Archibald Blake MCCOIG

MCCOIG, The Hon. Archibald Blake

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Kent (Ontario)
Birth Date
April 8, 1874
Deceased Date
November 21, 1927
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_McCoig
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=c48c0c69-936b-4de8-94f5-4eaa16ad3ee5&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
agent, farmer

Parliamentary Career

October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Kent West (Ontario)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Kent West (Ontario)
December 17, 1917 - October 4, 1921
L LIB
  Kent (Ontario)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Kent (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 50)


March 15, 1921

Mr. McCOIG:

Will the minister explain the increase?

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Full View Permalink

March 15, 1921

Mr. McCOIG:

I want to direct the attention of the minister to the present expensive cost of food on dining cars. I think this matter should be brought forcibly to the attention of the Minister of Railways. Members of the House, and

citizens generally who travel to any extent, will quite appreciate what the minister says in regard to the cost of meals on dining cars throughout the country. It might be possible for the Minister of Agriculture to take this matter up with the Minister of Railways. Something should be done, at any rate, because the dining car rates to-day are more exorbitant than they should be in view of the amount of food supplied the patrons of the different railways for the prices charged. The people feel strongly on this question, and I am glad that the minister has referred to it. It is one that could be dealt with very satisfactorily between the Minister of 'Agriculture and the Minister of Railways, and if something could be done to reduce the rates on dining cars, it would be highly appreciated.

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Full View Permalink

March 15, 1921

Mr. McCOIG:

I wish to say a word or two in connection with this expenditure of $375,000. I may differ from some hon.

members on both sides of the House in regard to this matter. My opinion is that the Central Experimental Farm should be the best, not only in the Dominion of Canada, but in any part of the world; When we are expending a few hundred thousand dollars on the Central Experimental Farm in the city of Ottawa, we are only carrying out a policy that has been laid down by the great ministers of agriculture that we have had, not only in the Liberal party, but in the great Conservative party, ever since Canada has been a nation-

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READING
Full View Permalink

March 15, 1921

Mr. McCOIG:

Would the officials of the department be entitled to lower transportation rates over Government roads?

Topic:   AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Full View Permalink

March 8, 1921

Mr. McCOIG:

I desire to say a few

words in connection with the resolution standing in my name. In the first place, it is very gratifying to be able to present to Parliament a resolution of a non-contentious nature such as this which I think will meet with the general approval of the people of Canada, including the manufacturers as well as the users of agricultural implements. I think the manufacturers of agricultural implements should be glad that such a resolution has been presented to Parliament, and particularly if it should be adopted. There never was a time in the history of Canada when the manufacturers were enjoying greater prosperity or higher prices for the goods they are disposing of to the agriculturists of Canada. This resolution, if carried into effect, would put them in the position of having many of the parts of their different implements interchangeable. The parts would be standardized so that if an agricultural implement shipped to a foreign market required a spare part, the purchaser would be in the

fortunate position of being able to get the required part from any Canadian manufacturers' agent which would not be the case with purchasers of agricultural implements from manufacturers in other parts of the world. This matter is not an entirely new proposal. It was up last session before the Committee on Agriculture, and in all fairness to the chairman and members of that committee let me say that they all recognized the importance of this proposal, and gave it their hearty en-dorsation whenever the matter was up for discussion.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I was not able to advance the Bill I introduced in the House last session dealing with this matter, because it had not been preceded by a resolution, but I repeat, the members of the Committee on Agriculture discussed the matter, and one and all approved the proposal of having the different parts of farm machinery made in this country interchangeable.

For the benefit of hon. members who are not members of the Committee on Agriculture I might say that the first item dealt with in the resolution is grain binder knife sections. As you no doubt are aware, Mr. Speaker, all the sections are of exactly the same size, three inches, the only difference between different makes being that the holes are drilled differently, so that the sections are .not interchangeable; that is, one manufacturer's knife sections could not be used on the machine of another manufacturer. At present a man using a Massey-Harris binder who required a knife section would have to get it from the Massey-Harris repair man, whereas if these sections were made interchangeable he could go to the International Harvester Company agent, or the agent of any other Canadian manufacturer living up to these proposed regulations, and get the part he required. The same thing applies to pitmans. They are all wood, but they are made in different sizes, so that if a man breaks a pitman he has to get another part from the agent of the particular company that sold him the machine. The same thing applies to mowing machine knife sections. All the sections of the mowing machines are of the same size, but they are drilled differently. Then the pitman clamps are all of the same length, but they also are made just a little bit differently, so that they are not interchangeable. If this resolution were carried into effect these parts would be standardized, and then if a man wanted a repair part

he would not have to drive to the agent of the particular company from whom he bought the machine, but could get the part from any Canadian manufacturer of these implements.

