May 5, 1938

ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS- CHANGE IN PERSONNEL

LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice-for Mr. Mackenzie King) moved:

That the name of Mr. Gauthier be substituted for that of Mr. Parent (Quebec West and South) on the special committee on electoral matters.

Topic:   ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE
Subtopic:   SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS- CHANGE IN PERSONNEL
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE

MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937


The house resumed from Friday, April 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) for concurrence in the second report of the special committee appointed to investigate farm implement prices, presented to the house on the 8th of April, 1937.


CON

Mark Cecil Senn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):

The motion which is now before the house has already been discussed on three separate occasions. It is to be hoped, in the interest of all those interested in this report, that the debate may now be allowed to continue until the matter is finally disposed of.

If the Canadian farmer is to produce economically and to compete successfully in the home market and the markets of the world he must have his farm adequately equipped with modem machinery. The price he has to pay for such machinery is of very

Farm Implements Committee Report

great importance to him. It constitutes part of his capital investment, and it has a direct bearing as well upon his cost of production. It will not be denied, that the price which the farmer has to pay for his implements is out of proportion to that which he receives for his own product. Unfortunately, however, the same may be said with equal truth about what the farmer has to pay for nearly everything he has to buy. The remedy for such a condition lies not in asking or requiring industry to sell at unprofitable prices, as the farmer very often has to do, nor in opening our markets wide to goods manufactured by the cheap labour or mass production of other countries, but rather in taking steps to place the farmer on an equality with other industries as fair as bis own price structure is concerned.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was perfectly justified in implementing the pledge, which he made during the dying days of the last session, to revive this report, and I hasten to commend the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) upon the moderation of his address in moving concurrence in the report. I cannot, however, agree with many of his arguments, and certainly not with a number of the recommendations which he added to those which appeared in the report. But I am in hearty accord with the closing paragraph of his speech, wherein he described the plight of agriculture and pleaded that the government should take steps for the rehabilitation of the farming industry.

In my judgment it was unwise and regrettable that concurrence should have been asked in this report at this late date. It was tabled over a year ago. The evidence upon which it was based is some of it over a year old, some over two years old; and in the meantime conditions have very largely changed. The price of implements has again advanced, the cost of raw material and labour entering into the manufacture of farm implements has also risen very materially, and I fully agree with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) who stated to the house the other night that this report is out of date and of little practical value under present circumstances.

This was not at all a unanimous report. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), speaking on this motion the other day, read the recommendation in regard to cream separators and stated that it was passed unanimously. I am sorry that I have to deny that statement absolutely. I certainly protested,

not only against that recommendation, but a number of others. The hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) was not in accord with many of these recommendations. I might also say the hon. member for Northumberland, Ont. (Mr. Fraser) protested against many of them, and q(her hon. members of the committee whom I might name, felt in the same way. But my chief reason for saying it was unwise to ask concurrence in the report at the present time is this: I

do not believe that the committee as it was constituted was in a position to bring down a disinterested and unbiased report. I felt that I was in that position myself. Like many other members of the committee, I am a farmer, and the price of implements i3 of vital importance to me financially and otherwise. Several members of the committee, while it was in session, stated very frankly that they were interested in the price of farm implements, that they were in the market for farm implements, but were unwilling to buy as long as prices remained at their present level. As I listened to those statements I could not help but wonder just how long one of those members would have been allowed to remain on a jury if he made such a statement in a court of law.

In addition to that I believe this whole investigation originated in the Liberal propaganda during the last federal election campaign. Candidates all over Canada said the prices of implements were too high and laid the blame on the Bennett administration for raising tariffs upon farm implements in 1930. They told the electors frankly that if a Liberal government Were elected the duty would be removed of at least reduced and that the prices of farm implements would be lowered accordingly. Some of them even went so far as to carry along lists of farm implements, and they told the farmers that they would be able to buy a mower for ten or twenty dollars less, a binder for forty dollars less, and so on all down the line. So it was not to be wondered at that after the duty was lowered and the prices of implements advanced Liberal members of this house and gentlemen who had been candidates throughout the country were very much embarrassed and even resentful in regard to what had happened. That resentment showed itself from time to time in the committee, and I am sure it was very apparent the other night while the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was speaking. So I think I am well justified in saying that this was not a disinterested report, from either a personal or a political standpoint.

