May 5, 1938

CON

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

That figure has been

accepted by those who are concerned directly with the industry, and by those in different universities, agricultural colleges, and other such places. However, I am willing to double the figure.

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

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Why use that one?

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

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is entitled to ask a question of the hon. member who is speaking, only with his permission.

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:

It is closer to ten cents.

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 will call it six cents.

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:

It is closer to ten cents.

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 will call it six cents.

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

Malcolm McLean

Liberal

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

That does not change what it really is.

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

Make it six cents, make it ten cents or even twenty cents if it makes the hon. member any happier.

Why should this one industry be constantly called upon to defend itself before parliamentary committees, to have the tariff on its

2574 COMMONS

Farm Implements Committee Report

products raised and lowered, lowered and raised? It has now been recommended that the tariff should be removed altogether. Before some hon. member rises to say it, I will say that in times when the prices for farm products are low, the farmer must reduce his cost of production to the minimum. With that statement I agree. What saving in production cost would foe achieved by the farmer if the 7i per cent duty on farm implements was eliminated and there was a corresponding reduction of 7i per cent in the price of imported farm implements? I have in my hand a table, which with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place upon Hansard. This is a most interesting talble which shows beyond argument, even that of the hon. member for Melfort, that the average saving to the western farmer with a half-section of land and a tractor would amount to $3.68 per year if the duty on farm implements were eliminated and if this elimination were accompanied by a similar reduction in selling price, and if the farmer purchased only imported machines. Three "ifs" and an "only"! Each of these assumptions is of doubtful value and highly questionable. The table is as follows:

Equipment on half section prairie (tractor) farm showing; ; duty that would be paid if theimplements were imported, basis for duty purposes l >eing dealer's price f. o.b. Chicagoless 25 per cent. Less Dealers' 25 per Duty Length Burdenprices cent for 1938 of life of dutyf.o.b. duty at 7i of imple- perChicago purposes per cent ment yearTractor Free 1-2 furrow tractor plow $102.50 $78.88 $5.77 15 years $0.38*1 set drag harrows 29.85 22.39 1.68 15 " .181-8^ foot cultivator 115.00 86.25 6.47 15-3 " .42*1-14 foot single disc 119.90 89.93 6.74 15-6 " .43tl grain cleaner 40.00 30.00 2.25 15 " .151-24 run drill 231.30 173.68 13.03 15-1 " .861-8 foot binder 207.50 155.63 11.67 15-1 " .771 wagon gear and box 117.00 87.75 6.58 20-1 " .331 truck gear for fuel tender.. .. 43.50 32.63 2.45 15 " .16Total per year.. .. .. .. $3.68

'These are Canadian made implements-prices given for nearest comparable American implement.

fThis is estimated from Canadian price since none of the full line companies list this machine.

Mark you, with these questionable assumptions, those who advocate the elimination of the duty on farm implements, those who erroneously believe that this elimination would mean a reduction of 7i per cent in the list price of imported machines, are subscribing to the throwing out of work of thousands of industrial workers. All this for a highly speculative saving to the farmer of $3.68 per year. This amount of $3.68 per year represents a saving to the average farmer of one-fifth of a cent per bushel in the cost of the production of wheat. Hon. members had best sift down the evidence and the facts before making reckless and unguarded statements based upon inadequate information or lack of knowledge of that for which they are asking.

Let me deal now directly with the minister's speech made last Friday evening. I shall deal first with certain figures given by the minister and later with some of his general statements. In the time at my disposal I can deal only with a few of the figures used by the minister. For example at page 2422 of Hansard we find these words:

. . . but I would direct attention to the fact that the cost of labour entering into the construction of an International Harvester binder

IMr. Massey.]

in 1913 was valued at $11.97. In 1936 it was $22.62. The difference in the cost of labour as between 1913 and 1936 was only $10.65, but the increase in the price of the binder was $113.98

The fact of the matter is that the labour on a binder referred to by the minister includes only productive labour. The addition of non-productive labour would practically double the the amount. Instead of there being an increase of $10.65 in the labour cost between 1913 and 1936, it would be closer to $22.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

That is all in the next item.

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 am coming to that.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

You have to take all

the figures.

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

Yes, where are the rest of the figures?

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

If the hon. member will permit me, as I understand it, the labour item to which he is referring is included1 under overhead or burden, which is an extra amount. I dealt with overhead and burden in my remarks.

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. MASSEY:

On page 2423 of Hansard the minister is reported as follows:

So I repeat that after having given consideration to these three items

Namely labour, material and freight.

-we find that the cost of the binder was increased by $113.98, not by only $44.43.

Of course that statement is highly misleading, for two reasons. In the first place, the terminology is incorrect. The minister refers to the cost of the binder having increased by $113.98, when he should have said the selling price had increased.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

The cost to the 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:

Yes, the list price. Second, the minister used the figure $44.43 as the increase in cost occasioned by the increase in material, labour and freight. This cost includes only a fraction of the total cost; the minister gave only a part of the story when he compared costs in 1913 with those in 1936. The minister's figuring is simply hopelessly incorrect. His figures are 125 per cent wrong, as I shall show in just a minute. I ask him not to get so excited and keep his seat. The increase in cost to the manufacturer between 1913 and 1936, based on the figures given in the table on page 1230 of the report, would be

as follows:

Increase in cost, material $25 50

Increase in cost, labour 10 65

Increase in cost, factory burden.. 15 97 Increase in experimental charges.. 2 21

To this of course must be added:

Increase in freight $ 8 28

Increase in commissions paid.. .. 14 50

Increase in cost of distribution-

(based on figures 22-13 per cent). 21 35

Total $98 46

In other words, the minister claims that the increase in cost to the manufacturer in 1936

Retail price

Freight $17 80

Commission 31 00

Cost at factory.

Mark-up

Per cent of cost

over the cost in 1913 was $44.33, when actually it was $98.46. These figures are taken directly from the committee's report. The minister used only three of the elements and neglected four others. The three he used totalled $44.33, and the four he did not use totalled $54.03. Thus as I said the minister was 125% out in his figure.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

If I may correct the hon. gentleman, if he will just read the next portion of my speech he will find that I included the very items he is now including. They were all in, every item that he has touched upon.

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

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

Yes, but not grouped together. I will read it; it gets worse as we go along. On page 2423, just following what I have quoted, the minister said:

In other words, the price of a binder could be reduced by $69.55, to sell at $211.45 without affecting increases in labour, material or freight costs, still leaving the same mark-up as in 1913.

Now the selling price of the International Harvester Company binder, which the minister says in 1936 was $281, carried the same mark-up over factory cost-note that-as did the binder of 1913, which sold for $170. This will be seen from the following table deduced from the figures given on page 332 of the committee's report, and I would ask that this be put on Hansard in tabular form.

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

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

I understand the hon. gentleman is speaking of percentage of markup.

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

May 5, 1938