Mr. Mclvor:

I want to say a word or two at this time, Mr. Chairman. As I sat and listened I heard repetition not only by those on this side of the house but by those on the other side, even the minister himself. They repeated themselves several times. I will give the minister an example. He said several times that this was a good bill. He said more than once that the bill was not intended as a cure-all for farmers' ills. I am not going to repeat anything that anyone else has said.

I have two things to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture about how to keep young men on the farm and how to get young men on the farm. The first is that there should be places where training could be given to young men from the old country who' have a bit of money and who want to go on the farm in this country. I know that formerly farmers used to have young men out from England, especially, including relatives, and train them for the farm. I think in every

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization

province there should be farmers, preferably farmers who were trained at an agricultural college, to whom these young men could go to learn practical farming. I also think that they should be paid a salary according to what they were able to earn.

The other thing I wish to say is that if you are going to hold young men on the farm there must be a bit of fun for them. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"- that is very true. I am judging from two old farming districts west of Fort William, where they could teach the rest of Canada a lot of things. In that area they have their sons following them on their farms, and their sons' sons. Why? Because farming is fairly successful and is just as enjoyable as any other occupation in Canada.

We have in these districts a baseball league, and if you want to see competition at its highest and hottest you will see it there; and it is good ball. In the winter the young men have a hockey league, and there the competition is just as keen. People turn out to see their sons and sometimes their daughters play hockey., Not only that, but those who come out to see these games are entertained with refreshments which heat them up and do not go to their heads. Also in the winter there is a community centre where the older people can go and play indoor games, while in the summer the older people have their horseshoe competitions; and if anybody thinks he is an expert horseshoe pitcher let him come out and we will take him on any time.

I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he plan some game or games. I have in mind a game called "chum how" which would, I am sure, entertain farmers all over the country. I think these things are worthy of consideration.

Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):

We have witnessed a rather unusual spectacle here today, the spectacle of a responsible minister of agriculture rising in his place to condemn members of the opposition for giving their suggestions in debate. I may have a perverted view as to what one might expect under a democratic process, Mr. Chairman, but it has always been my understanding that hon. members should have the privilege and responsibility of rising and presenting their views and those of their constituents on legislation to the house without being blanketed with wholesale condemnation by a minister.

The minister this morning accused the members of the C.C.F. group in its entirety -he did not make any exceptions-of abusing the minister personally and abusing the legislation. I am one of those who participated

both at the resolution stage and at the second reading stage of this legislation-

Mr. Harkness:

On a point of order, the

hon. member first of all has referred to what happened at second reading, which I think is out of order-

No. Why?

Mr. Quelch:

Why? You are out of order,

too.

Mr. Harkness:

In addition, and this is on

a matter of privilege, he has just made the statement that I made no exceptions when I was speaking of the members of the C.C.F. party. I just happen to have the preliminary report of Hansard before me and what I said this morning was, "The majority of the criticism levelled at this bill by the C.C.F. and Social Credit parties was merely abuse".

Mr. Winch:

Read the rest of it.

Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):

I do not see

that that changes my statement at all, Mr. Chairman. If the minister had said the majority of the members he might have left the back door open so he could make a retreat, but I do not think he has clarified the situation by reading that statement. However, I will be perfectly fair with the minister. Had he changed his tone of voice in replying to the comments and criticisms we have made I do not think I would have been so likely to come to this conclusion.

As I mentioned, I took part at the resolution stage of this debate and at the second reading stage, and the purpose of my contribution was to present the views of my constituents and my own views on this legislation. I think it is fairly evident that there should be two points of view considered as to what this bill does achieve. There is the governmental point of view and there is the opposition point of view.

It has also been fairly evident that there are certain principles which have been ignored and left entirely out of this bill. I call the minister as a witness in this connection, because when he moved second reading he admitted that he had left five rather large chinks in the bill and he is going to start plastering them up by introducing five amendments. He further stated at the conclusion of the debate on second reading that there are more chinks which he intends to plaster up later. I believe it is as a result of the points of view brought out by the members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups that the attention of the house has been drawn to these matters and these very amendments have been brought about.

3748 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization

I quite appreciate the fact, as I said yesterday, that the backbenchers on the government side are taking this opportunity to deliver their maiden speeches, but we have the minister complaining-and these are his words as I have taken them down-that hon. members have taken a great deal more time than was necessary.

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member at committee stage of the bill entitled to hash over what happened at the second reading stage?

Mr. Quelch:

Certainly he is.

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

There is no question but that in debating a piece of legislation it is considered in its entirety and it is perfectly proper at any stage, from the resolution stage to third reading, to refer to matters which are referred to in the course of the entire debate.

The supremacy of parliament.

Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):

The Minister without Portfolio should perhaps assume some responsibility for agriculture in this country and study the various principles and clauses of this bill, and perhaps assist his colleague in making some more amendments. The point we have been trying to make is the necessity for making this bill as complete as possible.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat, the member for Lambton-Kent, has compared this bill with the old Agricultural Prices Support Act, and he concluded that it was a better piece of legislation than the old act. That is no different from the conclusion of the members of the official opposition, because they are supporting the government in the destruction of the old Agricultural Prices Support Act. I do believe, however, there are certain principles which must be included in this legislation, and I am prepared to do what I can to convince the minister and the cabinet of the necessity of making certain amendments.

The minister has taken credit for being open-minded, for not having fixed views, and I certainly would like to take advantage of that fact. I call as a witness the former member for Lake Centre, who is now Prime Minister, as he is quoted at page 5600 of Hansard for July 29, 1944. He said:

The farmer understands floor prices to be prices set at a level which will assure him of a reasonable profit over and above his cost of production, although some consider them to be the same as parity prices. Under this measure the board is empowered to make purchases, and to set the level of prices at which it makes purchases, regardless of whether that level may be below the level of the cost of production or not. To be fair to the farmers of Canada, and not to hold out to them

[Mr. Johnson (Kindersley) .1

hopes that may not culminate in action, the minister should set forth in this bill the principle that prices paid in respect of farm commodities shall be based upon costs of production and a reasonable profit.

That, Mr. Chairman, has been the basis of the argument in the speeches we have had made from the C.C.F. group and in those made by members of the Social Credit group. The farm organizations have been trying to get the minister to understand this, so he will incorporate the necessary legislative means to remedy the situation. The present Prime Minister went on to state:

But if this bill is to be anything more than a promise of a hope, there must be something in it to show that the prices the farmers are to receive will assure them of reasonable costs plus a fair return.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is worth fighting for. This is a principle which must be recognized by all hon. members and, indeed, many members have paid lip service to it. I maintain that if the Minister of Agriculture had invited the farm organizations to present to him draft legislation to stabilize agricultural prices, that principle would have been the first to have been written into the bill.

The minister has stated that he did receive representations from farm organizations. He most certainly did. The farm organizations were on their toes, taking advantage of the fact that there has been a change of government, hoping that things would be different and that they would be consulted. In fact they were consulted with regard to this legislation, but they were consulted after it had been introduced and after a storm of protest had been raised in the country and in the farm organizations because the measure did not include the principles which the present Prime Minister enunciated back in 1944. There was nothing to ensure that the farmer would receive his reasonable costs plus a fair return.

I think, therefore, if the minister would give consideration to these principles in the amendments he proposes to make-and I think it is unfortunate he has not informed the house more clearly as to his intention- a lot of the present discussion would become unnecessary. I do not believe members of this house are being merely vocal; what we are trying to achieve is the best possible deal for the farmers.

I will conclude by asking the Minister of Agriculture to say now that he will be including in the bill certain of the principles which have been requested by farm organization as a means of improving this legislation, namely a cost-price or parity principle, and certain other features which would make the bill of greater value to the farmers of Canada.

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization

Mr. Quelch:

Mr. Chairman, I may say I was somewhat surprised at the outburst of the Minister of Agriculture when he closed the debate. Surely after the number of years he has been in this house-13 years, I think he said-he should be a little less thin skinned than he appears to be, and he should be able to distinguish between what I call constructive criticism and what he referred as personal abuse.

Throughout this debate, during the resolution stage and right through second reading, we in this group have tried to be constructive. We have tried to point out the weaknesses of the bill, and we have made recommendations to improve it. For instance, we have made many suggestions regarding a fair cost-price relationship, and that has been our main disagreement with the bill. During the resolution stage we pointed out there was no mention in the resolution of a fair cost-price relationship, of a parity price, or of the cost of production.

Apparently the Minister of Agriculture did take some heed of the criticism which was levelled against the resolution because when he brought in the bill, a very short time after he had begun to speak he announced that he intended to make a number of amendments; and while it is completely out of order for a minister to talk about amending sections of the bill on second reading, hon. members of this house, realizing that the bill was of such an undesirable character as to make such a step worth while, gave unanimous consent to *those amendments being read and subsequently to having the bill reprinted in order to embody those amendments.

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

In

the hope they would amount to something.

Mr. Quelch:

Yes, hoping they would amount to something. They did amount, perhaps, to a little, but not to very much; therefore we were glad to hear the minister say not long ago that he intended to introduce more amendments.

The first question that comes to mind is why the minister should have waited for second reading before amending his bill. Why did he not amend the bill before it was introduced in the house? The minister has stated that he consulted with farm organizations before the bill was introduced. Surely if he had done that he would have realized from their submissions that the bill in the form in which it was placed before the house was totally inadequate to deal with the distressed condition of agriculture.

When he made these changes he told us he was making them because members of the Conservative party had asked him to do so. If this is correct one might well ask why

members of the Conservative party waited until second reading before asking the minister to change the bill. Why did the members of the Conservative party not ask him to make those changes before the bill was introduced in the house? Does this mean that the members of the Conservative party had not seen the bill before it was introduced in the house?