If for instance a farmer broke a pitman clamp on his machine while in the hay field at a busy time of the year he would not have to drive to some dealer at a distance to procure the necessary repair. It is an article worth only thirty-five cents, but it is of very great importance, and if these clamps were the same for all makes of machine it would obviate considerable trouble and annoyance when time is of the utmost value. As it is, they are made just a little different in the various makes of machine and are therefore not interchangeable. The same thing applies to the knife heads on mowers. All mowing machine knives are made in five, six and seven foot lengths, and but for a little twist they are almost indentical; but this slight difference renders them uninterchangeable. Now, if this article were standardized a company would not need to reconstruct a mowing machine because the knife heads would be standardized and be made interchangeable, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the resultant saving would be considerable, not only in money but in time also, which is of equal if not greater importance.

Another article which should be standardized-and this is of vital importance-is the ledger plate. The ledger plate has to be repaired from time to time during the lifetime of the machine, and I think it is highly important that a farmer should be able to procure this repair with the slightest possible inconvenience. This also applies to the hay rake teeth and land cultivator teeth. Let me say, for the benefit of hon. members who are not conversant with agricultural implements, that these teeth are of the same size, but they are slightly different in some minor respects and if a man wishes to buy teeth for a rake he may find that the ends of the teeth in one make are bent in the opposite direction to that of the rake he is using, and consequently no end of trouble and annoyance is involved. The standardization of this part of farm machinery could be accomplished without any expense or reconstruction of rakes; the expense to the manufacturer would be very slight indeed. This applies not only to hay rake teeth but also to land cultivator teeth. If a man owned a rake purchased five or ten years ago he could, if my proposal were adopted and these parts were standardized,

be able to go to some concern near at hand and get the proper repair.

The next article to which I desire to refer is the sprocket chain. I may say for the benefit of the uninformed on these matters that we could have three or four different sizes of chains but have them all standardized so that whatever number of chain a man wanted he could go to a repair house and get it without any trouble. The next thing is the question of plough points. We have in Ontario to-day five or six different plough firms making what is known as the No. 21 plough, which is the most desirable general purpose plough that can be procured. But the points in the different makes are not identical; there is just enough difference in the way the holes are drilled to prevent their being interchanged. All that would be necessary would be to have the points standardized and the holes drilled in the proper place so that the farmer might be able to go to any plough firm and get the necessary repairs for his machine. The same thing applies to plough sole plates. Let us take blower pipes, which are very much in use. Farmers throughout the country are erecting silos and it is necessary to procure a lot of .piping. These pipes could with very little expense be standardized and it would be a great blessing to any farmer using a silo filler. Next we have the question of wagon arms. Now, I would not say that the arm should be standardized, but I contend that the nuts should have the same thread on all wagons. It would cost practically nothing to change the present nuts so as have the threads on all arms of wagons the same. If that were done a farmer who lost a nut off his wagon would not have to go to five or six different repair houses to get his wagon fixed up. Thei'e are some other articles on the list such as machine bolts, etc., and while I do not refer to them, I think I have said enough to show the inconvenience to which users of agricultural implements have been put in securing parts for their machines. This is why I am anxious to have this matter brought to the attention of the House. Now, some manufacturers might tell hon. members that they are keeping a large supply of repairs for their particular line of goods in every agency and municipality throughout the country. Well, why did the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan pass the legislation that it did during last session? I quote the following from "Canadian Farm Implements:"

The Saskatchewan Farm Implement Act has been altered by the addition of two new pro-

visions. The first provides a penalty of $100 for each offence where a vendor fails to maintain a sufficient supply of repairs required for machines sold by him and in operation in the province; and the second authorize the Minister of Agriculture to appoint inspectors whose duties shall be to inspect the stocks of repairs kept by vendors and who shall have free access during business hours to the vendors' premises.

