nuance i9. 1m A

Interests of Canadian Bacon Producers Ignored Under Reciprocity Treat

Reduction of 3_ 1-4 centslDuty on- U. S. Bacon Exports; .To Canada, Made Without Compensating Advan- tages To Home Producers, May Have Serious Results on- Industry in This Country, and on Our

' Export Bacon- Trade With Great Britain.

(Prince Edward Island. as the only bacon 0111031118 Province in tho Maritimee. is Particularly in- terested. in the sweeping conces- sions given by the King Govem- xnent in ithe Reciprocity Treaty signed by Premier King at Wash- ington. The following excerpts from Hansard of March 1i, oi the debate in the House of Commons on this subject, indicate the results that may be expected to follow from the adoption. of the schedule in ques- tion.)

On schedule I: Customs tariff- 10. Meats, prepared or preserved, other than canned: (b) n.op., 3 cents per pound -

Mr. Bennett: May I ask the minister what is the rate on sim- ilar- goods, meats, prepared or pre- served, other than canned, enter- ing the United States? We have heard a good dcai oi talk about reciprocal arrangements. and, I just want to know what the duty in the United States is aitcr this SgLQCTTTCHD comes into force.

m. Dunning: The United States rates on this item are not entirely comparable, but so far as it can be traced the meat item in the United States tariii reads: "Meats, boom. hams. shoulders. et caters, 31.4 cents per pound: prepared or preserved, n.o.p. 8 cents per pound."

Mr. Barnett: Meats. preserved or prepared. would be the compar- able item with the United States one on which the duty is six cents. I would think. I

Mr. Dunning: Yes.

Mr. Rowe (Duffsrin): In other words, do I understand that meats, prepared or preserved. other than canned. pay six cents going into the United States and three cents coming into Canada?

Mr. Dunning: The nop. item in the American terlfl’ is six cents, yes, and it is comparable with our item l0 (b).

Mr. Bennett: which is the item in question. How much was our duty reduced in that cue on Unit- ed States goods coming into Canada?

Mr. Dunning: From six to three cents.

Mr. Bennett: And their duty was left the same, at six cents.

Mr. Dunning: 0f course, this is entirely incidental to the granting oi the intermediate tariff. The United States immediately gels the benefit of our intermediate tarifl. which is three cents, whereas the general tariff is six cents.

Mr. Rowe (Dufierin): But the ultimate outcome of the agreement so iar as meats are concerned, is that our meats pay alx cents go- lhs into the United states, and their meats pay lbree cents coming into Canada.

Mr. Bennett: The minister has not quite stated the full effect oi the agreement. During the cur- rency of this agreement any meats. prepared or preserved. other than canned, that we desire to ship to the United States are subject in a duty of six cents at the present moment. They may reduce their rile. bi we canont increase our rate from three cents. ‘llhat is a sort way lo put the matter.

Mr. Dunning‘: is right.

O

Mr. Senm- In i990 we imported. oi meats oi all kinds under this category, something like 14000000 Pounds. That. was before the Haw- ley-Srnoct tarli! came into eifect and before the tarii! changes in Canada became siiective- Since that time these importstions have been dwindling until last year they were the lowest in the history o! i116 country. The danger is now that

Ill-in- In i980 we imported 11,000,- 999 Pounds o; pork in brine and there 1s Irave danger that the same thing will happen again under this arrangement.

Mr. Dunning: Ii I can comiort. my hon. friends a little, I would point out that the rates under which the importatlons to which he refers took place were lower than the rate provided under this agreement.

Mr. Bennett: The Score of Agriculture for the United States whatever he may have meant, said that under this agreement the Unit. ed States would send into Canada Increased quantities oi pork. He made that statement at. a public 1119811118 in Chicago and I read it into the records of the house. What it means I do nOt know, but that; is his statement for what it worth.

Mr. Benn: I made suerror in my computation .It was in pork alone of difierent kinds that there were importationa of 14,000,000 pounds in 1930. and if that is computed on the basis oi hogs. it would re- quire at least 100,000 hogs to make that quantity oi pork, so tlhat the figures are worse than they ap- peared at first.

