February 22, 1932

ST. SULPICE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL (for Mr. Seguin):

For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, letters, recommendations, sworn statements and other documents, including the evidence taken at the inquiry in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at St. Sulpice, and the appointment of his successor.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   ST. SULPICE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP
Permalink

CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY

CON

James Beck Swanston

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. B. SWANSTON (Maple Creek) moved:

That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government of the Dominion of Canada place a duty on raw wool that would reasonably protect the Canadian wool growers.

He said: In submitting this resolution to

the house for discussion I wish to make a few observations with reference to the situation as it exists in the province of Saskatchewan and, I may add, throughout the whole of Canada. For many years the wool growers of Canada have devoted considerable effort to the improvement of wool and in doing so they have developed an excellent type of wool-producing sheep; but when there is a marked decline in the price of wool the wool growers naturally turn their attention to the medium wool-mutton breeds, with the result that the best wool-producing sheep are somewhat neglected. I hope the time will never come when the Canadian sheep grower will be compelled to ignore the development of the best wool-growing sheep.

Wool is one of the principal articles of commerce and next to cotton is the product most extensively used in the manufacture of cloth, felt and fabric. The sheep is valuable both for its wool and for its meat, and is one of the most productive animals on the farm. A sheep can live on the prairies or on

hills where it is impossible for horses or cattle to exist, and perhaps there is not a country in the world with climatic conditions and pastures more suitable to sheep than in a portion of southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. Still, with these advantages, the wool-growing industry has been neglected because we have failed to place a duty on raw wool as asked for by the wool growers of western Canada. The dusty that was formerly levied on wool was taken off by the late government in section 549 of the tariff, which was enacted on February 17, 1928, the commodity being thus placed on the free list. Some assistance was given the wool growers at the last session of parliament by increasing the duty on mutton, but raw -wool was still left unprotected. Wool in the grease, scoured wool, noils and tops are admitted duty free, and the Canadian grower has therefore to compete in Canada with the wool growers of other countries, and with countries where wool can be produced much cheaper than in Canada.

Pressure of imported wool has prevented the development of the earlier processing industry in Canada in regard to carding, scouring and spinning, thus forcing the Canadian grower out of his own home market. The woollen trade-that is, with respect to the various processes from the yarn to the finished article-has received reasonable protection but no protection has been accorded with respect to the processes from the raw wool to the yarn, and as a result the manufacturing industries have purchased too much of their requirements from other countries. The Canadian grower in consequence is obliged to find a market in other countries. This seems to me to be very unfair to the Canadian wool grower as he has to carry the extra cost of freight, handling and selling charges in the foreign markets, while at the same time having to accept practically the same net returns as for wool sold in Canada.

When we produce only about one-third of the amount of wool needed by the manufacturers in this country, it would seem only reasonable that the home market should absorb every pound of Canadian wool. While the entire consumption of wool in Canada is in the neighbourhood of eighty million pounds, and the total production approximates twenty million pounds, it may be true that for a time the Canadian wool grower will not be able to fill all the requirements of the Canadian market; but if given adequate protection to secure the home market, and with better prices, the industry will be stimulated. There would be a great increase in the number of sheep and in a very short time

Canadian Wool Industry

the Canadian wool grower would be producing enough of the raw wool to supply the entire need of this dominion.

Owing to the fact that no attempt has been made to develop the industry of top making, the larger number of Canadian manufacturers start their operations from the tops, which are purchased by them wherever they can be found. There is nothing in the quality of Canadian wool to prohibit its use in Canada, nor is there any lack of quality which makes it necessary to import outside wool. It would appear that some of the troubles of the Canadian wool growers arise from the fact that no great effort has been made in Canada, as has been made in the United States, to develop the processes of wool from the fleece stage up to the tops. As a result, Canadian wool has to be exported in the raw state in order to find a market where the processing is carried out. Last year, western wool brought from 4 to 6 cents per pound while across the border, in the state of Montana, wool was bringing from 15 to 18 cents per pound. In order to remedy this condition the wool growers of Canada are desirous of having an adequate tariff placed upon foreign wool and to apply from the top stage down to the raw wool. The suggested duty is 34 cents per pound on raw wool, based upon the scoured, clean content, with graded protection from that point upwards. This application is supported by the Canadian Cooperative Wool Growers' Limited, with branches in both eastern and western Canada, by the Stock Growers' Association and by the Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta. This latter association passed a resolution to this effect at a meeting held on January 26, 1932, at which was represented over 900 sheep breeders, the owners of approximately 300,000 sheep. At a meeting of the Southern Saskatchewan Wool Growers' Association, representing over 125 breeders of sheep, the owners of approximately 50,000 breeding sheep, held at Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, on February 8, 1932, the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas: (a) The sheep raising industry in the western provinces as a commercial undertaking, with wool and mutton as its only source of revenue, is facing extinction unless its revenues can be increased.

(b) Any forced liquidation under the present existing prices and financial conditions would mean ruin to the present owners, and only the few with substantial capital resources will be able to postpone this much longer.

(c) The present purchasing power of the meat-consuming public has been materially reduced which, with depreciated currencies in foreign countries (the sources of our competing imports) will probably defer material improvement in mutton prices.

(d) In a general field of agriculture, sheep raising is one branch with room for expansion providing the Canadian home market for wool and mutton can be retained to the grower at anything over costs of production has an important place.

(1) On the western ranges, in making productive what may be termed semi-arid areas, and providing a regular supply of breeding stock for the farms, lambs for fall and winter finishing, as well as markets for feed to the farmers in the near districts, and

(2) On the farms, in fitting in with a better balanced scheme of mixed farming, and providing returns for a quantity of otherwise unsaleable home grown fodder, and for unused pastures, both these branches of the industry are well worth preserving, and, if possible, enlarging.

(e) In the markets of the LTnited States the range wools of the state of Montana and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have always been recognized as being similar in type and command the same prices in those markets.