This goes to show the importance of having a repair stock kept on hand by different vendors in the agricultural implement business. It is evident that a lot of agencies have not been keeping repairs to supply the farmers; otherwise, it would not have been necessary for the provincial legislature to pass this legislation. If the repair parts were standardized as I suggest it would be unnecessary for a lot of different agents to keep a full stock because one stock would supply the demand in small towns and villages throughout the country. As hon. members know, there are many articles in common household use now that are standardized. It was not such a long time ago when we could not get an electric bulb that would fit any socket. To-day all bulbs are standardized and the convenience in consequence is incalculable. The same thing applies to plumbing; we have plumbing repairs standardized so as to be interchangeable. And so far as automobiles are concerned, tires and rims are standardized; so that a man, regardless of the kind of car he owns, can easily get these parts of his, car from any dealer. Now, we have a precedent for standardization of farming implements in action that has been taken abroad, and I might read from "Canadian Farm Implements," printed in Winnipeg, the following:

The Standard Committee of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers reports that excellent progress has been made in stadard-ization during 1920. The following standards are now ready for final adoption. Standard belt speeds, in which it is proposed to include five speeds, viz., 1,500, 2,600, 3,000, 3,250 and 3,500 feet per minute. Standard tractor and plough hitches, which include height of vertical hitch on tractor and lateral adjustments for ploughs of two, three and four bottoms.

Farm wagon standards, including the standard automobile track of 56 inches and tire widths for wuigons of various capacity ratings.

The following standards are in the process of development:

A standard code for testing and rating the belt and drawbar power of tractors.

A standard manger form for dairy barns.

Standard ratings for letter carrier capacities and dimensions.

Standard ratings for capacities and power requirements of ensilage cutters.

This is not an entirely new matter. It started in the United States in many

different lines and I feel satisfied that if we do not carry out legislation in the same direction we shall be very much behind the times. I think that the benefits to be derived from the standardization of parts of agricultural machinery are so obvious that this matter needs no great argument. This question has been directed to the attention of many prominent men in this country who are interested in agriculture, as, for instance, the Minister of Agriculture in the government of Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Doherty. I desire in this connection to quote the following:

I represent the United Farmers of Ontario. This matter has been up for discussion at meetings of the United Farmers during the past year It is a very live question with the farmers of the province. They are very quick to see the immense advantages that would accrue to them from the standardization of the wearable and breakable parts of their machines. Last fall there was a meeting of the Fairs and Exhibitions Association in Toronto, and they discussed this matter at some considerable length, and passed a resolution. I only refer to these matters to show the members of this Committee that the farmers of the province of Ontario will appreciate anything you can accomplish along the line which you are now following, and would he very grateful for any results that can be secured, along that line. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee upon taking up a question that is of such vital importance to the farmers. At the Fairs and Exhibitions Association, in which 350 agricultural societies of Ontario are represented, the following resolution was passed:

"That this Association in Convention assembled hereby express their hearty approval of the standardization of the breakable and wearable parts of farm machinery and would respectfully recommend that the Federal Government arrange for a committee of mechanical experts, three to be appointed by the Federal Government and three by the manufacturers of farming implements to arrange for such standardization and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Sir Robert Borden and Hon. T. A. Crerar."

This statement, Mr. Speaker, only goes to show that the farmers of this country know how important this question is. They know the hardships everybody engaged in farming has to contend with during the busy harvesting time and they know how easy it would be for the manufacturers of our country to standardize some of the parts I have referred to. I hope the members of the House will give this matter their most serious consideration and will follow it up by according their support to the resolution. I feel satisfied that if they do so, the users of agricultural implements will be extremely grateful to this Parliament. The Canadian manufacturers of agricultural implements will not be hurt to any extent but will be fortunate in the years to come

to be in the happy position that they will be able to secure in European markets, as well as at home, the patronage of the users of agricultural implements for their machinery, in preference to the implements of foreign manufacturers.

Topic:   STANDARDIZATION OF PARTS OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY
Full View Permalink