Mr. Argue:

The minister says that they had a permit. Certainly they had a permit, but the elevators were full and the box cars were down in the United States or had disappeared some other place. There is a whole lot of difference between a permit to deliver and some place to put the grain when the farmer wishes to deliver it. I think the minister should take a lesson from what has happened: in the last 12 months and not make statements that are inaccurate and will be proven inaccurate.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

I am particular from whom I take lessons.

Mr. Argue:

Well, if the minister would take lessons from some members on this side of the house he would not be making the wrong statements he is making almost every time he refers to the grain situation.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

I will make many more statements.

Mr. Argue:

The minister has one answer to the problem. He has a resolution on the order paper whereby the national treasury will make certain payments for the carrying of stocks of grain in excess of 178 million bushels after the first of August of last year. I am glad that resolution is on the order paper. We will certainly support it but it will not meet the situation. As a matter of fact, by itself it will do very little to cope with the situation. I want to say to members of parliament outside the prairie provinces and to others who are already writing in some eastern papers: Do not think that the few millions of dollars that will be spent as a result of the passing of this legislation is something that is a handout to the prairie producers or in fact is something that will be of benefit to the prairie producers only.

The huge mountain of wheat, oats and barley in the prairie provinces that is undelivered, in the farmers' yards, stands as a threat to the agricultural industry from one end of this nation to the other unless something is done about it. The farmers of Ontario have a stake in what is done with the grain of western Canada. The resolution on the order paper now will never convince the prairie farmers that the government means to advance money on the grain and to buy the grain or that the farmers will be able to obtain an income from their year's work. However, it at least gives them some ray of encouragement that maybe after a long, long

The Address-Mr. Argue sleep the government is finally rousing and beginning to view dimly the magnitude of the problem.

If the farmers of western Canada should ever be convinced that they are not going to be able to sell their grain, and decide to feed it to livestock, livestock prices and prices for dairy products across the nation will collapse. They are falling now as a matter of fact because they are already below the selling floor that has been established under pork by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Suppose the prairie farmers should decide to do this. Suppose they should decide to take 10 per cent of the wheat surplus, maybe 100 million bushels of wheat being 10 per cent of the surplus last fall, 50 million bushels of oats, 10 per cent of that surplus, and 33 million bushels of barley, 10 per cent of that surplus, and feed this grain to livestock. If it were put into hogs there would be 1,800 million more pounds of pork produced in Canada this year than have ever been produced before. This is twice as much pork as the total quantity produced in Canada in 1954.

The Minister of Agriculture thinks he has a little trouble now with some surplus butter. He has also had a little surplus pork. But let the farmers on the prairie provinces decide that in order to get some money out of their grain they are going to have to feed it to hogs then the hog market will collapse. With the collapse of the market for pork, the market for beef will also collapse. If the prices of coarse grains collapse there will be an increase in the marketing of cream and butter and then the government's legislation may not be able to stand the strain of the increased quantities of dairy products that will be coming on the market.

Therefore I say that everyone in Canada should be supporting the very small step that is now being taken to deal with this problem. Once again I regret the policy is to pay something only to the elevator companies. Why does the government not start with the farmers? In this situation I believe the farmers are more important than the elevator companies and that if storage is to be paid to the elevator companies as will be the case, then storage should be paid on farm-stored grain. If you were to pay storage to the farmers, as could be done, on their surpluses of grain you should add a further clause to the resolution saying that you would pay storage on any surplus over 47 million bushels of wheat at August 1 which is the average carryover in the last 20-year period. Pay farm storage. It would give some encouragement to farmers to keep their grain on the farms in the expectation that they would be able to sell it instead of having them feed

86 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Argue it to livestock with the most devastating results that are bound to follow.

What is the government doing? Net Canadian exports are now running less than 200 million bushels. The government is doing nothing for the farmers. I attended a great many farm meetings last fall, mass meetings called by farmers' union organizations and others.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

I attended several meetings on the prairies myself.

Mr. Argue:

I have yet to meet one farmer in western Canada, outside Liberal party politicians, who is in favour of the bank loan legislation. The farmers want advance payments. They want advance payments as of right. They want advance payments without interest. They think that after they have spent a year's effort on their farms and have produced a crop they should not have to pay interest on their cash asset.