1931 western wools were bringing to the growers from four to six cents per pound, whereas in Montana, U.S.A.. similar types and quantities returned from fifteen to eighteen cents per pound; therefore, there can be no reason for the wide difference betwen the Montana prices and those in Alberta and Saskatchewan than the protection afforded the Montana wool growers because of their import tariff on wool.

We cannot but believe that the enforcement of an import tariff on wools, sufficient to protect the Canadian producer in his home market, would have the same effect of improving prices to the Canadian grower.

(f) With the home consumption in Canada far exceeding production of similar types and grades of wool as are grown in the dominion, and with Europe being the only export market left to us, it appears unfair and unjust that the producer should have to shoulder the added cost of freight handling and selling in that market (as well as having to accept practically the same net returns for wool sold in Canada) when there should be a ready demand for all his products in the home consuming market.

(g) In the revision of the tariff at the session of parliament, September, 1930, all manufacturers of wool from the finished product to the yarn stage received substantial increases leaving out wool in the grease, scoured wools, tops, and noils as well as all forms of waste, resulting in the Canadian producer being unable to market his product in his own country, demonstrating clearly the fact that only substantial import tariff can improve existing conditions.

Therefore be it resolved: That we strongly urge upon the government of the Dominion of Canada that a tariff be placed on raw wool that will adequately protect the Canadian wool growers, and it is respectfully suggested that this should not be less than 34 cents per pound, general tariff, based on the scoured clean content.

To make a tariff on raw wools effective, we understand that it will be necessary to include

Canadian Wool Industry

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

John Smith Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. S. STEWART (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, it is with some satisfaction that I rise to second the motion of the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston)-satisfaction in that I know it will meet with the approval of the people of the riding which I have the honour to represent, and the vast majority of the people in that riding will endorse this resolution; satisfaction in that it gives me an opportunity to carry out a preelection promise to the electors of the Lethbridge riding that if elected we would support any resolution-and I think this one meets the case-and any legislation that had for its object the keeping of the home markets for the primary producers of this country; satisfaction in that it gives me an opportunity to tell the house about the situation that confronts many of the people who live in the Lethbridge riding, their difficulties and the economic conditions in which they find themselves. Lethbridge is a constituency that lies immediately north of the United States boundary, runs for sixty miles straight north from Montana, and extends 120 miles from the southwest corner to the northeast comer. Its grasses, climate and lands make it a very fine country for the sheep rancher who has prospered in the years gone by. In this constituency there are men who for twenty to thirty years have been engaged in the sheep ranching business.

As the hon. member for Maple Creek has stated, we have in Canada a little over 3,750,000 sheep. In Alberta we have some 520,000 sheep, or about one-seventh of the sheep population of the dominion. We have centering around Lethbridge, many men who are engaged in the sheep ranching business. There are farmers who have herds of twenty or more; there are ranchers who have herds running from fifty to as high as hundreds or even thousands, with about 3,000 as the highest number on our fine range lands. These men have banded themselves together into the Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders' Association which sells cooperatively, through the wool growers' cooperative body in Toronto, over 1,000,000 pounds of wool each year. These men have also associated with them independent growers who with the membership of the association number in all 900 farmers and ranchers and control

300,000 sheep, or about one-twelfth of the sheep population of the dominion. They also produce one-twelfth of the wool of this country. In the years 1920, 1921 and 1922 some of these sheep ranchers were rated as millionaires. They made a considerable amount of money during the war both from their wool and their mutton, but to-day we find that their equity is almost all gone, and unless some assistance is given, it will be only the very well-to-do who will be able to carry on much longer.

How has that come about? It is because of the very short-sighted policies of our hon. friends opposite, through lack of a policy of protection and by reason of the treaties they have made with other countries. The Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta holds frequent meetings, to which I have been invited since the election of 1930. It has been my privilege to attend their executive meetings where the bankers sit in with the sheep breeders, and where one acquires an intimate knowledge of the conditions, economic and otherwise, surrounding this industry. I think, therefore, that I am in a position to say with

Canadian Wool Industry

some confidence that I have a fair understanding of the difficulties under which the sheep ranchers of southern Alberta are operating at the present time. I am also firmly convinced that they are only right and just in urging this government to give them some protection on the production of their wool because if they do not get some assistance it will not be long before most of them will be put out of business, and there will come to an end the sheep ranching industry which has flourished in southern Alberta for more than thirty-five years. Here is a statement which they gave me just before I left home, which describes the conditions under which they are working. They say:

The sheep raising industry in the western provinces as a commercial undertaking, with wool and mutton as the only sources of its revenue, is facing extinction unless its revenues can be increased.

Besides attending the private meetings of the Sheep Breeders' Association it has also been my privilege to be present at their public meetings. They have held two since the election of 1930, one last year in February in the town of Magrath, and one on January 26 of this year, immediately before I left Lethbridge to attend the session here. At these meetings there were not present any manufacturers. The meetings were composed wholly and solely of men engaged in the sheep ranching business, and these men had arrived at the conclusion that if it was a good thing for the manufacturers to have a tariff, it was time that the sheep ranchers were accorded the same rights and privileges. One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I am here to represent the Lethbridge constituency as a Conservative, after twenty years' representation in this house by members of other parties, ten years by representation of the Liberal party and ten years by representation from the United Farmers party of Alberta, is because of conditions surrounding the sheep industry at the present time and during the last election -conditions which, as I said before were chiefly brought about through a lack of protection and through the unfair and unwise treaties which this countiy entered into with other countries.

