a very summary way and he is not being fair to the committee. I again appeal to him to change his attitude and to make available to the House and the country the full report of that committee.