May 1, 1917

LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE (resuming):

Mr. Speaker, before the House rose at six o'clock I pointed out that the only result of placing wheat upon the free list on the 16th of April last was to increase the price of flour to the consumer, a price that had already reached such a height as to make it in many instances impossible for the working people throughout Canada to obtain for themselves and

their families the quantity of flour necessary for their support and sustenance. On the Montreal market, on the 17th day of April the price of flour had advanced 30 cents a barrel which meant a total advance of $1.40 in a week. Manitoba brands jumped 40 cents a barrel and Ontario brands jumped 60 cents a barrel by the 18th day of April. The cause of this rise in the price of flour is not the scarcity of wheat in Canada, because the market reports of that date informed the public that there was in Canada a surplus of 81,500,000 bushels of wheat. The export trade had ceased owing to the German submarines, and notwithstanding the fact that we had this large surplus of wheat in Canada, and notwithstanding the fact that the amount of the duty on wheat had been taken off by the Order in Council of the 16th of April, the price of flour continues to rise. The Financial Post, on the 17th of April had this to say:

Flour advanced twice during the week, a total increase of seventy cents a barrel, a record for flour, which brought the price up to $10.70. The highest figure for flour prior to this was $10.50 in November last. The export flour business fom Canada is practically at a standstill. The Ogilvie Flour Milling Company informs the Financial Post that space is not available for ordinary commercial business overseas. The high cost of living is a regrettable economic fact, over which the packers and canners and other distributors of foodstuffs have no control. The enormous and eager demand for our products has brought about the situation. The remedy, as far as the Canadian consumer - is concerned, is to reduce his demands.

During all this time, no effort was made on the part of the Department of Labour, that had particular charge of the question of prices under the proceedings which it had originated some months ago, to regu-iate the price of flour and other foodstuffs in Canada. The Minister of Finance stated this afternoon that the milling industry in Canada had made larger profits since the war began than any other industry. His statement is borne out by an announcement in regard to the Ogilvie Milling Company which was published in the month of October last, and which reads:

A bonus of 4 per cent, for the year ended August 31st last was declared by the directors of the Ogilvie Flour Mills Co., Limited, on its $2,500,000 common stock, at a meeting held here yesterday afternoon. The bonus will be paid on October 1st along with the regular quarterly dividend of 2 per cent., making a total distribution out of the year's profits of 12 per cent.

The bonus declared yesterday is the first extra distribution to be made by the Ogilvie Company since the stock was listed on the Montreal Exchange in 1908, although bonus payments have been popular with other milling concerns when an exceptionally good run of business has been struck. When the stock was listed the common shares were returning 7 per cent.; the rate was advanced to S per cent, in 1910 and has been held steady at that level through good times and bad.

A year ago, when exceptional profits from wheat brought the earnings up to the phenomenally high level of 95 per cent, on the common,-

That is apparently an error.

-the directors held to their conservative course, and shareholders received the usual 8 per cent and nothing more. Investment values added to by this conservation of resources have naturally been potent in increasing the earning power of the stock. The status of the company, with a large supply of liquid capital at its disposal, has changed from that of a borrower to a lender.

At yesterday's meeting the directors took the view that the results of another year's business having been extremely satisfactory, there was no reason why an extra distribution of profits should be withheld any longer.

So you will see, Sir, that the enormous prices that have been charged for foodstuffs are not due to the economic conditions brought about by the war, but rather to the advantage that has been taken of the war by the milling industry of this country to boost the prices at a time when the boosting of such prices might possibly be attributed to war conditions. I say again that the Department of Labour should have taken this condition of affairs into account and taken steps similar to those taken by other countries to prevent the undue enhancing of the prices of foodstuffs.