It might not be amiss for me to indicate just what influence the sheep and wool business in southern Alberta had on the elections there in 1930. We had in the Lethbridge constituency, which I have the honour to represent, three candidates, one representing the Liberal party, one the United Farmers of Alberta, and myself as the Conservative candidate. The candidate of the United Farmers

of Alberta, before he would accept the nomination, stated .publicly at the convention, that so far as he was concerned he believed in protection for the primary producers of Canada, and that if elected to parliament his policy would be protection for his hay to enable him to transport his hay from the province of Alberta into the neighbouring province of British Columbia, which market was being supplied by hay from the United States. He said that if he got such protection for his hay it would only be fair and right that his fellow-farmer in British Columbia who was raising fruit should get protection for his apples, and that he himself should be forced to buy the 'apples from his fellow-farmer in British Columbia. When that statement was made our local paper-and we have a very good daily in Lethbridge-sent out an

S.O.S. call to the electors of the riding, calling upon all those who believed in low tariffs to unite against the common enemy. It said that a vote for the United Farmers of Alberta candidate meant a vote for protection, and that a vote for the Conservative candidate meant a vote for protection, while a vote for the Liberal candidate meant a vote for low tariff. It was my privilege to visit some of the towns in the riding. I visited Magrath, which is known as the garden city of southern Alberta. The population there is made up of those who are engaged in farming, and many of the people there are interested financially and otherwise in the Sheep-raising industry. We have there the farmer with his twenty head of sheep, and we have the large sheep rancher with over two thousand head of sheep. In talking public matters over with them at public meetings I found that right there in the heart of the sheep-ranching country, which raises some of the prize sheep of the whole dominion, their neighbours were buying frozen mutton sent in from some other country. Then I went to the town of Raymond, ten or twelve miles away, and in conversation with a business man engaged in the sheep-ranching industry I asked him how he was getting along in his business. He told me that during the fall he had taken a number of his flock to the sugar factory to fatten them on its by-products, and after having kept them there all winter, with men to look after them, he bad sold them in the spring and lost just $1,500 in the transaction. Is it any wonder, then, that the polls right in the heart of that sheep-ranching country have returned for the first time in the history of southern Alberta a Conservative 'Candidate by a large majority for that part of the constituency?

I venture to predict, Mr. Speaker, from my

Canadian Wool Industry

knowledge of the farmers, that when another general election is held there will be many more representatives from western Canada sitting on this side of the house and' standing for tariff protection. I might point out that that good paper in Lethbridge, which always supports our hon. friends opposite, now serves a country where the vast majority of the people are opposed to the policies it advocates. For every individual in that district who advocates a low tariff policy, there are not only two but three people who are opposed to the tariff policy of that paper and of the Liberal party. A short time ago a Liberal organizer came to the Lethbridge riding. The comments made on the visit were broadcast throughout every district of southern Alberta. It was said the difficulty in Canada to-dav is that we have too high a tariff, and that what we need is a low tariff. We now see the spectacle in southern Alberta of the very paper which published the speech of that organizer advocating a tariff on wool, the very same policy as that advocated by hon. members on this side of the house. Having paid close attention to the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite during last session, and the short session of 1930, it is not difficult to understand why there should be on their part a lack of consistency with regard to tariff. After observing the actions of many hon. members opposite, I have no difficulty in understanding this lack of consistency. One is forced to the conclusion that if he wanted to know how a real, expert contortionist performs he should listen to a Liberal on the floor of this house discussing the tariff.

I want to say that the farmers of southern Alberta are alive to the benefits accruing from a tariff.. They realize it is right and fair that manufacturers should have their tariffs, so that industry in Canada may survive. They have also decided that if tariff is good for the manufacturer, it is good also for the wool producer; that is why we ore here to-day- to plead the cause of 'the wool growers before hon. members in this house.

At the meeting held on January 26, just before we came east to attend this session, about one hundred members of the Southern Alberta Sheep Breeders' Association were present. At that meeting the wool situation was discussed, recitals were passed and resolutions adopted unanimously. Those decisions were made by men belonging to both the Conservative party and the United Farmers of Alberta. I have before me one of the recitals which I shall place before hon. members:

In the general field of agriculture sheep raising is one branch with room for expansion, 41761-26

providing the Canadian home market for wool and mutton can be retained to the grower at anything over costs of production.

In so far as the mutton industry is concerned, this clause finds support. About

4,000,000 pounds of mutton were imported into Canada during each of the years 1929 and 1930. In the last mentioned year 4,443,527 pounds of mutton were imported, about

150,000 head of sheep. Undoubtedly, when the government brought down its tariff changes in September, 1930, it had in mind helping the sheep ranching industry, and those engaged in breeding sheep, because at that time the general tariff on mutton was increased from 6 cents to 8 cents, the British preferential tariff from 2 cents to 4 cents, and the tariff applicable to Australia from one-half cent to 3 cents per pound. Did those changes have beneficial results? As the boy on the street would say: "I'll say they did"- because during the year 1930 the imports were about 4,500,000 pounds whereas in 1931 they dropped to 1,185,327 pounds. Those figures represent a reduction in imports of over 3,000,000 pounds of mutton, and the farmers engaged in the sheep raising industry were allowed to supply this to the home market in Canada.

Unfortunately the price of mutton is very low. I have in my hand a telegram I received on February 13 from ithe Sheep Breeders' Association. In my view one of the reasons for the present low price of mutton is that we had a carry-over of about 5,000,000 pounds in cold storage at the commencement of this year. The telegram I have before me is as follows:

Finished lambs fed on concentrated feed since December 1, now selling at four one-half to three-quarter cents pound with limited demand. When additional feeding costs considered this represents less than October and November prices, so only hope is for improvement in wool and can see no chance for this unless retention Canadian market for Canadian wools through tariff action assured.

