June 15, 1920

L LIB

William Daum Euler

Laurier Liberal

Mr. EULER:

I would suggest that hats

should be included, because a hat is as much a necessary article of clothing as any other article of clothing could be. I do not see why a distinction is made.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The range of

varieties is very great in hats, and one can be -so economical or so frightfully extravagant in hats-[DOT]

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
L LIB

William Daum Euler

Laurier Liberal

Mr. EULER:

So you can be in clothing.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

-that it was

felt that the tax on an extravagant hat should be on the whole price. While it is quite true you can be extravagant in clothing, at the same time the amount is much greater and, therefore, the penalty for extravagance is really greater than in the case of hats. This is digressing for a minute, but it may save time later on. We have 'been going very carefully into the cost of hat manufacture. We find that while the price of raw furs nas dropped very largely, decreases in price ranging to GO per cent in raw -skins, the prepared -fur which is necessary for the manufacture of felt hats, instead of going down, has increased in price very much for the reason that the product is largely obtained from Belgium and France and the supply on hand is very limited. I speak subject to correction, but I think I am approximately correct when I say that the quantity which before could be bought for something like $2.50, to-day costs something like $10.50. When we come to that -particular item I am going to pro-'nse to raise the price up to which hats will be exempt from $5 to $7.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

The price will be raised?

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Yes.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
?

Mr. LOGO IE@

I should like to know why the minister is making an exception of silk dresses, silk skirts, and silk goods generally for ladies. If you limit the price I cannot conceive why it is necessary to except a garment made of silk as against a garment made of fine wool, which will cost very nearly the same. You will often get a garment the weft of the material of which is cotton or wool and the warp silk.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
L LIB

Jacques Bureau

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BUREAU:

Silk is a frill; wool is a necessity.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
UNION

William Stewart Loggie

Unionist

Mr. LOGGIE:

I do not agree. I think

a silk garment costing the same as a wool garment is just as much a necessity lor a lady. When you are limiting the price, I cannot conceive why it is necessary to except silk garments as against woollen.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
L LIB

William Duff

Laurier Liberal

Mr. DUFF:

What about silk stockings?

Mr. ARCHiAMiBAULT: And silk petticoats?

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
UNION

William Stewart Loggie

Unionist

Mr. LOGGIE:

Silk stockings will come

up under another clause and I shall hav a word to say about them then. I think the point I have raised is worthy of the minister's consideration.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
L LIB

Edmond Proulx

Laurier Liberal

Mr. PROULX:

I endorse what my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) has said. To except silk garments is discriminating against the merchants who manufacture and sell silk. I think the limit should be the same in both cases. I do not see why a woman should not be just as much at liberty to buy a silk garment as a woollen one.

Mr. iPEDLOW: I fear this section has not been thoroughly considered. ' It is undoubtedly inconsistent that silk material by the yard should be taxed but that manufactured silk garments should be free, whereas woollen materials when purchased by the yard are free and the manufactured woollen garment is taxed. I should like the minister to explain that.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I quite agree

with the hon. member (Mr. Pedlow) that we have to be consistent, and that is just why the tax is as it is. We are taxing raw silks when purchased by the yard. The idea of that tax is that silk is to some extent a luxury. It is a very nice thing and we all like to see it worn in the becoming way it is worn by the ladies, but still it is a luxury, and we think that people who can afford to buy silk might well be asked to pay a tax on it. You can buy silk cheaper than you can buy some essentials. The test of extravagance is not altogether the price that is paid for an article. In a climate like ours silk of itself cannot be looked upon as a necessity. In hot weather cottons are cheaper, and in our cold weather silk is hardly the thing. In answer to the specific point raised by my hon. friend I desire to point out that we have a tax of 10 per cent on raw silk. Then all articles of clothing are subject to a tax above a certain price. The silk manufactured garment is subject to a tax. The effect of this provision is not to exempt silk dresses but to have a tax on all silk dresses without the

limitation; while woollen dresses and articles that are of a more useful character are exempt up to a certain price.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
L LIB

Isaac Ellis Pedlow

Laurier Liberal

Mr. PEDLOW:

Does the minister think that the trade generally would understand that? As it reads now it says " Except silk dresses." Is it the intention of the minister to frame a new paragraph covering silk dresses?