The Budget proposals brought down by the Minister of Finance do not indicate either courage or originality. It is the fourth Budget that has been presented to the House by the hon. gentleman since the war began. In the first session after the commencement of the conflict, the tariff was increased on certain lines, largely having reference to articles of household consumption, and again in the session 1915, another increase in the tariff was proposed by the Government and carried through this House. Last year, war taxes were levied upon the profits of certain manufacturers under conditions which have yielded to this Government the sum of $12,500,000. The Minister of Finance this afternoon took great credit to himself for adopting a system of taxation upon war profits; but the total amount of revenue obtained by

the Government from this source, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, is $12,500,000, whereas the increased revenue obtained by the Government by reason of the increased tariffs which were placed upon foodstuffs amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $60,000,000. So, while the manufacturing interests, those who are engaged in the manufacture of war materials, and whose business has improved by reason of war conditions and the increased price of monufacturers generally, have contributed to the revenue only $12,500,000, the consumers of Canada have contributed vastly more than that; and as a consequence we have the conditions that now exist in Canada in respect to the increased cost of living. It would appear that the monied interests in this country are still paramount. We know that in 1911 the issue in Canada between the two parties was whether there should be a Government in power whose policy was to reduce the tariff and thereby reduce the cost of living, or whether there should be a Government in power backed up by the interests that found it to their advantage to oppose the reciprocity pact and thereby maintain a continuation of high tariffs in Canada. The gentle manner in which the Minister of Finance has touched the manufacturing interests by war taxation goes to show that those interests are still in control of this Government, and that the welfare of the consuming population of Canada is a secondary consideration. During the last three or four years there has been an enormous increase in the acquisition of wealth by the manufacturing interests of Canada. No such corresponding advantage has accrued to our consuming masses or to the working men who have to depend on their day's pay for the support of their families. I have here a statement taken ' from a financial newspaper of the earnings of certain corporations in Canada during the last year which shows that the Dominion Bridge Company declared a dividend for the year of 16 per cent; Price Brothers, Limited, declared a dividend of 16.1 per cent, and in regard to the Dominion Textile Company, the Financial Post states that it hears that a bonus is on the cards for the shareholders of that company which is known to have had a successful year, the sales having reached the sum of $13,000,000. It says that the preferred stock will pay a dividend of 7 per cent and the common a dividend of 6 per cent. The profits of the Canadian Locomotive Company for the cur-

rent year amount to $700,000, being 35 per cent on common stock of $2,000,000, after paying $15,000 for preferred dividends.

Stanfield's Limited, after paying bond interest, sinking funds and contingencies, showed a profit of $109,688.83, equalling 141 per cent upon the preferred and capital stock of $750,000.

The net earnings of the St. Maurice Paper Company were $363,909 in 1'915, and $2,832,277 in 1916. The balance, after interest and depreciation were deducted, amounted to $1,582,792, equalling 15-8 per cent on the $10,000,000 stock outstanding.

The Union Bank Paper Company, which owns 75 per cent of the stock of the St. Maurice Company, had interest charges of but $187,000 per annum, and the depreciation charge of about $1,061,000 last year was exceedingly liberal. The Financial Post says that it is safe to assume that at least another 5 per cent or 6 per cent of actual stock profits is concealed in the 1916 depreciation charges.

The figures for Ames, Holden & McCready for the ten months of the fiscal year which will close on April 30, shows a very large increase in turnover over the previous year, and the profits will also show a very satisfactory gain.

Steel and Radiation Company: In 1914 their business amounted to $774,231.36, and profits $13,797.02; in 1915, business $342,344:81, and profits, $123,086.20, and in 1916, business $457,389.87, and profits, $303,601.33. This discloses the extraordinary circumstance that notwithstanding their business in 1914 was almost double their business in 1916, in the former year their profits igere only $13,797.02 as compared with $303,-"601.33 in 1916. Last year the Dominion Textile Company earned profits of $1,481,195, equalling 12,5 per cent on the common stock. The Consolidated Rubber Compai y had net sales in 1915 amounting to $7,522,147; in 1916, $12,094,695. Their profits in 1915 amounted to $534,978, and in 1916 to $905,205, or 22 per cent upon the common stock of $4,125,000. The Ogilvie Milling Company declared a dividend of 8 per cent on $2,500,000 common stock, and a second bonus of 4 per cent, making a total profit divided among the shareholders of 16 per cent. It is stated that the actual earnings of the Company amounted to over 25 per cent.