Mr. Deachmsrfs Argument

Mr. Deachman: r several years we imported from he United States certain classifications o: thick fat hogs whch were used and appre- ciatcd, I understand. in the min- ing camps and in the lumber woods of Canada; and because oi the importation of that product, which we brought in at a lower price, we were able to make a cor- respoding increase in the export oi high grade bacon to Great Britain. Ii we choose to use American pork and like it, and can by importing that pork sell our own product which brings a higher price in the markets of the world. I as a Scotch- man see no reason why this should not be done.

Mr. Rowe (Dufferin): Then we are to understand that it is the policy oi the government to bring in through the back door a fat coarse type oi port while we ecnd out o! the iront door‘ pork of a better quality? i

Mr. Deachman: would not my hon. friend do that if he had an opportunity?

Mr. Rowe (Duiierin): I would propoae a policy to produce the pork at home.

Mr. Deacbman: Ewen the coarse fat stuff?

Mr. Rowe (Duiierln): That is our trouble; we produce too much coarse fat stuff now. I have not the figures before me, but is it not a fact that the duty has been re- duced 0n bacon. harrzs and should- ers from five to l 3-4 cents per pound under this agreement?

Mr. Dunning: That is not in the schedule.

m. Rpwo (Dufferln): In the in- termediate tariri’?

Mr. Dunning: Yes, that is cor- rect.

Enormous UJ. s ‘uctlon Mr. Rowe (Duffel-in): ‘in the agreement with the United States we have reduced the duty on bacon, hams and shoulders. import- ed from the United states. from live to one and three-quarter cents per pound. Ii; has been ad- mittcd by some hon. members, by the Minister oi Finance himself. that this agreement has been nego- tiated at the expense oi the indust- rial llic oi Canada. and the Prime

t-hea-e will be a steady increase

Minister has emphasised its con-

i!

WATCH lmrs SPACE . TOMORROW A. Powerful, llomantlc Story for THE GUARDIAN Ali’ i .LADY_ MEL OD Y

BY ARTHUR HARDY lduthor of “The Merry Masquerade." def

Begins Next Week’. love‘: llualc‘: Broadcasting: Dfllll

tributiori to agriculture. I would ask hon. members whether they can find in the agreement any great advantage for the fanners, foheolfllly the bacon p1‘ ‘users, oi Canada, in view of the possible in- crease in production encouraged by the lute EOl/ornment and still en- couraged by the Department oi Agriculture, seeing that those pro- ducers hava nowto face the com- petition o! the united‘ States, in which production is being increas- ed by thousands and thousands. In- deed, production is being more”. ed there by between 4,000,000 and 5.000000 extra brood sows. The United States destroyed more hogs three years ago than we produced at that time, and now the duly is being lowered three and one-quart- er cents per pound on the product,

is with falling prices. It is no wonder

that prices are cheaper for cattle and hogs today than before the "lilo llrecment ocmo into effect; nor is it any wonder chat the farm- ers are alarmed, in view oi the un- certainties of the situation, gt tho effect the agreement is going to have ln every stookyard from coast to coast. if there is one glaring example of the serious eflect oi the agreement, It is in this reduction

cents on pork coming into Canada, when we have been struggling for an export market. Lf the govern- ment has not yet done so, it should consider now the effect oi this agreement on the renewal oi the Imperial agreement. As the leader oi the opposition has said, Secret- ary Wallace o1 the United States. if he has not alarmed this govern- ment, has at any rate alarmed the hon. Mr. Elliot of the British gov- ernment, who foreseeb dimculties in connection with the renewal of the imperial trade Bcreement with Canada. It is true that we have not provided our iuli quota under the imperial agreement, but it does appoartomclobeveryunaound business to reduce the rate by three and one-quarte- cents on bacon. heavy bacon or whatever type of pork you like, while we are strug- gling to find a market for our good bacon.”

Mr. Dunnlngs Argument

from five to,one and three-quarter s‘

ans CHARLOTTETOWN

protection can givc rise to in order-l to try tobolster upanold dis-

credited policy that baa been in- eiiect in this country for some. time. Imagine. Mr. chairman. any~ man standing in his place in this house and tolling us today that the‘ United States are commencing to

pzoducebogs icralltheyare worth;

