May 5, 1938

SC

William Hayhurst

Social Credit

Mr. HAYHURST:

Alberta is a vital province so far as agriculture is concerned, and there should have been at least two representatives from that province on the special committee.

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:

My hon. friend can deal with that when he rises to speak, but I repeat, every group at least in the house was represented on the committee and thus had a voice in its deliberations. As far as I recall there was no dissenting voice in the recommendations that were brought in by the committee.

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

Joseph Thorarinn Thorson

Liberal Progressive

Mr. THORSON:

May I interject that all the groups were asked to select their own representatives?

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. May I say, by way of explanation as to why this inquiry was continued before a special committee rather than before the agriculture committee to which it was referred the year previously, that the agriculture committee consists of sixty members. It is a very large committee and one which in my own personal judgment, was not as satisfactory a committee as it might have been to which to refer an inquiry of this kind. I think even the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) agreed with that observation. Indeed he went further and said 51952-163$

that the inquiry, he thought, should go before the tariff board. It was for this reason, then, that the reference was made to a smaller special committee. Last year it will be recalled that due to the desire to prorogue parliament early on account of the coronation the report of the committee was not dealt with, nor was any motion made for concurrence in it.

May I here say a word as to the general approach made to this inquiry? I do not believe any committee of this house ever approached a problem with greater earnestness and stronger determination to find the essential facts regarding any industry or any matter that was ever inquired into. The approach was made in the spirit of desiring to establish the essential facts; regardless of what those facts might disclose the committee was prepared to base its findings thereon. With an approach of that kind I am sure that both the committee appointed in 1936 and the one which operated last year were able to secure much additional information, through the good-will that was created right from the beginning, than otherwise might have been the case.

May I also in passing extend a word of appreciation to the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) who as chairman of the committee had more to do with directing its proceedings than any other person. At the same time may I express a word of appreciation of the very valuable services rendered by the auditor and the counsel who acted for both committees. I doubt if any committee of this house was ever served by abler people who were more willing to give of their time and energy than these gentlemen did. at the remuneration which they received.

There is one phase of this matter upon which I should like to make an observation. When this committee was established, or shortly after it got under way, it was found that a similar inquiry was taking place in the United States before their trade and industry commission. I think it is regrettable that we have not the report of that commission before us at this time, when we are dealing with the report of our own committee.

Coming now to the consideration of the report which is before us, I think everyone is agreed that the prosperity of the agricultural implement industry is tied up with the prosperity of the farming industry. One needs only to look at the figures of purchases of farm implements over a period of years to recognize that that is so. It shows that the high of farm implement purchases was in 1920, when it stood at $82,000,000; it was $70,000,000 in 1929; it was down to a low of

2568 COMMONS

Farm Implements Committee Report

$8,000,000 in 1933. The effect of this lack of purchases was immediately reflected in the financial results to the farm implement companies. It is only fair to point out that these companies sustained losses between 1930 and 1935. It cannot be established, however, that these losses were due to the prices of farm implements being too low; rather they were the result of the failure of farmers to purchase implements. This immediately brings up another aspect of the question, to which the hon. member for Haldimand has referred, namely that on account of lack of purchasing power there has developed a tremendous backlog of farm implement requirements on the part of the farmers. That backlog was estimated at $200,000,000, as against normal requirements of $51,000,000. My hon. friend from Haldimand doubted if that figure would be reached for some time. May I say to him in- passing, although of course this observation is localized, that he would be surprised at the purchases of agricultural implements in districts in western Canada where crop conditions have made them possible. I believe that with a return to reasonably normal conditions we shall be astonished at the purchase of implements, in western Canada particularly.

Having regard to the figures, one must immediately recognize the importance of the price increases. According to the bureau of statistics, and we know this from our own knowledge of the industry, the farm implement factories are mostly situated in eastern Canada. The record shows that there are twenty-six in Ontario and four in Quebec. Approximately seventy-five per cent of their business is done in western Canada. Of those companies, the two principal ones are the Massey-Harris and the International Harvester Company. Both do quite an extensive export business, that of the Massey-Harris Company being a particularly important factor.