2562 COMMONS

Farm Implements Committee Report

I stated previously, Mr. Speaker, that I am anxious, in my own interests and in the interests of agriculture generally, that implements should be made available at the lowest possible price compatible with the prosperity of this great country. However, I believe that one of the greatest assets of the farmers is the home market. I live in close proximity to two centres of population where farm implements are manufactured on a large scale. The workers in the factories thus engaged consume large quantities of all kinds of farm products which are produced in that area as well as everywhere else in Canada. The advantages to the farmers in having such industries employing large numbers of men, thus providing a market for their products, far exceed any advantages which might come about through any reduced duties on farm implements. Less than $2,000 will purchase sufficient implements and up to date horse-drawn machinery adequately to equip the average farm in Canada. The life of this machinery is at' least twelve or fifteen years. If the duty of 74 per cent, which still exists, should be entirely removed and agriculture should get the full benefit of that reduction the average farmer in Ontario would not benefit to the extent of S10 a year, an amount which seems to me absolutely negligible when compared with the value of the home market.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the first finding of the committee, which states that the prosperity of the farm implement industry is dependent upon the prosperity of agriculture. I think everyone will agree with that; it is a self-evident fact. Beyond question the farmer is the only customer of the implement company. On the other hand, the farmer must have a source of supply, and the implement manufacturers constitute that source of supply. So these industries are mutually dependent upon each other. The history of the implement industry in Canada is very interesting indeed. At the time of confederation, and in the years following, the farmer's implements were very crude and inefficient. He used a plow that was hammered out in the local blacksmith shop; he cut his grain with a cradle and threshed it with a flail. However, as time went on better implements began to make their appearance. Men of initiative and foresight, such as the Masseys, the Harrises and the Cockshutts saw a fertile field for invention and enterprise, and the period from the eighties up to about 1910 or 1912 saw horse-drawn implements reach a very high state of efficiency. At

the same time there was a development and consolidation of the agricultural implement industry.

The other evening the hon. member for Lake Centre emphasized very strongly the profits made by the implement industry as a whole between 1890 and 1912, but I do not think it is reasonable to base an argument in favour of lower prices of farm implements at the present time upon profits which these companies enjoyed during a period which ended a quarter of a century ago. If the hon. member had so wished he could have told the house the profits that were made over the whole period, from 1890 to date; the figures are among those furnished to the committee by the auditor, and they are very interesting indeed. They indicate that from 1890 to 1935-and those were the years under review-the implement companies of Canada made an actual profit of 34 per cent on the average stock issued during that period. That was paid by way of cash and stock dividends. Eliminating the stock dividends entirely it will be found that during this period the implement companies made a profit of 8-8 per cent on the actual cash originally invested in the industry. I do not think anyone will say that these were unreasonable profits over that long period of time ; it seems to me they might be called very reasonable.

Immediately following the hon. member for Lake Centre the hon. member for Brantford City gave to the house figures showing the losses incurred by the implement companies, with one exception, in both the last ten year period and the last fifteen year period. I do not intend to repeat those figures, but I tried to check up on them, and I believe they are approximately correct. However, if any confirmation of the hon. gentleman's statement is needed I should like to refer hon. members to the price spreads report. It is well known that the price spreads commission also investigated the agricultural implement industry, and on page 64 of the report of that committee there is a paragraph dealing particularly with this very question which, it seems to me, confirms the figures stated by the hon. member for Brantford City. The paragraph is very short, and I should like to read it:

Evidence shows that of the four large companies, two obtained a small return on investment over the ten year period 1924-33 inclusive, the figures being 2-6 per cent and 1-0 per cent. The other two companies failed to earn a return and made losses of 2-6 per cent and 1 [DOT] 1 per cent.

In considering these results-

And I want particularly to direct attention to this phase of the matter.