The Gould Manufacturing Company had profits in 1915 of $99,069, and in 1916 of $229,447, equalling 24 per cent upon the common stock of $750,000. The Canadian

Fairbanks-Morse declared dividends amounting to 39.97 per cent, upon a common stock of $1,480,600. The Dominion Steel Foundry paid 60 per cent in dividends during 1916. The Brandram-Henderson annual statement indicates a large increase in profits during the year. The surplus available after paying bond interest and preferred dividends and making liberal allowance for contingencies amounts to 13-8 per cent of the common stock outstanding, while the total surplus now amounts to about 36 per cent.

The Belding-Paul-Corticelli Company, after allowing for preferred dividends for the year, it is understood can show a surplus equal to 10 per cent on the common stock. This will be equal to 15 per cent on the preferred, compared with 71 per cent in 1915 and 4-9 per cent in 1914.

I quote these figures to show that, notwithstanding the war conditions from which every person in this country is supposed to be suffering, one element in Canada is certainly not suffering by reason of those conditions, for these manufacturing concerns are declaring dividends to their shareholders very much greater than any they ever declared in times of peace.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

John Stanfield

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STANFIELD:

Not all of them.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

With regard to the Bank of Nova Scotia, its net earnings for the year amounted to 19.2 per cent of the capital. The National Trust Company in 1916 had net profits of $236,254, equal to 15.7 per cent on the capital; 10 per cent was paid to shareholders and the balance carried forward.

With respect to the proposal brought down by the Department of Labour some few months ago on the subject of the cost of living, we have before us the Order in Council which was made public by the department, and on the strength of which the Minister of Labour claims credit for having done something calculated to reduce very materially the cost of foodstuffs to consumers. I will read a few sections from the Order in Council, showing the procedure to be followed. Section 3 says:

(1) No person shall accumulate or shall withhold from sale any necessary of life beyond an amount thereof reasonably required for the use or consumption of his household or for the ordinary purposes of his business.

(4) The Minister of Labour may, by notice in writing under his hand or that of his deputy, require any person who operates, controls or manages any cold storage plant, packing house, cannery, factory, mine, warehouse, or other premises in which or in any part of which any

necessary of life is prepared, manufactured, produced or held by such person for himself or for another, or who in any manner deals in any necessary of life, to make and render unto such minister precisely as required by him, a written return.

And the Order in Council states the particulars to be given in the return. Section 5 says:

Whenever the council or any municipality shall declare by way of resolution that in its opinion excessive prices are being demanded within the limits of such municipality for any necessary of life, such council may, by notice in writing under the hand of its clerk or other authorized officer, require any person dealing within the municipality in such necessary of life, and locally situate therein, to make and render unto such Council within a time set in such notice, and such person shall make and render unto such council, precisely as required by it, a written return under oath or affirmation.

And the Order in Council states the details, and then goes on: *

If, after the receipt of any such return, such council shall consider that any circumstances justify reference of the return and a statement of the conditions to the Minister of Labour for further investigation at his hands, or if no return, or what the council shall consider an untrue or misleading return, is made, such council may, by way of resolution in writing expressing the facts and the council's conclusion therefrom report to such minister.

Section 6 says:

(1) If, after the receipt by the Minister of Labour of any return made to him or to any municipality in purported compliance with these regulations, such minister shall consider that any circumstances so justify, or if, after a return under these regulations has been required, none is made or none is made within the time set in the notice requiring such return or Within such further time as the Minister of Labour may upon special application to him allow, the said minister shall have power to investigate the business and to examine the premises, books, papers and records of the person making or failing to make such return, as the case may be, and, for those purposes such minister may appoint an Examiner or Examiners and may authorize in writing any examiner so appointed to enter and examine the premises, books, records and papers of such person, and to take evidence under oath or affirmation of any person who such examiner may believe has knowledge relating to such matters as ought to have been included within a proper return according to circumstances.