In the manufacture and preparation of wool, from its raw state up to the finished article, there are five phases or processes. First we have the wool in its natural state, or in the grease. Wool in the grease is wool as it is shorn from the lamb. Heretofore there has been a great deal of trouble selling wool in Canada because we did not have proper grading. During the last few years however government officials have graded our wool, and when the manufacturers want to buy a certain grade they have merely to send in their orders and they are properly filled. The grading has meant much to those men engaged in the wool business. We find that

Canadian Wool Industry

there is a manufacturer operating at a point very close to the city of Ottawa who uses nothing but Canadian wool. His orders are sent to the Canadian Cooperative Growers Association. I refer to Mr. Rosamond of Almonte, who in a statement made in March of last year said:

Now that the northwest wool is up to such a standard we find it splendid. We want to have the finest portion of the fleece, and we find it coming in splendid shape. We are using northwest wool entirely.

The use of the Canadian product has increased as a result of having reliable standards. The second phase in connection with wool is the scouring process by which burs, grease, smut and vegetable matters are removed. Foreign vegetable matter can be removed most effectively by a process of carbonization. After removal of foreign matter the fleece is washed and dried; during this process shrinkage, which is controlled by the degree of coarseness or fineness of the wool, takes place. Colonial wool and wools from foreign countries shrink as little as 30 per cent; in other words 70 per cent of the original amount of wool will remain after scouring and washing has taken place. So far as Canada is concerned however we suffer from much heavier shrinkage, ranging as high as 70 per cent. In western Canadian wool the average shrinkage is about 55 per cent. The third phase: after scouring the wool is combed; any wool over two inches in length can be subjected to this process. As a result of combing the manufacturer produces the long parallel skeins of wool used by the worsted manufacturers. Apart from the woollen skeins there are byproducts or left overs called noils, which can be used for the manufacture of woollen articles. The fourth stage of production is that performed by the spinning industry, and the fifth by the weaving industry. I ask hon. members to take note that concerning the first three stages of woollen processes there are no tariffs applicable. There are however tariffs in regard to yarns and spinning and weaving processes. From the time the government placed a tariff on yams, in September, 1930, grealt benefits were received by woollen manufacturers in Canada, because in the year 1930 we imported

6,000,000 pounds of yarns, whereas in 1931 by the assistance of the tariff our yarn imports were reduced to less than 3,000,000 pounds.

As has been said by the mover of this resolution, the annual consumption of wool in Canada is about 80,000,000 pounds. Canada produces about one quarter of what it uses, and yet in 1931 we exported approximately

4,750,000 pounds. We had left for domestic consumption approximately 16,500,000 pounds.

A goodly part of this wool was used by the people in their homes; it was manufactured by the little custom mills in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We also imported in 1930 wool in grease, up to and including yarns, to the amount of 40,714,450 grease pounds, and wool converted into the finished product to the extent of 35,000,000 grease pounds.

With the importation of this large amount of wool, and Mr. Rosamond, one of the leading manufacturers in Ontario, stating that our wool is plenty good enough for his plant, why should it be necessary for us to export 4,750,000 pounds a year? That is the question worrying the sheep breeder and the wool grower in western Canada. I should like to draw the attention of the house to this article which appeared in the Canadian Textile Journal of June 18, 1931:

With the expansion of the output of Canadian mills that is coming, and that is, indeed, already well under way, it should be possible to absorb all Canadian cross-bred wool and still have a large market to offer to other woolgrowing countries.

But cross-bred wools form the great bulk- about 85 per cent in point of fact-of the raw wool used in Canada.

It is a matter of first class importance that Canadian mills, after absorbing all the home grown cross-bred wool available, shall fill their surplus^ requirements in this regard with wool from New Zealand.

It was hoped, and that hope has been realized, that by the tariff changes of September, 1930, there would be a stimulation of the textile trade of Canada, and many speeches were made last session which stated that to be the fact. But it was also hoped by those of us who live in western Canada that as a result of those tariff changes it might stimulate the purchasing and the use of Canadian wool by our manufacturers. But I am sony to say such has not been the case; we are exporting more wool to-day than we did before those tariff changes were made. In 1930 we exported 4,381,754 pounds, and last year-after the tariff changes-4,769,574 pounds, or an increase of over 350,000 pounds in one year. Until last fall we in southern Alberta had been accustomed to having representatives of the wool houses in Boston and other parts of the United States visit our country to purchase part of the wool that is sold by the independent wool growers, but this year no one has come, and it is impossible for us to sell any of our wool to the American houses. It may be asked: Why are they not purchasing? The answer is simply that the tariff has been raised against our wool. In 1921 the United States tariff on scoured wool

Canadian Wool Industry

was 20 cents a pound; in 1930 it was raised to 34 cents a pound. To-day we are selling our wool to Great Britain, and the added cost of transportation has to be borne by the sheep men, the wool producers, and as a consequence they are getting very low prices for their wool. I understand that in eastern Canada the price that the sheep breeder gets for his wool is not so important, but in western Canada it is one of the main factors in the sheep breeding industry, because 50 per cent of our income comes from our wool. Shortly before I came here I visited the sheep breeding country with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). We heard a gentleman who has many fine sheep offer to give their wool to the sheep shearers in return for their work, but they refused his offer.

The Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta at a meeting on January 26th last issued the following statement:

1931 western wools are bringing to the grower from four to six cents per pound, whereas in Montana, U.S.A., similar types and qualities returned from fifteen to eighteen cents per pound; therefore, there can be no reason for the wide difference between the Montana prices and those in Alberta and Saskatchewan than the protection afforded the Montana wool growers because of their import tariff on wools.

We cannot but believe that the enforcement of an import tariff on wools, sufficient to protect the Canadian producer in his home market would have the same effect of improving prices to the Canadian grower.

I should like to place before the house an article which appears in the February number of the Farm and Ranch Review. In answer to a letter which was sent to the editor, he wrote this editorial:

I agree with you fully that the price of wool is absolutely disgraceful. I have dealt with the matter time and again in the columns of the Review. One very effective remedy would be a reasonable protective tariff on raw wool. I have brought this to the attention of the Sheep Breeders' Association several times and have urged it in the columns of the Review, but so far without success.