Farm Implements Committee Report

-we inquired as to whether any of the capital had been placed upon their books without the receipt of adequate and proper consideration. No evidence of this was found, at least in the years under review. That there was no undue expansion of manufacturing facilities in the years of prosperity has already been shown and we therefore do not believe that the investment upon which the returns have been calculated is greater than was justified.

The first two sentences of this statement I suggest corroborate to the full the statement made by the hon. member for Brantford City that most of the companies had incurred losses during the last ten or fifteen year period. But in addition to that, and of equal importance-perhaps of more importance-it also shows that there was no over-capitalization in the companies, that there was no watered stock, and that there was no distribution of stock melons in any reorganization of the companies which took place. That is the sense of the findings of the price spreads commission. It seems to me that this adequately proves that certain of the recommendations and findings of the farm implements committee, and statements which have been made by several hon. members regarding undue profits, are hardly in accordance with the evidence.

In view of the relationship existing between the farming and agricultural implement industries, and in view of the fact that there were no undue profits made during this period, it is very difficult for me to understand the charges made the other evening by the Minister of Agriculture against the implement companies when he spoke of soulless corporations not satisfied with reasonable earnings. Because of the minister's position he is peculiarly situated to speak with authority for agriculture. One cannot condemn too strongly language the effect of which is to arouse bitterness and enmity between these two great industries whose interests should be mutual and who are so dependent upon each other. It would have been much better if he had attempted to encourage harmony and cooperation between them, rather than stir up discord and ill-feeling. I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he states that the minister should have announced the government's program the other evening, when he spoke as a member of the administration, rather than make vague and indefinite threats against the industry. By not doing so he has left himself open to the suggestion, more than once repeated, that the speech was made for use in the impending election in Saskatchewan.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Who made the suggestion?

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
CON

Mark Cecil Senn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SENN:

I would refer the hon.

member, since he has asked me, to an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail, the great Liberal organ of the province of Ontario. If he cares to hear it I shall read it to him.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART:

Read it all.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
LIB

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

I do not think it is a very Liberal organ since the marriage of the Globe and the Mail, is it?

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
CON

Mark Cecil Senn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SENN:

I think it is. I do not 'think I shall take the time to read it; I have insufficient time as it is to say all I wish to say. However, if the hon. member wishes to hear it, I shall certainly place it on Hansard.

During the period to which we are referring the price of implements has advanced greatly in the United States and I believe that at the present time in that country an investigation is taking place into the question. One cannot help wondering if the government is waiting to see if any action is going to be taken over there before taking action themselves in the matter. Under the circumstances I do not believe the government will take any action. In fact, standing in my place this afternoon I feel I can assure the implement companies that at the present time no action detrimental to their interests will be taken by the government.

I should like to refer to a recommendation made by the mover of the motion. He appealed to the government to remove entirely the duty on agricultural implements, on the ground that Canada's market for wheat has been lost through increased tariff protection, exchange control, quotas and price-fixing by European countries, and that therefore the cost of production in Canada should be lowered by removing the duty on agricultural implements. I wonder if the hon. member realizes how small an effect such action would have.

The average sales of agricultural implements in Canada in the ten year period between 1926 and 1935 were approximately $39,000,000. During that time the average wheat production was $377,000,000. If the 7\ per cent duty were removed, and if the farmer received the full benefit of it, it would amount to only about four-fifths of a cent per bushel. That would have 'been the amount if the implements had been used only in the production of wheat. But when you consider that they were also used to produce oats, barley, rye, flax, hay, fruit and vegetables, and even dairy products, I am sure the committee must agree with me that the effect on the cost of production of farm products would be absolutely negligible.

2564 COMMONS

Farm Implements Committee Report

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
LIB

John Frederick Johnston (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

Mr. JOHNSTON (Lake Centre):

The

period to which the hon. member has referred was one when the purchase of farm machinery in the country was not normal.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
CON

Mark Cecil Senn

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SENN:

That is undoubtedly true. At the same time I do not believe it was a normal period so far as the production of wheat was concerned.