The farmers of western Canada unanimously support cash advances on farm-stored grain, the very thing embodied in the amendment moved yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). We in the C.C.F. are not recent converts to the proposition that an advance of 75 per cent of the initial price should be paid on farm stored grain. On December 3, 1951, I moved exactly the same resolution in this house in precisely the same terms. If that resolution had been accepted by the government in 1951 and legislation placed on the statute books of the nation, we would not be facing the crisis in western Canada that we are facing at the present time.

What about these guaranteed bank loans? The farmer with thousands of bushels of wheat in his yard has to go cap in hand to the bank as a beggar and plead for a loan. He does not go there with any right to a loan. He does not go there with any right to a loan of even one dollar. What the banker will say to him that morning depends on how the banker feels. As related to me, the general practice the banks of western Canada are following is that first of all they ascertain whether or not the farmer has $3,000 worth of grain on his farm and then they say that half of the value of that grain is $1,500. They then find out if he has sold any grain, flax or anything else. Then they take from the $1,500 the value of the grain he has already sold since the first of August. Then they ask him if he owes any taxes and whether the municipality is collecting those taxes by way of seizure of proceeds at the elevators. They take the value of his unpaid taxes from the $1,500 and in other cases the bankers are

saying to the farmers: "If you are in arrears to the bank already to the extent of $500, we will take that off too."

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

They have no right to do that. They are not doing it.

Mr. Argue:

The minister says they have no right to do that. I say to him that the banker has a right to say no to every farmer who walks into his office under this legislation, because the banker has all the rights and the farmer has none. Even the bankers do not like the legislation either. They think it is poor or loose banking practice for the minister to suggest what in their opinion may not be very good loans. The bankers are not happy about the situation. The elevator agents are not happy about it. The farmers wanted advances through the wheat board and the elevator system. They wanted to go to their elevator agent and to get an advance from the elevator agent and they wanted to get it without interest. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said: "Oh no, you cannot do it that way. After all, the elevator agents are not used to the banking business; . they are not accustomed to making loans; they have not sufficient ability to make loans of this kind". But since the legislation was announced, a few weeks later, I noticed that apparently the elevator agents in western Canada in the meantime had acquired a great deal of ability because they are being held responsible for collecting the loans. From any experience that I have had, it is much easier to lend money than it is to collect it. While not having enough ability to make loans, the elevator agents in western Canada personally are being held responsible for sending the cash tickets to the bank whenever the farmer draws in a load of grain, if he has received one of these bank loans. The farmers in western Canada are unanimously opposed to this kind of legislation. It is wrong in principle. The farmer should not be obliged to pay interest on his own money. It is wrong that he should not be able to obtain some money as of right. Hence I again emphasize the necessity, even at this late date, of the government's bringing in legislation to provide cash advances on farm-stored grain.

The great job ahead is to move the grain finally. We cannot leave it on the farms indefinitely. We cannot leave it in our elevator systems indefinitely. After a number of years its value will deteriorate. No matter who is paying for it, the value of it will be eaten up in storage costs. In some of the annexes on the prairies-and I have seen many of them-there has been definite widespread spoilage. If we are going to maintain the value of our investment, we must

move our grain. The private grain trade- the grain exchange-and all those opposed to the Canadian wheat board are saying to the western farmers: "Drop the price of wheat and it will move". I think that is a fallacy.

I do not think that the dropping of the price of Canadian wheat by 25 cents a bushel or 50 cents a bushel would move any more of it. Perhaps it would not move even a bushel more. Why would it move any more wheat? Our wheat is already being offered at a low price. As a matter of fact, the wheat producers in Canada are now being paid the lowest price for wheat paid to producers anywhere in the world. The United States farmer gets $2.08 a bushel. The Argentine farmer gets $2.72 a bushel. The United Kingdom farmer gets $2.24 a bushel. The farmer in France gets $2.61 a bushel. The farmer in Switzerland gets over $4.00 a bushel, and up to $4.50 is paid to the farmer in Chile. Does anybody think that by dropping the price of Canadian wheat you are going to sell any more of it? If they think that, they are not acquainted with the facts.