7. Whenever, in the opinion of the Minister of Labour, after an investigation and examination held in pursuance of the powers conferred by these regulations, an Tiffence against any of these regulations is disclosed: said minister shall remit to the Attorney General of any province within which such offence shall have been committed, for such action as such Attorney General may be pleased to institute because of the conditions appearing, certified copies of

(a) any return or returns and resolutions of any municipality which may have been made, rendered or passed pursuant to these regulations and are in the possession of the minister

and relevant to such offence, and of (b) the evidence taken on any such investigation or examination and the report of the examiner.

8. (1) No prosecution for a contravention or non-observance of any provision of these regulations shall he commenced without the written leave of the Attorney General for the province in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, expressing whether such prosecution shall be by way of indictment or under Part XV of the Criminal Code.

If ever there was a gold brick handed out to the people of this country in respect to the investigation of prices and regulation of -the cost of living it is to be found in this Order in Council. Its effect is to provide that responsibility for action shall be transferred from the Government to the municipality, and from the municipality to the Attorneys General of the several provinces. There was a case in the city of Montreal where they attempted to define the procedure laid down in the Order in Council, but it was found absolutely unworkable.

I have here a statement made by the legal adviser of the city of Montreal, to the effect that the charging of high prices for commodities is not an offence under the terms of the Order in Council, and that the element of conspiracy must exist. This is given as the contention of the city law department in regard to the communication from the Minister of Labour:-

To speak only of the present case, it is established that certain coal merchants have made, all overhead and other expenses deducted, a net profit of $6 per ton. These facts have been disclosed to the Minister of Labour. He alone has the power to make further inquiry In order to ascertain if this coal was carried in excess of the reasonable quantity required for the business of each trader, or whether such increase would t>e different if such information was asked by an officer of the Department of Labour.

Here we have an instance of the practical working out of the Order in Council passed at the instance of the Minister of Labour with regard to matters in which that Order purported to give jurisdiction. But it appears that it is absolutely impossible for anything to be done under this Order in Council in the way of regulating the cost of living. Having issued the Order in Council, the minister feels that his duty is accomplished, and, notwithstanding that the prices of commodities which constitute the necessaries of life are going up by leaps and bounds without any valid reason, nothing is done to relieve the situation.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers (Minister of Labour)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS:

Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to read the whole of that opinion?

[Mr. Kyte.l *

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

I have read all of it that is relevant to this subject. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers), if he desires, can read the rest at his leisure.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers (Minister of Labour)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS:

But it is only fair to read it all.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

I do not wish to cumber Hansard with it. There is one point that has engaged the attention of the newspaper people of this country, and th<*t is the price of newsprint paper. For a year or more complaint has been made that the manufacturers of newsprint have been boosting prices far beyond what is called for by the conditions. They called the attention of the Minister of Finance to the matter some time ago, with the result that action has been taken. We on this side have contended that the Government ought to have adopted the policy applied by the Australian Government of fixing the prices of commodities which form the necessaries of life. Objection is raised that it would dislocate the course of business, and result in bringing about hardships instead of being advantageous to the public. With regard to the price of newsprint, the Financial Post of 17th April last states:-

The Financial Post understands that Sir Thomas White holds the belief that paper costs have advanced out of all proportion and is determined to enforce his views.

It is understood that any action taken would he along the lines of regulating the flow of exports by the placing of embargoes thus automatically reducing prices. '

But, instead of doing that, the Government adopted the procedure with regard to newsprint that we asked them to adopt with regard to food products. It is stated that an Order in Council gave authority to an officer of the Government to take possession of newsprint paper manufactured in this country fixing the selling price. As an agreement had been made between the manufacturers of newsprint and the Canadian publishers, fixing the price at $2.50 the order was not gazetted. This was the order which resulted in fixing the price of newsprint in Canada. But that order was not enforced, because the manufacturers climbed down and fixed prices satisfactory to the newspaper proprietors. The Grain Growers of the West are organized, and they were able to press their views upon the Minister of Finance, with the result that a few days ago wheat and wheat products were placed on the free list. The newspapers are an influential body of great public influence, and the Government was forced to take action in order that the grievances they complained of might be

relieved. But the poor consumer, the workingman, must worry along as best he can, with the cost of living increasing and his income not increasing in proportion.