I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Needham). I do not believe he intended to convey a wrong impression to the house, but at page 1.341' of Hansard, he stated that between the years 1920 and 1935 the value of farm implements at the factory was $492,250,017, and that during that .same period they were sold for $660,737,871, leaving an amount of $168,487,854, which I am afraid conveyed to some people the idea that implement companies had benefited in profits to that extent. He did not tell the house, however, that from this $168,487,854, the difference between the two figures, there should have been deducted $52,000,000 for freight; nor did he tell the house that from that amount there should be deducted approximately $100,000,000 as agents' commissions, and cost of distribution. That leaves an amount of about $16,000,000 to take care of profits and other expenses incidental to the business, which were not included in the factory cost. That makes an entirely different picture.

Some fault has been found with the cost of distribution of farm implements. Beyond any question it is inordinately high-much higher in some years than in others. In some years only a small number of implements are sold, but the same organization for distribution has to be maintained, whether the bulk of sales be great or (small. I do not believe anyone will suggest that agricultural implement agents throughout Canada are reaping excessive profits. As a matter of fact many of them find it very hard to make a living, and from time to time some have to go out of business. But I do wish to say that the service given farmers by the agricultural implement companies is something the farmer absolutely must have, and something which is given every day at I believe a reasonable cost. Depots for repair parts are maintained throughout Canada at points where implements are sold, and at those depots a full stock of repair parts is kept. On many occasions they are kept at considerable expense to the companies. In addition to that, other services are given the farmers, and I do not think we can overestimate the value of services which from time to time are rendered.

I should like to refer to one or two more of the findings of the committee. Finding No. 2 refers to the backlog of unpurchased requirements which the farmers had been unable to buy during the years of the depression. It states that the normal requirements of agriculture amount to over $51,000,000, but that in addition there is a backlog of some

8200,000,000 which the companies should enjoy in the next few years. A perusal of the evidence will show that not one of the representatives of the companies would agree with such an estimate; they all made the statement that it would be unwise for them to base their production program or their price structure upon any such estimate. The experience of the past year has proven this to be correct. Not only was the $51,000,000 of normal requirements not taken up in full, but none of the $200,000,000 was purchased. I agree fully with the hon. member for The Battle-fords, who stated that there is little hope that the normal estimated requirement of $51,000,000 would be purchased in 1938. The average purchases of farm implements in the last sixteen years have amounted to about $41,000,000, as will be found on page 1215 of the evidence.

Findings No. 9 and No. 10 are in the same category and to a certain extent refer to the same subject. Finding No. 9 reads:

That the unfavourable factors affecting the financial returns of the farm implement companies in the period 1930 to 1935 have been largely eliminated and therefore the companies can look forward to a period of relative prosperity in the industry.

I do not think anyone who is at all acquainted with the position of agriculture to-day will say that the buying power of the farmer has returned to normal. The experience of the past year has shown that it has not. It would be a very optimistic man who would say that this buying power will return to normal in 1938.

Finding No. 10, which refers to bad debt losses, states:

That, particularly, the abnormal bad debt losses resulting from the depression have been largely absorbed by the implement companies and that this item of cost should not appear in the next few years.

What has happened during the past year?

The reserves which the companies had set aside for bad debt losses were absorbed early in the year. Many of the accounts that had been considered collectable had to be written off during 1937, particularly accounts in the drought areas. This state of affairs was brought about by conditions over which no one could have any control.

Farm Implements Committee Report

Finding No. 16 recommends that cream separators should be placed on the free list. Very strong representations were made by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. McCann) against such action being taken, and his argument was well supported by facts and figures. However, I cannot help but think that it would have carried more weight had he stood four-square on a policy of protection instead of stating that he was neither a protectionist nor a free trader, that he believed in tariff for revenue. I was just wondering what action he will take should this report be concurred in. If it is concurred in, it would seem to me that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will be obliged to remove the duty from cream separators. I was disappointed that the hon. member did not move an amendment to have the matter of the duty on cream separators referred to the tariff board.

I find the following statement on page 1278 of the evidence:

The information so submitted together with the evidence given by the officers of the De Laval company in connection with the importation by this company of cream separators from Sweden clearly establishes that it is apparently uneconomic to manufacture cream separators in Canada.