So far as the committee was able to find, speaking from my reading of the report and from listening to the proceedings at many meetings of the committee, I think it is fair to state that the implement companies of Canada are not selling their farm implements to foreign countries at a lesser price than that at which they are sold to Canadian consumers. However we are concerned only with the Canadian business. Admitting for the moment that these companies did sustain losses through the period of the depression, taking the ten year period from 1926 to 1935 two companies showed reasonable profits on their capital. The auditor's report showed that the International Harvester Company

had an earning of 7-7 per cent on its capital, and that the John Deere Company had an earning of something over five per cent before income tax and allowance for profits retained in the parent companies due to customs regulations. The companies did not admit these figures, but they admitted a return about one per cent less. The Massey-Harris Company, it is true, sustained a loss of some fifteen million dollars. The other company, Cockshutt Plow, had a profit of about $20,000 during this period. So it cannot be said that the companies were not making at that time reasonable earnings; they are surely fair earnings particularly during a time of depression. So far as the Massey-Harris Company is concerned it was shown in the evidence presented to the committee that they had a distribution ratio considerably out of line with the other companies; it was thirty-three per cent on net sales, contrasted with an average of twenty-two per cent for the other companies. Surely the farmers of this country have reason to expect a better showing than that, and are entitled' to more uniform distribution costs ratio.

As I have said, in spite of the earnings of these companies during the depression, they made good earnings over the ten year period. The argument used in support of the increase in prices was the substantial losses which they had sustained' immediately previous to 1935, coupled with, as they claim, increased production costs. Reviewing the increased costs that have taken place, the evidence and the committee's report would indicate that they are not justified in making that claim. I have before me one of the tables, taken from the report, which deals with the cost of raw materials from 1913 down to 1935. Referring more particularly to the years 1930 to 1935, it includes such items as pig iron, bought scrap, steel, lumber, fuel oil, coal, coke, and cotton duck. In only two items in that list was there a price increase between 1930 and 1935. Steel, it is true, increased from $2.37 per hundredweight to $2.40; coke, from $6.33 to $11.07. In all the other items in the list the prices are either the same or lower. Then take the cost of labour. As regards the Massey-Harris Company the rate of wages in 1934 was 45f cents per hour, and in 1936, 45 cents. There is a slight increase in the wages paid by the John Deere Company; apart from that the wage rate is practically the same. On the basis of their costs of raw materials and labour there is no justification for the increase in price wilich took place in 1936.

Farm Implements Committee Report

The companies themselves, when being cross-examined by counsel for the committee, admitted that they could not justify their price increases by increase in the cost of production as regards raw materials, or any of the other items which enter into it, prior to 1936.

There is another thing I should like to interject here, and that is with respect to the argument so often advanced, by farmers particularly, on the basis of a comparison of prices of farm implements to-day with what they were in 1913, prior to the war. Farmers immediately asked: "Why are implements so much dearer to-day than they were prior to the war? Why is not the factor of mass production playing a part in the production of farm implements and their cost?" The implement companies' reply of course was that the factor of mass production had been in operation before the war as far as the ordinary farm implement is concerned and thus could not be a factor to-day. They referred to the tractor and made a comparison with what has taken place in respect to the automobile. It is true that to-day we have a very much better tractor than we had before the war, and at a lower cost. But as far as the ordinary farm implement is concerned that is not the case. Even with the possibility of my remarks being misconstrued I think we have a better type of farm implement to-day than we had in 1913 as far as the large machines are concerned, but I doubt very much whether our ordinary horse-drawn implement is substantially better than it was in 1913, either for efficiency or for durability. The large power unit to-day is unquestionably improved, and the farmer is therefore probably getting greater value for the dollars expended for his large type power machine than he did formerly. But in my judgment the price of the ordinary horse-drawn implement, which most farmers have to buy, and which the large majority will continue to have to buy for a long time to come, is considerably out of line with what it was about 1913 and prior to the war.

