Present:

. . .

APRICOTS, TURKEYS AND FRUIT; PROTECTION AGAINST IMPORTS AND
DEPRESSED PRICES
(PREVIOUS REFERENCE MAY 9)

39. The Minister of Finance said he had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Sinclair the problem arising out of the fairly large current crop of apricots in British Columbia. It appeared that, if imports of apricots from the United States could be prevented by some

means, the marketing of the Canadian crop in Canada would not present too serious a problem. Canadian apricot growers had an understanding with California growers whereby each group respected the other's markets. However, no such agreement existed with apricot growers in the State of Washington where recent crops had been heavy, and it was feared that substantial movement of apricots from here to British Columbia might cause a serious drop in Canadian prices. The most practical solution might be to suggest that the B.C. producers endeavour to reach an agreement with the growers in the State of Washington, similar to that which they had with California growers.

There was a much more serious problem in the Canadian turkey market. During the previous year, some 12 million pounds of turkey had been imported into Canada from the U.S. Imports of U.S. turkeys in approximately the same volume this year would not have any serious effect. However, the very much increased production of turkeys in the U.S. during the current year made likely a much larger volume of sales to Canada, which would likely be followed by a significant drop in the price of Canadian turkeys. Perhaps the government might place turkey imports under some quota system pending tariff negotiations in the fall. If such a quota system were established, turkey producers thought that, in addition to imports already made during the current year, another 5 million pounds might be allowed in from the U.S. A quota system, however, could not be set up unless the price of turkeys was supported or market conditions were such that Canada could claim serious injury under the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

A third problem had arisen in connection with the coming fruit crop in the Niagara Peninsula. Producers in that area were most anxious that the government should take some form of restrictive action against imports to ensure economic prices and favourable market conditions for Canadian fruit growers. In this instance, however, since the first fruit crop would not be gathered for some considerable time, there was no basis on which direct government action could be taken.

40. The Cabinet noted the report of the Minister of Finance and agreed,

(a) that the apricot growers of the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia be informed that the government was prepared to support any steps they might take in an endeavour to reach an agreement with the apricot growers of the State of Washington similar to that in existence with the California growers;

(b) that the Departments of Finance, Agriculture, and Trade and Commerce consider further the problems that might arise as a result of increased turkey imports from the United States, on the understanding that the government might be prepared, pending tariff negotiations in the fall, to place turkeys temporarily under import control in much the same manner as had been done for cheddar cheese; and,

(c) that the fruit growers in the Niagara Peninsula be informed that the government was carefully studying their representations with regard to problems that might arise during the current year, with a view to determining what action, if any, should be taken to protect them against abnormal competition from imports.

. . .