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The proposal is that all silk clothing, including artificial goods not specifically mentioned, shall be subject to the tax.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
UF

Thomas Wakem Caldwell

United Farmers

Mr. CALDWELL:

I should like to direct the attention of the minister to that section of the list which deals with top boots. It is proposed to extend the exemptions to top boots not less than 12 inches in height, such as are used in lumbering, mining, river driving, etc. I would point out to the minister that there are very few driving-boots that are as high as 12 inches, and the number of those that are higher than 11 inches is very limited. The majority of these boots are as a matter .of fact only 8 inches in height, and this applies to boots used by lumbermen, fishermen and miners. Very few river drivers, I may also in*-form the minister, buy boots or shoes with the caulks in for the reason that a man cannot put on a pair of new shoes and go into a stream immediately. He has to wear them for two or possibly three weeks before driving in order to have them properly conform to the shape of his feet. I would suggest to the minister that he amend this provision and make it 8 inches, instead of 12 inches.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

If river-driving boots are not fitted with caulks they are ordinary lumberman's boots, which are protected. The only boots that are used for occupational purposes are lumbermen's, miners', and fishermen's boots, and I am informed that all these boots are at least 12 inches in height. The clause says "top boots not less than 12 inches in height," but I am prepared to change that to 10 inches if the committee so desire. If we go lower than that; however, we shall run the risk of throwing the whole list open.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
L LIB

Isaac Ellis Pedlow

Laurier Liberal

Mr. PEDLOW:

The divisional list is not an altogether wise one, and in this respect I do not think the minister has been properly advised as to the prices of the various parts of a suit of clothes. I have a list prepared by one of the foremost

3 p.m. manufacturers in the country, and the prices of the different gar-

ments that constitute the suit, make a total of $45, comprised as follows: coat $31.50, trousers $10.50, and vest $7.50. This is the division which this manufacturer has prepared and which I think is a scientific one, and I would suggest to the minister that he adopt these figures. Another point which I would direct to his attention is the fact that the excess price named for an overcoat, man's or woman's, $60, and the price for a suit, $45, are inadvisable. I submit that if there is any difference in the prices of these two items it should be in favour of the suit. It requires a greater number of yards to make a suit of clothes than an overcoat and it costs more to make it, and the difference should be in favour of the suit of clothes rather than the overcoat. This applies to ladies' suits and coats as well. It takes more cloth to make the suit and consequently these [DOT] figures should be reversed.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Dealing with the first point, as I took down the hon. member's figures, I think his total is wrong. The figures he gave total $49.50. He gave $10.50 for trousers, $31.50 for coat and $7.50 for vest, so that his figures come to $4.50 more than they should. Of course, I know that figures like these are sometimes the result of scientific calculation. Now, we have not tried to arrange this matter scientifically, because we are aiming at a specific object, and that is to make it unprofitable for people to try to cheat the country of revenue. It is much better that they should not buy clothing separately; they should get a suit of clothes from one man and not buy the trousers at one store and the coat and vest at other places in order to evade the tax. As a matter of fact', the proportional prices we put in are really less than $45, and the division will make it extremely unlikely that any one will endeavour to escape paying the tax by going around and buying clothes piecemeal.

Mr. CALDWELI,: May I revert to the

question I raised a moment ago? This paragraph reads:

Besides changing the tax on hoots so that it applies only on the excess, it is also proposed to extend the exemptions to top hoots not less than 12 inches in height.

I do not think that the situation is perfectly clear, and I think that the paragraph should be so constructed as to show beyond any doubt that these top boots for lumbering, mining and fishing industries are totally exempt.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

The hon. member will see that there are two questions involved so far as boots are concerned: first, the question of the limit at which exemption shall be fixed, and secondly, the question of the applicability of the tax at all. We do not tax those boots that are used in the occupations to the cost of carrying on which we do not wish to add.

Mr. 'CALDWELL: I think it would be

just as well to make it perfectly clear that there is total exemption so far as these particular boots are concerned. Ordinary people reading the instructions contained in this paragraph are very apt to misunderstand, and I know for a fact that many items in the resolutions brought down on the 18th of May were not fully understood by many. I find that a good many of our local storekeepers misunderstood some of the items in those resolutions, and they could not be blamed for doing so because the subject was not as lucidly stated as perhaps it might have been. I find a good many of our local storekeepers have misunderstood the instructions, so I think it would be very easy to misunderstand what is meant in this case.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915, AMENDMENT.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Permalink

June 15, 1920