No. It will not help the
elevator companies either way. Therefore, as the proposal will have the effect of increasing the administrative costs of the board-which come out of the price of the farmers' wheat- without giving any material benefits to the farmers who are most in need of them, we are not able to support the bill.
On the other hand, if the bill was for the purpose of providing approved farm storage against which loans could be made, we would certainly give it further consideration and support it. But that is a much different thing from this bill. This bill merely provides for payment of farm storage which, as I say, has to come out of the price of the wheat. If on the other hand you had a system of approved farm storage so that loans could be made against that wheat, the smaller farmer would be in a position to hold his wheat and get the benefit of the storage.
In the past we have advocated approved farm storage. I think it is a good idea. It is an accomplished fact in the United States, where provision is made for loans which can be made against the wheat held on the farm. I have here "Overseas Report on Agricultural Developments" issued by the economics division, marketing service, United
States department of agriculture, under date of February, 1953. I find that it states as follows:
Wheat which has been inspected and held in sealed storage on a producer's farm is eligible for a loan at the full support price level for the particular quality of the wheat and the particular location of the farm.
Therefore when people say that it would be extemely difficult to provide for a system of approved farm storage, the answer of course is that already in the United States that very thing is being done, and I do not think there is any reason why it could not be done in this country. But that is an entirely different proposal from the one that is before us at the present time. For the reasons I have given we are not prepared to support the measure.
Subtopic: AMENDMENT PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT FOR FARM STORAGE