Let us see what has been done in Australia with regard to the fixing of prices and regulating the cost of living. I have here the statute dealing with that subject. After providing for the appointment of a board, the statute enacts as follows:

6. (1) The Board and each Commissioner shall, in relation to any matter as to which it or he has power to furnish a report or make a recommendation under these regulations, have power to-

(a) summon witnesses;

(b) take evidence on oath ;

(c) require the production of documents, books and papers; and

(d) enter upon any premises and inspect any documents, books and papers or any stock of foodstuffs and necessary commodities, or authorize any member of the Board or any other person to enter upon any premises and inspect any such documents, books and papers or any stocks of foodstuffs and necessary commodities.

Subsection 3 provides:

(3) If any member of the Board or any Commissioner or any other person authorized by the Board or by any Commissioner discloses, except in the course of his duty, or except to the Board ,or to the Commissioner as the case may be, any information obtained by him while upon any such premises, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Subsequent sections are as follows:

13. (1) The minister may from time to time, on the recommendation of the Board or a Commissioner-

(a) determine the maximum prices which may be charged for foodstuffs and necessary commodities sold, and the maximum rates which may be charged for services the performance of which is commenced, in any proclaimed area;

(b) determine the conditions of the sale of foodstuffs and necessary commodities sold therein and of the performance of services the performance of which is commenced therein.

(2) Any such determination shall be published in the Gazette, and shall from the date specified in the Gazette have the force of law.

14. Notwithstanding anything contained in the last two preceding regulations the Governor General may, without any recommendation of the Board or a Commissioner-

(a) declare any area to be a proclaimed area for the purposes of these regulations;

(b) flx the price of foodstuffs and necessary commodities sold and the rate for services the performance of which is commenced, in any proclaimed area;

(c) declare that as regards any proclaimed area, any price fixed by or under these regulations shall, after a date specified by him, cease to be the maximum price at which foodstuffs and necessary commodities may be sold or offered for sale, and any rates fixed under these regula-

61 i

tions shall, after a date specified by him, cease to be the maximum rates which may be charged for services the performance of which is commenced, in that area.

Another section of the Act provides that any violation of the recommendations made by the commission shall constitute an offence and shall be punishable accordingly. Here is a Government that apparently is not afraid to take the full responsibility of dealing with this subject. The question of the cost of living was not any more pressing in Australia than it is in Canada but in Australia there is a Government that is in office for the purpose of governing in the interest of the whole community and not in the interest of a special class. I shall, before I am through, be able to show this House that the results of the statute passed in Australia has been to reduce the cost of living enormously as compared with the cost of living in the Dominion of Canada. The particulars, relative to the fixing of wholesale and retail prices of foodstuffs and necessary commodities and services in Australia, which appeared in Weekly Bulletin, No. 660, have caused a number of inquiries from Canada requesting more detailed information concerning the administration of the regulations and the results achieved.

Action in regard to the fixing of prices of foodstuffs and necessary commodities was taken by the Commonwealth Government under the War Precautions Act (1914-16). Regulations, known as the War Precautions (Prices) Regulations, were issued in July, 1916, to supersede price fixing measures which had been put into operation by some .of the state governments since the beginning of the war.

A commissioner has been appointed at the capital of each Australian state to administer the regulations and a Federal commissioner co-ordinates the work and is directly in touch with the minister in control of this section of commonwealth activity. The staff in each state consists of a commissioner, an inquiry officer and two clerical assistants. It is provided that a commissioner in any state may recommend that a certain article of fpod or any other goods be declared a foodstuff or necessary commodity under the prices regulations. On such item being approved it is proclaimed in the Commonwealth Gazette and inquiries are then undertaken by the commissioner in the state specially concerned, or in all states if the item is one affecting the interests of the whole Commonwealth.