An hon. mom . Are they not?! M3‘. Ross (Moose Jaw): --throw- ing them on the market. and the Canadian farmers’ market. And he birlngs up along withthattheidcathatayearor two ago many millions oi hogs were slaughtered in. the United States. Mr. Rowe (Dufierln): S0 they were. . ' Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): Why did they not put them 0n the world m ‘ ‘ in competition with Can- adian hogs at that time? Mr. Rowe (Duiferin): Because we a tarli! against than. Bo- tbe present leader of the op- on raked the tarlfl to Pro- . Ross (Moose Jaw): Thcn didtheynotputthemonthc rid market? Mr. Rowe (Duifcrin): Became we had the Imperial trade agreements, which the hon. membu": party op;

gésiiz

asac

Mr. Rowe (Dufferin): I may say that when our party was in power, had we reduced the tardf! at that time three and s. quarter cents. as the government now proposes to do, the hog producers oi Canada would hive taken for. olflitcen months three and a quarter dol- lars a hundred less (or their bogs than they dld.

Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): 'l‘hst would be less than nothing. Mr. Rowe (Duiierin): We en-

joyed in eastern Canada, and. cer- tainly western Canada enjoyed, practically double the price the United States iarmer got for his hogs. because there was in force in this country a. tarifl’ oi five cents. which today ls being reduced to one and trues-quarter cents when the United States was slaughtering hogs for which they could get. less than halt what the Canadian pro- ducer obta.ined- We received $8.75 per hundred pounds ior hogs in the city oi Toronto when the American producer was receiving

25. Mr. Ra's (Moose Jaw): when was that

Mr. Bennett: 1932.

Mr. Rowe (Duiferin): Every hon. member knows that. And when my hon. friend argues that protection is c. myth. may I remind him that even though he opposed the late government. he cannot III-B! "l" during those years the farmers oi’ Canada received over 830300.009 more for their hogs. than. they would ‘have received had we had the competition that he annealed here today. I do not think it is 811i’ myth so far as the farmers are mncemed when they benefited to extent of $36,000,000 I- m!" the protection which the late gov- ernment maintained, and which l! now being wiped oii’.

l U U

British Bacon Trade Mr. Benentt: But it arises out of

his ‘mtcnnesisie tariff b61118 given- "1 do 110i; propose to traverse the

Mr. Dunning: Herhaps lit will comfort my hon. friend, who ap- parently sees at the border line quantities of meat waiting to tum- ble into Canada, when I tell him that the figures for January, which are the latest available, indicate that we imported, oi all meats. $10,000 worth in January. 1936 and only 37,000 worth in January. 1936. I do not think either figure is suflicient cause for the great alarm expressed by the hon. gentle- man.

Mr. Rowe (Duiferin): I do not want to delay the committee, nor do I want lo bore the minister with my alarms, but. may I point out that you cannot produce bacon in a month.

Mr. Dunning: This is not- bacon; this is all meat.

Mr. Rowe (Duffel-in): well, you cannot produce meat in a month. Mr. Dunning: The farmers have been waiting to produce it, have they?

Mr. Rowe (Dllfferin): ‘Iii-a min- ister knows, because he was at one time a farmer, and he is now fram- ing the farmers with an agreement like this. Everyone knows that the year before last the United States destroyed more hogs than Canada produced ior the market, and since their prices for bacon and meats have started to rise they have turned now almost as strongly the other way andlare planning for a greatly Increased production. We have enjoyed higher prices in Can- ada cvery_ year, duo to the Imperial trade asrcementa. We have had the most stabilized price icr bacon since confederation. ‘ those trade 15a merits, and while we have not provided the iuli quota yet ,the effect has already been felt in the ctockysrds. Ask the stockmen who sell in the 'I‘0r- ontc stockyards about the effect already, oi the American trade agreement, and the uncertainty it has created. i only wish to point out that probably by this time next car matter-s will be serious. because the Minister of Finance and every other man who has aver farmed or produced any hogs knows very well that, you can pro- duce bacon Vdgfi rapidly; in fact, the former Mi icr oi Agriculture from this side oi the House was twittod my often by the ex-Min- ister oi Agriculture from the other aide with. encouraging increased ,.. ‘uction oi bacon. For ‘two or three years we have been encour- aging increased production in Canada, and the result has been felt here. and will be felt in the United States. I regard this as one of the moat unfah parts oi the agreement. I lhloh we were entit- ledtos, ‘ radustlenthanwe have recslvsdlnrsspactoiourbacon going in to the United Slates, at each timsa as we might have it to market theta.

Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw): Listeninl lo the hon. gentlamims remarks in mo to thll item makes one