For the information particularly of the people in the country I want to refer to some price changes that have taken place since that time. The International Harvester Company were very valuable witnesses before the committee. Their costs were well detailed and complete, and in each branch of their costs they had an all-inclusive factor. I shall refer briefly to the years between 1913 and 1936.

The information is set out in the following table, taken from the evidence given before the committee:

Changes in the costs of producing an 8-foot International binder between 1913 and 1936

(Reference page 1230)

Factory Overhead Experi- Total Agents Cash price mental mfg. commis- Total to farmer Materials Labour Overhead work costs sion Freight costs at Regina Mark up1913. .. $45.56 $11.97 $17.96 $0.34 $ 75.83 $30.45 $17.80 $134.68 $167.02 $32.941920. . . 92.74 31.78 47.67 1.31 173.50 33.80 19.17 226.47 269.00 42.531925. .. 80.47 22.57 33.85 1.73 138.62 40.50 25.02 204.14 283.00 78.861930. .. 76.35 24.39 36.44 1.31 138.39 46.50 25.42 210.31 278.00 68.691933. .. 79.35 20.65 30.98 2.50 133.48 44.50 25.12 203.10 263.00 53.001935. .. 70.56 20.48 30.72 1.56 123.32 44.50 25.87 193.69 263.00 69.261936. .. 71.06 22.62 33.93 2.55 130.16 45.50 26.08 201.74 281.00 79.26

Repairs 75 per cent higher and are sold for cash.

It is hard to understand how some of these differences in cost can be accounted for. The differences in different years are very substantial. In addition to what this table discloses, the repairs which the farmer has to buy for his implements are now approximately seventy-five per cent higher than the figures used for the actual implement. And these repairs are sold for cash, so that there cannot be much loss in collections in respect of repairs. This table shows that between the laid-down cost and the manufacturing cost there was a difference in 1913 of $74 and in 1936 of S125. These in-between costs may be necessary; the fact nevertheless remains that this is a terrible burden of expense to be added for the cost of distribution. I propose

to deal with that in a little different way in a moment. Other hon. members have dealt with different features of the report, concerning which I do not propose to burden the house this afternoon.

I wish however to say a word with respect to the credit policy of these implement companies. It is generally known that they have a credit and a cash system of doing business. Taking again the information supplied by the International Harvester Company, the credit sales of this company amounted to thirty-five per cent of the total sales between 1926 and 1935. On their credit sales alone it cost them 8-44 per cent to collect, and they lost 12-92 per cent uncollected. In other words, their credit sales alone, being thirty-

2570 COMMONS

Farm Implements Committee Report

five per cent of their business, cost them for collection alone, 21-36 per cent. Surely this is an abnormally high figure and one in regard to which this country should hope for some relief. I do not know how that loss and expense can be overcome, but I suggest to the implement companies that that is one item as to which some relief must be brought about, and that they give consideration and attention to the question of some sort of finance organization such as is used by the automobile companies.

With respect to general distribution costs the evidence clearly shows that they have a very expensive system. Farmers have become accustomed to the system already built up, and it may be necessary that it be maintained in part, having particular regard to our crop hazards and the necessity of having repairs and service carried out without loss of time. However, it should be pointed out that this is an exceptionally heavy burden to be added to the cost of farm implements, which in the final analysis the farmer has to pay. Taking the figures to which I referred a moment ago, they indicate that the difference, including freight but excluding agents' commissions, between the factory cost and the Regina cash price to the farmer is forty-four per cent. In other words, I point out here that if some other agency, such as a cooperative or something of that sort, could go to the factory door, purchase for cash and take delivery of say one hundred dollars' worth of farm implements, using the calculations made with respect to an eight-foot binder of the International Harvester Company, they could be bought for $56. I realize, of course, that such an organization would have to do its own retail selling, its financing and servicing -and take care of its losses, so it could not be expected that this whole saving would be secured. At the same time this indicates the very great spread that exists between the cost at the factory door and the cost to the farmer. It is not fair to state that this entire saving could be made, but it does indicate one point where some measure of relief should be attempted. Surely this is one place where farmers' organizations could do something which would be of advantage to them.