I agree entirely with the statements which were made by the hon. member for Brantford City and the hon. member for Renfrew South, that there was not sufficient evidence produced before the committee to warrant any such statement as that. As stated by the hon. member for Renfrew South, the only apparent reason why other countries are able to manufacture cream separators cheaper than Canada is that lower wages are paid in those countries. There can be no doubt that if the manufacture of cream separators were discontinued in Canada, and Canadian dairymen had to rely upon foreign manufacturers for their machines, they would be placed in a most unfavourable position. I shall refer to this matter again before I conclude.

There is another phase of the cream separator question which has not been discussed in this house at any length, if at all, to which I should like to refer for a minute. Because of the preference granted to cream separators under the Ottawa agreements, one or two cream separator companies in Great Britain have been able to establish a fair volume of Canadian business. This fact has not been referred to in any speech to which I have listened, nor was it mentioned in the evidence given before the committee. This volume of business is considerable. I should like to 51952-163

refer particularly to R. A. Lister and Company, Limited, of England, the oldest and largest manufacturer of cream separators in the British Empire. This company did some business in Canada prior to the war, but their factory was taken over by the government during the war and up to the time of the Ottawa agreements they had done little or no business in Canada.

I have here a statement by a representative of this concern, of which I shall read only certain paragraphs which I believe would be of particular interest to hon. members. The first paragraph refers to what I have just stated, that this company had done business in Canada prior to the war but had lost it during the war. The statement goes on to say that despite terrific efforts on their part after the war to rehabilitate their separator business, including the purchase of a plant in Hamilton, Ontario, it was not until the ratification of the Ottawa agreements and the granting of a preference in 1931 on British machines coming into Canada that they were able to make the headway which they firmly felt their previous efforts justified. It is interesting to note that they have secured some fifty per cent of the New Zealand trade. I quote:

Prior to the passing of the preference in Canada, they were asked whether they were prepared to take full advantage of the concession which would be afforded to them as one of the manufacturers affected in the empire. They immediately intimated that for their part they would not only be prepared to do their utmost to take advantage of it, but would do their best to ensure that for every $100 worth of separators which they exported to Canada, they would take at least $100 worth of Canadian produce in payment. As a result, they entered into a contract with the Coekshutt Plow, and Frost and Wood companies for the distribution of their separators in Canada, and undertook to take on the distribution of certain of their products, suitable to the British market, in Great Britain. As a result of this agreement they have purchased approximately twice the value of Canadian products as compared with the value of cream separators which they have exported to Canada-this, despite the fact that the sales of Lister cream, separators in the dominion have been increasing steadily and materially year by year during the past five years-and at the present time, they have similar negotiations in hand with a view to materially increasing the value of this two-way trade in the interests of both Canada and Great Britain but if, having done all the spade work, development work, and just as the business is becoming of material importance, (grown as it has in turnover some eight to ten times), they are to have it undermined by the taking away of the incentive and encouragement afforded them by the preference aforementioned, the insurmountable difficulties with which they will be confronted will be appreciated. It is contended (1) that they are not only making available to the dairy farmers of Canada a high grade machine but that they

2566 COMMONS

Farm Implements Committee Report

are helping several hundred industrial workers to find sound employment in Canada; (2) that by distributing their products through an agricultural machinery manufacturers' organization they are helping the manufacturer to reduce his selling price in Canada. They are possibly among his three largest clients in the world to-day.

The arrangements come to were the most practical and sound interpretations of the Ottawa agreement which could be effected, and it is believed that this reciprocal business not only expresses the written word but the spirit of the Ottawa agreement in its highest sense, and that without any question of doubt it is within the best interests of the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom.

The import figures of cream separators imported into the United Kingdom speak for themselves. They are as follows: 1932, 2;

1933, 535; 1934, 950; 1935, 1,355; 1936, 1,994; 1937, 3,163.

I contend, Mr. Speaker, that if this duty is removed as the recommendation suggests, it will be a violation of the intent of the Ottawa agreement, and I suggest, as the hon. member for Renfrew South has done, to the Minister of Finance and to the government, that before any action is taken on this question it be referred to the tariff board or to some other independent organization.