What action does the government take? What does it do about the situation? It makes trips to Washington. That is about all it does. It goes down there and says to the United States government: "We do not like your policy; it is a give-away program and gifts are bad. Your program is doing us a great deal of harm". They complain. Yet the United States program is not just a give-away program. It has many other aspects. They accept local currency; they will make barter deals, long-term contracts and so forth. Giving away is only one small part of it. Is the Minister of Trade and Commerce against giving wheat away, I wonder. I do not think so.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

No; not to countries that need gifts of wheat.

Mr. Argue:

He is not even against Canadian wheat being given away.

Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):

No.

Mr. Argue:

The Minister of Trade and Commerce is so much in favour of Canadian wheat being given away that I am sure he was highly pleased in the four years between April, 1948 and March, 1952 when $490,700,000 worth of Canadian bread grains was given away. That was wonderful. Our wheat was being given away at the rate of $122 J million a year and the minister said, "It is wonderful. The Americans are paying for it". When our wheat was being given away under the Marshall plan in that four-year period, what did the government do? "Oh," they said, "we are selling Canadian wheat; you see we have a good Liberal government in Canada that has

The Address-Mr. Argue found markets for Canadian wheat and we are paying you in good hard Canadian dollars". It took all the credit for the United States give-away program which was giving Canadian wheat away and paying for it in United States dollars. Now the United States have decided that they are going to continue some gifts of wheat but when they give wheat away, they are going to give away some of their own wheat instead of going to another nation, buying wheat and giving it away. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce and other members of the government go down to Washington to talk to Mr. Benson and President Eisenhower, they shed gallons of crocodile tears about the United States give-away program, but they were perfectly happy to take credit for the United States give-away program from 1948 to 1952 when they were giving away Canadian wheat and paying for it in United States dollars.

In the present situation in the United States I think the United States policy is sensible.

I think it is the only policy the United States government can follow at this time. Instead of going to Washington and saying to the Americans, "You are doing the wrong thing and you should stop it," I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he should say to them, "With regard to wheat you have a surplus problem and we have a surplus problem. We want to get together to adopt a common policy to solve our mutual problem and we are prepared to adopt even some of the measures that you have adopted since those measures are proving to be successful". These measures include accepting local currency and making barter deals.

The Canadian government has only one policy, namely cash on the line. Most nations in the world have not Canadian dollars; they have not our kind of money. Hence they are unable to buy the wheat we have to sell when we offer them wheat and accept only dollars in return. The other nations of the world are not doing that. The other nations of the world are willing to sell wheat on the various bases to which I have referred. The strange part of it is that these unorthodox methods are working for all the other exporting nations. For the crop year which just ended Canada was the only country of the four major exporting countries of the world that lost exports. Our exports dropped from 255 million bushels to 251 million bushels. United States exports went up from 211 million bushels to 276 million bushels. Argentine exports went up from 110 million bushels to 134 million bushels and Australian exports went up from 63 million bushels to 94 million bushels. That program of accepting local currency, of barter arrangements and gifts, is

88 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Argue working for every other exporting country in the world and is helping them to increase their sales and pay their farmers good prices. Only the Canadian government is sitting back with a dog in the manger policy, unwilling to look at the situation with an open mind, unwilling to make any changes in policy, and rapidly losing Canada's position in the markets of the world. The fact that our sales have dropped and are dropping from 385 million bushels, export, in the year 1952-53, to a rate today running at less than 200 million bushels is appalling and a disgrace. I ask the government to undertake these further measures to see that Canadian sales and Canadian exports of wheat are improved before there is any further deterioration in the markets for Canadian wheat or any further deterioration in the position of agriculture in the west.

The government has a big budget. There is nearly $2 billion budget for defence. Let no one say there is no place to get the money to buy up the necessary surplus grain and send it to the nations of the world who need it. It is still true that two-thirds of the people of the world are undernourished. The food and agriculture organization reports make that statement. I feel we would be doing more to protect democracy, doing more to build good will if we were to concentrate on a program of economic assistance rather than concentrate almost wholly as we are now doing on the building of armaments.

I should like to see a very large program of economic development and economic assistance. I should like to see the Canadian government establish a big fund to help develop the underdeveloped countries.