Limited, only $14,297, being the same as the amount received last year. But after deducting this $14,297 by way of war tax, I notice that the stockholders were still able to receive $95,391, equivalent to 12.7 per cent on the capital stock of the company.

The Consolidated Rubber Company's profits amounted to 22 per cent or $907,500. Under the old war tax the Government took $154,687, leaving to the company $752,813, or 18 per cent upon the whole capital stock of the company. Under the new war tax the Government takes $247,500, leaving to the company $660,000, or an amount equal to 16 per cent upon the total capital stock of the company. Thus while the Consolidated Rubber Company and Stanfields Limited were content with a very much smaller dividend before the war, after paying the war tax imposed on them by the Finance Minister they will have left in their treasury a revenue from their investment far in excess of any they had received in any year previous to the war.

I take now the Dominion Canners Limited. In 1916 the net income of that company was $556,777. In 1915 there appears to have been a deficit of $294,439. In 1914 the net income was $215,123. In 1913 the net income was $380,517. So that.during this past year of the war, the Dominion Canners have earned as a net income, over $200,000 more than they received in 1913 and far more than they earned in 1914 and 1915. A statement issued by the company informs the public that the earnings amounted to 24.31 per cent upon the preferred stock of the company and 14-20 per cent upon the common stock. Taking it upon the basis of 24-31 per cent profit, the war tax for 1915 amounted to $99,125 and the company retained $457,652, equal to 20 per cent upon the stock of the company. The new war tax will amount to $177,120, leaving to the company $379,656, or equal to 17 per cent profit upon the total capital stock of the company. Under the old war tax the Government took 17-8 per cent of the profits, and under the new war tax the Government taxes 32 per cent of the profits, leaving to the company profits amounting to 82-2 per cent in one case and 68 per cent in the other.

Let us see how the products of the Dominion Canners have behaved in the matter of price to the consumers in Canada. I find in a statement that came from the Labour Department that the price of tomatoes per tin-

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR:

What were the profits of the company in 1915?

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

There was a deficit in 1915 of $294,439. In January, 1915, the price of tomatoes, per can, size 2i, w-as 10 cents; in April, 1917, 20 cents. The price of peas in January, 1915, per tin, size 2, was 10 cents; in April, 1917, 15 cents. Corn, per tin, was 10 cents in 1915 and is 15 cents in 1917. These were the retail prices. I now quote the wholesale prices: Tomatoes, in 1915, $1, in 1917 $1.85 to $2.15; peas, in January, 1915, 95 cents, and in April, 1917, from $1.25 to $1.50.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR:

When you say that the price of tomatoes was $2.15, do you mean that the Dominion Canners Company received $2.15 a dozen for tomatoes?

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

These are the wholesale prices.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR:

Are they the prices at which the wholesale trade sold to the retailer?

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

Certainly.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR:

Then you are not insinuating that these are the prices which the Dominion Canners Company received?

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

The wholesale dealers got a little profit, but not as much as the Dominion Canners Company received. The wholesale dealers would not get 24 per cent profit upon their transactions, I am quite sure, as the shareholders of the Dominion Canners Company did.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR:

If the hon. gentleman thinks that the Dominion Canners Company is making money very fast, I may tell him that he can buy preferred stock at 75 or less and common stock at 20. He might find that, according to his ideas, a good investment.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

Very good, considering the fact that they are paying a 24 per cent dividend.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR:

They are not paying any dividend at all, either on preferred or on common stock, and they have not been able to do so for a long time.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
LIB

George William Kyte

Liberal

Mr. KYTE:

The statement to the public indicates that the earnings were 24-31 on the preferred stock of -the company.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR:

I am telling you that they did not pay any dividend.

Topic:   THE POTATO SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   THE BUDGET.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.
Permalink

May 1, 1917