Mr. Quelch:

I agree with the former two speakers that this matter should be in order to be discussed at this time. I think that when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) states that the Speaker made a ruling he should be required to read from Hansard where that ruling was made. I was in the house when that matter was brought up. It was at the end of the day, and as I heard it no ruling was made. If there had been an indication a ruling was to be made I would have wanted to have the opportunity to speak on that question because I am firmly convinced that hon. members are within their rights in discussing this question.

The Agricultural Prices Support Act, as it stands today, contains a provision covering oats and barley. This bill proposes to take that right away from the raisers of oats and barley. If this bill proposes to take something away from the farmers which they have a right to expect today, then surely we should be allowed to discuss whether or not that right should be taken away. The position with regard to wheat is similar. This bill definitely states that wheat grown in eastern Canada outside of the designated area can be covered, but wheat grown within the designated area cannot be covered. Surely we have a right then to argue that wheat grown within the designated area should be covered by the bill. I believe, therefore, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is within his rights.

Mr. Quelch:

I do not think the arguments of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) were well taken, Mr. Speaker. I was amazed to hear him suggest that there was any similarity between this amendment and the one we dealt with before recess. The former one asked that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the agriculture committee. The hope was that in that committee we would hear representations from farm organizations. We do not know what their representations might be. They might be entirely different from parity.

This amendment asks for consideration of the principle of parity and therefore the two amendments are quite different. On the other point I would say very definitely this is an amendment which does challenge the principle of the bill introduced by the minister. This one brings in the principle of parity. Our main argument, both in this group and in the C.C.F. group, is that the bill introduced by the minister does not embody the principle of parity prices.

Mr. Quelch:

In reply to what the minister said a few minutes ago, I would point out that when the leader of this group spoke he stated that the bill does not contain the principle of parity. He suggested to the minister three or four amendments that he should make in order that parity might be placed in the bill. We are hoping that the minister,

3718 HOUSE OF

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization when he speaks, will tell us he is going to embody these amendments in the bill. So far he has not moved these amendments, and until such time as he does move these amendments parity is not in the bill.

Mr. Quelch:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the passing of this bill will repeal the Agricultural Prices Support Act and at the present time the Agricultural Prices Support Act does cover oats and barley. It therefore must be in order, surely to discuss the question of payments on oats and barley.

Mr. Quelch:

Can the minister tell us to what countries this aid was given?