James McCrie DOUGLAS

DOUGLAS, James McCrie

Personal Data

Party
Unionist
Constituency
Strathcona (Alberta)
Birth Date
February 5, 1867
Deceased Date
March 16, 1950
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McCrie_Douglas
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=2d381950-3892-4297-ab44-a57cb29bc414&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
businessman, farmer, merchant

Parliamentary Career

October 20, 1909 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Strathcona (Alberta)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Strathcona (Alberta)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
UNION
  Strathcona (Alberta)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 72)


June 15, 1920

Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):

I have already spoken on this matter, but I desire to support as strongly as I can the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Harold). It is absolutely impossible to touiy for $6 a suit of union underwear made of wool. In the province from which I come nobody can wear cotton underwear in the winter with any degree of comfort, and if you compel

every one who wears woollen underwear in winter to pay a tax over and above the regular tax imposed by customs, you will inflict -an unjustifiable hardship on the people.

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

June 15, 1920

Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):

I would

ask the minister to explain just how he is going to designate the size of a rug. The designation is by the linear yard in the case of carpets, but in the case of rugs it should be square yards. Should there not therefore be some designation of the size of rug in the item?

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Full View Permalink

June 15, 1920

Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):

That hardly covers the point raised by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders). The cap he refers to is made of cloth with fur ear laps, and would not be covered by the description " fur-lined."

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

June 11, 1920

Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):

Atsix o'clock I was dealing with what I considered to be the inequalities in connection with the exemptions in the proposed Budget resolution now before the committee. I was calling attention to the fact that underwear of woollen texture could not be regarded as a luxury in this country; yet under the resolution every one wearing woollen underwear will have to pay. I think we ought to consider the question as to the way in which the exemptions will work out in practice. I am not criticising the Budget when I suggest to the minister that certain changes might be made in regard to the values which he has placed on these several goods for exemption purposes. When we come to the question of woollen goods we find that an article of woollen manufacture, namely, a sweater coat, is subject to the tax from $15 up, and yet a com- * bination suit made of wool is taxed from $5 and upwards. The question of luxury does not enter into the case at all, and I suggest that that is a great inequality. Then we come to the question of suits of clothes.

A suit of clothes is exempted up to $45, while an overcoat is exempted up to $50. There is more cloth contained in a suit of clothes than there is in an overcoat, and there is more expense entailed in manufacturing a suit of clothes than in manufacturing an overcoat. I am just pointing this out so that the minister, when he brings in his Bill, will not have to amend it after it

is brought forward. There may be some other items of the same character and, as I understand that the minister proposes to discuss the resolutions item by item, I will defer any further criticism along that line until the items are taken up seriatim.

Topic:   SPECIAL WAR REVENUE.
Subtopic:   EXCISE TAX RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Full View Permalink

June 11, 1920

Mr. DOUGLAS (Strathcona):

I wish to support the contention raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Air. Stevens) as to the feasibility of collection of certain of these proposed excise taxes, ^e raised the question of hats. A hat is an absolute necessity to every one in this country, but there is no distinction in the schedule between felt, straw, or canvas hats. Aly information is that no hat manufactured in Canada can be retailed to-day at $5; so that all Canadian made hats will come under the operation of this tax. If a man buys an imported hat-which may be economical in the long run-he cannot buy one under present day prices at less than $10 or $12, so he pays a very high price. There is another item of interest to which I desire to call the minister's attention, and that is underwear. The tax does not affect summer underwear at all, because summer underwear is made of cotton and is reason-

ably cheap and would therefore come within the exemption, but- winter underwear will be taxed. This is a country that demands wool in the winter and the limit which the minister has placed on underwear will, in my judgment, compel everybody who wants to wear woollen underwear to pay this tax. Woollen underwear is not a luxury at all but an absolute necessity in this country in winter time. I notice that the minister has raised the exemption in the amended schedule to $3 a garment, but he has left the union suit at $5. Now, no one can buy a union suit that has any wool in it for $5. It might be called partially wool, but I doubt very much if there would, be any wool in it. The consequence will be that every one who wears a union suit will be forced to pay this tax. So as far as that item is concerned the idea of this being a luxury tax is absolutely wiped out; it is a tax on a necessity. Now the purpose of the tax, as T understand it, is to tax luxuries only, or to get as close to luxuries as possible. As to articles of necessity, such as woollen underwear, I think the minister would be well-advised to revise Kis exemption list so that the people can wear woollen underwear in this country in winter without being mulcted for a fine of ten per cent.

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