With our defence budget of $2 billion, with our gross national product running at over $26 billion, I am suggesting that an economic development fund of $1 billion would not be too high and would be a very small price to pay for the beneficial results that would flow in building good will for Canada, good will for democracy, good will for the west and in solving, as it would, the burdensome surplus of agricultural products. This situation is more serious on the prairies than it is in other parts of Canada. I ask the Prime Minister, I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and I ask the other members of^ the cabinet to remember that the people in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are Canadians too and that they should be entitled to the same economic standard of living as that available to Canadians in other provinces.

I ask this government to come to the assistance now of its fellow Canadians in the three prairie provinces. If it does not do

that, agriculture will deteriorate even further on the prairies and it will deteriorate further across Canada. It will be in danger of being crippled, perhaps permanently. I ask this government now, during this session, not to stand idly by any longer while the agricultural industry of this nation is being destroyed.

Mr. J. E. Brown (Brantford):

I should like first of all, Mr. Speaker, to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mrs. Shipley) and the seconder (Mr. Lafiamme) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mrs. Shipley) has already made an excellent contribution to this house in so many respects, and we on this side of the house rejoice very much in having her as one of us. Her long experience in municipal and public affairs before she came to this house has made her a very valued member of parliament and one whose advice and assistance it is a privilege to share. She has an astute and an unusually clear and analytical mind. I am sure that she will make a very great contribution to public life.

The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lafiamme) has already acquitted himself well in his maiden speech. He, too, has shown marked ability. I know he will be a worthy addition to this house and we are very happy to welcome him to this corner of the house.

Some weeks ago I was interviewed by officials of the Y.M. and Y.W.C.A. and the recreational association at Brantford respecting a study of the physical fitness of the young people of Canada. They drew to my attention certain newspaper articles, and articles in magazines, and told me what they knew from their own experience about the apparent rapid decline in physical fitness amongst our youth. I was very much interested, Mr. Speaker, in what these young men told me.

I was sufficiently interested to read a little bit about this subject since I was approached and I decided I ought to bring the matter to the attention of the House of Commons at this time.

Last year a nation-wide survey was conducted by Sports' College which is a non-profit organization devoted to educational services through research to provide information in the fields of sports, health and physical fitness. Sports College discovered that only one in six Canadians has even a minimum of physical fitness. The survey covered a sample group of some 51,000 Canadians from 14 to 50 years of age. It was found that only 13-2 per cent of Canadian males and only 27 [DOT] 2 per cent of females could pass simple tests in physical fitness. Ontario showed the lowest physical fitness standard of any province in Canada, where only 10-3 per cent

passed the test. In British Columbia 34-8 per cent passed; 29-5 per cent in Manitoba and 14-8 per cent in Quebec. Sedentary workers had the lowest physical fitness rate of any vocational group and heavy physical workers the highest. Only 17-8 per cent of executives passed the tests and only 12 per cent of students.

It was found in the survey that the youth of Canada is decidedly unfit. Only 14 per cent passed the minimum tests. Rural people far outclassed city dwellers in fitness levels, and towns and villages were well ahead of the cities. But on the whole out of a total of 51,555 Canadians tested only 8,532 or 16-6 per cent passed the tests.

Now, I understand that by physical fitness is meant functional efficiency or ability adequate to handle daily work and recreational loads without undue fatigue and with sufficient reserve for physical emergencies and special stresses.

Being physically fit means being able to carry on comfortably the normal daily activities of life, with a reserve for any emergency that might arise and to be able to recuperate without undue effort.

For many reasons I feel that I am one of the last members in this house who should raise this matter, perhaps because of previous lack of knowledge of the subject on my part. Mr. Speaker, never having known what it was to be underweight at all, perhaps I should not embark on a subject of this kind. But just as a man who occasionally drinks too much might possibly be a good temperance lecturer, I decided to brave speaking on this particular subject.

The reason for our low standard of physical fitness is, of course, our high standard of living. The very same situation that exists in Canada today exists in the United States, and I imagine that their figures might be even a little worse than ours. They have alarmed the President of the United States, and before he was taken ill with this unfortunate heart attack he had called a meeting at Denver of recreational groups throughout the United States to advise him as to what to do to stem the tide of physical unfitness. However, my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, are nevertheless wholly confined to Canada.