Much has been said during this debate with regard to the effect of the tariff on the prices of farm implements, and it has been pointed out that under the United States trade agreement the tariff was reduced but that the prices of implements increased. That is true, but it is also true that the price increases in the country where the implements are most ex-

tensively manufactured were due not to the tariff but to an entirely different reason. Those increases were due to the heavy purchases of raw materials for war purposes and so on, and also to the increased cost of labour. These things had their immediate reflection in the cost of farm implements in the United States. The Massey-Harris company admitted to the committee that its increased price in 1936 could not be justified because of the increased cost of raw material in this country or the increased cost of labour. Just here I should like to point out that the United States companies, International Harvester and John Deere, stated that the increased prices at that time on the implements imported into Canada would have been greater if the duty had not been lowered. Again it should be noted that when the duty was lowered by the budget of 1936 there was a definite reduction in price on imported implements almost equal to the tariff reduction, indicating that the tariff is a factor in governing prices.

I should like to refer to one specific incident which I think illustrates the situation in connection with the whole line of farm implements. The diesel tractor selling in Regina for $4,600 was immediately reduced to $3,720 when the 25 per cent duty was removed. Therefore it is beyond question that the tariff is a price-governing factor. If it is not then let us eliminate it and allow free competition to play its part. I should like to point out here in this same connection, because I think it is worthy of note, that information coming to my attention indicates that at least one implement company, and a United States company at that, did not increase its prices this year, stating that it was not necessary for them to do so. They are selling their implements at approximately ten per cent less than other implement companies. This also indicates that the tariff is a price-governing factor.

Now, coming more closely to home and attempting to secure a picture of the actual condition in Canada from a competitive point of view. In this country we have approximately thirty-six companies manufacturing implements, while in the United States there are some six hundred companies manufacturing similar implements. Before the committee we had evidence which would indicate that the companies work in pretty close harmony. I am not going to state that a combine exists, but I think it is safe to say that there is close cooperation between the companies with respect to general policy. We have the illustration that when a price change is made by one implement company it is

Farm Implements Committee Report

immediately followed by changes on the part of all other implement companies, and undoubtedly the International Harvester Company dominates the whole field. As further evidence in this regard perhaps it is not unfair to point out that this year, I presume following the action taken by the International Harvester Company, the companies have all changed the entire basis of their price lists and have brought out new lists. Every implement company that I was able to check has adopted practically the same sort of price list, in practically the same language. So if there is not a working arrangement between the companies certainly they all work very closely together.

The very nature of the industry tends towards monopoly, and because of the monopolistic character of the industry I believe we need every possible competitive factor in order to keep price relationships on a reasonable basis. Therefore it would be my suggestion to the house that if we are to allow the fullest possible play of competition with respect to farm implements the best thing we can do is remove the duty entirely. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the question that immediately came to my mind when this report was presented and concurrence was moved was what was going to be done with the report and what action the government might take. We have listened to arguments from all sides of the house as well as comments from interested parties outside the house. So far as I have been able to ascertain very few suggestions have been advanced as to what action might be taken. I refer particularly to the secretary of the United Farmers of Manitoba, to whom reference has been made on several occasions and who has taken an interest in this matter. He suggested that something had to be done, and asked what the government was going to do. At the same time that gentleman, for whom I have the highest personal regard, offered no suggestions. He is secretary of a farm organization which, to my mind, has a great opportunity to encourage the development of cooperative organizations which could bring about a greater saving in the price of farm implements than any other policy which might be adopted.

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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

Is the hon. member suggesting that the onus is on a farmers' organization to make suggestions?

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:

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers themselves through cooperatives might very properly do a good deal in bringing about a reduction in the cost of distribution of farm implements.

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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

Is it not true that the United Farmers of Manitoba, at their annual convention later, suggested the setting up of cooperatives to handle the distribution of farm implements?