Wool at the present moment is absolutely on the free list, -which, in my judgment, is a scandalous situation.

I think the house will agree with me that with the price of mutton at 4i to 4J cents a pound, and with the price of wool at 4 to 6 cents a pound, if the present conditions obtain for some time, and the sheep breeders are forced to liquidate, they cannot do so without taking a very heavy loss. It is not surprising that they state:

Any forced liquidation under the present existing prices and financial conditions would mean ruin to the present owners and only the few with substantial capital resources will be able to postpone this much longer.

Not only did our exports of wool increase last year, but our imports also increased, and although the manufacturer was given protection-and with that protection we most heartily agree-yet he evidently failed to purchase his wool from the Canadian grower. Probably he had some inducement to do so- he imports his wool free, that is, wool in its raw state,, scoured or pulled up to and including tops and noils. In this semi-manufactured state he is able to import the wool at a lower price than he could scour and comb it himself. It means a. difference possibly of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a year so far as the manufacturer is concerned and I do not altogether blame him for doing so. But we do say that we have in Canada plants that are equipped to carry out all these processes: we have plants that can scour the wool and we have plants that can comb it. Why not therefore have that part of the manufacturing carried out in Canada as well as the processing from the tops to the finished article? I am stating the views of the Sheep Breeders' Association of Southern Alberta when I say that they are asking for a tariff on wool in its raw state, on wool scoured and on wool known as tops and noils.

Before I conclude I wish to place before the house a resolution that came before this meeting of farmers at Lethbridge on January 26 last, a resolution which was endorsed not only by those who were there as Conservatives but also by those who were there as Liberals and by those who came as farmers. They all want a tariff on wool, and they declared:

That rve strongly urge upon the government of the Dominion of Canada that a tariff be placed upon raw wool that will adequately protect the Canadian -wool growers, and it is respectfully suggested that this should not be less than 34 cents per pound general tariff based on the scoured clean content.

The sheepmen of southern Alberta, I feel, have every confidence in this government. A delegation of sheepmen had an opportunity to p-lace before the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) at an open meeting held in Lethbridge in the fall of 1930 their views with regard to the protection of the industry. The sheepmen of southern Alberta who are engaged in the ranching business have been very fairly treated by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) in the adjustments he has made in connection with the lease rentals they have to pay to his department, and they have every faith and confidence in the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), who has also visited our locality and has heard the proposals put forward by those

Canadian Wool Industry

interested in the sheep industry. They are also confident in that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) comes from the province of Alberta and knows the conditions there; he knows the conditions under which the sheepmen are labouring. I am sure that he will not only sympathize with them but will lend them aid in the time of their need.

I respectfully suggest to the government that in any treaties that are being made the primary producer of wool in Canada be not asked to step up to the bargain counter and foot the bill to allow other products to be exported out of the dominion and other items to come into the dominion to the disadvantage of our producers. In any trade agreements that are made I would urge upon the government to see to it that the primary producer of wool in western Canada is given a square deal. I would respectfully ask the house to adopt the resolution which has been moved by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston), and may I add that we trust the government will take action upon it.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
PRO

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):

While we have no exportable surplus, a tariff on wool would undoubtedly raise the price of this commodity, and the very moment we had sufficient wool to be able to export, the tariff would not affect the price at all. The result would be that wool would fall to the price at which it was selling on the world market. We have had examples enough of that to know how true it is. All that a tariff would do in the meantime would be to encourage the production of much more wool than is now produced so that we should very rapidly go on an export basis. And when we did the price would be no better. In the meantime a great . many people who thought that the good price would continue would have spent money on their flocks and gone into the industry on a more extensive scale, and they would then come to parliament asking for help, to a greater degree even than at the moment.

Surely the story of the dairy farmer in Canada is recent enough for us to learn the lesson he has been taught. I should really like to support the resolution, because the hon. member who moved it (Mr. Swanston) and the hon. member who seconded it have suggested that it would help the government to carry out their preelection promises. Heaven knows they need a little help in that direction. I wonder that anyone on the government side has the sheer nerve to recall the dairy industry story from 1930 up until today. The tariff was going to do wonders for the dairy industry. A lot of people knew

what it was going to do: It was going to

raise the price of butter for one thing, and it was going to bring in prosperous times. The same is true about eggs. As a matter of fact, one hates now to recall the prices of dairy products at that time and to compare them with the present prices. In the meantime we have had this tariff stacked up and it has done no good at all. Under the circumstances, as the representative of an agricultural constituency, and as the representative of intelligent people-for there are still some, I mean on the tariff and not necessarily in regard to other things-I am opposed to the resolution. I am not going to fool myself about it, not even for the two hon. members who preceded me. I am opposed to it because it is some more of the sheer nonsense we have been going on with in regard to agricultural products. You cannot raise the price of farm products by tariff. You can until you are ready to go on the markets of the world with an exportable surplus, but in the long run you cannot do anything about it. This is only one more step in the wrong direction, and we are stepping along in that direction swiftly enough, I think. Our imports are falling and our exports must fall too. Our foreign trade is being shot to pieces. No Canadian enjoys seeing the reports as they come out month by month, no matter to what party he may belong. For all these reasons I must oppose the resolution. We are living in an interdependent world when tariffs can no longer be maintained. We who are here to-day are going to see a reversal of policy in regard to tariffs the world ov*r, and I do not want to postpone the task or make it more difficult. I am therefore opposed to the resolution.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

George Douglass Stanley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):

The mover (Mr. Swanston) and the seconder of the resolution spoke from the standpoint of the farmers who are growers of wool, and I am going to spend a few minutes discussing the protection of the wool industry from the point of view of one interested in the industry as it affects the city. Eefore, however, entering on that phase of the question I wish to summarize a few facts that have impressed themselves on my mind during the discussion of this resolution.