The relatively poor showing made by Canadians at the British Empire games at Vancouver in the summer of 1954 served to focus attention on the state of physical fitness in Canada. I am told that many of our contestants at running, swimming and jumping were unable to finish the course and were among the first to give up. To contest

The Address-Mr. J. E. Brown successfully in these sports requires endurance and stamina to a marked degree, and endurance and stamina in persons are developed by physical fitness.

Physical fitness tests made in Europe show that European people are far ahead of Canadians. In tests made there only 8-7 per cent of European youngsters failed. In certain strength tests made in the United States 35-7 per cent of the children failed, but only 1 [DOT] 1 per cent of European youngsters failed in the same tests. In Austria and Switzerland, only -5 per cent of the youngsters failed. I am satisfied that European nations have Canada badly beaten in the matter of physical fitness.

The local recreational leaders of Brantford emphasized to me that there was no over-all policy or leadership in the field of physical fitness. Individual athletic groups can work only among their own organizations, and I was told there was no over-all leadership and no over-all direction. In the past in Canada boys obtained sufficient exercise at home doing the chores, but in the mechanized age in which we live they do not get this type of exercise. The only exercise that they receive is exercise under supervision. As I see it, the problem is going to get worse instead of better in all age groups, particularly as the need for constructive use of leisure time becomes more and more important. The recreational directors federation of Ontario suggested a royal commission should investigate the state of physical fitness in Canada and the constructive use of leisure time. It was thought that a royal commission would take a broad view of the subject rather than look at the situation from the particular point of view of any sport. It might be well worth while for the government to consider such a matter.

I know that the government, and particularly the Department of National Health and Welfare, is not unaware of this situation regarding physical fitness. I have read the excellent speech of the parliamentary assistant to the minister which was made at the time of the British Empire games. In that speech he referred to many of the points which I have mentioned this morning.

Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker:

If I appear to be reluctant to grant the hon. member's request it is because we all realize that in a debate where a time limit has been placed, we must save every minute.

At one o'clock the house took recess.

The Address-Mr. J. E. Brown

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Brown (Brantford):

Mr. Speaker,

before the one o'clock adjournment I was drawing the attention of hon. members to the state of physical fitness of the Canadian people, in particular the young people of Canada. I had given to the house some figures and statistics published in sports magazines and elsewhere which showed a surprising decline in the state of physical fitness among Canadians. These statistics show that we have a situation where one-sixth of the Canadian people only are what could be called physically fit.

I pointed out that fortunately one does not have to be an athlete to be physically fit but merely able' to discharge the normal daily activities which are the lot of the average Canadian with a certain reserve for emergencies and special effort. It was found that Canadians sadly lagged behind the European nations in this regard, a situation which should not exist at all.

This is an Olympic year and I wonder how Canada will do at the Olympic games. I read the other day that Russia has four million men in training from which will be selected the teams to contest the Olympic games. Of course this is done to show the world what can be done by communism. Therefore physical fitness is an important matter, I believe a vitally important matter when one remembers the number of rejects for military service at the time of the last war on the ground of physical unfitness. I wonder what would be the number of rejects in a similar emergency today. Not only is this a matter of health, I believe it is also a matter of national defence and is truly a part of our fight for democracy.

That is why I believe that physical fitness is more than a provincial matter. Undoubtedly it is a provincial matter, but I believe it is also a national issue. No one regrets more than I that the National Physical Fitness Act was repealed last year in this house, apparently without protest. I take my full share of the blame for giving the impression abroad that we members of parliament were not interested. As a matter of fact I hope that some day we will have a new act because I believe this house is composed of members who are most interested. I believe that our Department of National Health and Welfare, headed by its outstanding minister, will take another look at the subject of physical fitness in Canada. If the figures which I have given today are correct, then I think we are faced with a rather disgraceful situation.

I do not think for one moment that the government will stand idly by; certainly the

Department of National Health and Welfare will not stand idly by, nor will the members of this house stand idly by and allow the communist countries to train their youth in the way that they are or that they say they are, to be supermen, and then have us preside over what sports editors are calling a nation of jellyfish. I do not think that that situation will be permitted at all.