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:

My reply to that question is simply that I believe true cooperation has to start with the rank and file of the people most vitally concerned. I doubt very much if cooperatives can be set up by government institutions or other outside bodies. The cooperative principle has to be inculcated in the minds of the people themselves. If our farm people wish to establish cooperative organizations, they are the best equipped people to do so.

Earlier in my observations I referred to credit sales. I do not know what can be done, but I do submit something should be done with respect to the financing of credit sales to farmers. Present credit arrangements are costly, and if some means could be evolved by which a finance corporation, similar to the kind operated by the automobile companies, could be established, it would be a step in the right direction.

I believe it has been established from the evidence in the inquiry that the price increases in 1936 were not justified. What are we going to do? What can the government do? That is the challenge which has been put up to the government and to this house. I think three things might be considered. A similar inquiry is taking place in the United States, one which will be much more extensive, complete and far reaching than the inquiry conducted in this country. Should that inquiry disclose abuses in the farm implement industry, either in manufacturing or in distribution, then I would say the government of Canada should not hesitate to use every means at its command to remedy them.

May I refer again to the substantial increase in freight rates. Hon. members will note that those rates have almost doubled since 1913. The farm implement manufacturing companies are situated in eastern Canada, but seventy-five per cent of their sales are in western Canada, necessitating a long freight haul and a heavy burden of freight cost. Possibly the government might take some action with respect to reduced rates, and thus effect a saving in the cost of distribution.

And lastly, because of the monopolistic character of the industry, and also because the tariff is being belittled as a price-governing factor, the government should remove the duty and thus allow the freest competition possible so far as prices are concerned.

2572 COMMONS

Farm Implements Committee Report

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the speech the other evening by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the debate on the motion before the house has assumed far greater significance than might otherwise have attended the discussion of the report of a special committee of the house. The minister's statement was of the type usually described as provocative- possibly the most provocative statement made this session; certainly the most provocative from a responsible minister of the crown. In other words, it could do no other than generate heat rather than light, exasperate rather than stimulate, confuse issues rather than clarify them; and like most such utterances it was not distinguished by careful candour in the use of figures, or any seeming care to avoid the creation of false impressions.

It is not my purpose to attack the minister, or to criticize those views of his which he is so fond of ambiguously describing as Liberal principles. But when we have statements made in this house, inaccurate in themselves, that can have no effect other than to strike one more blow upon the wedge that is being driven between the various sections of the country, which will cause tempers to rise and substitute ill will and resentment for the spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation in the solution of a common problem, I feel it is incumbent upon me as a member of the house, in the interests of the country as a whole, to attempt to remove false impressions which have been created, and to restore this debate to an unprejudiced and analytical examination of this committee's report.

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

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

That will be a

welcome change.

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

We have just listened to

a speech by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir), a speech which when placed in juxtaposition to that of the Minister of Agriculture, delivered last Friday, is in sharp and pleasing contrast. I am sure in his remarks he was speaking in what he believed to be the fullest interests of those whom he so ably represents, the worthy farmers of this dominion. He spoke with consideration for all factors, and tempered his speech as he spoke. I am sure his speech will not be considered provocative.

It is scarcely necessary, Mr. Speaker, for me to repeat the statement I have made many times, in and outside the house that I and my family have no financial interest whatsoever in the Massey-Harris Company. I am however interested in the workers in that and any other industrial company, and as a Canadian I have a wider concern, a concern

for the unity of Canada and the damage that may be done to it by utterances such as those we heard from the Minister of Agriculture on Friday evening last.

We are all Canadians. We may be industrial workers; we may be farmers. It is true we may have our sectional interests, but our primary interest should be the interest of Canada; and we may well deplore efforts to pit one section of the country against another, and to play upon sectional emotions and class emotions for the doubtful benefit and under the doubtful dictates of political expediency. It is just the type of debate in which we are now engaged, which if we are not careful may stir up as nothing else can, sectional antagonisms which can do no good and which on the contrary may do irreparable harm to the country.