I find that my time is pretty well exhausted. I do wish, however, to make one other statement before concluding. It is not my intention to discuss the conclusions and recommendations of the commission at greater length. The experience of the past year has proved that they have had varying degrees of truth and of value. The whole discussion revolves around one question: How can agriculture be furnished with its implements of production at prices which it can afford to pay? Certainly not by driving Canadian manufacturers entirely out of business. With this everyone appears to agree. Even the report itself does not suggest that prices should have been lowered when the duty was lowered. You may search it from beginning to end without finding any such intimation. It was left to the chairman to make the suggestion that the duty on agricultural implements should be removed entirely. Such a conclusion was not reached in the report.

In my judgment the remedy for the inequality in prices is twofold. First, steps must be taken to increase the purchasing power of the farmer. This, however, is not the proper time or place to discuss methods of bringing about such a condition. Second, everything possible should be done to preserve the Canadian market for the Canadian manufacturer of farm implements and to see that as large a proportion as possible of the implements in use on Canadian farms are of Canadian production.

This is not a new doctrine. Properly applied, it has done more in the past to reduce prices than any other action that could have been taken. It has worked well in the past, and I believe it is still efficacious. I repeat, it would be a calamity if our Canadian factories were forced to close because of undue competition with the mass production and cheap labour of other countries, and if the Canadian farmer were forced to rely on other countries for his implements of production. Then, indeed, no Canadian authority would have any control whatever over prices.

I should like to quote to the house what a great Liberal and a great Canadian said about this matter. Speaking in the House of Commons in the year 1904, and referring to foreign manufacturers, this is what he said, in part:

They are not worrying about the good of the people of Canada. They send goods here with the hope and expectation that they will crush out the need of Canadian industry. If Canadian industry is crushed out, what would happen? The end of cheapness would come and the beginning of dearness would be at hand. Artificial cheapness obtained to-day under such conditions at the expense of dearness at a very near day in the future is not a system of which we could approve, or that any of us on either side of the house could encourage.

These are the words of none other than the Right Hon. W. S. Fielding, one of the greatest Liberal ministers of finance that this country has ever had, and the truth of his statement is more than ever apparent under present conditions.

The hon. member for Renfrew South gave a good example in his address when he told the house that Sweden had raised the price of cream separators in New Zealand, where there are no manufacturers of that article; at the same time lowering the price of those sent to the Dominion of Canada because of the competition that was experienced with Canadian manufacturers.

I repeat, it is to be hoped that the Canadian farmer will never be forced to rely on foreign manufacturers for his implements of production. If the Canadian market could be reserved one hundred per cent for the Canadian manufacturer it would result in a lower cost of production because of increased volume, and at the same time would provide increased employment in the factories engaged not only in the manufacture of implements but as well in the manufacture of materials, and in industries which are allied to the farm implement industry. In that way, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could to a certain extent

Farm Implements Committee Report

help to alleviate the unemployment that exists to-day, as well as provide better markets for farm products in the Dominion of Canada.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
LIB-PRO

William Gilbert Weir

Liberal Progressive

Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house asks for concurrence in the report of the special committee appointed at the last session of parliament to continue an inquiry into the high prices of agricultural implements with particular reference to the increase in prices in 1936. This committee was named to continue an investigation that had been started the previous session before the committee of agriculture and colonization. Looking over the list of members of this house who made up that special committee I find that every group in the house was represented on it. My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Senn) made reference to the fact that the report of the committee was not unanimous.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
SC

William Hayhurst

Social Credit

Mr. HAYHURST:

Were any members of that special committee from the province of Alberta ?

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
LIB-PRO

William Gilbert Weir

Liberal Progressive

Mr. WEIR:

Yes, I think so.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
SC

William Hayhurst

Social Credit

Mr. HAYHURST:

No, not from Alberta.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink
LIB-PRO

William Gilbert Weir

Liberal Progressive

Mr. WEIR:

Every group was represented; I do not know that every province was represented.

Topic:   FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT PRESENTED APRIL 8, 1937
Permalink

May 5, 1938