Before closing my remarks in English, and while on the subject of health in general, may I say also that many Liberal members of parliament are looking forward to federal participation in some sort of national health insurance scheme. Of course health insurance is also a provincial matter, but its standardization across the country needs the participation of the federal government and the federal parliament. We wish the dominion-provincial conference opening on January 23 every success. I am happy to note that the federal-provincial conference of October of last year set up a committee composed of ministers from all the governments in Canada to consider a health insurance program and that the work of the committee is well under way. Not only the people of Brantford but the people of Canada await the day when all Canadians will benefit from this long-anticipated social measure, to which I believe everyone will be willing to contribute.

Before resuming my seat I should like to say a few words in the beautiful language of my French-speaking colleagues with whom it is a great privilege to speak in this house.

(Translation):

Mr. Speaker, many of us who come from areas of Canada where English is the only language spoken look for a chance at least to try using the other official language of the country which is spoken by so many eminent members of this house. A vast majority of the population of Brantford speaks English, but I should not like to miss this opportunity of extending the regards of my constituents to their fellow citizens of the various parts of French-speaking Canada.

Some years ago, there were hardly any families in Brantford who knew French. At that time, my wife and I were meeting with a very small group of persons interested in learning that language. The group held no regular meetings but got together in the homes of the various members and spent charming and memorable evenings.

Today, the situation is entirely different. There are in Brantford quite a number of families that speak French and often we hear that language spoken on the street.

However, the greatest change occurred among the English-speaking people of Brantford. Over the last few years an impressive number of our people have shown a deep interest in the French language. My wife is a member of the university women's club. This club has a French conversation group which meets every Wednesday evening at the home of one of its many members. Meetings have even been held in my own home. At each of these meetings these ladies speak nothing but French. They read French books, carry on discussions in French and study the language with the competent assistance of a French teacher. All have become quite versed in French as they could well prove if they were allowed to speak in this house.

There are evening classes in French at the Collegiate Institute. These courses are naturally followed by adults. They are very successful and a large number of young and old people attend them.

What a change! I am told that what is happening in Brantford is happening throughout Ontario. That is a new and splendid development. It will contribute mightily to national unity. Still, as far as I have been able to see, the French and English-speaking people of this country have always been remarkably united. This new development, this new interest in the French language, will greatly assist us, I am sure, in understanding each other better than at any time throughout our long and happy history of common life in Canada.

(Text):

Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, first may I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Then may I turn my attention to what unquestionably is, in my opinion, one of the greatest problems confronting the Canadian nation at the present time, namely, the question of surplus wheat, which has already been dealt with most ably by several speakers who have preceded me.

In my opinion and, I believe, in the opinion of practically everyone in my constituency, the government's wheat policy is regrettably inadequate. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture ought to be downright ashamed of themselves for inflicting upon the splendid wheat growing communities of Canada treatment the like of which is not to be found in any other nation in the world today. Every other nation that even pretends to be enlightened indicates at least elementary knowledge of how to appreciate its wheat growers.

Take, for example, France. Last year France exported about 92 million bushels of

The Address-Mr. Blackmore wheat. On every bushel of it she paid about $1.30 a bushel as an export subsidy, which means that that wheat went on the world's markets at $1.30 a bushel cheaper than it would otherwise have gone on the markets. That is a most serious matter. That French wheat was soft wheat at that, while the Canadian wheat in the main is the finest wheat produced on the globe.

Take the United States. At about the end of November 1955 a farmer near Bismarck, North Dakota, raising 5,000 bushels of No. 1 northern wheat on 250 acres could obtain on every bushel of his entire crop, stored right on his farm, a government loan of $2.10 a bushel, receiving $10,500 for his 5,000 bushel crop. When that loan matures, he will be free to let the wheat go to the government as full repayment of the loan. Contrast that with the contemptible thing that was offered to the Canadian farmers-

Mr. Siuder:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Blackmore:

Yes.

Mr. Sluder:

What commitments did that farmer at Bismarck have to make before he was eligible for the loan? He had to vote for and agree to a reduction in acreage. Is that what the hon. member recommends?