It appears that the imports of wool, principally raw wool and the wool in the first and second stages of fabrication, are four times as great as the production of wool in our whole country. At the same time, of the wool which is produced in Canada, probably one-third is being exported to find markets abroad. Another thing that has struck me is

Canadian Wool Industry

the well-established fact that Canadian wool is the equal of any other wool produced and meets all the requirements of the manufacturer in the fabrication of his textiles. That in itself would seem to indicate that there is every reason why the initial producers of wool should receive a protection sufficient to safeguard them against unfair competition from abroad. Again, if I have gathered correctly, the manufacturers of the various textiles processed past the first or second stage have received substantial increases in the tariff, so much so that they have placed themselves on a safe basis. Protection has been given to this industry but they have not reciprocated to the initial producer; on the contrary they have increased their importations from outside. Those who fabricate and manufacture are receiving substantial protection while the growers receive no assistance whatsoever. If there is such a difference between the amount required by the Canadian manufacturers and the amount actually produced, it stands to reason that there is a substantial potential market for raw wool, provided the initial grower receives a fair return for his production.

The growing of wool goes hand in hand with the production of mutton. While sheep may be raised for the purposes of obtaining wool, no embarrassment need be suffered by the meat end of the industry. The raising of sheep for the purposes of wool and mutton should be protected by this parliament, and I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Maple Creek.

The manufacturer has not seen fit to cooperate with the wool grower and in view of the ample protection he receives I do not think any consideration need be given to him in regard to the placing of a duty upon the importation of raw wool. It is only fair that he should be compelled to purchase Canadian wool from Canadian producers.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

*Mr. YOUNG:

Does the Canadian manufacturer pay more for the wool he imports than for the Canadian product?

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

George Douglass Stanley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STANLEY:

The foreign wool is

cheaper; that is why he imports it. He obtains it in semi-fabricated form because that work can be done cheaper in foreign countries. That is why we want protection.

I come from an urban community in Alberta and I would like to repeat some remarks made last year in regard to the geographical situation of this province. Whether we go east with our products or whether we send our manufactured products to the west, we are at

the extreme end of transportation. We have to pay the top price for transportation either way. This province is very rich in natural products. We have cheap coal and abundant water power. There is a considerable home market for manufactured goods and we have a potential market in the orient which is not by any means inaccessible. It is( felt by many that every step should be taken to industrialize our towns and cities and also to encourage the industrialization of our agriculture. The wool industry offers one of the best illustrations in this regard. It is important to encourage the growing of wool to be sold to manufacturers in eastern Canada or elsewhere provided a sufficient price can be obtained, but from the standpoint of our towns and cities as well as of the initial producers, it is more important that advantage should be taken of the home markets which are available both for the producer and for the manufacturer.

Fifty per cent of the wool produced in western Canada is produced in the province of Alberta, and a large portion of that production is in the constituency of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Stewart). In 1930 Alberta imported from all foreign countries woollen products amounted to $3,500,000. The imports from other provinces in Canada amounted to $2,500,000. It will be seen that there is a potential home market amounting to about $6,000,000. When the three western provinces are taken as a group, they offer a potential home market amounting to over $37,000,000. It is not claimed that the province of Alberta will be able to retain all these markets, but if encouragement can be given to the production of manufactured goods within the province it would be good business for this government, for the provincial government and for the people of the province, to translate this $5,000,000 or this $37,000,000 into a payroll for Alberta workmen.

The woollen industry offers an opening for the fabrication of raw wool into all its various stages. As the hon. member for Lethbridge has just said, at the present time some of our wool goes all the way to the old country where it is cleaned and processed up to the stage where it can reenter this country free of duty. Why should wool grown in our province be transported all that distance, fabricated to the point at which it is permitted to enter Canada free of duty, and then possibly be shipped back to our province? Under a reasonable protection, a portion of this work could be carried on by our own workmen in our own cities. This matter has been engaging the attention of many men who have gone into this question with great thoroughness.

Canadian Wool Industry

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

James Dew Chaplin

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CHAPLIN:

We have heard that talk for fifteen years.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
UFA

William Irvine

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. IRVINE:

Yes, the only trouble is that this interdependent world apparently does not know that it is interdependent, and the fact is that tariffs do go on. I am not in this connection going to subscribe to any argument which might be brought up on the old battleground of tariff or no tariff, protection or free trade. I shall not subscribe to or associate myself with fanaticism on either side of the question, and we have that on both sides of the house undoubtedly. On the contrary, I want to point out, as has often been done, that we are dealing not with a theory involving the question whether we ought to have free trade or protection, or whether the world would be better off under the one policy or the other, but with this

one fact, that the wool producers in Canada have to buy innumerable articles which are protected and which are increased in price by protection, while the commodities which they are engaged in producing have to be sold on the markets of the world without any protection, thus placing them at a disadvantage as compared with the other classes in Canada with whom they must deal. That is a practical proposition, and I am speaking of it now for the reason that I have received wires and letters from people in my riding urging me to support this very resolution. I have had wires also from the wool growers' association, and innumerable letters from individuals. I am going to read a section from one letter which I think will place before the house better than I can the viewpoint of the wool grower, and that will be just about all I want to say in connection with the matter.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
LIB

Mitchell Frederick Hepburn

Liberal

Mr. HEPBURN:

I do not think the hon.

member has said very much yet, anyway.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
UFA

William Irvine

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. IRVINE:

My hon. friend has been so busy leading the forces of reaction for the last six months or so that I question whether he is capable of passing judgment on a matter of that kind. Further, when my hon. friend himself says something, either here or anywhere else), he will be in a better position to judge whether other people say anything or not.