That is right.

Mr. Quelch:

Some Conservative member says "that is right", and I do not doubt it for a moment. I think that is exactly what happened. Now let me remind the committee of the kind of propaganda which was put out during the election campaign. While that campaign was being carried on the Conservatives said; "Vote for a man who will be a member of a major party so he can sit in on the inner councils and help formulate policy". We always charged that private members very rarely saw a bill before it was introduced, and here we have a declaration by a member of the Conservative party that he and his colleagues had not seen this bill before it was presented. So much for this nonsense about private members helping to formulate government policy.

Even so, when members did realize that the legislation was unsatisfactory they did apparently ask the minister to change it. Any Conservative backbenchers who were not familiar with the situation appreciated, I think, what that situation was after they had listened to the criticism which was directed against the resolution by members of the opposition parties. Having heard that bitter criticism and having discussed the resolution with hon. members of the opposition, they then realized that there were some very undesirable features in the proposed legislation and when the bill was given first reading and they had a chance to see it they realized that the charges which we had made were well founded.

What were some of those charges? The minister had stated that the very basis of the bill was a fair cost-price relationship. I pointed out at the resolution stage that in the whole bill the words "cost-price relationship" were not mentioned once. I pointed out that the word "parity" was not mentioned once; I pointed out that the words "cost of production" were not mentioned once; and if there was that principle in the legislation it existed merely in the mind of the minister and was certainly not embodied in the bill.

I hope at the next election the people will remember well the words of a Conservative member that he and his colleagues had never seen this legislation, so we will not have any more nonsense being talked around the

3750 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization country urging people to elect members of a major party so that backbenchers can sit in on the inner councils and help formulate policy. They have no more to do with the formulation of policy than have members of the opposition. Rather, I would say, members of the opposition are in a far better position to change a bill than are members of the Conservative party, because the Conservative members are afraid to take a too critical attitude toward their own government.

On the other hand, members of the opposition parties are free to express their views as they see fit, and if they can express those views strongly enough they are in a position to get action from the government. Could there be a better demonstration of what I am saying than the present bill; the situation where a minister brings a bill into this house and then, a few minutes after introducing it, tells us he intends to make a number of changes in the measure, four amendments in all.

After that we continued to criticize the legislation, pointing out that even with those changes it was not satisfactory. We point out certain additional changes that are necessary. Then the minister tells us that in the committee he will be making some more amendments. No doubt a number of those amendments will be along the lines we have advocated. I am hoping that by the time we reach the last section of this bill he will have made sufficient amendments to it so we in this group will be able to support it. We would like to be able to support it, but we absolutely refuse to support a bill which in our opinion constitutes a breach of faith on the part of the government.

The Minister of Agriculture has criticized us in this group for advocating a rigid formula. Let me draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture the fact that no member of this group has ever advocated a rigid formula. What we have advocated is a fixed base period, with a flexible application of the parity percentage to that base period, and there is all the difference in the world between those two. Apparently the Minister of Agriculture cannot differentiate between a fixed formula and a fixed base period to which you may apply a flexible application of a percentage of parity.

I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture is as critical of the attitude of this leader as he is of the attitude of the opposition. Let me point out to the Minister of Agriculture that on a number of occasions the Prime Minister of this country has made it absolutely clear to the electors of the country that he stands behind a fixed base period and then a flexible parity based upon that

[Mr. Quelch.l

fixed period. I want to pursue this matter in the committee. I think we are entitled to a statement from the Minister of Agriculture as to whether he agrees with his leader or whether it remains for the opposition in this house to support the Prime Minister whilst the Minister of Agriculture and the rest of the Conservatives oppose the attitude of the Prime Minister.

Let me quote what the Prime Minister said on March 12, 1956, as reported at page 2021 of Hansard:

As far as parity is concerned, it must be related to a basic period which is regarded as one in which prices and costs are in approximate equivalence one to the other.

I know of no better definition of parity than that which appeared in yesterday's New York Times. I have made the necessary changes in the definition to meet the situation in this country. It is as follows:

"Parity prices are the dollars and cents prices that give to farm products the same buying or purchasing power they had in a selected base period when prices received by and prices paid by farmers were regarded as in good balance . . .

It has been put this way: If you can sell a truckload of barley and buy with the money received so much food, clothing, building materials, fertilizer, farm machinery and other living and production items as you could in a chosen favourable period in the past then your barley is selling at a parity price."

That was the definition of parity as applied to a fixed base period. He agreed with that himself, and then he moved this motion:

In the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.

Mr. Tucker:

When was that?

Mr. Quelch:

March 12, 1956. Let me inform the Minister of Agriculture that if the Prime Minister of this country does not have support from the Conservative party for that stand, he has the support of this group. We are 100 per cent behind that. I now ask the Minister of Agriculture to declare whether or not he agrees with the stand taken by the Prime Minister at that time.