July 10, 1931

CON

Frank Boyes

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BOYES:

I should like to add just a

few words to what has been said with regard to corn. Last night the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) spoke on this matter and opposed the duty on corn. I am from the eastern portion of the same county, and I wish to say that I am decidedly in favour of the duty. Our people in the county of Middlesex can raise corn in abundance, and I am sure that they will strongly favour this duty. I believe the farmers of our country should receive protection on a great many commodities, and the duty on corn is one of the ways in which we can protect our farmers to some extent.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
CON

Ernest Edward Perley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

As one of

the members from the eastern part of Saskatchewan I think it is my duty to make just a few observations as to my position with respect to this duty. During the campaign last year one of the issues was the placing of

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

a duty on corn and it met with favour. I have had many letters from my electors and they are very much in favour of the government's action in placing a duty on corn. In the eastern part of Saskatchewan we have been growing more and more barley, and, as the hon. member for Souris said last night, we have great quantities of this grain in storage. [DOT]

As regards the comparative feed value of barley and corn, I do not think it is necessary to say anything further. Statistics have been given, and the hon. member for Souris in his first apeecih made a very good case in favour of barley. At any rate, the difference, if any, is so slight that it is not worth considering. Practical feeding tests have proven that you can get as large a percentage of gain on the average animal with barley as with corn. With respect to the feeding of poultry, a good deal was said in the house last night, and I would direct attention to the evidence given before the committee on agriculture [DOT] on June 9 by Mr. Brown, chief of the poultry division of the Department of Agriculture, in which he stated that eggs from the western provinces had a premium in the Montreal market. He stated further that prairie extras on the Montreal market were a product to be proud of. At the present time hens in the west are not being fed com.

I with to refer to a point that has not yet been discussed in this house with reference to corn. I think hon. members will agree with me that the area in which corn is produced on the North American continent is gradually extending north. I think it was three years ago-the ex-Minidter of Agriculture will bear me out-that we held a corn show in the town of Indian Head. We showed corn that was produced in all parts of the western provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the exhibition proved conclusively that corn grown in the prairie provinces is equal in qualty to any com produced in the states to the south of us. A representative from that com area in the United States attended the show and he said that our corn was of equal quality with any corn grown in the United States. This spring farmers have had inquiries for com grown in the western provinces for seeding purposes in the states south of us as far as Texas.

I venture to say that under normal climatic conditions we can produce a large quantity of good corn in western Canada. It would not take a very great amount of corn to supply even the demand for feeding purposes. Take British Columbia, for instance: two hundred thousand acres of corn would supply

the demand. Under favourable climatic conditions, therefore, that industry could be developed right in our own country so that there would be no need for us to worry about corn coming from other parts of the world.

It has been suggested on the other side that it would be better to have a reduction in freight rates. I think the placing of a duty on corn is a very good argument in favour of an adjustment of domestic freight rates, and it would appear to be necessary. And if the extreme east and west would come in on it, that would be a great argument in support of such an adjustment. I am surprised to observe that many hon. members on the opposite side from the western provinces are quibbling on this question. They are trying to justify their opposition to the duty on corn. When their electors read the speeches they have been making on this question the impression will not be very favourable to them.

I am delighted to note the veiy ready response we have had on this side of the house from the extreme eastern and western members in supporting us with regard to this duty on corn. It is gratifying to see such a splendid spirit of national cooperation among the eastern and western members in this respect, and I am only too pleased to endorse and support the action of the government in placing the duty on corn.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I think we are all agreed that the government is desirous of helping someone, presumably the barley growers. Now, however, we find it is the corn growers whom this duty is intended to help-maybe both. At all events, it will put up the price of com. That is obvious. If you put on a duty of 25 cents a bushel, does anyone suggest that the result will not be an increase in price? I say it will put up the price; it will compel the buyers of corn to pay that much more for this commodity. And that will adversely affect the poultry industry. Now, the question is, what additional price will it require to move barley from western Canada either to the Pacific or down here? It cannot move itself; it will not pay for its carriage. The result is that a good deal of it is still on the farms. Low grade barley will have to be raised from 10 to 12 cents before it can begin to move. Will this duty on corn raise the price of barley 10 cents? If it does not, then the object of this duty will not be realized. You must get the barley to move, and it is not moving because of the low price. A good deal of