In quoting a section of this letter may I say to my hon. friend who has just interrupted (Mr. Hepburn) that I am carrying out a principle to which I have always subscribed, and that is that my task is to say from this seat what the people I represent want me to say. That is perhaps too democratic for my hon. friend, bift that is what I am trying to do now, and I will leave the matter to the judgment of the house. This writer, says:

We have absolutely no protection on our raw wool but pay a pretty stiff duty on woollen goods. Under ordinary conditions I am not an advocate of protective duties, but as Canada for the present at any rate has determined on a protectionist policy I feel that we farmers in all fairness should get whatever benefit we can out of that policy. I am speaking not only for myself but also for a large number of your constituents, who, like myself, would very much appreciate your best efforts to have this matter put right.

That, Mr. Speaker, I think puts in a few words the position of the wool growers and what they are asking in this resolution. I would like to suggest to the government that if they cany out this resolution it may be necessary to do a little more than that. We are aware of the fact which the hon. member for Southeast Grey has mentioned, that protection does cease to have any value to agri-

Canadian Wool Industry

culture at that point where the prices paid at home are determined by the export price. That is true; it has been true in regard to butter to a very large extent, and it will be true, I presume, in regard to any other commodity which may be similarly dealt with. It may be necessary in regard to the farmers who have received protection on butter, and who may receive protection on wool or other products, for the government to go a little further than imposing a tariff which is only nominal, and make such tariff real by adopting some such methods as have been adopted in New Zealand and Australia where export boards have been created to control from one common centre the export market and to maintain the home price at an economic level, the board having power to issue the necessary regulations. What I would call the economic level is the price at which it is possible for the producer to continue to produce under all the given economic conditions.

I hope Mr. Speaker that the government will take into consideration not only the wool growers but also the dairy interests and other sections of agriculture which may be benefited by protective measures. I am not advocating either of the old philosophies of protection or free trade, but I do advocate equality- and may I repeat this-equality of the classes in Canada, so far as legislation affecting their economic life is concerned, so that those who buy protected goods may receive protection equal to those who sell protected goods. If (hat cannot be done, some other means will have to be considered whereby such equality mav be effected. I hope the wool growers will receive the consideration at the hands of the government outlined by the resolution.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

Follin Horace Pickel

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Missisquoi):

I should like, Mr. Speaker, to register my approval of the suggestions contained in the resolution now before the house. Statistics have been given by the mover and seconder, so that I need not revert to that phase of the matter. I should like to say, however, that the west is not the only section of Canada interested in the production of and duty on wool. Quebec and Ontario, especially Quebec, are much interested in this matter. There are no better sheep raising lands on the face of the earth than those existing in Quebec. Forty-five or fifty years ago within a radius of fifteen miles of my home I could count twelve woollen mills all of which were doing a very good business, but they are all gone because, so far as we are concerned, the sheep industry is a dead one. To-day we import hundreds of thousands of foreign lamb

carcasses and vast quantities of foreign wools; as 'the mover and seconder have stated, those wools are brought into the country after partial fabrication has taken place. The fact that they are partly manufactured before they enter Canada means that there is an appreciable loss of labour which could be done here.

I have risen simply to state that I am in perfect accord with the motion and would ask that a good stiff duty, one that would really be effective, be given to the industry.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

Thomas Alfred Thompson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at length upon the resolution now before the house. Facts concerning the woollen industry have been debated thoroughly by hon. members who have preceded me. I wish to say, however, that not only in western Canada but in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the maritimes there are large areas of land admirably suited to the raising of sheep. The sheep raisers in the part of Ontario I have the honour to represent have for many years felt the need of assistance. The hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Swanston) has said that we are producing only about 20,000,000 pounds of wool in Canada where our annual consumption is about 80,000,000 pounds. If adequate protection is afforded, however, I am sure Canada can produce a quality of wool equal to that now being imported by our manufacturers. It has been argued, and probably with some effect, that we are not producing a wool capable of being manufactured into the finest yams. If such is the case, our inability to produce first class wool should be investigated. I am firmly of the opinion, however, that if we are given proper protection and encouragement we can produce wool as fine in quality as that produced in any part of the world. Certainly if there is one part of the agricultural industry requiring protection, it is the sheep growing section. I am heartily in accord with the provisions of the resolution.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

John Anderson Fraser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo):

Mr. Speaker, I wish heartily to support the resolution before the house in favour of a duty on raw wool. In doing so I am expressing the sentiments not only of the wool growers and

Canadian Wool Industry

sheep raisers in the constituency I represent but of those engaged in the industry throughout British Columbia.

If I caught the remarks correctly of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) this afternoon, she said she was not going to help the government carry out its preelection promises. I should like to address this question to the hon. member-I am sorry she is not in her seat: Did she ever support any government that has done more to carry out its preelection promises than has the present government? It seems to me that the efforts put forth by this government to make good its preelection promises, and the success that has attended those efforts, will stand as a mark for a long time to come for any succeeding government to reach. She also said that in the recent election campaign the Conservatives promised that the tariff was going to increase the price of butter. Probably some of them did make that promise. But as a member of the Conservative party let me say I never understood that the tariff could be expected to keep up the price of butter in the face of reduced prices brought about by world competition, and that while we might still maintain our domestic price, we could not get away from the inevitable effect of declining prices in the export market. I do not think any Conservative in the course of the campaign ever intended to convey any other impression when dealing with the effect of the tariff on the price of butter. The hon. member also said that we have "stacked up the tariff but we have not got any good out of it." I do not think that is a very temperate statement. I would remind my hon. friend that whether or not the people in her riding have received benefits from increased tariff rates, certainly we have benefited in British Columbia. Had it not been for the tariff policy of this government the fruit and vegetable growers of British Columbia, I venture to say, would have got nothing at all for their crop last year in face of the dumping competition which then threatened, but which never became effective simply by reason of the prompt action taken by the government. I venture to say that there are many other instances where benefits have been derived by the people of Canada from the tariff increases which were imposed last session.

