William Arnold PETERS

PETERS, William Arnold

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Timiskaming (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 14, 1922
Deceased Date
September 17, 1996
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Peters
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=451d41d6-6f60-40ef-87f1-bd1aea75e8c2&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
miner, representative

Parliamentary Career

June 10, 1957 - February 1, 1958
CCF
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (January 1, 1958 - January 1, 1962)
March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
CCF
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (January 1, 1958 - January 1, 1962)
August 3, 1961 - April 19, 1962
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
  • Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (January 1, 1958 - January 1, 1962)
June 18, 1962 - February 6, 1963
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
April 8, 1963 - September 8, 1965
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
November 8, 1965 - April 23, 1968
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
June 25, 1968 - September 1, 1972
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
October 30, 1972 - May 9, 1974
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
July 8, 1974 - March 26, 1979
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)
May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
NDP
  Timiskaming (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 3 of 1221)


November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

The hon. member says no. It comes into Canada and the parliamentary secretary said it was at the American price.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his comments on averaging because I certainly do not want to ask about each specific category. Taking asparagus as an example, I gather from his explanation that it will now be numbered 2701-1 instead of 8702-2. That is not to put asparagus in a different category, but probably to put it in the new tariff with the restricted period, and it has been raised from 3.5 cents to 9.6. I suppose 3.5 cents was 9.6 per cent and the proposed rate is 12.1 per cent. I presume this me^ns that when the Canadian Horticultural Society and the Department of Agriculture have triggered the designated period, the duty will be considerably higher thereafter. 1 presume that it would amount to approximately three-quarters of one per cent, taking the difference between 5.4 per cent and 6.1 per cent. It may not be possible to use the average figure on anything except the specified commodity, but it is probably within that range.

I am not satisfied that the triggering mechanism is sufficient to meet the needs of producers. The agriculture department has always been plagued by the argument, which we have heard from the Bing cherry, grape and soft fruit producers and from the horticultural industry, that the date of applying the tariff may not always be the same and that when it is decided that the tariff should be applied it is not applied quickly enough. By the time the matter has been discussed by the Department of Agriculture and the horticultural society, it is too late. It has always been suggested that the Department of Agriculture have a much closer relationship with the tariff board so that the tariff can be triggered to meet the climatic conditions of the day or the conditions which govern the season of that particular product. This complaint has been brought up by all the agencies which I have mentioned.

The strawberry industry in southern Ontario has been plagued because of this indecision to the extent that most of the strawberries are plowed under. Most of our fresh strawberries come from outside Canada. Obviously the duty has not been triggered at the proper time.

Referring to my example of asparagus, is this eight-week period long enough? I do not know much about growing asparagus. I planted some at one time and some of it is still coming up, but it certainly is not a commercial crop. 1 am

wondering if the eight-week period is sufficient protection for our producers and whether or not it takes into consideration the varying conditions between the Elolland Marsh and the Niagara Peninsula. If eight weeks is enough, the horticultural society will be hard pressed to make all the decisions on the various crops and to get the eight-week period in the proper place for such places as the Holland Marsh, the Bruce Peninsula, Niagara Falls-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, I did not understand the explanation with regard to the tariff on an American product being at the American price. I suppose it is a price at a given time in a given area. If that is so, what we are talking about is a 16 per cent advantage.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, schedule I has a very limited application which ended October 31. Will members of Parliament and the people of this country be informed how much of the schedule was put into application, at what time and what the change in the duty collected would be? In other words, how does the accounting for this schedule appear and in what form? There should be some accounting as to how much of it applied and what the effect of the application was. This does not appear in the bill. How do we find out the form in which

the Tariff Board brought the schedule forward? Will it be in the form that will match what is in schedule I? My guess is that it will not, that we will never know one way or the other.

The parliamentary secretary is taking a long time to answer. It may be that the answer is not available, and if it is not, then as the Englishman would say, "pity". If there is no indication available then we are certainly sloppy bookkeepers in this country. If there is, we would like to know what effect it has had. Questions have been asked during the study of the bill. We are being very generous in giving the tariff board this bill in such a stupid form if they do not have to account for it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink

November 19, 1979

Mr. Peters:

Raspberries come under a different category, and I have not heard that the raspberry producers suffer the same problems. Are we solving the problem by increasing the tariff by such a small amount? I suppose we could go through each commodity. Asparagus is not the example which I would have picked.

Another commodity which we do not seem to be able to produce is lettuce. Tomatoes are certainly a good example as well. Perhaps we should have an explanation as to the effect of this duty because we buy most of our produce outside of Canada and our own produce comes on stream at a specific time. Obviously, if the tariff structure is being designed to protect our producers, then it is not working because we have lost many commodities.

I took the yearly average for asparagus as 5.7 but the average over all was 5.4 to 6.1 That is a relatively small

November 19, 1979

increase in tariff. I wonder why we think that is going to solve the problem that the various commodity groups bring to the attention of members of Parliament annually.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CUSTOMS TARIFF
Full View Permalink