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

low grade barley and low grade wheat did not carry itself to Fort William, and the farmer had not only to give the barley away for the freight rate, but he was even billed by the railways for more. He was minus some dollars for freight besides giving away his barley or his wheat. I say, therefore, that this assistance, with all due respect to the Prime Minister in his desire to help the barley growers, will be ineffective unless it extends sufficient help to get the barley moving. And that will take 10 cents a bushel. Again I ask, will a duty of 25 cents on imported corn raise the price of barley 10 cents? I do not believe it will raise it one iota. It may give a market for the best barley, the kind of grain that will carry itself, to the extent of four million or five million bushels if that much corn is shut out by this 25 cents duty. But I do not know whether it will do that. One thing is dead sure, however: it is going to hurt the poultry growers. They will have to cough up more for their corn. To talk about barley being a substitute for corn in the feeding of poultry is absolute nonsense; you cannot get the poultrymen anywhere, in the east or in the west, to support such a contention. Ask the poultry themselves by throwing a mixture of corn, wheat, barley and oats before poultry and see which they will take first. They will take first the corn and next the wheat and then either the oats or barley depending upon which is the better quality. Poultry do not like barley in the whole state. I have a friend in Hamilton who is a manufacturer of high class poultry feeds. I am told by the best authorities that just to the extent that barley is substituted for corn, thus increasing the fibre content of the mixture, there must be added a quantity of hulled oats in order to keep down the fibre content. Not only that, but those mysterious vitamins of which we hear so much are lost. If barley is fed you must make up for the absence of the vitamins by the use of cod liver oil. Hon. members should not laugh at that, because that is the fact. The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) referred to the duck farm at Knowlton. I had the pleasure of visiting this farm and one would think the whole top of the earth was a moving mass of ducks. The primary purpose of a duck is to be eaten. Enough eggs must be laid of course in order to perpetuate the species but the primary object is meat production. A duck is not very particular as to the palatability of its food; it will eat anything and that is one of the reasons why barley is used to the extent it is at the Knowlton farm.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

Charles A. Stewart

Liberal

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

They do

not need cod liver oil.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

William Richard Motherwell

Liberal

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I understand that

for the first three or four years this Knowi-ton farm was a failure because of an insufficient number of ducks. They had to get the quantity up and the cost of feed down, and I believe they have reached that point to-day and for some years past and are making a great success. This is an entirely different thing to feeding hens for egg-laying purposes.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Do I understand correctly that this item includes corn for seed purposes as well as for feed?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

There is a certified or

registered seed item.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Registered seed corn will

come in free. In reply to the statement made by the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Boyes), who referred to the wishes of the farmers of the county of Middlesex in regard to this duty, I would say that he is not as familiar with the wishes of the farmer in regard to a duty on corn as are some of the other representatives from that county. If he had been he would not have made the remark he did. When the agitation was on for the removal of the duty which formerly existed in regard to corn, no one was more anxious that that should succeed than the cattle producer of the county of Middlesex. These men produce perhaps a greater number of fat cattle in the northern and western portions of the county than do the farmers of any other county in Ontario and they were very active in the agitation to have the duty on com removed.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

When was that?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens (Minister of Trade and Commerce)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

It was in 1896.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I think it was shortly

after 1896. It was a great boon to the farmers in that district and to the cattle raisers throughout the whole of Canada.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I must correct the statement I made in connection with certified seed. The practice has been to refund any duty paid by means of an order in council rather than to make the item free. We have endeavoured to develop a seed corn business in this country, but where it becomes necessary or advisable to change the seed a refund of the duty is made.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Looking at the schedules

I see that seed peas and seed beans come in free. I cannot understand why these should be permitted to come in free while a duty is imposed on seed corn.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

I think they are free only under the British preference.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

As I read the changes,

they are free altogether.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

They are free from the

United Kingdom.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB

John Campbell Elliott

Liberal

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I notice some dashes

here, what do they mean?

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

That means that they

are not free under the intermediate and general tariffs.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

The ordinary seed rate,

which I'think is 22i and 25 per cent.

Topic:   WAYS AND MEANS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF RESOLUTIONS
Permalink

July 10, 1931