I have before me a resolution with respect to a duty on raw wool, the subject matter of this resolution, passed by the British Columbia Sheep Breeders' Association, and I will read it to the house:

Whereas the Canadian sheep industry is having a hard struggle to carry on, and

Whereas the amount of wool produced in Canada does not begin to supply the amount of

wool required by the Canadian factories; it does not seem reasonable or right that 85 per cent of our wool should go outside of Canada for a market. The United States, with a high tariff, use similar wool to that produced in Canada and the grower receives 15 to 17 cents per pound when Canadian wool is only bringing 5 to 6 cents per pound. Would a tariff not help the Canadian wool producer?

We as tax payers are paying for care of unemployed and the factories of Canada are importing a semi-manufactured product, giving employment to men of other countries.

Therefore, be it resolved,-That we urge a general tariff be placed on all importations of raw wool and wool products, as tops, noils, scoured wools and all forms of wool and waste.

I may say that the head office of the British Columbia Sheep Breeders' Association and also of the wool cooperative organization happens to be in the city of Kamloops in my constituency.

British Columbia as a whole is very much interested in the sheep raising industry. At present it has a sheep population of 197,600 head, with a wool production of 1,103,000. For 85 per cent of that production the wool growers have to find a market in England. The wool has to be shipped out of the country for processing in England, and then shipped back here as a semi-manufactured article. Our manufacturers of woollen goods, of course, are using a good deal of that same class of wool. Our sheep breeders claim that if our manufacturers have to import that semi-manufactured wool, would it not be good business to give a certain measure of protection to our raw product to ensure that that processing shall be performed in Canada. As has already been pointed out, we have no scouring and combing industry in this country, and it is to encourage such an industry that this tariff protection is asked for.

With regard to our wool imports and exports, I should like to place these figures on Hansard. In 1929 we imported $54,428,000 worth of wool and its products.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

We imported $54,000,000

worth?

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

John Anderson Fraser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):

We imported

$54,428,000 worth of wool and its products; in 1930, $46,644,000; in 1931, $33,637,000. Of course, during the last few years there has been a drop in the importation of wool just as there has been of other commodities, and this is accounted for partly by the drop in prices. I want to analyse these importations of raw wool. In 1929 we imported 11,358,125 pounds.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG:

Have you got the value?

Canadian Wool Industry

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink
CON

John Anderson Fraser

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):

No, but the

valu,* can be easily ascertained. According to the Bureau of Statistics this wool was imported from the following countries:

United Kingdom 4,795,000

New Zealand 1,744,000

United States 1,431,000

Australia 762,000

British South Africa 278,000

Argentina 174,000

Following are the percentage figures of these imports:

Per cent

United Kingdom 51

New Zealand 18J

United States 15

Australia 8

British South Africa 3

Argentina 2

I understand that the National Research Council was asked to make an investigation into the quality of our wool, and that to get a proper basis on which to work they analysed these importations and found that the countries of origin were not correctly given by the Bureau of Statistics; that is, instead of being shipped direct, the wool we imported had been shipped from Australia or New Zealand to the United States, or Great Britain, and thence to Canada. The Bureau of Statistics made an analysis of the countries of origin as well as they possibly could and they have given out a statement in this regard. Of that 11.35S.000 pounds the National Research Council find that the following are the figures with respect to countries of origin: United Kingdom, 3,435.000, or 30 per cent; New Zealand, 3,514,000, 30 per cent; Australia,

1,349,000, 12 per cent; South Africa, 680,000, 6 per cent; the Argentine, 5 per cent; and the United States, 173.000, or 1} per cent. You will observe the difference in the shipments from the United States; instead of

1.434.000 pounds, as reported by the Bureau of Statistics, the National Research Council give only 173,000 pounds of American wool coming into Canada. The rest came through the United States. This analysis of imports is based on 11,358,000 pounds of raw wool in 1929, and indicates that for that year the supplies came from the different countries in these proportions: New Zealand and Australia, 43 per cent; United Kingdom, 30 per cent; South Africa, 6 per cent. We also imported

202.000 pounds from the Irish Free State and British India, or 2 per cent of our imports, making a total of 81 per cent of empire origin and 19 per cent from other countries- quite a different analysis from that given by the Bureau of Statistics. I understand there is a tendency in the trade at the present time to restrict imports through the United States

by the appointment of Canadian agents in Australia and New Zealand, so that importations in the future will come largely direct from those two countries.

So far as the imposition of a tariff on raw wool is concerned, I take it that it is the policy of the present government to place a tariff on natural products of this kind. With particular reference to the sheep industry, I might point out that until June, 1931, our tariff on mutton was 15, 25 and 27j per cent, and in June last year we raised that tariff to 4, 6 and 8 cents per pound, with a 4 cent per pound rate applying under the Australian treaty as well. As was pointed out this afternoon, imports of mutton declined from nearly

4,500,000 pounds to about 1,200,000 pounds between 1930 and 1931, showing that the imposition of the tariff must have been a factor in the reduction of imports. If it is a factor in the reduction of imports of mutton, I think it is a sound argument that it would be a likely factor in reducing the imports of wool as well.

As I said a few moments ago, the trouble in Canada seems to be that while we impose a duty on the manufactured article we have no duty on the raw product or on the product in its initial stages of manufacture; that is to say, we have no duty applying to the scouring and combing industry. Now it is for the purpose of establishing such an industry that this tariff is asked. There is a widespread opinion among wool producers in British Columbia-whether it is justified or not I am not prepared to say, but I mention this for the information of the government- that the manufacturers have altogether too much say in regard to the making of these tariffs, and it would appear that what we are saying with regard to wool bears out that statement.

Topic:   MANITOBA FARMERS-SUPPLY OF FEED AND SEED
Subtopic:   CANADIAN WOOL INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   TARIFF ON RAW WOOL FOR THE PROTECTION OF HOME GROWERS
Permalink

February 22, 1932