want unsolicited advice; what they want is relief from the burdens of taxation by which they are oppressed. They do not ask, like my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Carrick) for a bounty on the biggest industry of the country. They do not ask any undue advantage in the race side by side with the other industries of the country. All they ask is a square deal, a fair deal, and I maintain that whatever this Government may do or may not do on this question, in so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned, absolutely nothing will satisfy them but the taking away of the duties so that in respect to the purchase of implements they will be placed in the same advantageous position as are their cousins to the south of the international boundary.
__ Mr. THOMAS MACNUTT (Saltcoats): Mr. Speaker, as a western man and a farmer, I feel that I would not be doing my duty if I allowed the debate upon this important question of free agricultural implements to pass without making a few remarks. It will not be necessary for me to take up a great deal of time because the question has already been very thoroughly dealt with. I might be allowed to say, however, that the Canadian implement manufacturer is very well able to take care of himself. He has passed the long-dress, bottle stage long ago. He is selling on equal terms with his rivals from the United States in all the agricultural countries of the world. He has been able to compete in Great Britain, the continental countries, including Russia, and even in the United States itself, although heretofore his exports to the United States have been subject to a duty of about 15 per cent. The Canadian manufacturer is the only one in Canada who benefits by the Wilson-Underwood tariff which reduces or abolishes duties on manufactured products entering that market. The American farmers will benefit because the intention of the United States Congress in abolishing the duty was to bring in competition from this side and cheapen agricultural implements to the American farmer. But the Canadian farmer does not benefit in any way and the Canadian manufacturer is able to increase his profits which are very large already. A great deal of consideration is always given to the capitalist, and to the manufacturer. How much is given to the farmer, the man who is really producing the wealth of the country? It is thought by many people in the East that the farmers of the West are making a good deal of
money, and it is said that the East has sent out its money and its best blood to assist the upbuilding of the West. The people that they sent out to the West are now the people who are asking for the reduction of duty on agricultural implements.
What effect would the abolition of the duty have upon the cost of agricultural implements? If the future destiny of Canada depends almost entirely upon the agricultural development of that western country, as is now generally admitted, it is surely in the interest of the East to encourage anything that will promote and develop the agricultural interests of the West. The cheapening of the price of implements will, of course, have a very beneficial effect on the farmers of the West. You cannot till the ground, of which we have millions of acres still untouched, without proper implements, and what agricultural implements cost means a good deal to the farmer. Of course, if there was no means of getting them cheaper they would have to put up with it, but there is a means of getting them cheaper, and it is an injustice to every one but the manufacturers of implements that the duty is retained at its present rate. In order to show what effect a reduction of duty will have on the price of implements, I may mention that during the campaign of 1911 tylr. Hutcheson, manager of the John D-eering Plow Company, an American concern, stated publicly at Winnipeg that if a reduction of only two and a half per cent or five per cent were made, his company would at once reduce the prices as follows: On every harvester, $5; mower, $3; rake, $1.50; seeder, $5; wagon, $5, and all other implements in a similar ratio. If this considerable reduction were made as the result of reducing the duty two and a -half per cent or five per cent, what would it mean if the reduction in the duty was 17J per cent, 20 per cent, or 25 per cent? I claim that the Canadian manufacturers take advantage of this duty to the utmost extent, as may be seen from this instance: A McCormick 6 ft. cut hinder (American) is -sold at Minneapolis for $112 wholesale, at Winnipeg $122.50, that is $10.50 freight being added. The Frost and Wood (Canadian) costs $122 wholesale at Winnipeg, the freight being at 64 cents per cwt., that is $10.88, as against $10.50 on the McCormick. These implements are of the same description, and retailed at the same price, and should cost the same to manufacture. The duty is about $20, which the Canadian
manufacturer charges, and extra profit is about $18, as it takes about $2 to cover the duty on Ms raw material. There is no doubt that if the duty were abolished the prices of farming implements would be considerably lessened. I claim that the small farmers are the real developers of the West; they are there with their families to make homes for themselves, and they are not there as speculators. I believe that ten one-half section farmers are of more value to the country than one large farmer handling 2,000 acres. As a rule the very large farmers do not seem to be so very much interested in the cost of implements. We have many large farmers who are very beneficial to the country, but often they are there sirhply as speculators. They buy a lot of land and put motor ploughs and machinery on it and cultivate it, but they expect to make their money out of the increase in the value of land and not out of the crops they raise, and if they have a bad year they have money behind them and are not so badly off. I am speaking now of the ordinary small farmer, who is the man we should encourage. I have a tabulated statement here, which I think is about right, showing the implements that an ordinary farmer should have to cultivate his land, and this statement gives the average retail cost, the duty as it is, the customs valuation, and the duty collected:
o vi d
U S .2 s ri 3 -S rf w 3 3 O n 3; M o K 0 > o p.e. A breaking plough.$28 00 20 $16 $ 3 20Gang plough. . . . 80 00 20 51 10 20Harrow 28 00 20 17 3 40Land packer. . . . 90 00 2a 40 10 00Seeder 125 00 20 56 11 20Disk harrow. . . . 35 00 25 24 6 0050 00 20 20 4 00Binder (8 feet).. 1 75 17| 110 19 20Fanning mill.. . . 40 00 25 25 6 27Hay rake (10 ft.) 35 00 20 17 3 40Mower (6 ft.) . . 65 00 17J 41 7 1785 00 25 40 10 00Buggy 110 00 35 60 21 00Sleigh 35 00 35 17 4 25Cutter
Sundries, including 50 00 25 30 10 50repairs 175 00 25 100 25 00$1,206 $664 $154 84
There are other important implements, such as a manure-spreader, which I have not included in this table. It will thus be seen that these implements above referred to would cost $154.84 less if the duty were abolished, and that is a very considerable
sum to a small farmer. With regard to the difference in valuation, I think the facts show that the valuation under the late Government and under the present Government does not vary very much, but that it is a departmental matter. I gleaned information from the Trade and Navigation returns for the fiscal year 1896, which shows that 1,201 harvesters were brought into Canada from the United States at twenty per cent duty, the valuation being $131,080, or an average valuation of about $109 each; and in 1910 there were imported 1,481 harvesters from the United States, at a duty of 17J per cent, the total valuation being $165,759, or an average of $112 each, or $3 more than in 1896. Every practical farmer knows that the value of a binder is very much more to-day than it was in 1896, because the binders at the present time are supplied with trucks, and are much wider, and they are a better finished article all around. The figures will show that the late Government in reducing the duty actually reduced tne amount collected. Now, the cost of implements is not entirely due to the tariff, although, as pointed out that makes a great difference. A part is due to the business methods followed. The manufacturers axe so eager for the business-there is so much money in it-that they send out canvassers from the head office. I do not see why that should be done. The grocers or other dealers do not send out canvassers into the country to compete against one another; in this way they advertise and the people come iin and do business making their selection from the different stores. Bu-t the implement
men have inspectors and canvassers at high salaries and expenses, and this adds to the cost of the goods. The canvasser is followed by the collector, and there is quite a difference in manner and method between these two. The canvasser is a very plausible gentleman, the collector is anything but that. As soon as the order is signed the farmer is a slave. I do not know that this has much to do with the question before the House, but I thought that I might be allowed to touch upon it. I think the 'Saskatchewan Government had this matter up and were thinking of preventing the head offices from sending out canvassers by making it illegal.