I admit at the outset of my remarks, as every Canadian must admit, that we are still a fundamentally agrarian country. Our basic industry is farming, and we have every reason to be proud of our agriculture and our farming, contributing as it does, and in the way it does, fifty per cent of the value of our primary products.

The Canadian farmer has made and is making a contribution to Canada which is inestimable, and making those contributions in the face of great hazards; for not only does he have local, national and international economic conditions to combat, but further he is always harassed by weather, pests and other uncontrollable uncertainties which may be described as acts of God. It is natural to him to wish to purchase at the lowest price and to sell at the highest price. One can fully understand his point of view on the costs of essentials, among which of course are numbered farm implements. One can subscribe fully to the ideal which should have motivated the farm implements committee, the report of which is now under debate, when its desire was supposed to be primarily to assist the farmer. Such a desire is of course highly laudable in itself.

But there are two factors in the case which must be considered. On the one hand there is the farmer, and on the other hand there is the farmer's fellow-Canadian, the industrial worker. It seems to me, not only from the minister's speech last Friday but also from the speeches of some of those who have supported the report, that there has been demonstrated a lack of perspective of the whole situation, as well as a lack of definition. On what foundation are the findings of this committee based? Was this committee a onesided or lopsided one? Is there anything in the report which indicates the

Farm Implements Committee Report

case of the industrial worker was considered on its merits at all? What of his job, which provides his means of livelihood, when his expenses are so heavy and when the uncertainties of his position these days are a constant source of echinated worry? Was there thought given by the committee to his part in the case? Was there consideration given to the fact that on the average he spends over 8400 a year for the product of the Canadian farmer? Was there any thought given to the fact that the Canadian market is the Canadian farmer's only sure market, and should be protected with the greatest care and used and cherished not only for the sake of protecting the job of the industrial worker but for the sake of the protection of the farmer himself?

Time and time again ridiculous statements have been made in this house to the effect that the Canadian farmer receives little or no protection. This hypocrisy was reduced in great part by the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) who made a most able and capable speech from the Liberal benches as reported at page 1347 of Hansard. He referred to the direct protection which the farmer receives. But will those who are so keen to see what little protection is to-day afforded to industry reduced or removed altogether, continue to be blind to the irreducible fact that the protection of the industrial worker is the farmer's surest protection, for it protects his only secure market, that is, the home market. Every man thrown out of a job by the closing down of any industry represents on the average a loss to the Canadian farmer of a market worth $409.25 per year. Thus those who advocate the annihilation of the Canadian implement industry are recommending that the farmer jeopardize a home market running into millions of dollars.

Then, further, for years the implement industry has borne the brunt of vicious attacks in this house. Why it should be that this one industry should constantly be made the butt of flamboyant political speeches in this chamber and demagogic political harangues in the hustings, seems to be unexplainable except on the skinny basis of politicalexpediency. What about all the other industries that supply the farmer with essentials? But, no, it seems to be thepopular thing among some hon. members in this house, and certain claptrap politiciansoutside of it, to play upon the emotions and sensitivities of the farmer and attempt to

portray the implement manufacturer as the arch-villian of the piece. Farm implements are only one of the multiple prime essentials

which the farmer requires, and their cost represents a small part of his total budget. It has been stated by those who have made a thorough investigation of this question that the average western farmer spends for farm implements only three cents of every dollar he spends. Before the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) rises to his feet, let me say that this figure has been challenged.

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

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Who is your authority?

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

It came from the hon member's part of the world.

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

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

When the hon. member quotas an authority, surely he should tell us who it is when we ask for it.

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

I will quote the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), who sits behind the hon. gentleman and supports his party.

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

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

I am afraid he will not accept your authority.

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

He knows the Liberal point of view. Double it, if the hon. member wants to; make it six cents, make it anything you want to.

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

John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

I obtained it from a newspaper called the Nor'West Farmer.

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

That was also the source of my information and I have quoted it over and over again in this chamber.

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

James J. Donnelly

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DONNELLY:

Who wrote the article?

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

May 5, 1938